There is now little debate about the general legal status of involuntary population transfers: Where population transfers used to be accepted as a means to settle ethnic conflict, today, forced population transfers are considered violations of international law

today, forced population transfers are considered violations of international law

." Today, Peters' book is controversial among scholars and largely disregarded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Peters

That's all Folks!!

Alan Dershowitz: My opposition to the settlements deep in the West Bank and in Gaza is not based on the law. Indeed I have argued that Jews should have the right to live anywhere in the West Bank and in Gaza, as they should anywhere in the world. I believe, however, that in the interest of peace and the two state solution, the Jews who live in these settlements should be relocated either within the Green Line or within the area that is likely to become the final borders of Israel. The world should recognize, however, that this is in the nature of a compromise and that the Jewish settlers are being asked to surrender their legal rights in the interests of peace.

Criminal Law
Rights

Civil Liberties
Criminal Law
Jewish Law

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/facdir....

http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.1997.23.En?OpenDocument

The settlement, by transfer or inducement, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies or by the Power exercising de facto control over a disputed territory is unlawful.

The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.

The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.

It would therefore appear to have been more logical – and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) – to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/523ba38706c71588c12563...

"In that future history, From Time Immemorial may well warrant a chapter unto itself. For this massive tome, despite serious weaknesses, has shifted the case for Israel to new ground"
http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Peters.htm

I put credence in the argument that substantial numbers of Arabs moved to Palestine. I will adjust my views, of course, should compelling evidence be found to show otherwise. But this will require that Miss Peters's critics go beyond polemics and actually prove her thesis wrong
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5172