Israeli settlement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:43, 11 September 2007

Map of Israeli settlements (magenta) in the West Bank.

Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by Israeli Jews in territory that came under Israel's control as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, which is partially under Israeli military administration^[1] and partially under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, and in the Golan Heights, which are under Israeli civilian administration.

The term sometimes includes communities in territory that was captured in 1967, but has since been under Israeli civil law, administration and jurisdiction in

East Jerusalem, which is incorporated within the municipal borders of Jerusalem, though this de facto annexation is not recognized by the international community^[2]^[3]; and
The Golan Heights, where military rule was revoked in 1981 and has since been under Israeli civil law, administration and jurisdiction under the Golan Heights Law.

An additional eighteen settlements formerly existed in the Sinai Peninsula, twenty-one in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank. They were abandoned as part of Israeli withdrawals from these areas in 1982 (Sinai) and 2005.

Israeli policies toward these settlements have ranged from active promotion to removal by force, and their continued existence and status since the 1970s is one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Terminology

Many settlement-related terms are themselves controversial. They include:

Settlement or community: there is broad agreement that the term settlement implies that these are recently established places, and therein lies the controversy. Although many Israelis concede that the term "settlement" is apt for these reasons, others argue that these are re-established communities, built on Jewish towns and villages that were vacated by force as late as 1948 or much earlier. They also point out that these are highly dissimilar places, and that using one term is misleading.
In Hebrew, the common term for the Israeli settlements outside the Green Line is hitnakhluyot (Hebrew: התנחלויות; singular התנחלות/hitnakhlut, hitnakhalut). This term is widely used in the media and in public, although some think it has acquired a derogatory connotation in recent years. Settlers are called mitnakhalim (Hebrew: מתנחלים; singular - מתנחל/mitnakhel). The settlers and their sympathizers, as well as most official Israeli references use the term yishuvim (יישובים; singular - יישוב/yishuv) for settlements and mityashvim (מתיישבים; singular - מתיישב/mityashev) for settlers. These terms are more neutral, as they also refer to settlements inside Israel proper. Some think these terms are a euphemism. Furthermore, the term "settler" is often associated with the Religious Zionist movement, and other settler populations (such as the Haredi residents of Betar Illit and Modi'in Illit) do not associate themselves with it.^[4]
In Arabic, settlements are called mustawtanaat (Arabic: المستوطنات), and settlers are mustawtineen (مستوطنين). Mustamaraat (مستعمرات) is another term used among Palestinians [7], which translates literally as colonies; from the Palestinian point of view, most “settlers” were foreigners. The word mustamaraat was popularized by Arab leaders and carries a political connotation denoting the feelings of Palestinians toward the Jewish arrivals. [8] [9] [10] [11]
West Bank or Judea and Samaria: the term "West Bank" dates from the time that Jordan controlled the area in question (1948-1967), but is still by far the most common name used in the English-speaking world and by international organizations such as the United Nations. The terms "Judea and Samaria" are historical terms that relate to the political geography of the Roman-era Jewish dominion in the area. Palestinians strongly object to the term, deeming it to reflect Israeli expansionist aims. Among Palestinians, the specific area is referred to as the West Bank.
"Occupied" or "disputed": the legal status of the areas is a debated question, and drives the choice of qualifier for the territories in question.

Historical timeline

File:Israeli west bank settlement.jpg

The Israeli settlement of Ma'ale Levona, with a 2004 population of 514, between Ramallah and Nablus, from different angles.

The cease-fire agreement following the 1967 Six-Day War left Israel in control of a number of areas captured during hostilities.

From Jordan, Israel gained control of the entire western bank of the Jordan River, including parts of Jerusalem previously controlled by Jordan - East Jerusalem, and the West Bank.
From Egypt, Israel gained control of the entire Sinai peninsula up to the Suez Canal, and the Gaza strip.
From Syria, Israel gained control of most of the Golan Heights, since 1981, administered under the Golan Heights Law.

Original Israeli policy at that time was to deny any Jewish settlement of these areas or even Jewish resettlement of specific locations where Jews had resided up until the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (see: List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war). Many attempts were made by Gush Emunim to establish outposts or resettle former Jewish areas, and initially the Israeli government forcibly disbanded these settlements. However, in the absence of peace talks to determine the future of these and other disputed territories, Israel ceased the enforcement of the original ban on settlement.

In 1967, the municipal borders of Jerusalem were extended to include all of the Old City as well as other areas. Residents within the new municipal borders were offered the choice between citizenship (subject to a few restrictions) and permanent residency (if they wished to retain their Jordanian passports). This annexation has not been recognized by any foreign country.
The Sinai, Gaza Strip, and West Bank were put under Israeli military occupation. Residents were not offered citizenship or residency, though they typically had de facto work permits within Israel and freedom of travel there.
In 1978, Israel forcibly evacuated its citizens from the Sinai and demolished their homes when the area was returned to Egypt pursuant to the Camp David Accords. The last Israeli community in the area, Yamit, was evacuated in early 1982.
In 1980, the Knesset asserted Jerusalem's status as the nation's "eternal and indivisible capital" by passing the Jerusalem Law.
In 1981, Israel extended its law to the Golan Heights, passing the Golan Heights Law, which granted permanent residency, ID cards, and Israeli citizenship to the residents, but did not formally annex the territory.
In August 2005, all settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the West Bank were forcibly evacuated as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan.

Settlement types and locations

Left: Western Samaria bloc extends to Ariel. Top middle: part of Northern Samaria disengagement. Center: hills around Nablus. Lower middle: Eastern part of Trans-Samaria Highway is outside barrier. Right: Jordan Valley

The Jewish population in the areas held since 1967 live in a wide variety of centers:

Self-contained towns and small cities with a stable population in the tens of thousands, infrastructure, and all other features of permanence, e.g. Ma'ale Adummim, Modi'in Illit, Ariel.
Jewish neighborhoods adjacent to Arab neighborhoods in the same city, e.g. Hebron.
Neighborhoods, where both Jews and Arabs live together, e.g. Jerusalem.
Suburbs to other population centers, especially Jerusalem (e.g. Gilo), and the Sharon area (e.g. Karnei Shomron).
Settlement blocs, e.g. Gush Etzion, the vicinity of Ariel, the Shechem/Nablus area.
Frontier villages, such as those parallel to the Jordan River.
Residential outposts, consisting of campers, trailers, and even tents; these are often referred to as "wildcat" outposts. Most of these settlements are the results of recent construction, but some are based on Jewish communities that were forced to leave or abandoned in 1948 or earlier. Newly constructed developments are largely on hilltops, at some distance from Arab communities, which are typically found in valleys. [12] [13]

Top left: Modiin bloc. Left center: Latrun salient. Lower left: Etzion bloc. Center: Jerusalem envelope including Ma'ale Adummim at right. Top middle: Mountain ridge settlements are outside barrier. Right: Jordan Valley. Lower right: Judean Desert.

Settlements on sites of former Jewish communities

A few of the settlements were established on sites that had been inhabited by Jews during the British Mandate of Palestine. In the case of Hebron, an association comprised of some descendants of pre-1929 Jewish residents of Hebron published a 1997 statement dissociating themselves from the present settlers in Hebron, calling them an obstacle to peace [14].

partial listing only

Jerusalem – Jewish presence since biblical times, various surrounding communities and neighborhoods, including Kfar Shiloah - settled by Yemeni Jews in 1884, Jewish residents evacuated in 1938, settled again in 2004
Gush Etzion communities - established between 1927–1947, destroyed 1948, reestablished beginning 1967
Hebron - Jewish presence since biblical times, forced out in 1929 (because of Hebron massacre), some families return to the ruins in 1931 but the British have them evacuate again to "prevent another massacre"; resettled in 1967
Kfar Darom - established in 1946, evacuated in 1948, resettled in 1970, evacuated in 2005 as part of the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Population

Except for areas that were effectively annexed to Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, Israeli citizens and others can only move to areas captured in 1967 with the permission of the Israeli government. According to various statistics,^[5] the demographics can be estimated as follows:

Jewish population	1948	1972	1983	1993	2004	2006
West Bank (excluding Jerusalem)	480 (see Gush Etzion)	800	22,800	111,600	235,700	247,300
Gaza Strip	30 (see Kfar Darom)	700 ^*	900	4,800	8,000	0
Golan Heights	0	600	6,800	12,600	16,100	16,500
East Jerusalem	300 (see Atarot, Neve Yaakov)	9,200	75,000	130,000	179,581	181,457

^* including Sinai

Justifications for the settlements

Palestinians argue that the policy of settlements constitutes an effort to pre-empt or even sabotage a peace treaty that includes Palestinian sovereignty, and claim that the settlements are built on land that belongs to Palestinians [15] [16].

Israelis respond that there are several valid justifications. Firstly, the Israel Foreign Ministry asserts that some settlements are legitimate, as they took shape when there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, and thus they did not violate any agreement. ^[6] ^[7] Based on this, they assert the following specific reasons for accepting settlements as legitimate.

Prior to the eruption of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the late eighties, even until the signing of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty in 1994, Israeli governments on the left and right argued that the settlements were of strategic and tactical importance. The location of the settlements was primarily chosen based on the threat of an attack by the bordering hostile countries of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt and possible routes of advance into Israeli population areas. Other supporters of the settlements also cite these reasons [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
Many Israelis assert the historical Jewish connection to at least some of the areas in dispute, arguing that their claim is at least equal to that of the Palestinians ^{[citation needed]}. Since many Jews in these areas were killed or forced out violently, they argue that the Palestinians, whom they consider the aggressors in this case, should not be rewarded with land they seized ^{[citation needed]}.
Many religious Jews assert the biblical Jewish connection to the areas in dispute, arguing that their claim to build is equal to the biblical Jewish connection to the other areas in Israel.

Legal background

Land ownership

According to the Israeli government, the majority of the land currently occupied by the new settlements was vacant or belonged to the state (from which it was leased) or bought fairly from the Palestinians). Former United States State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case:

Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title. [23].

The recent use of the Absentee Property Law to "transfer, sell or lease any real estate property" in East Jerusalem owned by Palestinians who live elsewhere (usually in the West Bank) without compensation has been criticized both inside and outside of Israel [24].

Opponents of the settlements claim that "vacant" land had either belonged to Arabs who had fled or belonged collectively to an entire village, a practise that had developed under Ottoman rule. B'Tselem claims that the Israeli government used the absence of modern legal documents for the communal land as a legal basis for expropriating it.

In November 2006 Peace Now acquired a report (which it claims was leaked from the Israeli Government's Civil Administration) that indicates that as much as 40 percent of the settlement land that Israel plans to retain is privately owned by Palestinians.[25] Peace Now further claims that this is a violation of Israeli law.[26] The Washington Post reported that "The 38-page report offers what appears to be a comprehensive argument against the Israeli government's contention that it avoids building on private land, drawing on the state's own data to make the case" [27]. Peace Now published statistics and aerial maps for each individual settlement [28] (PDF) [29]. According to the spokesman of Israel’s Civil Administration, this report was based on a leaked map that indicated Palestinian claims rather than rights, and that Peace Now never contacted the Civil Administration to confirm the report [30]. A recent report by Peace Now, allegedly based on official data provided by the Civil Administration following a court struggle cites a lower figure of 32%, a figure rejected by the Civil Administration [31].

Legal status of the territories

Although all areas in question were captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has treated them in three different ways:

"East Jerusalem" - Jerusalem and its surroundings were envisioned as an international area under United Nations administration in the 1947 partition plan, accepted by Jews but rejected by Arabs. In 1948, Jordan captured and annexed the eastern half of Jerusalem, while Israel captured and annexed the west. Following the Six-Day War in 1967 Israel annexed the eastern part, together with several villages around it, awarding each religious group full administration of their holy sites.

The Israeli Golan Heights Law of 1981 applied Israel's "laws, jurisdiction and administration" in the Golan Heights, which were captured from Syria in 1967 after a series of incursions and attacks on Israel from the region. Israel has not stated that it has "annexed" the area.
The Gaza Strip and West Bank, a section of the areas awarded by the UN to a prospective Arab state of Palestine, remained in Arab hands while the rest of that area was taken by Israel. The former was administered by Egypt while the latter was annexed by Jordan.

The annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights Law have both been deemed illegal by the UN Security Council (resolutions 267 and 497 respectively), and have not been recognized by other states.

Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt (removing all Israeli settlements and returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egyptian sovereignty), and Jordan (returning small sections to Jordanian sovereignty); there are currently no peace treaties governing Israel's borders related to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. Israel therefore asserts that the armistice lines (known as the Green Line) of 1949 have no other legal status.

Palestinians object to this view as the Israel-Jordan peace treaty was not to alter the status of any territories coming under Israeli control during the hostilities of 1967 (article 3(2) of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty^[8]).

Legal status of the settlements

The establishment and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been described as violations of the fourth Geneva Convention and as "having no legal validity" by the UN Security Council in resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471. These resolutions were made under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter which relates to the "Pacific Settlement of Disputes" between parties, and as such have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law. ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] ^[13] ^[14] ^[15] ^[16] ^[17] ^[18] ^[19] ^[20] Israel has chosen not to heed them. The International Court of Justice has asserted in paragraph 120 of its Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 that the settlements are illegal. The International Court of Justice has also asserted in an Advisory Opinion that "[i]t is not possible to find in the Charter any support for" the view that only enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter are binding.^[21] The European Union^[22] and the General Assembly of the United Nations^[23] consider the settlements to be illegal.

International human rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also denounced the settlements as illegal[32][33], though the Anti-Defamation League has argued that they are legal. ^[24]

In 1967, Theodor Meron, legal council to the Israeli Foreign Ministry stated in a legal opinion to Adi Yafeh, the Political Secretary of the Prime Minister, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."^[25] Nevertheless, Israel considers its settlement policy to be consistent with international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, while recognizing that some of the smaller settlements have been constructed "illegally" in the sense of being in violation of Israeli law. [34][35]

On April 21, 1978 the US State Department Legal Adviser explained to Congress the legal considerations underlying the US view then of the legality of the settlements ^[26]^[27], concluding that "While Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law."

In 1998 the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs produced "The International Criminal Court Background Paper".^[28] It concludes "International law has long recognised that there are crimes of such severity they should be considered "international crimes". Such crimes have been established in treaties such as the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions. .... The following are Israel's primary issues of concern [ie with the rules of the ICC]: - The inclusion of settlement activity as a "war crime" is a cynical attempt to abuse the Court for political ends. The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law."

Some legal scholars ^[29] (including prominent international law expert Julius Stone, ^[30] ^[31] and Eugene Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School) and others, have argued that the settlements are legal under international law, on a number of different grounds.

Arguments based on the Fourth Geneva Convention

There are two disputes regarding the Fourth Geneva Convention: whether the convention applies to the territories in question and whether the Convention forbids the establishment of Israeli settlements. Article 2 concerns the applicability of the Convention whereas article 49 concerns the legality of population transfers. In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are.^[32]^[33]

Article 2

Article 2 extends the Convention to "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties" and "all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party".^[34] Supporters of the legality of the settlements argue that the Convention itself does not apply, as the West Bank and Gaza Strip have never been part of a sovereign state since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, therefore do not meet the definition of "the territory of a High Contracting Party".^[35]^[36]^[37]^[38] This argument was articulated in 1971^[39] by Israeli Attorney-General Meir Shamgar^[40] (who also created the legal framework of the Israeli military government in the administered territories^[41]) and presented by Moshe Dayan in a speech before the 32nd session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1977.^[42]

The International Court of Justice, in an advisory (i.e. non-binding) opinion to the UN General Assembly, argued that according to Article 2 of the Convention applies if “there exists an armed conflict” between “two contracting parties”, regardless of the territories status in international law prior to the armed attack. It also argued that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" according to customary international law (and defined by "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (General Assembly Resolution 2625).

On 15 July 1999 a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention met at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva. It ruled that the Convention did apply in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.^[43]^[44] The Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention held in Geneva on 5 December, 2001 called upon "the Occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to refrain from perpetrating any violation of the Convention." The High Contracting Parties reaffirmed "the illegality of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof."^[45]

U.N. Security Council Resolution 446 refers directly to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and specifically insists that Israel desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup.

However, others have objected to the ruling of the conference, which they argue has amended history and been construed only for this specific situation (see excerpt below). Under Article 2, the Convention pertains only to “cases of…occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party” by another such party. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were never the territory of a High Contracting Party; the occupation after 1948 by Jordan and Egypt was illegal and neither country ever had lawful or recognized sovereignty. The last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, which stipulated the right of the Jewish people to settle in the whole of the Mandated territory. According to Article 6 of the Mandate, “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use” was to be encouraged. (Article 25 allowed the League Council to temporarily postpone the Jewish right to settle in what is now Jordan, if conditions were not amenable.) Article 80 of the U.N. Charter preserved this Jewish right to settlement by specifying that:

nothing in the [United Nations] Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments.^[46]

According to barrister and human rights activist Stephen Bowen, Israel’s argument was rejected by the international community "because the Convention also states that it applies 'in all circumstances' (Article 1), and 'to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict' (Article 2)."^[47] Shamgar argues specifically against this point, stating:

There is no rule of international law according to which the Fourth Convention applies in each and every armed conflict whatever the status of the parties.... The whole idea of the restriction of military government powers is based on the assumption that there has been a sovereign who was ousted and that he was a legitimate sovereign. Any other conception would lead to the conclusion, for example, that France should have acted in Alsace-Lorraine according to rule 42-56 of the Hague Rules of 1907, until the signing of a peace treaty.^[39]

Article 49

Article 49 (1) insists that "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive" and Article 49(6) insists that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies".^[34] According the commentary of Jean Pictet of the International Red Cross, this is intended to prevent the World War II practice of an occupying power transferring "portions of its own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories" which in turn "worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race".^[48]

Supporters of the legality of the settlements argue that even if the Convention did apply, it should be read only in the context of World War II forcible migrations at the time. It is only intended to cover forcible transfers and to protect the local population from displacement. They point out Article 49(1) specifically covers "[i]ndividual or mass forcible transfers" whereas the Israelis who live in the settlements have moved there voluntarily, and argue that settlements are not intended to, nor have ever resulted in, the displacement of Palestinians from the area.^[35]^[37]^[49]^[50]^[38] In addition, they state that the Geneva Convention only applies in the absence of an operative peace agreement and between two powers accepting the Convention. Since the Oslo Accords leave the issue of settlements to be negotiated later, proponents of this view argue that the Palestinians accepted the temporary presence of Israeli settlements pending further negotiation, and that there is no basis for declaring them illegal.^[35]^[50]^[51]^[36]^[52]^[38]

Those who reject that view have a different reading of the article. They note that Pictet's commentary on Article 49(6) states "[t]he 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." David Kretzmer, Professor of International Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has argued:

As paragraph 1 of Article 49 refers expressly to forcible transfers, it seems fair to conclude that the term "transfer" in paragraph 6 means both forcible and nonforcible transfers. This conclusion would seem to flow from the object of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is to protect civilians in the occupied territory, and not the population of the occupied power. From the point of view of the protected persons, whether the transfer of outsiders into their territory is forcible or not would seem to be irrelevant."^[53]

US State Department Legal Advisor, Herbert J. Hansell, in a letter dated 1 April, 1978, has reached the same conclusion, noting that "[p]aragraph 1 of article 49 prohibits "forcible" transfers of protected persons out of the occupied territory; paragraph 6 is not so limited."^[54]

He further argued that:

The view has been advanced that a transfer is prohibited under paragraph 6 only to the extent that it involves the displacement of the local population. Although one respected authority, Lauterpacht, evidently took this view, it is otherwise unsupported in the literature, in the rules of international law or in the language and negotiating history of the Convention, and it seems clearly not correct. Displacement of protected persons is dealt with separately in the Convention and paragraph 6 would seem redundant if limited to cases of displacement. Another view of paragraph 6 is that it is directed against mass population transfers such as occurred in World War II for political, racial or colonization ends; but there is no apparent support or reason for limiting its application to such cases.

The latter interpretation was adopted by the International Court of Justice in its 2004 advisory opinion, and 150 countries supported a (non-binding) General Assembly resolution demanding Israel to "comply with its legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion".^[55]

Arguments based on UNSC Resolution 242 and the British Mandate

Rostow and others further argue that UN Security Council Resolution 242 (which Rostow helped draft) mandates Israeli control of the territories, and that the original British Mandate of Palestine still applies, allowing Jewish settlement there.^[50]^[36]^[51]^[56] In Rostow's view

The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."^[56]

According to Rostow "the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there".^[57]

This right is based on Article 6 of the Mandate which states: "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use". In addition, many Israeli settlements have been established on sites which were home to Jewish communities before 1948 such as Neve Ya'acov, Gush Etzion, Hebron, Kalia, and Kfar Darom.

Contrary to this view other legal scholars have argued that under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties the only common sense interpretation of UNSC 242 is that Israel must withdraw from all of the territory captured in 1967, as any interpretation permitting the extension of sovereignty by conquest would violate the relevant governing principle of international law as emphasized in the preambular statement, i.e., "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" as established through the abolition of the right of conquest by the League of Nations following World War I.

Furthermore, it is argued that UNSC 242 has binding force under Article 25 of the UN Charter owing to its incorporation into UN Security Council Resolution 338 and that it is also binding on Israel and the PLO by agreement owing to its incorporation into the Oslo Accords.^[58]

Others argue that the Oslo Accords supersede UNSC 242 rather than making it binding.^[59] The Declaration of Principles in the accords only state that future negotiations will "lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338."^[60]

Additionally, as the international community considered the status of Jerusalem to be unresolved, even after 1967, and did not deem any part of the city to be Israeli territory, including that part held since 1948, UNSC 242 did not settle territorial issues between Israel and Palestine left unresolved by the 1949 Armistice Agreements.^[61] Indeed, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and others have argued that, because of the disorder in Palestine at the time, the territorial framework of the 1947 Partition Plan did not come into effect in such a way as to ipso jure grant Israel sovereignty over the territory allocated to the Jewish state under that plan.^[58] Stone agrees with Lauterpacht's analysis, and his view that sovereignty was acquired through other means:

Lauterpacht has offered a cogent legal analysis leading to the conclusion that sovereignty over Jerusalem has already vested in Israel. His view is that when the partition proposals were immediately rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression, those proposals could not, both because of their inherent nature and because of the terms in which they were framed, operate as an effective legal re-disposition of the sovereign title. They might (he thinks) have been transformed by agreement of the parties concerned into a consensual root of title, but this never happened. And he points out that the idea that some kind of title remained in the United Nations is quite at odds, both with the absence of any evidence of vesting, and with complete United Nations silence on this aspect of the matter from 1950 to 1967?… In these circumstances, that writer is led to the view that there was, following the British withdrawal and the abortion of the partition proposals, a lapse or vacancy or vacuum of sovereignty. In this situation of sovereignty vacuum, he thinks, sovereignty could be forthwith acquired by any state that was in a position to assert effective and stable control without resort to unlawful means.^[35]

Antonio Cassese disagrees with this analysis, arguing that whilst Israel's original occupation of West Jerusalem might have been carried out in an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, this did not confer legal title to the territory owing to the general prohibition in international law on the acquisition of sovereignty through military conquest. He further considers that "mere silence" could not constitute agreement by the United Nations to the acquisition of sovereignty by Israel or Jordan as a result of their de facto control of Jerusalem. Cassese concludes that "at least a tacit manifestation of consent through conclusive acts would have been necessary", whereas such relevant acts as did take place confirmed that no such consent to the transfer of sovereignty was given.^[62]

Arguments based on historical agreements

Some have argued that Israel has a right to settle in areas agreed upon with Emir Faisal, the recognized political leader of the Arab world at the time. Faisal signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann, the recognized leader of the modern Zionisim movement.

The agreement, known as the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, signed in January 1919, agreed conditional terms of borders between the Jewish state and the Arab states, which include the present day territories in dispute.

Arguments based on the cause of the war

It has been argued that Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of a defensive war. Dore Gold writes that:

"The language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967".

He quotes Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, and wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case:

Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.^[63]

Settlements, Palestinians, and human rights

Settlements (darker pink) and areas of the West Bank (lighter pink) where access by Palestinians is closed or restricted. Source: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, January 2006.

Accounts that the presence of settlements in the West Bank has an adverse impact on the local population include:

Road blocks, which the Israeli human rights center Btselem and other sources argue exist to "protect the settlers", are scattered inside the West Bank between Palestinian cities and villages and have had a significant impact on freedom of movement. These road blocks are said to also protect Israelis within Israel. According to Btselem, the (siege) "imprisons entire populations within their communities or in a small geographic area and limits their access to other parts of the West Bank."^[64]^[65]^[66]^[67]
In Hebron, where a few hundred settlers live among 150,000 Palestinians, B'Tselem argues that there have been "grave violations" of Palestinian human rights because of the "presence of the settlers within the city." The organization cites regular incidents of "almost daily physical violence and property damage by settlers in the city", curfews and restrictions of movement that are "among the harshest in the Occupied Territories", and violence and by Israeli border policemen and the IDF against Palestinians who live in the city's H2|sector.^[68]^[69]^[70]
Human Rights Watch reports on physical violence of settlers against Palestinians, including "frequently stoning and shooting at Palestinian cars. In many cases, settlers abuse Palestinians in front of Israeli soldiers or police with little interference from the authorities."^[71] Btselem also documents settler actions against Palestinians that include "blocking roadways, so as to impede Palestinian life and commerce. The settlers also shoot solar panels on roofs of buildings, torch automobiles, shatter windowpanes and windshields, destroy crops, uproot trees, abuse merchants and owners of stalls in the market. Some of these actions are intended to force Palestinians to leave their homes and farmland, and thereby enable the settlers to gain control of them."^[72]
According to B'Tselem, more than fifty percent of the land of the West Bank has been expropriated from Palestinian owners "mainly to establish settlements and create reserves of land for the future expansion of the settlements." While the seized lands mainly benefit the settlements, the Palestinian public is prohibited from using them in any way.^[73]
Settlers are particularly active during the Palestinian olive harvest season.^[74] Olive farmers and families are targeted by settlers while on their fields, and are assaulted or shot-at. Numerous organizations have documented serious abuses by settlers during this season, and many international and Israeli organizations organize campaigns to protect Palestinians on the fields during the harvest.^[75]^[76]^[77]^[78]^[79]
Israel has established a series of modern roads throughout the West Bank which bypass Palestinian areas, some of which are closed to vehicles with Palestinian license-plates in varying degrees, and which can fluctuate based on Israeli security concerns: some roads (mostly leading into Israel) are closed to all Palestinian traffic; many roads are closed to private traffic but allow public and commercial transportation; some roads are fully open to all Palestinian traffic and are shared completely with Israeli motorists. At the same time, Palestinian areas and roads are closed to vehicles with Israeli markings. Israel argues that such a system is needed for security because of many incidents in which Israelis who entered such areas were endangered or killed, and that it generally reduces tension between the two populations. Btselem has described this system as nevertheless 'discriminatory': "Rather than use the main roads between the cities, most of the population is forced to use long and winding alternate routes. The regime has forced most Palestinians to leave their cars at home and travel by public transportation, in part because private cars are not allowed to cross some of the checkpoints." Btselem lists the effects of this separate roads regime, including: Wasted (additional) time to reach destinations, tardiness or inability to reach destinations, exhaustion, increased cost of travel, and increased wear and tear on vehicles resulting from travel on worn down or dirt roads.^[80]
The recent construction of a barrier is routed inside the green line to encompass a variety of settlements. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs indicates that 10% of the West Bank will fall on the Israeli side of the barrier.^[81]^[82]

Since the beginning of Al-Aqsa intifada, 41 Palestinians were killed by Israeli civilians in the Palestinian territories. 233 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians in the territories in the same period. (Note: according to Btselem, many of the Israeli civilians who were killed in the territories were not residents of the territories at the time, and as such would not be considered 'settlers'). The total number of Palestinians killed in the territories is over 3300 (though this number does not differentiate between Palestinian combatants and Palestinian civilians), while the total number of Israelis is 458. The number of Israelis killed inside of Israel is 540, and the number of Palestinians killed in Israel is 58.^[83]

Diplomatic reactions, proposals, and criticisms

Gush Katif was a bloc of 16 Israeli settlements in the southern Gaza Strip. Its 8,000 residents were forced to leave and had their homes demolished in August 2005 as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan.

The settlements have on several occasions been a source of tension between Israel and the U.S. President Jimmy Carter insisted that the settlements were illegal and unwise tactically, but President Ronald Reagan stated that they were legal, though he considered them an obstacle to negotiations.^[49] In 1991 there was a clash between the Bush administration and Israel, where the U.S. delayed a subsidized loan in order to pressure Israel not to proceed with the establishment of settlements for instance in the Jerusalem-Bethlehem corridor. In 2005 the United States ambassador to Israel, Dan Kurtzer, expressed U.S. support "for the retention by Israel of major Israeli population centres [in the West Bank] as an outcome of negotiations",^[84] reflecting President Bush's statement a year earlier that a permanent peace treaty would have to reflect "demographic realities" in the West Bank.^[85]

Although the Oslo accords did not include any obligation on Israel's part to stop building in the "settlements", Palestinians argue that Israel has undermined the Oslo accords, and the peace process more generally, by continuing to expand the settlements after the signing of the Accords. Israel previously also had settlements in the Sinai Peninsula, but these were forcibly evacuated and destroyed as a result of the peace agreement with Egypt.

Most Israeli and U.S. proposals for final settlement have also involved Israel being allowed to retain long established communities in the territories near Israel and in "East Jerusalem" (the majority of the settler population is near the "Green Line"), with Israel annexing the land on which the communities are located. This would result in a transfer of roughly 5% of the West Bank to Israel, with the Palestinians being compensated by the transfer of a similar share of Israeli territory (i.e. territory behind the "Green Line") to the Palestinian state. Palestinians complain that this would legitimize what they see as an illegitimate land grab, and that the land offered in exchange is situated in the southern desert, whereas the areas that Israel seeks to retain are among the West Bank's most fertile areas, including major aquifers. Israel, however, sees the current "Green Line" as unacceptable from a security standpoint - Israel would have at some points no more than 17 kilometers from the border to the sea. For more details, see Proposals for a Palestinian state.

President George Bush has stated that he does not expect Israel to return entirely to pre-1967 borders, due to "new realities on the ground." ^[86] One of the main compromise plans put forth by the Clinton Administration would have allowed Israel to keep some settlements in the West Bank, especially those which were in large blocs near the pre-1967 borders of Israel. in return, Palestinians would have received some concessions of land in other parts of the country. ^[87]

Dismantlement of settlements

Given the dispute over the territories where the settlements were built, the issue of dismantling them has been considered. Arab parties to the conflict have demanded the dismantlement of the settlements as a condition for peace with Israel. As part of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, Israel was required to evacuate its settlers from the Sinai. The evacuation, which took place in 1982, was done forcefully in some instances, such as the evacuation of Yamit. The settlements were demolished, as it was feared that settlers may try to return to their homes after the evacuation.

During the peace process with the Palestinians, the issue of dismantling the West Bank and Gaza Strip settlements has been raised. Israel did agree to withdraw from 100% of the Gaza strip and to withdraw from 95% of the West Bank, as part of the Oslo agreements.

As part of the Disengagement Plan, Israel has evacuated the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank, including all 21 settlements in Gaza and four in the West Bank, while retaining control over Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace. Most of these settlements have existed since the early 80's, some are over 30 years old, and with a total population of more than 10,000. There was significant opposition to the plan among parts of the Israeli public, and especially those living in the territories. American President George W. Bush has said that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect "demographic realities" in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements.^[88]

Within the former settlements, almost all buildings were demolished by Israel, with the exception of certain government and religious structures, which were completely emptied. Following the withdrawal, many of the former synagogues were vandalized by Hamas supporters, as a symbol of victory against Israel. Most agricultural structures were allowed to remain, but some were later destroyed by looters.

Some Israelis believe the settlements need not necessarily be dismantled and evacuated, even if Israel withdraws from the territory where they stand, as they can remain under Palestinian rule. These ideas have been expressed both by people from the left (^[89]), who see this as a possible situation in a two-state solution, and by extreme right-wingers and settlers^[90] that, while objecting to any withdrawal, claim stronger links to the land than to the state of Israel. Such ideas are not widely accepted in Israel, and most Israelis consider an evacuation of settlements inevitable in territories Israel withdraws from.

References

^
*"Israel, the homeland of the Jews, was established in Palestine in 1948. The Palestine Liberation Organization, under Yasir Arafat, is committed to establishing a Palestinian state, which would include territory on the West Bank and Gaza Strip now partially occupied by Israel." Palestine, The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.
- "Though Israeli forces withdrew from Nablus and parts of Ramallah on Sunday, traversing war-torn West Bank territory still under partial occupation makes for a difficult trip to school." Taylor, Catherine. "Palestinian schools hit hard by conflict", Christian Science Monitor, April 23, 2002.
- "Though under partial occupation, Palestinian society is one of the more democratic Arab societies today." Mohammed, Mima. "Palestinian Awareness Month aims to educate Stanford students", Stanford Daily, April 20, 2006.
- "The IDF would continue with its partial occupation of the West Bank and incursions in the Gaza Strip." "Chronological Review of Events Relating to the Question of Palestine", Monthly Media Monitoring Review, UNISPAL, Division for Palestinian Rights, March 2003.
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/issues/1682594.stm]
^ http://www.btselem.org/English/Jerusalem/
^ Tovah Lazaroff (June 18, 2007). "We are not settlers. We are Jews". The Jerusalem Post.
^ Israel Central Bureau of Statistics and Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies statistics [1] [2] [3] [4].
^ Israeli Settlements and International Law, Israel Foreign Ministry website, 5/4/01, accessed 7/11/07.
^ Diplomatic and Legal Aspects of the Settlement Issue, by Jeffrey Helmreich, Institute for Contemporary Affairs, jcpa.org, accessed 7/11/07.
^ "http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/jordan_treaty.htm". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "Some analysts have pointed out that Security Council resolutions condemning or criticizing Israel have been passed under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, which are different from the Chapter VII resolutions against Iraq." (Ayoob, Mohammad. "The war against Iraq: normative and strategic implications", in Robinson, Mary & Weiss, Thomas G. & Crahan, Margaret E. & Goering, John (eds). Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: human rights, unilateralism, and U.S. foreign policy, Routledge (UK), May 1, 2004, p. 164).
^ "Additionally it may be noted that the Security Council cannot adopt binding decisions under Chapter VI of the Charter" (De Hoogh, Andre. Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1996, p. 371).
^ "Council recommendations under Chapter VI are generally accepted as not being legally binding". (Magliveras, Konstantinos D. Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1999, p. 113).
^ "Within the framework of Chapter VI the SC has at its disposal an 'escalation ladder' composed of several 'rungs' of wielding influence on the conflicting parties in order to move them toward a pacific solution... however, the pressure exerted by the Council in the context of this Chapter is restricted to non-binding recommendations". (Neuhold, Hanspeter. "The United Nations System for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes", in Cede, Franz & Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 66).
^ "The responsibility of the Council with regard to international peace and security is specified in Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VI, entitled 'Pacific Settlements of Disputes', provides for action by the Council in case of international disputes or situations which do not (yet) post a threat to international peace and security. Herein its powers generally confined to making recommendations, the Council can generally not issue binding decisions under Chapter VI". (Schweigman, David. The Authority of the Security Council Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 33).
^ "Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may only make recommendations but not binding decisions on United Nations members". (Wallace-Bruce, Nii Lante. The Settlement of International Disputes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1998, pp. 47-4 ).
^ "The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven." Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double standards?, The Economist, October 10, 2002.
^ "There are two sorts of security council resolution: those under 'chapter 6' are non-binding recommendations dealing with the peaceful resolution of disputes; those under 'chapter 7' give the council broad powers, including war, to deal with 'threats to the peace ... or acts of aggression'." Emmott, Bill. If Saddam steps out of line we must go straight to war, The Guardian, November 25, 2002.
^ "...there is a difference between the Security Council resolutions that Israel breaches (nonbinding recommendations under Chapter 6) and those Iraq broke (enforcement actions under Chapter 7)." Kristof, Nicholas D. Calling the Kettle Black, The New York Times, February 25, 2004.
^ "There is a hierarchy of resolutions... Chapter 6, under which all resolutions relating to the middle east have been issued, relates to the pacific resolution of disputes. Above that, there are the mandatory chapter 7 resolutions, which impose the clearest possible obligations, usually on a single state rather than on two or three states, which is what chapter 6 is there for. Chapter 7 imposes mandatory obligations on states that are completely out of line with international law and policy, and the United Nations has decided in its charter that the failure to meet those obligations may be met by the use of force." Straw, Jack. House of Commons debates, Hansard, Column 32, September 24, 2002.
^ "There is another characteristic of these resolutions which deserves a mention, and that is that they are under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. Chapter 7 has as its heading 'Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression'. This is the very serious chapter of United Nations rules, regulations, laws and principles, which the United Nations activates when they intend to do something about it. If the United Nations announces under chapter 7 that it intends to do something about a matter and it is not done, that will undermine the authority of the United Nations; that will render it ineffective. There are many other resolutions under other chapters. Resolution 242 gets a bit of a guernsey here every now and then. Resolution 242 is under chapter 6, not chapter 7. It does not carry the same mandate and authority that chapter 7 carries. Chapter 6 is the United Nations trying to put up resolutions which might help the process of peace and it states matters of principle that are important for the world to take into consideration. Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw from territories that it has occupied. It also says that Israel should withdraw to secure and recognised boundaries and that the one is dependent upon the other. Resolution 242 says that, but it is not a chapter 7 resolution." Beazley, Kim, Waiting for blow-back (speech delivered in Parliament on February 4, 2003, The Sydney Morning Herald, February 5, 2003.
^ "There are several types of resolutions: Chapter 6 resolutions are decisions pursing the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, and put forward Council proposals on negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies, and other peaceful means. Chapter 7 resolutions are decisions for Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, involving use of force and sanctions, complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic radio and other means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations. Resolutions passed under Chapter 7 of the Charter are binding on all UN members, who are required to give every assistance to any action taken by the Council, and refrain from giving any assistance to the country against which it is taking enforcement action." Iran dossier crosses the Atlantic: Where to from here? (Microsoft Word document), Greenpeace position paper on Iran.
^ Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, pp. 52-3
^ [5] EU Committee Report.
^ [6] General Assembly 1998 vote
^ How to Respond to Common Misstatements About Israel: Israeli Settlements, Anti-Defamation League website. URL accessed April 10, 2006.
^ Gorenberg, Gershom. "The Accidental Empire". New York: Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, 2006. p. 99.
^ Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State report to Congress of 21st April. http://www.fmep.org/documents/opinion_OLA_DOS4-21-78.html, accessed 2007-05-13
^ "Letter of the State Department Legal Advisor, Mr. Herbert J. Hansell, Concerning the Legality of Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories", cited in Progress report - The human rights dimensions of population transfer including the implantation of settler prepared by Mr. Awn Shawhat Al-Khasawneh.
^ 30th July 1998, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs produced "The International Criminal Court Background Paper" http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/1990_1999/1998/7/the%20international%20criminal%20court%20-%20background%20pape, accessed 2007-05-13
^ FAQ on Israeli settlements, CBC News Online, February 26, 2004. URL accessed April 10, 2006.
^ Pomerance, Michla. The Legality of the Iraq War: Beyond legal pacifism, The Review, April 2003. URL accessed April 11, 2006.
^ International Law: Blaming Big Brother: Holding States Accountable for the Devastation of Terrorism, 56 Oklahoma Law Review 735, __ __.
^ Gerson, Allan. Israel, the West Bank, and International law, Routledge, Sept 28, 1978, ISBN 0-7146-3091-8, p. 82.
^ Roberts, Adam, "Decline of Illusions: The Status of the Israeli-Occupied Territories over 21 Years" in International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 64, No. 3. (Summer, 1988), pp. 345-359., p. 350
^ ^a ^b Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Lacey, Ian, ed. International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (pdf) - Extracts from Israel and Palestine - Assault on the Law of Nations by Julius Stone, Second Edition with additional material and commentary updated to 2003, AIJAC website. URL accessed April 10, 2006.
^ ^a ^b ^c Hollander, Ricki. BACKGROUNDER: Jewish Settlements and the Media, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, October 5, 2001. URL accessed April 12, 2006.
^ ^a ^b Dann, Moshe. Legality of the settlements, The Jerusalem Post, May 22, 2001.
^ ^a ^b ^c Einhorn, Talia. The Status of Palestine/Land of Israel and Its Settlement Under Public International Law, Nativ, Volume 1, 2003. URL accessed May 19, 2006.
^ ^a ^b Slonim, S. (1998). Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy, 1947-1997. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, ISBN 90-411-1255-3, p. 211.
^ Kretzmer, David (2002). The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories. SUNY Press. ISBN 0-7914-5337-5, p. 33.
^ Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed 20 April, 2006.
^ Kretzmer, 2002, p. 34.
^ United Nations (2002). Yearbook of the United Nations, 2000. United Nations Publications. ISBN 92-1-100857-3, p. 421; p. 437.
^ Statement of the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, Geneva, 15 July, 1999. (PDF)
^ Implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories: history of a multilateral process (1997-2001), International Review of the Red Cross, 2002 - No. 847.
^ BACKGROUNDER: Jewish Settlements and the Media
^ Bowen, Stephen (1997). Human Rights, Self-Determination and Political Change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-411-0502-6, p. 29.
^ Pictet, Jean (ed.) Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention.
^ ^a ^b Rostow, Eugene. Bricks and stones: settling for leverage; Palestinian autonomy, The New Republic, April 23, 1990.
^ ^a ^b ^c Israeli Settlements and International Law, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, 20 May 2001. URL accessed April 11, 2006.
^ ^a ^b Helmreich, Jeffrey. Diplomatic and Legal Aspects of the Settlement Issue, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem Issue Brief, Volume 2, Number 16, January 19, 2003.
^ What is the background of Jewish settlements in Palestinian Arab areas?, Palestine Facts website, 2006. URL accessed April 12, 2006.
^ Kretzmer, David. "The Advisory Opinion: The Light Treatment of International Humanitarian Law" in American Journal of International Law Vol.99 No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp.88-102, p.91.
^ "Letter of the State Department Legal Advisor, Mr. Herbert J. Hansell, Concerning the Legality of Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories", cited in Progress report - The human rights dimensions of population transfer including the implantation of settler prepared by Mr. Awn Shawhat Al-Khasawneh.
^ "http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/f3b95e613518a0ac85256eeb00683444?OpenDocument". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ ^a ^b Rostow, Eugene. Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies, The New Republic, October 21, 1991.
^ American Journal of International Law, 1990, volume 84, page 72
^ ^a ^b McHugo, John (2002). Resolution 242: A Legal Interpretation of the Right-Wing Israeli Interpretation of the Withdrawal Phrase With Reference to the Conflict Between Israel and the Palestinians. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 51, 851-882.
^ http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/unitednations/Israel%20and%20Iraq%20-%20UN%20Double%20Standards.pdf
^ http://www.historycentral.com/Israel/Documents/Oslo.html
^ Quigley, John (2002). Palestine: The Issue of Statehood (pp. 37-54). In Silverburg, Sanford R. (Ed.). Palestine and International Law: Essays on Politics and Economics. McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-7864-1191-0, pp. 50-51.
^ Cassese, Antonio (1986). Considerations on the International Status of Jerusalem (pp. 13-40). In Kassim, A. F. The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1986. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-411-0340-6.
^ Cite error: The named reference Schwebel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "http://www.btselem.org/English/Freedom_of_Movement/Siege.asp". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.miftah.org/Doc/Reports/2005/G0511608.pdf" (PDF). {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.labournet.net/world/0201/hass1.html". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2391". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200308_Hebron_Area_H2.asp". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/04/11/isrlpa241.htm". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=331234&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2001/02/27/isrlpa254.htm". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.btselem.org/english/Settler_Violence/Nature_of_the_Violence.asp". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.btselem.org/english/Settlements/Land_Takeover.asp". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.btselem.org/english/Settler_Violence/Nature_of_the_Violence.asp". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=1456". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2489". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3170264,00.html". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.palestinemonitor.org/new_web/pdf/Olive_report.pdf" (PDF). {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.alternativenews.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=88&lang=ISO-8859-1". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.btselem.org/download/200408_Forbidden_Roads_Eng.pdf" (PDF). {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456944/html/nn2page1.stm". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3111159.stm". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties.asp". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ 'US will accept Israel settlements', BBC News Online, 25 March, 2005.
^ 'UN Condemns Israeli settlements', BBC News Online, 14 April, 2005.
^ Israel 'to keep some settlements', BBC, 4/12/05.
^ Review of Dennis Ross book, BY RAY HANANIA, hanania.com, 8/16/04, accessed 7/11/07.
^ "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4382343.stm". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://web.archive.org/web/19991006195817/http://www.jpost.co.il/com/Advertising/Ysadeh/". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ "http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5EB5E1B3-B64F-43DF-A588-1C40FDDB0A83.htm". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Image:Westbankjan06.jpg|right|thumb|260px|Map of Israeli settlements (magenta) in the [[West Bank]].]]
-'''Israeli settlements''' are communities or colonies inhabited by [[Israel]]i Jews in territory that came under Israel's control as a result of the 1967 [[Six-Day War]]. Such settlements currently exist in the [[West Bank]], which is partially under Israeli military administration<ref>*"Israel, the homeland of the Jews, was established in Palestine in 1948. The Palestine Liberation Organization, under Yasir Arafat, is committed to establishing a Palestinian state, which would include territory on the West Bank and Gaza Strip now partially occupied by Israel." Palestine, ''The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy'', Third Edition.  2002.
+'''Israeli settlements''' are communities inhabited by [[Israel]]i Jews in territory that came under Israel's control as a result of the 1967 [[Six-Day War]]. Such settlements currently exist in the [[West Bank]], which is partially under Israeli military administration<ref>*"Israel, the homeland of the Jews, was established in Palestine in 1948. The Palestine Liberation Organization, under Yasir Arafat, is committed to establishing a Palestinian state, which would include territory on the West Bank and Gaza Strip now partially occupied by Israel." Palestine, ''The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy'', Third Edition.  2002.
 *"Though Israeli forces withdrew from Nablus and parts of Ramallah on Sunday, traversing war-torn West Bank territory still under partial occupation makes for a difficult trip to school." Taylor, Catherine. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0423/p06s02-wome.html "Palestinian schools hit hard by conflict"], ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]'', [[April 23]], 2002.
 *"Though under partial occupation, Palestinian society is one of the more democratic Arab societies today." Mohammed, Mima. [http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/4/20/palestinianAwarenessMonthAimsToEducateStanfordStudents "Palestinian Awareness Month aims to educate Stanford students"], ''[[Stanford Daily]]'', [[April 20]], 2006.