Reply #35: Of course the settlements are illegal...

[Violet_Crumble]

And while I understand that you do not like the settlements, they are not illegal. The West Bank is not guaranteed to strictly belong to Palestinians alone, the area has never been an official part of any state since the ottoman empire, both sides have legitimate claims to areas, and their own agreements, signed by the PLO, clearly state that the border and territories are to be settled in negotiation.

No, the actual ownership of the West Bank isn't disputed. Israel holds no legitimate claim over either the West Bank or Gaza. I'm kind of curious as to what sort of negotiations you would think would result in a West Bank annexed by Israel?

It is not as though Palestinians were evicted to make room for these settlements, the actual ownership of the land is disputed.

Zufim, where about 200 families live, is built on 136 hectares (336 acres) of land confiscated from Jayyous in 1986. An Israeli rights group, Bimkom, says that developers in Zufim plan to build about 1,200 new homes. Yehezkel Lein, a researcher for another Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, said the military government in the occupied territories had issued permits for the work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1372963,00.html


Additionally, there have been no binding UN orders or court judgements ruling against the settlements. And Israel has been given the power to administrate the OT as they see fit until a just peace is declared.

I'm pretty sure we've been through this before. The Fourth Geneva Convention is what makes the Israeli settlements in occupied territory illegal. Last time I checked, the Geneva Convention was a binding legal document. It's what gives Israel the power to administrate the OT, but yr claim that Israel can do as they see fit is completely incorrect. Israel is legally allowed to continue a military occupation until a just peace is declared, but it is not allowed to alter the character of the occupied territories the way it is doing.

'Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention(1) states categorically: "...The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the territory it occupies." And Article 55 of the Hague Regulations(2) forbids the occupying State from changing the character and nature of state property, except for security needs and for the benefit of the local population. Israel’s building of settlements, roads and related infrastructure for Israeli civilians in the West Bank and Gaza does not meet these two exceptional criteria.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in force since 1 July 2002, includes among the war crimes within the jurisdiction of the court the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies..." "when committed as part of a plan or policy or a part of a large scale commission of such crimes" (Article 8 (2) (b) (viii) ). This crime is further defined in the Elements of Crimes, a supplementary instrument to the Rome Statue adopted in September 2002.'

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE150852003

I'm pretty sure I already posted a link to an old DU thread (hat tip to Jack Rabbit) concerning the legality of Israeli settlements in a reply to an earlier post of yrs where you claimed the settlements weren't illegal. If you didn't read it before, read it now, because it really is a comprehensive discussion which clearly explains why the settlements are legal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=2918&forum=DCForumID30&archive=yes#13