Are Israel's settlements legal?
The majority of legal scholars hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position. The Israeli Supreme Court itself has never addressed the issue of the settlements' legality.
Is Israel's policy of settling in the occupied territory legal?
In 1978, the State Department Legal Adviser advised the Congress on his conclusion that Israel's government, the Israeli Government's program of establishing civilian settlements in the occupied territory is inconsistent with international law, and we see no change since then to affect that fundamental conclusion.' ( Kerry 2016)
Are the Israeli settlements in the Sinai Peninsula legal?
The position of successive Israeli governments is that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law, despite Israel's armistice agreements all being with High Contracting Parties.
Are settlements illegal under international law?
In 2004, an advisory opinion by the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice, also found the settlements to be illegal under international law.
Is Israel building illegal settlements?
Israel advanced plans for the construction of more than 4,000 homes in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, a rights group has said, a day after the Israeli army demolished homes in an area where hundreds of Palestinians face the threat of expulsion.
Is Israel a state under international law?
Israel has since been recognized as a state by most other states and international organizations. However, Palestine rejected this partition and, despite its attempts, has still not received statehood status.
Does Israel continue to violate international law today?
Israel continues to flout international law and violate the human rights of the Palestinian people - Letter from Palestine - Question of Palestine.
Are Israeli settlements in West Bank illegal?
The Arguments Claiming Settlements Are Illegal The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, the International Court of Justice, as well as the international community in general have stated Israeli settlements violate the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian laws.
Is Israel a country or a state?
Israel, Arabic Isrāʾīl, officially State of Israel or Hebrew Medinat Yisraʾel, country in the Middle East, located at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea.
What is a state under international law?
According to one definition, a state is a community formed by people and exercising permanent power within a specified territory. According to international law, a state is typically defined as being based on the 1933 Montevideo Convention.
Why is Israel above international law?
In the case of Israel, the result was and remains, total immunity from international law – Israel, protected by the strongest western nations, especially by the US – is free to carry out any illegal action it wishes, secure in the knowledge that there shall be no sanction or retribution for breaking international law.
How many international laws did Israel violate?
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS: Laws Violated: Israel has violated 28 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (which are legally binding on member-nations U.N.
When did Israel legalize settlements?
During the 1970s, Israel's Supreme Court regularly ruled that the establishment of civilian settlements by military commanders was legal on the basis that they formed part of the territorial defense network and were considered temporary measures needed for military and security purposes.
When did the Israeli Supreme Court rule on settlements?
In 1978 and 1979 the Israeli Supreme court, prompted by the new government policies, ruled on two important cases that set out the requirements for Israeli settlement legality under international law.
What was the Israeli law in 1967?
Shortly after independence, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental principles of international law, accepted as binding by all civilized nations , were to be incorporated in the domestic legal system of Israel. In the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights. Theodor Meron, at the time the Israeli government's authority on the topic of international law and legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, was asked to provide a memorandum regarding the status in international law of proposed settlement of the territories, which he subsequently addressed to the Foreign Minister Abba Eban on 14 September 1967. He concluded that short-term military settlements would be permissible, but that "civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention," adding that the prohibition on any such population transfer was categorical, and that "civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention ." It follows from the presence on files of these notes, Gershom Gorenberg argues, that the Prime Minister at the time, Levi Eshkol, knew that Israeli settlements in the territories Israel had just occupied would violate international laws and that by that time Eshkol had been actively engaged in exploring the possibility of settling the newly conquered region. Meron's unequivocal legal opinion was marked top secret and not made public.
What did Ronald Reagan say about the settlements?
Notwithstanding the Hansell opinion, the official US position had been that the settlements are "an obstacle to peace". In February 1981, Ronald Reagan announced that he didn't believe that Israeli settlements in the West Bank were illegal. He added that "the UN resolution leaves the West Bank open to all people, Arab and Israeli alike". Hoping to achieve a peace deal, he nevertheless asked Israel to freeze construction calling the settlements an "obstacle to peace". The permissive attitude taken by America accelerated the pace of Israel's settlement programme. Reagan's view on the settlements legality was not held by the State Department. The George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations did not publicly comment on the legality of Israeli settlements, but spoke publicly against them. Since the Clinton administration, the U.S. has continued to object to the settlements, calling them "obstacles to peace" and prejudicial to the outcome of final status talks. Although President Barack Obama and diplomatic officials in his administration have stated, "the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," in February 2011 the U.S. vetoed a Security Council resolution that would have declared the settlements illegal. In December 2016, the U.S. abstained on a Security Council Resolution that declared that Israeli settlements are illegal and deemed their continuing construction a "flagrant violation" of international law. In abstaining, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power stated, "Today the Security Council reaffirmed its established consensus that the settlements have no legal validity. The United States has been sending a message that settlements must stop privately and publicly for nearly five decades." This position was United States policy and had been stated by Secretary of State John Kerry and by the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Obama administrations. In November 2019, the Trump administration expressly repudiated the Hansell opinion and stated that the United States considered the status of the settlements as being "not inconsistent with" international law. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also said: "The hard truth is that there will never be a judicial resolution to the conflict, and arguments about who is right and who is wrong as a matter of international law will not bring peace." However, Pompeo added that "the United States Government is expressing no view on the legal status of any individual settlement."
What article of the Geneva Convention is against the settlements?
Hansell concluded that the settlements are "inconsistent with international law", and against Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Hansell Memorandum found that " [w]hile 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."
Why did Israel take control of the West Bank?
It has been argued that Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of a defensive war. Former Israeli diplomat Dore Gold writes that:
Which country has always affirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention?
The International Committee of the Red Cross in a declaration of December 2001 stated that "the ICRC has always affirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied since 1967 by the state of Israel , including East Jerusalem".
What article of the Geneva Convention states that the Israeli settlements are inconsistent with international law?
Some of those asserting that Israeli settlements are inconsistent with international law contend that settlements violate Article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention that states, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”. However, Morris Abram, who was one of the ...
Which countries rejected the Israeli proposal?
Israel accepted the proposal and the Arab states rejected it.
What is Article 49?
However, Morris Abram, who was one of the drafters of the Convention, stated that Article 49 “was not designed to cover situations like Israeli settlements in the occupied territories but rather the forcible transfer, deportation or resettlement of large numbers of people.”.
What is the mandate of Palestine?
The Mandate of Palestine is an international legally binding document that was unanimously approved by all 51 members of the League of Nations in 1922. The Mandate worked toward implementing the Balfour Declaration’s objective of establishing a Jewish national home in the geographical area referred to as Palestine.
Where did ISRAELIS walk?
ISRAELIS WALK with flags in the Bat Ayin settlement in Gush Etzion on the West Bank, last month.
What happened after Jordan attacked Israel?
After Jordan attacked Israel on June 5, 1967, Israel managed to recapture the territory of the West Bank that it was allotted under the Mandate. Subsequently, Israel established Jewish communities in the West Bank, including in places that were destroyed during the 1948 war, such as Kfar Etzion.
What was the UN resolution that divided the land for a Jewish nation into two states?
On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) passed Resolution 181 , which recommended the partition of the land allotted for a Jewish national homeland into two states: a Jewish state and an Arab state. However, like all UNGA resolutions, UN Resolution 181 was merely a non-binding recommendation that carried no force of law.
Why was the re-acquisition of the territory by Israel legal?
This re-acquisition of the territory by Israel was legal because article 51 of the U.N. charter permits a nation to defend itself from attack. It is understood that national self-defense often necessitates control of any territory from which the initial aggression was launched.
Why can't Israel be an occupier?
Israel can’t be an occupier because it likely has superior title to the territory in the first place. Even if it had no title to the territory, the Fourth Geneva Convention can’t apply here. And even if it could apply here, Israel would be a legal occupier rather than an illegal one, since Israel hasn’t violated the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention (making the settlements legal rather than illegal). Lastly, even if Israel’s settlements were a violation of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Oslo Accords have given both Israel and the Palestinian Authority the right to live and build in their allotted jurisdictions.
What article of the UN charter forbids the acquisition of territory through war?
Furthermore, article 2 of the UN charter forbids the acquisition of territory through war. Thus, Jordan’s acquisition and annexation of the territory was illegal under international law. In 1967, Jordan again initiated war against Israel (along with two other Arab states) but Jordan was pushed out of the territory ...
Which article of the Fourth Geneva Convention gives the Palestinian Authority the right to live and build in their allotted jurisdictions?
Lastly, even if Israel’s settlements were a violation of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Oslo Accords have given both Israel and the Palestinian Authority the right to live and build in their allotted jurisdictions.
Is Israel an occupier of the Oslo Agreement?
So there you have it, in all the possible stages of the legal argument: Israel can’t be an occupier because it likely has superior title to the territory in the first place.
When did Israel become a state?
When Israel’s leaders declared sovereignty in all territory relinquished by Great Britain on May 15, 1948 (including the territory that anti-Israel people call the “West Bank”) it was recognized as the State of Israel by the General Assembly and Security Council by May1949 .
Did Israel win back territory?
Given the fact that Israel had legal title to the territory that was recognized by the international community and Israel’s final control of the territory was a result of self-defense rather than aggression, while Jordan’s control of the territory was never recognized as legitimate by the international community, common sense shows that Israel merely won back territory that legitimately belonged to it in the first place.
What does Shamir argue about the occupying power?
Shamir argues that this law only prevents the occupying power from forcing its own citizens into the territories it has conquered, i.e. in reaction to when Germany deported its Jewish citizens to the death camps in Poland and elsewhere, and not in cases of citizens voluntarily moving to the occupied territory.
Was the settlement in the territories always intended to be permanent?
It is abundantly clear to most observers that settlements built in the territories were always intended to eventually be permanent parts of the State of Israel. By DANIEL STEIMAN.
Is the settlement enterprise a violation of the IDF?
Thus, the settlement enterprise can be seen to be a grave violation ...
Is Israel a permanent state?
It is abundantly clear to most observers that the settlements built in the territories were always intended to eventually be permanent parts of the State of Israel. Under international law, the occupying power may temporarily requisition the private property of a civilian living under occupation only if it is done strictly for the purposes ...
Status of Settlements Under International Law
Settlements, Discrimination and Human Rights Violations
- States have a duty to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of people under their jurisdiction, including people living in territory that is outside national borders but under the effective control of the state. The ICJ confirmed that Israel is obliged to extend the application of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on Econo…
Sustained International Condemnation
- Most states and international bodies have long recognized that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. The European Union (EU) has clearly stated that: “settlement building anywhere in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law, constitutes an obstacle to peace and threatens to ...
Overview
The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal on one of two bases: that they are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, or that they are in breach of international declarations. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have …
Background
Shortly after independence, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental principles of international law, accepted as binding by all civilized nations, were to be incorporated in the domestic legal system of Israel. In the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights. Theodor Meron, at the time the Israeli government's authority on the topic of international law and legal counsel to the Is…
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, which was accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by all Arab nations. In 1948, Jordan captured and annexed the eastern half o…
International legal opinions
At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law. According to the BBC, as of 2008 every government in the world, except Israel, considered the settlements to be illegal. In November 2019, the United States said that it no longer views them as inconsistent with international law.
Legal arguments
Almost all international lawyers and every state but Israel regard the Geneva Conventions as part of customary international law, implying all states are duty bound to observe them. Israel alone challenges this premise, arguing that the West Bank and Gaza are "disputed territories", and that the Conventions do not apply because these lands did not form part of another state's sovereign territory, and that the transfer of Jews into areas like the West Bank is not a government act but …
Unauthorized or illegal outposts
In two cases decided shortly after independence (the Shimshon and Stampfer cases) the Israeli Supreme Court held that the fundamental rules of international law accepted as binding by all "civilized" nations were incorporated in the domestic legal system of Israel. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal had already determined that the articles annexed to the Hague IV Convention of 1907 were customary law, recognized by all civilized nations.
See also
• Israeli law in the West Bank settlements
• House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
• International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict
• West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord
Notes
1. ^ Playfair 1992, p. 396.
2. ^ Albin 2001, p. 150.
3. ^ Quigley 1999, p. 72.
4. ^ ReliefWeb 2016.
5. ^ Beaumont 2016.