First new settlement for 20 years?

[Humanity]

The Geneva Convention
It is widely accepted that under international law, the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are illegal.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war states:"The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies."

Within the international community the overwhelming view is that Article 49 is applicable to the occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.

Almost the entire international community, including allies of Israel, have referred to the situation in these territories as occupation.

The position that the 4th Geneva Convention does apply to the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights is supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, UN bodies, and the International Court of Justice.

Israel is a party to the Geneva Conventions, and bound by its obligations.
BBC News - The Geneva Convention

The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders.
Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Prohibited actions include forcibly transferring protected persons from the occupied territories to the territory of the occupying power.
It is unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention for an occupying power to transfer parts of its own population into the territory it occupies. This means that international humanitarian law prohibits the establishment of settlements, as these are a form of population transfer into occupied territory. Any measure designed to expand or consolidate settlements is also illegal. Confiscation of land to build or expand settlements is similarly prohibited.
What does the law say about the establishment of settlements in occupied territory? - ICRC

Every few months or so, I come across an op-ed on an Israeli or Jewish website that attempts to argue that the world’s uproar against settlements is illegitimate, and that settlements are perfectly legal under international law.

The latest such op-ed I read, about a month ago in this publication, was from Yair Shamir, the current Israeli minister of agriculture and son of the late Yitzchak Shamir.





While I do not dispute that there has always been an intense bias toward Israel when it comes to applying the standards of international law, this does not, however, change the fact that Israel’s settlement enterprise is, and has always been, grossly illegal under international law.
The settlements are illegal under international law

Though it's helpful to point out what some people cannot see, it is often good practice to let them 'learn' for themselves...

And of course, you already know the rebuttal that is going to come for this post don't you! ;-)

 

[Shusha]

Settlements are not illegal under international law. Indeed, settlements under prolonged belligerent occupation are universally accepted to be the norm and requiring the forced removal of people is unheard of. Except for Israel.

It isn’t just double standards. It is that the international community has created an artificial international law to apply only to Israel, even though that law simply doesn’t exist in other contexts. Not that it exists and is ignored – it doesn’t exist. When legal critics give their laundry lists of violations of international law by belligerent occupiers, they simply do not consider settlement activity to be illegal.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is a stupid question, but I answered it anyway. Perhaps someday you might try asking an intelligent question.

Are you daft? What was stupid about it?

That's a question no honest, intelligent person would ask.

You just said that Netanyahu and Trump have come to an agreement that the Israelis can build within existing settlements, but they cannot build new ones. Humanity posted a link about Netanyahu authorizing a new settlement. He asked why would Netanyahu do that if this is not part of the new agreement between Israel and the U.S. You said this was a stupid question. He asked why. Now take it up from there...

I explained in my previous post that this new community is provide a home for the residents of Amona who were dispossessed by an activist High Court. Th WH made an explicit statement that explained this is why it is not objecting to this new community but has requested Israel not authorize anymore new communities while the Trump administration tries to establish a regional peace between Israel and the Arab nations.

There are three messages here.

1. The fact that Trump doesn't object to any new construction within existing communities tells us he support Israel keeping all of its communities in Judea and Samaria if there is a final status agreement.

2. The fact that he is only asking Israel not to build new communities while he is trying to establish a regional peace between Israel and the Arab nations means he has no objections, per se, to new communities in Judea and Samaria, but wants a period of relative quiet in this regard while he is negotiating with the Arab nations.

3. The fact that he is only discussing the disputes between Israel and the Palestinians in the context of a regional peace with the Arab nations means that a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is no longer a separate agenda item for the US.

Well, it was your second post actually but who's arguing....

And it wasn't so difficult was it, saying that it is in fact a NEW settlement... (leaving the excuses behind of course)

So, one illegal settlement gets closed down for another illegal settlement to be built...

Makes perfect sense!

My response was addressed to another poster because clearly you are not capble of understanding anything.

 

[montelatici]

Settlements are not illegal under international law. Indeed, settlements under prolonged belligerent occupation are universally accepted to be the norm and requiring the forced removal of people is unheard of. Except for Israel.

It isn’t just double standards. It is that the international community has created an artificial international law to apply only to Israel, even though that law simply doesn’t exist in other contexts. Not that it exists and is ignored – it doesn’t exist. When legal critics give their laundry lists of violations of international law by belligerent occupiers, they simply do not consider settlement activity to be illegal.

Hasbara strikes again. But here are the facts:

International Court of Justice


"78. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

120. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law."

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf