What is the legal status of Israeli settlements in the West Bank from Israel's point of veiw?

First of all, the international law is clear about the illegal status of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem:
"Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development and have been established in breach of international law."
International Court of Justice Ruling, July 9, 2004.
The Geneva Convention clearly states that the occupying power should not transfer its civilians into the area it occupies. Both Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have characterized the settlements as a violation of international law.
"the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories (occupied by Israel in 1967) is inconsistent with international law"
(The Legal Adviser of the Department of State to the United States Congress 1978)

The problem faced Israel in 1967 when they came in control of the West Bank which was populated by more than 1 million native Palestinian was::
1-How to apply Israeli law to the Jewish settlements while the West Bank is not under Israeli sovereignty.
2-How to avoid applying Israeli law to the Palestinians in the est Bank
3-How to reconcile this unusual legal situation with international law.
To solve the first problem, Israel extended its laws extra-territorially thereby giving Jewish settlements a different legal status. Extra-territoriality was established through regular laws passed by the Knesset and by military orders. Military orders established a separate administration for the settlements, in the form of local councils. These Jewish local councils on the West Bank enjoy, under the law, a far greater measure of autonomy than the Palestinian village councils. The Jewish councils are permitted to elect their own leaders while the mayors of Palestinian villages are appointed by the Israeli military commander. These mayors of Palestinian villages are usually Israeli military reserve officers or carefully selected quislings. Jewish councils have also been empowered to exercise wider functions and have greater latitude to impose taxes than is the case in Palestinian villages. The most significant restriction, which applies solely to Palestinian villages, is the need to request permission from the military authorities to borrow money and accept gifts. Jewish settlements have no such restriction. Jewish councils have also receive state services. The budgetary allocations for these exclusive services is included in the budget of the Israeli ministries.
The means by which Israel avoids applying Israeli law to the Palestinians et still retains judicial control over the West Bank is through a three-tiered judicial systems.
1) The existing local courts. These courts have had most of the jurisdiction stripped away and, furthermore, are in need of improvements concerning court services, inspections and other areas of modernization. Israeli has no interest in improving their efficiency.
2)The military courts and tribunals. This system is highly efficient. The Palestinian offenders before military courts have no absolute right of legal representation. Israel claims that they do have such a right but the relevant order, Military Order 29, says that the right to legal representation is subject to the discretion of the Israeli prison commander. Furthermore, Palestinian offenders are presented with judgments based on confessions or statements written in Hebrew (a language that few can understand). Judgments by the military courts are not subject to appeal outside the military judicial system.
3) Israeli civilian courts in the West Bank. These courts may try Israeli settlers in criminal matters.

Israel in order to accomplish its goals in the West Bank uses regional schemes and road planning to cut Palestinians from one another and prevent them from developing their land. Israel also uses number of methods land acquisition which includes declaring property to be abandoned or closed for military purposes. Israel confers on the Palestinians in the West Bank a legal status equivalent to that of alien residents with none of the rights, privileges, and guarantees normally enjoyed by nationals or permanent residents. Those Palestinians who were outside their homes in 1967 do not have any status. Israel pursues policies of harassment and intimidation of the population and denial of its basic human rights.

Israel severely restricts the Palestinians who are unable to enter a sizable portion of their own country. There are special restrictions which limit the Palestinians freedom of movement. For example The use of general curfews applies only to Palestinians; Jews are not affected. In addition to the large amount of land seized from Palestinians Israel is also stealing Palestinian resources from water. Palestinians are allotted only a quarter of the region's water while the rest is piped to Israel. Israel also enjoys open markets in the West Bank. The West Bank is one of the largest export market for Israel. .There are no trade barriers to restrict the selling of Israeli goods to Palestinian markets but Israeli law prohibit Palestinian goods, competitive with Israeli products from being sold in Israel. Israel also restricts Palestinian access to money loans in the occupied territories.

Those which were built on the undisputably our land with the corresonding permits will stay our cities, like Kiryat Arba or Kiryat Gat.

Those which were built on undisputably our land but without the corresponding legalization will be legalized.

Those which were built on the territory under dispute will wait until the results of the talks. If arabs are reasonable, they will be desmantled. If arabs are NOT reasonable... Well, we shall have more cities.

Your statement that " the legal definition(of Apartheid) makes no distinction between actions within a country's borders or in an occupied territory". First of all, there is not " a legal definition of Apartheid", as there is no legal definition of terrorism. If you pretend on the role of an expert in the International Law, you should know such basic things. If you´re going to move forward the definition by the ICC as "legal", then let me remind you that the leading world powers, such as USA, Rusia, China, India have not signed it, as well as all the arab countries - and Israel.
Hope you will save me the time and effort of explaining to you what it means?
Second. The Internationa Law, to your disappointment, makes a very clear distinction between "actions within a country's borders or in an occupied territory". If you´d bother to open the original text of the IV Geneva Convention, you would understand that there is a lot of a difference between what a country can do on its territory and with its citizens- and on the occupied territory with the population who are NOT its citizens, and especially if this territory was occupied in the result of the defensive war. In order to make the answer as short as possible, just some extracts of the IV Geneva Convention.
You together with other ignorant arabs often scream about how it´s forbidden "by the International Law" to attack military targets if there is a civilian population close. The Art. 28 of the IV Geneva Convention states clearly: The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

You also blame Israel of the "violations of the International law" for striking a school which you used as a launching pad for your missiles and which you, like cowards ,surrouned with civilians using them as human shield.

Article 51 of the 1977 amendment to the 1949 Geneva Conventions :
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objects from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations.

Have a nice day, "expert".

Well, is an apatheid state basically a country that doesn't let certain people vote? The territories are highly disputed. Today, I skimmed through a book about Israel's old ties with South Africa. Apparently the 1967 war Israel had with the other arab nations resulted in a surprise victory for Israel. The Israelis won the territory by defeating their Arab enemies, but that wasn't even Israel's goals, since they didn't really want that territory in the first place.

P.S. by "Jewish Only" you must be referring exclusively to the Orthodox settlements right?
Russia military history is a good parrellal here. Just like Israel, Russia would be attacked by enemies, and Russia would, just like Israel, defend itself so well that it unwittingly "wins" buffer territory beyond its borders in the process. So essentially, Israel's best offense was a defense.

But, as the story goes, Israel wanted to end the war of 1967 as soon as possible. Once it won the territory, and it was clear that they were going to win the war, Israel wanted a peace treaty to stop any further and unnecessary bloodshed. Israel *was* going to give the territory back to the Arab states in exchange for an end to the war, but for whatever reason, the Arabs declined the '67 offer.

So now it's a sticky situation, The land didn't originally belong to Israel, but it definitely didn't belong to Palestinians either, but rather the respective nations who lost their land in a war.

I'd compare this to the Mexican American War, but even then, Texans (as ridiculous as this sounds) have a more valid precedent for deserving sovereignty.

What are the legal status of Settlers in the West Bank? Well they're technically Illegal, everyone, even most Israelis, think so. That's why they're called Illegal settlements. Israel proper is not apartheid or theocratic.

Read the article that Shalit found. http://greywolf.instablogs.com/entry/wha...

Edited:
Israeli settlement in West Bank are legally approved by Israeli law. Plus people who live there are not subject to some taxes. To encourage settlement. West Bank & Gaza are seen as Israeli territory, which are disputed.


Settlements are legal, Apartheid does not apply. Did you read the article???


Palestinians do live in West Bank & Gaza - i don't have to assert it

Though many legal sources claim that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal, the fact remains that the right of Jewish settlement in those lands was guaranteed by the Mandate for Palestine of the League of Nations. This territory was never part of any other sovereign state and its final legal status is subject to negotiations that must be concluded between the competing parties. Until such time as there is a peace accord which gives one side or the other sovereignty in this territory, it is inaccurate to refer to this land as belonging to one side or another.

EDIT:
Israeli settlements in the West Bank are legal both under international law and the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Claims to the contrary are mere attempts to distort the law for political purposes. Yet whatever the status of the settlements, their existence should never be used to justify terrorism.

The various agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians since 1993 contain no prohibitions on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, they specifically provide that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, which are to take place in the concluding stage of the peace talks. The parties expressly agreed that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction or control over settlements or Israelis, pending the conclusion of a permanent status agreement.

As the Israeli claim to these territories is legally valid, it is just as legitimate for Israelis to build their communities as it is for the Palestinians to build theirs. Yet in the spirit of compromise, successive Israeli governments have indicated their willingness to negotiate the issue and have adopted a voluntary freeze on the building of new settlements as a confidence-building measure.

Furthermore, Israel had established its settlements in the West Bank in accordance with international law. Attempts have been made to claim that the settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which forbids a state from deporting or transferring "parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." However, this allegation has no validity in law as Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories.

Although Israel has voluntarily taken upon itself the obligation to uphold the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel maintains that the Convention (which deals with occupied territories) was not applicable to the disputed territory. As there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign in either the West Bank or Gaza prior to the 1967 Six Day War, they cannot be considered to have become "occupied territory" when control passed into the hands of Israel.

Yet even if the Fourth Geneva Convention were to apply to the territories, Article 49 would not be relevant to the issue of Jewish settlements. The Convention was drafted immediately following the Second World War, against the background of the massive forced population transfers that occurred during that period. As the International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, Article 49 (entitled "Deportations, Transfers, Evacuations") was intended to prevent the forcible transfer of civilians, thereby protecting the local population from displacement. Israel has not forcibly transferred its citizens to the territory and the Convention does not place any prohibition on individuals voluntarily choosing their place of residence. Moreover, the settlements are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice. According to independent surveys, the built-up areas of the settlements (not including roads or unpopulated adjacent tracts) take up about 3% of the total territory of the West Bank.

Israel's use of land for settlements conforms to all rules and norms of international law. Privately owned lands are not requisitioned for the establishment of settlements. In addition, all settlement activity comes under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel (sitting as the High Court of Justice) and every aggrieved inhabitant of the territories, including Palestinian residents, can appeal directly to this Court.

Israeli settlement is the West Bank are illegal.
But Jewish villages and towns in Judea are of course legal.
West Bank? I don't see this country on any map before 1948???

israel is a law unto themselves. they have AIPAC to keep america quiet. unfortunately they continually violate the law of man and god which never has a happy ending.

The answer is in our 'doing's'

You might want to read this !!

Although many substantive legal arguments support the right of Israelis to build in Judea, Samaria (the West Bank) and eastern Jerusalem, Israeli communities are accused of being "illegal," according to international law. But, what is this "law" and who decided that Israel was guilty?

UN Resolutions? They are not laws, or sources of law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), is the UN's primary judicial organ. Its advisory opinions are only recommendations, and, although they are influential, are not proper legal decisions. Unable to get a fair hearing before the ICJ, Israel does not appear there.

In fact, the UN Charter (Article 10) does not grant the General Assembly, or the ICJ the authority to determine the ownership of disputed territories - although it does.

"The law" is the Fourth Geneva Convention - one of the most important sources of conventional international and humanitarian law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the official "guardian," of GC IV, meeting secretly at their headquarters in Geneva, in 1971, unilaterally decided that Israeli communities built in areas acquired by Israel as a result of the Six Day War "violated" GC IV and were therefore, "illegal."

Because ICRC rulings are considered authoritative, they are used by the international community to condemn Israeli "settlements," and "occupation."

The legal status of Palsetine, designated as the "Jewish national homeland," was established by the League of Nations (1920), San Remo Agreements (1920) and British Mandate, and endorsed by the US Congress; that was "the law," and remains so today, despite the ICRC.

ICRC and UN Resolutions declare that "Israeli settlements are illegal;" they don't say, however, to whom this territory belongs. Palsetinian leaders have said they will declare sovereignty and ask for UN recognition. But, with the PA divided between Fatah and Hamas, its leadership shaky, who rules, and who will rule in the future?

Arab leaders themselves can't decide about a second Arab Palsetinian state -- the first was Transjordan, established in 1921, two-thirds of whose population is Palsetinian - since that means accepting Israel; none are willing to give up the "Palsetinian right of return," control of eastern Jerusalem, and eliminating settlements.

UN recognition of the PLO, beginning in 1974, six months after it massacred school-children in Ma'alot, provided legitimacy, but the PLO - "the sole representative of the Palestinian people" -- has rejected the "two-state-solution" as an end-of-conflict. Its Charter, calling for the elimination of Israel by force, remains unchanged.

The Oslo Accords (1993), Hebron Agreement (1997), Wye River Accords (1998) and Gaza Disengagement (2005), which gave the PA large areas of Judea, Samaria and all of Gaza and placed nearly all Arab residents of these areas under PA rule, "land-for-peace," provided the basis for self-government, and eventual statehood.

Legal questions regarding Jewish presence in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem remain; the ICRC's decisions, therefore, are crucial.

Since ICRC deliberations and protocols are secret, however, there is no way of knowing how they arrived at their decisions, nor is there any possibility of appeal.

The ICRC's unique interpretation, contrary to the obvious intent and purpose of GC IV, was designed specifically to thwart Israeli settlements; it was never applied in a comparable situation elsewhere.

Many prominent jurists and the Israeli government have rejected charges of "illegality" and "occupation," arguing that the provisions of GC IV do not apply, and that, at best, these areas should be called "disputed, " subject to negotiations.

Despite the ICRC's refusal to open its archives and explain itself, in defiance of all democratic and judicial norms of conduct, accountable to no one, and deliberately distorting facts, their decisions are widely accepted as law. We need to know how and why the ICRC made those decisions. What are they hiding, and why?

Opposing Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem may be politically expedient, a convenient charge to indict Israel, but assaulting their legality is baseless