The Israeli Case for Settlements

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention forbids an Occupying Power from transferring its own citizens into the occupied territory. The Israeli Government claims that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are "disputed" - not "occupied" - territories, so that the Convention does not apply to them.

They maintain that -

• The settlements are not permanent.
• Their purpose is partly defensive. Some were established as military outposts run by the Israeli Army. If the settlements had not been established their place would be taken by armed soldiers.
• The occupied territories have never been politically independent. Before the Six-Day War (which the Israelis consider essentially a defensive war, not a war of conquest), the Gaza Strip was illegally occupied by Egypt; the West Bank and East Jerusalem were illegally occupied by Jordan. They were part of Mandate Palestine and should now be part of Israel.
• The Article 49 prohibition of transfer applies to deportation, not to voluntary emigration. This is clear from the drafting of Article 49. In fact Israel has merely permitted - not forced - its citizens to choose to make their homes in the West Bank.
• The Israeli right to settle in the West Bank is based on the League of Nations Mandate, preserved by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter. The Fourth Geneva Convention does not override this right.
• It cannot be claimed that the settlements are built on Jordanian territory since Jordan had no right, under International Law, to the West Bank. It cannot be maintained that the settlements are built on Palestinian land since the boundaries of Palestine are yet to be defined and must be determined as part of the peace process.
• Palestinians agreed, in the Oslo Accords, that Israel should retain control of their settlements in Area C pending a final decision in the peace process.