Editing Israeli settlement (section)

=== Legality arguments ===
Four prominent jurists cited the concept of the "sovereignty vacuum" in the immediate aftermath of the Six-Day War to describe the legal status of the West Bank and Gaza:<ref>Howard Grief, ''The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law,'' Mazo Publishers, p. 662. cf. p. 191.</ref> [[Yehuda Zvi Blum]] in 1968,<ref>''The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria,'' in Israel Law Review,3 1968 pp. 279–301.</ref> [[Elihu Lauterpacht]] in 1968,<ref>''Jerusalem and the Holy Places,'' Anglo-Israel Association, London 1968.</ref> [[Julius Stone]] in 1969<ref>Julius Stone,''No Peace-No War in the Middle East,'' Maitland Publications, Sydney 1969.</ref> and 1981,<ref>Julius Stone, ''Israel and Palestine:Assault on the Law of Nations,'' Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1981.</ref> and [[Stephen M. Schwebel]] in 1970.<ref>Stephen M. Schwebel, ''What Weight to Conquest'', in [[American Journal of International Law]], vol.64, 1970 pp. 344–347.</ref> [[Eugene V. Rostow]] also argued in 1979 that the occupied territories' legal status was undetermined.<ref>''Palestinian Self-Determination: Possible Futures for the Unallocated Territories of the Palestine Mandate,'' Yale Studies in World Public Order, 147 (1978–1979) vol.5 1978 pp. 147–172.</ref>
*[[Stephen M. Schwebel]]<ref name="Schwebel">{{cite book|title=Justice in International Law: Selected Writings (What Weight to Conquest?)|pages=[https://archive.org/details/justiceininterna0000schw/page/521 521–526]|author=Stephen M. Schwebel|author-link=Stephen M. Schwebel|isbn=978-0-521-46284-6|year=1994|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|url=https://archive.org/details/justiceininterna0000schw/page/521}}</ref> made three distinctions specific to the Israeli situation to claim that the territories were seized in self-defense and that Israel has more title to them than the previous holders.
*[[Julius Stone]] also wrote that "Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense."<ref name="stone">{{cite book|title=Israel and Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations|author=Julius Stone|isbn=978-0-9751073-0-0|page=52|year=1982|publisher=Dashing|author-link=Julius Stone}}</ref> He argued that it would be an "irony bordering on the absurd" to read Article 49(6) as meaning that the State of Israel was obliged to ensure (by force if necessary) that areas with a millennial association with Jewish life shall be forever ''"[[Judenfrei|judenrein]]"''.<ref>[http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-illegal-settlements-myth/ Illegal-Settlements Myth] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120127225831/http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-illegal-settlements-myth/ |date=27 January 2012 }}, ''[[Commentary (magazine)|Commentary]]'' magazine</ref>
Professor Ben Saul took exception to this view, arguing that Article 49(6) can be read to include voluntary or assisted transfers, as indeed it was in the advisory opinion of the [[International Court of Justice]] which had expressed this interpretation in the [[Israeli West Bank barrier|Israeli Wall Advisory Opinion (2003)]].<ref>Ben Saul, Director, Sydney Centre for International Law, Faculty of Law, The University of Sydney, [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1485056## ''Julius Stone and the Question of Palestine in International Law'' p. 11. Retrieved 23 December 2011]</ref>

Israel maintains that a temporary use of land and buildings for various purposes is permissible under a plea of military necessity and that the settlements fulfilled security needs.<ref name=":0">Kretzmer, David ''The occupation of justice: the Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories,'' SUNY Press, 2002, {{ISBN|978-0-7914-5337-7}}, {{ISBN|978-0-7914-5337-7}}, page 83</ref> Israel argues that its settlement policy is consistent with international law, including the [[Fourth Geneva Convention]], while recognising that some settlements have been constructed illegally on private land.<ref name="Harel">{{cite news|last=Harel|first=Amos|title=Settlements grow on Arab land, despite promises made to U.S.|url=http://www.haaretz.com/news/settlements-grow-on-arab-land-despite-promises-made-to-u-s-1.203258|work=Haaretz 24 October 2006|publisher=Haaretz|access-date=14 September 2010|date=24 October 2006|archive-date=22 May 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110522073205/http://www.haaretz.com/news/settlements-grow-on-arab-land-despite-promises-made-to-u-s-1.203258|url-status=live}}</ref> The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the power of the Civil Administration and the Military Commander in the occupied territories is limited by the entrenched customary rules of public international law as codified in the Hague Regulations.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Kretzmer|first=David|title=The occupation of justice: the Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories|year=2002|publisher=SUNY Press|isbn=978-0-7914-5337-7|page=87|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_Thjg-0dut0C&pg=PA87}}</ref><ref>{{Cite SSRN |title=Israel Chapter for Book Entitled 'The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study'|first=David|last=Kretzmer|date=27 October 2008|ssrn=1290714}}</ref><ref>*Helmreich, Jeffrey. [http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-16.htm Diplomatic and Legal Aspects of the Settlement Issue] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060614213710/http://jcpa.org/brief/brief2-16.htm |date=14 June 2006 }}, Jerusalem Issue Brief, [[Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs]], Vol. 2, No. 16, 19 January 2003.
*[http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/2/DISPUTED+TERRITORIES-+Forgotten+Facts+About+the+We.htm Disputed territories – Forgotten facts about the West Bank and Gaza strip] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100402122906/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/2/DISPUTED+TERRITORIES-+Forgotten+Facts+About+the+We.htm |date=2 April 2010 }}, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1 February 2003. Retrieved 29 January 2008.</ref> In 1998 the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs produced "The International Criminal Court Background Paper".<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/1990_1999/1998/7/the%20international%20criminal%20court%20-%20background%20pape| title = 30 July 1998, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs produced "The International Criminal Court Background Paper" Retrieved 13 May 2007| access-date = 4 September 2010| archive-date = 24 May 2011| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110524025919/http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/1990_1999/1998/7/the%20international%20criminal%20court%20-%20background%20pape| url-status = live}}</ref> It concludes<blockquote>International law has long recognised that there are crimes of such severity they should be considered "international crimes." Such crimes have been established in treaties such as the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions... The following are Israel's primary issues of concern [i.e. with the rules of the ICC]: The inclusion of settlement activity as a "war crime" is a cynical attempt to abuse the Court for political ends. The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law.</blockquote>

A UN conference was held in Rome in 1998, where Israel was one of seven countries to vote against the Rome Statute to establish the [[International Criminal Court]]. Israel was opposed to a provision that included as a war crime the transfer of civilian populations into territory the government occupies.<ref>{{cite news| url = http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/warcrimes/icc1.html| title = The International Criminal Court (CBC News (Canada), 9 July 2004)| access-date = 30 October 2011| archive-date = 29 July 2011| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110729192227/http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/warcrimes/icc1.html| url-status = live}}</ref> Israel has signed the statute, but not ratified the treaty.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/6/Israel%20and%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070516021101/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/6/Israel%20and%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court|title=Israel and the International Criminal Court (Office of the Legal Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel), June 2002)|archive-date=16 May 2007}}</ref>