This article is intended neither as an argument for, nor against, Israel retaining some or all of the West bank settlements . Rather it urges that any discussion of the subject be based on the facts. Though some authorities maintain that its presence on the West Bank is legal, Israel may nevertheless decide  to relinquish legal claims in an agreed territorial compromise in the interests of peace.

Although Jerusalem and the West Bank, (Judea and Samaria), were illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948 they remained in effect part of the Jewish National Home that had been created at San Remo. In the 1967 6-Day War Israel, in effect, recovered territory that legally belonged to it.

The late Prof. Julius Stone reinforces the claim that the areas are not occupied: He wrote, “ Israel‘s presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence.  International law forbids acquisition by unlawful force, but not where, as in the case of Israel’s self-defence in 1967, the entry on the territory was lawful. It does  not so forbid it, in particular, when the force is used to stop an aggressor, for the effect of such prohibition would be to guarantee to all potential aggressors that,  even if their aggression failed, all territory lost in the attempt would be  automatically returned to them. Such a rule would be absurd to the point of lunacy. There is no such rule"….

Resolution 242 (http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id127.html ). Since 242 is a security council decision it is legally binding unlike resolutions of the GA that are mere recommendations. Obviously the most reliable sources from whom to seek clarification are the persons who played key roles in drafting the resolution, including Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Eugene Rostow. In an article in The New Republic, "Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies," (Oct. 21, 1991) Rostow wrote that it was explicitly agreed that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' Armistice Demarcation Lines, but to secure and recognized boundaries.  For this reason, the word “the” was deliberately omitted in the call for “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” not from all the territories.

    Judge Schwebel, a former President of the ICJ, who pronounced “As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem.” (See Appendix A and http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id248.html )



    Professor Julius Stone, one of the twentieth century's leading authorities on the Law of Nations. See http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id160.html



    Eugene W. Rostow, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969 who played a leading role in producing the famous Resolution 242.
    See http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id45.html



    Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish Canadian lawyer who spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem leading to the conclusion on purely legal grounds, ignoring religious claims that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28qwcVPNy3E
    and http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125049#.TkAg4mGuySo



    William M. Brinton, who appealed against a US district court's withholding of State Department documents concerning US policy on issues involving Israel and the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip. He showed that none of these areas fall within the definition of "occupied territories” and that any claim that the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, or both, is a Palestinian homeland to which the Palestinians have a 'legitimate right' lacks substance and does not survive legal analysis. According to Mr. Brinton no state, other than Israel, can show a better title to the West Bank.





    Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE QC., the British specialist in international law, who concludes inter alia that sovereignty over Jerusalem already vested in Israel when the 1947 partition proposals were rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression.



·         Simon H. Rifkind,  Judge of the United States District Court, New York who wrote an in depth analysis “The basic equities of the Palestine problem” (Ayer Publishing, 1977) that was signed by Jerome N. Frank, Judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals Second Circuit; Stanley H. Fuld, Judge of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York; Abrahan  Tulin, member of the New York Bar; Milton Handler, Professor of law, Columbia University; Murray L. Gurfein, member of the New York Bar; Abe Fortas, former Undersecretary of Interior of the United States and Lawrence R. Eno, member of the New York Bar. They jointly stated that justice and equity are on the side of the Jews in this document that they described as set out in the form of a lawyer’s brief.

War crimes. Ironically, Ms. Ashrawi’s reference to war crimes under the Rome Statute is particularly appropriate not to Israel, but to Hamas who are guilty of the following war crimes as defined by Article 8 of the statute

    Wilful killing;
    Torture or inhuman treatment and willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial as in the deprivation of POW rights to Gilad Shalit
    Taking of hostages.
    Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
    Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives
    Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated
    Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives or persons
    Declaring that no quarter will be given
    Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations
    Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities
    The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

The most majority of the settlements has been there for decades and was built on empty land and did not move anybody.

What are you asking SOB? Why would people settle on empty land?

Somehow I doubt that is what is meant by 'empty' in this context. Do you really think Avram is saying they kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and built other homes in the backyards?

Think about it.

Are you asking why people would settle on empty land?

adelcrow wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 3:55pm:


It is not just any land.
Israel is the Jewish hone land. It is given by God himself to the Jews.
There are many Jews in New York we could have this.

But no it is Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa. Where Jews belong.