In 1978 and 1979, the Israeli Supreme Court, inspired by the new government policy, ruled on two important cases in which the requirements for the legality of Israeli settlements under international law were established. In Ayauub et al.c. Minister of Defence (Beit-El Toubas case), the Court concluded that the Hague Conventions, but not the Geneva Conventions, can be applied by Israeli courts in matters of land and settlements in the occupied territories. The following year, the court ruled on Dwikat et al. against the government of Israel (the case of Elon Moreh) and set the limits of the Hague Conventions for the Acquisition of Israeli Land and Settlements. Settlements, whether on private or public land, cannot be considered permanent, nor permanently confiscated, but only temporarily. Settlements on private land were legal only if they were classified as a military necessity; The original owner has retained ownership of the land and must receive a rental fee for its use. Ownership of public lands cannot be alienated or its fundamental character altered. [24] [25] The PA has long opposed settlement expansion in the West Bank, which it says threatens Palestinian efforts to establish a viable palestinian state contiguous with its capital in East Jerusalem. Bradley Burston said a negotiated or unilateral withdrawal from most West Bank settlements in Israel is gaining ground.
[319] Since the beginning of his presidency in January 2017, Donald Trump has shown a much more tolerant attitude towards settlement activities than his predecessor Barack Obama. Under EU law, a distinction must be made between goods originating in Israel and goods originating in the occupied territories. Before the meeting began, Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and Poland reiterated in a joint statement that “all settlement activities are illegal under international law.” After the meeting, the ambassadors of the 10 non-permanent members of the Council for a two-year term issued a joint statement: On November 18, 2019, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo expressed the Trump administration`s position that “the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not in itself incompatible with international law.” Violent attacks on olive trees appear to be facilitated by the Israeli authorities` seemingly systematic refusal to allow Palestinians to visit their own groves, sometimes for years, especially in cases where the groves are considered too close to the settlements. [250] We call on the Israeli government to stop the construction of settlements and not to pursue the announced tenders. Another accusation is that the settlements are “illegal”. In 2004, an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel had violated its obligations under international law by establishing settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and that Israel could not invoke a right of self-defence or a state of necessity to exclude illegitimacy from the imposition of a regime. which is contrary to international law. Paragraph 120 of its 2004 opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territories states that article 49(6) “does not only prohibit the forced evictions or resettlement of the population. but also all measures taken by an occupying Power to organize or promote the transfer of part of its own population to the occupied territory”. The 13 judges all agreed on this point.
[42] The Court also found that the Israeli regime violates the fundamental rights of Palestinians by impeding the freedom of movement of residents of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (excluding Israeli citizens) and their exercise of the right to work, health, education and a decent standard of living. [43] [o] Historical documents show that with the exception of Egypt and Jordan, Arab states and Palestinians were categorical regardless of the level of settlement activity. One of the reasons is the belief that time is on their side. Arabic writings often highlight how long it took to expel the Crusaders, and how it might take a similar time to do the same with the Zionists. The final status proposals called for the maintenance of long-established communities along the Green Line and the transfer of the same amount of land in Israel to the Palestinian state. Cassese argues that although Israel`s initial occupation of West Jerusalem may have been carried out in an act of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, this did not give the region a legal claim because of the general prohibition in international law on acquiring sovereignty through military conquest. It also considers that “mere silence” cannot constitute the consent of the United Nations to the acquisition of sovereignty by Israel or Jordan because of their de facto control over Jerusalem. Cassese concludes that “at least one tacit manifestation of consent through conclusive actions would have been necessary”, while the relevant acts as they took place confirm that such consent to the transfer of sovereignty was not given.
[125] For McHugo, Lauterpacht`s view that the events of 1947-1948 left no trace of an orderly decentralization of sovereignty does not support the conclusion, in light of Resolution 242, that Israel was subsequently allowed to consolidate the title in subsequent conflicts. .