1. Final Paper
About the Israeli Settlements
& their legal & political impacts
Presented by:
Abd elHamied ELRafie
To Professer Camilo Perez Bustillo
For the course of
International Organizations
Of the Masters Program for
International Relations
Alliant University

2. Introduction:
Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by Israelis in territory that was occupied
during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, which
is partially under Israeli military administration] and partially under the control of the
Palestinian National Authority, and in the Golan Heights, which are under Israeli civilian
administration.
The term sometimes includes communities in territory that was captured in 1967, but has
since been under Israeli civil law, administration and jurisdiction in
• East Jerusalem, which is incorporated within the municipal borders of Jerusalem,
though this de jure annexation under the Jerusalem Law is not recognized by the
international community; and
• The Golan Heights, where military rule was revoked in 1981 and has since been
under Israeli civil law, administration and jurisdiction under the Golan Heights
Law.
An additional eighteen settlements formerly existed in the Sinai Peninsula, twenty-one in
the Gaza Strip and four in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank. They were
abandoned as part of Israeli withdrawals from these areas in 1982 (Sinai) and 2005.
A number of international bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, the
International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch and many legal scholars have characterized the settlements as a violation of
international law, but other legal scholars, Israel, and the Anti-Defamation League
disagree with this assessment.
Israeli policies toward these settlements have ranged from active promotion to removal
by force, and their continued existence and status since the 1970s is one of the most
contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Legal status of the territories
Although all areas in question were captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel
has treated them in three different ways:
“East Jerusalem” - Jerusalem and its surroundings were envisioned as an international
area under United Nations administration in the 1947 partition plan. In 1948, Jordan
captured and annexed the eastern half of Jerusalem, while Israel captured and annexed
the west. Following the Six-Day War in 1967 Israel annexed the eastern part, together
with several villages around it.
The Israeli Golan Heights Law of 1981 applied Israel’s “laws, jurisdiction and
administration” in the Golan Heights, which were captured from Syria in 1967 . Israel has
not stated that it has “annexed” the area.

3. The Gaza Strip and West Bank, a section of the areas awarded by the UN to a prospective
Arab state of Palestine, remained in Arab hands while the rest of that area was captured
by Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The former was administered by Egypt while the
latter was annexed by Jordan.
The annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights Law have both been deemed
illegal by the UN Security Council (resolutions 267 and 497 respectively), and have not
been recognized by other states.
Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt (removing all Israeli settlements and returning
the Sinai Peninsula to Egyptian sovereignty), and Jordan (returning small sections to
Jordanian sovereignty); there are currently no peace treaties governing Israel’s borders
related to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. Israel therefore asserts
that the armistice lines (known as the Green Line) of 1949 have no other legal status.
Palestinians object to this view as the Israel-Jordan peace treaty was not to alter the status
of any territories coming under Israeli control during the hostilities of 1967 (article 3(2)
of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty)
Legal status of the settlements
The establishment and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
have been described as “having no legal validity” by the UN Security Council in
resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471. These resolutions were made under Chapter VI of the
United Nations Charter which relates to the “Pacific Settlement of Disputes” between
parties, and as such have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to
have no binding force under international law
UNSC resolutions in this regard:
1. Resolution 452 (1979)
of 20 July 1979
The Security Council,
Taking note of the report and recommendations of the Security Council Commission
established under resolution 446 (1979) to examine the situation relating to settlements in
the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, contained in document
S/13450,
Strongly deploring the lack of co-operation of Israel with the Commission,
Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab
territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva
Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August
1949,

4. Deeply concerned by the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that
settlements policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its
consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,
Emphasizing the need for confronting the issue of the existing settlements and the need to
consider measures to safeguard the impartial protection of property seized,
Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem, and reconfirming pertinent Security
Council resolutions concerning Jerusalem and in particular the need to protect and
preserve the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in that city,
Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlements policy is bound to
have on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East,
1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report on the
establishment of Israeli settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including
Jerusalem;
2. Accepts the recommendations contained in the above-mentioned report of the
Commission;
3. Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the
establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied
since 1967, including Jerusalem;
4. Requests the Commission, in view of the magnitude of the problem of settlements, to
keep under close survey the implementation of the present resolution and to report back
to the Security Council before 1 November 1979.
Adopted at the 2159th meeting by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (United States of
America).
Resolution 465 (1980)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2203rd meeting
on 1 March 1980
The Security Council,
Taking note of the reports of the Commission of the Security Council established under
resolution 446 (1979) to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab
territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, contained in documents S/13450
and Corr. 1 and S/13679,
Taking note also of letters from the Permanent Representative of Jordan (S/13801) and
the Permanent Representative of Morocco, Chairman of the Islamic Group (S/13802),

5. Strongly deploring the refusal by Israel to co-operate with the Commission and regretting
its formal rejection of resolutions 446 (1979) and 452 (1979),
Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories
occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
Deploring the decision of the Government of Israel to officially support Israeli settlement
in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967,
Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that
settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its
consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,
Taking into account the need to consider measures for the impartial protection of private
and public land and property, and water resources,
Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection
and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the
city,
Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlement policy is bound to
have on any attempt to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,
Recalling pertinent Security Council resolutions, specifically resolutions 237 (1967) of
14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15
September 1969 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, as well as the consensus
statement made by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976,
Having invited Mr. Fahd Qawasmeh, Mayor of Al-Khalil (Hebron), in the occupied
territory, to supply it with information pursuant to rule 39 of the provisional rules of
procedure,
1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report contained in
document S/13679;
2. Accepts the conclusions and recommendations contained in the above-mentioned
report of the Commission;
3. Calls upon all parties, particularly the Government of Israel, to co-operate with the
Commission;
4. Strongly deplores the decision of Israel to prohibit the free travel of Mayor Fahd
Qawasmeh in order to appear before the Security Council, and requests Israel to permit
his free travel to the United Nations headquarters for that purpose;

6. 5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character,
demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other
Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no
legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and
new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva
Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also
constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in
the Middle East
6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies
and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those
measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent
basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories
occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in
connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;
8. Requests the Commission to continue to examine the situation relating to settlements in
the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, to investigate the reported
serious depletion of natural resources, particularly the water resources, with a view to
ensuring the protection of those important natural resources of the territories under
occupation, and to keep under close scrutiny the implementation of the present
resolution;
9. Requests the Commission to report to the Security Council before 1 September 1980,
and decides to convene at the earliest possible date thereafter in order to consider the
report and the full implementation of the present resolution
.
Resolution 446 (1979)
of 22 March 1979
The Security Council,
Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representative of Jordan and other
statements made before the Council,
Stressing the urgent need to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the
Middle East,
Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories
occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the
Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and

7. constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in
the Middle East;
2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237
(1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September
1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11
November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4
and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;
3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the
1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from
taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature
and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied
since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the occupied Arab territories;
4. Establishes a Commission consisting of three members of the Security Council, to be
appointed by the President of the Council after consultations with the members of the
Council, to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied
since 1967, including Jerusalem;
5. Requests the Commission to submit its report to the Security Council by 1 July 1979;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Commission with the necessary facilities
to enable it to carry out its mission.
7. Decides to keep the situation in the occupied territories under constant and close
scrutiny and to reconvene in July 1979 to review the situation in the light of the findings
of the Commission.
Adopted at the 2134th meeting by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Norway, United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America).
________________________
1/ United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, p. 287.
2/ Official Records of the Security Council, Thirty-first Year, 1969th meeting.
Arguments based on the Fourth Geneva Convention
There are two disputes regarding the Fourth Geneva Convention: whether the convention
applies to the territories in question and whether the Convention forbids the establishment
of Israeli settlements. Article 2 concerns the applicability of the Convention whereas
article 49 concerns the legality of population transfers. In practice, Israel does not accept
that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian
issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are

8. Amnesty International argues that Israel’s settlement policy is not only illegal, but is
discriminatory and a violation of Palestinian human rights:
‘As well as violating international humanitarian law per se, the implementation of Israel’s
settlement policy in the Occupied Territories violates fundamental human rights
provisions, including the prohibition of discrimination. The seizure and appropriations of
land for Israeli settlements, bypass roads and related infrastructure and discriminatory
allocation of other vital resources, including water, have had a devastating impact on the
fundamental rights of the local Palestinian population, including their rights to an
adequate standard of living, housing, health, education, and work, and freedom of
movement within the Occupied Territories.”
Human Rights Watch reports on physical violence against Palestinians by settlers,
including, “frequent[ly] stoning and shooting at Palestinian cars. In many cases, settlers
abuse Palestinians in front of Israeli soldiers or police with little interference from the
authorities.”
The recent construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier routed inside the green line to
encompass a variety of settlements has also been cited as an infirengement on Palestinian
human and land rights. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs estimates that 10% of the West Bank will fall on the Israeli side of the barrier.
Israel’s Argument for the Legality of the Settlements in the OPT
Notwithstanding the earlier denial by Israel of the applicability of Article 49 of the Fourth
Geneva Convention to the OPT, the Israeli government has developed an interpretation of
Article 49 which implies a distinction between the forcible transfer of the occupier’s
population and the voluntary migration of individuals from the Occupying Power.
According to the Israeli interpretation, only forcible transfers of population are
prohibited. Under this argument, the settlers themselves established the settlements, with
no pressure on the part of the Israeli government. Therefore, Israel did not violate Article
49 paragraph (6) as it did not forcibly “transfer” parts of its population to the
OPT.According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the settlements do not violate
IHL:
“The provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding forced population transfer to
occupied sovereign territory cannot be viewed as prohibiting the voluntary return of
individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been
ousted…It should be emphasized that the movement of individuals to the territory is
entirely voluntary…” As one Israeli scholar writes, “one should differentiate between the
transfer of people – which is forbidden by Article 49 – and the voluntary settlement of
nationals of the occupant, on an individual basis, in the occupied territory. Such
settlement, if not carried out on behalf of the occupant’s Government and in an
institutional fashion, is not necessarily illegitimate.”
Furthermore, some Israeli scholars have argued that although they do not disagree with
the wider interpretation of Article 49 prohibiting basic demographic change in the
occupied territory’s population structure, this limitation should be interpreted narrowly.

9. According to this argument, “voluntary settlement, little by little, of civilians of the
Occupying Power in the occupied territory” is not necessarily illegal.
In the 1970s, the Israeli government justified the building of settlements – specifically the
requisitioning of private Palestinian land on which to build settlements – on the grounds
of security. Under this argument, the settlements strengthened Israeli security by creating
an Israeli presence in sensitive sectors, such as the Jordan Valley, and on key
topographical features of the terrain (i.e. hilltops, etc.). At the time, the Israeli High Court
of Justice ruled that such requisitions were justified under Article 52 of the Hague
Regulations, as long as the government paid compensation for the land, and as long as the
settlements served a military purpose and were temporary in nature – i.e. the settlements
might some day end as the result of international negotiations.
The government’s policy of requisitioning private land on which to build settlements
ended in 1979, when for the first time the Court declared a settlement project illegal, on
the grounds that the settlement in question was not intended to meet military needs, and
in fact was intended to be permanent After this ruling, the government stopped
requisitioning private land on security grounds, and instead began to build settlements on
“state” or “public” lands . Roughly two-thirds of the land in the West Bank is held in
unclear tenure, insofar as there are insufficient records (with ownership instead resulting
from long-term possession). Over the past two decades, the Israeli government has
declared much of this land to be “state-owned,” on the grounds that when a question
arises as to land ownership, it is considered public land until proven otherwise
Today, the Israeli government argues that the settlements also do not violate Article 49
since they are built on public lands, and so do not displace Arab inhabitants of the OPT:
“[Article 49 does not] prohibit the movement of individuals to land which was not under
the legitimate sovereignty of any state and which is not subject to private ownership. In
this regard, Israeli settlements have been established only after an exhaustive
investigation process, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel, designed to
ensure that no communities are established on private Arab land…the settlements
themselves are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice.”
The Palestine Liberation Organization’s Argument for the Illegality of the
Settlements
The Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) of the Palestine Liberation Organization
takes the position that the distinction made by Israel between forcible and voluntary
transfers is irrelevant in terms of Article 49. According to the NAD, Article 49 forbids
the Occupying Power from using population transfers to alter the demographic
composition of the occupied territory. The NAD argues that Article 49 clearly
distinguishes between deportations, evacuations and transfers of protected (i.e. occupied)
persons on the one hand, and the transfer by the Occupying Power of its own civilian
population on the other. The first five paragraphs of Article 49 deal with deportations,
evacuations and the transfer of protected persons; only the sixth and final paragraph
prohibits the transfer of the Occupying Power’s civilian population into the occupied
territories. Therefore, the fact that the first five paragraphs speak of “forcible” transfers,
while the sixth paragraph does not so explicitly limit itself, is deliberate – the sixth

10. paragraph covers not only forcible transfers of the Occupying Power’s civilian
population, but also situations where the Occupying Power positively encourages the
settlement of its own people in the occupied territory in a way that could potentially alter
that territory’s demographic composition.
According to the NAD, Israel’s settlement policy also violates other provisions of the
Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations:
“Since in most cases the establishment of the colonies has required the expropriation or
destruction of private property, the colonies also violate Article 53 of the Fourth
[Geneva] Convention and Article 46 of the Hague Regulations…Furthermore, the
establishment and operation of the colonies is hardly consistent with the limited rights
that the Occupying Power has under Article 55 of the Hague Regulations to administer
the properties under occupation in accordance with the rules of usufruct. This applies in
particular to depriving the local population of valuable natural resources such as water for
the benefit of the colonies.”
The International Community’s Response to the Settlements
Both the UN and the EU have stated that the Israeli settlement policy violates IHL, with
the UN stating specifically that the Israeli settlements in the OPT violate Article 49. The
ICRC has also stated that Israel’s settlement policy violates IHL. Further, a Conference of
High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention (held in 2001) issued a
Declaration stating: “The participating High Contracting Parties…reaffirm the illegality
of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof.”
The Israeli position has also not been found persuasive by other states, partially because
of the government’s involvement in promoting and financing the settlements. For
instance, many of the settlements in the West Bank (as well as disadvantaged
communities within Israel) are defined as “national priority areas,” which results in
increased government funding as compared to other communities, including housing
subsidies The Israeli Ministry of Housing was reported at one period to be devoting 20
per cent of its budget to housing for settlers There are also various tax incentives and
discounts available to individuals living in the settlements, as well as to businesses
located there Further, the Israeli government pays significantly more per capita to local
government councils for settlements than it does to local government councils for
municipalities in Israel itself. According to a recent news report, the Israeli government
spends over NIS 10,000 more per capita on settlers than on citizens living within Israel
This governmental support serves to undermine the Israeli argument that “the movement
of individuals to the territory is entirely voluntary.”
The State Department of the United States took the position in 1978 that to the extent
Israeli civilian settlements involve the transfer of Israeli civilians into the OPT, they are
inconsistent with international law . Later statements by President Reagan and Secretary
of State James Baker cast doubt on this position, but the United States has made no recent
statement asserting the legality or illegality of the settlements. In vetoing draft Security
Council resolutions that condemned the settlements as illegal, the United States has not
taken the position that settlements are legal but rather has explained its vetoes on the

11. principle that the issues that remain need to be addressed in negotiations between the
Israelis and Palestinians, and therefore should not be the subject of UN resolution
Observations and Conclusions
The purpose of this brief was to review the IHL implications of the settlements. Several
points need to be underlined:
1. Israel argues that the Geneva Conventions are not applicable to the OPT, but that
even if they were applicable, the settlements would not violate Article 49 of the
Fourth Geneva Convention. According to the Israeli interpretation, Article 49 does
not prohibit the voluntary transfer of the population from the occupying state to the
occupied territories.
2. The international community at large and the Palestine Liberation Organization, on
the other hand, hold that Israeli settlements in the OPT do violate IHL, and in
particular Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, since Israel’s policies of
promoting and facilitating the transfer of population have been instrumental in the
creation and expansion of Israeli settlements in the OPT. In addition, the Hague
Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention together prohibit any transfer of the
Occupying Power’s population, even voluntary transfers, that would alter the
demographic composition of the occupied territory.
3. Among the Occupying Power’s actions and programs prohibited under Article 49
of the Fourth Geneva Convention, one may include subsidizing mortgages for
housing construction in the OPT, building by-pass roads to facilitate the movement
of settlers, and building water and electricity infrastructure for the sole purpose of
servicing the settlements, insofar as these activities actively facilitate and encourage
the settlement process.
4. Under the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention, private property
may not be confiscated, and may only be destroyed if such destruction is rendered
“absolutely necessary” by military operations. Since much of the land in the OPT
did not have clear title, Israel claims that most settlements were built on public (i.e.
state-owned) as opposed to private property. The building of settlements on public
land is not acceptable under the Hague Regulations since such use of the public
land violates the rule of usufruct, which limits the use of public land by the
Occupying Power to the “fruits” of the land and prohibits invasion of other property
rights.
The Humanitarian Impact:
When the Barrier is completed, over ten percent (10.2%) of West Bank land will be
isolated in the area between the Barrier and the Green Line. This includes some of the
most fertile land
and water reserves in the West Bank. In October 2003, the area between the Barrier and
the Green Line in the northern West Bank was declared closed by military order. All
Palestinians living in this area are required to obtain ‘permanent resident’ permits from
the Israeli authorities. Non-resident Palestinians who need to enter the area, in particular
farmers, must apply for a visitor permit to access their farmlands and water resources

12. through designated gates. Eligibility requirements for Palestinians needing visitor permits
have become increasingly stringent. Consequently, fewer Palestinians are obtaining such
permits. Those who are unable to prove direct ownership of the land -
for example, relatives to landowners such as nephews, uncles, cousins and grandchildren,
landless laborers, sharecroppers and leaseholders – find that their access to the closed
areas is now virtually impossible. By mid-2006, only 40% of farming families with land
in closed areas could reach their family holdings. For the minority who are granted
permits, access is restricted to a specific gate. Gates open and shut irregularly, and can be
totally shut without warning. Only 26 gates in the northern West Bank are
open to Palestinians on a regular basis, typically for short periods in the early morning,
noon and late afternoon, and ‘visitors’ are prohibited from staying on their land
overnight.
Final Opinion:
Within the framework of achieving an appropriate living and economic atmosphere that
can give hope to the Palestinian citizen, there is a necessity of Israel implementing real
and instant measures to alleviate the daily suffering of the Palestinian People. In this
context there is a need to jump on the obstacles that hinder the facilitation of the
Palestinians life, such as Israel maintaining its settlement policy in the West Bank,
including Jerusalem and its environs, in addition to the barricades and checkpoints which
paralyze the movement of people and trade, and feed Palestinian situation with more
desperation.
Despite the fact that there are many International resolutions against building the
settlements but there is no political power that might stop the progress in building more
settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories , though it’s a very complicated issue
because it has political ,economic, cultural and demographic aspects that is part of the
negotiations of the final status of the peace process which includes the status of
Jerusalem, the refugees ,the borders of the state of Israel …etc.

13. Sources:
www.un.org
www.mfa.gov.eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/EVIU-69HJYR?OpenDocument
http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/TheHumanitarianImpactOfIsraeliInfrastructureTheW
estBank_ch4.pdf
http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/settlements/Settlements_Established_and_Evacuate
d_1967-2008.html