From a State Department Press Briefing conducted on March 1, 2021 by Ned Price, Department Spokesperson:

QUESTION: Just briefly on Israel and Palestine. Has the State Department reversed the – Mr. Pompeo’s determination that the settlements in the occupied territories are not necessarily illegal?

MR PRICE: So we wouldn’t comment on any internal deliberative processes here, and that’s a rule across the board. What we would stress is that our focus is on encouraging Israel and the Palestinians to avoid, as I said before, unilateral steps that exacerbate tensions and that make it more difficult to preserve the viability of a two-state solution.

QUESTION: So is it under review, then? Is it under review?

MR PRICE: Again, we’re not going to comment on any internal deliberative process.

QUESTION: Well, wait, wait, does that – that suggests that there is a deliberative process going on.

MR PRICE: We —

QUESTION: So the previous administration, when it came to a conclusion that it did not think that the Hansell Memorandum * was appropriate or accurate, came out and announced it. Will this administration, if it determines that either you’re going to keep it – the previous administration’s position – or change it, will you announce it? Or is that now a deliberative process that you won’t talk about?

MR PRICE: What I would stress is that what will not change is our longstanding position – our position and the longstanding position of successive administrations, is that —

QUESTION: Well, except for the last – well, except for the last one.

MR PRICE: — is – is encouraging – is discouraging, excuse me – unilateral steps that would put a two-state solution further out of reach. If we have —

MR PRICE: If we have something more to say on this, we will say it.

QUESTION: So there is no change right now?

MR PRICE: We have nothing – we have nothing more to announce. If we do, we will announce it.

QUESTION: All right.

And on the issue of UNRWA, there was this exchange:

QUESTION: Now, Ned, last week you issued a statement on the meeting of the AHLC, the Ad Hoc Committee. Now, there was no mention normally – on Palestine – there was no mention of UNRWA or restoring aid, or let’s say aiding the hospitals in East Jerusalem and so on. So tell us about what’s going on with UNRWA. Are you resuming aid to UNRWA? Is it going to be retroactive aid? Is it happening now? Is it not happening?

MR PRICE: Said, I think as you’ve heard me say before, we intend to provide assistance that will benefit all Palestinians, including refugees. We are in the process of determining how to move forward on resuming all forms of that assistance consistent with U.S. law.

QUESTION: But we’re not talking about refugees, we’re talking about UNRWA. Are you going to resume aid to UNRWA?

MR PRICE: Said, we have said before —

QUESTION: Very simple, UNRWA is – you’ve aided UNRWA all throughout its existence. Now, are you going to resume that aid, or are you not going to resume that?

MR PRICE: I don’t have anything new for you today beyond saying and reiterating that we intend to provide assistance that will benefit all Palestinians, including refugees.

________

*

That memorandum concluded that

the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law

On the flaws of that opinion see

International Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich

International Law Professor Avi Bell (in converstion with Eve Harow)

Former Ambassador Alan Baker 

The Kohelet Forum and its Conference

Former Ambassador David M. Friedman

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu

^

Sent August 22:

Commenting on Israel's presumed 'vulnerability' regarding the legality or illegality of civilian Jewish residency communities ("settlements") in the "West Bank", a new geopolitical term created in 1950, territory the United Nations termed Judea and Samaria in its 1947 Partition Plan, David Luban, Georgetown Professor in Law, writes in "America the Unaccountable" that "[t]ransferring your own people into occupied territory violates the Geneva Conventions". He pursues this by adding that "Israel has devised an arcane legal theory that it never occupied the West Bank, but it is fair to say that nobody outside Israel and the US takes that position seriously" [NYR Aug 20].

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

Attempts to present Jewish settlement in ancient Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as illegal and "colonial" in nature ignores the complexity of this issue, the history of the land, and the unique legal circumstances of this case.

Jewish communities in this territory have existed from time immemorial and express the deep connection of the Jewish people to land which is the cradle of their civilization, as affirmed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, and from which they, or their ancestors, were ousted.

The prohibition against the forcible transfer of civilians to territory of an occupied state under the Fourth Geneva Convention was not intended to relate to the circumstances of voluntary Jewish settlement in the West Bank on legitimately acquired land which did not belong to a previous lawful sovereign and which was designated as part of the Jewish State under the League of Nations Mandate.

Bilateral Israeli-Palestinian Agreements specifically affirm that settlements are subject to agreed and exclusive Israeli jurisdiction pending the outcome of peace negotiations, and do not prohibit settlement activity.

"Israel’s illegal settlements break the Geneva convention, which is true".

In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive

Security Council Resolution 242, approved after the 1967 war, stipulates not only that Israel and its neighboring states should make peace with each other but should establish “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Until that condition is met, Israel is entitled to administer the territories it captured – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip – and then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land to “secure and recognized boundaries free of threats or acts of force.” (Emphasis added.)

the chief physical obstacle to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a solution that is in the vital interests of both Israel and the United States.

The outposts are strategically located alongside more than 120 settlements that were formally approved by Israel, and are home to a fraction of the West Bank’s 350,000 Jewish settlers.

One group stretches east of Shilo, like beads on a chain: Shvut Rahel, Adei Ad, Ahiya, Kida, Esh Kodesh. These outposts command the hilltops between Palestinian villages like Qusra, Jalud, Al-Mughayyer and Duma, the scene of last year’s deadly arson attack in which one young Israeli has been charged with murder and another with conspiracy.

Rabbah Hazameh, a Palestinian whose family owns olive orchards and agricultural fields in the area, said that settlers prevented him and his relatives from working their land close to Adei Ad, and that trees had been damaged and poisoned [untrue]. He said that his uncle had submitted 86 complaints to the Israeli police over the years, but “nothing happened.” [Jewish trees were damaged and cut down]

While most of the world considers all of these settlements a violation of international law, Israel itself makes distinctions, including whether they sit on privately owned Palestinian land and whether they had government approval for construction.

Israel Quietly Legalizes Pirate

Outposts in the West Bank

Quietly?

Oh, come on.

It's been in the media for months and more.

Earlier this month.

In July in Haaretz (how could she have missed that?).

June.

In March, Mondoweiss published a Yesh Din report on 'kosherization' which was published in February.

In August 2015, even the UN discussed it (see Section B).

In April 2015, sixteen months ago, we all read this at the +972 website:

In 2011 there was a change in the State’s position, when it told the courts that intends to pursue a course of partial enforcement. It would remove outposts built on private land, but will examine the possibility of legalizing those built on public land (which it prefers to call “state land” in order to create the impression that it owns them).
But this position also changed. In 2012, the government ordered the formation of the Levi Commission. It ruled that the outposts should be legalized, while rejecting the Partition Decision of 1947 and returning to the Balfour Declaration.

Quietly? Like in a conspiracy? Secretively?

In Israel?!

NYT, what were you thinking?

___________

UPDATE

^

Sir Alan Duncan

Does my hon. Friend understand the foundations from which he wishes to build that co-existence that we would all like to see? Will he unequivocally confirm that he endorses the Government policy that Israeli settlements on Palestinian land are wholly illegal?

Dr Offord

I can confirm that I think that. Indeed, the Israeli Supreme Court says that as well, so there is no misunderstanding about that.

(Illegal) Settlers severely criticise Israeli government
August 11, 2014
Israeli settlers from some of the settlements around the Gaza Strip harshly criticised the Israeli government during a meeting with the country’s internal security minister, Yitzhak Aharonovich, according to Israel’s Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.The newspaper reported that Aharonovich met on Sunday with settlers from the Kfar Aza settlement, who proceeded to harshly criticise him for the continued fire of Palestinian rockets. The criticism comes after the Israeli government had promised settlers that it was “safe to return home”.

Orit Brown from Kfar Aza settlement said: “Towards the ceasefire there was a call for Gaza-area residents to return to their homes. I have no words to describe the anguish we felt Friday morning, the fear, the anxieties, the loss of faith, the crisis and the frustration.”

The UC Berkeley student government has banned the term “illegal immigrant” from its discourse, deeming the phrase racist, offensive, unfair and derogatory.
In an unanimous vote, student senators passed a resolution that stated the word “illegal” is “racially charged,” “dehumanizes” people, and contributes to “punitive and discriminatory actions aimed primarily at immigrants and communities of color.”...Its approval marks at least the second time this semester that a public university’s student government has voted to eradicate the phrase. UCLA passed a nearly identical measure in late August.

...the Oslo Accords, including the 1993 Declaration of Principles (“DOP”) and the 1995 Interim Agreement as well as subsequent agreements and protocols, did not deal directly with the issue of Israeli settlements, either with regard to their legal status (i.e., under international humanitarian law) or in terms of limiting their continued expansion.

...Oslo’s failure to bring about a genuine settlement freeze led to unprecedented settlement growth and severely undermined prospects for a negotiated two-state solution...we can identify at least three fundamental flaws in Oslo’s handling of Israeli settlements, which have had far-reaching implications:

...First and most obviously, the Oslo Accords failed to include an explicit reference to ending (or even limiting) Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Indeed, while Palestinians frequently cite continued settlement activity as a “violation of Oslo,” successive Israeli governments have assiduously pointed out that Oslo contains no reference to a settlement freeze as such...

...the Oslo Accords deferred any resolution of the settlements, Jerusalem and other core issues of the conflict for a period of several years. Article V of the DOP (reiterated in Article XVII (1(a)) of the Interim Agreement) provided for a five year “transitional period” during which negotiations would take place on all remaining so-called “permanent status” issues, including Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders and other bilateral matters...not only did Israel continue to expand settlements throughout the interim period, the indefinite postponement of a permanent status agreement meant it would continue doing so indefinitely.

...Another problematic aspect of the Accords is their (and by extension, the PLO’s) implicit acceptance of Israeli definitions of key terms, including “settlements”, “West Bank” and “Jerusalem”. Article XII(5) of the Interim Agreement states:

For the purpose of this Agreement, “the Settlements” means, in the West Bank the settlements in Area C; and in the Gaza Strip – the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas, as well as the other settlements in the Gaza Strip, as shown on attached map No. 2.

Meanwhile, Article XI(3)(c) defined “Area C” as “areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B… except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations…” [i.e., settlements and Jerusalem].

In addition, although the terms “West Bank” and “Jerusalem” were not expressly defined, various references throughout the agreement to “the Palestinian people of the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip” (Preamble, Article III(3), Article IV) make clear that these constitute separate and distinct geographic designations. In other words, whereas Palestinians (and international law) consider East Jerusalem an integral part of the West Bank, the Oslo agreements treat “Jerusalem” and “West Bank” as distinct and mutually exclusive geographic entities, in conformity with standard Israeli definitions and usage.

This has far reaching implications indeed. By lending de facto recognition to Israeli-defined “Jerusalem”, including the 70 square kilometers of the West Bank annexed by Israel in 1967 to unilaterally expand the Jerusalem municipality, both Oslo and its PLO negotiators confer a degree of legitimacy to Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, thereby undermining the legal basis for territorial negotiations—the 1967 line—as well as Palestinian claims to Jerusalem. In practical terms, it meant that the dozen or so settlements located within Israeli-defined municipal Jerusalem, at the time comprising 54% of the settler population, were not counted as settlements under Oslo. More importantly, this state of affairs applies not only to the interim period, but also to the Oslo-defined future permanent status negotiations. In other words, when it came time to negotiate the permanent fate of the settlements, Israel could claim (and indeed has done so consistently) that Jewish “neighborhoods” within Israeli municipal Jerusalem were simply not on the table as they are not “settlements”...

EU's Ashton 'deeply regrets' new settlement building

European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton on Thursday criticized Israel for offering tenders this week for the construction of 1,213 new homes in east Jerusalem.  Ashton said in a statement that she "deeply regrets" moves to add 607 units in Pisgat Zeev and 606 units in Ramot.

..."During 2011 and 2012 the EU High Representative has expressed her profound disappointment on a number of occasions concerning the expansion of nearby Har Homa settlement. Together these developments continue the process of separating East Jerusalem from the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory," the statement added.

"Continuous expansion of settlements, wherever this takes place, further complicates ongoing diplomatic efforts to avoid deterioration in the prospects for a return to negotiations at this critical time," Ashton said.  "The EU has repeatedly urged the Government of Israel to immediately end all settlement activities in the West Bank, including in east Jerusalem, in line with its obligations under the Roadmap."

...contrary to what is claimed in the Levy report, it is manifestly clear that the West Bank is occupied by Israel...Furthermore, concerning the settlements in the West Bank, it has to be emphasized that Article 49 (6 ) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits a state from transferring parts of its own civilian population to territory it occupies, does not merely prohibit the occupying state from forcefully transferring parts of its population; it also prohibits any action by the occupier which facilitates such transfer.  The ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention makes clear that Article 49 (6 ), like the convention as a whole, aims to protect the local population in the occupied territory and not the population of the occupying state. Furthermore, international humanitarian law prohibits any action by an occupying power aimed at altering the intrinsic characteristics of the occupied territory, including any measures that affect its demographic, cultural or social composition.

This is a stupid article.  Of course a territory can be occupied, but legally or illegally is the question.  I am at the present occupying the chair I am seated in.  So what?  What Schaerer is trying to prove, that Israel is engaged in "illegality", is a flop.  Without referring to the history of the claims to sovereignty, one would never know that what happened in 1939, i.e., the illegal move by Gt. Britian to alter the terms of the Mandate by the League of Nations, followed by the Arab rejection of Partition, to the annexation of Judea & Samaria by Jordan, the ongoing terror since 1947 and the threat of war in 1967, which all lead to a legal justification for Israel to occupy Judea and Samaria, to facilitated "close Jewish settlement" therein, including the use of "stae and waste lands".  There is no crime of "settlement" involved and the defensive war Israel was required to wage gives Israel all rights to be in the area.  The throw-in of "transferring" is ridiculous as Jews lived in the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza for centuries prior to 1947-49 and it was only because of a policy of ethnic cleansing practiced by Arabs during the Mandate and the War of Independence - Schaerer knows of those illegal  acts, does he not? - that Jews were not there in 1967.

We Jews are returning, not transferring oursleves or being transferred.

 

Attempting to assert that Jews constructing homes and residing in them (and building schools, factories, planting crops, etc.) in the region of Judea and Samaria is somehow illegal and must be pejoratively termed as "settlement activity" is, actually, the more perverse viewpoint and the real travesty of law.

In the territory the entire civilized world recognized as the Jewish national home and which it was decided that that home be reconstituted, international law provided for a right of "close settlement by Jews" on state and waste lands in that area which, due to the provisions of Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine in 1922, was temporarily limited to all the area of the country west of the Jordan River (for after all, Article 5 obligated the Mandatory Power not to cede or in any way placed under control of another power).  The rights provided for "non-Jews", that is, everyone else living in the country (including Arabs who conquered and occupied the country in previous centuries), were limited to solely to "civil and religious rights" but not "political" or "national".  The Mandate was to provide for the basis of a Jewish state.

That state was to arise through territorial compromise as recommended on November 29, 1947 but that suggestion was rejected by the local Arabs and at least seven other Arab countries in a war of aggression.  Surely, no rights can accrue such a group of people when, after losing that illegal war and then launching terror attacks against Israel in the 1950s through the Fedayeen terror and then after 1964, through Fatah, another war was propagated in 1967 through which, in an act of defense, Israel became an administer of Judea and Samaria whether one calls that a "belligerent occupation" or a reversion of sovereignty or anything in-between.

The Jewish people who were ethnically cleansed for Judea and Samaria during the Mandate period, even prior to the outbreak of Arab-initiated hostilities on November 30, 1947, from their homes in Hebron, Nablus/Shchem, Gaza, Jenin, and then from Gush Etzion, Neveh Yaakov, Atarot, Bet HaAravah and the Old City of Jerusalem, all geographical locations Scobbie would call the "West Bank", have all the legal right(s) to reconstitute those homes and farms and other elements of a normal national life, even including a university in Samaria, a winery in Binyamin and a factory in Judea.  There cannot be anything illegal for me to reside in Shiloh.

..."Mommy! Edmond Levy stole my occupation," cried a wrinkly-faced child featured on a Facebook banner. 

He's right. What will all the '67 line warriors do now? Where will they put the monster they've created? What will they do with their time, and where will they get their funding if not from the debate over the legality of the settlements? Maybe now they will finally have the time to actually work toward peace. 

Maybe now they will finally stop picking on Yael and Noam, who live in a mobile home in the Samaria community of Shiloh. Maybe now they will take a look at the rabid incitement on Palestinian television, which poses more of an obstacle to peace than any settlement. Maybe now they will divert their attention from the school in Talmon — which the Sasson report labeled as illegal — and focus on the incitement to violence within the Palestinian Authority school system. 

-  -  -

...Peace Now has sparked infinitely more wars among Jews than it has peace between nations. The only kind of peace lover is a hater of settlers. President Shimon Peres speaks of racial segregation between peoples — apartheid! — as a means of achieving peace. Have they gotten this confused? The tall tale of the occupation has grown so high that it is now punching its inventors in the nose.

If the Levy report's recommendations are adopted by the government, there will be much embarrassment in the land. I will have to find myself another topic to write about. And maybe, in the midst of the debate over the future of the territories, a true peace camp will arise in Israel. That would be our reward.

...Military Advocate General, Meir Shamgar, who would eventually become a Supreme Court justice, articulated this worldview many years ago. According to Shamgar, the State of Israel is not an occupying power in the territories of Judea and Samaria. The principle of limiting the authority of a military administration, which supposedly is derived from the Geneva Conventions, is based on the assumption that the “occupier” conquered the land from a legal sovereign. In Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, however, there never was a legal sovereign that ruled these territories between the War of Independence and the Six-Day War, Shamgar ruled...The Levy Commission essentially reiterates this position, which has been the official position of successive Israeli governments...Levy and his two colleagues are not “creating a new order,” but rather seek to restore the old order, the one which Mike Blass (*) and his associates managed to blur and undermine in recent years. 

Another prosecutor who subscribes to a similar worldview as that of Blass, Talia Sasson, who authored the report on outposts for the Sharon government, officially joined Meretz and Yesh Din after retiring from public service. She argued this week that the Levy report ignores Supreme Court rulings. But Jacob Turkel, a retired Supreme Court justice, emphasized this week that “the Supreme Court never ruled that Israel is an occupying power in the areas of Judea and Samaria, but that it needs to accept some of the rules dictated by international law, particularly with regards to humanitarian considerations.”

Levy, Baker, and Shapira...do not understand why disputes of this nature are not adjudicated in court, which is the norm in advanced legal systems. “We came away with the impression that the starting point for the authorities in the Civil Administration is that the Israeli inhabitants have a tendency to encroach on the properties of their Palestinian neighbors, and thus the inhabitants need to prove they are the legal owners of the land. If not, their punishment is eviction.”...the head of the Civil Administration, Brig. Gen. Moti Almoz...claims that “the situation is (inclined toward) the benefit of the Palestinian side...In land disputes in Judea and Samaria, I am required by the legal advisor to adopt the jurists’ worldview, even in cases where there is great doubt and I am not at peace with the decisions that are made and I waver after personally checking the facts on the ground,” Almoz admits.

Levy and his colleagues submit that this conduct is unfair and unequal, and that it is testament to “a biased approach..."those who conceived of the edict had a goal in mind — to prevent Israeli settlement in Judea and Samaria from expanding its border,” ...

...Levy proposes that the limitations placed on Jews who wish to purchase land and register as landowners in Judea and Samaria — among them the “transaction permit” that the Civil Administration requires but rarely issues — be canceled.

Levy even tackles Jordanian law, which forbids the sale of land to Jews in Judea and Samaria. He proposes that this law be invalidated by dint of a special military decree...

...Levy and his colleagues also take a bold step in concluding that the burden of proving action in good faith is a greater one when placed on the state than that placed on the citizen. “The settlers in the disputed settlements were permitted to assume that the government was acting legally in their case, and as such the argument offered by the government — that the establishment of settlements was done illegally, even though the government itself encouraged construction there on the one hand and then ‘froze’ planning processes on the other — attests to behavior that is rife with a lack of good faith of the most severe kind,” the committee found. 

Baker told Israel Hayom that the committee on which he sat was not political in nature. “We determined early on, and we wrote this in the beginning of the report, that we would not take a position regarding the diplomatic wisdom in building the settlements, but that we would act as jurists who are charged with drawing conclusions based solely on the law,” he said. “This is not a political report, but a legal report, which is based on an examination of international, Ottoman, Jordanian, and Israeli jurisprudence...We need to act in accordance with our interests and our rights, and on the basis of the probe that we conducted pertaining to the right of the Jewish people to the land by dint of international documents, we are convinced that our rights in Judea and Samaria are no less well-founded than the rights claimed by the Palestinians. These territories are subject to negotiations between us and the Palestinians, and until those negotiations are concluded, there is nothing to prevent us from building there, on condition that the construction is not done on private land.”

...“We were mainly surprised by the level of chaos and mayhem that was characteristic of the manner in which the state handled all affairs related to the settlement enterprise. We were also surprised by the tremendous influence wielded by civilian and military prosecutors, who exercised authority to deliberate on matters that are best left to the courts.”

...A few years ago, Deputy Attorney-General Mike Blass astounded the political echelon when he submitted a legal opinion that was considered at the time to be revolutionary. The state was in the process of planning a high-speed railway line that would connect Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Millions of shekels were invested in the planning and construction process, which was viewed as a strategically significant endeavor. Israel Railways and the Transportation Ministry broke ground on the project. Soon afterward, however, Blass found that one of the tunnels encroaches 300 meters over the Green Line.

The laying of track beyond the Green Line would be making use of occupied land, Blass said. Citing the Geneva Conventions, he said this was permissible only if “the occupied population” (in this case, the Palestinians) were the beneficiaries of the project. Blass seemed to be oblivious to the fact that the Palestinians, like the Israelis, could travel on the train, just like they could on Route 443 (the Modi’in-Jerusalem highway) which also stretches over the Green Line.

As compensation, Blass posited that the state should also build a railway line that would link Ramallah and Gaza. Ever since, Blass took the lead on this issue — and effectively adopted the legal positions and worldviews championed by the likes of Peace Now and Yesh Din with regards to the status of Judea and Samaria — the state prosecutors have taken to employ the legalistic phrase “territories that are held in belligerent occupation” much more extensively. In less measured jargon, territories possessed in belligerent occupation are “occupied territories.”...