So, in other words, to break it down and add some context, history, and citations to original sources, as opposed to "biased" mainstream news articles (I'll be glad to provides additional cites later if you dispute any portion of this history that isn't covered in the cites I've provided), your position is this:
What is now the West Bank was, in 1947, designated by the
UN partition plan for Palestine to be part of a proposed Arab state (note that they did not designate that particular portion as part of the proposed Jewish state that would become Israel). Jerusalem was to be under an international regime administered under the UN to guarantee its accessibility, given its importance to three major religions. All residents were to automatically become citizens of the city of Jerusalem, unless they instead opted instead to become citizens of either the Arab or Jewish State.
Jordan captured what is now the West Bank in 1948.
The 1949 Armistice agreements between Israel, Jordan, Syria and Egypt left Jordan with control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but stated "No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations."
Israel won the 1967 Six-Day War, capturing East Jerusalem and the West Bank. So, according to you and Commentary Magazine, Israel now owns the West Bank and can put whatever settlements it likes there, and it is all perfectly legal under international law.
Yeah, not so much.
For purposes of argument, and because god knows life is short and I've spent enough goddamn time on this as it is, we will assume your article's cited "principle of law" is correct. If so, pursuant to that principal, Israel might have "better title" to the West Bank than
Jordan.
But what of the Arab state set forth in the partition plan? You know, the one that was supposed to get that land until Jordan scarfed it up before they had a chance to get off the ground?
Well, here's a little more history.
After the Six Day War, the UN, the US, Israel, and pretty much everyone else concluded that the West Bank was "occupied territory," as opposed to Israel's property by right of conquest.
The UN promptly, in 1967,
issued a resolution calling for withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territory.
Since then, the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the United States, the EU, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross has referred to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as occupied Palestinian territory or the occupied territories. I'll be glad to provide you with a buttload of sites, if you want them.
Moreover, so has Israel, and recently. In 2004, the Israeli Supreme Court, in the
Beit Sourik case, stated that the status of the West Bank is that of military occupation -- Israel, of course, being the occupying power. [
Fun fact, by the way -- I took a seminar with former Israeli Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak (who wrote the judgment in that case) back in law school when he was a visiting professor. I've discussed the settlement issue with him and some classmates and professors over wine. He's a nice guy.1 I was also editor of my school's international law journal. Not that it proves any of my points, of course. Just saying -- I do have some background here beyond "biased" mainstream news.]
So everyone,
including Israel, at one point or another concluded that the West Bank is occupied territory, NOT part of Israel by right of conquest.
Under Article 49 of the
Fourth Geneva Convention: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Which, of course, is exactly what Israel has done with a few hundred thousand civilians. Even if temporary military encampments are permissible for security under the Convention, these settlements are not for "security." You don't put hundreds of thousands of civilians into an settlement you intend solely to provide for temporary "security." They're permanent civilian towns. Thus Israel is in clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. THAT is what makes the settlements illegal under international law.
Theodor Meron, legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry in 1967, agreed with this conclusion.
He stated in a legal opinion to Adi Yafeh, the Political Secretary of the Prime Minister of Israel: "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." A bit more from his legal opinion:
He quotes from the
Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1958, which states (bolding mine):
I put in that bolding because a lot of the "the settlements are legal!" arguments try to pretend the transfer of civilian populations Article 49 referred to was the population of occupied countries being shipped
out of their country. That is not correct -- while other parts of Article 49 refer to that, Art. 49(6) is referring to moving the civilian population of the OCCUPYING country
into the occupied territory. Obviously, that is exactly what Israel is doing.
If you read no other source document I cite, please read Mr. Meron's letter in its entirety. It is not long. And it is not the biased opinion of an anti-Israeli, pro-Arab organization. It is from the legal counsel to Israeli's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And it was written way back when these settlements were just getting started. It is not international anti-Israeli bias that deems these settlements illegal. It is the clear text and intention of the Geneva Convention. And it is no surprise to Israel -- they've known it from the beginning.
As I've already stated in numerous posts above, the UN, the International Court of Justice, the US and the rest of the international community has consistently held the position that the settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. If you want a buttload more cites to resolutions, decisions and statements over the decades (besides the ones I've provided already), I can dig them up. There have been quite a few. And every one of them goes in the same direction.
In 2004,
General Assembly resolution 58/292 (17 May 2004) affirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty over the area.
Since 2012, Palestine has held the status of a non-member observer state in the UN, which amounts to a de facto recognition of statehood.
I certainly won't argue that Jordan should have title to the West Bank. But explain to me again how it is Israel does. And if it does, why Israel's Supreme Court refers to Israel as an occupying power rather than saying "fuck it, we own this land." And how, given Israel is an occupying power, and the West Bank is an occupied territory civilian settlements containing hundreds of thousands of people don't violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. And why, if they
don't violate the Geneva convention, Israel's own legal adviser advised in 1967 that they
did violate it.
ETA:
1Another fun fact about former supreme court justice Aharon Barak -- his court never expressly ruled on the legality of the Israeli settlements. My classmates and I pressed him on the issue, of course, as have others. He's pretty cagey about it, but one thing he carefully refuses to do -- argue that the settlements are legal under the Fourth Geneva Convention and international law. You don't have to just take my word on that, though:
www.jpost.com/Israel/Aharon-Barak-Israel-must-be-part-of-global-community-abide-by-intl-lawlawin.org/aharon-barak/What he did say (I'll have to see if I can find a cite with him saying it -- will look again later), was that the Geneva Convention was applicable, and that under the Convention, only settlements that were for the purpose of security could be justified. And he referred to the territory as "occupied territory."
With regard to whether the settlements are necessary for "security", I again refer back to the Israeli generals' opinion I cited earlier stating that they're not, and advocating 1967 borders with swaps (Israel could keep some settlements, since they're there now, giving up land elsewhere to compensate). And then there's the pure common sense aspect -- 600,000 or so civilians in civilian towns are required for "security"? Moreover, as Mr. Meron noted in his letter, a settlement that is there for "security" is a temporary military encampment. That's not what these settlements are.
ETA:
Finally, I must add this. Of course I do not condone violence and terrorism on the part of Palestinians. Such conduct is never justified. There is plenty of assholishness on the Palestinian side, and I would never for a minute argue otherwise.
But that said, I cannot blame the Palestinian people at being angry at Israel for pushing these settlements forward in clear contravention of international law since fucking 1967. And I can't blame them for being angry at us for one the one hand condemning the settlements as violating the Geneva Convention, but nevertheless sticking up for Israel at every turn. And the rest of the Arab world points to it as justification for wanting to push Israel into the sea (and for hating us). I get why they're angry. I wouldn't throw bombs, but I'd be angry too.
Would ending the settlements and negotiating something like the '67 borders with swaps solution advocated by Israeli generals make everything perfect and end all resentment against Israel? Well, no -- especially not given how long this has all been going on. But without it, things will only deteriorate. And if Israel did so, I think they'd get a lot more backing and a lot less criticism from the rest of the international community.