List_of_Israeli_settlements

List of Israeli settlements

List of Israeli settlements

Add article description

This is a list of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Israel had previously established settlements in both the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula; however, the Gaza settlements were dismantled in the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005, and the Sinai settlements were evacuated with the Egypt–Israel peace treaty and the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. This list does not include West Bank settlements that were dismantled or Israeli outposts.

Israel in effect annexed East Jerusalem with the Jerusalem Law and considers settlements in the expanded boundaries of East Jerusalem to be neighborhoods of Jerusalem and not settlements. The United Nations Security Council ruled that act "null and void" in United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, and the international community considers East Jerusalem to continue to be held under Israeli occupation.

Israel in effect annexed the Golan Heights with the Golan Heights Law and does not consider the localities established there to be settlements. The United Nations Security Council ruled that act "null and void" in United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 and the international community continues to view the Golan Heights to be Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation.

The international community considers Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, violating the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibition on the transfer of a civilian population to or from occupied territory, though Israel disputes this.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

West Bank

Further information: Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Israeli law in the West Bank settlements

City settlements in the West Bank

Four settlements have been given city status. Their combined population is over 210,000, representing around half of the West Bank settler population outside of East Jerusalem.

More information Name, Hebrew ...

Other settlements in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem

More information Name, Hebrew ...

Several former Israeli outposts have been retroactively "legalized" under Israeli law as "neighborhoods" of formerly existing Israeli settlements:

East Jerusalem

Following the capture and occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem in 1967, the Israeli government effectively annexed the formerly Jordanian occupied territory and extended the Jerusalem municipality borders by adding 70,500 dunams of land with the aim of establishing Jewish settlements and cementing the status of a united city under Israeli control. The Jerusalem Master Plan 1968 called for increasing the Israeli population of Arab East Jerusalem, encircling the city with Israeli settlements and excluding large Palestinian neighborhoods from the expanded municipality.[8] Jerusalem was effectively annexed by Israel in 1980, an act that was internationally condemned and ruled "null and void" by the United Nations Security Council in United Nations Security Council Resolution 478. The international community continues to regard East Jerusalem as occupied territory and Israel's settlements there illegal under international law.[1]

More information Name, Hebrew ...

Smaller Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem include Beit Orot, Givat HaMatos, Ma'ale HaZeitim, and Nof Zion.

Golan Heights

In 1967, construction of Israeli settlements began in the portion of the Golan Heights held by Israel. That area remained under military administration until 1981 when Israel passed the Golan Heights Law extending Israeli law and administration throughout the territory.[11] That 1981 decision was condemned by the United Nations Security Council in UN Resolution 497,[12][13] which stated that "the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect." Israel maintains it has a right to retain the Golan, citing the text of UN Resolution 242, which calls for "safe and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force".[14] However, the international community rejects Israeli claims to title to the territory and regards it as sovereign Syrian territory.[15][16][17]

More information Name, Hebrew ...

References

  1. [1]
    Roberts, Adam (1990). "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. 84 (1). American Society of International Law: 60, 69, 85–86. doi:10.2307/2203016. JSTOR 2203016. S2CID 145514740. p. 60: Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.
    p 69: SC Res. 446 (Mar. 22, 1979), adopted by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States), reaffirmed the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention, as well as opposing the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories
    pp 85–86: The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law
  2. [2]
    Pertile, Marco (2005). "'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi (eds.). The Italian Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 141. ISBN 978-90-04-15027-0. the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars
  3. [3]
    Barak-Erez, Daphne (2006). "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review". International Journal of Constitutional Law. 4 (3). Oxford University Press: 548. doi:10.1093/icon/mol021. The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation
  4. [4]
    Drew, Catriona (1997). "Self-determination and population transfer". In Bowen, Stephen (ed.). Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian territories. International studies in human rights. Vol. 52. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 151–152. ISBN 978-90-411-0502-8. It can thus clearly be concluded that the transfer of Israeli settlers into the occupied territories violates not only the laws of belligerent occupation but the Palestinian right of self-determination under international law. The question remains, however, whether this is of any practical value. In other words, given the view of the international community that the Israeli settlements are illegal under the law if belligerent occupation
  5. [5]
    International Labour Organization (2005). "The situation of workers of the occupied Arab territories" (PDF). p. 14. The international community considers Israeli settlements within the occupied territories illegal and in breach of, inter alia, United Nations Security Council resolution 465 of 1 March 1980 calling on Israel "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"
  6. [6]
    Benveniśtî, Eyāl (2004). The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press. p. xvii. ISBN 978-0-691-12130-7. In its advisory opinion of July 9, 2004, on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the International Court of Justice found Israel in breach of several international law obligations by its construction of a separation barrier on West Bank territory. ... The Court flatly rejects the Israeli claims concerning the inapplicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the West Bank and concerning the inapplicability of Article 49 to the Jewish settlements in the areas occupied by Israel. Neither of these claims gained serious support from the international community
  7. [7]
    "Regional Statistics". Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 21 March 2024.
  8. [8]
    Rawan Asali Nuseibeh (8 October 2015). Political Conflict and Exclusion in Jerusalem: The Provision of Education and Social Services. Taylor & Francis. pp. 43–. ISBN 978-1-317-53576-8.
  9. [9]
    "Israeli Settlements (2019) - OCHA OPT" (PDF).
  10. [10]
    "Settlements List". Peace Now. Retrieved 2023-01-11.
  11. [11]
    Golan Heights Law, MFA.
  12. [12]
    Korman, Sharon, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, pp. 262–263
  13. [13]
    UN Security Council Resolution 497
  14. [14]
    Y.Z Blum "Secure Boundaries and Middle East Peace in the Light of International Law and Practice" (1971) pages 24–46
  15. [15]
  16. [16]
    Occupied territory:
  17. [17]
    Korman, Sharon. The right of conquest: the acquisition of territory by force in international law and practice, Oxford University Press, 1996. pg. 265. ISBN 0-19-828007-6. "The continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights is recognized by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, on a self-defence basis. Israel, on this view, would be entitled to exact as a condition of withdrawal from the territory the imposition of security measures of an indefinite character--such as perpetual demilitarization, or the emplacement of a United Nations force--which would ensure, or tend to ensure, that the territory would not be used against it for aggression on future occasions. But the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory which it occupies, or to act beyond the strict bounds laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention, has been universally rejected by the international community--no less by the United States than by any other state."
Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article List_of_Israeli_settlements, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.