T: "Of course, according to the common understanding of international law, ALL settlements are illegal according the Geneva Convention, but these outposts have a different order of illegality, which is responsible for this name." Not just the Geneva Conventions, Tosefta; these settlements are declared "legal" under Israeli law because they are designated as being necessary for "immediate security", thus allowing for the land to be "requisitioned". That creates the legal fiction that they are simply a *temporary* response to an immediate military necessity, which *is* allowed under the Hague Regs. Of course, if the Israelis are..ahem...*lying* about the purpose of these "legal" settlements i.e. they are intended to be a permanent (and permanently Israeli) CONFISCATION of land then you don't even need GCIV to make them illegal; Article 46 and Article 55 of the Hague Regs are enough. They look pretty permanent to me, and Olmert is insisting that they must be kept.
53-year-old Israeli woman lightly wounded by stone-throwing near Efrat settlement (Haaretz)
from the article: First, evacuate the outposts