There are very few precedents on which to judge the settlement issue. The reality is that the part you highlight states that the power shall not transfer parts of it's own population in to territories, it does not state that people cannot move on their own accord. As you are aware even a basic house-sale agreement is subject to several pages of legal statements and to countless previous precedents, so surely you will recognise that settlements are not determined by one NOT CLEAR statement. There is a massive difference between for example China's policies on populations in Tibet and Israel's policy where people have often moved and only later were recognised by law (hardly the government 'transfering' people). Even the simplest of legal cases are based on varying competing interpretations of great scaths of law. I hope you don't think that by throwing out one out of context statement you can convince us that international law is so simple and straightforward, devoid of precedents, devoid of context, devoid of legal definitions of legal definitions.
One student killed, three wounded at Arizona campus during fight (a)
from the article: Israel’s Greatest Loss: Its Moral Imagination