The occupation is indeed not illegal for it does concern disputed territory as you said. However, the UN charter from 1946 describes very clearly the first hard fundamental rule of International Law. No land whatsoever, regardless of it's former or present status and regardless whether disputed or occupied, can be legally annexed and/or brought legally in ownership when violating existing private property rights by political declaration, economic developement or re-population and building by victor after it has come de facto under control of the victor after war, regardless whether offensive or defensive war. So occupation is legal, annexation is illega, all private property must legally be respected as long as disputed land lacks final agreed legitimate status. Re-populating it witrh Jewish settlements and Jewish inhabitants is jurisdictially seen completely irrelevant regarding the eventual final lstatus of the disputed land and creates no relevant claim or first right on future decision who will get it whatsoever . Legal occupation of disputed land simply creates nothing relevant or meaningfull regarding which partyn is entitled to lawfull final future annexation and legitimate final future posession and ownership. One can never say in international Law: I defended myself, I conquered the land , my presence in the land is legal, I live and invest in the land which is legal and so all this creates a legal and legitimate claim for me on future posessionand ownership/annexation of the land. Sorry but that is jurisdicial poppycock.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Magnitude-5.8 earthquake shakes New Zealand's Christchurch (AP)
from the article: With freeze over, West Bank settlements ready to dive into construction