Utente:Cloj/Bozze2 e Teatro Vittorio Alfieri (Castelnuovo Berardenga): differenze tra le pagine

Versione delle 15:15, 25 ott 2013

Versione delle 18:50, 23 giu 2019

Riga 1:

{{Teatro

<nowiki>{{Bio

|NomeTeatro= Teatro Vittorio Alfieri

|Nome =

|Immagine= teatro alfieri castelnuovob.jpg

|Cognome =

|Didascalia= Facciata

|PreData = ({{Arabo|}}

|Sesso Tipologia=

|Fossa=

|LuogoNascita =

|Capienza= in sala: 210; nei palchi/galleria/loggione: 66, per un totale di 276

|GiornoMeseNascita =

|Periodo= [[XX secolo]]

|AnnoNascita =

|Progettista= Stefano Tori (restauro)

|LuogoMorte =

|Indirizzo=Via del Chianti n. 9 - 53019 [[Castelnuovo Berardenga]] (SI)

|GiornoMeseMorte =

|AnnoMorte Sito=

|Città = Castelnuovo Berardenga

|Attività =

|EpocaPaese = ITA

}}

|Nazionalità =

|PostNazionalità =

}}</nowiki>

Il '''Teatro Vittorio Alfieri''' è un teatro situato a [[Castelnuovo Berardenga]].

<nowiki>{{Bio

|Nome =

|Cognome =

|PreData = {{Arabo|}}

|Sesso =

|LuogoNascita =

|GiornoMeseNascita =

|AnnoNascita =

|LuogoMorte =

|GiornoMeseMorte =

|AnnoMorte =

|Attività = Sahaba

|Categorie = no

|Epoca = VII secolo

|Nazionalità =

|FineIncipit = è stato un ''[[Sahaba]]''

}}</nowiki>

== Storia ==

<nowiki>{{cita libro | cognome= | nome= | titolo= | editore= | città= | anno= }}</nowiki>

Il teatro venne realizzato nell'ultimo dopoguerra per rispondere alle esigenze di spettacoli sia teatrali che cinematografici del Comune. Alla fine degli [[Anni 1970|anni settanta]] la struttura aveva subito un processo di lento abbandono a causa dei problemi di obsolescenza delle attrezzature, delle difficoltà tecnico finanziarie gestionali e della non rispondenza alle nuove normative di sicurezza.

Il recupero della struttura a spazio polivalente è stato realizzato negli [[Anni 1980|anni ottanta]] su progetto dell'architetto [[Stefano Tori]] ([[1983]]-[[1984|84]]) nell'ambito del Progetto Regionale FIO.

DA TRADURRE APPENA POSSIBILE:

<!--(Insediamenti ebraici)

==Historical timeline==:

The [[armistice|cease-fire]] agreement following the [[1967]] [[Six-Day War]] left Israel in control of a number of areas captured during hostilities.

* From [[Jordan]], Israel gained control of the entire western bank of the [[Jordan River]], including parts of [[Jerusalem]] previously controlled by Jordan - [[East Jerusalem]], and the [[West Bank]].

* From [[Egypt]], Israel gained control of the entire [[Sinai peninsula]] up to the [[Suez Canal]], and the [[Gaza]] strip.

* From [[Syria]], Israel gained control of most of the [[Golan Heights]], since [[1981]], administered under the [[Golan Heights Law]].

Il teatro costituisce uno spazio funzionale adatto a ogni esigenza (spettacoli, convegni, mostre, incontri, laboratorio) e, grazie alla gestione affidata a "''Lo stanzone delle apparizioni''", ha allestito interessanti stagioni teatrali oltre a ospitare le iniziative della locale Società Filarmonica Drammatica. Al suo interno è presente anche la biblioteca comunale.

Original Israeli policy at that time was to deny any Jewish settlement of these areas or even Jewish resettlement of specific locations where Jews had resided up until the [[1948 Arab-Israeli War]] (see: [[List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war]]). Many attempts were made by [[Gush Emunim]] to establish outposts or resettle former Jewish areas, and initially the Israeli government forcibly disbanded these settlements. However, in the absence of peace talks to determine the future of these and other occupied territories, Israel ceased the enforcement of the original ban on settlement.

* In 1967, the municipal borders of Jerusalem were extended to include all of the [[Old City (Jerusalem)|Old City]] as well as other areas. Residents within the new municipal borders were offered the choice between citizenship (subject to a few restrictions) and permanent residency (if they wished to retain their Jordanian passports). This annexation has not been recognized by any foreign country.

* The Sinai, Gaza Strip, and West Bank were put under Israeli military occupation. Residents were not offered citizenship or residency, though they typically had de facto work permits within Israel and freedom of travel there.

* In 1978, Israel forcibly evacuated its citizens from the Sinai and demolished their homes when the area was returned to Egypt pursuant to the [[Camp David Accords (1978)|Camp David Accords]]. The last Israeli community in the area, [[Yamit]], was evacuated in early 1982.

* In 1980, the Knesset asserted Jerusalem's status as the nation's "eternal and indivisible capital" by passing the [[Jerusalem Law]].

* In 1981, Israel extended its law to the Golan Heights, passing the [[Golan Heights Law]], which granted permanent residency, ID cards, and Israeli citizenship to the residents, but did not formally annex the territory.

* In August 2005, all settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the West Bank were forcibly evacuated as part of [[Israel's unilateral disengagement plan]].

* In 2007 Israel decided to build 300 more Israeli homes in the [[Har Homa]] settlement in Shepherd's Field near Bethlehem, a move that has been condemned by both the United States and the European Union. <ref>{{cite news |title=EU criticises Israel settler plan |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7136984.stm |date=2007-12-10 |publisher=[[BBC]]}}</ref>

* In early 2008, Israel promised to engage in settlement expansion in the West Bank. US Secretary of State, [[Condoleezza Rice]], stated that such expansion should stop and was inconsistent with 'road map' obligations. <ref>{{cite news |title=Rice calls for Israel to halt settlement expansion |url=http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSL31400883420080331 |date=2008-3-31 |publisher=[[Reuters]]}}</ref>

Dall'anno 2008, grazie alla cooperativa sociale Servizio e Territorio e al supporto di Cinemanagement, nella sala Vittorio Alfieri è stata organizzata anche una stagione cinematografica con film di prima visione.

==Settlement types and locations==

[[File:Westbankjan06-samaria.jpg|right|thumb|600px|

{| class="wikitable"

|Upper L: 3 are outside [[West Bank Barrier|barrier]]||Top L of center: part of N. Samaria [[Israel's unilateral disengagement plan|disengagement]]||rowspan="3"|Whole right: [[Jordan Valley]]

|-

|L: W. [[Samaria]] bloc to [[Kedumim]] ||Center: hills around [[Nablus]]/[[Shechem]]

|-

|Lower L: W. [[Samaria]] bloc to [[Ariel (city)|Ariel]] ||Lower middle: E. [[Trans-Samaria Highway|Trans-Samaria Hwy]] outside [[West Bank Barrier|barrier]]

|}]]

== Voci correlate ==

The Jewish population in the areas held since 1967 live in a wide variety of centers:

*[[Castelnuovo Berardenga]]

* Self-contained towns and small cities with a stable population in the tens of thousands, infrastructure, and all other features of permanence, e.g. [[Ma'ale Adummim]], [[Modi'in Illit]], [[Ariel (city)|Ariel]].

*[[Teatri della Toscana]]

* Jewish neighborhoods adjacent to Arab neighborhoods in the same city, e.g. [[Hebron]], or the [[Muslim Quarter]].

* Neighborhoods, where both Jews and Arabs live together, e.g. Jerusalem.

* Suburbs to other population centers, especially [[Jerusalem]] (e.g. [[Gilo]]), and the [[Sharon, Israel|Sharon]] area (e.g. [[Karnei Shomron]]).

* Settlement blocs, e.g. [[Gush Etzion]], the vicinity of [[Ariel (City)|Ariel]], the [[Shechem]]/[[Nablus]] area.

* Frontier villages, such as those parallel to the [[Jordan River]].

* Residential outposts, consisting of campers, trailers, and even tents; these are often referred to as "wildcat" outposts. Most of these settlements are the results of recent construction, but some are based on Jewish communities that were forced to leave or abandoned in 1948 or earlier. Newly constructed developments are largely on hilltops, at some distance from Arab communities, which are typically found in valleys. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24478-2002Dec7?language=printer] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010402151_pf.html]

[[File:Westbankjan06-modiin-jerusalem-etzion.jpg|right|thumb|600px|

{| class="wikitable"

|Upper left: [[Modiin]] bloc||Upper middle: Mountain ridge settlements outside [[West Bank Barrier|barrier]]||rowspan="2"|Right: [[Jordan Valley]]

|-

|L above center: [[Latrun]] salient||Center: [[Jerusalem]] envelope, [[Ma'ale Adummim]] at right

|-

|Lower L of center: [[Etzion bloc]]||Lower center: [[Judean Desert]]||Lower right: [[Dead Sea]]

|}

]]

===Settlements on sites of former Jewish communities===

A few of the settlements were established on sites that had been inhabited by Jews during the [[British Mandate of Palestine]].

* In the case of [[Hebron]], an association of some descendants of pre-1929 Jewish residents of Hebron published a [[1997]] statement dissociating themselves from the present settlers in Hebron, calling them an obstacle to peace [http://www.angelfire.com/il/FourMothers/Yona.html].

== Collegamenti esterni ==

''partial listing only''

*{{cita web | 1 = http://www.cultura.toscana.it/spettacolo/teatri/siena/teatro_vittorio_alfieri_castelnuovo_berardenga.shtml | 2 = Scheda della Regione Toscana | accesso = 13 ottobre 2008 | urlarchivio = https://web.archive.org/web/20110527213916/http://www.cultura.toscana.it/spettacolo/teatri/siena/teatro_vittorio_alfieri_castelnuovo_berardenga.shtml | dataarchivio = 27 maggio 2011 | urlmorto = sì }}

*[[Jerusalem]] &ndash; Jewish presence since biblical times, various surrounding communities and neighborhoods, including Kfar Shiloah, also known as [[Silwan]] - settled by Yemeni Jews in 1884, Jewish residents evacuated in 1938, settled again in 2004

*[[Gush Etzion]] Four communities - established between 1927 and 1947, destroyed 1948, reestablished beginning 1967

*[[Hebron]] - Jewish presence since biblical times, forced out in 1929 (because of [[1929 Hebron massacre|Hebron massacre]]), some families return to the ruins in 1931 but the British have them evacuate again to "prevent another massacre"; resettled in 1967

*[[Kfar Darom]] - established in 1946, evacuated in 1948, resettled in 1970, evacuated in 2005 as part of the [[Israel's unilateral disengagement plan|withdrawal]] from the [[Gaza Strip]].

*[[Kalia, West Bank|Kalia]] and [[Beit HaArava]] - The former was built in 1934 as a kibbutz for potash mining. The latter was built in 1943 as an agricultural community. Both were abandoned in 1948, and subsequently destroyed by Jordanian forces. Resettled after the Six Day War.

* [[Gaza City]] had a small Jewish community that was evacuated following riots in 1929, when 150 Gazan Jews were massacred. After the Six Day War, Jewish communities were built elsewhere on the Gaza Strip, but not in Gaza City.

{{Portale|Teatro|Toscana}}

==Population==

{{seealso|Population statistics for Israeli West Bank settlements}}

Except for areas that were effectively annexed to Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, Israeli citizens and others can only move to areas captured in 1967 with the permission of the Israeli government. According to various statistics,<ref>[[Israel Central Bureau of Statistics]]: [http://www.cbs.gov.il/population/new_2007/table3.pdf] [http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/st02_07x.pdf] [http://www.cbs.gov.il/archive/shnaton47/st02-07.gif]</ref><ref>[http://www.jiis.org.il/ Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies]: [http://www.jiis.org.il/imageBank/File/shnaton_2004/shnaton_c1404.pdf] [http://www.jiis.org.il/imageBank/File/shnaton_2006/shnaton_C1005_2005.pdf] [http://www.jiis.org.il/imageBank/File/shnaton_2004/shnaton_c1404.pdf] [http://www.jiis.org.il/imageBank/File/shnaton_2006/shnaton_C1005_2005.pdf]</ref><ref> [http://www.fmep.org/about/overview.html Foundation for Middle East Peace]: [http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/settler_populations/settler_population_1972_2005.html] [http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/settler_populations/Israeli_settler_population_in_occupied_territories.html].</ref> the demographics can be estimated as follows:

[[Categoria:Architetture di Castelnuovo Berardenga]]

[[Categoria:Teatri della provincia di Siena|Alfieri]]

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em 1em 0 0;"

! Jewish population

! [[1948]]

! [[1966]]

! [[1972]]

! [[1983]]

! [[1993]]

! [[2004]]

! [[2006]]

|-

| West Bank (excluding Jerusalem)

| 480 (see [[Gush Etzion]]) || 0 || 1,182 || 22,800 || 111,600 || 234,487 || 282,400<ref>[http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3496699,00.html].</ref>

|-

| Gaza Strip

| 30 (see [[Kfar Darom]]) || 0 || 700 ¹ || 900 || 4,800 || 7,826 || 0

|-

| Golan Heights

| 0 || 0 || 77 || 6,800 || 12,600 || 17,265 || 18,105

|-

| East Jerusalem

| 2300 (see [[Jewish Quarter]], [[Atarot]], [[Neve Yaakov]]) || 0 || 8,649 || 76,095 || 152,800 || 181,587 || 184,057 ²

|-

! Total

! 810

! 0

! 10,608 ¹

! 106,595

! 281,800

! 441,165

! 484,562

|}

: ¹ including Sinai

: ² 2005 data

In addition to internal migration, in large though declining numbers, the settlements absorb annually about 1000 new immigrants from outside Israel. In the 90's, the annual settler population growth was more than three times the annual population growth in Israel.<ref>[http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/settler_population_growth/sources_population_growth_1991-2003.html Sources of Population Growth: Total Israeli Population and Settler Population, 1991 - 2003], [[Foundation for Middle East Peace]].</ref> In the 00's, the large settler population growth continues.<ref>[http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/settler_population_growth/settler_growth_east_and_west_barrier.html Settler Population Growth East and West of the Barrier], Foundation for Middle East Peace.</ref>

The Israeli governments have implemented a consistent and systematic policy intended to encourage Jewish citizens to migrate to the West Bank. One of the tools used to this end is to grant financial benefits and incentives to citizens.<ref>[http://www.btselem.org/english/Settlements/Migration.asp Encouragement of migration to the settlements], [[B'Tselem]].</ref>

==Debate on the settlements==

{{npov-section|date=November 2007}}

[[Palestinian people|Palestinians]] argue that the policy of settlements constitutes an effort to pre-empt or even sabotage a [[peace treaty]] that includes Palestinian [[sovereignty]], and claim that the settlements are built on land that belongs to Palestinians.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4367787.stm BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel confirms settlement growth]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4141484.stm BBC NEWS | Middle East | Gaza diary: Hakeem Abu Samra</ref>

[[Israeli people|Israelis]] supportive of settlement respond that they are religiously justified in owning the land. Furthermore, the [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel)|Israel Foreign Ministry]] asserts that some settlements are legitimate, as they took shape when there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, and thus they did not violate any agreement.<ref>[http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Israeli+Settlements+and+International+Law.htm Israeli Settlements and International Law], Israel Foreign Ministry website, 5/4/01, accessed 7/11/07.</ref><ref name="DGold1">[http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories"] by [[Dore Gold]], ''Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs'', January 16, 2002. Retrieved September 29, 2005.</ref><ref>[http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-16.htm Diplomatic and Legal Aspects of the Settlement Issue], by Jeffrey Helmreich, Institute for Contemporary Affairs, jcpa.org, accessed 7/11/07.</ref> Based on this, they assert the following specific reasons for accepting settlements as legitimate.

* Prior to the signing of the [[Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty|Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty]], the eruption of the [[First Intifada]] in the late eighties, down to the signing of the [[Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace|Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty]] in 1994, Israeli governments on the left and right argued that the settlements were of strategic and tactical importance. The ___location of the settlements was primarily chosen based on the threat of an attack by the bordering hostile countries of [[Jordan]], [[Syria]], and [[Egypt]] and possible routes of advance into Israeli population areas {{Fact|date=February 2008}}.These settlements were originally thought of as contributing to the peace and security of the state of Israel at a time when peace treaties had not been signed. Some supporters of the settlements still cite these reasons.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010402151.html Bush at Risk of Losing Closest Mideast Ally - washingtonpost.com]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4436739.stm BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel 'to keep some settlements']</ref><ref>[http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=94-D_23]</ref><ref>[http://experts.about.com/q/Israel-Middle-East-352/settlements-1.htm Israel/Middle East (News & Politics): settlements]</ref><ref>[http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=96-D_130]</ref><ref>[http://www.jcpa.org/jl/jordanvalley-dg.htm "What Happened to Secure Borders for Israel? The U.S., Israel, and the Strategic Jordan Valley" by Dore Gold]</ref>

* Many religious Jews assert the biblical Jewish connection to the areas in dispute, arguing that their claim to build is equal to the biblical Jewish connection to the other areas in Israel.

==Legal background==

===Land ownership===

In November 2006 [[Peace Now]] acquired a report (which it claims was leaked from the Israeli Government's Civil Administration) that indicates that as much as 40 percent of the settlement land that Israel plans to retain is privately owned by Palestinians.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/world/middleeast/21land.html?hp&ex=1164171600&en=2e03da87b76e6581&ei=5094&partner=homepage Israeli Map Says West Bank Posts Sit on Arab Land - New York Times]</ref> Peace Now further claims that this is a violation of Israeli law.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6168752.stm BBC NEWS | Middle East | Settlements 'violate Israeli law']</ref> The Washington Post reported that "The 38-page report offers what appears to be a comprehensive argument against the Israeli government's contention that it avoids building on private land, drawing on the state's own data to make the case".<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100482_pf.html West Bank Settlements Often Use Private Palestinian Land, Study Says - washingtonpost.com]</ref> Peace Now published statistics and aerial maps for each individual settlement. <ref>http://www.peacenow.org.il/data/SIP_STORAGE/files/9/2569.pdf</ref> <ref>[http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&fld=191&docid=2024 Peace Now : Settlements > Reports]</ref> According to the spokesman of Israel’s Civil Administration, this report was based on a leaked map that indicated Palestinian claims rather than rights, and that Peace Now never contacted the Civil Administration to confirm the report.<ref>[http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=1240 CAMERA: UPDATE: Peace Now Map Based Only on Palestinian Claims]</ref> A recent report by Peace Now, allegedly based on official data provided by the Civil Administration following a court struggle cites a lower figure of 32%, a figure rejected by the Civil Administration.<ref>[http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/837656.html דו"ח: 32% מההתנחלויות - על שטח פלשתיני פרטי - חדשות -הארץ]</ref>

In February 2008, The Civil Administration admitted that more than a third of West Bank settlements were built on private Palestinian land, originally seized by the IDF for 'security purposes'.<ref>[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954967.html Meron Rapoport, 'A third of settlements on land taken for 'security purposes' Ha'aretz,7/02/2008]</ref> The unauthorized seizure of private Palestinian land has been defined by the Civil Administration itself in a recent case as 'theft'.<ref>[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/964843.html Meron Rapoport Court case reveals how settlers illegally grab West Bank lands Haaretz 17/03/2008]</ref>

Illegal seizure of land owned by Palestinians continues. For example, in 2007 for several months young settlers have been occupying a house belonging to an elderly Palestinian widow. The widow has turned to the Israeli government for redress; the Israeli police are present in the area for a half day every week and have evicted the settlers on several occasions, but they keep coming straight back and intend to stay.<ref>New York Times, 2007 December 7, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/world/middleeast/08westbank.html?hp </ref>

According to the Israeli government, the majority of the land currently occupied by the new settlements was vacant or belonged to the state (from which it was leased) or bought fairly from the [[Palestinian people|Palestinians]]. Former [[United States]] [[Department of State|State Department]] Legal Advisor [[Stephen Schwebel]], who later headed the [[International Court of Justice]], wrote in [[1970]] regarding Israel's case:

<blockquote>Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.<ref>[http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm From "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories," by Dore Gold]</ref></blockquote>

The recent use of the Absentee Property Law to "transfer, sell or lease any real estate property" in East Jerusalem owned by Palestinians who live elsewhere (usually in the West Bank) without compensation has been criticized both inside and outside of Israel.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4226497.stm BBC NEWS | Middle East | Jerusalem land seizures 'illegal']</ref>

Opponents of the settlements claim that "vacant" land had either belonged to Arabs who had fled or belonged collectively to an entire village, a practise that had developed under [[Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] rule. [[B'Tselem]] claims that the Israeli government used the absence of modern legal documents for the communal land as a legal basis for expropriating it.

===Legal status of the territories===

Although all areas in question were captured by [[Israel]] in the 1967 [[Six-Day War]], Israel has treated them in three different ways:

* "[[East Jerusalem]]" - [[Jerusalem]] and its surroundings were envisioned as an [[corpus separatum|international area under United Nations administration]] in the 1947 partition plan. In 1948, [[Jordan]] captured and annexed the eastern half of Jerusalem, while Israel captured and annexed the west. Following the Six-Day War in 1967 Israel annexed the eastern part, together with several villages around it.

* The Israeli [[Golan Heights Law]] of 1981 applied Israel's "laws, jurisdiction and administration" in the [[Golan Heights]], which were captured from Syria in 1967 . Israel has not stated that it has "annexed" the area.

* The [[Gaza Strip]] and [[West Bank]], a section of the areas awarded by the UN to a prospective Arab state of Palestine, remained in [[Arab]] hands while the rest of that area was captured by Israel in the [[1948 Arab-Israeli War]]. The former was administered by [[Egypt]] while the latter was annexed by [[Jordan]].

The annexation of East Jerusalem and the [[Golan Heights Law]] have both been deemed illegal by the [[UN Security Council]] (resolutions [[UN Security Council Resolution 267|267]] and [[UN Security Council Resolution 497|497]] respectively), and have not been recognized by other states.

Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt (removing all Israeli settlements and returning the [[Sinai Peninsula]] to Egyptian sovereignty), and Jordan (returning small sections to Jordanian sovereignty); there are currently no peace treaties governing Israel's borders related to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. Israel therefore asserts that the armistice lines (known as the Green Line) of 1949 have no other legal status.

Palestinians object to this view as the Israel-Jordan peace treaty was not to alter the status of any territories coming under Israeli control during the hostilities of 1967 (article 3(2) of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/jordan_treaty.htm |title=http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/jordan_treaty.htm |accessdate= |format= |work= }}</ref>

===Legal status of the settlements ===

''See also [[International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict]]''

The establishment and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been described as "having no legal validity" by the [[UN Security Council]] in resolutions [[UN Security Council Resolution 446|446]], [[UN Security Council Resolution 452|452]], [[UN Security Council Resolution 465|465]] and [[UN Security Council Resolution 471|471]]. These resolutions were made under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter which relates to the "Pacific Settlement of Disputes" between parties, and as such have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law.<ref>No binding force under international law

*"Some analysts have pointed out that Security Council resolutions condemning or criticizing Israel have been passed under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, which are different from the Chapter VII resolutions against Iraq." Ayoob, Mohammad. "The war against Iraq: normative and strategic implications", in Robinson, Mary & Weiss, Thomas G. & Crahan, Margaret E. & Goering, John (eds). ''Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: human rights, unilateralism, and U.S. foreign policy'', Routledge (UK), May 1, 2004, p. 164.

*"Additionally it may be noted that the Security Council cannot adopt binding decisions under Chapter VI of the Charter." De Hoogh, Andre. ''Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes'', Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1996, p. 371.

*"Council recommendations under Chapter VI are generally accepted as not being legally binding." Magliveras, Konstantinos D. ''Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations'', Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1999, p. 113.

*"Within the framework of Chapter VI the SC has at its disposal an 'escalation ladder' composed of several 'rungs' of wielding influence on the conflicting parties in order to move them toward a pacific solution... however, the pressure exerted by the Council in the context of this Chapter is restricted to non-binding recommendations." Neuhold, Hanspeter. "The United Nations System for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes", in Cede, Franz & Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. ''The United Nations'', Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 66.

*"The responsibility of the Council with regard to international peace and security is specified in Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VI, entitled 'Pacific Settlements of Disputes', provides for action by the Council in case of international disputes or situations which do not (yet) post a threat to international peace and security. Herein its powers generally confined to making recommendations, the Council can generally not issue binding decisions under Chapter VI." Schweigman, David. ''The Authority of the Security Council Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter'', Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 33.

*"Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may only make recommendations but not binding decisions on United Nations members". Wallace-Bruce, Nii Lante. ''The Settlement of International Disputes'', Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1998, pp. 47-48.

*"First, it may issue non-binding resolutions under Chapter VI of the Charter expressing its opinion on the abuses and their resolution." Mertus, Julie. ''The United Nations And Human Rights: A Guide For A New Era'', Routledge, 2005, ISBN 0415343380, p. 120.

*"Under Chapter VI the Security Council can only make non-binding recommendations. However, if the Security Council determines that the continuance of the dispute constitutes a threat to the peace, or that the situation involves a breach of the peace or act of aggression it can take action under Chapter VII of the Charter. Chapter VII gives the Security Council the power to make decisions which are binding on member states, once it has determined the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression." Hillier, Timothy, Taylor & Francis Group. ''Sourcebook on Public International Law'', Cavendish Publishing, ISBN 1843143801, 1998, p. 568.

*"Nor is the disenchanting performance due to the fact that under Chapter VI the SC may only address non-binding resolutions to the conflicting parties." Cede, Franz, and Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. ''The United Nations: Law and Practice'', Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, ISBN 9041115633, p. 70.

*"This clause does ''not'' apply to decisions under Chapter VII (including the use of armed force), which are binding on all member states (unlike those adopted under Chapter VI which are of a non-binding nature)." [[Hans Köchler|Köchler, Hans]]. ''The Concept of Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power'', International Progress Organization, 2001, ISBN 3900704201, p. 21.

*"The impact of these flaws inherent to Resolution 731 (1992) was softened by the fact that it was a non-binding resolution in terms of Chapter VI of the Charter. Consquently Libya was not bound to give effect to it. However, the situation was different with respect to Resolution 748 of 31 March 1992, as it was adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter." De Wet, Erika, "The Security Council as a Law Maker: The Adopion of (Quasi)-Judicial Decisions", in Wolfrum, Rüdiger and Röben, Volker. ''Developments of International Law in Treaty Making'', Springer, 2005, ISBN 3540252991, p. 203.

*"There are two limitations on the Security Council when it is acting under Chapter VI. Firstly, recommendations of the Council under Chapter VI are not binding on states." Werksman, Jacob. ''Greening International Institutions'', Earthscan, 1996, ISBN 1853832448, p. 14.

*"Chapter VI exhorts members to settle such claims peacefully and submit them for mediation and arbitration to the United Nations. Chapter VI, however, is not binding - in other owrds, there is no power to compel states to submit their disputes for arbitration or mediation by the United Nations." Matthews, Ken. ''The Gulf Conflict and International Relations'', Routledge, 1993, ISBN 041507519X, p. 130.

*"One final point must be noted in connection with Chapter VI, and that is that the powers of the Security Council are to make "recommendations." These are not binding on the states to whom they are addressed, for Article 25 relates only to "decisions." Philippe Sands, Pierre Klein, D. W. Bowett. ''Bowett's Law of International Institutions'', Sweet & Maxwell, 2001, ISBN 042153690X, p. 46.

*"Article 2, para. 6, must be linked, first of all, to the use of these kinds of pressure that have no mandatory effect. Both the General Assembly and the Council have the power to make recommendations to the States, that is, resolutions that do not bind the States (see section 89)). Worthy of mention from this point of view are the provisions of Article 11, para. 2 ("The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security... and... may make recommendations with regard to any such question to the State or States concerned") and the various provisions of Chapter VI, particularly Article 33, para. 2, Article 36, and Article 37, para. 2, which give the Security Council the power to recommend settlement of disputes likely to endanger the peace." Conforti, Benedetto. ''The Law and Practice of the United Nations'', Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, ISBN 9004143084, p. 127.

*"...the primary authority of the Security Council is defined in terms of international peace and security. The Council's jurisdiction under Chapter VI&mdash;which give it recommendatory but not binding authority&mdash;is stated in very broad terms." Matheson, Michael J. ''Council UNbound: The Growth of UN Decision Making on Conflict and Postconflict Issues after the Cold War'', US Institute of Peace Press, 2006, ISBN 1929223781, p. 42.

*"After much lobbying, the Council agreed on a resolution intended to "assist the parties to achieve a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution" that would provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. But the preamble went on to specify that the Council was "acting under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations." In short, this remained an exercise of good offices, not binding arbitration subject to enforcement." Jensen, Erik. ''Western Sahara: Anatomy of a Stalemate'', Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005, ISBN 1588263053, p. 112.

*"Thus decisions under Chapter VI, for example, to recommend terms of settlement are not binding, and even decisions under Article 40 of Chapter VII may not be." ''Political science quarterly'', v. 90 (1975-76), Academy of Political Science, [[Columbia University]], p. 147.

*"The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven." [http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577 Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double standards?], ''[[The Economist]]'', October 10, 2002.

*"There are two sorts of security council resolution: those under 'chapter 6' are non-binding recommendations dealing with the peaceful resolution of disputes; those under 'chapter 7' give the council broad powers, including war, to deal with 'threats to the peace ... or acts of aggression'." Emmott, Bill. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,846814,00.html If Saddam steps out of line we must go straight to war], ''[[The Guardian]]'', November 25, 2002.

*"...there is a difference between the Security Council resolutions that Israel breaches (nonbinding recommendations under Chapter 6) and those Iraq broke (enforcement actions under Chapter 7)." Kristof, Nicholas D. [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/opinion/25KRIS.html?ex=1145851200&en=c092323da838cd9b&ei=5070 Calling the Kettle Black], ''[[The New York Times]]'', February 25, 2004.

*"There is a hierarchy of resolutions... Chapter 6, under which all resolutions relating to the middle east have been issued, relates to the pacific resolution of disputes. Above that, there are the mandatory chapter 7 resolutions, which impose the clearest possible obligations, usually on a single state rather than on two or three states, which is what chapter 6 is there for. Chapter 7 imposes mandatory obligations on states that are completely out of line with international law and policy, and the United Nations has decided in its charter that the failure to meet those obligations may be met by the use of force." [[Jack Straw (politician)|Straw, Jack]]. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020924/debtext/20924-09.htm#20924-09_spnew8 [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]] debates], [[Hansard]], Column 32, September 24, 2002.

*"There is another characteristic of these resolutions which deserves a mention, and that is that they are under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. Chapter 7 has as its heading 'Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression'. This is the very serious chapter of United Nations rules, regulations, laws and principles, which the United Nations activates when they intend to do something about it. If the United Nations announces under chapter 7 that it intends to do something about a matter and it is not done, that will undermine the authority of the United Nations; that will render it ineffective. There are many other resolutions under other chapters. Resolution 242 gets a bit of a guernsey here every now and then. Resolution 242 is under chapter 6, not chapter 7. It does not carry the same mandate and authority that chapter 7 carries. Chapter 6 is the United Nations trying to put up resolutions which might help the process of peace and it states matters of principle that are important for the world to take into consideration. Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw from territories that it has occupied. It also says that Israel should withdraw to secure and recognised boundaries and that the one is dependent upon the other. Resolution 242 says that, but it is not a chapter 7 resolution." [[Kim Beazley|Beazley, Kim]], [http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/05/1044318661193.html Waiting for blow-back (speech delivered in Parliament on February 4, 2003], ''[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]'', February 5, 2003.

*"There are several types of resolutions: Chapter 6 resolutions are decisions pursing the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, and put forward Council proposals on negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies, and other peaceful means. Chapter 7 resolutions are decisions for Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, involving use of force and sanctions, complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic radio and other means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations. Resolutions passed under Chapter 7 of the Charter are binding on all UN members, who are required to give every assistance to any action taken by the Council, and refrain from giving any assistance to the country against which it is taking enforcement action." [http://www.comeclean.org.uk/content/Greenpeace_010306.doc Iran dossier crosses the Atlantic: Where to from here?] ([[Microsoft Word]] document), [[Greenpeace]] position paper on Iran.</ref> In 1971, however, a majority of the then [[International Court of Justice]] (ICJ) members asserted in the non-binding ''Namibia'' [[advisory opinion]] that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding.<ref> [http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/53/5594.pdf ''Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)''], [[Advisory Opinion]] of [[21 June]] [[1971]] at paragraphs 87-116, especially 113: "It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. Article 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but applies to "the decisions of the Security Council" adopted in accordance with the Charter. Moreover, that Article is placed, not in Chapter VII, but immediately after Article 24 in that part of the Charter which deals with the functions and powers of the Security Council. If Article 25 had reference solely to decisions of the Security Council concerning enforcement action under Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter, that is to say, if it were only such decisions which had binding effect, then Article 25 would be superfluous, since this effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter."</ref> This assertion by the ICJ has been countered by [[Erika De Wet]] and others.<ref name=Frowein>"The International Court of Justice took the position in the Namibia Advisory Opinion that Art. 25 of the Charter, according to which decisions of the Security Council have to be carried out, does not only apply in relation to chapter VII. Rather, the court is of the opinion that the language of a resolution should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be drawn as to its binding effect. The Court even seems to assume that Art. 25 may have given special powers to the Security Council. The Court speaks of "the powers under Art. 25". It is very doubtful, however, whether this position can be upheld. As Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has pointed out in his dissenting opinion: "If, under the relevant chapter or article of the Charter, the decision is ''not'' binding, Article [69/70] 25 cannot make it so. If the effect of that Article were automatically to make ''al'' decisions of the Security Council binding, then the words 'in accordance with the present Charter' would be quite superfluous". In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here." Frowein, Jochen Abr. ''Völkerrecht - Menschenrechte - Verfassungsfragen Deutschlands und Europas'', Springer, 2004, ISBN 3540230238, p. 58.</ref> De Wet argues that Chapter VI resolutions ''cannot'' be binding. Her reasoning, in part states:<blockquote>Allowing the Security Council to adopt binding measures under Chapter VI would undermine the structural division of competencies foreseen by Chapters VI and VII, respectively. The whole aim of separating these chapters is to distinguish between voluntary and binding measures. Whereas the pacific settlement of disputes provided by the former is underpinned by the consent of the parties, binding measures in terms of Chapter VII are characterised by the absence of such consent. A further indication of the non-binding nature of measures taken in terms of Chapter VI is the obligation on members of the Security Council who are parties to a dispute, to refrain from voting when resolutions under Chapter VI are adopted. No similar obligation exists with respect to binding resolutions adopted under Chapter VII... If one applies this reasoning to the ''Namibia'' opinion, the decisive point is that none of the Articles under Chapter VI facilitate the adoption of the type of binding measures that were adopted by the Security Council in Resolution 276(1970)... Resolution 260(1970) was indeed adopted in terms of Chapter VII, even though the ICJ went to some length to give the opposite impression.<ref>De Wet, Erika. ''The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council'', Hart Publishing, 2004, ISBN 1841134228, pp. 39-40.</ref></blockquote> [[Pieter H.F. Bekker]] has argued that this non-binding character of ICJ advisory opinions does not mean that are without legal effect, because the legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the Court's authoritative views on important issues of international law and, in arriving at them, the Court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted to it by sovereign states. In his view, an advisory opinion derives its status and authority from the fact that it is the official pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.<ref>[http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh121.htm ''The UN General Assembly Requests a World Court Advisory Opinion On Israel's Separation Barrier''], Pieter H.F. Bekker, [http://www.asil.org/aboutasil/index.html ASIL] (American Society of International Law) Insights, December 2003.</ref> In practice the Security Council does not consider its decisions outside Chapter VII to be binding.<ref name=Frowein/>

The European Union considers the settlements to be illegal,<ref>[http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cms_data/docs/2004/12/22/%7B3FA161D9-6DA6-408F-85CE-20D0EC68DDFF%7D.pdf EU Committee Report]. </ref> and an April 21, 1978 opinion of the [[Legal Adviser of the Department of State]] to the [[United States Congress]] on the legal status of Israeli settlements concluded that "[w]hile Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law."<ref>http://www.fmep.org/documents/opinion_OLA_DOS4-21-78.html, accessed 2007-05-13</ref><ref name="autogenerated1">"Letter of the State Department Legal Advisor, Mr. Herbert J. Hansell, Concerning the Legality of Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories", cited in ''[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/2dfed17dc7dfae2a852563a9004c4055!OpenDocument Progress report - The human rights dimensions of population transfer including the implantation of settler]'' prepared by Mr. Awn Shawhat Al-Khasawneh.</ref>

In 1967, [[Theodor Meron]], legal council to the Israeli Foreign Ministry stated in a legal opinion to Adi Yafeh, the Political Secretary of the Prime Minister, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."<ref>[[Gershom Gorenberg|Gorenberg, Gershom]]. "The Accidental Empire". New York: Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, 2006. p. 99.</ref> Nevertheless, Israel considers its settlement policy to be consistent with international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, while recognizing that some of the smaller settlements have been constructed "illegally" in the sense of being in violation of Israeli law. <ref>

*Helmreich, Jeffrey. [http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-16.htm Diplomatic and Legal Aspects of the Settlement Issue], Jerusalem Issue Brief, [[Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs]], Vol. 2, No. 16, 19 January 2003.

*[http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/2/DISPUTED+TERRITORIES-+Forgotten+Facts+About+the+We.htm DISPUTED TERRITORIES- Forgotten Facts About the West Bank and Gaza Strip], Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1 Feb 2003. Retrieved 29 Jan, 2008.</ref> In 1998 the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs produced "The International Criminal Court Background Paper".<ref>30th July 1998, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs produced "The International Criminal Court Background Paper" http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/1990_1999/1998/7/the%20international%20criminal%20court%20-%20background%20pape, accessed 2007-05-13</ref> It concludes<blockquote>International law has long recognised that there are crimes of such severity they should be considered "international crimes". Such crimes have been established in treaties such as the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions. .... The following are Israel's primary issues of concern [ie with the rules of the ICC]: - The inclusion of settlement activity as a "war crime" is a cynical attempt to abuse the Court for political ends. The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law.</blockquote>

International [[human rights]] groups [[Amnesty International]] and [[Human Rights Watch]] have denounced the settlements as illegal,<ref name="Amnesty"> [http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150212005?open&of=ENG-ISR Israel/Occupied Territories: Removing unlawful Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories: Time to act] [[Amnesty International]], 2005.</ref><ref name="HRW">[http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/27/isrlpa12346.htm Israel: Expanding Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories] [[Human Rights Watch]], December 27, 2005</ref>, though the [[Anti-Defamation League]] has argued that they are legal.<ref>[http://www.adl.org/israel/advocacy/how_to_respond/settlements.asp?xflag=1 How to Respond to Common Misstatements About Israel: Israeli Settlements], [[Anti-Defamation League]] website. URL accessed April 10, 2006.</ref>

Some legal scholars <ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/middleeast/settlements.html FAQ on Israeli settlements], [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]] News Online, February 26, 2004. URL accessed April 10, 2006.</ref> (including prominent international law expert [[Julius Stone]], <ref>Pomerance, Michla. [http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2003/284/legal-iraq.html The Legality of the Iraq War: Beyond legal pacifism], ''The Review'', April 2003. URL accessed April 11, 2006.</ref> <ref>[http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=438604 International Law: Blaming Big Brother: Holding States Accountable for the Devastation of Terrorism], 56 ''Oklahoma Law Review'' 735, __ __.</ref> and [[Eugene V. Rostow|Eugene Rostow]], Dean of [[Yale Law School]]) and others, have also argued that the settlements are legal under international law, on a number of different grounds.

==== Arguments based on the Fourth Geneva Convention ====

There are two disputes regarding the Fourth Geneva Convention: whether the convention applies to the territories in question and whether the Convention forbids the establishment of Israeli settlements. Article 2 concerns the applicability of the Convention whereas article 49 concerns the legality of population transfers. In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies ''de jure'', but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself ''de facto'' by its provisions, without specifying which these are.<ref>Gerson, Allan. ''Israel, the West Bank, and International law'', Routledge, Sept 28, 1978, ISBN 0-7146-3091-8, p. 82.</ref><ref>Roberts, Adam, "Decline of Illusions: The Status of the Israeli-Occupied Territories over 21 Years" in ''International Affairs'' (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 64, No. 3. (Summer, 1988), pp. 345-359., p. 350</ref>

=====Article 2=====

Article 2 extends the Convention to "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties" and "all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party".<ref name=4GC>[http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5 Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.] Geneva, 12 August 1949.</ref> Supporters of the legality of the settlements argue that the Convention itself does not apply, as the [[West Bank]] and [[Gaza Strip]] have never been part of a sovereign state since the defeat of the [[Ottoman Empire]], therefore do not meet the definition of "the territory of a High Contracting Party".<ref name=Lacey>Lacey, Ian, ed. [http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict] (pdf) - Extracts from ''Israel and Palestine - Assault on the Law of Nations'' by [[Julius Stone]], Second Edition with additional material and commentary updated to 2003, [[AIJAC]] website. URL accessed April 10, 2006.</ref><ref name=Hollander>Hollander, Ricki. [http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=36&x_article=259 BACKGROUNDER: Jewish Settlements and the Media], [[Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America]], October 5, 2001. URL accessed April 12, 2006.</ref><ref name=Dann>Dann, Moshe. [http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal3.shtml Legality of the settlements], ''[[The Jerusalem Post]]'', May 22, 2001.</ref><ref name=Einhorn>Einhorn, Talia. [http://www.acpr.org.il/english-nativ/issue1/einhorn-1.htm The Status of Palestine/Land of Israel and Its Settlement Under Public International Law], ''Nativ'', Volume 1, 2003. URL accessed May 19, 2006.</ref> This argument was articulated in 1971<ref name=Slonim>Slonim, S. (1998). ''Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy, 1947-1997''. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, ISBN 90-411-1255-3, p. 211.</ref> by Israeli Attorney-General [[Meir Shamgar]]<ref>Kretzmer, David (2002). ''The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories''. SUNY Press. ISBN 0-7914-5337-5, p. 33.</ref> (who also created the legal framework of the Israeli military government in the administered territories<ref>[http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1998/9/Meir+Shamgar.htm Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs], accessed [[20 April]], 2006.</ref>) and presented by [[Moshe Dayan]] in a speech before the 32nd session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1977.<ref>Kretzmer, 2002, p. 34.</ref>

The [[International Court of Justice]], in an advisory (i.e. non-binding) opinion to the [[UN General Assembly]], argued that according to Article 2 of the Convention applies if “there exists an armed conflict” between “two contracting parties”, regardless of the territories status in international law prior to the armed attack. It also argued that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" according to [[customary international law]] (and defined by "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (General Assembly Resolution 2625).<ref>[http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf ''Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory''], International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, [[July 9]] [[2004]], paragraphs 95 and 87.</ref>

On [[15 July]] 1999 a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention met at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva. It ruled that the Convention did apply in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.<ref>United Nations (2002). ''Yearbook of the United Nations, 2000''. United Nations Publications. ISBN 92-1-100857-3, p. 421; p. 437.</ref><ref>[http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/43b9f2b1643b4aee85256e37005946ea/$FILE/mg_990715_4cgstatemt_e.pdf Statement of the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention], Geneva, [[15 July]], 1999. (PDF)</ref> The Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention held in Geneva on [[December 5]], [[2001]] called upon "the Occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to refrain from perpetrating any violation of the Convention." The High Contracting Parties reaffirmed "the illegality of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof."<ref>[http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList325/D86C9E662022D64E41256C6800366D55 Implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories: history of a multilateral process (1997-2001)], ''International Review of the Red Cross'', 2002 - No. 847.</ref>

U.N. Security Council Resolution 446 refers directly to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and specifically insists that Israel desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup.

However, others have objected to the ruling of the conference, which they argue has amended history and been construed only for this specific situation (''see excerpt below''). Under Article 2, the Convention pertains only to “cases of…occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party” by another such party. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were never the territory of a High Contracting Party; the occupation after 1948 by Jordan and Egypt was illegal and neither country ever had lawful or recognized sovereignty. The last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, which stipulated the right of the Jewish people to settle in the whole of the Mandated territory. According to Article 6 of the Mandate, “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use” was to be encouraged. Article 25 allowed the League Council to temporarily postpone the Jewish right to settle in what is now Jordan, if conditions were not amenable. Article 80 of the U.N. Charter preserved this Jewish right to settlement by specifying that:

<blockquote>nothing in the [United Nations] Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments.<ref>[http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=36&x_article=259 BACKGROUNDER: Jewish Settlements and the Media]</ref></blockquote>

According to barrister and human rights activist Stephen Bowen, Israel’s argument was rejected by the international community "because the Convention also states that it applies 'in all circumstances' (Article 1), and 'to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict' (Article 2)."<ref>Bowen, Stephen (1997). ''Human Rights, Self-Determination and Political Change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories''. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-411-0502-6, p. 29.</ref> Shamgar argues specifically against this point, stating:<blockquote>There is no rule of international law according to which the Fourth Convention applies in each and every armed conflict whatever the status of the parties.... The whole idea of the restriction of military government powers is based on the assumption that there has been a sovereign who was ousted and that he was a legitimate sovereign. Any other conception would lead to the conclusion, for example, that [[France]] should have acted in [[Alsace-Lorraine]] according to rule 42-56 of the [[Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907)#Hague Convention of 1907|Hague Rules of 1907]], until the signing of a peace treaty.<ref name=Slonim/></blockquote>

=====Article 49=====

Article 49 (1) insists that "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive" and Article 49(6) insists that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies".<ref name=4GC/> According the commentary of [[Jean Pictet]] of the [[International Red Cross]], this is intended to prevent the [[World War II]] practice of an occupying power transferring "portions of its own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories" which in turn "worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race".<ref>[[Jean Pictet|Pictet, Jean]] (ed.) [http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600056?OpenDocument Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention].</ref>

Supporters of the legality of the settlements argue that even if the Convention did apply, it should be read only in the context of [[World War II]] forcible migrations at the time. It is only intended to cover ''forcible'' transfers and to protect the local population from displacement. They point out Article 49(1) specifically covers "[i]ndividual or mass ''forcible'' transfers" whereas the Israelis who live in the settlements have moved there voluntarily, and argue that settlements are not intended to, nor have ever resulted in, the displacement of Palestinians from the area.<ref name=Lacey/><ref name=Dann/><ref name=Rostow1>[[Eugene Rostow|Rostow, Eugene]]. [http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal2.shtml Bricks and stones: settling for leverage; Palestinian autonomy], ''[[The New Republic]]'', April 23, 1990.</ref><ref name=mfa>[http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/peace%20process/guide%20to%20the%20peace%20process/israeli%20settlements%20and%20international%20law Israeli Settlements and International Law], Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, 20 May 2001. URL accessed April 11, 2006.</ref><ref name=Einhorn/> In addition, they state that the Geneva Convention only applies in the absence of an operative peace agreement and between two powers accepting the Convention. Since the [[Oslo Accords]] leave the issue of settlements to be negotiated later, proponents of this view argue that the Palestinians accepted the temporary presence of Israeli settlements pending further negotiation, and that there is no basis for declaring them illegal.<ref name=Lacey/><ref name=mfa/><ref name=Helmreich>Helmreich, Jeffrey. [http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-16.htm Diplomatic and Legal Aspects of the Settlement Issue], [[Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs]], ''Jerusalem Issue Brief'', Volume 2, Number 16, January 19, 2003.</ref><ref name=Hollander/><ref>[http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_current_settlements.php What is the background of Jewish settlements in Palestinian Arab areas?], Palestine Facts website, 2006. URL accessed April 12, 2006.</ref><ref name=Einhorn/>

Those who reject that view have a different reading of the article. They note that Pictet's commentary on Article 49(6) states "[t]he paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power." David Kretzmer, Professor of International Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has argued:

<blockquote>As paragraph 1 of Article 49 refers expressly to forcible transfers, it seems fair to conclude that the term "transfer" in paragraph 6 means both forcible and nonforcible transfers. This conclusion would seem to flow from the object of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is to protect civilians in the occupied territory, and not the population of the occupied power. From the point of view of the protected persons, whether the transfer of outsiders into their territory is forcible or not would seem to be irrelevant."<ref>Kretzmer, David. "The Advisory Opinion: The Light Treatment of International Humanitarian Law" in ''American Journal of International Law'' Vol.99 No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp.88-102, p.91.</ref>

</blockquote>

US State Department Legal Advisor, Herbert J. Hansell, in a letter dated 1 April, 1978, has reached the same conclusion, noting that "[p]aragraph 1 of article 49 prohibits "forcible" transfers of protected persons out of the occupied territory; paragraph 6 is not so limited."<ref name="autogenerated1" />

</blockquote>

He further argued that:

<blockquote>The view has been advanced that a transfer is prohibited under paragraph 6 only to the extent that it involves the displacement of the local population. Although one respected authority, Lauterpacht, evidently took this view, it is otherwise unsupported in the literature, in the rules of international law or in the language and negotiating history of the Convention, and it seems clearly not correct. Displacement of protected persons is dealt with separately in the Convention and paragraph 6 would seem redundant if limited to cases of displacement. Another view of paragraph 6 is that it is directed against mass population transfers such as occurred in World War II for political, racial or colonization ends; but there is no apparent support or reason for limiting its application to such cases.

</blockquote>

The latter interpretation was adopted by the International Court of Justice in its 2004 advisory opinion <ref>[http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf ''Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory''], International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, [[July 9]] [[2004]], paragraph 120.</ref>, and 150 countries supported a (non-binding) General Assembly resolution demanding Israel to "comply with its legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/f3b95e613518a0ac85256eeb00683444?OpenDocument |title=http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/f3b95e613518a0ac85256eeb00683444?OpenDocument |accessdate= |format= |work= }}</ref>

==== Arguments based on UNSC Resolution 242 and the British Mandate ====

Rostow and others further argue that [[UN Security Council Resolution 242]] (which Rostow helped draft) mandates Israeli control of the territories, and that the original [[British Mandate of Palestine]] still applies, allowing Jewish settlement there.<ref name=mfa/><ref name=Hollander/><ref name=Helmreich/><ref name=Rostow2>[[Eugene V. Rostow|Rostow, Eugene]]. [http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies], ''[[The New Republic]]'', October 21, 1991. </ref> In Rostow's view <blockquote>The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."<ref name=Rostow2/> </blockquote> According to Rostow "the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there".<ref>''American Journal of International Law'', 1990, volume 84, page 72</ref>

This right is based on Article 6 of the Mandate which states: "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use". In addition, many Israeli settlements have been established on sites which were home to Jewish communities before 1948 such as [[Neve Yaakov]], [[Gush Etzion]], [[Hebron]], [[Kalia, Israel|Kalia]], and [[Kfar Darom]].

Contrary to this view other legal scholars have argued that under Articles 31 and 32 of the [[Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties]] the only common sense interpretation of UNSC 242 is that Israel must withdraw from all of the territory captured in 1967, as any interpretation permitting the extension of sovereignty by conquest would violate the relevant governing principle of international law as emphasized in the preambular statement, i.e., "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" as established through the abolition of the right of conquest by the [[League of Nations]] following [[World War I]].

Furthermore, it is argued that UNSC 242 has binding force under Article 25 of the UN Charter owing to its incorporation into [[UN Security Council Resolution 338]] and that it is also binding on Israel and the PLO by agreement owing to its incorporation into the Oslo Accords.<ref name=McHugo>McHugo, John (2002). Resolution 242: A Legal Interpretation of the Right-Wing Israeli Interpretation of the Withdrawal Phrase With Reference to the Conflict Between Israel and the Palestinians. ''International and Comparative Law Quarterly'', 51, 851-882.</ref>

Others argue that the Oslo Accords supersede UNSC 242 rather than making it binding.<ref>http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/unitednations/Israel%20and%20Iraq%20-%20UN%20Double%20Standards.pdf</ref> The Declaration of Principles in the accords only state that future negotiations will "lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338."<ref>[http://www.historycentral.com/Israel/Documents/Oslo.html Oslo Accord<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

Additionally, as the international community considered the status of Jerusalem to be unresolved, even after 1967, and did not deem any part of the city to be Israeli territory, including that part held since 1948, UNSC 242 did not settle territorial issues between Israel and Palestine left unresolved by the 1949 Armistice Agreements.<ref>Quigley, John (2002). Palestine: The Issue of Statehood (pp. 37-54). In Silverburg, Sanford R. (Ed.). ''Palestine and International Law: Essays on Politics and Economics''. McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-7864-1191-0, pp. 50-51.</ref> Indeed, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and others have argued that, because of the disorder in Palestine at the time, the territorial framework of the 1947 Partition Plan did not come into effect in such a way as to [[ipso jure]] grant Israel sovereignty over the territory allocated to the Jewish state under that plan.<ref name=McHugo/> Stone agrees with Lauterpacht's analysis, and his view that sovereignty was acquired through other means:

<blockquote>Lauterpacht has offered a cogent legal analysis leading to the conclusion that sovereignty over Jerusalem has already vested in Israel. His view is that when the partition proposals were immediately rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression, those proposals could not, both because of their inherent nature and because of the terms in which they were framed, operate as an effective legal re-disposition of the sovereign title. They might (he thinks) have been transformed by agreement of the parties concerned into a consensual root of title, but this never happened. And he points out that the idea that some kind of title remained in the United Nations is quite at odds, both with the absence of any evidence of vesting, and with complete United Nations silence on this aspect of the matter from 1950 to 1967?…

In these circumstances, that writer is led to the view that there was, following the British withdrawal and the abortion of the partition proposals, a lapse or vacancy or vacuum of sovereignty. In this situation of sovereignty vacuum, he thinks, sovereignty could be forthwith acquired by any state that was in a position to assert effective and stable control without resort to unlawful means.<ref name=Lacey/></blockquote>

[[Antonio Cassese]] disagrees with this analysis, arguing that whilst Israel's original occupation of West Jerusalem might have been carried out in an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, this did not confer legal title to the territory owing to the general prohibition in international law on the acquisition of sovereignty through military conquest. He further considers that "mere silence" could not constitute agreement by the United Nations to the acquisition of sovereignty by Israel or Jordan as a result of their ''de facto'' control of Jerusalem. Cassese concludes that "at least ''a tacit manifestation of consent through conclusive acts would have been necessary''", whereas such relevant acts as did take place confirmed that no such consent to the transfer of sovereignty was given.<ref>Cassese, Antonio (1986). Considerations on the International Status of Jerusalem (pp. 13-40). In Kassim, A. F. ''The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1986''. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-411-0340-6.</ref>

==== Arguments based on historical agreements ====

{{main|Accordi Faysal-Weizmann}}

Some have argued that Israel has a right to settle in areas agreed upon with Emir [[Faysal I d'Iraq|Faysal]], the recognized political leader of the Arab world at the time. Faisal signed an agreement with [[Chaim Weizmann]], the recognized leader of the modern Zionisim movement.

The agreement, known as the [[Accordi Faysal-Weizmann]], signed in January 1919, agreed conditional terms of borders between the Jewish state and the Arab states, which include the present day territories in dispute.

==== Arguments based on the cause of the war ====

It has been argued that Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of a ''defensive war''. Former Israeli diplomat [[Dore Gold]] writes that: <blockquote>"The language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation", they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy", rather than a result of ''a war imposed on Israel'' by a coalition of Arab states in 1967".</blockquote>

He quotes Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, and wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: <blockquote>Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.</blockquote>

----

(Peace Now):

==Storia==

Following [[Anwar Sadat]]'s visit to Israel in 1978, 348 Israeli military reserves officers petitioned [[Israeli Prime Minister]] [[Menachem Begin]] urging him to continue with the drive for peace. This petition led to the creation of Peace Now, a [[grassroots]] movement dedicated to raising public support for the "peace process."<ref name="autogenerated1">[http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=43 Peace Now : About > About Us<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=43&docid=62&pos=1 Peace Now : About > About Us<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

At a rally held in [[Tel-Aviv]]'s ''Kikar Malkhei Israel'' (later renamed [[Rabin Square]], ''Kikar Rabin'' after [[Yitzhak Rabin]]), demonstrators called on Prime Minister Begin to sign a peace treaty with Egypt in exchange for the return of the [[Sinai peninsula]].{{Fact|date=February 2007}}

Peace Now opposed the [[1982 Invasion of Lebanon]], holding a massive rally after the [[Sabra and Shatila Massacre]] <ref name="autogenerated1" />.

On [[10 February]] 1983, at a Peace Now demonstration in Jerusalem, a right-wing militant named Yonah Avrushmi tossed a hand-grenade at demonstrators, killing Peace Now activist [[Emil Grunzweig]] and injuring several others.<ref>{{cite news

| first =

| last =

| authorlink =

| author =

| coauthors =

| title = Thousands attend Israeli's funeral

| url = http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0A1FF63F5F0C718DDDAB0894DB484D81

| format =

| work =

| publisher = The New York Times

| id =

| pages =

| page =

| date = [[1983-02-12]]

| accessdate = 2007-08-25

| language =

| quote =

| archiveurl =

| archivedate =

}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite news

| first = David K.

| last = Shipler

| authorlink =

| author =

| coauthors =

| title = A crude shrine rises at spot where bomb halted protest

| url = http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50711FD3E5F0C758DDDAB0894DB484D81

| format =

| work =

| publisher = The New York Times

| id =

| pages =

| page =

| date = [[1983-02-16]]

| accessdate = 2007-08-25

| language =

| quote =

| archiveurl =

| archivedate =

}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite news

| first = David K.

| last = Shipler

| authorlink =

| author =

| coauthors =

| title = Israel begins to note Jewish terrorism

| url = http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40715F63D5F0C7A8EDDA80894DC484D81

| format =

| work =

| publisher =

| id =

| pages =

| page =

| date = [[1984-01-29]]

| accessdate = 2007-08-25

| language =

| quote =

| archiveurl =

| archivedate =

}}</ref>

Throughout the years of its activity Peace Now has opposed Israeli settlement in the West Bank, which it perceives as being calculated to undermine the possibility of peace with the Palestinians.

The [[First Intifada]] was perceived by Peace Now as a political act, therefore the movement called for negotiations to be held with the Palestinians, aimed at putting an end to what the movement perceives as forced occupation of the [[West Bank]] (also known as [[Judea]] and [[Samaria]]) and Gaza.

The signing of the [[Oslo accords]] marked a milestone in the activity of Peace Now, which has since strived to support governments that acted according to the "land for peace" formula, and demonstrate against governments that had different approaches to the peace process.

With the outbreak of the [[Al-Aqsa Intifada]] (2000 to present), support for the movement has waned, in light of what seems from a present perspective as the collapse of the peace process set into motion at Oslo.

In 2003, new initiatives aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were set into motion, such as the ''[[National Census]]'' and the ''[[Geneva Accord|Geneva Initiative]]'', both of which are also based on the "land for peace" formula. Neither initiative is officially affiliated to Peace Now, though many of same players have been involved in the various peace initiatives. The Geneva Accord is identified with [[Yossi Beilin]] and the [[Yachad]] party; the [[National Census]] is identified with [[Ami Ayalon]], who has deliberately kept this initiative separate from Peace Now in order not to damage support from the general public.

Peace Now's main activities for 2004 are monitoring [[Israeli settlement]] expansions and the establishment of illegal outposts by the [[Hilltop Youth]]. Peace Now was one of the main organizers of the ''Mate ha-Rov'' ("majority camp") demonstration in 2004, in support of [[Israel's unilateral disengagement plan of 2004]] and withdrawal from the [[Gaza Strip]]. On [[March 19]] [[2005]], a pro-disengagement rally attracted 10,000 people. Since Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza, Peace Now has not organized any major effort to support any further withdrawals.

==Criticism and controversy==

The movement has been criticized by more conservative supporters of Israel who claim that it lacks realism given the alleged absence of a corresponding movement on the Arab side of the conflict.

[[Ami Ayalon]], former head of the [[Shin Bet]] and co-initiator of the ''[[National Census]]'' peace proposal (with professor [[Sari Nusseibeh]]), has criticized Peace Now for what he claims is demonizing the Jewish settlers, thus encouraging hate towards settlers, and providing the general public reasons to dislike the peace camp.

Ayalon scorns Peace Now for failing to rally the masses in support of the Israeli Peace movement. Ayalon also claims that this because Peace Now and the [[Left-wing politics|left wing]] have shown alienation and a patronizing attitude towards the general Israeli public, and that this attitude combined with increased terrorist activity over the past four years are to blame for Peace Now's current poor standing within the Israeli public, which feels the peace camp is not committed (enough) to stop [[Palestinian terrorism]] and protect Israel's interests.

Ayalon concluded that many settlements should indeed be disbanded, but the transferred settlers should be embraced and receive support - both financial and moral - from the state and the public, and not being treated as enemies.<ref>[http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//543668]{{he icon}}</ref>

Peace Now has also been criticized by some groups within Israel for receiving funding from sources such as the [[European Union]].<ref>[http://www.nfc.co.il/archive/002-D-322-00.html?tag=6-24-32#PTEXT714] {{he icon}}</ref> In January 2008, Israel's Knesset passed a law requiring organizations to publicize financial contributions from foreign governments. This law was aimed specifically at Peace Now, who many Israelis have come to view as agents of Europe acting against the State of Israel's national interests.<ref>[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124952 'Peace Now' Will Have to Publicize EU Contributions - Politics & Government - Israel News - Arutz Sheva<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

Following a protest by Peace Now activists in Hebron against Israeli control of the territories, Palestinians hurled rocks at their bus and a police car driving near it.<ref name = "ynet"/>

===General Secretary===

The general secretary of Peace Now, [[Yariv Oppenheimer]], was doing his reserves duty in a checkpoint in the Jordan valley in the [[Palestinian territories]] and was acting just like any other Israeli soldier.

In an article published by the Israeli news-site NRG (http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/646/857.html), Two [[Machsom Watch]] activists report seeing Oppenheimer making his military reserve duty in a checkpoint inside the territories.

Oppenheimer didn't deny the story and told the journalist that "When I am being called to do my reserve duty in the territories, i am doing my best to make my task successfully also if it is against my point of view and to act in a humanitarian way".

====================