WHY was Israel allowed to colonize the Palestinian West Bank with so called "settlements"

My first question on this touchy subject is WHY many settlement posters think that "the settlements" are a monolithic bloc of illegal outposts on stolen land?

In my opinion, this is a sign of intellectual laziness and willful ignorance. "The settlements" are nothing of the kind.

I do agree that "the settlements" should be divided into at least three different groups:

1. Settlements that are the re-establishment of pre - 1948 settlements where the residents were either expelled or massacred in Israel's War of Independence.

As an example I refer Kfar Etzion where a massacre of Jews took place after a two-day battle in which Jewish Kibbutz residents and Haganah militia defended Kfar Etzion from a combined legion and local Arab men on May 13, 1948, the day before the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

2. Settlements that were established with the consent of the Israeli government of the time after 1967 (Israel occupied the West Bank in the Six-Day-War) on land they were established on.

3. Illegal, "hilltop youth" type settlements that were established without any support or sanction by any Israeli government and not necessarily with any legal ownership of the land they were established on.

Again, in my opinion only the last of these three can be considered illegal under any law. I ask the mainstream idea who base their claims on 'international law' defining all settlements as illegal to provide the name of the international law that makes that definition, the relevant clause, article or section and the date that any Israeli government ratified its participation as a contracting party to that law.

And, please do not attempt to claim that UN resolutions are 'international law'. They are not. Again, it's my opinion, the UN is not a 'world government' and has no authority to enact laws of any kind. Even its ability to pass binding resolutions is severely limited. UN General Assembly resolutions are nothing more than non-binding recommendations that have no meaning if the relevant countries reject them.

Attempt to claim the 2004 International Court of Justice's advisory opinion is 'international law'? The International Court of Justice is a Court, not a legislative body, and only has the authority to interpret existing international law when handing a decision. In the absence of any relevant international law, it can only issue an advisory opinion on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organs and agencies, which is just that: a non-binding opinion that may or may not be worth the paper it's printed on.

Attempt has been made several times, to invoke Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. There are many arguments pro and con over the validity of applying Article 49, but the anti - settlement crowd ignores the dissenting opinions, such as these:

a) Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949 - (Civilians in areas of armed conflict and occupied territories are protected by the 159 articles of the Convention).

b) Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention -(The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies).

c) Inappropriate Use of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(To be continued...)