Incorrect. This is of no legal significance. I don't see how you could possibly interpret the text you just quoted in that way. It doesn't say 'the occupying power shall not transfer... unless people of the same ethnic group lived there before the occupation.' You're giving that provision a nonsensical reading. The prohibition is clear cut and unambiguous - the occupying power can't transfer its population into occupied territory. Who that territory belonged to is not relevant at all.If the answer to that is yes, then the next question to ask is who had sovereign control of the West Bank prior to the Israeli occupation and who lived there?
Which would be a violation of individual human rights - and gives rise to individual remedies at most, if a specific person can show title to private land. It doesn't give Israel a right to establish Israeli civilian towns all over the occupied territory willy nilly.The answer to that is that between 1948 and 1967, it was Jordan. And what did the Jordanians do? They ethnically cleansed the existing Jewish population from the West Bank.
It's really strange that you place so much stock in RECOGNISED sovereignty when it comes to Jordan, but conveniently ignore the fact that not a single country on Earth RECOGNISES Israel's sovereignty over the same territory...But not many countries, not even Arab countries, recognized Jordan's sovereignty over the West Bank. So who had RECOGNIZED sovereignty over the West Bank prior to 1948?
Which is a legal entity that does not exist - an entity that does not exist can't claim title over territory (obviously).ANSWER: it was part of the British Mandate.
You're being pretty unbelievably disingenuous. Rostow's critics don't negate his arguments by saying that "he's in the minority" - they present detailed legal arguments, widely accepted legal arguments I might add. The fact you haven't actually read them doesn't mean they don't exist.And what was the composition of the population of Palestine during the British mandate? ANSWER: it consisted of BOTH Jews and Arabs. And both people's had the right to settle anywhere within pre 1948 Palestine. So what changed? Why are Jews suddenly forbidden from settling in the West Bank, which was part of Palestine, after Israel's victory over Jordan in a defensive war?
That's the crux of Eugene Rostow's argument in favor of the legality of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. And how do his critics negate his argument? By saying that his view is the minority view. That's not a valid legal argument in my opinion. Unlike some, I will accept Only a well reasoned legal argument backed up by facts ...