In a statement to the Liasion Committee today, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak highlighted that the 'settlements' in Israel are deemed "illegal under international law." While such confident statements have been heard by many, few people have paused to question the specific legal framework being breached, or if any breach exists.
If we were to consider the presence of Israeli citizens in Israel as a settlement and acknowledge the allocation of land to Israel through an International Mandate (specifically, the British Mandate for Palestine) during its establishment in 1948, which explicitly called for the creation of a Jewish State, alongside the creation of other nations like Jordan, then it would be possible to construct the following inaccurate assertions.
However, it is evident that none of those aspects align with the actual situation on the field.
Israel asserts that it is not an occupying power. The region commonly referred to as the 'West Bank' (Judea and Samaria), which was part of the independent Jewish State established under the Mandate in 1948, was occupied by Jordan and other Arab nations following their invasion of Israel immediately after Israel was established. In 1967, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) removed the Arab forces from the territory. Hence, Israel is not an occupying power as the independent state of Israel itself was occupied by Jordan until 1967. Consequently, Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which addresses the prohibition of an occupying power transferring its population into occupied territories, does not apply.
The various United Nations resolutions most often referred to are not legally binding. The resolutions are simply recommendations made by a UN Committee to the UN Security Council and are lacking any legal authority, therefore, they are not binding upon the sovereign state of Israel.
Based on the above, Prime Minister Sunak's statement to the Liasion Committee was untrue. Israel is not in violation of international law.