I addressed that. The Israeli government did not and does not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. The citizens move there of their own accord, which is permissible. In fact, in this specific case, there exists a pre-occupation law that specifically allows for it.

That is the same as a transfer under IHL.

We seem to be discussing this in parallel in two places.

Anybody interesting in this should look a bit further up in the thread for my response to the same comment by the same poster. I've continued the conversation only there.

Give me a break. So the settlements are all just fine and dandy in your eyes?

Yes, just as fine and dandy as any other village in the world. The Ottomans specifically said "come, all peoples, come settle this land" and nobody has changed the law since (one mandate that didn't and two occupations that can not). All talk of "it's illegal" either do not mention any law being broken, or grossly misinterpret laws that are applied with the correct interpretation in other geographic places.

There is much noise me about the settlements, but after a year and a half of researching this I come up empty searching for any solid arguments against them.

> The Israeli government did not and does not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

False. It directly funds organizations which promote settlement.