There are Israeli experts in international law, like Orna Ben-Naftali (Faculty of Administration) and Eyal Gross (University of Tel-Aviv) that oppose the legalization of any Israeli settlement beyond the Green Line. On the other hand, others argue that since Israel conquered those territories in a defensive war (Six-Day War 1967), it has the right of control until there is a peace treaty and even keep part of the West Bank, for example, Prof. Julius Stone, jurist Prof. Eugene Rostov, ex sub-Secretary of State of the United States (one of the authors of Resolution 242), jurist Douglas Feith, jurist Prof. Steven Schwebel (legal advisor of the State Department of the US) and later, president of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The physical situation has been described in questions 4-5. One of the central arguments, defended by the ex-presidents of the Israeli Supreme Court of Justice Shimon Agranat and Meir Shamgar, is that since there has never existed a Palestinian state and that Jordan illegally annexed Judea and Samaria (West Bank) the territories possess an “in dispute” status. The Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line are located in territories “in dispute” that do not possess legal-private owners (territories from the British Mandate that were later under the Jordanian domain). The central discussion is if the Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the West Bank as well. The Convention (Article 2) applies to the occupied territory by a State that is a party to the Convention over another State party to the Convention. Israel defends that, given that the West Bank was not legally in the hands of Jordan, the Convention does not apply. However, Israel decided that since 1967 they would voluntarily apply the humanitarian spirit of the Convention over the Palestinian civil population.