Legal Analysis of Israeli Settlers’ Citizenship Status under Contemporary International Law

The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, marked by the systemic suppression of Palestinians by the Israeli regime and reported actions by Hamas against Israeli settlers, has raised a critical legal question regarding the citizenship status of settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories. This issue centers on whether these settlers are subject to static citizenship rights, which are limited to domestic legal frameworks, or dynamic citizenship rights, which extend protections to citizens abroad under international law. The distinction between these two forms of citizenship carries significant legal and practical implications, particularly in the occupied territories, where Israel’s application of domestic law to settlers challenges the legitimacy of their legal protections. This extended abstract argues that Israeli settlers do not qualify as civilians under international humanitarian law and are thus ineligible for the protections of dynamic citizenship rights. This position aligns with the views of the Supreme Leader of Iran and recent advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The analysis is based on a descriptive-analytical methodology, utilizing library-based research to examine international legal documents, judicial decisions, and scholarly literature.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is characterized by territorial disputes, military confrontations, and violations of international law, particularly in the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israeli settlements, widely regarded as illegal under international law, have been a central issue, altering the demographic and geographic landscape of these territories. Despite the Oslo Accords, which aimed to establish boundaries and promote peace, Israel’s continued settlement expansion violates UN resolutions, such as Resolution 242 and Resolution 338, and contravenes Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into occupied territories.

Israeli settlers, often referred to as “city-dwellers” in this study, occupy a legally ambiguous position. Residing in occupied territories, they are nonetheless subject to Israeli domestic laws, including access to courts, tax benefits, and social services, which are hallmarks of static citizenship rights. These rights are tied to the legal bond between a citizen and their state within its sovereign territory. In contrast, dynamic citizenship rights, rooted in the global human rights framework, ensure protections for individuals beyond national borders, as outlined in instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions. Israel’s extraterritorial application of domestic law to settlers creates a dual legal regime, where settlers enjoy privileges akin to those of Israeli citizens within Israel, while Palestinians are subjected to military law and systemic discrimination.

Citizenship has evolved from a territorial concept to a multifaceted legal status encompassing both national and international dimensions. Static citizenship rights are conferred by a state to its citizens within its sovereign territory, based on their allegiance to the state’s legal and political system. The ICJ’s Nottebohm case (1955) emphasized effective nationality, highlighting that domestic laws define the scope of protections for citizens within a state’s borders. Dynamic citizenship rights, influenced by the global human rights movement, recognize individuals as bearers of universal rights, ensuring protections in contexts where domestic laws are absent or insufficient, such as during armed conflicts or in occupied territories.

In the case of Israeli settlers, Israel’s extension of domestic laws to occupied territories suggests that settlers are treated as duty-bound citizens, subject to static citizenship rights. However, their presence in occupied territories raises questions about their eligibility for dynamic citizenship protections, particularly those afforded to civilians under international humanitarian law. This dual application of rights has led to the emergence of “Israeli citizenship rights,” a hybrid legal construct that combines elements of static and dynamic frameworks, creating a unique and problematic legal status.

The settlers’ active role in the Israeli occupation is pivotal to determining their legal status. The ICJ’s advisory opinion of July 19, 2024, and various UN reports indicate that settlers are not passive residents but active participants in perpetuating the occupation. They engage in or support acts of violence, land confiscation, and property destruction against Palestinians, often with the tacit or explicit support of Israeli authorities. These actions violate international humanitarian law, including Article 46 of the Hague Regulations and Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which mandate the protection of the occupied population.

The principle of distinction, a cornerstone of international humanitarian law, requires a clear separation between combatants and non-combatants, with civilians entitled to protections against violence. The settlers’ involvement in the occupation, including their role in displacing Palestinians and altering the demographic composition of the occupied territories, undermines their civilian status. The ICJ has noted that Israel’s settlement policies facilitate violence against Palestinians, positioning settlers as quasi-combatants rather than protected civilians.

The Supreme Leader of Iran, in a statement on October 25, 2023, asserted that Israeli settlers are not civilians but participants in the occupation’s military and security apparatus. This view aligns with the ICJ’s findings, which highlight the settlers’ role in perpetuating Israel’s illegal occupation. The Supreme Leader’s perspective challenges the applicability of dynamic citizenship protections, arguing that settlers’ actions disqualify them from civilian status under international law. This position is reinforced by the ICJ’s conclusion that Israel’s settlement policies violate fundamental principles of international law, including the prohibition on population transfer into occupied territories.

The authors employed a library-based methodology, systematically collecting and analyzing primary and secondary sources, including international legal instruments, ICJ advisory opinions, UN reports, and scholarly works on citizenship and international humanitarian law. The descriptive-analytical approach facilitated a comprehensive examination of the settlers’ legal status within the framework of international law and the specific context of the occupied territories. The analysis reveals that the settlers’ hybrid legal status exploits both static and dynamic citizenship frameworks, undermining the principles of international humanitarian law.

The legal status of Israeli settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories defies traditional categorizations of citizenship rights. Israel’s extraterritorial application of domestic laws, combined with the settlers’ active role in the occupation, precludes their classification as civilians entitled to dynamic citizenship protections. This conclusion aligns with the Supreme Leader’s assertion that settlers are not non-combatants and is supported by the ICJ’s findings on the illegality of Israel’s settlement policies. The settlers’ participation in violence and dispossession against Palestinians positions them as quasi-combatants, subject to the legal framework governing armed conflicts rather than civilian protections. This analysis underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of citizenship in conflict zones and calls for renewed efforts to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law to address ongoing violations in the occupied territories.