A/HRC/13/53 24. As has been pointed out many times in past reports of the Special Rapporteur and his predecessors, the settlements are all unlawful due to the prohibition in article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This provision prohibits the transfer of the population of an occupying Power to the occupied territory, particularly in this case where Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders — as legally prescribed by Security Council resolution 242 — is gravely compromised by the extensive settlement development, its related network of Israeli-only roads, the ongoing construction of the separation barrier, and the sustained effort to establish favourable facts on the ground, which would ultimately be relied upon by Israel as the basis for negotiating some agreed outcome. Finally, there have been hints by Mr. Netanyahu that if the Palestinian Authority does not soon reciprocate to the extent of agreeing to start peace talks, Israel may suspend the partial freeze.35 Whether such a suspension would be significant beyond the atmospherics of pre-negotiation give and take is questionable, considering the large gap between what Israel seems to regard as its best offer and what the Palestinians are seeking as an acceptable outcome. B. The Israeli national regional priorities plan 25. There are further developments that suggest the real intentions of Israel with respect to the future of the settlements, and that undermine the credibility of the freeze as a prelude to the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank, at least from the territory outside the socalled settlement blocs. In this respect, the 21 votes to 5 adoption by the full Israeli cabinet of a plan to fund settlements within the framework of “national regional priorities” to the extent of $30 million for about 90 settlements, homes for 110,000 existing settlers, is a disturbing development.36 Such investment would not make any sense if Israel is contemplating relinquishing substantial control over the West Bank, as these settlements are spread out all over the occupied territory. As the respected Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, has observed, these moves demonstrate that the freeze is “a sham”, and reveal Israel’s real goals.37 A close cabinet associate of Mr. Netanyahu, Yuval Steinitz, Minister of Finance, confirmed this concern by pointing out that the priorities plan shows that the Netanyahu Government continues to support the settlers despite the freeze.38 A strident critique has appeared in Haaretz under the byline of Zvi Bar’el: “The folly lies in how the new map renders void the decision to freeze construction in the settlements. … The objective, then, is to create housing opportunities in the settlements and increase the number of settlers, as well as other dubious facts on the ground.”39 What seems most destructive of prospects for the realization of the Palestinian right of self-determination is the treatment of former “fringe settlements” as if they were part of settlement blocs, making the national regional priorities plan a major expansion of permanent settlements. However, the Prime Minister reacted by declaring that nothing is permanent until final status talks have been concluded.40 The Palestinian Authority has reportedly considered responding by issuing a directive to prohibit Palestinians from working in West Bank settlements.41 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 GE.10-10260 Ibid. “Israel votes new funding for settlements”, Reuters Alertnet, 13 December 2009. Ibid. Ibid. “The map of national folly”, Zvi Bar’el, Haaretz, 14 December 2009, available at http://www. haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1134595.html. “Palestinians. National priority map is blueprint for settlement expansion”, Haaretz, 19 December 2009, available at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1134699.html. See also “Labor ministers: help periphery, not settlements”, Ynet, 12 October 2009, available at http://www.ynet.co.il/ english/articles/0,7340,L-3817996,00.html. “Palestinians try to wean themselves off West Bank settlements”, The Jewish Journal, 14 December 11