The international community is clear that the 22% of Palestine (pre-1948) that Israel occupied in 1967 is not part of Israel and is 'occupied territory'. There are responsibilities under International Law for the occupiers (eg. you cant evict people from their homes, take away their land etc - that is a human rights violation and against the Geneva Conventions).
The IDF makes the point that the colonials/settlers in these territories are subject to international laws governing occupied territories.
I full expect someone to come up with a wheeze why Israel should be above international law, but in the meantime, kudos to the IDF panel that is sticking to its guns (if you'll excuse that turn-of-phrase):
IDF panel rules West Bank settlers not protected by Basic Law
By Chaim Levinson
Israel's Basic Laws neither apply to nor protect settlers, the military appeals committee ruled in response to an appeal from a resident of Yitzhar, Akiva Hacohen, who was banned last October for six months from the West Bank except for Ariel. The ban was later extended for three months. Hacohen, represented by Yitzhak Bam of the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, appealed the decision to the military appeals committee, which allows challenges to decisions of the IDF command in the West Bank.
However, the committee's chairman, Lieutenant Colonel Nethanel Benishu, rejected the appeal and it's constitutional claims as Basic Laws did not apply to settlers. He said the army's decisions should be tested against international law on occupied territories, and not Israeli law.
Hacohen said he will petition the High Court of Justice next week and argue such bans as the one against him contradict the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom and the Basic Law on the Freedom of Occupation. The petition will also state that the sovereign power in the territories, the IDF, is subject to Israeli law.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-panel-rules-west-bank-settlers-not-protected-by-basic-law-1.293849
