Why and in what way is the Israeli "occupation of the west bank'' and it's "settlements" there illegal?

The claim that the "occupation" and the "settlements" are illegal seem to hinge on three key ideas

• That UN resolution 242 refers to all the territory captured in the 6 day war
• that article 49 of the geneva convention applies in some way to the scenario
• that non-binding opinions and resolutions mean anything

In the words of the people who wrote UN resolution 242 it was clearly not meant to apply to 100% of the territory captured in the war and was only meant to apply once Arabs agreed to peace and and decided on a specific border (something that hasn't happened other than partially the case of Egypt) meaning continued Israeli ''occupation'' is fully legal under UN resolution 242

''we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.''

''[The] resolution required agreement on “secure and recognized” boundaries, which, as practical matter, and as matter of interpreting resolution, had to precede withdrawals" (these are just a few examples of many

Article 49 of the geneva conventions was made due to a specific german leader conquering territory and then forcing people to that area so the article cannot be applied here because

• Israeli "settlers" aren't forced to live in the "west bank"
• Israel isn't actually "occupying" a foreign land as Jordan has no legitimate claim to the land (and admitted so in 1994)
• Israel captured the land in a defensive war making this statute illegitimate to apply here

(weird no pro-palestinians or International groups seem to care about russia and a number of other countries doing this only applies to Israel and incorrectly)