JERUSALEM, May 20 (Xinhua) -- Time is ticking down for the Israeli government to decide how it will deal with two court orders demanding that an outpost and a settlement neighborhood be demolished.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Migron outpost is to be cleared by Aug. 1 and that the Ulpana neighborhood of the Beit-El settlement is to be evacuated, since both were deemed illegal by the court.

While the court's ruling is final, there are still ways for the Israeli Knesset parliament to pass laws that would authorize the construction and halt the evacuation. However, when two members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party did try to pass such a law, Netanyahu asked it to be delayed.

After the inclusion of Kadima party under its recently elected leader Shaul Mofaz, the coalition government now has 94 out of 120 seats in parliament. One of the most important changes to the inter dynamics of the government after the deal is that even if one of its largest coalition partners would opt to leave, it would still have a majority in the parliament.

Avraham Diskin, a professor of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said that the most pressing issue for the government is to find a solution to the Ulpana situation.

"It all depends on the negotiations between Mofaz and Netanyahu, one possibility to solve all that is to get a new law and it's not off the table yet," Diskin said.

"Compromises can always be reached. For instance, they can say let's now have the law and from this moment on we are going to behave in another way," he added.

The situation that has been further complicated over the last few days, as a couple that live in one of the houses have asked the Supreme Court to examine their claim that they bought their apartment after being shown documents by the developer indicating that the houses were not built on private Palestinian land.

Diskin said that once a deal is reached between Netanyahu and Mofaz, then they have to deal with the reaction of other people like many of those on the right wing of the government.

The issue of settlement construction is one of the most divisive questions in the Israeli politics. While many politicians on the right wing argue that "it's the historic right of Jews to build on the West Bank as it once was part of the ancient Jewish kingdoms," the left wing on the other hand argues that "modern day Israel has no claim to the land and that it should be handed over to the Palestinians as part of a peace agreement."

The Palestinians consider all Israeli settlement construction as illegal since they see it as a threat to their goal of an independent and functioning state. Their stance is backed by most of the international community.

Professor of the University of Haifa, Eli Salzberger, said that there are two different aspects that need to be looked at when talking about the legality of the settlements, international law and domestic Israeli law.

"From an international law perspective there is a debate about the legality of all settlements without the distinction about what we call illegal settlements and legal settlements," Salzberger said.

He added that there are a number of very complicated issues that need to be decided on before it is possible to come to some kind of answer about the legality of the settlements.

"On the one hand, there are various international laws, conventions and rules that prohibit an occupying power to establish settlements and to transfer populations from its territory to the occupied territory," Salzberger said.

"But the interesting legal questions that were raised are first of all, it's not forced transformation of population into the territories, it's voluntary. People actually want to live there so whether the international law rules apply here isn't clear," he added.

With regard to the legality of Migron and the Ulpana neighborhood, Salzberger said that as these areas were not annexed by Israel, their legal status is based on a Supreme Court decision from 1979.

It states that settlements can only be legal when they are built out of military necessities in accordance with international law and are not on private land.

However, the Ulpana neighborhood does not conform to either regulation, Salzberger said.

He pointed out that while the parliament might very well pass a law that would approve settlements that the Supreme Court ruled were illegal. Such a law would not pass a legal review and this is why the Attorney General advised the government against such a law.

Based on Salzberger's assessment, analysts here say, the government appears to have limited legal options, and might not have any other choice than to follow the initial ruling of the court, even if it comes with a heavy political price.