I hate to say this, but there really is no such thing as international law. Oh there are conventions that some countries pretend to abide by, but in truth no bad people ever do and are never held to account. The International Law Bar is a waste of time and energy made up of duplicitous people and as we have seen since October 7, just another outlet for antisemitism. This is why when someone says the UN or the Hague no serious person in the US really listens. In fact the only time any nations try to apply anything the UN passes or does is to harm Israel. Can we stop pretending that the UN, international law or international order actually mean anything?
The thing is, I’d argue that some sort of international norms are necessary for a world divided into approximately two hundred countries to function. The environment is a good example- we need rules about pollution that all countries will follow in order to address global environmental problems. As difficult as that is, there’s no other way. My point is that while international law is many times necessary, the treaties that we have are haphazard, not necessarily well thought out, and usually don’t work well. A lot of times a valid response to outrage that a country (usually Israel) is not following international law should be to point outo that the international law itself in this context is what’s actually outrageous.
Shlomo--excellent piece, thank you so much for this. Questions: 1. Can the international laws be re-written, and 2. Why doesn't Israel drop out of the UN and ignore the international courts the way other countries do? The UN is corrupt and largely useless and seems to exist only to be against Israel, and there isn't any benefit to Israel. Why can't Israel just say, "to hell with this, we're taking/keeping OUR land, and we will work out our Abraham Accords with everyone and transform the Middle East in a way that benefits everyone in the region and brings lasting peace and prosperity." I mean, Israel might as well give the middle finger because remaining in those corrupt organizations is doing more harm than good for Israel.
Dana- In many ways Israel does ignore the UN and the International court of justice. For example, the ICJ recently issued an advisory opinion saying that international law requires Israel to withdraw from all of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem unilaterally with no regard for the consequence this would have for its own security, and then the UN passed a resolution demanding Israel do this within a year. But that is all unenforceable, and it is clear Israel has no intention of even trying to comply. In terms of dropping out of the UN, people suggest that for Israel every once in a while but on balance there are a lot of reasons to think being a member of the UN is on the whole beneficial. In terms of rewriting international law, of course that is possible and new international treaties are always being proposed. But remember, this is done by countries all aiming to push their own agendas, so the process is time consuming and the results are often not what we'd like.
Well, Trump and his very pro-Israel team is coming in with sledgehammers and deep shovels and CHANGE is going to happen--and maybe not so slowly. I think, like Netanyahu said just days after the massacre (paraphrasing): "The Middle East will be changed in ways that will be talked about for generations to come." I think it will be, and in very good ways not only for Israel, but for the entire Middle East. And for the world (once Iran is neutralized and the threat of them obtaining a nuke bomb is removed--which MUST happen).
But even the environment agreements are not followed and quite frankly dont even address the real environmental issue, if China and India don’t have to cut emissions while they are the chief polluters today. Plus if you can just leave the agreement anytime you want, what effect does it really have?
I think we have already seen that the majority of countries dont follow agreements and that there is just a fight for survival. China is a signatory to the Law of the Sea treaty and does everything she can to flout the law, specifically with the crap she is pulling with the Philippines now or with the South China Sea. In fact, any country that didnt follow her bullshit about COVID being from a “wet market” instead of a lab leak, didnt get the containers they needed to continue to export an import goods, leading to the global supply chain issue. You cant have international law when the major players, China dn Russia, just do what they want.
What we need is to return to Biblical Law, especially the Ten Commandments. We may have to admit we were wrong and give up some of our cherished liberal ideas, like doing away with the death penalty for murderers and rapists, and instead imposing it on unborn babies, but eventually we will have to admit that God's ideas on how to live and how to treat our fellow man are right and ours are wrong.
Thanks for a very useful essay. I was never aware of the inherent absurdity of this aspect of international law. But you lay it out so clearly that it makes me wonder why no one else seems to have noticed this. It's clearly the elephant in the room.
Once you step back and see the situation for what it is, it all begins to make sense. "International law" has no more integrity and validity than the ICC or the UN Human Rights Council. They mirror each other, and their halo of sanctity serves mainly to provide camouflage for bad actors. "International law" in the hands of villains is just a tool of Lawfare.
The ideal of having the nations of the world commit themselves to upholding moral law was a noble vision. The world's response to the horrors of October 7th forced us realize how shallow that commitment really is. Invocations of international law under present circumstances serve mainly to limit and undermine Israel's ability to win the wars against its genocidal neighbors.
I agree with you that the 'halo of sanctity' that international law sometimes has is abused for political purposes. The best example is that humanitarian law often puts Israel in impossible situations, and then rather than acknowledge that anti-Israel people just relish accusing Israel of war crimes. One of the main issues I try to point out, both in this essay and on my blog, is that international law and the laws of armed combat are not necessarily the great moral imperative they are often held up to be, and it is not necessarily shameful, wrong, or bad for Israel to not fulfill them all the time.
Hugi is right. West Bank should never have been a negotiation after what Jordan pulled in ‘67. Same with the Sinai peninsula and S Lebanon. Israel got no peace giving back what was taken in defensive action after being attacked. Now that we know the UN is anti Israel and a terrorist round table, with all these years of skewed meetings and bs talk: don’t stop Bibi. Run them off and build greenhouses to stay.
The issue of the “occupation” of the lands Jordan relinquished in its peace treaty with Israel would appear to be, as they say, a matter of first impression.
In 1948, only Israel declared its independence, the Arabs of Palestine never did. As a result, there was only one sovereign claim to the Mandate territory and that claim was the only one fully consistent with the Mandate’s purpose.
Jordan invaded the new state of Israel (along with four other Arab countries from various directions) and that war ended in 1949 with Jordan occupying a part of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (these last two were renamed “West Bank”).
The Six Day War saw Israel oust Jordan from the former Mandate lands it had taken and, in its 1994 peace treaty, Jordan abandoned any claim to them.
Under normal circumstances, these lands then would properly have been Israel’s. But somehow a people who had never been sovereign at any time in history were put forward as the group to whom the former Jordanian holdings should go.
The international law doctrines that turned these lands into “Occupied Palestinian Territory” rather than Israeli have never been elucidated, merely asserted. They were never taken from a sovereign state of Palestine, therefore under what legal argument may they be given to such an entity. Surely the basis cannot be found in UN resolutions that had no binding force and, in any event, were rejected by the Arabs.
This oddity is what makes this particular issue unprecedented in the sense that normative international law is not being applied.
I have read her dissent and the points she makes arise from a conference held in 2016 at Hebrew University’s law school where the issue presented was what international law survives from the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Presenters included Malcolm Shaw, Eugene Kontorovich, Avi Bell and others.
People start and lose wars so often because there are no consequences for them personally. It is rewarding for them. The same applies to criminals who take Israeli hostages - they will keep doing it again and again and again, because the "civilized nations" are too soft and negotiate with terrorists. Sinwar rose to power after he was released in the infamous 1 hostage for 1000 killers deal. What happened to the catch-phrase: " We do not negotiate with terrorists". You cave in once and its over.
As I have argued in my essay on Global Order, international law does exist where there is a general will eg no piracy. But borders are in dispute so how can there be a law saying that the situation in 1950 needs to remain unchanged eternally?
But let us be honest Shlomo. The issue with the WB and Gaza is not really about occupying land but occupying PEOPLE. Israel doesn’t want to rule them (or give them equal rights). They don’t want to be ruled by Israel. Israel cannot take land from them bc it's a tiny territory & hence no room for a State from them. On the other hand they don’t act as if they want a State. Vicious circle.
I completely agree- it’s an absurd, self-serving claim that international law says the borders of 1948 or 1967 are somehow holy. If the Arabs had managed to win territory in the Six Day War we can be sure they would be saying the opposite. It’s yet another example of how international law principles are cherry picked and manipulated just to give a legal embellishment for a political position.
I have a very poor understanding of international law, it is far from my area of activity. However, if someone does not understand international law, this does not mean that he is a fool and cannot understand the processes that occur and draw logical conclusions.
The first thing I understood from this article is that, according to international law, it is very profitable to start wars and lose them. Moreover, if this is done once, then the compensation is minimal, but if you do this constantly, then increasing the suffering of your people, receiving more and more damage, the compensation increases many times over, and allows you to completely remove the blame from yourself and shift it to the victors, whom you constantly attack.
Did I miss anything?
If I understood everything correctly, then the Arab-Israeli conflict is developing and will continue to develop solely due to international law. Because if international law was not observed in the unleashing of wars and defeat, then the wars would end in defeat and negative consequences for the losing side.
Than m you so much for a wonderful, honest article.....Always Doble Standards applied ONLY to our beloved Israel......Yes. we should have settlements in Gaza, we don't need this kind of neighbors , murderers, rapists, kidnappers.....hating us and teaching their children hate and murder, .....
My understanding of what International Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich has written would seem to disagree with this author. Kontorovich has stated that it is legitimate to enter and hold a territory from which your country is attacked in order to defend your country now and in the future. Therefore it is legitimate to control the borders of Judea and Samaria. And it should be the same for Gaza.
To the best of my understanding, from an international law perspective during hostilities (that's what they call war. . .) a country may enter and hold a territory from which it has been attacked. It can continue to occupy that territory during the war, but once the war is over it is required to move expeditiously to withdraw from the occupied territory. It can take some time to do that in keeping with security needs, but the occupation needs to be temporary and within a limited time horizon brought to an end. This was one of the rationales of the International Court of Justice declaring Israel's occupation now illegal. They said that even if it did start legally in the 1967 war, by now it has gone on for too long and can no longer be considered a temporary result of that war.
This gets to the real nub of the problem. The war of 67 never ended because no treaty setting terms was ever enacted. The territory was illegally annexed by Jordan Syria and Egypt in 1948. Egypt and Jordan have given up their claims to these territories. The land is disputed. No Palestine exists to give the territory back to and if there were a Palestine it certainly has not ended its war. Israel properly holds the Judea and Samaria territories as well as the Golan Heights.
Tell me, how does international law assess the Oslo agreement? After all, Israel is located and assumes security in a certain zone precisely under this agreement, which was signed by both parties and guaranteed by the United States. Yes, it was a temporary agreement, which under certain conditions would cease to be relevant.
From the point of view of international law, this agreement sanctions what is called "occupation".
Does international law support this or not?
Maybe we should consider Israel's presence in the territory precisely from the moment of the agreement? Because the status changed, the intentions changed, and Israel was already there according to the signed agreement, and in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority. No other forces were supposed to be there.
Viktor- The status of the Oslo Accords is actually one of the main questions the International Criminal Court has to address in deciding whether it can issue arrest warrants for Bibi and Gallant. One way to look at it (this is what those in favor of the warrants say) is that Palestine was already a state before the Oslo Accords, and so the accords should be understood as Palestine voluntarily allowing Israel to have some presence on its territory, enjoy some rights, and Palestine voluntarily agreeing not to exercise some of its rights. In other words, the Oslo Accords should be understood as a binational treaty. But another view is that Palestine was not a state at that time (even if it is now, that’s a separate question) and so the Palestinian Authority came into existence via the accords and can only have the powers the Oslo Accords explicitly give it. It’s a difficult issue with lots and lots of politics behind it.
I read with great interest. But I am confused. According to other international law scholars, land captured by the country which was attacked belongs to the defending country. Land captured by the attacker is considered occupied. Therefore, the so called west bank is Israel's for this reason AND ceded to Israel by Jordan (the attacker) in its 1994 peace treaty with Israel. Period.
Yes, international law is for suckers. Countries with some historical territorial grievance or claim should just be able take land by force—especially if they just assert that hostilities were in self-defense (nevermind that every aggressor in modern history has constructed some internal ideological framework in which their actions are purely defensive).
Vladimir Putin or architects of the American invasion of Iraq couldn’t have said it any better. Hopefully Xi Jingpin looks across the Taiwan Strait and draws similar conclusions. It’s 1914 all over again.
"Consider the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel was truly threatened with destruction but instead wound up taking over Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank”
Don't forget “East Jerusalem” too. All these areas fell within the Green or Armistice Line — that place where the fighting stopped, not to be confused with borders which are legal territorial boundaries between states.
“Palestinian leadership threatens to carry out future aggression and atrocities, and no matter how many times they have done in the past, that cannot provide a legal justification for Israel to occupy their territory”
Under what International Law do the above named geographical areas automatically attain the legal status of Palestinian territories?
Likud official Oved Hugi may advocate for reestablishing Israeli sovereignty in Gaza on moral grounds, but legally his argument is indefensible.
The author, Shlomo Levin overlooks a critical legal argument. According to Uti possidetis juris (UPJ) new sovereign states maintain the borders of the area they were part of before becoming independence. Since 1945, it has been the international law the UN has applied to settle multiple territorial disputes throughout the world. Hence, according to its technical legal name of Uti possidetis juris Palestina, the Arabs rejection of the 1947 UN two state Partition solution by attacking Israel with the declared intent to entirely eliminate it, makes all the territory the British withdrew from in 1948 legally Israel's.
To provide context, a brief recap of historical events is in order here. In 1947, the UN proposed a two state partition solution. In 1948, the Arabs attacked Israel with the declared intent to entirely eliminate it, thus rendering the Partition Plan null and void. In the course of the war, the sovereign state, Jordan, seized the eastern district of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and Gaza in direct contravention of International Law concerning Right of Conquest. After the conquest, Jordan granted Jordanian citizenship to all the Judean-Samrian and Gazan Arabs and then announced it was annexing its conquests. The UN refused to recognize this annexation not out of any love for Jews or Israel but because to allow it (technical term is Right of Conquest) would be to sanction and even encourage other states to wage war so that they could seize the sovereign territory of other states.
All the Israeli territory Jordan conquered in '48 was land vacated by the British. Accordingly the Arabs created the situation where the International Law of Uti Possidetis Juris Palestina dictated that these territories automatically reverted to Israel.
In 1967, in another war initiated by Arab states, Israel didn't capture territory belonging to another state but RECOVERED its own territory that had been illegally seized through an act of war.
The case of (Nazi) Germany shows the way! In 2 wars, Germany lost about half it's territory, 1/3 of it's population, and as a result, is most likely the least likely nation to ever turn to Fascism/Nazism, as America and many European nations are doing as we speak!
A short cut to the truth of the matter, in the status quo, no institution, body or government that Man has ever devised, has ever worked, for the good & wellbeing of all. We are on the cusp of fully experiencing that dilemma of historical fact. Only once it “mankind as a whole” has come to realise this simple fact. Will we be ready to acknowledge it for what it is, as a complete failure, as then, humbled enough to Listen to….. ??? you can work that one out for yourselves, good luck, as always. But, The inevitable is on it’s way. For us & in spite of us.
as a sideline I take a daily look-see what all the haters are sayin'--WHY? b/c if I don't know what the enemy is thinkin' I cannot defend myself against it--i.e. actin' like an ostrich with my head in the sand does not work--which leads me to:
The optics are already gawd-awful. Israel should NOT be givin' tours to prospective real estate developers salivatin' (as depicted) over Gaza. The BOAT tours are terribly insensitive--beyond wince worthy... In theory havin' a buffer zone is nice but no dice. What Israel may need ta do (I know it's awful) is clear away a strip of it's own meager territory ALL ALONG the Gazan border an' fortify it. Like Great Wall of China fortify. Like not relyin' on AI or Tech fer protection--real soldiers with real eyes on the border. Layin' down so much as a donut shop in Gaza is gonna raise a hue & cry. An' optics aside imho it's wrong. (Consequences--right...more on that in a sec). There will be pain an' sufferin' (however unjust) on the Israeli side in dis-inhabitin' such a big strip of territory but that means fewer missles hittin' an' more--if not a mile (idea)--half a mile?
What many not readin' the "hate stacks" or "comments sections' do not know is that ALREADY Israel has been condemned fer the auctions (in NYC, in Toronto, in NJ) for Gazan territory AND fer the boat tours an' "real estate grabs"--all've it. It's been SO hateful (the comments) an' ill-advised (icky) the behavior... I liken it ta strippin' the ravaged body of a sick person 'fore they even die... It's GROSS. Of COURSE I want Israel safe--but this behavior is indeed "coarse" an' I gotta call it out--insensitive BEYOND the pale (yes, the pale...no irony there...)
IMHO, yes, consequences--but not this. However complicit the "palestinians" who uluate the death of every joo by Hamas an' who "elected" these evil bozos ta be in charge might be in terms of "guilt"--Israel cannot, must not, punish everyday "palestinians." If Hamas is defeated an' the "palestinians" are left ta have autonomy over Gaza--perhaps a consequence can be imposed? I'm not seein' it coming from any clearly biased international body that would like ta give ALL of Israel over ta the "palestinains".... BUT fer other nations offerin' international "aid" it might be predicated on them not attackin' Israel or allowin' any entity (hamas & co) to take up arms against Israel or undermine them in other ways (cyberwar, etc).... they lose the aid if they don't honor the agreement, etc.... That is a CONSEQUENCE an' not a punishment (the punishment I daresay they are gettin' now already...)
IMO International Law bodies (UN, etc) are all like the Feds here in the USA... the more they take away states' rights the more screwed up our nation gits ta be. Yet we don't wanna be without ANY federal entity completely--the best solution imho is LIMITED but specified powers AND the ability ta disband the whole damn thing if it goes rogue. DITTO fer international entities...I'd say the UN, the WHO, an' soitenly the ICC...
I hate to say this, but there really is no such thing as international law. Oh there are conventions that some countries pretend to abide by, but in truth no bad people ever do and are never held to account. The International Law Bar is a waste of time and energy made up of duplicitous people and as we have seen since October 7, just another outlet for antisemitism. This is why when someone says the UN or the Hague no serious person in the US really listens. In fact the only time any nations try to apply anything the UN passes or does is to harm Israel. Can we stop pretending that the UN, international law or international order actually mean anything?
The thing is, I’d argue that some sort of international norms are necessary for a world divided into approximately two hundred countries to function. The environment is a good example- we need rules about pollution that all countries will follow in order to address global environmental problems. As difficult as that is, there’s no other way. My point is that while international law is many times necessary, the treaties that we have are haphazard, not necessarily well thought out, and usually don’t work well. A lot of times a valid response to outrage that a country (usually Israel) is not following international law should be to point outo that the international law itself in this context is what’s actually outrageous.
Shlomo--excellent piece, thank you so much for this. Questions: 1. Can the international laws be re-written, and 2. Why doesn't Israel drop out of the UN and ignore the international courts the way other countries do? The UN is corrupt and largely useless and seems to exist only to be against Israel, and there isn't any benefit to Israel. Why can't Israel just say, "to hell with this, we're taking/keeping OUR land, and we will work out our Abraham Accords with everyone and transform the Middle East in a way that benefits everyone in the region and brings lasting peace and prosperity." I mean, Israel might as well give the middle finger because remaining in those corrupt organizations is doing more harm than good for Israel.
Dana- In many ways Israel does ignore the UN and the International court of justice. For example, the ICJ recently issued an advisory opinion saying that international law requires Israel to withdraw from all of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem unilaterally with no regard for the consequence this would have for its own security, and then the UN passed a resolution demanding Israel do this within a year. But that is all unenforceable, and it is clear Israel has no intention of even trying to comply. In terms of dropping out of the UN, people suggest that for Israel every once in a while but on balance there are a lot of reasons to think being a member of the UN is on the whole beneficial. In terms of rewriting international law, of course that is possible and new international treaties are always being proposed. But remember, this is done by countries all aiming to push their own agendas, so the process is time consuming and the results are often not what we'd like.
Well, Trump and his very pro-Israel team is coming in with sledgehammers and deep shovels and CHANGE is going to happen--and maybe not so slowly. I think, like Netanyahu said just days after the massacre (paraphrasing): "The Middle East will be changed in ways that will be talked about for generations to come." I think it will be, and in very good ways not only for Israel, but for the entire Middle East. And for the world (once Iran is neutralized and the threat of them obtaining a nuke bomb is removed--which MUST happen).
But even the environment agreements are not followed and quite frankly dont even address the real environmental issue, if China and India don’t have to cut emissions while they are the chief polluters today. Plus if you can just leave the agreement anytime you want, what effect does it really have?
I think we have already seen that the majority of countries dont follow agreements and that there is just a fight for survival. China is a signatory to the Law of the Sea treaty and does everything she can to flout the law, specifically with the crap she is pulling with the Philippines now or with the South China Sea. In fact, any country that didnt follow her bullshit about COVID being from a “wet market” instead of a lab leak, didnt get the containers they needed to continue to export an import goods, leading to the global supply chain issue. You cant have international law when the major players, China dn Russia, just do what they want.
What we need is to return to Biblical Law, especially the Ten Commandments. We may have to admit we were wrong and give up some of our cherished liberal ideas, like doing away with the death penalty for murderers and rapists, and instead imposing it on unborn babies, but eventually we will have to admit that God's ideas on how to live and how to treat our fellow man are right and ours are wrong.
Spot on 💯
Thanks for a very useful essay. I was never aware of the inherent absurdity of this aspect of international law. But you lay it out so clearly that it makes me wonder why no one else seems to have noticed this. It's clearly the elephant in the room.
Once you step back and see the situation for what it is, it all begins to make sense. "International law" has no more integrity and validity than the ICC or the UN Human Rights Council. They mirror each other, and their halo of sanctity serves mainly to provide camouflage for bad actors. "International law" in the hands of villains is just a tool of Lawfare.
The ideal of having the nations of the world commit themselves to upholding moral law was a noble vision. The world's response to the horrors of October 7th forced us realize how shallow that commitment really is. Invocations of international law under present circumstances serve mainly to limit and undermine Israel's ability to win the wars against its genocidal neighbors.
I agree with you that the 'halo of sanctity' that international law sometimes has is abused for political purposes. The best example is that humanitarian law often puts Israel in impossible situations, and then rather than acknowledge that anti-Israel people just relish accusing Israel of war crimes. One of the main issues I try to point out, both in this essay and on my blog, is that international law and the laws of armed combat are not necessarily the great moral imperative they are often held up to be, and it is not necessarily shameful, wrong, or bad for Israel to not fulfill them all the time.
Hugi is right. West Bank should never have been a negotiation after what Jordan pulled in ‘67. Same with the Sinai peninsula and S Lebanon. Israel got no peace giving back what was taken in defensive action after being attacked. Now that we know the UN is anti Israel and a terrorist round table, with all these years of skewed meetings and bs talk: don’t stop Bibi. Run them off and build greenhouses to stay.
The issue of the “occupation” of the lands Jordan relinquished in its peace treaty with Israel would appear to be, as they say, a matter of first impression.
In 1948, only Israel declared its independence, the Arabs of Palestine never did. As a result, there was only one sovereign claim to the Mandate territory and that claim was the only one fully consistent with the Mandate’s purpose.
Jordan invaded the new state of Israel (along with four other Arab countries from various directions) and that war ended in 1949 with Jordan occupying a part of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (these last two were renamed “West Bank”).
The Six Day War saw Israel oust Jordan from the former Mandate lands it had taken and, in its 1994 peace treaty, Jordan abandoned any claim to them.
Under normal circumstances, these lands then would properly have been Israel’s. But somehow a people who had never been sovereign at any time in history were put forward as the group to whom the former Jordanian holdings should go.
The international law doctrines that turned these lands into “Occupied Palestinian Territory” rather than Israeli have never been elucidated, merely asserted. They were never taken from a sovereign state of Palestine, therefore under what legal argument may they be given to such an entity. Surely the basis cannot be found in UN resolutions that had no binding force and, in any event, were rejected by the Arabs.
This oddity is what makes this particular issue unprecedented in the sense that normative international law is not being applied.
Charles- You might be interested in reading the minority opinion of Judge Sebutinde in the ICJ advisory opinion case, along with some of the discussion that has gone on about it. She makes many of your points. https://icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-02-enc.pdf
I have read her dissent and the points she makes arise from a conference held in 2016 at Hebrew University’s law school where the issue presented was what international law survives from the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Presenters included Malcolm Shaw, Eugene Kontorovich, Avi Bell and others.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/israel-law-review/issue/9656C33EF392216BF54C60FF1DB3F0BA
Kontorovich and Bell published their article in, as I recall, the Arizona Law Review.
People start and lose wars so often because there are no consequences for them personally. It is rewarding for them. The same applies to criminals who take Israeli hostages - they will keep doing it again and again and again, because the "civilized nations" are too soft and negotiate with terrorists. Sinwar rose to power after he was released in the infamous 1 hostage for 1000 killers deal. What happened to the catch-phrase: " We do not negotiate with terrorists". You cave in once and its over.
As I have argued in my essay on Global Order, international law does exist where there is a general will eg no piracy. But borders are in dispute so how can there be a law saying that the situation in 1950 needs to remain unchanged eternally?
But let us be honest Shlomo. The issue with the WB and Gaza is not really about occupying land but occupying PEOPLE. Israel doesn’t want to rule them (or give them equal rights). They don’t want to be ruled by Israel. Israel cannot take land from them bc it's a tiny territory & hence no room for a State from them. On the other hand they don’t act as if they want a State. Vicious circle.
I completely agree- it’s an absurd, self-serving claim that international law says the borders of 1948 or 1967 are somehow holy. If the Arabs had managed to win territory in the Six Day War we can be sure they would be saying the opposite. It’s yet another example of how international law principles are cherry picked and manipulated just to give a legal embellishment for a political position.
I have a very poor understanding of international law, it is far from my area of activity. However, if someone does not understand international law, this does not mean that he is a fool and cannot understand the processes that occur and draw logical conclusions.
The first thing I understood from this article is that, according to international law, it is very profitable to start wars and lose them. Moreover, if this is done once, then the compensation is minimal, but if you do this constantly, then increasing the suffering of your people, receiving more and more damage, the compensation increases many times over, and allows you to completely remove the blame from yourself and shift it to the victors, whom you constantly attack.
Did I miss anything?
If I understood everything correctly, then the Arab-Israeli conflict is developing and will continue to develop solely due to international law. Because if international law was not observed in the unleashing of wars and defeat, then the wars would end in defeat and negative consequences for the losing side.
The key word is "ended".
What good is a law that only the just obey? We must replace "an eye for a eye" with "two eyes for an eye"
Than m you so much for a wonderful, honest article.....Always Doble Standards applied ONLY to our beloved Israel......Yes. we should have settlements in Gaza, we don't need this kind of neighbors , murderers, rapists, kidnappers.....hating us and teaching their children hate and murder, .....
My understanding of what International Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich has written would seem to disagree with this author. Kontorovich has stated that it is legitimate to enter and hold a territory from which your country is attacked in order to defend your country now and in the future. Therefore it is legitimate to control the borders of Judea and Samaria. And it should be the same for Gaza.
To the best of my understanding, from an international law perspective during hostilities (that's what they call war. . .) a country may enter and hold a territory from which it has been attacked. It can continue to occupy that territory during the war, but once the war is over it is required to move expeditiously to withdraw from the occupied territory. It can take some time to do that in keeping with security needs, but the occupation needs to be temporary and within a limited time horizon brought to an end. This was one of the rationales of the International Court of Justice declaring Israel's occupation now illegal. They said that even if it did start legally in the 1967 war, by now it has gone on for too long and can no longer be considered a temporary result of that war.
This gets to the real nub of the problem. The war of 67 never ended because no treaty setting terms was ever enacted. The territory was illegally annexed by Jordan Syria and Egypt in 1948. Egypt and Jordan have given up their claims to these territories. The land is disputed. No Palestine exists to give the territory back to and if there were a Palestine it certainly has not ended its war. Israel properly holds the Judea and Samaria territories as well as the Golan Heights.
Tell me, how does international law assess the Oslo agreement? After all, Israel is located and assumes security in a certain zone precisely under this agreement, which was signed by both parties and guaranteed by the United States. Yes, it was a temporary agreement, which under certain conditions would cease to be relevant.
From the point of view of international law, this agreement sanctions what is called "occupation".
Does international law support this or not?
Maybe we should consider Israel's presence in the territory precisely from the moment of the agreement? Because the status changed, the intentions changed, and Israel was already there according to the signed agreement, and in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority. No other forces were supposed to be there.
Viktor- The status of the Oslo Accords is actually one of the main questions the International Criminal Court has to address in deciding whether it can issue arrest warrants for Bibi and Gallant. One way to look at it (this is what those in favor of the warrants say) is that Palestine was already a state before the Oslo Accords, and so the accords should be understood as Palestine voluntarily allowing Israel to have some presence on its territory, enjoy some rights, and Palestine voluntarily agreeing not to exercise some of its rights. In other words, the Oslo Accords should be understood as a binational treaty. But another view is that Palestine was not a state at that time (even if it is now, that’s a separate question) and so the Palestinian Authority came into existence via the accords and can only have the powers the Oslo Accords explicitly give it. It’s a difficult issue with lots and lots of politics behind it.
I read with great interest. But I am confused. According to other international law scholars, land captured by the country which was attacked belongs to the defending country. Land captured by the attacker is considered occupied. Therefore, the so called west bank is Israel's for this reason AND ceded to Israel by Jordan (the attacker) in its 1994 peace treaty with Israel. Period.
Yes, international law is for suckers. Countries with some historical territorial grievance or claim should just be able take land by force—especially if they just assert that hostilities were in self-defense (nevermind that every aggressor in modern history has constructed some internal ideological framework in which their actions are purely defensive).
Vladimir Putin or architects of the American invasion of Iraq couldn’t have said it any better. Hopefully Xi Jingpin looks across the Taiwan Strait and draws similar conclusions. It’s 1914 all over again.
"Consider the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel was truly threatened with destruction but instead wound up taking over Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank”
Don't forget “East Jerusalem” too. All these areas fell within the Green or Armistice Line — that place where the fighting stopped, not to be confused with borders which are legal territorial boundaries between states.
“Palestinian leadership threatens to carry out future aggression and atrocities, and no matter how many times they have done in the past, that cannot provide a legal justification for Israel to occupy their territory”
Under what International Law do the above named geographical areas automatically attain the legal status of Palestinian territories?
Likud official Oved Hugi may advocate for reestablishing Israeli sovereignty in Gaza on moral grounds, but legally his argument is indefensible.
The author, Shlomo Levin overlooks a critical legal argument. According to Uti possidetis juris (UPJ) new sovereign states maintain the borders of the area they were part of before becoming independence. Since 1945, it has been the international law the UN has applied to settle multiple territorial disputes throughout the world. Hence, according to its technical legal name of Uti possidetis juris Palestina, the Arabs rejection of the 1947 UN two state Partition solution by attacking Israel with the declared intent to entirely eliminate it, makes all the territory the British withdrew from in 1948 legally Israel's.
To provide context, a brief recap of historical events is in order here. In 1947, the UN proposed a two state partition solution. In 1948, the Arabs attacked Israel with the declared intent to entirely eliminate it, thus rendering the Partition Plan null and void. In the course of the war, the sovereign state, Jordan, seized the eastern district of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and Gaza in direct contravention of International Law concerning Right of Conquest. After the conquest, Jordan granted Jordanian citizenship to all the Judean-Samrian and Gazan Arabs and then announced it was annexing its conquests. The UN refused to recognize this annexation not out of any love for Jews or Israel but because to allow it (technical term is Right of Conquest) would be to sanction and even encourage other states to wage war so that they could seize the sovereign territory of other states.
All the Israeli territory Jordan conquered in '48 was land vacated by the British. Accordingly the Arabs created the situation where the International Law of Uti Possidetis Juris Palestina dictated that these territories automatically reverted to Israel.
In 1967, in another war initiated by Arab states, Israel didn't capture territory belonging to another state but RECOVERED its own territory that had been illegally seized through an act of war.
For further detail, see:
1. International Law expert Natasha Hausdorf: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCLPB2ibGNQ&t=2092s et passim.
2. Prof. Eurgene Kontorovich: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1oiIHOcw8o&t=9s
The case of (Nazi) Germany shows the way! In 2 wars, Germany lost about half it's territory, 1/3 of it's population, and as a result, is most likely the least likely nation to ever turn to Fascism/Nazism, as America and many European nations are doing as we speak!
A short cut to the truth of the matter, in the status quo, no institution, body or government that Man has ever devised, has ever worked, for the good & wellbeing of all. We are on the cusp of fully experiencing that dilemma of historical fact. Only once it “mankind as a whole” has come to realise this simple fact. Will we be ready to acknowledge it for what it is, as a complete failure, as then, humbled enough to Listen to….. ??? you can work that one out for yourselves, good luck, as always. But, The inevitable is on it’s way. For us & in spite of us.
as a sideline I take a daily look-see what all the haters are sayin'--WHY? b/c if I don't know what the enemy is thinkin' I cannot defend myself against it--i.e. actin' like an ostrich with my head in the sand does not work--which leads me to:
The optics are already gawd-awful. Israel should NOT be givin' tours to prospective real estate developers salivatin' (as depicted) over Gaza. The BOAT tours are terribly insensitive--beyond wince worthy... In theory havin' a buffer zone is nice but no dice. What Israel may need ta do (I know it's awful) is clear away a strip of it's own meager territory ALL ALONG the Gazan border an' fortify it. Like Great Wall of China fortify. Like not relyin' on AI or Tech fer protection--real soldiers with real eyes on the border. Layin' down so much as a donut shop in Gaza is gonna raise a hue & cry. An' optics aside imho it's wrong. (Consequences--right...more on that in a sec). There will be pain an' sufferin' (however unjust) on the Israeli side in dis-inhabitin' such a big strip of territory but that means fewer missles hittin' an' more--if not a mile (idea)--half a mile?
What many not readin' the "hate stacks" or "comments sections' do not know is that ALREADY Israel has been condemned fer the auctions (in NYC, in Toronto, in NJ) for Gazan territory AND fer the boat tours an' "real estate grabs"--all've it. It's been SO hateful (the comments) an' ill-advised (icky) the behavior... I liken it ta strippin' the ravaged body of a sick person 'fore they even die... It's GROSS. Of COURSE I want Israel safe--but this behavior is indeed "coarse" an' I gotta call it out--insensitive BEYOND the pale (yes, the pale...no irony there...)
IMHO, yes, consequences--but not this. However complicit the "palestinians" who uluate the death of every joo by Hamas an' who "elected" these evil bozos ta be in charge might be in terms of "guilt"--Israel cannot, must not, punish everyday "palestinians." If Hamas is defeated an' the "palestinians" are left ta have autonomy over Gaza--perhaps a consequence can be imposed? I'm not seein' it coming from any clearly biased international body that would like ta give ALL of Israel over ta the "palestinains".... BUT fer other nations offerin' international "aid" it might be predicated on them not attackin' Israel or allowin' any entity (hamas & co) to take up arms against Israel or undermine them in other ways (cyberwar, etc).... they lose the aid if they don't honor the agreement, etc.... That is a CONSEQUENCE an' not a punishment (the punishment I daresay they are gettin' now already...)
IMO International Law bodies (UN, etc) are all like the Feds here in the USA... the more they take away states' rights the more screwed up our nation gits ta be. Yet we don't wanna be without ANY federal entity completely--the best solution imho is LIMITED but specified powers AND the ability ta disband the whole damn thing if it goes rogue. DITTO fer international entities...I'd say the UN, the WHO, an' soitenly the ICC...