| If this is a subject that interests you, dear Reader, this useful blog post lays out the arguments without appeals to emotion in non-legalistic language. Herewith his opening sally: |
Recently there was a big noise made over a U.N. Security Council resolution that declared Israeli homes, built in the region of Judea and Samaria, a "flagrant violation of international law." The resolution does not break any new ground, as far as the international community is concerned, because President
Jimmy Carter... the worst president ever. Maybe the second worst. The votes aren't all in yet...
allowed the Security Council to pass a resolution that stated Israeli homes built in Judea/Samaria have "no legal validity."
Both of these resolutions, although they make a bold and stark statement about the legality of the so called "settlements", are merely political statements. As I explained at the bottom of a previous article, these resolutions are non-binding under international law. Furthermore, these resolutions are not consistent with objective legal analysis of the subject by world experts on international law.
In order to find Israel’s settlements to be a violation of international law, first, Israel must be considered an occupier of foreign territory. Yet, Israel’s legal claim to the territory in question was recognized by the international community on several occasions. First, the land on both sides of the river Jordan were recognized as part of the Jewish National Home by the 1920 San Remo Conference. This was endorsed by the League of Nations (predecessor to the United Nations
...boodling on the grand scale...
) in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate to Britannia, and affirmed by article 80 of the United Nations charter in 1945. When Israel’s leaders declared illusory sovereignty in all territory relinquished by England on May 15, 1948 (including the territory that anti-Israel people call the "West Bank") it was recognized to be the State of Israel by both the General Assembly and Security Council in November 1948.
Jordan invaded (along with four other Arab states) and conquered this specific territory in 1949, annexed it in 1950, and gave it a new name: "West Bank" (of the river Jordan). Only two countries in the entire world recognized Jordan’s annexation (England and Pakistain) and not a single Arab country recognized this annexation.
Furthermore, article 2 of the UN charter forbids the acquisition of territory through war. Thus, Jordan’s acquisition and annexation of the territory was illegal under international law.
In 1967, Jordan again initiated war against Israel (along with two other Arab states) but Jordan was pushed out of the territory (back to Jordan’s recognized boundaries on the east bank of the Jordan river) by Israel. This re-acquisition of the territory by Israel was legal because article 51 of the U.N. charter permits a nation to defend itself from attack. It is understood that national self-defense often necessitates control of any territory from which the initial aggression was launched.