- 1. The San Remo Resolution (1920) and League of Nations Mandate legally recognized Jewish rights to settle in these territories under international law.
- 2. UN Charter Article 80 preserves rights established under League of Nations mandates, maintaining legal continuity for Jewish settlement rights.
- 3. Jordan's 1948-1967 occupation was never legally recognized by the international community, making these territories disputed rather than "occupied."
- 4. The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to sovereign territory taken from a legitimate sovereign—Jordan lacked legal sovereignty over these areas.
- 5. Historical Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria spans over 3,000 years, with continuous community presence documented through archaeological and historical records.
- 6. The 1967 Six-Day War was defensive in nature, with Jordan attacking Israel despite Israeli pleas for Jordan to remain neutral.
- 7. Multiple UN resolutions call for negotiations between parties, not predetermined outcomes, recognizing the complex legal status of these territories.
- 8. Jewish communities existed in these areas before 1948 and were expelled by Arab armies, making return a question of restoration rather than colonization.
Legal Foundation: International Law and Treaties
The legal status of Jewish rights in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) stems from a complex web of international agreements, historical precedents, and legal principles that are often misunderstood or misrepresented in public discourse.
The San Remo Resolution and League of Nations Mandate
In 1920, the San Remo Resolution incorporated the Balfour Declaration into international law, establishing the legal framework for Jewish settlement rights throughout the territory of the Palestine Mandate. This resolution, agreed upon by the Allied Powers following World War I, explicitly recognized "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and their right to "reconstitute their national home" in this territory.
The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, confirmed in 1922, legally codified these settlement rights. Article 6 of the Mandate explicitly called for "close settlement by Jews on the land," while Article 25 allowed the mandatory power (Britain) to postpone or withhold application of these provisions only in territories east of the Jordan River—modern-day Jordan.
UN Charter Article 80: Legal Continuity
When the United Nations was established, Article 80 of the UN Charter—known as the "Jewish People's clause"—preserved all rights granted under League of Nations mandates until new agreements superseded them. No subsequent legal instrument has revoked the Jewish people's settlement rights established under the Palestine Mandate.
The Question of Occupation vs. Disputed Territory
The legal characterization of the West Bank as "occupied territory" versus "disputed territory" has significant implications for understanding Jewish rights in the region.
Jordan's Legal Status (1948-1967)
Following Israel's independence in 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank during the Arab-Israeli war. However, only two countries—Britain and Pakistan—ever recognized Jordan's annexation of these territories. The lack of international recognition means Jordan never achieved legal sovereignty over the area, making the territories disputed rather than occupied under international law.
The 1967 Six-Day War Context
Israel's control of the West Bank began after Jordan attacked Israel during the 1967 war, despite Israeli appeals for Jordanian neutrality. Israel's defensive actions resulted in control over territories that lacked a legitimate sovereign, complicating the application of traditional occupation law.
Distinguished international legal scholars, including Professor Eugene Rostow (former Dean of Yale Law School and US Under Secretary of State), have argued that the Fourth Geneva Convention's restrictions on settlement don't apply to these territories, since they weren't taken from a legitimate sovereign state.
Historical Jewish Connection
The Jewish people's connection to Judea and Samaria extends far beyond modern legal frameworks, encompassing thousands of years of continuous historical, religious, and cultural ties.
Archaeological and Historical Evidence
Archaeological evidence demonstrates continuous Jewish presence in these territories spanning over three millennia. Ancient cities like Hebron, where the Cave of the Patriarchs is located, and Bethlehem, hold profound significance in Jewish history and religious tradition.
Modern Jewish communities in areas like Gush Etzion and Hebron existed before 1948 and were destroyed or expelled during the Arab-Israeli conflict, only to be reestablished after 1967. This represents restoration of historic communities rather than new colonization.
International Law and UN Resolutions
While various UN resolutions have addressed the status of these territories, it's important to understand their legal weight and actual content.
Security Council vs. General Assembly Resolutions
UN Security Council resolutions carry more legal weight than General Assembly resolutions. Key Security Council resolutions, including 242 and 338, call for negotiations between the parties and do not predetermine final borders or require complete withdrawal from all territories.
Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 war, deliberately omits the word "all" before territories, reflecting the understanding that borders should be determined through negotiations that consider both security needs and legitimate rights of all parties.
The Role of Negotiations
Multiple international agreements, including the Oslo Accords and subsequent frameworks, establish that the final status of these territories should be determined through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, not through unilateral declarations or international impositions.
Contemporary Legal Analysis
Modern legal scholarship continues to debate the precise nature of Jewish rights in these territories, but several principles remain clear.
Distinguished Legal Opinion
Prominent international law experts, including former International Court of Justice President Stephen Schwebel and international law professor Julius Stone, have argued that Israel has stronger legal claims to these territories than any other party, based on the defensive nature of the 1967 war and the absence of a legitimate prior sovereign.
In 2019, the US State Department under Secretary Mike Pompeo concluded that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are not necessarily inconsistent with international law, marking a significant policy shift based on legal analysis of the territories' unique status.
Addressing Common Misconceptions
Several misconceptions persist in public discourse about Jewish rights in these territories.
The "Colonial" Narrative
Characterizing Jewish settlement as "colonialism" ignores the indigenous nature of Jewish connection to this land and the legal rights established through international agreements. Unlike classical colonialism, Jewish settlement represents the return of an indigenous people to their ancestral homeland under legally recognized rights.
International Law Complexity
The application of international law to these territories is far more complex than often portrayed. The unique circumstances—including the absence of a legitimate prior sovereign, the defensive nature of Israel's acquisition of control, and pre-existing legal rights—create a situation without clear precedent in international law.
Conclusion: Legal Complexity Requires Nuanced Understanding
The question of Jewish legal rights in the West Bank cannot be answered with simple declarations or one-sided interpretations. The legal framework involves multiple layers of international agreements, historical precedents, and competing claims that require careful analysis.
What remains clear is that Jewish people possess significant legal claims to these territories based on international agreements, historical connection, and the unique circumstances of how control was acquired. These rights, established through internationally recognized legal instruments, deserve serious consideration in any discussion of the region's future.
Rather than prejudging outcomes through inflammatory rhetoric or one-sided legal interpretations, the path forward requires acknowledging the legitimate rights and concerns of all parties while working toward negotiated solutions that respect both international law and the basic human dignity of all people in the region.