International law is not set up for sovereign territory to be determined by "consensus", whether consensus of the international community or the inhabitants. Not in 1948. There are legal pathways: treaties and customary law.
Legally, factually incorrect. This is simply wrong. That territory was no longer part of the Ottoman Empire. It was not Turkey. It was not Jordan. It was not Egypt, nor Lebanon, nor Syria, nor Iraq. There were no other States or governments in the territory. (If there had been another state or government in the territory - there would be evidence of such in the form of treaties, agreements, declarations of independence. There is none.) It can only be Israel.
There is nothing stating that it is Israel’s either other than fact of having taken it in war. No treaties or agreements, nor has it ever been recognized as Israel’s. Other than Israel’s claiming it. Israel itself has repeatedly called it an occupation over the decades and defended the need to keep it occupied. It has never explicitly claimed it as its own territory.
Historically, I can’t see any basis for that claim since the partition plan for ending the mandate divided the territory into an “Arab” state and a “Jewish” state who’s boundaries do not resemble what we see today. What is the West Bank looks to be part of what was designated for an “Arab” state. The Zionist delegation apparently agreed with the plan. (As a side note…it was an interesting bit of reading (yes, it’s wiki) having many different factions representing different interests and concerns amidst a backdrop of Arab and Jewish nationalism.)
Also, if we are talking about international law, who adjucates it? States have high courts that ultimately determine the legality of an issue in relation to the country’s laws.
When it comes to international law it would appear that that is done by the ICJ.
According to this,
it serves two functions:
- To settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted by States, and
- To give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized UN organs and specialized agencies.
What have they said?
(Which is not to say that there is not a claim to self-determination by the Arabs in that territory. But that claim to self-determination can only be realized by agreement with the sovereign. In international law, at this time, the tension between territorial integrity and self-determination leans towards territorial integrity - hello, Ukraine!)
Well….territorial integrity is interesting to bring up since Israeli settlement building in the West Bank has effectively destroyed any hope for the territorial integrity of a future Palestinian state.
Then you are arguing a one-state solution where Israel applies Israeli law to the entire territory and ending the possibility of Palestinian self-determination. Is that what you intend?
Isreal is currently applying two systems of law in a territory it does formally recognize as part of its sovereign. One set of laws for its citizens another for non citizens.
Shouldn’t it be military law for all…as it was at one time? Applying two completely separate systems of law to residents of the same territory would make sense in an occupation and would be the legal requirement of an occupation but not in “sovereign territory”.
Under military law there is no recognition of any of the basic rights every Israeli citizen takes for granted. It is pretty brutal. I also don’t buy that it is necessary to have JUST the Palestinians residents under military rule in the disputed territory in order to eventually have self determination for them. You could have a system analogous to what we have with the various Native American nations.
Going further, why does it have to be military law if it isn’t an occupation?
