For decades, much of the world has chosen to describe Israel as an “occupying power” in Judea & Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem, and even the Golan Heights. This assertion has become a political truism in diplomatic circles, enshrined most infamously in UN Security Council Resolution 2334. But repetition does not create legality. In reality, Israel is not occupying anything. Its sovereignty over these territories is grounded in one of the most fundamental doctrines of international law: uti possidetis juris. UN resolutions, no matter how self-righteous their tone, cannot override legal facts or historical truth.
- Uti Possidetis Juris: The Legal Foundation for Israel’s Borders
The doctrine of uti possidetis juris holds that newly independent states inherit the borders of their preceding administrative units at the time of independence. The International Court of Justice has affirmed it as a general principle of international law, essential for maintaining stability after decolonisation.
When Israel declared independence in 1948, it was emerging from the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which assigned the territory west of the Jordan River for the establishment of a Jewish national home. There was no sovereign Palestinian state, nor any competing legitimate claim to the land. Under uti possidetis juris, Israel inherited the borders of that Mandate.
Legal scholars such as Natasha Hausdorff, Eugene Kontorovich, and Avi Bell have consistently argued that:
- Judea & Samaria, including East Jerusalem, were always within the boundaries of the Mandate.
- Israel’s legal claim to this land is stronger than any other party’s, given that Jordan’s 1948–1967 occupation was illegal and unrecognised.
- No legal instrument ever revoked or superseded the Jewish people’s rights in these areas.
In Hausdorff’s words:
“Israel’s sovereignty stems from a legal and historical foundation embedded in the Mandate system and affirmed by uti possidetis juris. The claim of ‘occupation’ is not just wrong — it undermines the very legal framework that gave rise to dozens of other post-colonial states.”
- The Political Fiction of UN Security Council Resolution 2334
Passed in December 2016, UNSC Resolution 2334 declared that Israel’s presence in “Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,” has “no legal validity” and constitutes a “flagrant violation under international law.”
This resolution is not only legally void, but logically incoherent. It is riddled with contradictions and outright falsehoods:
- It falsely presumes Palestinian sovereignty where none has ever existed.
There has never been a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. Under international law, occupation requires a sovereign from whom the territory is taken. Since Jordan’s annexation of the Judea & Samaria (1948–1967) was illegal and unrecognised, and since no Palestinian state has ever existed, Israel is not occupying land belonging to another sovereign.
- It contradicts binding legal instruments.
Resolution 2334 is a Chapter VI resolution, meaning it is non-binding and advisory. It cannot override:
- The legally binding Mandate for Palestine (1922)
- The UN Charter, which reaffirms the validity of pre-existing Mandate obligations (Article 80, the “Palestine Clause”)
- Bilateral agreements such as the Oslo Accords, which explicitly left final borders and sovereignty to future negotiations
Resolution 2334’s demand that Israel stop building in areas already assigned to it under international law violates Israel’s legitimate legal rights. As Professor Kontorovich notes:
“Resolutions like 2334 are political, not legal. They pretend to interpret international law while actually attempting to rewrite it. They ignore foundational principles like uti possidetis juris and attempt to manufacture rights that do not exist.”
- It undermines the very peace process it claims to support.
Resolution 2334 calls for a return to the 1949 Armistice Lines — which even the drafters of UNSC Resolution 242 never intended to be permanent borders. It also declares Jewish presence in East Jerusalem and Judea/Samaria to be illegal — including places like the Western Wall, Hebron, and Gush Etzion, where Jews have lived continuously for millennia.
This makes 2334 not a peace resolution, but an act of ethnic erasure, branding indigenous Jewish life on ancestral land a “war crime.”
III. Israel’s Legal and Moral Right to Judea and Samaria
Israel is not in “occupied Palestinian territory.” It is in disputed territory over which it has the strongest legal, historical, and moral claim. Consider:
- The League of Nations Mandate recognised the Jewish right to settle throughout the land west of the Jordan River.
- The UN Partition Plan of 1947 (Resolution 181) was rejected by the Arabs, nullifying its recommendations.
- Jordan’s occupation (1948–1967) was illegal and unrecognised, and ended as a result of Israel’s lawful self-defence in the 1967 Six-Day War.
- The Oslo Accords, signed by both Israel and the PLO, recognised Area C as under Israeli control pending negotiations.
Today, Israel administers Judea & Samaria in full compliance with international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, which do not prohibit settlement in non-sovereign territory, nor the return of indigenous populations.
- The Real Violation: Denying Israel’s Legal Rights
What Resolution 2334 — and those who parrot it — truly violate is not some mythical Palestinian sovereignty, but the integrity of international law itself. By singling out Israel and denying the Jewish people their rights under uti possidetis juris, the UN and many of its member states are:
- Undermining legal consistency
- Rewarding maximalist rejectionism
- Falsifying history to appease political pressure
As Natasha Hausdorff states:
“This resolution effectively calls for the Judenrein cleansing of Jews from the heart of their ancestral homeland. That such a document can be laundered through the UN Security Council is not a statement on legality — it is a statement on the UN’s moral bankruptcy.”
Conclusion: Law, Not Lies, Should Determine Sovereignty
The repetition of a falsehood — whether in the UN or on the street — does not make it law. Israel’s presence in Judea & Samaria is not a “flagrant violation” but a lawful continuation of its inherited rights under international law. Far from being an “occupier,” Israel is the only legitimate heir to the Mandate for Palestine, and its sovereignty—especially over Jerusalem and Judea—should be recognised, not denied.
UNSC Resolution 2334 may enjoy diplomatic consensus among the morally confused, but it cannot erase legal facts. Israel is not occupying anyone’s land. It is living on its own.
