Much has been written and opined about the expected announcement on July 1st about Israel applying Israeli civilian law to parts of the disputed territories. Here are some facts that are worth keeping in mind.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In election campaigns, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised that he would make areas in disputed territory part of the state<\/a>. But he never outlined any concrete plans for exactly which areas he was thinking of applying Israeli sovereignty to.<\/p>\n The terms of a government coalition deal he struck with political rival Benny Gantz allow Netanyahu to put annexation to a government vote as early as 1 July.<\/p>\n Although highly unlikely, the proposal might be the entire region \u201cfrom the river to the sea\u201d; he might have been alluding to the roughly 6% of Judea and Samaria (otherwise known as the West Bank) that Olmert offered in 2008<\/a>, with or without the land swaps; Netanyahu may be thinking about something similar to the slightly less generous offer that Ehud Barak made in 2000<\/a>; or it might be more akin to the recently released US \u201cPeace to Prosperity\u201d proposal<\/a>.<\/p>\n Whatever the announcement, it is also almost certain (if there is to be any extension of Israeli sovereignty to any part of the disputed territory) that the large, longstanding settlement blocks<\/a> where more than 400,000 Jews have lived for decades will be included – as they have always been \u2018on the table\u2019 in bilateral talks – and the Jordan Valley, given its strategic importance<\/a>.<\/p>\n Whatever the proposal, if there is to be an extension of Israeli sovereignty to any part of the disputed territory, it is unlikely to be accompanied by any of the other conditions in the aforementioned proposals that would benefit the Arab Palestinians – details like land swaps, changes to control over the Holy sites in Jerusalem, any form of \u2018return\u2019, or economic incentives.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Many critics have already proclaimed that extension of Israeli sovereignty to any part of the disputed territory will destroy chances of a two state solution. This is absurd fear-mongering. Unless the proposal put to government is that all of the land is to become Israel, there is a chance for an Arab Palestinian state to emerge.<\/p>\n And Netanyahu is almost certainly not going to suggest that Israel apply sovereignty to all the land \u201cfrom the river to the sea\u201d. This is because there is little historic Jewish connection to Gaza, like there is in Judea and Samaria<\/a>; and if the entire area is one country then Jews will become a minority group, which means almost certain loss of self-determination. Jews have consistently shown a willingness to compromise on territory for peace<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Some critics have also suggested that extension of Israeli sovereignty to any part of the disputed territory is illegal. However, there are strong legal arguments that Israel is entirely within its rights to apply sovereignty to the disputed areas.<\/p>\n As international human rights lawyer, Arsen Ostrovsky, and Col. Richard Kemp CBE have written<\/a> (among others), there is no \u201cState of Palestine\u201d that exists in international law; and not only did Israel liberate the territories from Jordan in a defensive war, but there is a historical connection<\/a> between the Jewish people and Judea and Samaria.<\/p>\n Professor Eugene Kontorovich has also pointed out that the modern State of Israel was created from land that was previously part of the British Mandate and \u201cthere is a clear rule regarding the establishment of new countries: the country\u2019s borders are determined in accordance with the borders of the previous political entity in that area\u201d<\/a>. Thus, under international law, the borders of Israel should be the borders of the British Mandate just before May 1948. Professor Kontorovich gave an excellent talk in August 2019 entitled \u201cWhy Israel does not need to Annex the West Bank\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n2. A two-state solution is almost certainly still possible<\/strong><\/h3>\n
3. Application of sovereignty is legal in international law<\/strong><\/h3>\n