Begin’s challenge: Why Judea, Samaria & Gaza are sovereign

JERUSALEM – The term "annexation" hangs heavy over discussions of Israel's future in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Critics wield it as a bludgeon, accusing Israel of illegality and expansionism. Yet, over four decades ago, a towering Israeli leader delivered a profound semantic and historical challenge to this very framing – a challenge rooted in law, logic, and Jewish history. Menachem Begin’s argument, articulated with characteristic clarity, remains not only relevant but decisive when applied to the heartland of ancient Israel.

The Core Argument: Semantic Precision Rooted in History

On December 14, 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin stood before the Knesset advocating for the Golan Heights Law. Facing accusations of "annexation," Begin dismantled the term with surgical precision:

"There is no such thing as annexation because one does not annex one's own country. You annex foreign land. You do not annex your own country."

He elaborated unequivocally:

"Annexation is when you take land that belongs to another nation and annex it to your own. That is annexation... The Golan Heights is part of Eretz Yisrael. It is an integral part of our homeland, our historic patrimony... Our right to this land is not based on conquest, but on our historic, inalienable right recognized by international law... Therefore, what we are doing today is not annexation. It is the application of Israeli law, Israeli jurisdiction, and Israeli administration to a part of our country that was liberated... We are restoring Israeli sovereignty to territory that is inherently ours."

Begin's logic rested on two unassailable pillars:

1. The Semantic Definition: "Annexation" strictly means the forcible seizure and incorporation of territory belonging to another sovereign state or people. It is the taking of what is foreign.

2. The Historical-Juridical Reality: The Jewish claim to specific lands, particularly those within the boundaries of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah and subsequently recognized under international law, means these territories are inherently Jewish. They are not foreign; they are the patrimony. Applying sovereignty, therefore, is not acquisition, but reclamation and restoration – the return of the rightful owner to their own property.

Begin anchored this "inherently ours" status not solely in ancient scripture, but in concrete, modern international law: The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1922). This foundational document explicitly recognized "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" as the "ground for reconstituting their national home in that country." The territory assigned for this purpose by the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo (1920) and formalized in the Mandate included what is today Israel, Judea, Samaria (the West Bank), Gaza, and Jordan.

Extending Begin's Logic: Judea and Samaria - The Cradle of Jewish Civilization

If Begin’s argument holds for the Golan (ancient Bashan), it holds with exponentially greater force for Judea and Samaria. This is not periphery; this is the core.

• Historical Connection Unmatched: Judea (Yehuda) and Samaria (Shomron) are the geographical and spiritual epicenter of Jewish history for over 3,000 years. This is the land of the Patriarchs – Abraham in Hebron (Me'arat HaMachpela), Isaac and Jacob in Beit El. This is where Joshua led the Israelites, where the Tabernacle rested in Shiloh, where the Judges ruled, and where the United Kingdom under David and Solomon had its capital in Jerusalem. The heart of the ancient Kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah was here. Jerusalem, the eternal, undivided capital, sits within Judea. Hebron, Shechem (Nablus), Beit El, Shiloh, Jericho – these are not mere archaeological sites; they are the bedrock of Jewish national and religious identity, bearing continuous Jewish presence until repeated expulsions.

• The Mandate's Explicit Inclusion: The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine encompassed Judea and Samaria entirely. The 1922 creation of Transjordan excised land east of the Jordan River, but the territory west of the river, including Judea and Samaria, remained designated for the Jewish National Home. No other sovereign entity ever held legitimate title recognized by the international community superseding this Mandate. Jordan's illegal occupation from 1948 to 1967, achieved through aggression and recognized only by Britain and Pakistan, did not extinguish the underlying Jewish right affirmed by the League of Nations.

• The Semantics Apply: Applying Israeli law and sovereignty to Judea and Samaria, therefore, cannot logically be termed "annexation" under Begin's precise definition. This land is not "foreign territory belonging to another nation." It is the very essence of the Jewish homeland, recognized as such by international law, liberated in 1967 from an illegal occupier (Jordan) after a defensive war. As Begin stated regarding the Golan, it is the "application of Israeli law... to a part of our country that was liberated" and the "restoring [of] Israeli sovereignty to territory that is inherently ours." To call it "annexation" is a profound historical and semantic error. It is reaffirmation.

Extending Begin's Logic: Gaza - Land of the Philistines, History of the Jews

Even Gaza, often seen through a modern political lens, fits within Begin's historical-juridical framework when examined without prejudice.

• Deep Jewish Historical Roots: Gaza (Azah) features prominently in Jewish history and is unequivocally part of the Land of Israel described in the Torah (Genesis 10:19 defines the Canaanite border as "Gerar near Gaza"). While famously associated with the Philistines (a non-Semitic sea people), the area was conquered by Israel (Judges 1:18) and allotted to the Tribe of Judah. It was part of the united kingdom and later the Kingdom of Judah. Samson's dramatic acts occurred there (Judges 16). Under the Hasmoneans, Gaza was conquered by Alexander Jannaeus and incorporated into the Jewish kingdom. Significant Jewish communities persisted for centuries, evidenced by the ruins of ancient synagogues. The Romans even renamed it "Maiumas Neapolis" to sever its Jewish ties after suppression of the Bar Kochba revolt – a testament to its perceived Jewish character.

• Undisputed Inclusion in the Mandate: The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine explicitly included the Gaza Strip within its boundaries. Like Judea and Samaria, it was territory designated for the Jewish National Home. Egypt's military occupation from 1948 to 1967, like Jordan's, was illegal under international law and never conferred legitimate sovereign title. Egypt itself never claimed sovereignty over Gaza, only administering it as occupied territory.

• Liberation, Not Annexation: Israel's control of Gaza in 1967 resulted from a defensive war against Egyptian aggression. Applying Begin's logic, asserting Israeli sovereignty over Gaza would constitute the "application of Israeli law... to a part of our country that was liberated" from an illegal occupier. It is territory recognized under international law (the Mandate) as part of the Jewish homeland. Calling sovereignty over Gaza "annexation" ignores its integral place within the historical and legal boundaries of Eretz Yisrael affirmed by the international community in 1922. The subsequent Israeli disengagement in 2005 was a withdrawal from Israeli communities and military control, not a renunciation of the underlying historical right or legal claim recognized by the Mandate.

Begin's Correct Position: A Legacy of Historical and Legal Truth

Menachem Begin’s argument was not mere rhetoric; it was a rigorous application of history, law, and linguistic precision. His correctness is demonstrable:

1. Semantic Accuracy: His definition of "annexation" as the seizure of foreign territory is standard in international law and lexicons. The core of his argument hinges on this definition.

2. Validation of Historical Connection: The League of Nations Mandate explicitly validated the Jewish people's historical connection as the legal basis for their right to reconstitute their national home. This international recognition transforms ancient history into a modern legal right.

3. The Mandate as Binding Law: The Mandate was binding international law, creating specific rights for the Jewish people within defined territory, including Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. No subsequent legal instrument has legitimately extinguished these rights; they remain dormant but inherent.

4. Liberation vs. Conquest: Control gained in 1967 was defensive, liberating these territories from illegal occupations (Jordan and Egypt) that violated the Mandate's intent and international law. Asserting sovereignty is thus an act of reclaiming, not conquering, foreign land.

Therefore, Begin was fundamentally right. Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are not "occupied territories" in the sense of belonging rightfully to another sovereign people; they are disputed territories to which the Jewish people hold a preeminent, internationally recognized historical and legal claim. Reaffirming Israeli sovereignty to these areas, as Begin argued regarding the Golan, is not "annexation." It is the lawful and logical restoration of sovereignty over the Jewish people's ancestral heartland – territories that are, by the definitions of history and the international law of his time, "inherently ours." To argue otherwise is to ignore the foundational legal document that paved the way for Israel's rebirth and the undeniable, millennia-deep roots of the Jewish nation in the hills of Judea and Samaria and the plains of Gaza. Begin's words remain the clearest articulation of this enduring truth.