Belligerent occupier?

The prevailing narrative of the Israeli Palestinian conflict is built on a fundamental misrepresentation. The international community’s labeling of Israel as a “belligerent occupier” in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is not only legally inaccurate because it contradicts the historical and legal foundations of the State of Israel. An examination of international law reveals the correct legal position: Israel is the legitimate sovereign administering its own territory. The term “occupation” is a political accusation, not a legal descriptor.

This analysis will demonstrate that Israel’s claim is rooted in binding international instruments, that the territory is legally sovereign rather than “occupied,” and that the persistent misapplication of international law represents a failure to uphold the commitments that established the modern international order.

The Foundation of Sovereignty: The League of Nations Mandate

Israel's modern legal claim to the land west of the Jordan River originates not in the 1967 war, but in the post-World War I settlement. The San Remo Resolution of 1920 and the subsequent League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1922) were binding international instruments that reconstituted the Jewish national home in international law. This was the international community’s legal recognition of a pre-existing right, not a colonial administrative act.

The Mandate’s preamble explicitly recognizes “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” as the grounds for “reconstituting their national home.” Crucially, the Mandate entrusted Great Britain with facilitating “Jewish immigration and close settlement on the land,” which included all territory west of the Jordan River—encompassing modern Israel, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), and the Gaza Strip.

These instruments represent the legally binding disposition of sovereignty over the territory. The subsequent creation of the United Nations did not invalidate these rights; the UN Charter’s Article 80 explicitly protected the rights of peoples under the Mandate system. Therefore, from its declaration of independence in 1948, the State of Israel was the lawful successor to the territory designated for it by the international community.

“Disputed,” Not “Occupied”: The Absence of a Prior Sovereign

A core tenet of the law of belligerent occupation is that it applies to the territory of a recognized sovereign state. For an occupation to exist, there must be a legitimate sovereign from whom the territory is taken. This prerequisite is entirely absent in the case of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

When Israel took control of these territories in the 1967 Six-Day War, it did not take them from a recognized sovereign. Jordan’s occupation and illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria from 1948 to 1967 was recognized by only three states and opposed by the Arab League itself. Jordan was a belligerent occupier, having seized the territory in a war of aggression. Consequently, when it joined the 1967 war, it lost its illegal hold. Israel did not conquer the land from Jordan; it took control of territory from which an illegal occupier was expelled.

The Case of Egypt and Gaza

The situation with the Gaza Strip further dismantles the "occupation" narrative. In 1948, Egypt invaded the nascent State of Israel. Its subsequent military control over the Gaza Strip was a direct result of this illegal war of aggression. For the next 19 years, Egypt ruled Gaza through a military administration.

The international community, including the Arab League, never recognized Egyptian sovereignty over the Gaza Strip. Egypt never claimed Gaza to be part of its sovereign territory. It was, by any standard, a belligerent occupier.

And who was the prior sovereign? According to the unbroken legal chain from the League of Nations Mandate, the prior sovereign was the Jewish national home, with the State of Israel as its lawful successor. From this legal perspective, Egypt was an illegal belligerent occupier of territory that rightfully belonged to Israel.

This history exposes an serious error. For 19 years, Egypt militarily controlled Gaza, acquired through aggression, with no intention of establishing a Palestinian state. During this period, the international community did not launch a persistent campaign to label Egypt an "illegal occupier." The term "occupation" was rarely applied with the same fervor it is to Israel.

Yet, when Israel took control of Gaza in a defensive war in 1967—effectively reclaiming its territory from a previous illegal occupier—it was immediately and permanently branded the "illegal occupier." This disparity is not a minor inconsistency; it is proof that the term is wielded as a political weapon against Israel specifically, rather than applied as a consistent, neutral legal standard.

With Jordan’s claim invalid, Egypt’s status that of an unrecognized occupier, and no Palestinian state ever having existed, the territory became, at most, “disputed.” Its status was subject to negotiation, as envisioned by UN Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for a negotiated settlement and “secure and recognized boundaries”—a deliberate rejection of a full return to the vulnerable 1949 armistice lines.

The Misapplication of the Fourth Geneva Convention

The assertion that Israel is bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention as an occupying power is legally unsustainable. The convention applies to situations where a power occupies the territory of “a High Contracting Party.” As established, Jordan was not a legitimate sovereign in the West Bank, and Egypt was an illegal occupier, not a sovereign, in Gaza. No state held a legitimate claim.

Israel’s decision to voluntarily uphold the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention is a gesture of good faith, not a recognition of its legal application. This voluntary adherence demonstrates a commitment to the rule of law even when the obligation is disputed.

Furthermore, the attempt to apply Article 49 of the convention, which prohibits the transfer of an occupier’s civilian population into occupied territory, is a deliberate distortion. This article was drafted to prevent the forced population transfers of the Nazis. It was never intended to apply to the voluntary movement of individuals into territory that is not sovereign under another state. This interpretation formed the basis for the 2019 declaration by former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who stated, “The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not, per se, inconsistent with international law.”

Sovereign Rights and Defensive Wars

The situation in the Gaza Strip further illustrates the distinction between political claims and legal reality. Following Israel’s complete disengagement in 2005—a unilateral act involving the dismantlement of all settlements and a full military withdrawal—any claim of ongoing “occupation” was legally severed. The subsequent takeover by Hamas, a terrorist organization sworn to Israel’s destruction, created a new reality of a hostile entity within Israel's borders.

Israel’s current security measures, including control of its border with Gaza and naval blockades, are not acts of an occupying power but the lawful actions of a sovereign nation defending itself from a hostile entity. These measures are enacted under the international law of armed conflict, not the law of occupation. The claim that Israel “occupies” Gaza because of its control of borders and airspace is a legal error.

Israel’s history is a testament to its defensive posture. The wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973 were existential struggles forced upon it. A nation fighting for its existence does not become an “occupier” when it succeeds in repelling invaders and gaining control of territory that was used as a launching pad for attack. To label this defensive victory “conquest” inverts the concepts of aggressor and defender.

Conclusion: Upholding the Law

The legal case for Israeli sovereignty is robust. It is grounded in foundational international documents, the absence of a prior legitimate sovereign, and the inherent right of self-defense. The label of “belligerent occupation” is a political tool, wielded to delegitimize the Jewish state.

The case of Egypt and Gaza serves as a historical control group, proving that the international community’s outrage is not about the legal status of territory, but about the identity of the party administering it. Egypt’s military rule was met with apathy; Israel’s presence, rooted in a far stronger legal claim, is met with relentless condemnation.

The Government of Israel is correct that these are disputed territories whose fate must be resolved through direct negotiations. Israel’s rights are not subject to the political whims of a hostile majority at the UN. They are anchored in international law, history, and the right to self-determination of the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland. The law is on Israel’s side; it is time for the international community to finally acknowledge this truth.

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asserted, “The root of this conflict never was a Palestinian state, or lack thereof. The root of the conflict is, and always has been, their refusal to recognize the Jewish state.”