Recognition not annexation

I. Introduction: The Foundation of Sovereignty

The sovereignty of the State of Israel over the territories of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is not a matter of political aspiration but a conclusion grounded in incontrovertible historical fact and established international law. This brief demonstrates that Israel’s claim is rooted in a superior legal title derived from the binding international instrument of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, preserved under the United Nations Charter, and affirmed by the legal principle of uti possidetis juris. The term "annexation" is legally inapplicable, as one cannot annex territory to which one already holds sovereign title.

II. The Historical-Juridical Foundation: The League of Nations Mandate

The foundational legal instrument for the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is the Mandate for Palestine, conferred upon Great Britain by the League of Nations in July 1922.

Recognition of Historical Connection: The Mandate’s preamble is unequivocal, recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and establishing "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
Explicit Legal Obligation for Jewish Settlement: Article 6 of the Mandate explicitly charges the Mandatory Power with the duty to "facilitate Jewish immigration" and to "encourage... close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes." This was not a suggestion but a binding international legal obligation.
Territorial Scope: The territory designated for the Jewish National Home explicitly included what is today the State of Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the areas of Judea and Samaria. The creation of the Emirate of Transjordan in 1922 excised land east of the Jordan River, but the territory west of the river, including Judea and Samaria, remained an integral part of the territory designated for the Jewish National Home.

This Mandate constituted binding international law, creating vested, legally protected rights for the Jewish people. These rights were never extinguished.

III. The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris: Inheritance of Sovereign Title

The doctrine of uti possidetis juris is a cornerstone of international law, ensuring stability during the transition from colonial administration to independent statehood. It holds that newly established states inherit the administrative boundaries of the preceding governing entity.

Upon its declaration of independence in 1948, the State of Israel legally inherited the territorial rights and boundaries of the Mandate for Palestine. This includes the territory of Judea and Samaria. As Professor Eugene Kontorovich argues, "You cannot occupy territory to which you already have sovereign claims." Israel’s sovereignty crystallized within the boundaries of the Mandate, a status further solidified by its admission to the United Nations in 1949 under General Assembly Resolution 273.

IV. The Illegitimacy of Jordanian Occupation and the 1967 War

The period from 1948 to 1967 does not invalidate Israel’s title but reinforces it.

Illegal Jordanian Seizure: Jordan’s invasion and occupation of Judea and Samaria in 1948 were acts of aggression. Its subsequent annexation in 1950 was recognized by only two countries (Britain and Pakistan) and was widely condemned as illegal, including by the Arab League.
Non-Sovereign Status of Armistice Lines: The 1949 Armistice Agreements explicitly stated that the ceasefire lines (the "Green Line") were "without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundaries." They did not confer sovereignty upon Jordan.
Defensive Liberation in 1967: Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria in 1967 resulted from a defensive war. It did not take the territory from a "legitimate sovereign," but rather from an illegal occupier. Israel was reasserting control over territory to which it already held a pre-existing, superior legal claim under the Mandate.

Therefore, Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria constitutes control of disputed territory to which it holds sovereign title, not an "occupation" of foreign sovereign land.

V. The Semantics of Sovereignty: Reclamation, Not Annexation

The framing of Israeli sovereignty as "annexation" is a profound historical and semantic error. As Prime Minister Menachem Begin authoritatively articulated regarding the Golan Heights, "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."

Applying Israeli law to Judea and Samaria is not an act of acquisition but of reclamation and restoration—the return of the rightful sovereign to its own territory. Begin’s logic, rooted in the Mandate’s recognition of the land as the Jewish national home, applies with even greater force to Judea and Samaria, the very cradle of Jewish civilization.

VI. Preservation of Rights Under the UN Charter

The dissolution of the League of Nations did not nullify the rights it granted. These rights were explicitly preserved by Article 80 of the UN Charter, the "Palestine Article," which was designed to prevent a legal vacuum and safeguard rights granted under the Mandate system.

The United Nations committed a gross dereliction of duty by failing to establish a Trusteeship for Palestine, instead attempting to unilaterally alter the Mandate’s terms through the non-binding 1947 Partition Plan (Resolution 181). This failure does not erase the vested rights of the Jewish people, which remain protected under international law by virtue of Article 80.

VII. Rebuttal of the "Occupation" and "Illegal Settlement" Canards

The Fourth Geneva Convention: This convention is inapplicable as it was designed to prevent the transfer of a population into the territory of a legitimate, sovereign state. Since no such sovereign existed in Judea and Samaria prior to 1967—Jordan’ claim was illegal—the convention does not apply. The right of Jewish settlement, articulated in the Mandate’s Article 6, was never extinguished.
International Recognition: The 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty establishes the international boundary but explicitly states it is "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967." This critical clause leaves the issue of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria intentionally open, consistent with Israel’s position that it is disputed territory to which it holds a legitimate claim.
UN Security Council Resolution 242: This resolution deliberately omits the word "all" when calling for Israeli withdrawal "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," acknowledging that Israel would not be expected to return to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines.

VIII. Historical Proof: The Indivisible Heartland of the Jewish People

The legal claim is underwritten by an unbroken, millennia-deep historical connection that defines Jewish identity.

The Patriarchal Heartland: Judea and Samaria are the geographical epicenter of the Jewish narrative. This is the land where God appeared to Abraham at Shechem and promised him the land (Genesis 12:6-7). It is where the Patriarchs and Matriarchs—Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and Leah—are buried in the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron, a site purchased by Abraham as a permanent familial holding.
The Cradle of National Existence: This is the land where Joshua led the Israelites, where the Tabernacle rested at Shiloh, and where the United Kingdom of Israel under David and Solomon was established with its capital in Jerusalem. The ancient Kingdoms of Israel (in Samaria) and Judah derived their names and existence from this very land.
Continuous Presence: Cities like Hebron, Shechem, Beit El, and Shiloh are not mere archaeological sites; they are the bedrock of Jewish national and religious identity, with a continuous Jewish presence for millennia until repeated forced expulsions.

IX. Conclusion

The sovereign claim of the State of Israel over Judea and Samaria is legally sound and historically unassailable. It is based on:

A binding international mandate that recognized the Jewish people's historical connection and right to settle the land.
The application of the universal legal principle of uti possidetis juris, through which Israel inherited the Mandate's borders.
The preservation of these rights under Article 80 of the UN Charter.
The defensive recovery of territory from an illegal occupier in 1967.

The status of the land may be disputed but it is not occupied. The Jewish people's right to settle there is not a violation of international law but is, in fact, a right protected by it. Any future political resolution must be negotiated from the baseline of this legal and historical reality: Judea and Samaria are the sovereign territory of the State of Israel, the heartland of its ancient and modern homeland.