The legal foundation of Israel's E1 settlement plan

The recent announcement by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich to advance the long-stalled E1 settlement plan has, predictably, drawn criticism from various corners of the international community. Yet, lost in the reflexive condemnations is a sober assessment of the solid legal foundations underpinning Israel’s sovereignty over the heartland of its ancient homeland—Judea and Samaria. The strategic E1 corridor, connecting Jerusalem to Ma’ale Adumim, is more than a geopolitical flashpoint; it is a test case for the world’s willingness to acknowledge the established principles of international law that affirm Israel’s rightful claim to this land.

The cornerstone of Israel’s legal title rests on the well-established doctrine of uti possidetis juris (as you possess under law). This principle, applied from Latin America to post-Soviet states, holds that new states inherit the administrative boundaries of the preceding governing entity. For Israel, this was the British Mandate for Palestine, formally enacted by the League of Nations in 1922. The Mandate’s borders, which were internationally recognized and intended to be permanent, explicitly included all of what is now Israel, Gaza, and Judea and Samaria. It was established on the basis of “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and called for “the establishment of the Jewish national home” in this entire territory.

When Israel declared independence in 1948, it did so within the borders of this Mandate, inheriting its sovereign rights under uti possidetis juris. The 1947 UN Partition Plan was a non-binding recommendation, and the UN General Assembly holds no authority to create states or determine borders. The subsequent invasion by Arab armies and Jordan’s illegal occupation and annexation of Judea and Samaria from 1948 to 1967—recognized by only two countries—did not confer lawful sovereignty upon Jordan. Therefore, Israel’s control of the territory following the defensive Six-Day War in 1967 did not constitute an “occupation” of foreign land but a lawful reassertion of control over its own sovereign territory.

This legal reality is further reinforced by the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty. While establishing an international boundary, the treaty explicitly states that it is drawn “without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.” This critical language leaves the issue of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria open, consistent with Israel’s position that it is disputed, not occupied, territory.

The United States, under the Trump administration, demonstrated a clear understanding of this complex legal and historical context. Its response to the E1 plan was not one of outright opposition but of pragmatic recognition. A State Department spokesperson stated that “a stable West Bank keeps Israel secure and is in line with this administration’s goal to achieve peace in the region.” This marked a significant shift from previous administrations and acknowledged that facts on the ground, including the continuity of Jerusalem with its surrounding communities, are essential for Israel’s security and any realistic future peace. This stance affirms Israel’s right to self-determination within secure and historically legitimate borders.

This same legal framework applies to Gaza and the Golan Heights. Gaza was also part of the original Mandate, and Israel’s sovereign claim remains, though its current administrative status is distinct. The Golan Heights presents a slightly different case; transferred to the French Mandate of Syria in 1923, it fell outside the final Mandate borders. This is precisely why Israel’s subsequent extension of law to the Golan in 1981 was a formal act of annexation—a move rightly recognized as legitimate by both the Trump and Biden administrations due to critical security imperatives.

Critics often invoke international law to condemn Israel, yet they conveniently ignore the very legal principles that affirm its sovereignty. The Palestinian rejection of numerous statehood offers—in 1947, 2000, and 2020—underscores that the core conflict is not about a lack of opportunity for a state, but a persistent refusal to recognize the Jewish state’s legitimate rights within any borders.

Construction in E1 by Israel is authorized by international law: Articles 6 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine under Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

League of Nations Mandate for Palestine: Article 6

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

The path to peace must be built on truth. The truth is that Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is not a criminal occupation but the exercise of a sovereign right grounded in international law. The E1 plan, like the communities it seeks to strengthen, is not an obstacle to peace but a manifestation of a right that has been too long denied. A lasting resolution will only be achieved when this reality is accepted and negotiations proceed from the basis of Israel’s irrevocable legal and historical connection to the land of its forefathers.