The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians over the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is one of the most complicated conflicts in the world. Attempts to resolve the conflict have failed in the past and a resolution seems unlikely to emerge in the near future. Partly, this is due to the fact that the situation is extremely complex and the conflict very old. History, politics and international law together with religion, nationalism and pride are entangled to form this conflict. For both sides the conflict has reached an emotional level where belief is more important than rational decisions.
A lot has been written about the Israel-Palestine conflict and in recent years more and more critique of Israel has emerged. This is particularly interesting as usually every criticism of its actions or policies is turned down by Israel as anti-Semitism. One thus has to be extremely careful when writing about Israel although international law seems to be relatively clear about the 1967 occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
In order to examine the legality of the occupation, this paper will discuss the situation from both angles and look at the sources of international law relevant to this case. These are the Charter of the United Nations in general and the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 in particular. In addition, customary international law has developed to a jus cogens, prohibiting the use of force at all for settling international disputes.
Finally, this paper shall conclude that any justification of the occupation is doubtful and there is little evidence in international law that might legitimise Israel’s actions. And even if the initial occupation could be legitimised under Article 51 of the UN Charter as an act of self-defence, the prolonged occupation would still lack any legal basis.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Israeli Perspective on the 1967 Occupation
3. Critical Perspectives and Motives Behind the Occupation
4. Legal Implications of Prolonged Occupation and UN Resolution 242
5. Conclusion on the Legality of the Occupation
Objectives and Core Themes
This essay explores the legal status of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, questioning its justifications under international law. It assesses whether the initial 1967 military action can be framed as a legitimate act of self-defense and evaluates the legal validity of the subsequent, prolonged occupation in light of international conventions and UN Security Council resolutions.
- The interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter regarding self-defense.
- Conflicting historical and legal arguments concerning the "missing reversioner" theory.
- The role and implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 242.
- The distinction between a "belligerent occupation" and an "administration."
- The principle of proportionality and the duration of military occupation.
Excerpt from the Book
The Israeli Perspective on the 1967 Occupation
From an Israeli point of view, the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 was totally legitimate and not at all illegal. The pro Israel historian Julius Stone writes: “International law forbids acquisition by unlawful force, but not where, as in the case of Israel’s self defence in 1967, the entry on the territory was lawful.” Israel claims that the occupation was an act of self-defence and both necessary for the security of Israel and its people and legitimate under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Furthermore, Israel has argued that it never intended to keep the occupied territories and the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank was thus never really an occupation. The so called ‘missing reversioner’ theory, put forward by Prof. Blum, has also served as a legitimising factor. Prof. Blum argues that Gaza and the West Bank did not belong to any other country at the time Israel occupied these territories and thus “Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza is not an ‘occupation’ that displaces a sovereign power, but an ‘administration’ in the absence of a sovereign.”
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the complex nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict, emphasizing the entanglement of history, politics, religion, and international law.
2. The Israeli Perspective on the 1967 Occupation: This section details arguments used by Israel to justify its actions in 1967, focusing on self-defense under Article 51 and the "missing reversioner" theory.
3. Critical Perspectives and Motives Behind the Occupation: This chapter explores opposing views, such as those of Noam Chomsky, suggesting that the occupation was motivated by territorial expansion rather than security.
4. Legal Implications of Prolonged Occupation and UN Resolution 242: This chapter analyzes the evolving legal status of the occupation, highlighting how the prolonged duration challenges initial justifications and how UN Resolution 242 demands withdrawal.
5. Conclusion on the Legality of the Occupation: The final section synthesizes the arguments to conclude that the prolonged occupation lacks a sustainable legal basis under international law.
Keywords
International Law, Israeli Occupation, Gaza, West Bank, UN Charter, Article 51, Self-Defense, UN Resolution 242, Belligerent Occupation, Missing Reversioner, Territorial Sovereignty, Proportionality, Middle East Conflict.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this essay?
The essay investigates the legality of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza under international law, specifically assessing whether it can be justified as an act of self-defense.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The work covers the interpretation of the UN Charter, the historical context of the 1967 conflict, the legal obligations of belligerent occupiers, and the diplomatic impact of UN Security Council resolutions.
What is the main research question?
The core question is how Israel's occupation of these territories can be legally justified and whether such justifications remain valid given the prolonged duration of the occupation.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author employs a legal-analytical approach, reviewing international law, UN documents, and scholarly discourse to compare conflicting interpretations of the conflict's legality.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body examines arguments from both the Israeli perspective (self-defense) and critics (territorial expansion), analyzes the applicability of Article 51, and critiques the concept of a "trustee occupant."
What key terms characterize the study?
Key terms include "belligerent occupation," "self-defense," "Article 51," "missing reversioner," and "international law."
How does the author evaluate the "missing reversioner" theory?
The author views this theory as problematic and lacking a moral basis, arguing that it ignores the rights of the indigenous Palestinian population who inhabited the land.
Does the author consider the prolonged nature of the occupation as a legal factor?
Yes, the author argues that regardless of the legality of the initial 1967 entry, the prolonged occupation has lost its legal basis, particularly following UN Security Council Resolution 242.
- Citar trabajo
- Patrick Wagner (Autor), 2002, How may Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank be justified in international law?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/18956
