The conflict over Palestine is not a dispute over a geographical name, but a deep conflict over the source of legitimacy: Is it an inherent right rooted in land, identity, and history, or a right created by force and clothed in legislative and theological garb?
The Palestinian whose ancestors lived in this land for continuous centuries derives his legitimacy from a stable historical and social presence, and from the right to self-determination affirmed by international conventions.
In contrast, the Zionist project emerged in a European colonial context, combining modern nationalism with the utilization of religious narrative, leading to the establishment of Israel as a political fait accompli.
Historically, Palestine was not a land without people. Multiple civilizations succeeded one another, and its local inhabitants remained its living fabric.
It is true that some Arab Jews lived in Palestine during historical periods, as did others, but religious or historical presence does not automatically transform into political sovereignty after a long interruption, otherwise the rules of contemporary international stability would collapse.
History proves diversity and continuity, and does not grant an exclusive privilege to a specific group.
Legally, United Nations resolutions have affirmed the principle of the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force, and recognized the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as well as the Gaza Strip, are considered occupied territories since 1967 according to international law, and are subject to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which restricts the authority of the occupation and prevents it from changing the legal status of the territory or annexing it.
The occupation authority, by definition, is temporary and limited, and does not have the power to transfer ownership or impose permanent sovereignty.
In this context comes what the Knesset approved on February 15 regarding the initiation of procedures for settling and registering West Bank lands as "state lands" or "Israeli government property."
This decision is not a neutral administrative measure, but a political step with serious legal implications, paving the way for transforming the land from a temporary occupation status to an actual, disguised annexation.
Classifying the land as Israeli government property implies sovereignty, and sovereignty does not arise from occupation.
Legislating annexation internally does not grant international legitimacy. National law, no matter how strong within the state, does not supersede the peremptory norms of international law.
If the international community established after World War II the rule prohibiting the acquisition of territory by force, then violating it today opens the door to the erosion of the entire international legal system.
Therefore, any decision that exceeds the powers of the de facto authority and consecrates unilateral annexation remains null and void from the perspective of international legitimacy, even if implemented on the ground.
The danger in the decision lies not only in its legal effect, but in its political implication: the transition from managing an occupation to establishing unilateral sovereignty, which means undermining any prospect for a just settlement based on mutual recognition. For when the Palestinian's land becomes "state land" by an Israeli parliamentary decision, the owner of the land is redefined from an inherent owner to a resident under an administration claiming ownership.
Here lies the essence of the conflict between a deeply rooted natural right and a presumed right based on the logic of control.
In conclusion:
All Israeli measures in the occupied Palestinian territories — in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in the Gaza Strip — remain, from the perspective of international law, null and void and have no recognized legal effect.
They are occupied territories that represent the territory of the occupied State of Palestine, the state that has been granted observer non-member state status in the United Nations, and recognized by more than 160 countries around the world.
The sovereignty of the State of Palestine over these territories is an existing legal sovereignty, even if it is suspended by the occupation.
Therefore, annexation decisions, or reclassification of lands, or imposing Israeli laws on the occupied territory, do not change the legal nature of these lands, nor do they create a sovereign right for Israel over them.
Falsehood does not turn into truth over time, and occupation does not turn into sovereignty by legislation.
The Palestinian right will remain firm, supported by the rules of international legitimacy, and bolstered by the increasing international recognition of the State of Palestine, until the occupation is lifted and the land is restored to its owners according to the principles of justice and law.
شارك برأيك
Palestine Between Inherent Right and the Legislation of Annexation: When Force Becomes Law...!