The Legal Basis for Israel's Claim to the West Bank: From the Mandate Period to the Present

Israel's claim to the West Bank is a complex issue rooted in historical, geopolitical, and legal arguments. This article delves into the legal foundation for Israel's assertion of sovereignty over the area, emphasizing the post-World War I international legal landscape and subsequent developments.

The San Remo Accords and the Mandate of Palestine

The basis for Israel's claim to the West Bank is rooted in legal agreements established in the early 20th century. The San Remo Conference of 1920, which took place in the aftermath of World War I, created the Mandates of Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and Mesopotamia. The San Remo Accord, in conjunction with the Sykes-Picot Agreement, set the stage for the subsequent establishment of the mandate regions.

The San Remo Accord and the Sevres Accord

The San Remo Accord specifically recognized the right to a national home for the Jewish people within the borders of the mandate for Palestine. This accord was ratified in 1922, further solidifying the legal foundation for a Jewish state within the territory. The Sevres Accord, signed between the Ottoman Empire and the Allied Powers, also contributed to the recognition of these territorial claims.

The Rejection of Partition Plans

Israel's sovereignty over the West Bank has been continuously challenged by international and local Arab entities, particularly through the rejection of partition plans. Both the British Peel Plan of 1936 and the UN Partitioning Plan of 1947, which called for the division of Palestine, were rejected by Arab populations and nations alike. These rejections maintain the continuity of Israel's claim to the entire mandate area, irrespective of partition proposals.

International Law and the UTI POSSEDETIS JURA Rule

The principle of uti possidetis juris (from Latin, "in the possession") has been vital in the recognition and enforcement of territorial claims post-colonialism. This rule asserts that after colonization ends, the border of the new state should generally reflect the borders of the former colonial authority's mandate. Applying this principle to the post-1948 period, it supports Israel's claim, given that the British mandate ended and no other internationally recognized entity stepped in as the rightful owner.

The Jordanian Control and Subsequent Israeli Conquest

Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the West Bank came under Jordanian control. Jordan annexed the territory in 1950, but this control was largely unrecognized by the international community. During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel defeated Jordan and acquired control of the West Bank. Since then, Israel has maintained administrative and security control of the region.

The Oslo Accords and Palestinian Autonomy

The Oslo Accords, signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1993, granted limited self-governance to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, the goal of the accords was to pave the way for a full peace treaty, which has yet to materialize. Despite these agreements, the international community, particularly Israel, maintains that the legal status of the West Bank remains unaltered by the accords.

Conclusion

The legal basis for Israel's claim to the West Bank is rooted in historical agreements, such as the San Remo Accord and subsequent mandates, and the principles of international law, including the uti possidetis juris rule. While there have been attempts to challenge this claim, particularly through partition plans rejected by Arab entities, the legal foundation remains strong. However, the political and humanitarian implications of this control are subject to ongoing discussion and negotiation.

References

1. San Remo Agreement (1920)
2. League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1922)
3. UN Resolution 181 (1947)
4. Oslo Accords (1993)
5. International Court of Justice, 'Legal Status of East Jerusalem' (1949)