Is the existence of Israel legal under international law?

Legal Israel

Are the Palestinians right to claim that the State of Israel is not legal at all?

Well, the most significant document affiliated with this issue was signed on November 29, 1947, when the United Nations (UN) decided in resolution 181 to establish a “Jewish state” in Israel, the term “Jewish state” was mentioned several times, so clearly the status of the state as JEWISH  was undoubted (see the map of the partition).

Did resolution 181 (founding of the state of Israel) deprived the Muslims?

Actually, the Arabs were the big benefactors of this act. In the Balfour declaration (Briton’s promise to create a Jewish state) The Jewish state should have been established on both banks of the river Jordan (the entire land of Jordan was promised to Israel).

So, the Arabs gained a lot from resolution 181. However, they didn’t take the Jewish community very seriously, after decades of molesting the Jews under the Ottoman rule they saw them as “pushovers”. However, in a twist of fate, the Jews they faced this time were survivors of the holocaust and World War 2 US army veterans with a more aggressive fighting spirit (till this very day).

Note: the state was defined as “Jewish” and not “democratic”, meaning that the right of the Jews in Israel is clear under international law, but the freedom of the individual is actually an addition that the Jews dictated and not the UN.

The country that occupied Israel at that time was England. England accepted the UN resolution and withdrew its army from Israel in 1948. So the process, from beginning to end was completely legal under international law.

The illegal part of the declaration of the state of Israel.

While the Jewish community accepted the UN resolution to the letter, The Arabs rejected it completely. One must remember that UN resolutions are not mandatory. Only the UN’s security resolutions are binding.

Till today there is a debate if Israel stole land or not, well the UN proposal was rejected by the Arabs, but no other offer was ever made, UN resolutions require both sides to agree and sign a treaty to become law. So, the dispute about the borders is very difficult to solve legally.

The Big Lie about Israel’s war in 1948

Many believe that on the of Israel’s declaration of independence, 5 big Arab armies invaded Israel is wrong. It wasn’t immediate, and they needed an excuse.

The fighting began inside Israel when local Arabs started massacring Jews all over the land. From Jaffa to Jerusalem blood was spilled even before the big invasion. later Arabs would claim that Israel suddenly attacked them and drive them off their land. but historically Israeli Arabs attacked and killed Jewish civilians and convoys with supply and food. None more famous than the Convoys to Jerusalem that became a death trap due to Arab gunman from all the surrounding villages.

Why do the Palestinians claim that East Jerusalem and Bethlehem is theirs?

After the end of the War of Independence new lines of sees fire were established. The Jordanian Legion occupied the eastern part of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, including Bethlehem and many other holy places. Today, the UN is trying to transfer rights and power to the Palestinians, claiming that the lines of sees fire established in 1939 are the real borders of Israel (despite the lack of legislation). because the land was conquered by Jordan’s army. continue reading after the “Support line”…

Support our Coase by Buying from Israeli Shops

Why does the UN give Jordan rights over Jerusalem?

Jorden achieved dominance in east Jerusalem by occupation and that gave Jorden rights over the land according to the UN. However, the UN abolishes Israel’s right to the same territory, because Israel gained its dominance, in the same way, by conquering it.

Why does the UN discriminate Israel?

Because they can, there are more Muslims states and influents than Israeli.

Why is England today going out of its way to undermine the UN resolution from 1937, and do the English have the right to do so?

Today, many believe that England allowed the establishment of the State of Israel simply because they did not believe that the state would survive the Arab’s attack.
 they hoped they will have to “go back and save the Jews who survived the massacre.”

Others argue that it was more convenient for England to have internal conflicts between Arabs and Israelis and thus avoid the creation of a large, unified Arab military force that could threaten the Suez Canal. In fact, many are certain that this was one of the main considerations for the Balfour Declaration. Not for justice of the native people … but for the interests of Britain.

Sounds like a wild conspiracy theory?

This scenario came to pass in 1956 when Nasser took control of the Suez Canal. Britain and France signed a defense agreement with Israel only if Israel will conquer Sinai and threaten the Suez Canal.

All that was only an excuse for them to “intervene” and take control of the canal. This act was exposed and created great waves of antagonism all over the world, but most of all it proved that Britten had a policy of mongering wars and then taking over as “Problem solvers” (Divide and conquer).

Also, it made very likely the theory that Britain gave independence to Israel in the hope that there will be a great Massacre of Jews and they will have to re-occupy the Holy Land.

Conclusion:

There is no sound reason to believe that England’s motives for allowing independence to the State of Israel were noble.

In any case, England did not vote in the United Nations for the establishment of the State of Israel (resolution 181) so they are both morally and legally irrelevant.

Many people in the world see the struggle that England is leading to the de-legitimization of Israel, such as the BDS, as another desperate attempt to re-establish political influence on the Middle East by convincing the global Muslim community that England is a western power that can “Lead Islam”.

Especially now after breaking out of the UN on the grounds of refusal to absorb Muslim immigrants. Now England desperately needs a “gimmick” to restore the sympathy of the 1.7 billion Muslims who are extremely rich in oil, money and voters.

So legally, does occupation give ownership of the land?

Well… England conquered Israel from the Turks and they gave the UN their jurisdiction over the land. Briton used its army and thus gained ownership of the territory by occupation. Turkey also obtained ownership of the land through a military occupation that was also very cruel and discriminating against the Jews, and many Jews fled or died under Muslim Ottoman occupation.

Jorden occupied Judea and until this day it’s considered an Arab territory because of that.

In fact, ever since the Romans conquered the land and expelled the native Jews, the land had changed rulers many times and all of them had gained control by violent conquest, including the Crusades, Napoleon, and others.

These days there is a question of whether military occupation gives ownership of territories in the Middle East, including in Israel. It is difficult to give an answer because the UN claims that it is forbidden, but the UN itself has been given jurisdiction over the matter by military occupation.

What do you think about this issue?
 Please write to me

You may also like: