In the theatre of the absurd, commonly known as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judges are again preparing to ignore history, facts, and the fundamental truth. Having weaponized the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against the Jewish state, the judges are now preparing to hear oral arguments on the next oxymoron: The “legal consequences” of the “Israeli occupation” of “Palestinian territory.”
The glaring problem with this issue is that there is no such entity as the “Palestinian territories.” The term “Palestinian territories” is an invented term used to define areas allocated by the international community to the Jewish state, which were then illegally invaded by Egypt and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Any discussion anchored on this false terminology should immediately be ignored and scorned.
In December 2022, the United Nations General Assembly, prompted by the Palestinian Authority, adopted a resolution to request the ICJ for an advisory opinion1 on the following question:
Considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, relevant resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the Human Rights Council, and the advisory opinion of the Court of July 9, 2004:
- What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement, and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character, and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?
- How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to in paragraph 18 (a) above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?
Following the request, the ICJ set a timeline for initial written statements to be submitted by July 25, 2023, responses to the submissions by October 25, 2023, and oral arguments made starting February 19, 2024.
The underlying assumption of the debacle is that Israel is in some way “occupying” “Palestinian territory.” But is that really the case?
In reality, never in history has an independent country called “Palestine” ever existed.
In reality, the area the UNGA claims and has asked the ICJ to consider as “Palestinian territory” was controlled for 400 years by the Ottoman Empire.
In reality, after World War I, the international community repeatedly2 allocated the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, from Lebanon to the Red Sea, for the sole purpose of reconstituting the Jewish homeland.
In reality, the 1923 division of the geographical area called “Palestine” into two separate areas, one to be called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the other remaining as Jewish Palestine, was the real “Two-State Solution.”
In reality, in 1947, the UN offered the Arabs an opportunity to create another Arab country to the west of the Jordan River alongside Israel, but the Arabs refused. Instead, five Arab armies attacked the nascent Jewish state with the stated and express goal of throwing the Jews into the sea.
From 1948 to 1967, Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip, and Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria, which it renamed “The West Bank.” During that time, no UN resolution of the General Assembly or the Security Council demanded that Egypt and Jordan retreat and desist from occupying those areas. No such request was made of Jordan since Jordan saw Palestine as an integral part of Jordan.
In reality, even UN Security Council Resolution 242, from November 1967, does not mention, even once, the notion of occupied “Palestinian” territory.
In fact, the idea that a State of Palestine ever existed and that Israel is occupying “Palestinian territory” seems to prove the billboard advertisement that “Palestine” is the only country in the world that did not exist before it was “occupied.”
Sadly, as the judges demonstrated with their shameful decision on the false claim of South Africa against Israel when it comes to the Jewish state in the ICJ history, facts and the fundamental truth are just not relevant.
* * *
In the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, in the San Remo Declaration in 1920, and in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine 1922.↩︎