Does Israel own the West Bank?

Answer 1

Answer 1

The West Bank is a part of the state of Palestine, although the entire state of Palestine has been under Israeli occupation since 1967.

Commentary on Answer 1

The West Bank was annexed by the Kingdom of Jordan in the 1950s, although the residents of the area were never accorded citizenship in the Kingdom, and the territory itself was by and large not integrated into the country's economy or society. It's a rather awkward reality that more than 50 years after its annexation by the Hashemite Kingdom, large communities of Muslim Arabs still live without Jordanian Passports in areas still described as 'refugee camps'.

As of the beginning of 2013, the West Bank is governed and policed by the Palestinian Authority (president Mahmoud Abbas etc.), and travel between the territory and Israel is tightly controlled by Israel at their mutual border, for obvious security reasons. There is little if any cooperation between the Palestinian communities of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, understandable since Hamas took over Gaza in an armed campaign and overthrew the Palestinian Authority in 2007 (after the withdrawal of all Israeli settlers and military personnel.)

The West Bank will undoubtedly comprise a major portion of a Palestinian state when one is established, but that hasn't yet taken place.

Answer 2

As concerns ownership of the West Bank, Jordan attacked Israel first and Israel retaliated. Since Jordan attacked first, Israel conquered the territories in self-defense. Since actions in self-defense are considered legally justifiable, Israel would have the rights to those territories. However, Israel was willing to concede some of those rights pursuant to a final, lasting peace with its Jordan. Therefore, Israel ceded the possible claim to the West Bank to Jordan in UN Resolution 242 and Jordan then agreed to cede its rights to claim the land in full to the Palestinian Authority in 1988 and 1994. Because of this, the Palestinian Authority has the right to claim the lands of the West Bank. There are certainly Israelis who disagree with the extent of these rights, their viability vis à vis their religion, or use the doctrine of terra nullius to disavow the Palestinian Authority of these rights, but this is the minority of Israelis. Most Israelis want the majority of the West Bank to revert to the Palestinian Authority with a guarantee of peaceful coexistence. Since the initial Israeli cession to Jordan in UN Resolution 242 required a final peace treaty for the transfer of territory, that final peace is requisite for the proper transfer of the land.

Answer 2

Answer 1

Israel does not have rights to any of that land. Their only claim is that "God" promised Abraham this land in Genesis. Assuming that this is a valid legal claim (which it is not), we have to consider two things. First of all, the birthright to the land was obtained fraudulently by Jacob (Israel) when he cheated Esau. Secondly, directly thereafter Jacobs family freely moved to Egypt, where they remained for 400 years. This suggests that the legal principle of abandonment could come into play.

Finally, in 75AD the Romans dispersed the Israelite s, forbidding them from living in the region or establishing a political entity. The Roman Empire ended in the 5th century AD and the Jews chose to remain away for another 1000+ years.

The descendants of Esau, the person who had a legitimate birthright claim to the land, for this entire time, remained there from the promise to present day.

We must separate politics, race and religion. The Jews are not a race. They are Semitic, the same sub-race as the Palestinians. The only real difference between them is religion and, in any legal sense, religion does not convey property rights, which are given through civil law, not religious.

Answer 2

It depends honestly on who you ask.

The majority international position is that Israel has the right to administer the West Bank pending a final peace negotiation with the Palestinians according to UNSC Resolution 242 and the Peace Treaty with Jordan which ceded the claim for the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. However, Israel does not have the right to move civilians onto that land since such movement is a violation of Article 49 the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (which prohibits forcible population transfers into legally or illegally occupied territory that "belongs" to a different sovereign). It is also a violation of the spirit of UNSC Resolution 242 and 181 (II) which designate the West Bank as a future Arab territory (under either Palestinian or Jordanian control). Israeli settlements in the West Bank would make it difficult to effect that return.

While the position of Israeli Religious Zionists is described in Answer 1, i.e. inheritance from Abraham, this is not the Israeli Government position. The State of Israel's legitimacy comes from various International Documents such as the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, UNGA Resolution 181 (II), and the ceasefires. As for the Israeli position on the West Bank issues, there were several laws from the Ottoman Period that allowed land to revert to the direct control of the State. One of these laws was the "Dead Land" or "Ard Mawat" Law which was that if land was far enough from any neighboring village, the state could reacquire it without any necessary proceedings. Israel put this archaic law back into use and began to designate "dead lands" as proper locations for Israeli settlements. This creates the dichotomy in the West Bank of settlements that Israel sees as legitimate and therefore provides utilities and general development assistance and settlements that Israel sees as illegitimate and often has the Israeli Army forcibly remove.

Israel also claims that the "legal settlements" are not a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention because no Israeli citizen has been forced into the West Bank. Actual violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention include: the Moroccan population transfers into Western Sahara, the Turkish population transfers into North Cyprus, and the Indonesian population transfers into East Timor. In all three cases, the government literally loaded people on buses or ships and resettled them in the occupied territory. In the case of the West Bank, the Israelis moved there of their own volition and the Israeli government only assisted them. The international community typically responds to this argument by pointing out how real estate costs and taxes are much lower in the West Bank Settlements than Israel proper, evincing a clear motive to induce Israeli citizens to come to the West Bank even if they are not forcibly transferred.