This post is also available in:
English
Short answer
Israel’s legal right to the West Bank stems from the British Mandate, which laid the groundwork for its statehood. No other country had recognized sovereignty over the land before Israel — not even Jordan, and certainly not a “State of Palestine,” which has never existed as a sovereign state. Since there was no prior legal owner, Israel didn’t take the land from anyone — so it’s not an occupation.
That’s why, under international law, Israel has a strong and legitimate claim to Judea and Samaria — a view supported by leading legal scholars such as Eugene Rostow, Julius Stone, and Natasha Hausdorff, who all argue that Israel’s presence in the territory is lawful and does not meet the legal definition of occupation.
Long answer
Calling Israel’s presence in Judea & Samaria (“the West Bank”) an “occupation” or “colonization” is legally and historically inaccurate. This claim ignores both international law and historical context.
Under international law, “occupation” means one sovereign state controlling another’s land. But the West Bank was never a sovereign state — not under Jordan pre-1967, and not as a Palestinian state.
Israel’s claim to the land dates back to the British Mandate, which laid the foundation for the State of Israel. When Israel declared independence in 1948, it inherited those legal rights — including Judea & Samaria.
The Israeli communities in the West Bank are often called “illegal settlements,” but that’s misleading. These are voluntary communities — not forced relocations by the Israeli government.
Critics often cite Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, claiming Israel is violating it. But that article was created to prevent forced population transfers, like those under Nazi Germany — not voluntary movement into land with no prior recognized sovereignty.
Civilians living in Judea & Samaria aren’t being “transferred” — they’re choosing to live in land with deep Jewish historical and legal roots.
This interpretation is supported by prominent legal scholars such as Eugene Rostow, Julius Stone, and Natasha Hausdorff, all of whom argue that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is consistent with international law and does not meet the legal definition of occupation.
Bottom line: Israel’s presence in the West Bank isn’t occupation — it’s backed by international law and history. Calling it otherwise distorts the facts and spreads political bias.
