This post is also available in:
English 
Español (Spanish) 
Português (Portuguese (Brazil)) 
Русский (Russian)
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.
While many Arab villages were depopulated during wartime — a reality often used to frame the land as “taken” — Israel did not replace a prior legal sovereign, and Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria predates modern conflicts by millennia.
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. Jews have also maintained a continuous, well-documented presence there for thousands of years.
Israel gained control of these territories in 1967 during a defensive war, when Arab armies threatened its existence. Although the West Bank had been under Jordanian control since 1948, that annexation was never recognized internationally. Under Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, military control over territory captured in war can be called occupation, but since no sovereign state had legal sovereignty over the West Bank, Israel’s presence doesn’t fit that legal definition.
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.
Israeli communities in the West Bank are voluntary, choosing to live in a land with deep Jewish historical and legal roots, not the result of forced relocation by the Israeli government.
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.
