Daily Alert Archives

Annexation vs. Sovereignty: Words Matter

(JNS) Arsen Ostrovsky and Col. Richard Kemp - The current debate over whether Israel's proposed actions in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) amount to "annexation" or the "application of sovereignty" is a prime example of how words matter, as much of the international community have been referring to this aspect of the U.S. peace plan as "annexation." This is partly a function of a lack of understanding about what the term "annexation" actually connotes. But there are those who know the distinction very well, and are using it to create a dangerous perception: that Israel has no entitlement to Judea and Samaria, and therefore would be committing some illegal act under international law. In essence, annexation means one state imposing legal authority over the territory of another state acquired by force or aggression. Russia's annexation of Crimea and Turkey's invasion of Cyprus are prime examples of such cases. But in the case of Judea and Samaria, the allied powers 100 years ago in San Remo, Italy, entrenched the Jewish people's pre-existing historical rights to the land as unequivocal legal rights under international law. One may ask, then, how can you annex territory to which you are legally entitled? Indeed, it is factually incorrect to assert that Israel intends to "annex" parts of Judea and Samaria - territory to which it has legitimate claim and that never has been part of a "state of Palestine." One may reasonably argue about the merits of Israel's proposed policy, but to call such actions "annexation" is false. Arsen Ostrovsky is an international human rights lawyer. Col. Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, was chairman of the UK's national crisis management committee, COBRA.
2020-06-12 00:00:00
Full Article