Before we tackle International Law’s legitimacy it may be well to consider the domestic legal system as a precursor to our main topic.

In the domestic scene, we understand law sets out rules and conditions that govern a countries citizenry. Those laws normally created by a countries legislature, interpreted by its judiciary, and enforced by its executive branch, relying on the police, to execute those laws when they have been broken.

Now let’s turn to the subject in question international law, who makes these laws given there is no world government or parliament to legislate international laws in short no one. international law rest’s on the consensus between nations often enshrined in treaties between nation-states which naturally leaves them subject to change should a country choose to no longer honour its treaty obligations.

In other words, these treaties are nothing more than contractual agreements between two or more parties subject to change should one of the contractural party wish to opt-out.

Bottom line we are talking custom and historic practice nothing more.

International Law resorts to a theory based on “natural law,” which argues that law reflects the instinctual belief that some acts are right and some are wrong. However, as social mores change so does one’s interpretation of international law.

Here’s the ‘Rub,’ nation after nation draws on international law to castigate Israel whenever it should do something they consider unacceptable to their interests and those of the fake Palestinian people.

As seen above this international law rests on nothing more than self-serving consensus subject to one’s interpretation.

Lets for a moment accept the legitimacy of international law and its ramifications for an Israel under siege from world opinion. What does the truth look like?

Prior to the United Nations partition in 1947, international treaties and international law unequivocally acknowledged the Jewish community’s right to be in what was then called Palestine.

We also see the Balfour Declaration became international law when the League of Nations made it part of its mandate. As well the Balfour Declaration is found in several binding multinational treaties, as well as the League of Nations mandate, and importantly, not susceptible to change. Making it clear that its a matter of binding international law. If more were needed Israel’s legal rights and sovereignty over Judea and Samaria the so-called ‘Westbank’ are recognised as international law through the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and have been underpinned by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

We could go on Infinitum about the Jewish States rights in international law not to mention the San Remo conference of 1920 etc…

So when is international law not law, when it applies to the Jewish State of Israel’s legal sovereignty over Judea and Samaria as recognised by international law. Talk about legal gymnastics.

One last comment if anyone can find me a reference to a Palestinian nation being enshrined in international law and thereby cancelling the State of Israel’s sovereign right to all of Judea and Samaria I wait with bated breath on you enlightening me. Bye, the way I won’t be holding my breath as you will appreciate one does not risk all on a pure fantasy!

Yosef Yigal Drever

Yosef Yigal Drever and Sylvia Drever co-founded Achdut HaLev in 2006 to reach out to the Jewish community's around the world providing support in learning Torah and promoting the 'Return of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.' Yosef Yigal made Aliya in 2014 while Sylvia his wife is an Israeli. In late 2014 Achdut HaLev concentrated all its resources towards Aliya and the rebuilding of Eretz Yisrael. Excluding none and embracing all. The commandment to settle the Land of Israel is equal in importance to all the Torah Commandments all together: (Sifri Deut 12:29)