The concept of self-determination stands as a cornerstone of modern international law, asserting the right of peoples to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. While Israel unequivocally asserts its right to self-determination as a Jewish state, a compelling argument exists within international legal discourse that its actions, particularly concerning the protracted military occupation of Palestinian territories, fundamentally compromise the weight and legitimacy of this claim under the very tenets of international law it purports to uphold.
Central to this critique is the explicit prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force, a foundational principle enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. Following the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Despite Israel's claims regarding security and historical rights, the international community, through numerous UN resolutions, consistently reaffirms these territories as occupied. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has also affirmed the illegality of the occupation, stating that the prolonged military presence and the associated policies violate international law. The acquisition and retention of territory through military conquest, regardless of the initial circumstances of the conflict, directly contravenes this non-negotiable principle, thereby undermining any subsequent claims to sovereignty or self-determination over such illegally held lands.
Furthermore, Israel's extensive settlement enterprise in the occupied territories is widely considered a grave breach of international law. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states that an occupying power "shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) unequivocally reaffirms that the establishment of settlements by Israel has "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law." The ongoing construction and expansion of these settlements are not merely a violation but, according to critics, an act of de facto annexation, solidifying an illegal territorial claim that directly impinges upon the Palestinian people's own inherent right to self-determination within a viable state.
The argument is that a state's right to self-determination cannot be exercised at the expense of another people's right to self-determination, particularly when the latter is achieved through ongoing military occupation and policies that violate international humanitarian law. The Palestinian people, too, possess the indisputable right to self-determination, as affirmed by countless UN General Assembly resolutions. When one state's perceived self-determination is realized through actions that deny this same right to another population, and are deemed illegal by international consensus and specific UN mandates, it creates an inherent contradiction that diminishes the universality and moral authority of that claim.
In essence, critics argue that Israel's assertion of self-determination loses its international legal legitimacy when pursued through actions that contravene foundational principles of state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of force. Until the occupation ends and the Palestinian people's right to self-determination is fully realized, the contention persists that Israel's own claim, while deeply significant for its people, remains fundamentally flawed and holds diminished weight under the comprehensive framework of international law.