Why is the Legitimacy of Israel Under Constant International Challenge?

The Story of a Biased Playing Field and Hypocrisy

Overview

The legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state is complex and multifaceted, involving historical claims, legal principles, and contemporary geopolitical realities. Israel’s creation and ongoing existence are deeply rooted in historical connections to the land, the aftermath of the Holocaust, and the need for a safe haven for Jews worldwide.

Despite its recognition as a sovereign state by the international community and its diplomatic relations with numerous countries, Israel’s legitimacy continues to be challenged, particularly by those who focus on the displacement of Palestinian Arabs and the ongoing conflicts in the region.

This constant challenge is exacerbated by an obvious bias in international institutions, such as the United Nations, where Israel faces disproportionate scrutiny and condemnation compared to other countries that deliberately flout human rights with no attention and, indeed, no consequences.

The double standards are evident when comparing Israel’s treatment to that of other nations arbitrarily created by colonial powers, such as Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. The conflicting promises made by the British during World War I have also left a legacy of unresolved tensions and competing claims that further complicate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel did not create the conflicts in the Middle East. Israel, the Palestinian Arabs, and most of the arbitrary nations created by the British are victims of what the British did and left behind. Israel is the focus only because it is the world’s only Jewish state. As an example, the civil war and mass genocide being committed by Syria’s leader against his own people are ignored by the world community and the UN. The same can be seen in the civil wars in Syria and Yemen. Iran keeps fueling the fires, and for the most part, the world backs down. But when it comes to Israel, it’s a totally different story.

The Palestinian Arab claim of a right to return remains particularly contentious. This is the only refugee situation where the UN advocates an unprecedented and unilateral application of this principle for Palestinian Arab refugees and all their descendants. This contrasts sharply with how other refugee situations have been handled globally. This, along with the deliberate refusal of Arab nations to accept and integrate Palestinian Arab refugees, has perpetuated the refugee crisis and hindered peace efforts.

In retrospect, Israel should have never signed the armistice agreements following the 1948 War of Independence. They should have demanded a formal agreement with terms and conditions starting with their recognition as a state with defined borders. Instead, they settled for a “truce,” trusting the UN to do what is right in the future to resolve the conflict. The ongoing debate and diplomatic efforts underscore the need for a nuanced understanding of Israel’s legitimacy, one that appreciates its historical context, legal foundations, and the contemporary geopolitical landscape.

As the Jewish History and Heritage Initiative continues to explore these issues, it is crucial to engage in discussions that address the double standards and biases in Israel’s treatment. These conversations are vital for advancing a more equitable approach to international relations and supporting the region’s quest for peace and recognition.

Historical Context

Ancient Ties to the Land

The land today known as Palestine has been inhabited by various peoples and governed by numerous empires over millennia, including the Canaanites, Israelites, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and Ottomans. The Jewish people have ancient historical and religious ties to this land, which is central to their cultural and religious identity.

Zionist Movement

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Zionist movement emerged, advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This movement gained momentum against the backdrop of rising anti-Semitism in Europe and the horrors of the Holocaust during World War II.

Creation of the State of Israel

Key Events Leading to Establishment

Balfour Declaration (1917): The British government expressed support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, while also stating that nothing should be done to prejudice the rights of existing non-Jewish communities.
UN Partition Plan (1947): The United Nations proposed a partition plan to create separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under international administration. The Jewish community accepted the plan, while the Arab states and Palestinian Arabs rejected it.
Israeli Declaration of Independence (1948): Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948. The following day, the British withdrew, and neighboring Arab states invaded, leading to the first Arab-Israeli war. Israel emerged victorious, and its borders were established through armistice agreements in 1949.

Historical Context and Population Movements

Mass Migration and Absorption

Between the late 1940s and the 1970s, around 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries due to persecution, anti-Jewish violence, and political instability. A significant portion of these Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel, which provided them with citizenship and integrated them into Israeli society. Others settled in Western countries. The new lives they established in Israel and elsewhere reduced the likelihood and practicality of seeking a return to their countries of origin, consistent with how almost all other refugee situations have been handled worldwide.

Resettling Holocaust and Stateless Jewish Refugees

Following World War II, Israel also became a haven for Holocaust survivors and other stateless Jewish refugees. Approximately 250,000 Jewish refugees who survived the Holocaust and were left stateless found a new home in Israel. The Jewish state offered citizenship and resettlement opportunities to those who had been displaced and left stateless by the war and the Holocaust. This act of providing a homeland for Jews from Europe, many of whom had lost everything and had no other place to go, was a crucial part of Israel’s early identity and mission.

Different Refugee Narratives

The Palestinian refugee narrative focuses on the right to return to their ancestral homes in what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories. The Jewish refugee narrative often emphasizes the integration and compensation for lost properties and rights rather than a return to countries where they no longer have community ties or where Jewish communities have significantly diminished or disappeared.

Ongoing Conflicts and Diplomatic Efforts

Israel’s establishment and subsequent wars led to the displacement of a significant number of Palestinians, creating a protracted refugee crisis where other Arab nations refused to accept them, integrate them into society, and give them citizenship. Under Arab control, primarily in Jordan and Egypt, the Palestinian Arab refugees remained stateless. The Arab nations viewed the acceptance of the Palestinian Arab refugees as acceptance and legitimization of the State of Israel. As a result, the refugees were victims of Arab political strategies and not international norms.

Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Borders and Settlements: Disputes over the borders of Israel and the status of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Jerusalem: The status of Jerusalem, a city sacred to Jews, Muslims, and Christians, is a contentious issue, with both Israelis and Palestinians claiming it as their capital.
Right of Return: Palestinian refugees and their descendants claim the right to return to their former homes, a demand Israel rejects.
Security Concerns: Israel’s security concerns, including threats from militant groups and hostile states, shape its policies and actions.

International Law and Recognition

Support for Israel’s Legitimacy

UN Membership: Israel was admitted to the United Nations in 1949, which is a significant indicator of its international recognition as a sovereign state.
Diplomatic Relations: Israel has established diplomatic relations with many countries worldwide, including recent normalization agreements with several Arab states under the Abraham Accords.

However, Israel’s actions in fighting and countering terrorism from Palestinian Arabs and Hamas in particular, have become politicized as a human rights issue by pro-Palestinian causes who use human rights as the number one reason to delegitimize the existence of the State of Israel. The solution for these human rights causes is a one-state solution, with Palestinian Arabs taking over Israel and ending its existence as a Jewish State, with no negotiations, peace agreements, or anything else.

Comparisons with Other Middle Eastern States Arbitrarily Created by Britain

The legitimacy of Israel can be compared to other Middle Eastern states whose borders and governance were determined by Britain when they were under British rule: If Israel’s legitimacy is being questioned, why, too, is not the legitimacy of these countries created arbitrarily by Britain and France?

Jordan and Iraq: Both were established with borders drawn by Britain after World War I. These two countries were given to the sons of Sharif Hussein—Jordan to Abdullah and Iraq to Faisal. The ongoing Israel/Palestinian Arab conflict began with Britain taking Trans-Jordan out of the Mandate Palestine to appease Sharif Hussein.
Lebanon: Created by the French from the Ottoman territory after World War I without regard for ethnic or religious demographics, leading to internal conflicts and civil war.
Saudi Arabia: Unified under the leadership of Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, who forced Sharif Hussein out via force. There was no self-determination by the population.
Iran: Created from Persia by the British and French with no self-determination by the population.
Syria: Originally promised to Sharif Hussein by the British, then secretly promised to the French. The French removed Hussein by force. That situation forced Britain to split Trans-Jordan from Mandate Palestine to appease Hussein. Today, Syria is in a brutal civil war, killing over 500,000 civilians and displacing millions as refugees.

Sharif Hussein and British Conflicting Promises

The conflicting promises made by the British during World War I to different parties in the Middle East have had lasting impacts on the region, contributing to the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Hussein-McMahon Correspondence (1915-1916): During World War I, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, corresponded with Sharif Hussein of Mecca, promising Arab independence in exchange for support against the Ottoman Empire. The boundaries of this promised independence were vague and later became a point of contention.
Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916): Simultaneously, Britain and France secretly negotiated the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Ottoman territories in the Middle East into spheres of influence, contradicting the promises made to the Arabs.
Balfour Declaration (1917): Further complicating matters, the British issued the Balfour Declaration, supporting the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, which conflicted with earlier promises to the Arabs and set the stage for future tensions.

Mandate Palestine and Jordan

The British Mandate for Palestine, established by the League of Nations in 1922, included the territory that is now Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan. The mandate aimed to implement the Balfour Declaration while respecting the rights of the non-Jewish communities.

Transjordan: In 1921, the British created the Emirate of Transjordan (modern-day Jordan) east of the Jordan River, excluding it from the original provisions of the Balfour Declaration. This decision was part of Britain’s strategy to manage its conflicting promises and geopolitical interests in the region.
Palestine Mandate: The remaining territory west of the Jordan River continued under the mandate. Britain faced increasing tensions between Jewish and Arab communities, leading to periodic violence and uprisings. This territory was too small to split after Trans-Jordan was removed from the equation.

The Armistice vs. Peace Treaty: Understanding the Context

The conclusion of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, known as the War of Independence for Israelis and the Nakba (Catastrophe) for Palestinian Arabs, resulted in armistice agreements rather than formal peace treaties between Israel and its neighboring Arab states. This outcome was influenced by a range of historical, political, and military factors that shaped the nature of the conflict and its resolution.

Historical and Political Context

Immediate Hostilities: The 1948 war began immediately following the declaration of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. The next day, five Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq) invaded Israel, leading to intense military confrontations.
Displacement and Refugees: The conflict caused significant displacement, with hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fleeing or being expelled from their homes. This created a complex humanitarian and political situation that further complicated peace efforts.

Lack of Diplomatic Relations

Non-Recognition: At the time of the war, none of the Arab states recognized the legitimacy of the newly declared State of Israel. Their primary objective was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in what they considered Arab territory.
Political Goals: The Arab states aimed to either eliminate Israel or severely limit its territorial scope, making it impossible to negotiate a formal peace treaty based on mutual recognition and acceptance. In signing the armistice, Arab nations intended to invade Israel in the future when the opportunity presented itself.

Military Realities

Stalemate: By 1949, the conflict had reached a military stalemate. While Israel had successfully defended its territory and even gained additional land beyond the UN Partition Plan borders, the Arab states were unable to achieve their military objective of destroying the Jewish state.
Exhaustion and Pressure: Both sides were exhausted from prolonged fighting, and there was increasing international pressure to end the hostilities. However, the underlying political issues remained unresolved.

Practical Considerations

Ceasefire First: The immediate priority was to stop the fighting and establish a ceasefire to prevent further loss of life and destruction. This made armistice agreements a practical first step toward stability.
UN Mediation: The United Nations played a central role in mediating the armistice agreements. UN envoys, such as Count Folke Bernadotte and Ralph Bunche, facilitated negotiations that temporarily ceased hostilities without addressing broader political issues.

Terms and Implications

Ceasefire Lines: The armistice agreements established ceasefire lines, known as the Green Line, which effectively became Israel’s de facto borders until the 1967 Six-Day War. These lines were not intended to be permanent borders but to separate the warring parties.
Demilitarized Zones: The agreements also created demilitarized zones and mechanisms for monitoring the ceasefire to reduce the risk of renewed hostilities.

Lack of Resolution

Unresolved Issues: The armistice agreements deliberately did not resolve key issues such as the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the final borders of Israel. These issues were left for future negotiations, in which Arab nations made clear they had no intent of participating.
Continued Tensions: The absence of a comprehensive peace treaty meant that hostilities and tensions remained. The underlying political conflict persisted, leading to further wars and ongoing instability in the region.

Later Peace Agreements

Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (1979): The first formal peace treaty between Israel and an Arab state was signed with Egypt in 1979. This followed the Camp David Accords and involved mutual recognition and significant diplomatic negotiations.
Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty (1994): A similar peace treaty was signed with Jordan in 1994, further normalizing relations and addressing bilateral issues.

Preconditions for Peace

Mutual Recognition: Formal peace treaties typically require mutual recognition and a willingness to negotiate on equal terms. In 1949, the Arab states remained committed to destroying Israel and refused any negotiation or compromise even though they were defeated.
Changed Dynamics: By the time of the later peace treaties, geopolitical dynamics had shifted, and some Arab states were more willing to pursue diplomatic solutions. That dynamic continues to shift as Iran becomes a growing threat to Arab nations and supports the Palestinian Arab terrorist movement at the same time.

Right of Return: A Unique Application

The right of return is a principle in international law and human rights that stipulates, in very general terms, the right of individuals to return to their country of origin or citizenship as a result of becoming refugees due to war. However, this right of return has always been subject to the final terms and conditions of peace agreements, not unilateral action.

The right of return has rarely been implemented. In most cases, refugees prefer to be resettled into the nation they fled to rather than return to a hostile situation. Resettlement has been the outcome in most refugee situations.

However, this principle is notably not applied to the Palestinian refugee situation in the context of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The UN has taken the position of unilaterally imposing a right of return, not only for the original refugees but also for all their descendants, no matter where they currently live. Never before did a right of return apply to descendants.

Historical Context of the Palestinian Right of Return

1948 Arab-Israeli War and Nakba: During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, also known as the War of Independence for Israelis and Nakba (Catastrophe) for Palestinians, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced or fled their homes. The creation of the state of Israel and the subsequent conflict led to a significant refugee crisis.
United Nations Resolution 194: The UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 in 1948, which, among other things, called for Palestinian Arab refugees and all their future descendants wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors to be permitted to do so. Again, this is unprecedented.

Comparison with Other Refugee Situations

Post-War Population Movements: In the aftermath of World War II, there were significant population movements and exchanges across Europe and Asia. Many people who were displaced or fled during the war did not return to their homes. New national borders, population exchanges, and the destruction caused by the war often made return impractical or politically unfeasible.
Legal and Political Realities: The right of return has been recognized in various international contexts, but its implementation often depends on specific legal, political, and practical considerations. For instance, the Dayton Agreement, which ended the Bosnian War, addressed the return of refugees to their homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the process has been fraught with difficulties.
Different Historical and Political Contexts: Each refugee situation has unique historical and political contexts that influence how the right of return is applied or advocated for. For example, many ethnic Germans displaced after World War II were resettled in Germany and did not return to their former homes in Eastern Europe.

International Law and Human Rights

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country. This general principle supports the concept of the right of return but does not dictate specific implementations for every situation.
International Covenants: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also supports the right of individuals to return to their own country. However, the practical application of this right can be subject to national security, public order, and other considerations.

Political Considerations in Israel and Palestine

Demographic Concerns: Israel has demographic concerns regarding the right of return for Palestinian refugees. The return of millions of Palestinians could significantly alter the demographic balance and potentially affect the Jewish character of the state.
Peace Negotiations: The right of return is a critical and contentious issue in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. While Palestinians insist on this right, many Israeli leaders argue that a mass return of Palestinian refugees would be incompatible with the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Compromises, such as limited return or compensation, have been proposed but not agreed upon.

International Law and Political Dynamics

Lack of Advocacy and International Recognition

The Palestinian right of return has been heavily advocated for by Palestinian leaders, supported by various Arab states, and recognized in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194. In contrast, the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries has received less international advocacy and recognition. It has not been the subject of similar high-profile UN resolutions specifically addressing their right to return.

National and International Legal Frameworks

Jewish refugees from Arab countries were often resettled and given citizenship in Israel, which actively sought to integrate them as part of the Zionist project of building a Jewish state. Palestinian refugees, on the other hand, were often kept in refugee camps in Arab countries and denied citizenship, partly as a means to maintain their political status and claims against Israel.

History of UN Biases Against Israel

Disproportionate Focus on Israel

General Assembly Resolutions: The UN General Assembly has passed numerous resolutions condemning Israeli actions. Critics argue that this focus on Israel is disproportionate compared to the attention given to other international conflicts and human rights abuses. For instance, from 2012 to 2015, the General Assembly adopted 97 resolutions criticizing Israel, compared to 83 resolutions against all other countries combined. At the same time, the UN ignores far more significant conflicts, deaths, and genocide in other nations. The civil wars in Bosnia, Sudan, Yemen, and Syria, the genocide of the Uyghurs in China, and the War in Ukraine, where millions have been or are being killed, injured, or displaced, have largely been ignored by the UN.
UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC): The UNHRC has been particularly criticized for its disproportionate focus on Israel. Israel is the only country with a dedicated agenda item (Item 7) in the council’s regular sessions, requiring discussion of human rights abuses in the Palestinian territories. This has led to accusations of bias, as other countries with serious human rights issues do not face the same scrutiny.

Practical and Political Considerations

Integration and Resettlement

The successful integration of Jewish refugees into Israeli society and other countries has generally led to a focus on resettlement rather than a return to Arab countries. For many Palestinian refugees, return is seen as a key part of their national identity and justice, given that many have remained in refugee camps and have not been fully integrated into host countries.

Security and Political Stability

The return of Jews to countries like Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Yemen, where political instability and anti-Jewish sentiments have persisted, is seen as impractical and potentially dangerous. The idea of Jews returning to these countries does not have significant political or social support, either within those countries or among the Jewish diaspora.

Diplomatic Efforts and Compensation

Peace Processes and Negotiations

The issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries has been raised in various peace negotiations, with proposals for compensation and recognition of their suffering. These discussions often aim for mutual recognition of the plight of both Jewish and Palestinian refugees and seek to address compensation and property claims rather than focusing on the right of return.

Bilateral Agreements

Some diplomatic efforts have included calls for Arab states to acknowledge the displacement of Jewish communities and provide compensation. The Abraham Accords and other normalization agreements between Israel and Arab states have brought these issues into diplomatic discussions. However, the focus remains more on compensation and historical recognition than the right of return.

Impact of Hamas’ October 7, 2023 Attack

The October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas had profound and multifaceted impacts, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis, escalating the conflict, and complicating diplomatic efforts. The immediate human cost, coupled with the long-term political, economic, and social consequences, underscores the ongoing challenges in achieving lasting peace and stability in the region.

The bias and hypocrisy continue. The international community, particularly the UN, continues to condemn Israel and ignore the terrorism of Hamas. The calls for a ceasefire make demands on Israel but none on Hamas. Even the most basic demand of releasing the Israeli hostages is not included in the international demand for a cease-fire. Once again, the world is saying that Jewish lives don’t matter and that it’s okay for Palestinian Arab terrorists to massacre more innocent Jews.