US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's recent announcement in which he declared that Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria were not inconsistent with international law is an important step in righting a historical wrong when it comes to the settlement enterprise, which has been besmirched purely for political reasons.
The statement reaffirms Israel's position that the area is not "occupied territory."
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
The term occupation in international law has a very precise meaning. Judea and Samaria would have been considered occupied had Israel taken the area from a sovereign entity, but Jordan, which controlled it between 1949 until 1967, was never considered a legitimate sovereign there.
Thus, under international law, the area should be considered "disputed territory" or "contested territory" that lacks a recognized sovereign. In fact, for historical reasons, Israel has the edge when claiming to be the rightful sovereign there.
There is no disagreement that Jordan and Egypt launched an illegal invasion of Mandatory Palestine after the Partition Plan was rejected and Israel was founded.
Under international law, countries can start a war only for self-defense. But the two countries' invasion was an act of aggression.
Jordan's efforts to annex the West Bank in 1950 was not recognized by the international community, with the exception of the UK (which refused to recognize Jordan's hold on east Jerusalem) and Pakistan. Likewise, Egypt never claimed to be the sovereign power in the Gaza Strip.
The claim that the Green Line is Israel's international border is also wrong. An international border can only be formed by the consent of the two relevant countries, as was the case with Egypt and Jordan following the peace treaties with Israel.
The 1949 armistice agreements between Israel and its neighbors after the War of Independence, clearly stipulate that the lines drawn are not borders. Thus, the Green Line is not an international border and cannot be used to determine the fate of Judea and Samaria.
This is not new. Immediately following the Six-Day War, experts on international law agreed that Israel had a more legitimate claim on Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip than its adversaries, including Prof. Stephen M. Schwebel, who later became the president of the International Court of Justice.
But in today's geopolitical climate, anyone who sides with Israel will be banished from international forums. Thus, political constraints are preventing a real debate.
Judea and Samaria were designated to be part of the Jewish national home as envisioned by the League of Nations when it created the British mandate, confirming the age-old bond of our people to its land.
This has been reaffirmed in the UN Charter. Thus, there is no need for Israel to annex Judea and Samaria if it wants to apply Israeli law there – it already has that right because of the laws dating back to the British era.
Some have claimed that Pompeo's statement has undermined the chances for peace. Thus, according to that rationale, if you speak the truth on the status of Judea and Samaria, you are precluding the chance for peace. Does peace have to rely on a lie?
We all want real peace, but those who insist on calling Judea and Samaria "occupied territory" are engaged in wishful thinking, hoping this will bring Israel closer to peace.
President Donald Trump, Pompeo, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be commended for their work toward a real peace that is based on the truth.
