THE LEGAL AND MORAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE LEGITIMACY OF THE STATEHOOD OF ISRAEL

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a Gordian Knot of modern diplomacy - a conflict shaped by overlapping claims, historical wounds, religious distrust, and existential fears. Its resolution demands not a sword, but steady, patient untangling by all parties.

It's difficult to grasp the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by plunging straight into its tangled entirety -- the scale and emotion can overwhelm. But when we examine issues and events in isolation, legal and moral clarity becomes possible. For example, October 7 was undeniably a terrorist attack. Israel's military retaliation, in turn, has been widely recognised as disproportionate. Event by event, we can begin to assign responsibility, and through that approach understanding. In this vein, we can assess the legitimacy of the statehood of Israel.

The legal arguments for the legitimacy of Israel

Arguing the legal grounds for the Jews’ right to the state of Israel involves international law, historical treaties, UN resolutions, and the actual exercise of sovereignty. The State of Israel was established through a sequence of legally grounded steps -- international recognition of Jewish national rights (San Remo, Mandate), a UN resolution proposing partition, a sovereign declaration, recognition by the global community, and UN membership. At no point did it violate the sovereignty of another legal state. Legally, Israel’s existence is rooted in international law, not colonial conquest or unilateral occupation.

1. Recognition of Jewish National Rights Under International Law
 a. Balfour Declaration (1917)
* Issued by the British government: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…”
* Though not a law itself, it became a policy commitment embedded in later treaties.
b. San Remo Conference (1920)
* Allied powers assigned Palestine to Britain as a mandate, explicitly charging it with the establishment of a Jewish national home.
* It formally incorporated the Balfour Declaration into binding international law. Recognized Jewish people as a nation with rights — not just individuals with civil rights.

Legal importance of San Remo:
These were international, binding decisions—not colonial impositions. The San Remo decision is the conerstone of the legal right of the Jewish people to a homeland in Palestine under international law. In proper perspective, the Jewish national home was not a post-WWII invention, it was decided decades earlier, before the holocaust. The San Reno Conference participants were victors of WWI (Britain, France, Italy and Japan. US attended as observer.) It's purpose was to decide on the rebuilding of the conquered territories of the Ottoman Empire, deciding on how best to return the land to the people. It laid the foundation for the legal creation of Israel, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. All parties accepted the decisions made at San Remo except the Palestinians, an issue that remains unresolved to this day.

c. League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1922)
* Formally adopted by the League of Nations.
* Legally bound Britain to facilitate Jewish immigration and settlement.
* Recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and the grounds to reconstitute their homeland.

d. UN Charter Article 80
* After the League of Nations was desolved, the UN preserved the pre-existing mandates.
* The San Remo decisions continue to have weight under international law into the UN era.

2. UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947) Partition Plan:
* Voted on by the United Nations General Assembly.
* Proposed the division of British Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, with international governance over Jerusalem.
* Jewish leadership accepted it; Arab leadership rejected it and launched war instead.

Legal relevance:
UN Resolution 181 gave international legitimacy to a Jewish state under the newly formed UN. Though General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, this one reflected international consensus.

3. The Legal Act of Sovereignty (Declaration + Recognition)
* On May 14, 1948, the Jewish People’s Council declared the establishment of the State of Israel.
* The new state was immediately recognized by major powers (e.g., the U.S., USSR).
* Recognition by other states is a key condition in international legal statehood under the Montevideo Convention (1933.  See below.

Therefore, Israel’s statehood is legal under customary international law.

4. Israel’s UN Membership (1949)
* Admitted as a full member of the United Nations, with majority vote.
* Membership further solidifies international legal standing as a sovereign state.

5. Legal Continuity and Defense Against Aggression
* In 1948, Israel fought a defensive war against five Arab states that rejected UN 181.
* Israel’s right to defend itself and maintain sovereignty is protected under the UN Charter.
* Wars in 1967 and 1973 were also framed as acts of self-defense, giving legal weight to certain territorial realities (though disputed).

6. No Violation of Existing Sovereignty
* Palestine was never an independent state under international law prior to Israel’s creation.
* The land was under Ottoman rule, then British Mandate—no recognized sovereign Palestinian state was overthrown.
* The legal creation of Israel did not violate another legal state’s sovereignty.


Moral arguments for the legitimacy of Israel

Arguing a moral ground for the Jews’ right to the state of Israel requires establishing ethical justification, not just legal or historical claims. A strong moral argument must acknowledge historical suffering, the principle of self-determination, and the need for security, while also addressing competing claims (especially Palestinian ones) with empathy and fairness.

1. The Principle of Self-Determination
The core idea is every people has the right to self-determination and national sovereignty.
* Jews are not merely a religious group, but a people with shared language (Hebrew), culture, identity, and historical homeland.
* Like other nations (e.g., Armenians, Poles, Kurds), Jews have the right to form a state where they are the majority and can preserve their identity and culture.
* Moral consistency requires that Jews be granted what other peoples are afforded.

2. Historical Injustice and Moral Repair
The core idea is a moral world must respond to mass injustice and persecution with meaningful repair.
* Jews were subjected to centuries of persecution, culminating in the Holocaust—arguably the greatest modern moral failure of European civilization.
* After WWII, there was global consensus that Jews needed a safe haven where they could control their own fate.
* The state of Israel was thus part of a moral redress, not merely a political solution.

This aligns with restorative justice - when a people have been wronged systemically, a moral response must aim to prevent repetition and empower the victims.

3. Indigenous Connection to the Land
The core idea is a Moral legitimacy includes historical connection and continuity.
* Jews have had an unbroken historical and spiritual connection to the land of Israel for over 3,000 years, including kingdoms, temples, scriptures, and ongoing presence.
* The idea of return (e.g., “Next year in Jerusalem”) is deeply embedded in Jewish identity.
* This doesn’t negate Palestinian claims but affirms that Jews are not colonial foreigners — they are returning natives.

4. Existential Need for a Safe Haven
The core idea is a persecuted people morally deserves sovereignty for survival.
* The Holocaust showed that even assimilated Jews were not safe in liberal democracies.
* The moral argument is: No nation should be at the mercy of others for its survival.
* Israel exists so Jews never again depend on the goodwill of others to live in peace.

5. Comparative Moral Consistency
The core idea is to deny Jews what others receive without question is discrimination.
* If it is moral for Pakistan to exist for Muslims, Armenia for Armenians, Japan for the Japanese, then denying Jews the same is a moral double standard.
* Antizionism often becomes a form of selective moral scrutiny applied only to Jews.

6. Acknowledging Moral Tension
A moral argument gains strength when it does not deny the Palestinian narrative, but instead embraces complexity.
* It is morally serious to recognize the cost of Israel’s creation on Palestinian Arabs.
* A robust moral position supports Jewish self-determination without denying the same to Palestinians.
* Two moral truths can coexist : Jews deserve a safe, sovereign state; Palestinians deserve justice and dignity.

The Jewish people, as an ancient nation with deep roots in the land of Israel, having endured centuries of persecution and genocidal violence, have a moral right to self-determination in their historic homeland. This right is not exclusive nor a denial of others’ claims, but a necessary moral response to a legacy of suffering and a guarantee of dignity and security in a world that has repeatedly failed them.


Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933):

This is a foundational treaty in international law that defines the legal criteria for statehood. Though it was signed at the Seventh International Conference of American States in Montevideo, Uruguay, by only 19 states (mainly from the Americas, including the U.S., Mexico, Brazil, Argentina) it has since been widely accepted as reflecting customary international law — meaning it’s binding even on countries that did not sign it.

Article 1 – Four Criteria for Statehood
This is the most cited part of the Convention. It defines a “state” as a person of international law if it has the following:
1. A permanent population - There must be people who live there on an ongoing basis — not just a transitory or seasonal presence.
2. A defined territory - Exact borders are not required (many states have unresolved border disputes), but a state must have some identifiable land area.
3. A government - It must have some form of effective governance — the ability to maintain order, enforce laws, and represent the state.
4. The capacity to enter into relations with other states - The entity must be able to engage diplomatically, sign treaties, and participate in the international community.

Israel met all four criteria at its founding in 1948
* Permanent Jewish and Arab population
* Defined territory (even if contested)
* Functioning government (provisional, then elected)
* Diplomatic recognition from major powers (U.S., USSR, etc.)

Article 3 – Non-Dependence on Recognition
“The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.”

This means that recognition by others is not what creates statehood. If an entity meets the four criteria above, it is a state under international law, whether or not others choose to recognize it.

This is important in defending Israel’s legitimacy, because even if some countries (e.g. Iran, North Korea) refuse to recognize Israel, this does not delegitimize its legal statehood.

Article 8 – Non-Intervention
“No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”

This establishes the principle of sovereignty — that states are legally protected from foreign interference.
This supports Israel’s right to self-governance and self-defense.

Broader Impact
The Montevideo Convention is often cited in cases involving:
* Newly declared states (e.g. Kosovo, South Sudan)
* Unrecognized or disputed entities (e.g. Taiwan, Palestine, Somaliland)
* It forms the basis of legal analysis in international recognition, sovereignty, and territorial disputes.

Under the Montevideo Convention, Israel qualifies as a sovereign state and is legally entitled to the rights of statehood, whether other states recognise it or not.


Montevideo Convention Criteria Applied to Palestine

1. Permanent Population – Satisfied. No legal dispute here. The Palestinian people clearly constitute a stable population with a shared national identity.

2. Defined Territory – Contested:
Palestine claims 1967 borders (Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem). However:
* Gaza is controlled by Hamas, which is not accountable to the Palestinian Authority (PA)..
* West Bank is fragmented into Areas A, B, and C — with significant Israeli military presence and settlements in Area C.
* East Jerusalem is claimed by both sides, but controlled by Israel.
* Without effective control over territory, legal statehood under Montevideo is incomplete.

3. Government – Divided:
* PA governs the West Bank under the Oslo Accords.
* Hamas, a separate Islamist entity, has ruled Gaza since 2007 and does not recognize Israel or Oslo.
* The Fatah–Hamas split makes Palestine a divided polity, which undermines the requirement for a single, effective government.
* International law tends to require a central authority to enforce law and fulfill state functions.

4. Capacity for Foreign Relations - Mostly satisfied.
   The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and PA have:
* Diplomatic relations with over 130 countries
* Observer status at the United Nations (since 1974)
* Upgraded to “non-member observer state” in the UN in 2012 (UNGA Resolution 67/19)

However, lack of full UN membership and absence of mutual relations with major powers (e.g. U.S., Israel) limit the extent of diplomatic recognition. UN membership is blocked by US in the Security Council who wants a direct negotiations between Israel-Palestinians.

There are 2 legal views of whether Palestine is a State Under International Law:
* Declarative theory where a state is a state because it fully satisfies the Montevideo criteria, it does not need to be recognised. In this case, Palestine is not yet a state. It lacks governmental control and has divided leadership.
* Constitutive theory a state is a state if it is recognised by other states. With recognition from 130+ countries, Palestine can functionally be considered a state in some forums. But without UN Security Council approval, full international legal statehood remains disputed.

Bottom line view is Palestine has a strong claim to self-determination, and partial recognition as a state. But under strict Montevideo standards, it lacks effective territorial control and unified governance, which are necessary for full legal statehood. As such, Palestine is best described as a “proto-state” or aspiring state — politically recognized by many, but not yet fully realized in legal or functional terms.


Objections to statehood of Israel

These are the few arguments against the legitimacy of Israel repeated for decades:

1.“Israel is an illegal state / colonial project”
   Rebuttal:
* Israel was established through legal international instruments.
* San Remo (1920), League of Nations Mandate (1922), UNGA Resolution 181 (1947).
* It was recognized by the majority of states and admitted to the United Nations in 1949.
* It meets all Montevideo Convention criteria for statehood.
* Colonialism implies foreign imposition on a native population. But the Jews were not foreigners.
* They have a millennia-old indigenous connection to the land.
* Jewish immigration under the Mandate was internationally sanctioned and aimed at reconstituting a homeland.

Key Legal Principle:
A state recognized by the international community and created through UN processes is not “illegal.”

2. “The occupation of Palestinian land is illegal”
   The term "occupation" depends on who one speaks to. To some it means the state of Israel sits on Palestine which belongs to Palestinians. To others it means Israel occupying Gaza and West Bank after the 1967 war. Yet to others still, it means the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
   Rebuttal:
* On the first term, at the time of Israel's creation in 1948, there was no sovereign state of Palestine. Israel did not encroach into another state's territory on it's formation.
* On the second term, Israel took Gaza and West Bank from Egypt and Jordan respectively in the 1967 War. In the first 1948 war, Egypt had taken over control of Gaza and installed a puppet government whilst Jordan had taken over the West Bank and annexed it in 1950. Hence, Israel took over nothing from the Palestinians in 1967. Israel fought a defensive 1967 War against the Arab Military Alliance. Under international law, territory acquired in self-defense is not clearly deemed illegal.
*On the third term, one needs to differentiate between Sectors 'A', 'B' and 'C' and illegal Jewish settlements.
     - Under the Oslo II Accord (1995) West Bank was divided into 3 sectors. Palestinian Liberation Organisation has full control of Sector 'A'. As for Sector 'B', PLO has administrative control, Israel controls security. Israel has full control over Sector 'C'.
     - Israel wants security control for strategic reasons. The region is high ground that has strategic importance. Israel fears their "Eastern Front Doctrine" - that the Jordan Valley is a corridor for invasion from perceived land invasion from East - Jordan, Iraq and Syria. It is also a corridor for arms shipment into West Bank. Sector 'C' overlooks the  the Jordan Valley which Israel views a a buffer zone. Furthermore, Israel fears a withdrawal might see a repeat of militant forces like Hamas taking over as they did in Gaza.  The highlands of Sector 'B' and 'C' has clos proximity to central Israel. Having rockets launched from the highlands is a high stake security concern. Giving up security without guarantees is not negotiable to Israel.
     - Illegal Jewish settlements are mostly in Sector 'C'. Israel's own laws permit this. In any case, civilian illegal settlements do not tantamount to occupation. Nevertheless, this is considered illegal under Geneva convention, so Israel cannot justify their other actions based on international law and permit these settlements.
      - There were other illegal settlements outside of Sector 'C' known as 'outposts'. These have been taken down by Israeli authorities. Sometimes, quite violently.
* As for Gaza, Israel withdrew from the territory in 2005.

Legal Position:

* Israel is a belligerent occupier under the Hague Regulations and Fourth Geneva Convention — this imposes duties, but does not delegitimize its presence.
* The legal status of the West Bank is disputed, not clearly Palestinian under international law.
* UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) called for Israel to withdraw from “territories” (not all territories) in exchange for peace — implying room for negotiation, not automatic illegality.

3. “Settlements are illegal under international law”
   While politically controversial, the legal status of settlements is disputed, not definitively illegal.
   Rebuttal:
* The main legal claim is based on Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” However:
* That clause was written to prevent forced deportations, not voluntary movement.
* Israeli settlers move voluntarily; they are not forcibly transferred. It is not a government displacement policy.
* There was no recognized sovereign state in the West Bank before 1967.
* The Mandate for Palestine (Article 6) called for “close Jewish settlement” on the land.
* Legal scholars are divided. Notably, Eugene Rostow, former U.S. Undersecretary of State and co-author of Resolution 242, held that settlements are not illegal.

4. “Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948”
   The 1948 saw mass displacement during war — but
   Rebuttal::
* The war was initiated by five Arab armies, not by Israel.
* Many Arab leaders encouraged civilians to leave temporarily, expecting Israel to fall.
* In other areas, Arabs stayed and became Israeli citizens (today 20% of Israel’s population).
* Historical documents show mixed causes of flight — fear, chaos, some expulsions (especially in strategic zones), and calls to evacuate.

Legally, population displacement during war is tragic but not automatically ethnic cleansing or a war crime, especially in defensive wars.

5. “Israel violates UN resolutions”
   Rebuttal:
* Many resolutions reflect political pressure, not enforceable legal standards.
* Many UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding (especially from the politicized UN General Assembly).
* Security Council Resolutions are binding under Chapter VII — but Resolution 242 (post-1967) is under Chapter VI (non-binding, for negotiation).
* Resolution 2334 (2016), which criticized settlements, was not passed under Chapter VII either.

6. “The Palestinians have legal right to statehood”
  Yes, that is true — they have a right to self-determination.
   Rebuttal:
* But legal statehood requires:
   - Defined borders
   - Unified government (Fatah–Hamas split undermines this)
   - Capacity for international relations
* To date, Palestine is not a full member state of the UN. It is recognized by many countries, but not enough for clear international legal consensus.
* Israel’s existence does not negate Palestinian legal rights; both claims can co-exist and be resolved through negotiation.

7. "Palestinians were denied self-determination".
   Rebuttal:
* Palestinians have rejected a total of 5 two state solutions:

     - UN 181 proposal (1947): Rejected by Palestinians. Refused a Jewish state in any form..
     - Post-war negotiations (1967-1973): No negotiations. Palestinians refused to accept Israel.
     - Camp David (2000): Rejected by Palestinians. Concerns about borders, refugees, Jerusalem.
     - Olmert-Abbas (2008): No formal response. Suspicion. Political instability due to Palestinian infighting.
     - Trump peace plan (2020): Rejected. Offered no viable Palestinian sovereignty.

While it is fact the Palestinians have rejected several peace plans, it is simplistic to say they never wanted peace. Not all rejections were irrational. There were some real concerns over fragmented territory, IDF control, no full sovereignty, refugee return, status of Jerusalem, shifting goal posts, political instability, etc. The pre-condition for recognition of Israel was non-negotiable and it was an initial deal stopper in earlier years. However, PA eventually accepted that. But Hamas remains irreconcilable to this demand..

8. "Israel was created through war and displacement".
    Rebuttal:
*  War broke out after legal UN approval of a partition; many Arab states initiated aggression, not Israel.


Precedents of state creation similar to Israel

There have been somewhat similar precedents in recent world history where a state was created under circumstances resembling Israel's -- involving international legal endorsement, historical connection of the people to the land, post-conflict reorganisation, or aftermath of mass persecution. These include Liberia (1847), Armenia (1918), Pakistan (1947), Kosovo (2008) South Sudan (2011),and East Timor.

The case of Liberia is the most similar to Israel's in terms of moral logic and return of diaspora. Liberia was created by freed African-American slaves returning from the US. The freed slaves claimed moral justification based on slavery and persecution. They had the help of the American Colonisation Society. There were indigenous peoples already living there and tensions ensued between returnees and the locals. This is similar to the Arab-Jewish dynamic. In time the returning population differentiated as "Americo-Liberians" became the ruling elite over the indigenous tribes. The big difference is Liberia was not founded via modern international law.


Singapore's position on the statehood of Palestine

Singapore's position on Palestine reflects a preference for a rules-based international order, where recognition follows legal and diplomatic outcomes, not just popular sentiment. It does not yet officially recognise Palestine. The reasons for Singapore's hold-back are :
* There should be internationally agreed borders from a direct Israel-Palestinian negotiation.
* There should be a functioning and unified Palestinian state apparatus.

Despite not recognising Palestine, Singapore has voted in favour of UN General Assembly resolutions supporting Palestinian rights (including observer status in 2012). Singapore has also expressed support for Palestinian aspirations for statehood within a negotiated peace framework.


Conclusion:

As a parting shot, to those who refuse to read deep analysis but prefers emotionally charged nonsensical 30 second tiktoks or memes from digital creators they know not whom, and continue to express the ignorant view denying the legitimacy of Israel, then by their own logic, their same denial must extend to the other states created under the same circumstances as Israel, namely Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.