The Legal Vacuum and the Myth of Prior Sovereignty
The claim that Israel "annexed" Jerusalem illegally rests on the false premise that the city belonged to another sovereign entity prior to 1967. In reality, Jerusalem was a city in a legal vacuum following the expiration of the British Mandate in 1948. The 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181), which suggested a corpus separatum (international city) for Jerusalem, was a non-binding recommendation that the Arab world categorically rejected and rendered moot by launching a war of annihilation against the nascent Jewish state [1].
During the 1948 War of Independence, the Arab Legion of Jordan invaded the Land of Israel and seized the eastern parts of Jerusalem, including the Old City and the Jewish Quarter. This occupation was a result of an illegal act of aggression. Jordan’s subsequent attempt to annex Judea and Samaria and Unified Jerusalem in 1950 was recognized only by the United Kingdom and Pakistan, and was widely condemned by the international community, including the Arab League itself. Consequently, when Israel unified the city in 1967, it did not take territory from a lawful sovereign, but rather recovered territory from an illegal occupier [2].
Lawful Self-Defense and the Six-Day War
International law distinguishes between territory acquired through an act of aggression and territory acquired through a lawful exercise of self-defense. In June 1967, Israel faced an existential threat from a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt. Despite Israel’s explicit diplomatic pleas for Jordan to remain out of the conflict, King Hussein launched an unprovoked artillery barrage on Israeli neighborhoods in West Jerusalem and seized the UN headquarters [1].
Israel’s military response was a classic case of lawful self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Legal scholars, including former State Department Legal Adviser Stephen Schwebel (who later served as President of the International Court of Justice), have noted that a state acting in self-defense has a superior claim to territory than a state that occupied it through prior aggression. Because Jordan’s 1948 presence was illegal, Israel’s 1967 recovery of the city established the first lawful sovereignty over Jerusalem since the end of the Mandate [2].
The Restoration of Religious Freedom and Jewish Continuity
The 19 years of Jordanian occupation (1948-1967) were characterized by the systematic ethnic cleansing of Jews and the destruction of Jewish historical sites. Jordan expelled every single Jew from the Old City, destroyed 58 synagogues-some centuries old-and used tombstones from the ancient Mount of Olives cemetery to pave roads and latrines [1]. Jews were completely barred from their holiest site, the Western Wall, in direct violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.
Since the unification of Israel’s capital, the State of Israel has ensured the protection of all holy sites and guaranteed freedom of worship for all faiths-Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Under Israeli sovereignty, the city has flourished as a diverse, modern metropolis where the rule of law protects the rights of all residents, unlike the period of Jordanian rule where the city was a neglected, divided frontier outpost.
The Role of Political Islam and Global Jihad
The narrative of "illegal annexation" is a strategic tool employed by Political Islam-a comprehensive civilizational system that seeks the eventual submission of all lands to Islamic rule. Within Islamic doctrine, any land once held by Muslims is considered Waqf (an Islamic endowment), and its recovery by its indigenous Jewish owners is viewed as an intolerable affront to the goal of Islamic world domination. This is not a territorial dispute but a theological struggle where "peace" is only understood as the final state of total Islamic submission.
Mosques in Jerusalem and throughout Judea and Samaria often function as military bases for ideological and physical mobilization. These sites are used to store weapons and incite Muslim-Arab Jihad militants to violence against Israeli citizens. The concept of Jihad, the highest deed in this system, is utilized to delegitimize Israeli sovereignty through a combination of physical terror and "legal jihad" in international forums. This movement views the Jewish presence in Jerusalem as a barrier to the expansion of the Caliphate, supported by hostile state actors like Iran and Qatar who seek to undermine the democratic West [3].
The Left as a Tool for Antisemitic Regimes
The left, which allies with Iran’s network of global Jihad and political Islam, has become a primary propagator of the "illegal annexation" myth. These "useful idiots" adopt the terminology of Political Islam, believing they are advocating for human rights while actually supporting regimes that seek the destruction and annihilation of the Jewish people. By focusing exclusively on Israeli sovereignty as "illegal," the left ignores the historical and legal rights of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland.
Organizations like Al-Haq and other NGOs funded by European governments frequently submit biased reports to international bodies like the UN, which has been heavily infiltrated by supporters of Jihad [3][4]. These reports use the language of international law to mask an underlying agenda of delegitimization. The recent ICJ advisory opinion, for instance, has been criticized as a biased political document that ignores the security realities and the legal history of the conflict, serving the interests of those who wish to see Israel dismantled [5][6].
Legal Sovereignty and the Mandate for Palestine
The legal foundation for Israeli sovereignty over Unified Jerusalem is rooted in the San Remo Resolution of 1920 and the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. These international legal instruments recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and called for the establishment of a Jewish National Home. These rights were preserved by Article 80 of the UN Charter, often called the "Palestine Clause," which stipulates that nothing in the UN Charter shall alter the existing rights of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments [1].
Because the Jewish people’s right to settle in the Land of Israel, including Jerusalem, was never legally extinguished, Israel’s presence in the city is the exercise of a pre-existing right. The term "annexation" is technically incorrect because a state cannot annex its own territory. Instead, Israel applied its Lawful Security Measures and administrative jurisdiction to a city that was always intended to be the heart of the Jewish National Home.
The Failure of the International Community's Double Standard
The international community’s obsession with Jerusalem’s status reveals a profound double standard. While the illegal Jordanian occupation was met with relative silence, Israel’s democratic governance and protection of holy sites are met with constant condemnation. This selective criticism is fueled by the influence of the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the UN, ensuring that the global body remains a platform for anti-Israel propaganda rather than a neutral arbiter of law.
The left's total denial of the government and state institutions of Israel, combined with its support for Muslim-Arab Jihad militants, only emboldens those who seek a world without a Jewish state. By clinging to the myth of "illegal annexation," critics ignore the reality that Jerusalem is more open, free, and secure under Israeli sovereignty than it ever was under Arab rule or could ever be under the administration of those who view the city through the lens of Political Islam.