What legal and political arguments do Israel and Palestinians use about sovereignty west of the Jordan River?
Executive summary
Israel’s legal and political case for sovereignty west of the Jordan River rests on historical mandates, statehood claims arising from 1948, and contemporary security and settlement realities articulated by parties from Likud to state legal advocates [1] [2] [3]. Palestinians counter with claims grounded in self-determination, the illegitimacy of occupation and annexation under international law, and popular opposition to Israeli military and settler control in the West Bank [4] [5] [6].
1. Israel’s historical and juridical rationale: mandate-era rights and the permanence of a Jewish state
Israeli arguments frequently invoke the Mandate-era and League of Nations frameworks as the legal and historical foundation for Jewish national rights in the territory west of the Jordan, asserting that the Mandate and subsequent polity developments intended the Jewish national home to lie on the west bank and that partition and statehood validated continuous Israeli claims [3] [1]. Political articulations of this view trace to Revisionist Zionism and the founding platforms of parties such as Likud, which explicitly declared that “between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty,” language still echoed by Israeli leaders and commentators to justify retaining or extending Israeli sovereignty [2] [7]. Proponents also frame any further territorial division as undermining the legal basis of Israel’s statehood as recognized in earlier international decisions and agreements [3].
2. Palestinian claims: self-determination, occupation, and the demand for statehood
Palestinians base sovereignty claims on the principle of self-determination and on UN and international instruments recognizing their inalienable rights, arguing that lands captured in 1967 constitute occupied Palestinian territory that should form the basis of an independent Palestinian state [4]. Palestinian public opinion, as recorded in multiple analyses, views Israeli military and settler presence across the West Bank as a violation of their right to statehood and sovereignty, and Palestinians reject plans that would see Israeli annexation or permanent sovereignty imposed on those lands [6]. Palestinian political actors also point to the demographic and material consequences of occupation — including settlement expansion and unequal access to resources — to reinforce claims that sovereignty cannot be ceded without restitution and political equality [5] [6].
3. International law and competing readings of annexation and occupation
International legal standards matter to both sides but are read differently: critics of Israeli moves stress that annexation and territorial conquest are illegal under international law and that East Jerusalem’s annexation and other unilateral steps lack wide recognition, while Israeli legal and political writers argue that earlier international decisions and the Mandate provide enduring legal justification for Israeli sovereignty west of the Jordan [5] [3]. The UN’s partition plan and subsequent resolutions are cited by Palestinians and many international actors to legitimize statehood claims and the illegality of annexation, whereas some Israeli interpretations emphasize continuity from pre-1948 legal arrangements and security imperatives when contesting those readings [1] [4] [3].
4. The reality on the ground: control, settlements, and resource disparities
Actual sovereignty on the ground is contested: Israel retains varying degrees of control under arrangements that left much of the West Bank under Israeli authority after the 1990s interim accords (notably Area C comprising about 60% under full Israeli control), while Palestinian authorities administer parts of the territory, underscoring a fragmented sovereignty that neither side fully accepts as final [8] [6]. Material inequalities — such as documented disparities in water allocation between Israeli settlers and Palestinian communities in the Jordan Valley — are presented by Palestinians and international observers as evidence that de facto control serves permanent Israeli dominance rather than temporary security needs [5] [8].
5. Narratives, politics, and hidden agendas shaping claims
Both sides deploy historical narratives and slogans to mobilize domestic and international audiences: Israeli uses of “between the sea and the Jordan” reflect a political project rooted in Revisionist ideology seeking maximal territorial sovereignty, while Palestinian invocations of “from the river to the sea” have been used variably as calls for liberation or for a single bi-national outcome, complicating international support and fueling charges of maximalist aims on both sides [2] [9] [10]. Regional actors like Jordan and global institutions add pressure and pushback — Amman, for instance, has historically warned that unilateral Israeli moves could destabilize the kingdom and reawaken debates over sovereignty — revealing that external stability calculations and elite interests shape how sovereignty claims are advanced or resisted [11].
Conclusion
The legal and political contest over sovereignty west of the Jordan River is less a dispute over a single point of law than a collision of competing historical narratives, interpretations of international law, demographic-security calculations and on-the-ground control; Israel stresses Mandate-era rights, statehood continuity and security needs, while Palestinians insist on self-determination, the illegitimacy of occupation and restitution for demographic and resource inequities, and both positions are amplified by domestic politics and regional stakes [3] [4] [5] [6].