Two More Questions for Natasha Hausdorff: West Bank Settlement Expansion and the Golan Heights

12:21 PM Friday.

My comment on Natasha Hausdorff discusses legal status of Judea & Samaria (West Bank) and settlements:  

I am deeply sympathetic to the UPJ argument, Natasha, but it is a dissenting view held by a small minority at the ICJ, and we also have UNSCR 2334 to consider. Moving from the academy and theory into the real world of settled decisions, why shouldn't international law scholars consider Judea and Samaria illegally occupied Palestinian territory in keeping with the ICJ and UNSC? We can say that the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion and UNSCR 2334 are not legally binding, and that they are based on flawed reasoning, but doesn't this make us vulnerable to putting our dissenting minority wishful thinking above settled IJC and UNSC majority fact, and won't this just hurt Israel's reputation and security in the long-run? Please help me see the other side of the argument here. I am an American who supports both Zionism and the UN Charter (as in need of reform as the latter is).

On a separate but related note, have you done a webinar on the status of the Golan Heights and the concept of defensive annexation? Does Israel have any other legal basis for holding this territory? How do we justify the principle of defensive annexation despite opposition to the precedent it sets (including potentially in Ukraine)? It would be great to hear an update from UKLFI on this issue. Thank you!

End 12:27 PM.