Krezmer’s Fowl Reading of International Law

In his recent article, “The chickens come home to roost”, David Krezmer dismisses Israeli objections to recent sanctions imposed on Israeli settlements. In his retelling, Israel already knew in 1967 that settlements were illegal, based on a memo prepared by a legal advisor to the Foreign Ministry. Even the Israeli Supreme Court has refused to rule on the legality of the settlements. The UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have confirmed this position. Foreign states are now just applying international law – nothing more to see.

Israel’s official position towards Judea, Samaria and Gaza, territories which it conquered during the 1967 war, was first articulated by Meir Shamgar, then-Military Advocate General, and later Attorney-General and Supreme Court judge. Shamgar built on an argument first developed by Hebrew University law professor Yehuda Blum, according to which the Geneva Conventions, including their prohibition on transferring civilians to occupied territories, did not apply de jure to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The logic behind this claim is that the Geneva Conventions aim to protect the rights of the territory’s previous legitimate sovereign. Jordan illegally annexed Judea and Samaria in 1948. As Blum writes, unlawful resort to force cannot confer any valid legal title, following the maxim of ex injuria jus non oritur. Blum called this argument “the Missing Reversioner” (Reversioner meaning the previous legitimate sovereign).

The non-application of the Geneva Conventions in their entirety remains Israel’s position until today. Israel’s Attorney General, Avichai Mandelblit, restated it in a 2019 memorandum rejecting the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction over “the situation in Palestine”, and it was repeated in a similar 2024 submission.  The Missing Reversioner was one of the bases for the 2012 Edmond Levy Committee Report’s finding on the legality of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria. The Israeli Supreme Court also continues to affirm Shamgar/Blum’s claim, as can be seen in the 2020 Regulation Law decision.

Another legal basis for Israel’s claim to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, which Blum touches on but does not develop further, is based on the rule of uti possidetis juris. The international system abhors a vacuum and emphasizes territorial integrity. To that purpose, it created a principle to regulate the borders of new states. That principle, known as uti possidetis juris, means that new states inherit the boundaries of the previous administrative entity from which they emerged. The State of Israel was the only state to emerge from the Palestine Mandate; thus, Israel inherits its boundaries. This rule is indifferent to claims of self-determination or demographic concerns. Crimea, despite its large Russian ethnic population, belongs to Ukraine as Soviet Premier Khrushchev transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Republic to Ukraine in 1954; Crimea was part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic at the time of Ukraine’s independence. All post-Soviet states emerged on this principle, as the European Community’s Arbitration Committee confirmed in its decision on the breakup of Yugoslavia. ICJ Judge Sebutinde confirmed the rule’s application to Israel in her dissenting opinion on “the Occupation”.

Krezmer relies heavily on two ICJ Advisory Opinions holding that Israeli settlements are illegal. Of course, Advisory Opinions are non-binding and authoritative only insofar as they are legally persuasive. As the dissenting opinion by Judge Sebutinde treats at length, the recent Advisory Opinion on “the Occupation” completely omits, ignores, and minimizes several crucial issues, among them Israel’s historical claims to the territory, the acute threats to Israeli security, and the bilateral negotiations framework set out in Security Council Resolution 242 and the Oslo Accords. The ICJ itself is an arm of the United Nations, conducts no independent fact-finding, and was headed at that time by a Lebanese judge with a longstanding hostility towards Israel.

Ironically, the same UK that imposed sanctions on Israel was the subject of another ICJ Advisory Opinion, which it continues to ignore. The Occupation Advisory Opinion calls on Israel to end its occupation “as rapidly as possible”, using the same legal vocabulary as the Court did in its Chagos Opinion, in which it instructed the UK to withdraw “rapidly” from the Chagos Archipelago. Various British governments pursued and withdrew from negotiations with Mauritius over Chagos’ future. At no point did third-party states or civil society impose sanctions or embargos against the UK.

There is no truth to the claim that international law bars economic activities with occupied territories. Britain’s own foreign ministry makes no mention of illegality in doing business with Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus. Tens to fifteen thousand British nationals own residential or commercial property in Northern Cyprus. The UK is the largest source of foreign tourists and long-stay visitors. British nationals run an entire economic ecosystem dedicated to buying property in the occupied territories. Belgravia Estates, a development company with UK-based offices and British directors, operates alongside its local construction arm, marketing and building projects throughout the North. Carrington Group, founded and operated with significant British involvement, specializes in luxury beachfront properties in Kyrenia and Tatlisu. Properties in the North are priced mainly in Pounds and rely on UK-focused real estate brokerages, digital portals, and exhibition networks such as Unwin Estate Agents, Landmark Estates & Henry Charles Estates, and NCEA (North Cyprus Estate Agents). Property expos like A Place in the Sun openly market vacation homes in occupied territory in London. Rightmove lists over 1,800 homes for sale in the North. Neither London nor any other country has taken any steps to curtail this.

Similarly, no country is considering banning Moroccan goods from Western Sahara, which is occupied. In fact, Morocco’s occupation has gained more recognition recently. Under President Trump, the US acknowledged Morocco’s claims in December 2020. On 30 July 2024, French President Macron informed the Moroccan King that France believes Western Sahara’s future should be within Moroccan sovereignty. On 1 June 2025, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy described Morocco’s limited autonomy plan for Western Sahara, under Moroccan control, as “the most credible, viable and pragmatic” solution. In October 2025, the UN Security Council endorsed Morocco’s Autonomy plan as a foundation for negotiations. Several countries, including Burundi, Gabon, Senegal, Togo, the UAE, Bahrain, and Jordan, have established diplomatic missions in Western Sahara.

In short, the anti-settlement boycotts are a tool of economic warfare intended to force Israel into dangerous territorial concessions. After 7.10, most Israelis realized that a Palestinian state poses an existential threat to their security and survival. Unable to convince Israelis to gamble with their safety, Europeans have shifted to pressure tactics. These sanctions shouldn’t be dressed up or prettified in the language of international law, not even by Israeli international law professors.