UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS AND ISRAEL

Peloni:  A must watch debate between Natasha Hausdorff and Dr Ariel Zemach over the issue of Uti Possidetis Juris as it applies to Israel.  It is informative that while Natasha remains fixed on international law and the clear application of it with regards to Israel no different than elsewhere, Dr. Zemach routinely addresses what he sees as moral outrage while also repeatedly imbuing the use of the term of “Palestinian People” when describing the Arabs of 1948 who never described themselves as such til literally decades afterwards when it suited their position to delegitimize Israel. Highly recommended video.  Here is the link to the article by Avi Bell and Eugene Kotorovich which Natasha refers to in the video: https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/arizlrev/article/6934/galley/6408/download/. More of Prof. Kontorovich’s explanaitions of uti possidetis juris can is also lined at the bottom.

 

Video Loads Below

Dr Ariel Zemach is a Senior Lecturer at Ono Academic College in Israel. He holds the degrees of Doctor of the Science of Law (JSD) and Master of Laws (LLM) from Columbia University School of Law and a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Natasha Hausdorff is a barrister at 6 Pump Court Chambers and a frequent speaker on International Law. She has a law degree from Oxford University, qualified as a solicitor at Skadden, and subsequently gained an LLM from Tel Aviv University, focussing on public international law and the law of armed conflict. She clerked for Miriam Naor, President of Israel’s Supreme Court, and was a fellow at Columbia Law School’s National Security programme. Natasha is legal director of UKLFI Charitable Trust.

January 6, 2026 | 5 Comments »

Leave a Reply

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  2. ”My New Year’s message to my Member of Parliament regarding the U.K. government’s recognition of the ‘ State of Palestine ‘
    You are welcome to paste and copy and send to your MP

    Dear David ,
    A happy new year to you, your family , friends and staff .
    Under International Law for a new nation state to come into being it has to fulfil four specific criteria contained in the Montevideo Convention which I have for your reference copied below .
    The State of Palestine complies with NONE of these criteria and therefore our Government have defied international law by recognition of this non existent nation .
    On another subject I noted on January 5th our Government with the French bombed Syria – yet another breach of international law given we are not at war with Syria .
    Our Government is very eager to expose other countries that breach international law whilst doing that very same thing it accuses others of doing .
    If the State of Palestine is worthy of recognition would you kindly advise when the Government will similarly recognise
    The State of Kurdistan
    The State of Balochistan
    Somaliland and
    The State of Catalonia
    With best regards
    Peter Baum

    The Montevideo Convention
    A political entity qualifies as a state if it meets four criteria, listed in Article 1:

    Permanent population – a stable group of people
    Defined territory – clear (not necessarily undisputed) borders
    Government – an effective political authority
    Capacity to enter into relations with other states – independence in foreign affairs
    These four elements are often called the Montevideo criteria.

    Key principles

    Declaratory theory of statehood:
    The Convention supports the idea that a state exists as a matter of fact and law once it meets the criteria, regardless of whether other states recognize it.” – Peter Baum

    https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1SxHHqSWW7/?mibextid=wwXIfr

  3. The issue is that Israel was supposed to be a Jewish state, and therefore the obvious consequence is that Arabs had to be relocated to Jordan.
    In the same way as Germans were relocated from Sudetenland, as well as from Western Poland and from Kaliningrad Oblast.

    Additionally nearly all Germans some 1/2 million were expelled from Yugoslavia, a quarter of million from Hungary.
    In Romania the situation was more complicated, but eventually from the 800,000 Germans living there in 1939 there were nearly zero left by 1992,
    I think Israel could use this as precedence.

    And Israel has a much stronger moral right to the land than any of the countries mentioned above.
    Why stronger?
    Because German population was in the above territories for many centuries, in case of Czechia just as long as Czechs. 1/2 of the Arabs in Israel, were recent migrants or children of such.
    Secondly because in many of these countries Germans were fully integrated.
    Especially in Hungary and Slovenian and Croatian cities Germans were integrated citizens.
    Thirdly, because Germans did not pose threat to the national life of Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia, Arabs were a definite threat to Israel’s existence as a Jewish national state.

    • @Vivarto I completely agree but what can one say to leftists who claim Jews aren’t even an ethnicity much less a people much less a state and say that’s why they oppose Israel as a Jewish state and who call one a liar when one refers to history. These are people who often have Jewish friends!