66 of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs report titled ‘Israel’s Rights as a Nation State in International Diplomacy. A site headed by Dore Gold, Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations.

The use of the term ‘illegally occupied’ stems from UN Security Council Resolution 242 which was drafted following the 1967 Arab-Israel war.

“Israel’s presence in the West Bank today is not illegal under international law. Israel entered the West Bank lawfully in June 1967 in the exercise of its right of self-defence against Jordanian attack. The occupation in and of itself is not unlawful.

In 1948-49, Israel fought its war of independence against the Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine, and five neighbouring states.

In 1950, Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank, of which it had taken control in the courseof the war.

In June 1967, Jordan launched a massive bombardment of civilian Israeli targets from the West Bank on the first day of the Six Day War and despite appeals from Israel to Jordan to stay out of the war which had started with Egypt.

Resolution 242, which is the centrepiece of relevant international law on this topic, does not require Israeli withdrawal from all West Bank territory. Thus, Israel’s entry into the West Bank was lawful. And its continued presence there is lawful too. It is for all the parties to the conflict to reach a negotiated peace agreement under which Israel would withdraw.”

Logically, therefore, if Israel’s occupation is not illegal, then Article 49 is non-applicable.

Regarding the Higher Contracting Parties and the common misapplication of Article 49 of