OPINION - Recognition vs. annexation: Turning point for Palestine in international law

• Israel’s annexationist sprint demands more than condemnations. International law obliges states to withhold recognition of annexation, adopt measures by targeted sanctions, arms embargoes, and empower judicial criminal mechanisms

Mutaz M. Qafisheh is a professor of international law and diplomacy at Palestine’s Hebron University and Mazen Zaro is an independent international law researcher.

ISTANBUL

This piece comes at a pivotal moment marked by the collision of two key developments relating to the legal status and future of Palestine. One is the launch of the International Peace Conference to operationalize the two-state solution, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, which is expected to be followed by France’s formal recognition of the state of Palestine in September. The second is the Israeli parliament’s (Knesset) recent vote on a resolution urging the government to declare Israel’s sovereignty over, and the annexation of the occupied West Bank.

The simultaneous push for recognition of Palestine and Israel’s annexation policy marks a critical turning point for the two-state solution. Are we witnessing the emergence of a genuine global shift to enforce legal and institutional accountability, or is a colonial fait accompli once again outpacing international justice?

Knesset vote as violation of international legal norms

The Knesset’s resolution represents a state policy aimed at entrenching sovereignty over militarily occupied land, overtly contravening jus cogens norms (peremptory rules of international law that no state can override), particularly Article 2(4) of the UN Charter that prohibits the use of force to acquire territory and the right to self-determination. While technically non-binding and invalid under international law, the resolution’s impact lies in its reflection of an official policy of annexation and an expression of state intent. It paves the way for formal gradual assimilation of the West Bank into the state of Israel as was the case with East Jerusalem and Syria’s Golan Heights. Such a decision forms a wrongful act under the law of state responsibility.

Annexation as evidence before international courts

The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinion of July 19, 2024 affirmed that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory (the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza) constitutes a continuing breach of international law, exacerbated by settlement expansion and population transfer. The ICJ instructed all states and international organizations to refrain from recognizing the unlawful occupation and take effective measures towards its termination. Subsequently, the UN General Assembly's resolution on that Sept. 13 set a one-year time limit (by September 2025) for the end of occupation. Yet, as the deadline approaches, Israel’s legislative push for annexation signals not just non-compliance but a deliberate challenge to the world court's order.

The Knesset vote may also serve as critical evidence for the ongoing International Criminal Court investigation into “the Situation in the State of Palestine” (ICC-01/18). By endorsing annexation, Israel’s parliament has explicitly revealed a state policy that underpins crimes under the ICC's Rome Statute, particularly Article 8(2)(b)(viii): transfer of civilian population from the territory of the occupying power into occupied territory, i.e. Israeli settlements. This legislative act demonstrates Israel’s unwillingness to investigate or prosecute its officials, the lack of which justifies the ICC investigation under the principle of complementarity. The vote is not a mere political rhetoric; rather, it is an institutionalization of mens rea (criminal intent) and policy, providing the ICC with a robust basis to indict high-ranking Israeli civil and military figures.

​​​​​​​

At a crossroads: Accountability or entrenched illegality?

French President Emmanuel Macron's announcement that France will recognize the state of Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September signals a tectonic shift in Europe's approach toward Palestine. Traditionally, the EU conditioned recognition on the outcome of negotiations, treating it as a reward rather than a tool. Macron reversed the long-standing European position: framing recognition as a means to salvage the two-state solution.

As a UN Security Council permanent member and a key EU leader, France may have a catalytic effect. It might encourage other undecided states, such as the United Kingdom, to follow suit. These states must translate symbolism into effective measures: sanctions against settlement entities, diplomatic isolation of annexation advocates, economic boycott, armed embargo and support for Palestine state-building. When diplomatic recognition counteracts legislative annexation, the former must be reinforced by measures to confront the latter.

This nexus between recognition and annexation captures the tension that may well define the next phase of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With the General Assembly’s September deadline looming, Israel’s annexationist sprint demands more than condemnations. International law obliges states to withhold recognition of annexation, adopt measures by targeted sanctions, arms embargoes, trade restrictions, and empower judicial criminal mechanisms.

The Knesset vote shattered the legal ambiguity Israel has long invoked to justify its occupation under the guise of a "temporary situation." The international community now faces a moment of truth to translate international norms into action, or to witness the erosion of international legitimacy under the weight of normalized annexation. History shows that international law is not powerless when backed by political determination. The movement against apartheid in South Africa demonstrated how sustained pressure, through non-recognition, sanctions, and legal mobilization, can dismantle entrenched regimes. Palestine poses a parallel test. Will the world apply the same legal and moral position or let annexation normalize the illegality? This confrontation between recognition and annexation puts the future of international legitimacy at stake.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.