FO condemns Israel’s attempt to extend ‘so-called sovereignty’ over occupied West Bank Azad News HD
The Legislative Move
The development that prompted the Pakistani statement concerns a bill passed in preliminary reading by Israel’s parliament that would apply Israeli law to parts of the West Bank — effectively a form of de facto annexation. Arab states, including Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, issued condemnation, describing the move as a “flagrant violation of international law” and a direct blow to the two-state solution. The draft legislation would allow the occupying power to apply its domestic laws into territory that has been under occupation, thereby altering the legal, demographic and territorial status of the region.
Key Points from the Foreign Office Statement
In its own words, the Pakistani Foreign Office statement highlighted the following:
-
The move to extend “so-called sovereignty” is unlawful and constitutes a grave violation of international law, including relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
-
These unilateral steps are designed to entrench the illegal occupation, undermining efforts toward a just and lasting resolution for the Palestinian people.
-
The statement called on the international community to take urgent and decisive action: to halt these illegal steps, to hold the occupying power accountable, and to reaffirm the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
-
Pakistan reiterated its support for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the basis of the June 4, 1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in line with international legitimacy.
Legal and Normative Context
The statement does not exist in a vacuum; it draws upon established principles of international humanitarian and human rights law, as well as long-standing UN resolutions. For example:
-
United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (December 2016) reaffirmed that any measures aimed at changing the demographic situation, status or arrangement of the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 — including the West Bank and East Jerusalem — have “no legal validity”.
-
The advisory and normative jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and other UN bodies have consistently affirmed that the application of the occupier’s laws into occupied territory is incompatible with the principles of occupation law and the right of the people living under occupation to self-determination.
-
The Pakistani statement’s reference to “flagrant violation” and “inalienable rights” echoes these established frameworks and situates the act of extending domestic law into the West Bank as contrary to the obligations of an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international law.
Implications for the Region and Peace Process
The Pakistani Foreign Office statement underscores the broader implications of this legislative step for the region and for any prospect of a negotiated settlement:
-
Erosion of the Two-State Solution
By applying Israeli law over parts of the West Bank, the move risks permanently altering the territorial basis for a viable Palestinian state. Arab states and other international actors have warned that these unilateral acts undermine the very notion of a two-state solution. -
Entrenchment of Occupation and Settlements
The statement emphasises that applying domestic law to occupied territory is tantamount to entrenching the occupation and legitimising settlement expansion — which has been widely condemned in international fora. -
Destabilisation Risk
The Foreign Office characterises the move as a dangerous escalation that jeopardises regional stability. This is not merely a legal or symbolic matter; the transformation of status quo on the ground has implications for security, human rights, and humanitarian concerns. -
International Accountability and Burden on the International Community
Pakistan’s call for “swift and decisive action” places an onus on the international community — including individual states, regional organisations, and multilateral bodies — to respond meaningfully. The statement suggests that without such action, unilateral measures may become the new norm, further weakening international legal order.
Pakistan’s Position and Role
The statement also reflects Pakistan’s positioning in relation to the Palestine question:
-
Pakistan reaffirms its longstanding commitment to the Palestinian people’s rights, including their right to self-determination and the establishment of a sovereign state.
-
By issuing the statement, the Foreign Office signals that Pakistan views changes to the status of the West Bank as not only a regional matter but one with global and normative significance — touching on international law, human rights and the integrity of the United Nations system.
-
Pakistan’s articulation of the matter emphasises that these measures “will neither be recognised nor alter the internationally acknowledged status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
A Closer Look at the Language
It is worth analysing some of the phrasing used in the Pakistani statement to fully understand the depth of its concerns:
-
“Unlawful attempt to assert ‘sovereignty’”: The use of quotation marks around “sovereignty” signals a rejection of the legitimacy of the act — implying that the term is being used improperly, or in a way that is inconsistent with established legal norms.
-
“Flagrant violation of international law”: The word “flagrant” conveys a sense of deliberate and obvious defiance, not a misunderstanding or incidental misstep.
-
“Inalienable rights of the Palestinian people”: This elevates the matter from legal technicalities to fundamental human rights — emphasising that the rights at stake cannot be surrendered or legitimised away by power politics.
-
“Dangerous escalation”: This phrasing underscores the risk of this act leading to broader consequences, rather than a contained or technical legal change.
-
“Entrench its illegal occupation”: The term “illegal occupation” signals Pakistan’s stance that the West Bank remains occupied territory under international law and that any attempt to normalise or legalise this occupation is unacceptable.
Wider International Response
While the Pakistani statement is strong and clear, it is part of a wider constellation of responses from states and international organisations. For example:
-
Arab states condemned the Knesset’s preliminary approval of annexation bills as a direct blow to international law and the Palestinian right to self-determination.
-
The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the legislative moves as part of a “colonial measure” aimed at consolidating an apartheid regime in the occupied territory.
-
These responses show that Pakistan’s statement is aligned with broader international legal and diplomatic consensus, although the extent and impact of actual political and legal responses vary.
Why This Matters
Several reasons make this moment particularly significant:
-
Legal Precedent: If domestic laws of an occupying power are applied to occupied territory, it sets a precedent that could be replicated elsewhere — weakening the protections afforded under occupation law.
-
Territorial and Demographic Change: Applying domestic law may enable land-appropriation, settlement regularisation, and demographic engineering, which are prohibited under international law when done in occupied territory.
-
Undermining Negotiation Frameworks: A core premise of negotiated peace processes is that neither side unilaterally changes the territorial status prior to negotiations. This move shifts the baseline on the ground, potentially rendering negotiations moot.
-
Impact on People on the Ground: For Palestinians living in the West Bank, these moves can mean deeper legal subjugation, loss of protections, increased settlement expansion, and diminished prospects for mobility, sovereignty and self-determination.
-
Effect on Regional Stability: The Middle East is already highly volatile; unilateral moves that are widely regarded as illegal raise the prospect of backlash, resistance, rising violence, and interruptions in broader cooperative frameworks.
-
Signaling of International Authority: A failure by the international community to respond meaningfully can delegitimise multilateral institutions and norms, emboldening other states to engage in similar acts of unilateral territorial change.
What Might Come Next
Given the gravity of the situation, several developments may unfold:
-
Legal and Diplomatic Pushback: States and international organisations may call for or implement diplomatic consequences — such as suspension of cooperative agreements, raising the matter in the UN Security Council, or issuing further joint statements.
-
Palestinian and Regional Responses: The Palestinian leadership and regional states may intensify diplomatic efforts, seek third-party mediation, or bring legal challenges in international courts or forums.
-
Enhanced Settlement Dynamics: If the law proceeds beyond preliminary reading, it may lead to an acceleration of settlement expansion or legalisation of existing settlements, altering the facts on the ground further.
-
Impact on the Peace Process: Any perceived annexation or law-extension may reduce trust in negotiations, exacerbate divisions among Palestinians, and heighten tensions with Israel’s neighbours.
-
International Accountability Mechanisms: There may be renewed calls for investigation of potential breaches of international law, including humanitarian law, and for greater access for human rights monitoring in the occupied territory.
-
Regional Polarisation: The move could deepen polarisation between those states willing to engage with Israel’s evolving policies and those insisting on adherence to international law, potentially influencing alliances, aid flows, and diplomatic alignments.
Conclusion
In condemning the attempt by Israel to extend its so-called “sovereignty” over parts of the Occupied West Bank, the Pakistani Foreign Office has underscored a fundamental legal and moral principle: that unilateral changes to the legal and territorial status of occupied land violate the obligations of an occupying power, the inalienable rights of the occupied people, and the framework for a just and lasting peace.
The statement is resolute: such measures will neither be recognised nor alter the internationally acknowledged status of the West Bank as territory under occupation, in which the Palestinian people retain the right to self-determination. As the world watches, the effectiveness of this condemnation — and of the international community’s response more broadly — will depend on whether these words are coupled with concrete diplomatic, legal and political action to uphold the rule of law, protect vulnerable populations, and safeguard the possibility of a two-state solution.
