The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the main arbiter of the Geneva Convention’s regulations, frequently describes the West Bank and even the Gaza Strip as “Occupied Palestinian Territories.” Yet, Alan Baker writes, this phrase—also used by the UN—wildly misapplies the laws the ICRC is tasked with protecting:

The classical rules of occupation are set out in the international law of armed conflict and specifically in the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. . . . [T]he Hague Regulations define a territory as occupied when it comes “under the control of a hostile army.” The Fourth Geneva convention goes further and requires that the territory of a “High Contracting Party [i.e., a signatory of the Convention] comes under partial or total occupation.” . . .

[But] the sovereign status [of the West Bank and Gaza] is legally unclear or non-existent and as such cannot be seen as “territory of a High Contracting Party” as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. The legal questionability of Jordan’s pre-1967 sovereignty in the West Bank, as well as Egypt’s self-admitted non-sovereign military administration of the Gaza Strip, [cast doubt on] whether the classic and simplistic concept of belligerent occupation could be legally relevant and applicable to Israel’s unique situation in the territories.

It is well known that prior to 1967, Jordan’s annexation of, and claim to sovereignty in, the West Bank were not accepted in the international community, except for the UK and Pakistan. Jordan’s claim to east Jerusalem was not accepted even by the UK. . . .

Meanwhile, by contrast, the ICRC and the UN almost never use “occupation” or related terms to refer to the numerous textbook cases of military occupation across the globe. Baker concludes:

Thus, the use by the international community of the terms “belligerent occupation” and “occupied territory” almost exclusively to refer to Israel’s status in the territories has taken on a distinct politicized connotation that ignores the legal, historical, and political situation on the ground. The terms extend far beyond the simplistic rubrics foreseen in the definitions. . . .

This runs counter to the ICRC’s very basic fundamental principles of “impartiality, neutrality, and independence” as required and defined in the Preamble to the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The cumulative effect of such legally flawed assumptions in effect prejudges the central negotiating issue between Israel and the PLO—namely, the permanent status of the territories. That issue constitutes an agreed-upon negotiating issue pursuant to the 1993 Oslo Accords in which the Palestinians themselves agreed to negotiate the permanent status of the territory.

While it is commendable that administrators of several universities finally called upon police to crack down on violent and disruptive anti-Israel protests, the actions they have taken may be insufficient. At Columbia, demonstrators reestablished their encampment on the main quad after it had been cleared by the police, and the university seems reluctant to use force again. The school also decided to hold classes remotely until the end of the semester. Such moves, whatever their merits, do nothing to fix the factors that allowed campuses to become hotbeds of pro-Hamas activism in the first place. The editors of National Review examine how things go to this point:

Since the 10/7 massacre, Columbia’s Jewish students have been forced to endure routine calls for their execution. It shouldn’t have taken the slaughter, rape, and brutalization of Israeli Jews to expose chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Death to the Zionist state” as calls for violence, but the university refused to intervene on behalf of its besieged students. When an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside Columbia’s library, it occasioned little soul-searching from faculty. Indeed, it served only as the impetus to establish an “Anti-Semitism Task Force,” which subsequently expressed “serious concerns” about the university’s commitment to enforcing its codes of conduct against anti-Semitic violators.

But little was done. Indeed, as late as last month the school served as host to speakers who praised the 10/7 attacks and even “hijacking airplanes” as “important tactics that the Palestinian resistance have engaged in.”

The school’s lackadaisical approach created a permission structure to menace and harass Jewish students, and that’s what happened. . . . Now is the time finally to do something about this kind of harassment and associated acts of trespass and disorder. Yale did the right thing when police cleared out an encampment [on Monday]. But Columbia remains a daily reminder of what happens when freaks and haters are allowed to impose their will on campus.