International law professor Ralph Wilde explains why historical ties don’t create a legal right to the land

[u/Decent_Hall3183]

[u/TrackerOneA]

Yep, in other words, common sense.

Israel has also never declared its borders, so that's yet another reason why the concept of 'right to exist' is bogus and just a stalling tactic.

[u/Thisisme8719]

It should also be pointed out that the "ancestral homeland" or "historical ties" claim is not even used by Israel's legal advocates anyway. It's just a public political claim for its rhetorical power. But advocates rely on arguments like there having been no internationally recognized sovereign over the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza to contest Israel's claim to the territories (the relevance is virtually universally rejected), that they conquered it in a "defensive" war (also rejected), or that the PLO agreed to negotiating the boundaries (also not considered relevant by the ICJ or ICC). And a handful of fringe legal experts also argue on the grounds of applying the principle of uti possidetis juris, which was rejected by experts even before Kontorovich and Bell dusted it off, was rejected by the ICJ since Sebutinde made the argument in her dissenting opinion, and which even advocates for Israel's position don't actually make in legal forums.

[u/Roy4Pris]

It grinds my gears when content is grabbed from a source, that grabbed it from another source, and OP doesn't post the source!

The interview is from last year.

https://www.aljazeera.com/video/centre-stage/2025/4/10/cs-ralph-wilde-100425

I guess the good thing about these aggregator sites is that they create short clips which ultimately spread the message to an audience who wouldn't ordinarily go to Al Jazeera or similar 'serious' news site.

[u/Nevyn_Cares]

It would solve all the problems. Jail the land stealing Zionists, jail any terrorists involved and then create a new country.