General Assembly Resolution 2625 emphasized that no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.

The same Resolution subsequently clarifies that:

“The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter.”

Resolution 2625 continues:

“Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as enlarging or diminishing in any way the scope of the provisions of the Charter concerning cases in which the use of force is lawful”

Judge Schwebel the former President of the ICJ explains that the principle of “acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” must be read together with other principles:

“That no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”

A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

Simply stated, illegal Arab aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel cannot and should not be rewarded. Had the Charter forbidden use of force in any and all circumstances, it would not need to use the words “resulting from.” The Resolution would have simply read: “The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation by another State.”

There are situations involving lawful use of force and there are lawful occupations in the course of repelling aggression. Article 51 addresses the right to self-defense and the lawful use of force when one faces an aggressor.