Last week, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee “suggested” that Israel would have a legitimate claim to a good part of the Middle East because of the Bible’s promise to the Israelites to rule “from the Euphrates [Iraq] to the Big Sea [presumably the Mediterranean]”. The Arab outcry was immediate. Whatever one thinks of such a claim, a very interesting and highly fraught political question does arise: How far back in history may a country lay claim to territory that it lost in the near or distant past?

Interestingly, there is no official “expiration date” on territorial claims in international law. Why? Because it would open a Pandora’s Box of claims and counter-claims – especially against some of the world’s Great (and Middle) Powers, Israel and other Arab states among them. However, a generally accepted doctrine is called “intertemporal law”: the legality of an act – including acquiring territory – should be judged based on laws from the time it occurred, and not by contemporary standards. That means “history is now.”

During most of humanity’s past, conquest created legal title: if you won the war and held the land, the world eventually treated it as yours. Such a “right of conquest” formed the basis of borders across Europe, the Middle East, the Americas, and beyond. This began to change after World Wars 1 & 2, with the UN Charter emphasizing two ideas: 1- The territorial integrity of existing states must be respected; 2- Acquisition of territory by force is not legally valid, even if you “win.” But again, these principles are prospective (present and future), not retrospective (what happened in the past).

This seemingly worthy approach underlies the central tension of contemporary international relations. Look at almost every border on the world map and you’ll find force, empire, and unequal treaties creating them in the past – with the modern system trying to freeze those borders to prevent endless wars over historical injustices.

Here are a few such contemporary flashpoints: 1) Russia invaded the Ukraine, justifying its actions with the historical narrative that Ukraine is not a fully separate nation, that Crimea “has always been Russian,” and that Russian‑speaking areas are a natural part of Russia. This claim goes back several centuries. For its part, Ukraine argues that its internationally recognized borders upon independence in 1991 are the legitimate baseline; any change must be peaceful and consensual.

The result: almost all countries refuse to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 or the annexations of four provinces in 2022. The “clock” that the world uses is clearly very short.

2) As is well known (especially if you’re reading The Times of Israel!), Israel/Palestine presents a somewhat different problem: two peoples claim deep, continuous ties to the same land over millennia (Ukraine does not covet Russia land). Jewish claims are based on ancient Israelite kingdoms and continuous (albeit very small) Jewish communities living continuously in their Holy Land. From this standpoint, the 1948 creation of the State of Israel is merely official (international) recognition of such territorial ownership.

Palestinian Arabs similarly emphasize centuries of residence, property ownership, and communal life (but never a country), constituting the demographic majority during at least the 19th and early 20th centuries.

From an international law standpoint, the main controversy revolves around the West Bank and Gaza that the U.N. assigned to the Palestinians who refused (and many still also today e.g., Hamas) to accept partition of the entire land. Nevertheless, U.N. resolutions have framed these lands as “occupied territories,” calling for Israeli withdrawal or a negotiated agreement.

But law is intellectually dry; historical memory evokes strong emotions. For those directly involved, the question of “how far back does one go” is politically and morally charged. The problem is that if one goes too far back – biblical kingdoms for Jews; early Islamic caliphates for Arabs – both sides view their own claim to the Land as paramount. But if “history” prior to the mid-20th century counts as much as the past eighty years, that too is morally problematic as it privileges the early modern era of brutal colonial conquests and empire expansionism.

3) The U.S.–Mexico border is a classic case of territory taken by war and unequal treaty instead of mutual consent. Mexico, however, has long since ceased claiming that territory as its own; the United States treats those (eventual) states as part and parcel of the country – non‑negotiable. From an historical‑justice perspective, though, why are recent conquests illegitimate but ones such as the 19th‑century Mexican case OK? The answer is pragmatism, not morality: too much time has passed, the populations are no longer the same (ethnically or culturally), and over the ensuing years both the U.S. and Mexico have built distinct identities and economies within their respective new borders.

4) Similarly, elsewhere around the world. In Africa, territorial borders drawn by colonial powers were highly arbitrary (a straight ruler down the map), but the Organization of African Unity chose in 1964 to respect inherited borders to avoid constant wars (again, choosing pragmatism over historical justice). In the Far East, China claims Taiwan based on historical ties, whereas Taiwan claims decades of separate self‑government and (by now) a distinct political identity. Here too the international community has taken a pragmatic approach, treating the status quo as frozen: Chinese claims are recognized diplomatically but forceful unification is opposed. A somewhat similar approach is taken vis-à-vis India and Pakistan competing over Kashmir: keeping the post‑partition status quo and refusing to impose a final settlement.

So how far back does the world allow claims? Clearly, historical narratives matter morally but this is not the basis for legal title. One way around this “contradiction” is to accept traditional cultural, religious, or historical ties as supporting political autonomy, minority protections, or negotiated adjustments, but only in rare cases does it enable unilateral annexation or political secession.

What does all this mean for the Israel/West Bank-Gaza issue? “Time is of the essence” – literally and figuratively. How so? The U.S./Mexico story occurred almost two centuries ago: it’s over. Conversely, Russia’s land grabs are widely rejected because they are very recent. Israel’s occupation of the West Bank (and Gaza too?) is treated as “temporary” – but having lasted for several decades it has generated entrenched realities. Time might well be running out for the Palestinian cause because the longer political control exists, and the more people build their lives around it (half a million Jewish “settlers”), the more likely is the world to seek a “pragmatic” ending.

To sum up, modern international practice points in one main direction: claims based on distant history are not well accepted; recent seizures are widely rejected as illegal. Anything in between these two polar situations is ambiguous until the reality on the ground determines the outcome de facto. Ambassador Huckabee (along with Israel’s “Return to Gaza” supporters) should take note; but so too should the Palestinians.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)