International law expert on Israel's right to exist: Is Vanessa Emde right?

taz: Mr. Ambos, in Berlin a center-left coalition is currently in danger of failing because of a statement by left-wing MP Vanessa Emde. Referring to Israel, she said: "There is no right for states to exist. People have a right to exist." Is Vanessa Emde right?

Kai Ambos: I wouldn't make it as easy as Ms. Emde. There is no explicit right of states to exist in international law. But international law protects the territorial integrity of states. And the State of Israel exists. He is a member of the UN. The Palestine Liberation Organization also recognized him. And if a state exists, it also has the right to defend itself against attacks from outside. Just like Ukraine is currently doing, for example. In this sense, Israel has a right to exist, understood as a negative right of defense against attacks from outside. If Israel is attacked by Iran, for example, it can of course defend its existence.

taz: At the same time, Israel has the problem that the country does not clearly define its own borders. The Netanyahu government considers the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights to be parts of Israel. Israel currently also controls parts of southern Lebanon. Which Israel has the right to continue to exist?

Ambos: The borders of Israel according to the UN partition plan of 1947 and the borders of the so-called Green Line after the armistice agreement with the Arab warring parties in 1949 are most likely to be recognized under international law. However, recognizing Israel within these borders does not allow expanding its own territory in the sense of a Greater Israel.

This text first appeared in wochentaz, our weekly newspaper from the left!

Every week, wochentaz is about the world as it is – and as it could be. A left-wing weekly newspaper with a voice, attitude and the special taz view of the world. New every Saturday at the kiosk and of course by subscription.

taz: The Berlin coalition paper says: “Israel’s right to exist is non-negotiable.” Would you have phrased it the same way?

Ambos: It would have been correct to write: “Israel’s existence and its territorial integrity are non-negotiable.” No sane person can deny the existence of Israel. The existence of a state that can wage seven wars in parallel and maintains one of the best armies in the world is a fact. But anyone who is a state must also adhere to the rules of international law that specifically apply to states. The discourse on the right to exist distracts from this core problem and leads to a mystical, moralizing exaggeration of Israel.

taz: Traces of this exaggeration can currently also be found at the federal level. In the summer, the Federal Council approved a bill that would punish a person with up to five years in prison who “publicly or in an assembly denies the right to exist of the State of Israel or calls for the abolition of the State of Israel.” The law is intended to combat anti-Semitism. Is it a good remedy for this?

Ambos: The problem of latent or coded anti-Semitism cannot be solved through criminal law. I will not have less anti-Semitism by criminalizing statements that I don't know what motivates the speaker to make them. Let’s take “From the River to the Sea” as an example. It depends on how the slogan continues and in what context it is uttered. The situation is similar with the sentence “States have no right to exist.” First of all, these are expressions protected by freedom of expression. Of course, they can also have anti-Semitic motivations, but this is difficult to determine with legal certainty.

taz: The German-Palestinian Ramsis Kilani, who has now been expelled from the Left Party, repeatedly argues that in the context of violent occupation and oppression the “oppressed have the right to resistance”. To what extent is such a right anchored in international law?

Ambos: That's a difficult question. In principle, such a right can be derived from a combination of human rights and the right of self-determination of peoples. If a population is permanently deprived of their right to self-determination by an illegal occupation, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found in a 2024 report for the Palestinians, they must be allowed to defend themselves against it. Otherwise the violated right is practically worthless. Understood in this way, the right of resistance is a secondary right to remedy the violation of primary rights. Something similar also exists in the private sector: If someone breaks into your house, then that is trespassing. Of course, you then have the right to forcibly throw that person out of your house. If the person enters as a robber with a weapon and threatens you, you would usually also have the right to use force to ward off this threat under the law of self-defense.

taz: Some leftists also relate the Palestinian right to resistance to October 7, 2023, when Hamas and other groups killed around 1,200 people. Is that legitimate?

Ambos: Absolutely not! The right to resistance is also subject to international law rules. It must be exercised by a legitimate representative of the affected population in accordance with international humanitarian law and human rights. Civilians in particular are not legitimate targets. Shortly after October 7th, I and a number of colleagues assessed Hamas' actions as a crime under international law.

taz: And if people from Gaza and the West Bank use weapons to defend themselves against the Israeli occupation?

Ambos: In principle, Palestinians have the right to resistance due to the permanent thwarting of their right to self-determination by the Israeli occupation, as determined by the ICJ. However, your acts of resistance must adhere to the rules of international law. If Palestinians are directly attacked, for example by settlers, they also have the right to self-defense under national law. Of course they are allowed to defend themselves against such attacks.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is discussed controversially, especially in left-wing circles. There are also fundamentally different positions on this in the taz. In this section you will find all comments and debate contributions on the topic of “Middle East”.

taz: Over the last three years, Israel has repeatedly broken international law. The army killed around 20,000 children in Gaza, and around 1.4 million Palestinians are currently living in tents and temporary housing. Against this background, what responsibility under international law does Germany have as an ally of Israel?

Ambos: Every country must contribute to ending the occupation, which violates international law. No country should support such an illegal situation in any way. Therefore, any support for Israel in the West Bank, for example through German arms deliveries, but also through the purchase of products from Israeli settlements, is contrary to international law. The boycott of such products is demanded by numerous close allies of Germany and is sometimes enforced domestically. Germany should not block corresponding efforts within the EU.