We came home. We survived. Now we must decide what we came home to build.

Something important is changing in Europe’s relationship with Israel. For decades, European governments have criticized Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria and what they define as settlements in East Jerusalem—a definition that extends even to Jewish residence in parts of Jerusalem’s Old City. They have insisted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must ultimately be resolved through two states and territorial separation. Israel argued back, Europe issued statements, negotiations came and went.

Now the disagreement is moving beyond diplomacy. Norway has proposed legislation restricting trade and economic activity connected to Israeli settlements, while Britain has strengthened its warnings to businesses about settlement-related economic activity. Economic power is increasingly being used to influence the political geography of Israel’s future.

I thought about this while listening to a fascinating debate between British barrister Natasha Hausdorff and Norway’s deputy foreign minister, Andreas Kravik. I expected a serious clash of legal arguments. Instead, I came away troubled by how hollow some of Kravik’s responses sounded.

Hausdorff kept returning to the underlying history: the status of Judea and Samaria before 1967, the League of Nations Mandate, Jordanian rule between 1948 and 1967, Resolution 242 and the Oslo Accords. Kravik’s position was essentially that the International Court of Justice has reached its conclusions, the international consensus overwhelmingly supports them and states therefore have obligations arising from them.

Yet I kept waiting for the underlying questions to be answered. “The ICJ has spoken” cannot end the conversation. Its 2024 opinion was advisory rather than a binding judgment in a contentious case, and its........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)