Yes, and without international agreements, Palestine could theoretically be a homeland for Jews i.e., if the Arabs permitted it, but not a state. So as far as you are concerned international agreements are valid in some instances and not in others. In other words biblical or political beliefs no matter how irrational or disruptive can take the place of international law when it suits the opinion of ideologues. You really need to engage in a very hard sell if you believe you have an ironclad argument to support the idea that the Bible is more legitimate than international law or even common law. Arguments from the Bible would not be considered evidence in an international court to support Israel’s claim to its annexation of conquered and occupied Palestinian land. Your point about the Kurds and Tibetans does not strengthen your argument about the legitimacy of the Bible in deciding what is morally permissible in the relations between nations, and human rights. Furthermore, the Bible has no legitimacy in science, evolution, cosmology, international law, and in the lives of millions of people.
Ya'alon okays administrative detention of Jewish extremist suspected in church arson (Haaretz)
from the article: The Church of Scotland's parody of Judaism