#1 - those "territories" are part of Eastern Israel
Well, that depends upon one's perspective. The west bank was formerly part of the British Mandate, set up under the authority of the League of Nations, in order to set up governing responsibilities over the former Ottoman empire.
The land that now constitues present day Jordan had ALSO been part of the British Mandate, but was granted to King Abdullah during the early '20s when his Hashemite clan lost power to the Saudis on the peninsula. And although under the League mandate Palestine (Trans-Jordan) was supposed to be available for settlement to Jews throughout its boundaries, the establishment of the Kingdom of Jordan immediately denied that area to Jews.
So in quick review, Trans-Jordan (the BM), along with the Levant (governed by the French), were set up by the League of Nations. Thus, "ownership" of the territory originally could be construed as having "belonged" to the League, with respective member states being given responsibility for governing and developing these conquered territories..
But the League failed. And with its failure, the Brits and French assimilated these territories into their respective empires as semi-autonomous colonies. The Jews were still permitted to settle in the BM, although Arab resentment forced the British to limit immigration by Zionists.
After WWII, we had the establishment of the UN, and its attempt to assert authority over the BM and Levant states again. They decided to further partition Western Palestine, creating the Palestinian partition, the present day West Bank and Gaza, as well as the Jewish partition, the "Yishuv" and what constitutes much of the current state of Israel:
israel-un.org
us-israel.org
us-israel.org
But then Israel declared it's independence, the Palestinian partition was annexed by Jordan, effectively ceasing to exist, and in 1967, after attacking Israel, the West Bank was conquered and legally occupied as a "prize of war".
Now given how the boundaries have changed for many of the nations in the region, people will be selective in what legal precedent or definition of boundaries they choose to cite. It really doesn't matter because nations exist because they have the military might, and political will to merit their existence.
And while I share many of your beliefs about Jordan as still being part of Palestine, the fact that it exists as a kingdom excludes forcing it to sacrifice territory to create a Palestinian state, or to force it to absorb Palestinians from the West Bank. Just as it would be impossible to force Israel to give up territory.
So I also subscribe to the belief that the West Bank rightfully belongs to Israel, as a result of legal conquest. But obviously they have not wanted to assert such a right of annexation since they would then have to absorb all of those Palestinian muslims as Israeli citizens.
So until they assert that annexation, the territory remains in "limbo", neither part of Israel, nor part of Jordan (which gave up its claims in 1989).
No one wants the Palestinians. And they don't want to economically develop their own territory in order to be able to further establish their right to exist as a nation.
Hawk |
