Which countries should the UN demand return land taken by military conquest?

For those like the above that have apparently failed to do any research on the issue based upon the content of the opinion we need to provide "History 101" on this subject.

The acquisition of territory by force was a component of the historical doctrine of the Right of Conquest that existed throughout most of recorded history.

The widespread social devastation of colonialism along with the horrors of battle during WW I where military force to secure territory based upon the Right of Conquest coincided with the development and establishment of the Right of Self-Determination. The Declaration of Independence in 1776 is perhaps the most well known historical document expressing the Right of Self-Determination it wasn't even fully accepted and obviously ignored in the United States as evidenced by the westward expansion during the 19th Century. Ideologically the Right of Self-Determination was addressed John Locke's 1690 publication of his Second Treatise of Civil Government but many other political philosophers throughout history advocated the Right of Self-Determination to a greater or lesser degree.

At the end of WW I the first internationally accepted establishment of the Right of Self-Determination is expressed in the Covenant of the League of Nations in addressing colonies that had been liberated by the war that included the former Turkish Empire colonies including the territory that was designated as the Independent Nation of Palestine based upon the provisions outlined in Article 22 of the Covenant. Included in those provisions was the assignment of a Mandatory to provide "advice and assistance" to the people of Palestine in their creation of a modern government.

In 1928 the Kellogg–Briand Pact (or Pact of Paris) was the first international law that banned the use of force and war to resolve conflicts which inherently prohibited the use of force or war to acquire territory as the "benefits of war" were denied under the treaty.

The attempted acquisition of territory by German and Japan during WW II, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of innocent civilians, was basically the final nail in the coffin of the "Right of Conquest" based upon the Nuremberg Trials and the UN Charter to replace the previous Covenant of the League of Nations. The UN Charter expressly prohibits the threat or use of force by any nation and denies any legitimacy to claimed benefits based upon the use of force as well as limiting member nations to their own territory by protecting the territorial integrity of other nations.

Effectively the doctrine of the "Right of Conquest" ended with the establishment of the United Nations were the existing territorial borders became firmly established under the Charter.

While I selected "others" because the poll was not limited to post-WW II where the Right of Self-Determination was finally established with the end of the Right of Conquest we have to review the list in a new light.

Based upon memory I don't believe the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany or Iran have acquired any territory by an act of force since WW II. China possibly and Russia certainly need to be selected on the list.

Israel, on the other hand, didn't exist when the United Nations Charter was adopted but Palestine did and was covered under provisions of the UN Charter addressing the former provisionally independent nations established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

The nation of Israel was not created by the "consent of the people" in Palestine, The "State of Israel" was created by " Israeli Declaration of Independence" and the territory for Israel was acquired by (military) force during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948-49 when the Jewish forces established the cease fire lines under the armistice. Effectively today none of the territory of Israel is "legitimate" because the territory of Israel is literally the territory of Palestine because Israel could not acquire territory by acts of force (war) and it didn't have any territory when it was created because the "land" belonged to the "Palestinians" that included all of the Arabs, Jews, and other permanent residents living within the territorial borders of Palestine as created as a nation by the League of Nations under the Mandatory of the British in the early 1920's.

That's the "international law" but not the pragmatic reality.

The pragmatic reality is only the United Nations Security Council has the authority to require a nation to withdraw from territory that it occupies by an act of force. Because China and Russia are both permanent members of the Security Council with veto power it's virtually impossible for the Security Council to require a nation to withdraw from territory occupied by force.

Israel does not have that protection and even the United States joined in the unanimous approval of Security Council Resolution 242 citing the necessity for Israel to withdraw from the territory it occupied in 1967 and Israel confirmed that it's occupation of the Golan Heights, West Bank, and E Jerusalem at the conclusion of the 6-Day War was never about the acquisition of territory. Israel to this day claims that the 6-Day War was never about the acquisition of territory so it shouldn't have any problem with leaving now that the Palestinians are agreeing to every principle a necessary measure established in Security Council Resolution 242 for the establishment of a lasting peace.

PLUS, Israel secures an additional bonus by agreement with a peace accord based upon the principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. With the recognition of the sovereign status and territorial integrity of Israel by the Palestinians it provides the "Consent of the Palestinian People" to the territory of Israel that was created by "Declaration and Force" at the end of the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-49.

All of the conflicts and hostility against Israel from 1948 to now relates to the fact that Israel lack "legitimacy" because it was not created based upon the Right of Self-Determination of the People of Palestine that were the only one's with the authority to grant land in Palestine to the Jewish People for the creation of Israel.

Israel can resolve the primary basis for hostility against with the two-state solution based upon it's pre-1967 borders.

 

if one joined the UN and agreed to abide by such votes, they should follow the rules

 

Uh. Nope. There were no Israeli's before the Arab Culture, since there was no Israel. There were Jews and Palestinians before the Arab culture.
Your switching back and forth what Arabs, Jews, Israeli's and Palestinians are when it pleases you to fit your agenda.

 

It has all the sway you can immagine, since all the democratic nations find it good enough and don't got their own or separate organisation next to it.

 

I read it all.... but there is 1 small twist to this.

The UNSC resolutution against Israel about the West Bank, East-Jerusalem, Gaza and Golan are not about the end of the occupation. This is all about saying the colonisation outside Israel by Israel/Israeli's is illegal. The occupation can go ahead as long as the civilian population of Israel is being removed from it.

 

The UN does not have a say in what Jordan decides to do with its land.
Your opinion is unsupportable.

This does not change the fact that a treaty between two states holds more power than any resolution from the UN. The UN does not have the power to override any such treaty; the parties to that treaty are not held to UN resolution that run contrary to said treaty.

Your opinion does not change these facts.

 

And continues today.

What happened to East Prussia? When does Germany get it back?

There has never been a state called "Palestine".

See above.
None of your prattle changes the fact that the state of Israel exists and has all the rights of any other state.

Utterly false. The states involved have ever right to settle the issue themselves, in any way the find acceptable, and have ever right to do so in a manner that ignores and/or opposes very whit of nonsense that comes from the UN.

Israel has the same "protection" as every other state.

 

There have been numerous UN resolutions by both the General Assembly and the Security Council recognizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by acts of force/war which address the military occupation of territory outside of the borders of a nation. Without even doing any research on identifying how many we know that specific to the territory occupied by Israel in 1967, that Israel has continuously claimed was never about acquiring territory, UN Security Resolution 242 states, "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and UN Security Council Resolution 2334 states, “Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force."

Effectively both 242 and 2334 establish that a two-state peace agreement with the Palestinians where Israel cannot expand beyond it's pre-1967 borders is mandatory.

The Israeli settlements are explicitly based upon the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, that is a part of International Law under the United Nations. The World Court of Justice, in offering an advisory opinion at the request if the UN General Assembly, in 2004 established that the Israel civilian population being allowed to settle in the "Palestinian territories" of the West Bank and E Jerusalem are a violation of Article 49. This was a point International Law that Israel claimed wasn't applicable to the Palestinian territories but the Israel claim was false based upon the World Court of Justice that has jurisdiction in making that determinations. Violations of the Fourth Geneva Conventions are War Crimes and/or Crimes Against Humanity.

This doesn't take us back to the actual creation of Israel where the territory of Israel itself was acquired by an Act of Force against the people of Palestine that had sovereignty over the territory of all of Palestine.

Additionally this doesn't address the United Nations refusal to ever legitimatize the Israel "annexation" of W Jerusalem because all of Jerusalem is to be an international city under the recommendations of the General Assembly in Resolution 181. That's why foreign countries like the US don't have their embassies in Jerusalem today.

 

Jordan has nothing to do with it. This is about Israeli occupied territory and the Israeli colonists. The UN has everything to say about that.

When parties are signatories of the Geneva Conventions, and so international law, than no matter what a treaty is about... international law trumps it. And that is where the UN comes in.

- - - Updated - - -

A country or not, the land was called Palestine. And that name goes as far back as the ancient Egyptians. It predates the name Israel.

 

Jordan has everything to do with it as the WB was part of Jordan in 1967.
The Israelis occupied it until 1988 when Jordan ceded its claim.
Since the controversy under international law -- the occupation of Jordanian territory - has been resolved between the parties involved, external international law no longer applies.

You fail to recognize the fact that a treaty between states is international law; nothing in the UN charter gives it the power to interfere with treaty law between states.

International law governs the relation between states.
As you admit there is and has been no state of Palestine, international law does not apply.

 

Nobody recognized it was part of Jordan when Jordan claimed they annexed those lands actually.
And since they renounced their claim means they got nothing to do with those lands.

Negative. It remains occupied by Israel.
If it was part of Israel, than everybody living in that Israel would like have the right to vote.

Oh it can interfere if the treaty violates international law alright. Two countries can not go like, we agreed that we're going massacre this tribe and so since we made this treaty to commit genocide, means the UN charter is irrelevant. It doesn't work like that, obviously.

Besides that. You seem to think Jordan and Israel made a treaty about the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That aint so. Jordan renounced it's claim over those lands. So that is a one sides treaty with no roll for Israel in it. Besides that, it never was part of Jordan. Jordan occupied it and it's annexation was never recognized by anybody. So even if there was a treaty where both agree that the land is Israeli, than the treaty is nill and void since Jordan is unable to give away land that aint theirs to give.

The state called Palestine exist, buddy. And the name Palestine predates the name Israel by a lot.

 

1: Untrue - both the UK and Pakistan recognized the annexation. The fact that certain others did not like the annexation doe not mean the annexation did not take place.
2: Irrelevant -- Jordan annexed the land, gave the people there Jordanian citizenship representation on the Jordanian government.
Thus, in 1967, the WB was part of Jordan.

Not any more, true. Their cession of the land to Israel in 1988 indeed takes them out of the current picture.
As the controversy between Jordan and Israel over the WB was settled by treaty in 1994, there no longer remains a question under international law.

Israel cannot "occupy" land that belongs to it.

Incorrect. In no way is a state required to grant suffrage to anyone who lives in its territory.

The treaty is international law; the treaty does not violate itself.
The UN has no power to interfere with treaty law between states; states are in no way required to go before the UN to obtain ratification of treaties with one another.

In 1994, Jordan and Israel signed a treaty formalizing their borders. The WB is on the Israeli side of the border.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Jordan_peace_treaty
This treaty, where two states amicably resolved their differences, including the disposition of disputed territory, is international law; the UN has no power to question it.

It does not. There is no state of Palestine -- never has been.
The UN does not have the power to create a state on land that, under international law, belongs to another state.

 

The Right of Conquest was officially terminated at the conclusion of WW II with the creation of the United Nations. To my knowledge, although I've not done much research on the issue, the territorial division of East Prussia occurred prior to the full termination of the Right of Conquest when it fell under the de facto control of the USSR that could have vetoed any UN Security Council Resolution requiring the reunification with East Prussia based upon it's largely German population with Germany. The "veto" power of the permanent members of the Security Council has long been a problem related to enforcement of the UN Charter and International Law.

False. After the conclusion of WW I the former colonial territories of the Turkish Empire were divided into political states two of which were Transjordan and Palestine. The creation of Transjordan as a Hashemite kingdom was the fulfillment of the British promise to the Hashemite emir Faisal and Abdullah bin Hussein (later to become Abdullah I of Jordan) for their revolt against the Turks that the British had encouraged to help in the war against the Turks. The necessity for Transjordan followed the Hashemite war against the French in Syria by Faisal and the British wanted to keep the future (Hashemite) Nation Transjordan separate from the Nation of Palestine because the "Palestinians" were not subjects of Hashemite Arabs Arabs owed no loyalty to Faisal or Abdullah bin Hussein that would have been necessary for their consent to be included in the establishment of the Kingdom.

Upon the delineation of the territory of Transjordan, the new nation for the subjects of Hashemite kingdom, and Palestine for the Palestinian people, in 1921 under the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League both Transjordan and Palestine were recognized as independent nations under the provisional administration of the Mandatory (Great Britain) that was to provide temporary administration with assistance and advice for the formation of the stand alone government in each nation.

Yes, I know that the Israeli history books leave out the part about the obligation of the British to provide for the Hashemite kingdom of Transjordan based upon their support for the British war effort in WW I and instead falsely claim that Transjordan was established for the Palestinians (that weren't Hashemites) but the Zionists have rarely been accurate when it comes to historical facts.

Summary: In spite of Israeli propaganda in 1921 the two nations were created and one was called Transjordan (officially changed to the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" in 1949) and other was called Palestine. Both were provisionally recognized as Independent Nations under the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

This appears to be a common tactic of the Zionist where they "move the goal posts" because I'm unaware of anyone claiming that Israel doesn't exist. That has never been the issue to my knowledge. The issue is the legitimacy of the existence of Israel and it's territorial claims because Israel was created within the territory of Palestine by "Declaration and military force" (i.e. the Right of Conquest) as opposed to being created based upon the "Consent of the People of Palestine" (Self-determination) that would be required for legitimacy. The "Rights of Israel" are dependent upon the legitimacy of Israel. The very foundation for Israeli-Muslim Nation conflict and the Israell-Palestinian conflict is based upon the question issue of the "Legitimacy of Israel" because Israel was not created based upon Self-Determination that was required for the adoption of UN General Assembly recommendation in Resolution 181.

Even if we assume legitimacy for Israel there are still issues. Israel, in it's Declaration of Independence, cites UN General Assembly Resolution 181 that specifically establishes Jerusalem as an international city which is why the United Nations refused to accept the annexation of W Jerusalem by Israel. W Jerusalem, based upon the United Nations, is not a part of Israel and that's why foreign embassies, including the United States Embassy, have refused to be located in W Jerusalem from Day One.

Additionally the Golan Heights are not a part of Israel because of the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force/war" regardless of any subsequent agreement that was the result of force and coercion inherent in the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights.

Next is the fact that Israel has no right claim to any of the Palestinian territory that it invaded and has occupied since 1967. Not one square inch.

Israel does not, even assuming the legitimacy, have a right to violate International Law so that takes us to tast but not least issue. As determined by the International Court of Justice, that has jurisdiction, the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory are in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, which would means that Israel is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity every single day that those Israeli settlements continue to exist.

Not really false because there are conditions related to mutually agreed to territorial issues defining borders. First and foremost is that the agreements must be completely voluntary without any acts or threats of the use of force without coercion. Effectively the territory to be addressed cannot be under the hostile occupation of either side because that is an "act of force" that's not only a violation of the UN Charter but also a violation of the universally Laws of Contract. Nor an one side demand territory as a condition for peace because that's the thread of the use of force that occurs with the continuation of hostilities.

So let's see.

The Palestinians haven't asked for any territory that isn't already established as Palestinian territory. Israel has no claim whatsoever to any of the Palestinian territory under it's occupation. It's obvious that the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory don't establish a claim for Israel because they're illegal settlements under international law. Israel doesn't have any claim to E Jerusalem and the Israeli settlements in E Jerusalem are also in violation of International Law.

More importantly the Palestinians have already said "No" to any land deals with Israel and that ends any discussion of territory because the Palestinians are willing to give up one square inch of Palestinian land to Israel (they've already lost about half of their nation, arguably the best half, to Israel and see no logical reason to give up any more.

Israel can't force the Palestinians into giving up territory nor can it use the refusal to not agree to a peace treaty with the Palestinians based upon the provisions of UN Security Council 242 that establishes an equitable peace agreement for both side.

Israel want recognition of it's national sovereignty and the Palestinians are willing to do that. Israel wants acceptance of it's territorial integrity and the Palestinians are willing to do that. Israel wants an end to all hostile acts and the Palestinians are willing to do that. Israel wants recognition of it's right to live in peace within their internationally recognized borders and the Palestinians are willing to do that. Every condition that is actually necessary for peace between Israel and the Palestinians has been agreed to by the Palestinians and they even went beyond that in addressing the demand below.

Even the "over-the-top" demand by Israel that the Palestinian give their national right of self defense by being a demilitarized nation has been met by a Palestinian proposal that US lead NATO militarily forces indefinitely occupy Palestinian territory to both prevent attacks by the Palestinians and to prevent an Israeli invasion in the future. What some seem to not understand is that the Palestinians have far more to fear from an Israeli act of aggression than Israel has to fear of from a Palestinian act of aggression. With the history of Israeli the invasion in 1967 where Israel kicked the butts of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria combined the Palestinians know they wouldn't be able to defend themselves from the next Israeli invasion but NATO could. What a brilliant move by the Palestinians that have every legitimate reason to fear potential Israel aggression. They also ensured that "rogue" Palestinians don't provide any retaliation by Israel by launching rockets into Israel like Hamas did from Gaza because NATO forces will be all over Palestine to prevent that from happening.

So what does Israel do next? It can't demand territory not can it use it's hostile occupation to acquire territory and it can't just sit on it's butt and do nothing now that the Palestinians have expressed a willingness to accept every legitimate criteria for peace. The clock is ticking and Israel needs to S**t or get off the pot because if it doesn't then the next move would be economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations against Israel and Israel will suffer significantly if it's overseas funds are frozen and the imported goods it desperately requires are cut off.

All the Palestinians have to do now that they've agreed to all of the provisions necessary for peace based upon UNSC 242 and the pre-1967 borders (confirmed by UNSC 2334) is sit and wait because Israel is now facing possible economic sanctions and potentially UN or NATO military action to force it out of Palestine in the future just like the UN forced Iraq out of Kuwait.

That protection doesn't include immunity from international law, failure to comply with treaties it's a member of, or of non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions that's mandated under the UN Charter, or using is military as a hostile force of occupation in territories outside of it's border, or of stonewalling by refusing to agree to a peace proposal that meets every condition of International Law while also providing compete security of Isael.

How about this simple requirement for Israel. Since the Palestinians are willing to agree to every relevant provision for peace, including the outrageous demand to not even have an army, it's time for Israel to sign the friggin' peace agreement, pack up it's bags, and get the hell out of the Palestinian territories. That's a nice and neat easy thing for Israel to do and Israel doesn't lose a damn thing it deserved by doing this.

 

The treaty that cemented annexation of East Prussia by Poland and Russia was signed in 1990, as per the provisions laid out in the Potsdam conference.
Note the German territorial losses affirmed by this treaty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oder–Neisse_line#/media/File:Oder-neisse.gif
Thus, the right to conquest existed until at least then.

Territories, not states.

If Israel exists has all the rights of any other state, how is the "question" of Israels "legitimacy" of any relevance?

You;d have a point, except for the fact that the WB was Jordanian territory in 1967, and Jordan officially recognized Israeli possession of same in a 1994 treaty,
That is, under international law, Jordan withdrew its claim, leaving the territory to Israel.

All of this is unsupportable nonsense. None of the items you propose, above, have any basis in fact. None.

They can ask for Israel to give up the WB. Israel nay agree, Until it does, there can be no state of Palestine.

Proven false.

The question of territory under international law were settled in 1994.
The WB belongs to Israel; Israel has ever right to settle its land.

The state of Palestine, as it does not exist, has no land to give; all of the land of the former territory of Palestine belongs to Israel and Jordan (and, probably, Syria and Lebanon).

See above.

It has this, in full.

Hope that Palestinian mothers someday love their children more than they hate Jews.

How about this:
The newly-created state of Palestine is then responsible for its borders and, specifically, preventing its citizens from crossing said border to attack Israel. Failure to do so - that is, allowing such an attack from Palestine - is an act of war, with Israel reserving the full right to react as it sees fit.

 

See my first post on this topic for why your wrong.

 

Which is wrong:

From Wiki:

From Wiki on Byzantines:

So yeah, you are still wrong.

 

What shows that?

 

I'm not. You are claiming the Israeli's where there before the Arabs.
While the fact is, there were just Jews before the Arabs were there.
While also the fact is, that there were Palestinians there before the Arabs were there.
And the Israeli's were after the Arabs were there.
Your just making 1 big mess out of it substituting whatever whenever. lol

 

You obviously didn't read my first post on this.

From Wiki:

So yeah the Palestinians have no claim to the land at all if you want to argue that the Jews or Israelites.

 

Did you pass math at school? Whats 2017-1453 = ?

 

That's what you link also states. East Prussia became territories of Poland and Russia in 1945 based upon the Potsdam conference effective 2 August 1945. Subsequent annexation is irrelevant to the establishment of the territory. The United Nations became an official International Treaty organization on 24 October 1945 or slightly more than two months later but admittedly it has not fully developed it's positions on all issue that early. So we have an approximate date of "not before 24 October 1945" based upon the founding date of the UN.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22

Sorry, not according to Article 22 that doesn't even mention the word "territories" but does establish that when Transjordan and Palestine were created by political and territorial separation they were recognized as Independent Nations (it's right there in writing) with the only caveat being this was provisional based upon the assistance and advice of the Mandatory assigned to them.

Upon gaining independence from the control of the Turkish Empire neither Transjordan or Palestine were never a territory of another nation including Great Britain that was the League of Nations Assigned Mandatory over both.

It obviously that wasn't what you've been told but since I know you can read now you can acknowledge that both Transjordan and Palestine, upon becoming politically and territorially separated in 1921, became Independent Nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance of Great Britain that became the assigned Mandatory.

 

Analogy:
A counterfeit dollar and a lawful dollar can look alike and both can unquestionably exist but the lawful dollar is legitimate while the counterfeit dollar lacks legitimacy.

There are conditions that must be met to establish legitimacy for a nation that Israel probably didn't met in 1948-49. We even have the International Court of Justice that has the jurisdiction and authority to render a decision on the legitimacy of Israel... all it takes is a "plaintiff with standing" to file a petition for the Court to decide and the acceptance of the case. The only two possible plaintiffs that I know of with standing are the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The case has not been heard of course but it we assume the International Court of Justice consented to hearing the case we can ask if there's any precedent that would guide the court.

In 2004 the ICJ made an advisory decision for the United Nations General Assembly on the Israeli civilian occupation of Palestinian territory in the West Bank and E Jerusalem. The International Court of Justice decision was that the Israeli settlements were in violation of international law.

If the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory in two locations is a violation of international law then wouldn't it follow that the Israeli occupation in any Palestinian territory also violate international law. That would be inclusive of any Palestinian territory as established in 1921.

Pure conjecture of course but the legal grounds that would require a decision by the ICJ if one of the two possible plaintiffs filed a petition for the court to hear the case. Israel, as a full member of the United Nations, can file a petition. The Palestinians don't currently have full membership status but they could someday soon. It would be rather embarrassing if Israel order by the ICJ (backed by the UN Security Council) to withdraw from ALL of the Palestinian territory as defined when the political and territorial independence of Transjordan and Palestine were created in 1921.

Wouldn't it be much more intelligent and self-serving of Israel to accept a peace agreement with the Palestinians based upon UNSC 242 that inherently grants Israel legitimacy for the pre-1967 territory under Israeli control? .

On April 3, 1948, based upon the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement. Jordan lines of demarcation were drawn between the Israeli military forces and the forces of Iraq and Jordan with Jordan assuming military authority over the territory under Iraq military occupation. That agreement specifies that that the demarcation lines are exclusively based upon establishing a cease fire line and that the agreement does not grant territorial rights to either the Israeli military or the Jordan military.

On April 24, 1950 Jordan issued a declaration that it was annexing the West Bank including E Jerusalem. The declaration was declared illegal and void by the Arab League, never accepted by the Palestinians, and rejected by most other nations, never accepted by the United Nations and, in fact, only three nations ever accepted the annexation, the United Kingdom, Iraq and Pakistan. Jordan, while providing government and security over Palestinian territory could not annex it nor could it make any decisions related to the actual territory of the Palestinians that had sole sovereign authority over that territory since 1921.

BYW Jordan's occupation of Palestinian territory is very much like Israel's occupation of West Jerusalem. There's not question that Israel is occupying W Jerusalem but Israel has never been provided with de jure (recognized) rights to claim W Jerusalem. No nations I'm aware of recognize W Jerusalem as being a part of Israel, including the United States, which is why foreign embassies in Israel are located in Tel Aviv.

Jordan's claim the West Bank and E Jerusalem was rejected for the same reason that any claim by Israel is rejected. Jordan could not acquire territory by an act of force/war. Jordan never had any claim of territory and Israel doesn't have any claim of territory because the territory of Palestine is the sovereign territory of the Palestinian People and has been since 1921 based upon Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

BTW - There's clear evidence because the British Mandate for Palestine that allowed the Zionist European Jews to immigrate to Palestine specifically establishes that it would be a "Homeland" and not a "Nation" for the Jews because Palestine was already the Nation of the Palestinian People that were the only people that had a sovereign Right to the Territory. The Jews were being invited to share Palestine with the existing population had the Right to the Palestinian territory. The British and the League of Nations never had any authority grant territory in the Middle East to anyone except the People that lived on the land. The people had the sovereignty over the land and not the British or any other nations. It should also be noted that "nothing" in the British Mandate for Palestine could violate the "civil rights" of the non-Jewish population and foremost among those civil rights was the Right of Sovereignty over Palestine.

Sorry but it's late and I've got to go. This rerun of the same old Zionist misinformation campaign that's debunked thousand of times every year all around the world really need to end. The best way the end it is for Israel to sign the damn peace agreement with the Palestinians based upon UNSC 242, withdraw it's civilian and military from all of the Palestinian territories, and then start laughing and simply admit that it's BS since day one but Israel finally gained legitimacy and no longer has to lie about the past.

 

What does that have to do with Jews wanting land they had nothing much, if anything, to do with for 1500+ yrs?
Again, do we give the USA back to the natives? Why not?
What gives them any claim to some land 1500+ yrs later?

 

You missed the part of the Potsdam accord where the final border was to be determined by subsequent treaty. That treaty was signed in1990.
Under your "right to conquest" argument, Poland and Russia have no claim to the territory they took from Germany.

"Certain territories". Which territories are those? Neither "Palestine" nor "Jordan" are found anywhere in the entire document.
Your citation fails to rebuke my statement.

 

None of your "legitimacy" nonsense negates the fact - a fact that you a agree to - that Israel is in fact a state and has all of the rights held by every other state.

None of this changes the fact that Jordan annexed the WB, gave the people there Jordanian citizenship and representation in the Jordanian government -- and thus, was part of Jordan in June 1967.
That is, the opinion of those who disagree with what Jordan did do not change the fact that Jordan did indeed annex the WB.
The WB was part of Jordan when Israel invaded.

Rejected by people whose opinion does not change the facts on the ground.
Thus, all of my points remain sound.