How can Israel own land in the West Bank when it hasn't annexed it? This sort of confused thinking is precisely the difficulty in resolving the current situation of the residents of the West Bank. Either that land does not belong to Israel (i.e does not belong under Israeli sovereignty, but is temporarily under Israeli rule as the occupying power), or it does (i.e. Israel claims the right to sovereignty over the land based on the Balfour declaration, the terms of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and the right of conquest - which contrary to what is often claimed in these pages has still continued to be practiced and accepted internationally in any number of cases occurring after 1945.) If it does not belong to Israel, then Israel should accept the Arab League proposal,sign a peace agreement based on the 67 borders, and withdraw from the territories so that the Palestinians can get on with normal lives. If the land does not belong to Israel, then Israel should not be settling it. If the land does belong to Israel , then Israel should annex it, and should offer full citizenship to the Palestinians therein, so that they can likewise (as in the first case) get on with living normal lives. This, of course, would be the end of Israel as a Jewish state. However, the situation of leaving millions of people without the basic civil right of selecting the leadership of the country which claims to own the territory in which they live is unsustainable. Greater Israel, Democratic Israel, Jewish Israel. Pick two.
CNN Turk: Turkish planes hit PKK targets in southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq (Reuters)