Of the three occupations of the West Bank in recent history, your ilk is totally obsessed with one as being illegal. Oddly, its the wrong one. You are also selective, in which settlers you consider illegal. Why is that? Are you really certain that the massive influx of Arabs from the many surrounding Arab countries, each with their existing nationality, under the British administration, were legal. Why? Because Britain said so? Did anyone ask the local Jews and local Arabs if they agreed. Dud anyone ask the Turks who ruled the entire area for five centuries? No. And now to the next occupation, the Jordanian occupation which you presumably regard as legal because Jordanians are not Jews. Simple. Maybe not, if you consider that Jordan (already having been given 78% of Palestine by Winston Churchill in 1920) launched an all-out war of annihilation against the Jews in 1948 and thereby came into possession of the West Bank and Jerusalem. Do you consider those who then occupied the land to be "illegal settlers"? The one and only LEGAL occupation came about when Jordan, not satisfied with having everything their Arab kin are now demanding, launched one more total war to destroy Israel. Israel's LEGAL response left it in possession of the territories - the very first legal occupant fopr a long time. Live with it.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Palestinian reports: One seriously injured by rubber bullet during clashes near Ramallah (Haaretz)
Israeli Labor Party convention demonstrates deception of highest order
Nearly every delegate at the Tel Aviv conference is happy to declare their belief in the two-state solution, and to explain why it's not yet possible.18:45 11.02.16 | 0 comments