The legal case for the 'settlements' in the West Bank area
Jewish Settlements Are Not an Obstacle and They’re Not IllegalThe Arab case appears to be based on their own ethnic and religious bigotry and their idolatry worship of real estate. Those emotional arguments appear to outweigh the facts and the law when it comes to Israel.
To imply that terrorism is a consequence of the settlements is to rewrite history and blame the Jews for being victims
In 1947, the U.N. voted to partition the remaining 24 percent of the original Palestine Mandate between the Jewish and Arab communities. The Jews accepted the partition but the Arabs did not, and together with other Arab nations, invaded the fledgling Jewish state. The Jews ended up controlling the land apportioned to them by the U.N. and some pieces of Arab territory.
Since 1948, Jordan had occupied the territory designated for an Arab state. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized this illegal annexation of land set aside by the U.N. partition for an Arab homeland. In 1967, Israeli forces retook the eastern section of Jerusalem that was supposed to have been part of an international city but from which Jordan prohibited Jews. The Wailing Wall and the Temple Mount, the two holiest sites in Judaism, were thus retaken not from Palestinians but from an illegal occupier, Jordan.
There never was a Palestinian state. Jordan occupied the areas of Judea and Samaria, and Egypt occupied Gaza.
Given that the territories seized in the ‘67 war were held illegally by Jordan and Egypt, these are disputed territories. Moreover, Israel upholds the legality of the League of Nations resolutions that crafted a Jewish homeland from the river to the sea. Rights granted to the Jewish people by the League of Nations in the Mandate of Palestine survive the League of Nations, thus Israel has every right to settle anywhere from the river to the sea.