How many times have I told you BT ,it's disputed territories, Remember their 3 No's: No recognition of Israel ,No peace with Israel,and No negotiations with Israel.

In order to find Israel’s settlements to be a violation of international law, first, Israel must be considered an occupier of foreign territory.

The land on both sides of the river Jordan were recognised as part of the Jewish National Home by the 1920 San Remo Conference.

Then affirmed by article 80 of the United Nations charter in 1945.

When Israel’s leaders declared sovereignty in all territory relinquished by England on May 15, 1948 (including the territory that anti-Israel people call the “West Bank”) it was recognised as the State of Israel by the General Assembly and Security Council by May1949.

Jordan invaded (along with four other Arab states) and conquered this specific territory in 1949, annexed it in 1950, and gave it a new name: “West Bank” (of the river Jordan). Only two countries in the entire world recognised Jordan’s annexation (England and Pakistan) and not a single Arab country recognised this annexation.

Furthermore, article 2 of the UN charter forbids the acquisition of territory through war. Thus, Jordan’s acquisition and annexation of the territory was illegal under international law.

In 1967, Jordan again initiated war against Israel (along with two other Arab states) but Jordan was pushed out of the territory (back to Jordan’s recognised boundaries on the east bank of the Jordan river) by Israel. This re-acquisition of the territory by Israel was legal because article 51 of the U.N. charter permits a nation to defend itself from attack.

If the territory would have been recognised as within the borders of the State of Jordan by either Israel or the international community between 1949 and 1967, then it would have meant Israel’s return to the territory was an occupation, regardless of previous title. But Jordan’s annexation was not recognised by the international community, nor did the Jordan-Israel ceasefire agreement represent acquiescence to new borders by either side:

If the territory would have been recognised as within the borders of the State of Jordan by either Israel or the international community between 1949 and 1967, then it would have meant Israel’s return to the territory was an occupation, regardless of previous title. But Jordan’s annexation was not recognised by the international community, nor did the Jordan-Israel ceasefire agreement represent acquiescence to new borders by either side: