WHY was Israel allowed to colonize the Palestinian West Bank with so called "settlements"-Final Part

This article (24 mentioned above) was deleted from the amended 1968 Charter. Apparently, as long as these territories were under Arab control, they were not 'Palestinian territories' and only became so when they were no longer controlled by Arab entities. This should cast at least some doubt on the sincerity of their claims.

The Palestinian Authority constantly repeats its demand for an Israeli withdrawal to 'the pre-1967 borders'. Unfortunately for this demand, there are no 'pre-1967 borders'. The lines the Palestinian Authority officials erroneously refer to as 'the pre-1967 borders' were neither defined in 1967 nor were they recognized international borders.

The lines in question are actually the 1949 Rhodes Armistice lines, drawn on a map to signify the areas under control of each belligerent at the time of the cease-fire that ended the 1948 war. The armistice agreements specifically define that 'these lines are not to be construed as recognized international borders in any manner'. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 is a resolution adopted near the end of the 1947 - 1949 Palestine War. The Resolution defines principles for reaching a final settlement and returning Palestine refugees to their homes.

Itis important to notice that this resolution followed up on the Rhodes Armistice agreements, further stated that final borders would be determined through negotiation between the belligerents. The Arab belligerents rejected the United Nations Resolution 194 in its entirety. When Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords, they made no mention of 'the settlements' at all. Palestinian demands regarding the settlements came later, when they realized it would be a good bargaining chip to pressure Israel with.

The fact that so many Western governments and 'liberals' bought into this argument only proves that Lenin's 'useful idiots' who ignore facts and stick to their preconceptions abound in the West.

At this stage, I have, bluntly, to ask the following question:

"Why didn't the force Israel to stop colonizing the West Bank?"

I say, " Who exactly did you have in mind?"

Mind you, Israel is ranked among the ten strongest militaries in the world (in addition to being considered a nuclear power), so the options are somewhere limited.

The Russians have seen their aid to Arab armies larger than the entire Palestinian population end up on the scraps heaps or in Israeli industrial furnaces to create more Israeli hardware at Russian expense, so it's not all that likely that the Russians will supply the Palestinians with much.

The Arab countries are becoming more and more disenchanted with the monster they helped create (despite their very vocal denials of doing so), and have NO interest in a strong Palestinian entity that could threaten their own dictatorships. Even if they were really interested in "eradicating the Zionist entity", they would forbear from doing so because they NEED a boogieman to unify their own people and avoid being lynched for their mismanagement, corruption and oppression by those same people (think Muammar Ghaddafi and Saddam Hussein).

NATO might have the combined force, but with the US to veto any action against Israel, that option is a non - starter.

Silently, much of the Western world looks upon the 'colonization' (your term, not mine) of the West Bank as the end result of the San Remo Conference, the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations mandate for Palestine, and article 80 of the UN Charter, in which the UN accepted the burden of the trusteeships and mandates of the League of Nations, so why would they want to?

The simple logistics of any far Eastern country trying to wage a war at the end of a logistics train thousands of kilometers long against a navy that has guided missile capable submarines and missile boats would make even the Chinese leaders think twice before deciding it's not worth it... especially considering the advantages of Israel as a trading partner compared to the Palestinians.

Now, who do you suggest should be the first to try?