None of your statements or questions have anything to do with the UN Resolution. It's no different than if we had started settlements in Iraq or Afghanistan and then later tried to use those as justification for adding them to the U.S. or suddenly decided Kabal was a territory of the U.S

Here's the flaw in your analogy....you say "in Iraq or Afghanistan". The implication of "in" being a specific nation state or sovereign area that we would try to seize so as to become part of the U.S.

So question #1, what specific national/state has sovereign authority over the West Bank?

It's certainly not Jordan, which disavowed any claims to the West Bank in 1988. 8 major Arab states, in 1967, expressed no interest in offers from Israel to trade the land for peace (Khartoum Resolution). (Anwar Sadat later broke with the Arab consensus and made peace in exchange for getting the Sinai, which Egypt DID have a sovereign claim on). And it sure isn't the Ottoman Empire who has a sovereign claim on the West bank. So who can claim the West Bank?

Question #2...on what specific points of law does the case against Israel stand?

Bottom line - the "illegal" statement is HIGHLY specious, and sounds more like the other cliches that have permeated our culture, like nuclear power is too dangerous to consider or that capitalism caused the Great Depression.

I learned tonight that there is a running "joke" in the legal community that international laws protecting the population of the State of Israel from being removed against their will into disputed territories, are now being interpreted as preventing any Jewish individual from voluntarily taking up residence in that area. <s>