Do you really expect you can defend Israel with this kind of lawyering and be taken seriously? "Well akshually a ceasefire line...". For god's sake. Let's not even get into who has violated the supposed ceasefire first, or on the legality of settling your population outside of its line, violated or not (spoiler: illegal in any case). Settlements have been declared illegal many times during the decades, most recently this year by the ICJ, and Israel has known this perfectly well since the start.
Legality ends up following the de-facto reality.
What's the future of the legality of Golan annexion ? With the new Syria, its soon going to become legal.
Jewish people coming back to live on its ancient homeland has no legal basis; It's their collective will which allowed its coming into existence (continuous immigration from other countries since the 1840s).
The legality of its existence wouldn't help it survive even one second.
> Legality ends up following the de-facto reality.
Then what was the purpose of your previous objection about ceasefire lines? None. You just threw it there hoping to derail the argument with a pointless distraction, and now that it didn't work you are saying legality doesn't matter. This fundamental, shameless dishonesty is common to most defenders of Israel and frankly unsufferable.
I was asking why the post-1948 ceasefire lines are more legal than the post-1967 lines ?
If you decide to go after the 1947 UN partition, keep the 1947 lines as the only legal border.
If the 1948 war can redefine what's legal, then the 1967 war can do it as well.
I personally think the borders should be decided between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
The only agreement to date between them has been the 1991 Oslo accords, with A, B and C zones.
Further talks about definitive borders stopped with the Second Intifada in 2000.
