1/ Think about how wild this is:

The "West Bank" as we know it today is a product of Jordan's invasion of the nascent state of Israel.

As Professor @EVKontorovich has argued, Israel has legitimate claims to (parts of) that territory per uti possidetis juris.

2/ Much of the international community now urges Israel to withdraw from *all* of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to make way for a Palestinian state (UNGA Res. 67/19 is a good example).

3/ The implication is that Jordan's act of aggression determines what territory Israel is obligated to cede.

Imagine if the US invaded Canada, took a chunk out of Quebec, and then the UNGA demanded Canada cede that chunk to a fully independent country for the Quebecois.

4/ This is not to argue that Palestinians shouldn't have a state. But, the borders of said state would (presumably) have to be finalized by negotiations between the two sides, not past Jordanian aggression.

5/ So, the UN apparently believes that military aggression against sovereign nations determines the borders of future states.

But only when the aggression is against Israel.

It's pretty bizarre when you think about it.