Israel's status in International law is unique, and therefore potentially confusing. Preliminary dejure (full) rights are easily viewed as defacto (current practice, but not actual law). By selecting to attempt to give away land, Israel is superimposing by her chosen policy a defacto status to the territories that are really fully Israel's. Therefore the moment Israel's policy becomes to retain their land, in that moment it will gain full dejure status, as it is not predicated on International feelings, but on the legal process that began 90 plus years ago and applied since then.
Now in this context allow me to clarify a statement that I previously wrote about on this blog:
"...under International Law all disputed territories in Israel are Israel's by way of a defacto annexation. Implicitly, then, it is only because Israel has been trying to give parts of it away that this whole "dispute" even exists. Only because a significant percentage of Israelis wish to continue the fantasy of a Palestinian state being a boon for peace does the entire concept continue as foreign policy."
But that defacto status is only due to current policy, not intrinsic to the legal status of all territories West of the River Jordan.
Let me try to explain this with a parable. A person hurts his arm with painful wound that will fully heal in time and unwisely selects to undergo a voluntary amputation on that otherwise healthy limb. Until that surgery happens, the chosen limb is at risk, and considered "ill" (even though it is only the person's way of thinking that is ill). The diagnosing doctor marks the limb for amputation (he's a friend of the patient and just wants to be a "good friend" and listen to the patient), going against his own better judgement (assuming he has any). The surgeon (International Law in this parable) does not attempt to test the limb to see if it's healed (which would be a good medical practice for real doctors to follow). Unless the patient changes his mind before the surgery begins, his limb remains marked for amputation. It has a pending defacto status of a severed limb. The surgery in this example, is signing a final status agreement, which has never taken place.
By placing a PLO flag on Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the State of Israel has marked those lands for amputation. But it is extremely important for the patient to change his mind, for Israel to not go through with it. It is extremely important for the nations of the world to check the facts of the situation to see if the limb really must go and if the limb, once severed, would only serve to make a Frankenstein monster rather than a healthy clone.
May Israel soon awaken from the extremely bad idea of giving away the wonderful land that the Creator gave her. May she acknowledge her inherent dejure rights, her full and complete legal rights to all of the land West of the River Jordan. May it be very soon, by the grace of G-d.