[Bleeding Red]

A few things to consider:

Remember, the Green Line (or '67 line) is not a boarder. It's a cease fire line.

UN Resolution 242 calls the WB "disputed territory". I read that as meaning negotiable, others might not.

(The quotes below are from the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs - ARTICLE LINK. Yes, call it pro-Israel, but the BBC is not exactly an unbiased friend to Israel either.)

The Oslo accords split the WB into 3 "Areas" - Area A, B, & C.
"Area A, where the Palestinians had full control, Area B where there was mixed Israeli and Palestinian security control but full Palestinian civil control, and Area C, where Israel had full military and civilian control. Israeli responsibilities in Area C included the power of zoning and planning. The territory which Israel declared as state land is within Area C.:

Land has 3 legal categories - Private, State (Public/Crown), or to be determined. Interestingly, having made the announcement now " Those who oppose the recent declaration have 45 days to appeal the Israeli decision. When Palestinians have brought proof of ownership of contested territory to Israeli courts, including Israel’s Supreme Court, the courts have at times issued decisions calling on the Israeli government to restore the property in question to its Palestinian claimant, even if that requires dismantling the private homes of Israeli citizens."

No doubt, the myriad of NGOs will beat themselves silly to represent any Palestinian claims to the courts.

Again, no one seems to mention that the Israeli Government tears down settlements too - they did it in 1979 (remember, Begin was no dove), and again in 2005, along with a number of "outposts" set up by extremists in the WB in the '90s & 2000's.

HERE IS THE CITATION for Blankall -
"the territory in question, at present, is part of a settlement bloc, south of Jerusalem, known as Gush Etzion, which was settled by Jews prior to 1948, but lost by Israel when it came under attack by Arab forces."

Also, a full Israeli withdrawal from the WB was never in the cards, not with UN resolution 242, the Oslo Accords, or in subsequent letters from presidents Bush & Obama. All agreements noted territorial compromise and land swaps.

"The determination that Israel will retain the settlement blocs is reflected in U.S. diplomatic communications like the 2004 letter by President Bush to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the statements made by President Obama in 2011 about demographic changes on the ground and changes in the 1967 lines. The least controversial of these settlement blocs in past negotiations is, in fact, Gush Etzion."

Clearly this is something that could have been put off, side-tabled, or even dismissed at this moment in time. The PR is awful , the timing is bad, & message is wrong.

You would think there would be someone in that government who would pipe up and say "this may be a bad idea".
(Then again, you would think that Redford would have had someone in her government tell her not to fly around with her daughter on the taxpayer dime, or that someone in Rob Ford's office would have said "you know, Rob, now might be a good time to stop smoking crack.")

The only point I can see to this is that Bibi is getting it hard from the right for "not winning" in Gaza. And of course, we all know how the extreme right would define winning in Gaza. (The same as Hamas defines winning in Israel.)

This is one the Israeli Government should walk away from.