Excellent piece, makes a great package with the comments.
Just one technical point regarding the line: [Israel’s] admission to the United Nations in 1948 was based on its claim to only the 1948 armistice line, which does not include Jerusalem or any other part of the West Bank.”
Would that this were true. The UNGA resolution recommending Israel’s admission to the UN cited commentary that included recognition that no final boundaries had been set. In those debates, in 1949, the representative of Lebanon, C Malik, objected that: “To admit Israel before it had given up territories which had not been allotted to it by the Assembly’s decision was equivalent to giving it a blank cheque to draw its frontiers wherever it wished. In effect, it meant condoning, by a solemn act of the United Nations, the right of conquest. Moreover, such a decision would be prejudicial to the negotiations on the demarcation of boundaries now in progress under the supervision of the Conciliation Commission.” The Zionist representative had no real answer to this, arguing only that recognizing Israel would facilitate negotiations about such things. See A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949.
At the time, Israel was indeed holding land within the Armistice Line, but this line wasn’t mentioned in either the GA or SC resolutions.
Also, the comparison to Indian reservations is apt and haunting, but it’s also important to remember that Ariel Sharon made repeated visits to South Africa during his tenure as Housing Minister and, according to South African officials there, consistently asked about the Bantustans. The 1995 Oslo Accord later established terms for the Palestinian Authority that replicated the Bantustan constitutions very closely, right down to the name — in South Africa, “Bantu Self-Government Authorities.”