It is inaccurate to say that international law strictly forbids recognizing forcible territorial changes. On one hand, international law opposes aggression, and is loath to reward it. On the other hand, diplomacy deals in reality, not just ideals. While recognition of such territorial changes might not come speedily, it is unrealistic to expect that the sovereignty of the country actually governing a territory could be denied indefinitely.
Indeed, the same year Morocco took the Western Sahara, the entire country of South Vietnam was overrun by North Vietnam; the U.S. does not continue to recognize South Vietnam as a separate entity or contest Hanoi’s sovereignty there. Similarly, the U.S. and the rest of the world recognized other forcible territorial changes, such as the 1962 seizure of Portuguese Goa and other territories by India. In these cases, the gravitational pull of reality was too great to resist.
In the final peace agreement with Germany,
Germany was forced to accept the loss of parts of its country.
There is no other people which has a historic connection with this land
and has never forgotten it, nor abandoned the hope of an eventual return.
It’s in the Bible, the Talmud, and medieval Jewish halachic and poetic literature.
It’s in Jewish prayers, holidays and ceremonies.
The Balfour declaration, and related documents of the time
make no mention of national type rights for the indigenous people.
One who claims they were a people at the time should explain how that was missed.
One who claims they have since become a people,
should present claims to national rights, from the date it happened,
or explain why he justifies retroactive claims.
If we assign rights to groups and two groups claim the same rights,
it may be reasonable to compare the depth of that “group feeling” in each group,
in history, literature, language, religion etc…
Comparing Jews to Palestinians, there’s no doubt that Jewish claims
to people-hood are more serious than those of the Palestinians.