Donald Trump Says U.S. Will Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

[toomuchtime_]

East Jerusalem is to be the capital of a free Palestine and international law requires the Israelis to withdraw.

There is no international law requiring Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem or any other specific territory. In fact, there are a fair number of treaties which explicitly negate any assumptions of eventual boundaries and require the conflict to end through negotiation and mutual agreement and treaty between the parties.

IF Palestine ends up with some parts of Jerusalem under Palestinian sovereignty -- THEN the Palestinians can make their capital anywhere they want within their territory.

You are misinformed;
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." (United Nations Security Council Resolution 242)

It is not a chapter VII resolution, so it is not international law, just a recommendation. The land for peace principle embodied in 242 was an offer Israel had made at the conclusion of he 1967 war, and it was presented to the UNSC by the US on Israel's behalf. It was addressed not to the Palestinians but to the nations that had been in the war, and it was firmly rejected by the Arab nations. Since the land issues have been settled between Israel, Jordan and Egypt, it is no longer relevant.

 

[RoccoR]

forkup, et al,

I acknowledge and respect your opinion.

--- And he sure as hell is no typical politician.

This breeds uncertainty and not a bit of fear. My point is, I might be wrong and Trump might be putting out an act to get elected, I don't know for sure, but Roccor neither do you. So I rather go by the devil I know, at least I can be pretty sure, Clinton will think before she acts.
On your second point, I'll ask the same question I've asked of the original poster. By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?

(COMMENT)

The concept of: "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know." --- is akin to the concept of: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

The only way to break the cycle inbred party politics is to elect someone outside the mainstream. We've had men and women in harms way since 2003 (more than a decade, more than 4500 days continuously). I was in the North Wing of the Palace when the Administration repackaged the policy and published the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."

Do you think we are there yet? Less than a day ago, the news media published this:

In Iraq, battle for Mosul draws many forces with many motives · 15h
The tacit alliance — Iraqi troops alongside Shiite militiamen, Sunni Arab tribesmen, Kurdish fighters and U.S special forces— underscores the importance of this battle. Retaking Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, would effectively break the …
​

And of course, we don't know how the Coalition of Forces will get along. The Iraqi Army remnants are greatly dependent on the Iranian funded Shia Militia known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). Mosul is Sunni. The PMP has a reputation for capturing and torturing Sunnis after the liberation of a predominately Sunni region. And of course, the current administration has put the US Special Forces right there. And again, like we so often do, will take a shellacking for allowing it to happen. Even if the PMP fight, we will probably catch hell for fight along side the Iranian Proxy.

I am sure your "devil you know" argument has merit. And I believe that many people hold to that opinion. But I would rather see a dumb ass get the Presidency rather than one of the mainstream politicians that have we've seen seriously screw-up in the past.

BTW: During the Battle for Mosul (2004) one of the prominent US Military Commanders in the Area was David Petraeus.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Eloy]

East Jerusalem is to be the capital of a free Palestine and international law requires the Israelis to withdraw.

There is no international law requiring Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem or any other specific territory. In fact, there are a fair number of treaties which explicitly negate any assumptions of eventual boundaries and require the conflict to end through negotiation and mutual agreement and treaty between the parties.

IF Palestine ends up with some parts of Jerusalem under Palestinian sovereignty -- THEN the Palestinians can make their capital anywhere they want within their territory.

You are misinformed;
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." (United Nations Security Council Resolution 242)

It is not a chapter VII resolution, so it is not international law, just a recommendation. The land for peace principle embodied in 242 was an offer Israel had made at the conclusion of he 1967 war, and it was presented to the UNSC by the US on Israel's behalf. It was addressed not to the Palestinians but to the nations that had been in the war, and it was firmly rejected by the Arab nations. Since the land issues have been settled between Israel, Jordan and Egypt, it is no longer relevant.

A UN Security Council Resolution is international law. That Israel has failed to honor Resolution 242 in half a century is a testimony of the contempt with which the rogue Jewish state holds international law.

 

[toomuchtime_]

East Jerusalem is to be the capital of a free Palestine and international law requires the Israelis to withdraw.

There is no international law requiring Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem or any other specific territory. In fact, there are a fair number of treaties which explicitly negate any assumptions of eventual boundaries and require the conflict to end through negotiation and mutual agreement and treaty between the parties.

IF Palestine ends up with some parts of Jerusalem under Palestinian sovereignty -- THEN the Palestinians can make their capital anywhere they want within their territory.

You are misinformed;
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." (United Nations Security Council Resolution 242)

It is not a chapter VII resolution, so it is not international law, just a recommendation. The land for peace principle embodied in 242 was an offer Israel had made at the conclusion of he 1967 war, and it was presented to the UNSC by the US on Israel's behalf. It was addressed not to the Palestinians but to the nations that had been in the war, and it was firmly rejected by the Arab nations. Since the land issues have been settled between Israel, Jordan and Egypt, it is no longer relevant.

A UN Security Council Resolution is international law. That Israel has failed to honor Resolution 242 in half a century is a testimony of the contempt with which the rogue Jewish state holds international law.

No, only Chapter VII resolutions are law, and Israel accepted it at the time,

'On 1 May 1968, the Israeli ambassador to the UN expressed Israel's position to the Security Council: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution."'

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but the Arab nations rejected it, so you would more correctly say that this showed the contempt the Arab nations have for international law.

 

[Eloy]

East Jerusalem is to be the capital of a free Palestine and international law requires the Israelis to withdraw.

There is no international law requiring Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem or any other specific territory. In fact, there are a fair number of treaties which explicitly negate any assumptions of eventual boundaries and require the conflict to end through negotiation and mutual agreement and treaty between the parties.

IF Palestine ends up with some parts of Jerusalem under Palestinian sovereignty -- THEN the Palestinians can make their capital anywhere they want within their territory.

You are misinformed;
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." (United Nations Security Council Resolution 242)

It is not a chapter VII resolution, so it is not international law, just a recommendation. The land for peace principle embodied in 242 was an offer Israel had made at the conclusion of he 1967 war, and it was presented to the UNSC by the US on Israel's behalf. It was addressed not to the Palestinians but to the nations that had been in the war, and it was firmly rejected by the Arab nations. Since the land issues have been settled between Israel, Jordan and Egypt, it is no longer relevant.

A UN Security Council Resolution is international law. That Israel has failed to honor Resolution 242 in half a century is a testimony of the contempt with which the rogue Jewish state holds international law.

No, only Chapter VII resolutions are law, and Israel accepted it at the time,

'On 1 May 1968, the Israeli ambassador to the UN expressed Israel's position to the Security Council: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution."'

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but the Arab nations rejected it, so you would more correctly say that this showed the contempt the Arab nations have for international law.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 has not been abrogated and the finding that Israel must withdraw from the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem still stands. The whole world knows this (except Donald Trump).

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is no international law requiring Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem or any other specific territory. In fact, there are a fair number of treaties which explicitly negate any assumptions of eventual boundaries and require the conflict to end through negotiation and mutual agreement and treaty between the parties.

IF Palestine ends up with some parts of Jerusalem under Palestinian sovereignty -- THEN the Palestinians can make their capital anywhere they want within their territory.

You are misinformed;
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." (United Nations Security Council Resolution 242)

It is not a chapter VII resolution, so it is not international law, just a recommendation. The land for peace principle embodied in 242 was an offer Israel had made at the conclusion of he 1967 war, and it was presented to the UNSC by the US on Israel's behalf. It was addressed not to the Palestinians but to the nations that had been in the war, and it was firmly rejected by the Arab nations. Since the land issues have been settled between Israel, Jordan and Egypt, it is no longer relevant.

A UN Security Council Resolution is international law. That Israel has failed to honor Resolution 242 in half a century is a testimony of the contempt with which the rogue Jewish state holds international law.

No, only Chapter VII resolutions are law, and Israel accepted it at the time,

'On 1 May 1968, the Israeli ambassador to the UN expressed Israel's position to the Security Council: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution."'

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but the Arab nations rejected it, so you would more correctly say that this showed the contempt the Arab nations have for international law.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 has not been abrogated and the finding that Israel must withdraw from the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem still stands. The whole world knows this (except Donald Trump).

242 addressed the parties to the war, not the Palestinians, and the parties to the war, Israel, Jordan and Egypt have already settled their land issues, so 242 is irrelevant. It made no mention of Palestinians territories, only land that was captured by Israel from Egypt and Jordan. It is simply ot relevant to the present conflict between Israel and the Arabs.

 

[Eloy]

You are misinformed;
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." (United Nations Security Council Resolution 242)

It is not a chapter VII resolution, so it is not international law, just a recommendation. The land for peace principle embodied in 242 was an offer Israel had made at the conclusion of he 1967 war, and it was presented to the UNSC by the US on Israel's behalf. It was addressed not to the Palestinians but to the nations that had been in the war, and it was firmly rejected by the Arab nations. Since the land issues have been settled between Israel, Jordan and Egypt, it is no longer relevant.

A UN Security Council Resolution is international law. That Israel has failed to honor Resolution 242 in half a century is a testimony of the contempt with which the rogue Jewish state holds international law.

No, only Chapter VII resolutions are law, and Israel accepted it at the time,

'On 1 May 1968, the Israeli ambassador to the UN expressed Israel's position to the Security Council: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution."'

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but the Arab nations rejected it, so you would more correctly say that this showed the contempt the Arab nations have for international law.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 has not been abrogated and the finding that Israel must withdraw from the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem still stands. The whole world knows this (except Donald Trump).

242 addressed the parties to the war, not the Palestinians, and the parties to the war, Israel, Jordan and Egypt have already settled their land issues, so 242 is irrelevant. It made no mention of Palestinians territories, only land that was captured by Israel from Egypt and Jordan. It is simply ot relevant to the present conflict between Israel and the Arabs.

The whole world is still waiting for the Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

 

[RoccoR]

forkup, et al,

This is going to sound callous.

By what mechanism do you see this conflict getting resolved by giving full support to Israel without giving the Palestinians anything?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians, that form the backbone of the Jihadist Insurgency - terrorist campaign, civil unrest, and the instigators of critical incidents, may not see it now - but at some point into the future they will want to upgrade from a failed parasitic state totally dependent on foreign donation, to something with the potential of achieving a standard of living and the human development level comparable to that of Israel. And when that happens, Israel must have the infrastructure ready to relocate Israeli Settlers (on a dime) and the utility infrastructure to immediately open commercial transportation avenues; as well as turn the spigots on huge volumes of desalinized water into the South East Israel and all of the West Bank.

There must be the where with all to crank-up the small, intermediate and light industry in the West Bank, such that the unemployment level drop from from 38% (62% for females), to virtually full employment (as near as practicable).

The US needs to help Israel to pre-position infrastructure to handle this, plus to develop some solutions to resolve the Beduin issues.

I know that many people would prefer to let the Arab Palestinians sink into oblivion; but at some point, once the generational transmission of jihadism subsides (probably two generations away). Israel will have to be the engine of success for the Arab Palestinians (none of the neighboring countries will be able to assume that role).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is not a chapter VII resolution, so it is not international law, just a recommendation. The land for peace principle embodied in 242 was an offer Israel had made at the conclusion of he 1967 war, and it was presented to the UNSC by the US on Israel's behalf. It was addressed not to the Palestinians but to the nations that had been in the war, and it was firmly rejected by the Arab nations. Since the land issues have been settled between Israel, Jordan and Egypt, it is no longer relevant.

A UN Security Council Resolution is international law. That Israel has failed to honor Resolution 242 in half a century is a testimony of the contempt with which the rogue Jewish state holds international law.

No, only Chapter VII resolutions are law, and Israel accepted it at the time,

'On 1 May 1968, the Israeli ambassador to the UN expressed Israel's position to the Security Council: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution."'

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but the Arab nations rejected it, so you would more correctly say that this showed the contempt the Arab nations have for international law.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 has not been abrogated and the finding that Israel must withdraw from the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem still stands. The whole world knows this (except Donald Trump).

242 addressed the parties to the war, not the Palestinians, and the parties to the war, Israel, Jordan and Egypt have already settled their land issues, so 242 is irrelevant. It made no mention of Palestinians territories, only land that was captured by Israel from Egypt and Jordan. It is simply ot relevant to the present conflict between Israel and the Arabs.

The whole world is still waiting for the Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

No, only crazy people or people who are too stupid to understand 242 is irrelevant to the current conflict are.

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

And they are going to be waiting a long time.

The whole world is still waiting for the Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

(COMMENT)

Israel will not make that kind of concession until they have some reasonable expectation that Hostile Arab Palestinians no longer pose a threat.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Eloy]

A UN Security Council Resolution is international law. That Israel has failed to honor Resolution 242 in half a century is a testimony of the contempt with which the rogue Jewish state holds international law.

No, only Chapter VII resolutions are law, and Israel accepted it at the time,

'On 1 May 1968, the Israeli ambassador to the UN expressed Israel's position to the Security Council: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution."'

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but the Arab nations rejected it, so you would more correctly say that this showed the contempt the Arab nations have for international law.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 has not been abrogated and the finding that Israel must withdraw from the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem still stands. The whole world knows this (except Donald Trump).

242 addressed the parties to the war, not the Palestinians, and the parties to the war, Israel, Jordan and Egypt have already settled their land issues, so 242 is irrelevant. It made no mention of Palestinians territories, only land that was captured by Israel from Egypt and Jordan. It is simply ot relevant to the present conflict between Israel and the Arabs.

The whole world is still waiting for the Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

No, only crazy people or people who are too stupid to understand 242 is irrelevant to the current conflict are.

The Israelis do not have a leg to stand on. They are scofflaws. The Palestinian Territories are considered Israeli-occupied land by the whole world.

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

Yeah, yeah. It does not matter what you call Tibet, the Crimea, or the West Bank. Until the parties negotiate a settlement, there will be no change.

The Israelis do not have a leg to stand on. They are scofflaws. The Palestinian Territories are considered Israeli-occupied land by the whole world.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians have no unified voice and no single position. The people in the Gaza Strip want to back the various violence drive organizations. They do not want peace.

The Arab Palestinians in the West Bank, just want the status quo to continue because they think their standard of living is sufficient.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, only Chapter VII resolutions are law, and Israel accepted it at the time,

'On 1 May 1968, the Israeli ambassador to the UN expressed Israel's position to the Security Council: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution."'

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but the Arab nations rejected it, so you would more correctly say that this showed the contempt the Arab nations have for international law.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 has not been abrogated and the finding that Israel must withdraw from the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem still stands. The whole world knows this (except Donald Trump).

242 addressed the parties to the war, not the Palestinians, and the parties to the war, Israel, Jordan and Egypt have already settled their land issues, so 242 is irrelevant. It made no mention of Palestinians territories, only land that was captured by Israel from Egypt and Jordan. It is simply ot relevant to the present conflict between Israel and the Arabs.

The whole world is still waiting for the Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

No, only crazy people or people who are too stupid to understand 242 is irrelevant to the current conflict are.

The Israelis do not have a leg to stand on. They are scofflaws. The Palestinian Territories are considered Israeli-occupied land by the whole world.

Not by the whole world, and since no one is going to do anything about it, what difference does it make what they think. Israel has excellent relations with most of the world and improving relations with the ME Arabs so if you have any interest in the welfare of the Palestinians you will join Trump in recognizing unchangeable facts on the ground so it may be possible to move on to other issues that can be negotiated. On the other hand, if you have no interest in the welfare of the Palestinians and are just wallowing in hatred of Israel or Jews, then you will continue posting this kind of nonsense.

 

[proudveteran06]

This will for sure start WWIII. The jews will be the end of this earth, they destroy all they come in contact with.

The Jews destroy but ISIS doesn't?? Another sick remark from the Racist Jew Hating Pro Palestinian

 

[Shusha]

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

... "from territories". Not "from all territories".

And certainly no specific requirement to withdraw from Jerusalem.

It also states: (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;


(I am quite familiar with all of the 242 arguments, as well as the commentary on them).

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinian Territories are considered Israeli-occupied land by the whole world.

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Employing it is a failure to have a coherent, consistent, valid argument.

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinian Territories are considered Israeli-occupied land by the whole world.

We've been over this a bazillion times, but again, please provide text of treaty or law which defines the boundaries of the "Palestinian Territories". Then we can see if Israel is violating those boundaries by permitting voluntary migration of individuals into those territories. (Wait, I'll save you the trouble -- There are no boundaries. And there are multiple treaties which expressly state that boundaries have not been set and can not be set except by negotiation, mutual agreement and treaty. Also, its not illegal for people to voluntarily migrate. And its not illegal for sovereign nations to fail to prevent the voluntary migration of people.)

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,

Yeah, yeah. It does not matter what you call Tibet, the Crimea, or the West Bank. Until the parties negotiate a settlement, there will be no change.

The Israelis do not have a leg to stand on. They are scofflaws. The Palestinian Territories are considered Israeli-occupied land by the whole world.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians have no unified voice and no single position. The people in the Gaza Strip want to back the various violence drive organizations. They do not want peace.

The Arab Palestinians in the West Bank, just want the status quo to continue because they think their standard of living is sufficient.

Most Respectfully,
R

You have a high regard for your understanding of what the Palestinians want to be able to state with such authority that those who are still alive in Gaza actually want to be massacred by the Israelis and those in the West Bank are happy to be under brutal occupation.

 

[Eloy]

UN Security Council Resolution 242 has not been abrogated and the finding that Israel must withdraw from the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem still stands. The whole world knows this (except Donald Trump).

242 addressed the parties to the war, not the Palestinians, and the parties to the war, Israel, Jordan and Egypt have already settled their land issues, so 242 is irrelevant. It made no mention of Palestinians territories, only land that was captured by Israel from Egypt and Jordan. It is simply ot relevant to the present conflict between Israel and the Arabs.

The whole world is still waiting for the Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

No, only crazy people or people who are too stupid to understand 242 is irrelevant to the current conflict are.

The Israelis do not have a leg to stand on. They are scofflaws. The Palestinian Territories are considered Israeli-occupied land by the whole world.

Not by the whole world, and since no one is going to do anything about it, what difference does it make what they think. Israel has excellent relations with most of the world and improving relations with the ME Arabs so if you have any interest in the welfare of the Palestinians you will join Trump in recognizing unchangeable facts on the ground so it may be possible to move on to other issues that can be negotiated. On the other hand, if you have no interest in the welfare of the Palestinians and are just wallowing in hatred of Israel or Jews, then you will continue posting this kind of nonsense.

Every year in the United Nations the whole world (with the exception of Israel and the USA with some Pacific atolls formally under American possession) vote in favor of Israel ending its occupation of Palestine.

 

[Eloy]

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

... "from territories". Not "from all territories". ...

Oh! please; quit the sophistry.