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

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,

This is a matter of cause and effect. As Arab Palestinian hostility and violence intensified and spread from the West Bank and Gaza Strip into Israel, various and more elaborate security countermeasures were employed to answer the issues. ...

Don't you ever get tired of blaming the Palestinian victims rather then the Israeli perpetrators, it must be asked.

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE

I do not believe that was the intention at all; and neither do the authors of UN Security Council Resolution 242 hold that as a correct interpretation.

International law requires Israel to quit its brutal occupation of the Palestinian Territories and return to the 1967 border as per UN Security Council Resolution 242.

(COMMENT)

The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. (U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE)

SOURCE:
• TEXT AND MEANING OF U.N. RESOLUTION 242
• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters

Lord Caradon, who was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970, and was the chief drafter of Resolution 242, said:

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."
​

Eugene Rostow was a former dean of Yale Law School who served as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, and helped draft Resolution 242. He said:

“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The world recognizes the Jewish state of Israel with its border of 1967. It is this state with its 1967 border which is a member of the United Nations and not a state which includes the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Eloy, et al,U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE

I do not believe that was the intention at all; and neither do the authors of UN Security Council Resolution 242 hold that as a correct interpretation.

International law requires Israel to quit its brutal occupation of the Palestinian Territories and return to the 1967 border as per UN Security Council Resolution 242.

(COMMENT)

The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. (U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE)

SOURCE:
• TEXT AND MEANING OF U.N. RESOLUTION 242
• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters

Lord Caradon, who was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970, and was the chief drafter of Resolution 242, said:

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."
​

Eugene Rostow was a former dean of Yale Law School who served as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, and helped draft Resolution 242. He said:

“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The world recognizes the Jewish state of Israel with its border of 1967. It is this state with its 1967 border which is a member of the United Nations and not a state which includes the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights.

Even if that were true, why would you think it is noteworthy?

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE

I do not believe that was the intention at all; and neither do the authors of UN Security Council Resolution 242 hold that as a correct interpretation.

International law requires Israel to quit its brutal occupation of the Palestinian Territories and return to the 1967 border as per UN Security Council Resolution 242.

(COMMENT)

The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. (U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE)

SOURCE:
• TEXT AND MEANING OF U.N. RESOLUTION 242
• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters

Lord Caradon, who was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970, and was the chief drafter of Resolution 242, said:

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."
​

Eugene Rostow was a former dean of Yale Law School who served as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, and helped draft Resolution 242. He said:

“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The world recognizes the Jewish state of Israel with its border of 1967. It is this state with its 1967 border which is a member of the United Nations and not a state which includes the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights.

Even if that were true, why would you think it is noteworthy?

It is noteworthy because it demonstrates that the presence of the Israeli occupation forces in Palestine and the beleaguered Gaza is illegal and they should go home and live in peace with their nearest neighbors..

 

[toomuchtime_]

Eloy, et al,U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE

I do not believe that was the intention at all; and neither do the authors of UN Security Council Resolution 242 hold that as a correct interpretation.

International law requires Israel to quit its brutal occupation of the Palestinian Territories and return to the 1967 border as per UN Security Council Resolution 242.

(COMMENT)

The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. (U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE)

SOURCE:
• TEXT AND MEANING OF U.N. RESOLUTION 242
• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters

Lord Caradon, who was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970, and was the chief drafter of Resolution 242, said:

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."
​

Eugene Rostow was a former dean of Yale Law School who served as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, and helped draft Resolution 242. He said:

“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The world recognizes the Jewish state of Israel with its border of 1967. It is this state with its 1967 border which is a member of the United Nations and not a state which includes the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights.

Even if that were true, why would you think it is noteworthy?

It is noteworthy because it demonstrates that the presence of the Israeli occupation forces in Palestine and the beleaguered Gaza is illegal and they should go home and live in peace with their nearest neighbors..

Since even if it were true it wouldn't influence events on the ground, it clearly is not noteworthy to anyone who is seeking a resolution to the conflict.

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE

I do not believe that was the intention at all; and neither do the authors of UN Security Council Resolution 242 hold that as a correct interpretation.

International law requires Israel to quit its brutal occupation of the Palestinian Territories and return to the 1967 border as per UN Security Council Resolution 242.

(COMMENT)

The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. (U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE)

SOURCE:
• TEXT AND MEANING OF U.N. RESOLUTION 242
• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters

Lord Caradon, who was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970, and was the chief drafter of Resolution 242, said:

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."
​

Eugene Rostow was a former dean of Yale Law School who served as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, and helped draft Resolution 242. He said:

“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The world recognizes the Jewish state of Israel with its border of 1967. It is this state with its 1967 border which is a member of the United Nations and not a state which includes the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights.

Even if that were true, why would you think it is noteworthy?

It is noteworthy because it demonstrates that the presence of the Israeli occupation forces in Palestine and the beleaguered Gaza is illegal and they should go home and live in peace with their nearest neighbors..

Since even if it were true it wouldn't influence events on the ground, it clearly is not noteworthy to anyone who is seeking a resolution to the conflict.

It is important to those who seek a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Eloy, et al,U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE

I do not believe that was the intention at all; and neither do the authors of UN Security Council Resolution 242 hold that as a correct interpretation.

(COMMENT)

The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. (U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE)

SOURCE:
• TEXT AND MEANING OF U.N. RESOLUTION 242
• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters

Lord Caradon, who was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970, and was the chief drafter of Resolution 242, said:

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."
​

Eugene Rostow was a former dean of Yale Law School who served as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, and helped draft Resolution 242. He said:

“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.”
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The world recognizes the Jewish state of Israel with its border of 1967. It is this state with its 1967 border which is a member of the United Nations and not a state which includes the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights.

Even if that were true, why would you think it is noteworthy?

It is noteworthy because it demonstrates that the presence of the Israeli occupation forces in Palestine and the beleaguered Gaza is illegal and they should go home and live in peace with their nearest neighbors..

Since even if it were true it wouldn't influence events on the ground, it clearly is not noteworthy to anyone who is seeking a resolution to the conflict.

It is important to those who seek a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem.

No, it is important only to those who want to continue the conflict. A peaceful resolution can only come when the Palestinians stop demanding things they know they will never get and begin to organize themselves into a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel.

 

[Hollie]

Eloy, et al,

This is a matter of cause and effect. As Arab Palestinian hostility and violence intensified and spread from the West Bank and Gaza Strip into Israel, various and more elaborate security countermeasures were employed to answer the issues. ...

Don't you ever get tired of blaming the Palestinian victims rather then the Israeli perpetrators, it must be asked.

The Pal'istanians are self-created victims. If you spend a bit of time and read the Hamas Charter, you will quickly discover that appeals to gee-had and statements about destroying Israel are core components of Arab-Moslem terrorist ideology.

It's comically tragic that you and others screech the "islamist victim" mantra when Arabs-Moslems wage acts of war in furtherance of their politico-religious ideology.

After 68 years, israel is still putting the had in gee-had.

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,

This is a matter of cause and effect. As Arab Palestinian hostility and violence intensified and spread from the West Bank and Gaza Strip into Israel, various and more elaborate security countermeasures were employed to answer the issues. ...

Don't you ever get tired of blaming the Palestinian victims rather then the Israeli perpetrators, it must be asked.

The Pal'istanians are self-created victims. If you spend a bit of time and read the Hamas Charter, you will quickly discover that appeals to gee-had and statements about destroying Israel are core components of Arab-Moslem terrorist ideology.

It's comically tragic that you and others screech the "islamist victim" mantra when Arabs-Moslems wage acts of war in furtherance of their politico-religious ideology.

After 68 years, israel is still putting the had in gee-had.

You know a lot.

 

[Hollie]

Eloy, et al,

This is a matter of cause and effect. As Arab Palestinian hostility and violence intensified and spread from the West Bank and Gaza Strip into Israel, various and more elaborate security countermeasures were employed to answer the issues. ...

Don't you ever get tired of blaming the Palestinian victims rather then the Israeli perpetrators, it must be asked.

The Pal'istanians are self-created victims. If you spend a bit of time and read the Hamas Charter, you will quickly discover that appeals to gee-had and statements about destroying Israel are core components of Arab-Moslem terrorist ideology.

It's comically tragic that you and others screech the "islamist victim" mantra when Arabs-Moslems wage acts of war in furtherance of their politico-religious ideology.

After 68 years, israel is still putting the had in gee-had.

You know a lot.

I know enough to understand that the Pal'istanians become a laughable joke when they wage gee-had in furtherance of their politico-religious ideology - are soundly defeated by a stronger, better equipped and trained defensive force, then whine like petulant children when their claims to victimhood are dismissed as fraudulent.

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

I think you have this ass backwards.

This is a matter of cause and effect. As Arab Palestinian hostility and violence intensified and spread from the West Bank and Gaza Strip into Israel, various and more elaborate security countermeasures were employed to answer the issues. ...

Don't you ever get tired of blaming the Palestinian victims rather then the Israeli perpetrators, it must be asked.

(COMMENT)

• The perpetrators are those that commits illegal, criminal, or evil acts.
• The victims are those that suffers from a destructive or injurious action as a result of the illegal, criminal, or evil acts.

In the 1948 War of Independence the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) contributed irregular forces to the act of aggression committed against Israel.

In 1967, the Israeli Government responded against an immediate threat of an imminent attack by massive Arab League forces Staging along the border after demanding the withdrawal of the UN Peace Keeping Forces. In this case, the Arab League had taken provocative acts that amounted to a threat to use force against the territorial integrity of Israel. With the Arab League having a past history of aggressive action against Israel.

In 1973, Israel, in responded to a sneak attack intentionally launch on the the Jewish Holiday of Yom Kipper by Arab League Forces.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

It is noteworthy because it demonstrates that the presence of the Israeli occupation forces in Palestine and the beleaguered Gaza is illegal and they should go home and live in peace with their nearest neighbors..

Israel "occupation forces" abandoned Gaza in 2005. Not only that -- they ethnically cleansed Gaza of every Jewish community and every Jew. They went home to live in peace with their Gazan neighbors.

And yet there is no peace. Because the goal of the Gazans is NOT to live in peace with their neighbors.

 

[fanger]

Israel is still occupying Gaza's borders

 

[Shusha]

Israel is still occupying Gaza's borders

You mean like the way Canada occupies America's borders?

Or do you mean like defending itself against the belligerent actions of hostile forces intending to harm the citizens of Israel?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Israel is still occupying Gaza's borders

Only the border with Israel and Israeli territorial waters. Israel does not occupy Gaza's border with Egypt.

 

[RoccoR]

toomuchtime, et al

I'm not exactly sure as to what you are saying here.

Israel is still occupying Gaza's borders

Only the border with Israel and Israeli territorial waters. Israel does not occupy Gaza's border with Egypt.

(REFERENCE)

Please refer to: 1979 United Nations — Treaty Series • Nations Unies — Recueil des Traités --- Page: 117

Article II. The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

(COMMENT)

Yea, the legal interpretation of the Article 42 Criteria of the Hague Regulation is bandied about quite a bit. But if it goes to the International Criminal Court (ICC), you will, in all probability, see the ruling in favor of Israel.

Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted. [Part 3 --- General Principles of Law: Article 22(2) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court]

Remember when evaluating Article 43 HR obligations the conduct of containment through security barriers and naval blockades that the Government of Israel is, as an example --- but not limited to:

1. Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;
(b) Prevent such conduct;
(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;
​

2. Calls upon all States to cooperate, inter alia, to strengthen the security of their international borders, including by combating fraudulent travel documents and, to the extent attainable, by enhancing terrorist screening and passenger security procedures with a view to preventing those guilty of the conduct in paragraph 1 (a) from entering their territory;
​

The Palestinians have a past history of conducting criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic,
religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them. The Hostile Arab Palestinians provoke and invite additional countermeasure when they praise and reward Palestinians for these criminal acts.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toomuchtime_]

toomuchtime, et al

I'm not exactly sure as to what you are saying here.

Israel is still occupying Gaza's borders

Only the border with Israel and Israeli territorial waters. Israel does not occupy Gaza's border with Egypt.

(REFERENCE)

Please refer to: 1979 United Nations — Treaty Series • Nations Unies — Recueil des Traités --- Page: 117

Article II. The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

(COMMENT)

Yea, the legal interpretation of the Article 42 Criteria of the Hague Regulation is bandied about quite a bit. But if it goes to the International Criminal Court (ICC), you will, in all probability, see the ruling in favor of Israel.

Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted. [Part 3 --- General Principles of Law: Article 22(2) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court]

Remember when evaluating Article 43 HR obligations the conduct of containment through security barriers and naval blockades that the Government of Israel is, as an example --- but not limited to:

1. Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;
(b) Prevent such conduct;
(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;
​

2. Calls upon all States to cooperate, inter alia, to strengthen the security of their international borders, including by combating fraudulent travel documents and, to the extent attainable, by enhancing terrorist screening and passenger security procedures with a view to preventing those guilty of the conduct in paragraph 1 (a) from entering their territory;​

The Palestinians have a past history of conducting criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic,
religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them. The Hostile Arab Palestinians provoke and invite additional countermeasure when they praise and reward Palestinians for these criminal acts.

Most Respectfully,
R

Occupied is the wrong word. I should have said Israel controls only its border with Gaza and Israel's territorial waters, while Egypt controls a border with Gaza.

 

[Kondor3]

The US Embassy?

Next year, in Jerusalem.

 

[RoccoR]

toomuchtime, et al,

“Occupied” / “Occupation” is a concept. Imbedded in this concept is the essential component is the idea of “effective control.” You can use any word or phrase you want. But “control” is as good as any, as long as we both understand the intended usage. In this case, I interpret your usage of “control” as a concept, the same as “Occupied” / “Occupation;” except that it is absent the ridged criteria of the Hague Regulation.

Occupied is the wrong word. I should have said Israel controls only its border with Gaza and Israel's territorial waters, while Egypt controls a border with Gaza.

(COMMENT)

The reality is that the entire issue of the specific Permanent International Boundaries (PIB) in and around Israel is a philosophical, moral, legal, and ethical dilemma.

If you read Article II of the Egyptian Treaty, you will see that the PIB between Egypt and Israel incapsulates the entirety of the Gaza Strip falls within the Israeli side of the PIB.

If you examine the Treaty (Article 3) with Jordan, you will find that the PIB with Jordan and Israel, encapsulates the entire West Bank.

Most Respectfully,

R

 

[RoccoR]

Kondor3, et al,

This is easier said than done.

The US Embassy?
Next year, in Jerusalem.

(COMMENT)

There are just a huge number of variables that have to be taken into consideration. That is not going to happen in a year, or even three years.

Most Respectfully,
R