By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 23 July 2008
Edit Thread
superchunk said:

I still think the purpose of the law is embodied in that example. I think that any unbiased judge or group of peers would soundly agree that Israel is required by law to move back to the 1967 borders pre-6 day war.

I think this is self-evident in the fact that no Nation includes those territories as part of Israel, including E. Jerusalem. Even the US official policy is that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital and that E. Jerusalem is part of the Occupied Territories.

This is illegal as well as not allowing the right of return to all Arabs and their direct descendants to their homes in Israel. Granted this should be given up by Arabs in the prospect of gaining full 1967 boundaries and monetary compensation for other lost homes. But, that is just my opinion.

Actually official US policy is that Jerusalem is Israel's capital... as is the view of a lot of countries.

Every 6 months the US president has to sign an order delaying the movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem. Basically just to not stir up the area.

See the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act

Obama has promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem as had been planned way back in 1995.