Photo Credit: Wikimedia
U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.

And as for the term “West Bank,” besides not existing as a country/state, the term “West Bank” was first used to describe what the United States considered an illegal occupation and annexation by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of the area in April 1950.

If the State Department refuses to permit “Israel” to be the state in which “Jerusalem” is located,


why do they recognize the opposite when it comes to the “West Bank”?

Is that logical?  Or is that simple bias?

In any case, the US Supreme Court should not extend assistance in any legal way to this situation.  The Justices should indeed intervene and whether or not it is a matter of constitutionality, there is a simple matter of justice: you cannot treat Israel any less than something, which is non-existent and has much less proof of sovereignty, called the “West Bank.”

Visit My Right Word .   /  Yisrael Medad



Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...