Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Solicitor General At The SC: Israel Has No Claim To Jerusalem

2014-11-06

[WashFreeBeacon] Lawyers for the B.O. regime compared Israel's control of Jerusalem to Russian claims over the Ukrainian territory of Crimea during oral arguments this week before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the rights of U.S. citizens to list Jerusalem as part of Israel on their passports.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who is rumored to be in the running to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Inaction Jackson Holder
... aka Mister Fast and Furious...
, drew the comparison on Monday while he attempted to convince the Supreme Court that Jerusalem is not officially part of Israel.

Posted by:trailing wife

#9 He's just being consistent, look at how quickly he closed Guantanamo bay.

Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2014-11-06 18:01

#8 Jerusalem, God's Country.

Posted by: Earl Darling of the Nebraskans5575 2014-11-06 11:31

#7 Donald Verrilli an enemy of G*d.

Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2014-11-06 11:30

#6 Just an extension to the justification of the executive order which will eliminate that nasty southern border of the country formerly known as the United States.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-11-06 09:33

#5 Isn't possession 9/10ths of the law?

Besides if Israel, who took Jerusalem in a war, doesn't have claim, then that means the Paleos don't have claim as it was handed over by the British who took it in a war. Also then the Ottomans had no claim to it, as they took it in a war. Or the Crusaders. Or the Arabs. Or the Romans.

So by that logic whoever founded the city first has claim to it. I'll wait for them to step up and file to take ownership.

Posted by: DarthVader 2014-11-06 08:30

#4 So, the opinion of a appointee lawyer in Washington is definitive in a foreign policy question about someone else's territory, with the US not being a party to the matter. Whereas it's not in the case of property seized from US citizens by a foreign government (i.e. Cuba, Venezuela, etc.)
Lawfare is wonderful; it's when they want it both ways at the same time that it's confusing.

Posted by: ed in texas 2014-11-06 08:14

#3 The New City was part of the country from the beginning, Israel's capitol. The Old City was supposed to be international, but Jordan annexed it in 1948. Then Israel annexed it after the Six Day War in 1967, while they most decidedly did not annex the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. I don't recall whether they annexed the conquered swathe of the Sinai, but they willingly enough traded that for peace with Egypt later.

Posted by: trailing wife 2014-11-06 07:01

#2 Last time I looked at a map Jerusalem was in Israel. That seems to be a pretty good claim to it.

Posted by: chris 2014-11-06 04:54

#1 Hey, maybe they could compromise and put "Jerusalem, somewhere in the vicinity of Israel" as the kid's place of birth. Or even "Jerusalem, nudge, nudge, wink wink".

As for "This case manages to combine two of the things that this administration dislikes the most: Congress and Israel", I'd say Mr. White is gunning for Snark of the Day.

Posted by: SteveS 2014-11-06 01:39

00:00