That depends upon who interprets and who makes the decision. Impartial, legal experts say it is part of the sovereign territory of Israel(a sovereign nation state). We went through all this a little while ago remember? You made a fool of yourself by quoting a radical anti-Semite and 911 conspiracy theorist: Richard Falk. You then argued that Falk is a respected authority and you tried to dismiss Sir Geoffrey Palmer and discredit him. It's this sort of stuff that reveals your fundamental ideological bias as no serious observer would take such a radical position on the matter.
The partition plan that was rejected by the Arabs nearly 70 years ago? That plan? The one that was prior to the War of Independence and prior to the Six Day War and most importantly that was never accepted? What on earth does that have to do with anything?
No. A number of people who are radical anti-Israel activists take such a position but it's a position that has absolutely no legal basis as you must surely be aware.
They're "going well" are they? (Sigh)
Nonsense. The IAEA has stated that they can't tell how advanced the program is exactly due to the perfidy of the Iranian regime in hiding, stalling, delaying, misleading, lying etc.
We're "pushing" Iran towards developing a nuclear military capacity now are we? Yes, I know. We're provoking them aren't we? We can't sanction Iran; we can't strike their nuclear program; we just negotiate with them and they'll cease their activities. Sure, sure.
Maybe I haven't dunked my head in the right think tanks. You need to think for yourself instead of just choosing some ideology to slavishly follow. When I quote someone I often add "I disagree with (such and such) but..." - ie, I'm giving my own opinion and citing an authority to back up my opinion. You just quote stuff and that's your position; whatever so and so says. That's what you think; same as so and so. Exactly the same.
Yeah, I thought that as soon as I wrote it. "Seems" is not the best word. It is a fact that a great many distinguished military brass are urging sanctions and military strikes. You know this to be true.
Yeah I know this game. I quote an authority - "General so and so" - then you google "all the dirt on General so and so" rinse, repeat.
"Wetzel says the U.S. should not rely on Iran keeping its word. "Iranians lie a lot," Wetzel said.
He compared negotiations between the U.S. and Iran to Britain's negotiations with Hitler's Germany in 1939. Wetzel referred to the recent negotiations as ridiculous, stupid and "possibly treason."
Wetzel listed several options of how the Iranians could be stopped, but advocates a complete embargo barring all imports and exports to and from Iran, by air, land and sea. A total embargo would force regime change from within Iran.
Wetzel knows what he's talking about. Combat vet of the Korean and Vietnam Wars and General Haig's Chief of Staff during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis.
And they're wrong.
I made my own argument. The reference to Menendez was to show that there's a considerable body of opinion on the matter that comports with my own and not just from the Republican Party. Indeed, the Senate
voted for sanctions against Iran unanimously, 99-0, and Obama's efforts to unravel sanctions unilaterally is only supported by a radical fringe - granted, this fringe includes the upper echelons of Obama's personality cult; his inner circle of leftists.
Obama is doing his best to appease Iran but Congress have tied his hands to some extent because only the hard left fringe and the kooks want to appease Iran.
Obviously not coercive enough or Iran wouldn't be on the cusp of breakout and testing nuclear detonators and so on.
The administration also made it "explicitly clear" that if you like your health plan you can keep it, amongst other things. Any serious observer would have to admit that the Hussein regime's foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran has been characterised by persistent weakness and unilateral concessions.