h: "an armistice agreement was signed between israel and jordan in 1949." Yep. h: "so calling judea and samaria occupied territory is quite wrong." Massive. Leap. Of. Logic. h: "the agreement quite clearly made it plain that both signatory`s rights and claims were not prejudiced by the signing of the armistice." That part is true: the rights of the two successor states to this territory were quite unaffected by the Armistice Agreements. Those rights being: 1) "the Jewish state" = no rights whatsoever. 2) "the Arab state" = its theirs to claim. That was true in: 1) November 1947 2) May 14 1948 3) April 1949 4) June 1967 Harzion, you already accept that the Armistice Agreement CAN'T be used to conjure up "new" rights, yet you have made no attempt to identify when (and how) Israel ever obtained any valid rights to this territory. You can't, because Israel doesn't. And until you do then the only status this territory can have is "Israeli occupied".
Syria-based missile systems harassed Turkish jets along border, says Turkish military (Reuters)
from the article: Haaretz asks Mideast experts: Why don't Israelis like Obama?