"When Jordan relinquished its claim over the West Bank, did that anull the part of 242 that calls on Israel to withdraw from territory conquered in the war, as pertaining to the West Bank? If not to Jordan, what sovereign nation is Israel bound to hand it over to?" - JB Resolution 242 does not require unilateral withdrawl, but anticipates that the withdrawl will be done within some peace agreement. Here are the demands: (i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force". Now that Jordan is out of the picture, the contemplated peace should be made with the inhabitants. There has to be some agreement. Note that Israel does not want to annex the entire WB since it does not want to acquire a large Arab population. Should the Pals declare statehood without borders? Arafat threatened to do this, and Netanyahu then threatened that he will annex the Jordan Valley and other choice places. I think the Pals are better off remaining under occupation. It causes more trouble for Israel. What was the Arab goal in 1948? To acquire the entire land and get rid of the Jews. The Kahanists in Israel want the same thing in reverse. This is certainly illegal, following the adoption of the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949.
Surfer seriously injured in Australian shark attack (AP)
from the article: Some serious thoughts on Syria