Embassy in Jerusalem

The caterwauling about the dire consequences of moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem (“Erekat: We’ll counter Jerusalem embassy move,” January 27) is the height of hypocrisy. If Israel annexes major Jewish towns that make up 2% of the disputed territories, or the US builds a new embassy on a lot in Jerusalem it purchased in the 1990s, nothing will change.

If the new Trump administration treats all sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict equally and has the same expectation for both Arabs and Jews, he might effect a calmer environment in the short term. LEN BENNETT

Ottawa

Yudith Oppenheimer writes in “America’s embassy in Jerusalem – only as a city of peace” (Comment & Features, January 26) that moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem “would violate international law.”

While this is a politically correct statement frequently made by politicians and those supporting their view, I have never seen any court decision supporting this opinion. On the contrary. In 2013, the French Court of Appeals in Versailles clearly ruled that Israel’s presence and Jewish settlements beyond the pre-1967 lines are not illegal and do not violate the Geneva Convention’s prohibition against an occupying power transferring its civilian population into the territory it occupies.

It should also be remembered that those lines are the 1949 armistice lines, where the armies stopped at the end of Israel’s War of Independence. The armistice agreements specifically stated that the lines were not to be considered international borders. Furthermore, this condition was inserted at the demand of the Arabs, who made it clear that they would not sign without this condition.

While we are privileged to live in a democratic country where all opinions can be made without fear, it is important to get facts correct and not be blinded by erroneous assertions that can become accepted as fact by their frequent repetition. RAYMOND JAYSON Jerusalem