Josh Hammer

So quite literally, anyone who's literate with history could tell you that Jordan, about 100 years ago, was actually the so-called Palestinian state. So what happened then was, in 1948, Israeli War of Independence happens. And the Jews had previously accepted a smaller two-state solution. The Arabs had rejected it. They decided to invade Israel the next day.

So quite literally, anyone who's literate with history could tell you that Jordan, about 100 years ago, was actually the so-called Palestinian state. So what happened then was, in 1948, Israeli War of Independence happens. And the Jews had previously accepted a smaller two-state solution. The Arabs had rejected it. They decided to invade Israel the next day.

You have a series of temporary armistice lines there. These are not final assembly lines. These are armistice lines. And yes, it's true that J.N. Samaria was not part of that, but it was simply an armistice. So there was no final settlement. And under an international law principle known as uti posiditis juris, it is a commonly accepted international law maxim.

You have a series of temporary armistice lines there. These are not final assembly lines. These are armistice lines. And yes, it's true that J.N. Samaria was not part of that, but it was simply an armistice. So there was no final settlement. And under an international law principle known as uti posiditis juris, it is a commonly accepted international law maxim.

This is how it works with the breakup of Yugoslavia. This is how it works in many African countries. When a new sovereign state is formed, it actually assumes the inherited borders of the previous existing sovereign entity in that particular sliver of the world. So when Israel was founded in May of 1948, it actually assumed the full borders of mandatory Palestine, a.k.a. included Israel.

This is how it works with the breakup of Yugoslavia. This is how it works in many African countries. When a new sovereign state is formed, it actually assumes the inherited borders of the previous existing sovereign entity in that particular sliver of the world. So when Israel was founded in May of 1948, it actually assumed the full borders of mandatory Palestine, a.k.a. included Israel.

Judea and Samaria and Gaza. So there's no illegal occupation going on here under international law. Your political mileage may vary. It's what you think is the best solution. But the best solution, again, from an American national interest, emotionally detached perspective, is to embolden our ally. Because our allies want who's taken out our enemies.

Judea and Samaria and Gaza. So there's no illegal occupation going on here under international law. Your political mileage may vary. It's what you think is the best solution. But the best solution, again, from an American national interest, emotionally detached perspective, is to embolden our ally. Because our allies want who's taken out our enemies.

They're the ones who are hunting down the jihadis. They're trying to kill us both. What is in the American national interest of trying to carve out yet another Muslim terrorist state, let alone one in the heart of the Holy Land that could, God forbid, have custody over Jewish and Christian holy sites? It's absolutely nuts. It makes no sense whatsoever.

They're the ones who are hunting down the jihadis. They're trying to kill us both. What is in the American national interest of trying to carve out yet another Muslim terrorist state, let alone one in the heart of the Holy Land that could, God forbid, have custody over Jewish and Christian holy sites? It's absolutely nuts. It makes no sense whatsoever.

There is no, no, no American national interest in that. Zero, zero, zero. So they're not an occupier under international law. There is no compelling political case whatsoever to carve out yet another state. Donald Trump, to his great credit, totally understands this, Andrew.

There is no, no, no American national interest in that. Zero, zero, zero. So they're not an occupier under international law. There is no compelling political case whatsoever to carve out yet another state. Donald Trump, to his great credit, totally understands this, Andrew.

Like a bull in a china shop, Donald Trump came in to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C. But with his bold reform and rejuvenation agenda comes so many legal questions. Nationwide injunctions. Are they constitutional? What's the deal with birthright citizenship? What about the administrative state? Can he actually clean the deep state and end the politicization of the federal bureaucracy?

Like a bull in a china shop, Donald Trump came in to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C. But with his bold reform and rejuvenation agenda comes so many legal questions. Nationwide injunctions. Are they constitutional? What's the deal with birthright citizenship? What about the administrative state? Can he actually clean the deep state and end the politicization of the federal bureaucracy?

Like a bull in a china shop, Donald Trump came in to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C. But with his bold reform and rejuvenation agenda comes so many legal questions. Nationwide injunctions. Are they constitutional? What's the deal with birthright citizenship? What about the administrative state? Can he actually clean the deep state and end the politicization of the federal bureaucracy?

I'm Josh Hammer, host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer. Subscribe to America on Trial with Josh Hammer for your daily updates on all of these questions and more.

I'm Josh Hammer, host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer. Subscribe to America on Trial with Josh Hammer for your daily updates on all of these questions and more.

I'm Josh Hammer, host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer. Subscribe to America on Trial with Josh Hammer for your daily updates on all of these questions and more.

Charlie, first of all, I think judicial activism is probably, if anything, a charitable way of describing what we're seeing unfold here, my friend. I mean, this, if anything, is a judicial insurrection. I mean, this happened during the first Trump administration. So I think back all the way, actually, to the year 2018, 2019. It was in the latter years of the Trump presidency.

Charlie, first of all, I think judicial activism is probably, if anything, a charitable way of describing what we're seeing unfold here, my friend. I mean, this, if anything, is a judicial insurrection. I mean, this happened during the first Trump administration. So I think back all the way, actually, to the year 2018, 2019. It was in the latter years of the Trump presidency.