In order to test whether a peace settlement is possible between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the U.S. embassy must be relocated to Jerusalem as soon as possible. What makes the author think that peace between Israel and the Palestinians is remotely possible if the embassy is moved to Jerusalem. For that matter, what makes the author think that peace between Israel and the Palestinians is remotely possible if the embassy stays in Tel Aviv?
This has to be one of the most incoherent articles I've ever read on the subject. The author's point, in effect, is: "The U.S. must move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem as part of an effort to promote peace and fight terrorism."
Huh?
If that's the basis of his argument, then we may as well move it to Kansas.