Reply to Understanding multiple positions on the Israel settlements controversy

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Understanding multiple positions on the Israel settlements controversy "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Even with a two state "solution" Israel will be threatened with destruction, just as it always has been.  So there aren't any really good options for it.  All are bad, some are worse than others.  We'll see what Congress does with respect to the UN.   [/quote]

The U.N. resolution says East Jerusalem isn't a legitimate part of Israeli territory any longer.  That includes the Western Wall.

The U.N. is going to lose this one.[/quote]

See this is the problem. I can support the resolution as it relates to settlements. I am Jew who firmly believes Israel should be out of the west bank. If the settlers want to stay, let them stay in Palestine. But to imply that the Western Wall would not be part of Israel in a two-state solution, and to tie that to the settlement issue, is a fatal mistake by the UN and perhaps a clear indication of where the world truly comes down on Israel.[/quote]

The resolution simply says that the resolution of the status of East Jerusalem will be decided in negotiations. Obviously because the Western Wall is a wall of the Haram al-Sharif, it is a very sensitive topic. It could end up under Israeli sovereignty, Palestinian sovereignty, some sort of joint rule, as an autonomous city (like the Vatican), or something else. But that should be decided through negotiations rather than unilaterally.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics