it plays directly into israel's hands. without direct outside pressure, israel isn't bound to relinquish its claim on all of jerusalem, which is made apparent by its encroachment into east jerusalem, and this in turn virtually guarantees that NO peace agreement is possible. more and more, it seems that concept of unilaterally declaring statehood may end up being the best choice available to the palestinians to retain any semblence of the territory that lies within the pre-'67 borders. in general, i feel the u.s. state dept. tends to be fairly judicious in regards to this issue; however, this policy is more than just a little antiquated considering the "facts on the ground" and how they're continuing to progress. no doubt, it was formulated at a time when an equitable agreement was believed possible and when the settlements enterprise wasn't as firmly entrenched. it may still apply to large settlement blocks israel intends to keep as part of a final status agreement; but it certainly should NOT apply to territory that is considered integral to the palestinian state...and in which israel continues to entrench itself in order to deny them that territory. what's ironic here, is that what's being proposed by the eu essentially mirrors what u.s. state department policy envisions, and its objections are based solely on the premise that final status be negotiated between the parties involved. a premise that no longer provides an equitable outlook.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Kerry says getting closer to an understanding on renewing Syria ceasefire (Reuters)
from the article: U.S.: Only Israel, Palestinians should decide Jerusalem's future