Leaderboard

Most reasonable people support a two state solution. The real question is exactly what land a future Palestinian state would exist on. Personally, I think that besides Gaza and the West Bank, some additional territory should be contributed to any such future state from Egypt, Jordan, and maybe even a bit from Lebanon and Syria. All of these states are the homelands of what are now considered the Palestinian people, and yet they find themselves barred from citizenship and confined to refugee camps in those states, and often treated worse by those states than they are by Israel. Besides that, even if the Palestinians got as much of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as they could possibly hope to get, it's still not enough to form a viable state, more territory is needed.

It should be exactly pro American interests, depending on the circumstance / issue. Nothing special about Ukraine. ...back to Jerusalem ?

US policy should be whatever favours U.S. interests / foreign policy objectives, same as Israel. Europe should be leading more on this, not the US.

I provided my insights when I said either you accept the status quo or you don't. Anyone can see the situation is not going anywhere, opposition to a solution is now deeply entrenched to the religious level. To capitulate is an offence before God. Even top leaders who had the courage to work towards cooperative solution were assassinated. The fact that the US now recognises "Jerusalem" as the capital (not even clear if they mean east, west, or just the whole thing) does not significantly change things on the ground but is more symbolic than anything else. As such, it is not very helpful, has no immediate impact other than causing unrest. But as I stated, the unrest is already there, seething, waiting for a reason to be exposed. So as a leader I would not be terribly afraid of that, it is the very thing that needs to be eliminated. Trumps attitude is likely that if a people cannot get along voluntarily, the situation will be handled by force. That is in contrast to Obama's style of conciliation and keeping things the same. So if you accept the status quo you accept a level of hostility that remains indefinitely. The other approach is change things rapidly, causing much greater distress short term, but possibly bringing peace long-term. This has been America's approach in the past, peace under a gun barrel, and is the typical approach of empires for better or worse. Any reasonable person must concede, the problem is complex, mired in history and not "solvable" by normal, cooperative means. It's all too easy to pick on me for expressing my views. What are your insights? Do you have a useful suggestion?

I think the situation has been like a "stalemate" for a long time, and not improving. You either agree that the status quo is acceptable, or something needs to change. As such a change in approach is probably worth trying at this point, even though it may (will) cause unrest. All that does is expose the unrest that is already there all the time. But this "change" is really nothing. Result- just moving an embassy. It is more symbolic than anything else. Real change that leads to better security has to reach down to the cultural level. Given that hatred of the Jew is being taught by Muslim leaders, and this teaching goes back to the very origin of Islam, it will not happen in a cooperative way.

You nailed it! You explained what I couldn't put into words. Please continue with the posts. You're really intelligent. I think the discussion peaked back in the 1960's, but the liberals turned it into an issue about wealth distribution. In a way "Climate Change" has become a topic of controlled opposition. If you pay attention to the mainstream climate change narrative, you won't pay attention to all other environmental issues. All eyes on "Climate Change", and you won't be paying attention to the ageing nuclear plants, and other serious environmental threats. The carbon tax thing, is going to be scam. Look at the electricity prices in Ontario. We know big wind was a scam, they could of expanded hydro plants in Quebec, and promoted green manufacturing in Ontario, with lower electricity rates. I'm a fiscal conservative. If we want to save the environment, we should respect peoples money, so at least we have credibility. When you go to the supermarket, and try and buy a decent sized piece of wild salmon, it's going to cost you $40. The fish stocks wouldn't of depleted without overpopulation. Overpopulation has made life unaffordable. Just look at your grocery bill, or mortgage on your house. You're paying the price for the Liberal stupidity of past generations. Listen to John Lennon speak about overpopulation back in the 1960's, as if he had the moral high-ground.