A: Semantics matter here. Hyperbolic terminology just demonstrates an inherent bias.B: The Jewish Quarter would not be an illegal settlement, since it's not a settlement.And no one has answered my question, what harmful effects with this resolution cause?
So the literally entire world says that Israel is wrong, but Bibi dismisses them off hand...Wait, is Israel a world super power or a tiny, surrounded and dependent nation?A little humility and reality check is in order ASAP!
Why is the Jewish Quarter not a settlement?
In terms of actual definition, you may be correct, that residing in them constitutes a settlement. But for all typical intents and purposes, to be a settlement that the UN and Geneva Convention take issue with, it must be constructed on "occupied" land.
The buildings in the Jewish Quarter were constructed after 67 and therefore according to this resolution were constructed on occupied land.
And no one has answered my question, what harmful effects with this resolution cause?
One thing the resolution certainly does is make a negotiated resolution more difficult. The worst thing to do prior to negotiations is to make the expectations of one side stronger. THis is especially if it crosses wat is almost certain to be across a red line of the opposing side. There is almost no way that Israel can agree to what this resolution gives an impression as being the starting point of negotiations. This creates a situation where a negotiated agreement is much more difficult to achieve.
For one, lends false credence to the hypocritical and rabble rousing group BDS.
Read this:https://www.lawfareblog.com/unscr-2334-israeli-settlements
And therefore what?
That's fair. But I don't believe it will have any bearing on any concessions Israel may make if and when peace is approached.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-obama-preparing-a-parting-shot-at-israel/2016/10/27/770e7fb6-9c79-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?utm_term=.819cad87427fhttp://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/07/trump-should-challenge-clinton-on-obamas-terrible-two-state-solution-plan-debate-israel-palestine-middle-east/Is he being alarmist or is this a legit concern?Which of the two candidates would be more likely to uphold what he does or fight against it? Is there anything either of them could possibly do?What else can Obama possibly do after the election?
First, Obama can't "do" anything, so yes, this is simply alarmist. He can try to place pressure much like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, but it's unlikely to affect anything -- not this late in his term anyway. Hillary will likely take a middle-road, much like Obama and Bill Clinton. With Trump, I would be very concerned. He cancelled a trip to Israel because he didn't like something that Netanyahu said. He also hesitated to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and only "clarified" his stance once under pressure. Despite his rants on Twitter about he supports Israel, he simply can't be trusted.
Why can't he do what the article says by allowing a two state through the security council? He can do that without congress.
I would be very surprised if that happened. He will likely focus on social justice issues as he has been doing all along.
Or maybe you need some Jewish-pride, and a reality-check yourself. Israel has been standing up to the whole world for nearly 70 years now. We might be small in number, or in GDP, but that isn't where our power comes from
This is an extremely dangerous situation.
Not sure why you would think that. He is putting his hopes in such an upstanding and stable person.
LOL and it's still a couple of week untill the savior arrives..