When did I say anyone is against peace?
I referred to the process, which historically has been land for "piece" (more precisely, land for nothing). And in case the reader wouldn't get it, I preferred to it as the piece process. And in case the reader thought I misspelled peace, I added (sic).
With that in mind, please go back, reread my post, and feel free to add what you'd like
I actually think that this might have a positive outcome if it makes negotiations a non-starter.
However, this resolution may have more far reaching effects than just negotiations. For instance, is it now the policy of the Democratic Party that the Jews have no rights to the Kosel? If you don't believe it far fetched to have IDF soldiers and Israeli politicians to be arrested for war crimes for simply guarding Jerusalem, this resolution helps redefine the parameters of those laws.
Bibi is clearly using this for local political gains, so it is very possible this is a huge over-reaction based on him blowing it out of proportion. Or it is a really bad indicator of US support for Israel, which has larger ramifications than land for peace negotiations.
Either way, the topic of this thread is not necessarily the resolution itself, but Obama's attitude toward Israel. I think it is more than fair to call it downright hostile with this resolution, and not just "liberal."