[ad_1]
Your editorial (The Guardian view on shifting the British embassy to Jerusalem: don’t do it, 27 September) argues that shifting the British embassy to Jerusalem would tear up the dedication to any significant two-state resolution. However it may have the other impact if such a transfer had been preceded by the simultaneous recognition of West Jerusalem because the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem because the capital of the possible Palestinian state. First, although, Britain must be part of the 139 states which have already recognised Palestine.
The first cause bilateral negotiations have repeatedly collapsed is the hopelessly lopsided energy relationship between a solidly established unbiased state and a really dependent non-state entity. In recognition of this gross disparity, early proponents of the two-state thought after the 1967 struggle, myself included, envisaged two states to be as a lot a few very important negotiating framework as eventual final result.
Any authorities that claims to help a two-state resolution and a closing decision of the battle, however continues the decades-old sample of refusing to take the primary important step, is responsible of not simply gross hypocrisy but in addition logical deficiency.
Dr Tony Klug
London
[ad_2]
Source link
