you obviously dont even understand the word.  and that you want to just turn to name calling really suggests it more of you.

It's a person who is devoted to a biased viewpoint to the point of animosity. You believe that the Palestinians should just be happy with Israel not tearing down the Dome of the Rock and be happy to give up a city they have inhabited for hundreds of years...

Blergh, I'm leaving this topic now.

a bigot is a person who is intolerant of other opinions and ideas than their own.  i have no problems with you believing, for whatever reason, the city should be split.  i thought you were wrong and was happy to discuss this the issue here.    you think im wrong and call me a bigot because you dont like my opinion.

Bigot probably wasn't the right word but, damn man. It's land that's holy to both, and both just need to deal with that fact, but the Arab's should not just be content that Israel's allowing the dome to exist...

While I think this is an appropriate move in the long run, I don't support a move like this until terrorist strikes and smuggling of weapons has been stopped for at least 5 years.

Peace to marginalize the radicals, that would be more effective. Also if we get some recognition for a unified Palestine and start it as a functional autonomous state, the dynamics will shift handily against the radical elements of Hamas (i'd imagine some parts of that faction would be willing to drop the "Israel must die" thing, and it's hard to guage how sincere some of their leadership is, versus holding that line for political appeal) Adopt the parts of Hamas that are willing to change, and then marginalize the rest and purge them as a unified Israeli-Palestinian effort.

all these years later and the dominant line of thinking is still "push the jews into the sea". they have no partner for peace and likely will never. 

israel will not give up the temple mount again.  so it should just be accepted israel controls the city and that they are willing to respect that muslims built on the site and that they will not destroy it. 

that is only about the city itself, of course.  ive said previously that israel should unilaterally decide a fair exchange of land and enforce it.  then seek international recognition when the palestinians refuse to accept it.  if its fair, they will get support for it.

The city should be made into an international zone. The Israelis have been functioning just fine out of Tel-Aviv.

Guys don't argue with bubbles on this. I have many times and its pointless. He is so biased towards the thieves that he cannot see what they have stolen.

The issue with Obama's announcement is that the '67 borders have always been the starting point and in past negotiations most of the swapping has been agreed.

Its always come down to the facts that neither side has properly setup their population for the real life situation of certain things that will be given up in order for this to work.

Palestinians will have to give right of return for at best some financial recoup.

Israelis will have to give up the largest blocs of settlements in WB that are holy (i.e. Abraham's Tomb) as well as some big blocs on the eastern side of Jerusalem.

Both sides will have to give up sovereignty over the old city of Jerusalem and the shrine area.

While a couple temples did exist there and it is Jews holiest site, the Dome of the Rock has stood longer than both temples combined and the site is just as revered by Muslims. There has to be a duality and an international presence, potentially similar to the Vatican.

However, the important of Obama's speech is that it allows US policy to become less blindingly subservient to Israel demands and it can, at least for appearances sake, demonstrate a real level playing field.

I for one am far more interested in the UN vote in September as well as how Hamas will continue to mature from a die hard fanatical group to a real partner for Palestinian leadership. I do believe there is a push within the populace that recognizes Hamas' actions have not strengthened their situation in the least.

Hamas' appeal comes from the idea on the Palestinians side that the Israelis simply aren't willing to deal, and that the PA's constant concessions that have yielded jack-all simply provide final proof that peace isn't an option. Ergo, the Israelis make progress on peace, Hamas' violent tendencies get marginalized