From reading the extensive coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict in the JC, it seems like the majority view amongst British politicians, Anglo-Jewish leaders and members of the community is that a two state solution is the only way forward to solving the intractable problem of Palestinian statehood. But before that paragraph is parachuted into the 'What the blogs are saying' section...
The one factor that I feel is essential to grasp in any political discussion surrounding Israel is geography. Before I went on my gap year to Israel I unreservedly agreed with the deal that Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat in 2000 - it was fair, right? Two states with a border pretty much along the revered Green Line. Can't ask for more than that (Well, Arafat did).
However when I looked from the Old City towards the holy site of the Temple (which by the way is being only described by the BBC website as holy to Muslims, something which is grossly skewed reporting), with the hindsight of years of an intifada, I couldn't help but think 'do I really want to be looking at the State of Palestine'?
There are many arguments for and against giving away land in Israel and it is a huge subject. I do not want to enter into discussions or make comments surrounding the holiness of the land and the validity of giving Jerusalem away etc. But from a purely political point of view, should we not be asking whether giving Palestinians any control of Jerusalem would make geographical sense?
The last two times Israel bowed to international pressure and withdrew from Arab areas - Gaza and Lebanon - have directly led to the last two major wars in the Middle East. Our prime threat is Hizbullah, who now have the freedom of South Lebanon to act (the UN don't seem to be containing their mobilisation for another war). Our secondary threat is Hamas, who now have the freedom of governing Gaza. Why we are so eager to create another vacuum where it is only too likely that months after giving it up, a terrorist group will threaten the whole of Central Israel?
My argument here is not that we should never give away land on principle - I make no comment surrounding my views on this difficult issue. Rather, I am suggesting that as it stands, can Israel really justify doing this? I think most JC readers would agree that endangering the security of most Israelis and the very mechanism of the State is not worth a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Jerusalem. And let's be honest - it is about the security of Israelis here. Hamas and Hizbollah are no pushovers - they are not democratic like Sinn Fein and the DUP have proved to be.
To understand and comment on Israel's politics, one must understand the geography - Israel's size, the West Bank's size, the range of missiles in use by Arab terrorists and a serious and informed discussion about whether the Green Line should really be as taken for granted as the ideal and fair border of Israel.
With this in mind, approving the building of a few thousand houses in an existing Jewish town in North Jerusalem doesn't seem such a big deal.