Debating Jerusalem

Re: More Palestinians die in clash over capital, Fares Akram, Dec. 16; and Israel capable of controlling its Jerusalem, Father Raymond de Souza, Dec. 15

The first words of The Associated Press’s Fares Akram’s article is its giveaway: “Four Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire …” The article further implies that it was President Donald Trump’s fault for moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem that, well, forced Palestinians to vio- lently protest.

I hate to point this out, but the fault actually lies with those “thousands of rioters” who threatened Israel and its citizens. When people set fire to tires and throw rocks at soldiers, what would you expect? Also, those rockets flying over the border from Gaza don’t help the peace process ( which died long ago, anyway).

Akram also mentions that the status of Jerusalem “is the most sensitive issue in the conflict.” Hey, what happened to the “right of return” and then “settlements?” Stan Flamer, Toronto

The Jerusalem question is not so pat as Father de Souza and others make it, and the arbitrary moves on the part of Israel and the U. S. are not in keeping in letter or spirit with the UN resolution that allowed for the creation of Israel; the ultimate division and allocation of Jerusalem is tied to an independent Palestinian state, and it is already recognized by some UN elements. The EU has been clear that it will not recognize these changes. It is also understandably uneasy about the possible fallout in that area.

This is not a move in the direction of a peaceful and just solution, and that should surprise very few. Doris Wrench Eisler, St. Albert, Alta.