[papertyger]

What MAY change in the future is an agreement among all parties to establish the legal status of Jerusalem beyond its status as laid out in the 1947 UN plan for the partition of Palestine.

And your precedent for believing this is anything but a fantasy, given historic events, is...?

It SHOULD be a "serious priority" for the United States in that it sends a clear message from America to Arab polities that the days of negotiating away "real assets" for "promises" are over.

This country destroys the lives of ITS OWN CITIZENS for symbolic displays of prejudice, but we bully the victim when state actors make REAL threats for not bowing to their REAL prejudices?

[Alberta's Child]

It SHOULD be a "serious priority" for the United States in that it sends a clear message from America to Arab polities that the days of negotiating away "real assets" for "promises" are over.

The United States shouldn't be negotiating ANYTHING over there when it comes to territorial disputes. We can broker a deal among various parties and protect our own interests accordingly (like we did at Camp David when we insisted that Israel must return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt), but the disputing parties have to be on the same page.

This country destroys the lives of ITS OWN CITIZENS for symbolic displays of prejudice, but we bully the victim when state actors make REAL threats for not bowing to their REAL prejudices?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?