Well, for a start, there's no distinction being made between those outside the blocs and those inside the blocs and Jerusalem. The resolution refers to all of them as illegal from remote settlements, to the Jewish quarter and Western wall in Jerusalem. All of them are, according to the resolution, rightfully owned by the Palestinians, which will only harden their position - why should they accept anything less than what the UN says, if only symbolically, is theirs?RunningMn9 wrote: What I'm trying to understand is the issue that it looked like was being discussed here - that Obama has departed from conventional US policy with regard to settlements. My understanding was that the US backed a two-state solution, and certainly it seems reasonable to me that further Israeli settlement (at least outside the blocs you referenced), would be antagonistic and not likely to improve the chances of that outcome (the two-state solution).
It's also something that is supposed to be worked out through negotiations between the two parties, not imposed by external parties. And it undercuts what has been the basis for negotiations.