To add fuel to an already blazing fire, the British promised the same land to BOTH the Palestinians and the Zionists, back when Zionism first got its start, like the turn of the century.

Further, part of the reason that the Israelis are so reactive to the Palestinians is that for decades the spokespersons for the Palestinians was the PLO, which was a radical terrorist organization, rather than the people themselves. Moderate Palestinians would have doubtless negotiated a reasonable deal when heads were cooler and before Israel got too full of itself, but the PLO refused to negotiate. The PLO also kept all the Palestinians evicted from Jewish settled areas in refugee camps. As political pawns. For decades. When there were other Arab nations that were willing to take them in and integrate them.

I'm not saying that the Israelis aren't bad actors. Just that no one is completely without some responsibility. But the real answer isn't found in the question "who's at fault?" but instead "where do we go from here?"

I always found the Israeli position that the Left Bank and the Gaza Strip were essential to be indefensible. Then, once the "buffer zone" of the Sinai desert was ceded, after the peace treaty with Egypt, the rationale for these two areas -- whose population was almost entirely Arab -- seemed even worse.

But, you know, until 1969, the city of Jerusalem itself was partitioned. It was only after the city was united after the 6 Day War that ALL religions were allowed to worship at the holiest sites. I would most like to see Jerusalem in neutral hands, but if that isn't a viable option, I frankly would rather have it in the hands of the Israelis, who haven't sworn as a matter of principle to exterminate any other religion.

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people