That’s fair. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here --I don’t know that there’s much to contest. But, again, going back to the Peel partition is not going to happen. At that time, there was no “Palestine” as a nation and–as much as this sucks, because it does-- it was under British mandate. If we’re going to leverage history then both sides will play the same game: the Jews will say that this was their homeland 2000 years ago. That’s why I don’t place too much weight on land swaps that happened in the last century. At some point, we have to draw a line somewhere and move forward. I don’t think we can even go back to the 68 partition at this point, so what’s the point any more? Somehow, we need to force both parties into negotiations before more innocent people are killed. That’s my only thesis.
That’s fair. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here --I don’t know that there’s much to contest. But, again, going back to the Peel partition is not going to happen. At that time, there was no “Palestine” as a nation and–as much as this sucks, because it does-- it was under British mandate. If we’re going to leverage history then both sides will play the same game: the Jews will say that this was their homeland 2000 years ago. That’s why I don’t place too much weight on land swaps that happened in the last century. At some point, we have to draw a line somewhere and move forward. I don’t think we can even go back to the 68 partition at this point, so what’s the point any more? Somehow, we need to force both parties into negotiations before more innocent people are killed. That’s my only thesis.