Historically it should be remembered that according to the Sykes-Picot plan - "The Balfour Declaration", there was never meant to be a State of Israel. Never-the-less a State of Israel was declared, it was supported by the United States of America, and it was recognised by the United Nations.

Bobert says above:

"...this is the first time I have said this in my many post on this subject, Isreal is the one that has the most re-thinking to do unless it is willing to just kill every Palestinian."

Really? I'd venture the opinion that there are at least two sides in this situation.

In another thread, in which Bobert put the same slant on the situation, I pointed out to him the realities of the situation. I will repeat them below, read them and see if you agree with Bobert's statement regarding Israel quoted above.

PLO (Yassir Arrafat) rejected the Mitchell and Saudi proposals. As a political leader he was in a position to advance the cause of the Palestinian people but totally lacked the political courage to carry it through. Why? because to make any concession would appear to be acceptance of defeat and he and the PLO would be replaced with a more hard-line leadership.

Hamas - Had Palestinian elections been held they would now speak for the Palestinian people. Their sole aim is the destruction of the state of Israel - no compromise on that stance whatsoever. They too rejected the Mitchell and Saudi proposals. They are funded by the Ba'athist regimes of Syria and Iraq.

Israel - Rejected the same proposals conditionally. The Israeli conditions, a halt to terrorist attacks and recognition of the right of the state of Israel to exist.

And - <<"Israel is the one that has the most re-thinking to do!!!">>

Give me a break!!!