brucie, I don't know if your 16 Jan 04 - 05:51 PM post was directed at me or not, so I don't have a response for that one.

Wolfgang, I'm afraid I don't know what you're trying to say in much of your 16 Jan 04 - 05:53 PM post. But in response to your last paragraph, you might have a valid point except for one thing. The indegenous Jews who were living in that area before the Europeans showed up weren't all that happy about the arrival of the Europeans and the way they lorded it over the people who were already there either. The indigenous Jews were treated like second class citizens by the Europeans as well.

As I've said before, everyone was getting along pretty well in the region; Muslims, Jews, and Christians, until the Europeans showed up. I understand that there was a need for the Europeans to find a safe place and I also understand their desire for independence. Israel exists, and I don't think that should necessarily change.

But I do not agree with the idea that Israel is entitled to just take whatever land they want from whomever they want. I think they were out of line taking any land other than what was given to them by the partition agreement. Since they have already established much of their country within the pre '67 borders, I'm even able to see some sense in letting them keep the land they took beyond the partition line, and before the '67 line.

But I think they are way out of line in expecting to keep the land they took in '67 and also be able to live peacefully with their neighbors. That's just not going to happen. Until Israel ends the occupation and the settlment programs, there will continue to be bloodshed, and innocent people, both Jews as well as Arabs, are going to die.