I've come late to this iteration of this particular discussion, so I'll suggest several ideas here.

   Most of the state names we use today came about from the division of the lands of the Middle East, mostly by the British, after WWI, and many of the divisions and heads of states so divided had a lot to do with oil, and the Brit's desire to maintain control over the oil reserves they suspected or knew lay beneath these lands. Prior to WWI, the area was part of the Turkish Empire, that sided with the Germans during the war, and lost most of the lands they owned or at least controlled.

   Jimmy Carter was a kind Christian gentleman, but not a very effective president. His single term of office would seem to indicate that most of the Americans realized this. While he did much to promote peace, his reputation prevented his being effective in securing the release of the Americans held hostage in Iran after the Iranians overran our embassy there, another reason why he was not reelected. Reagan, on the other hand, was perceived as a person more given to direct action or reaction, and this perception secured the release of the hostages shortly after he took office. I suspect that the Iranians realized that Reagan would not stand still while our people were still being held hostage in any country. A local belief in my circles, "What is black and glows in the dark? Iran, after 23 January if the hostages aren't released." I suspect that the calmer heads in Iran also believed this.

   A fairly well understood concept of warfare is that the victors get to take the lands and goods of the losers. While the state of Israel was created by UN mandate, it quickly won several wars that they did not start, and gained a lot of formerly Arabic territory in these wars, some of which they gave back, either gracefully, or as a result of pressure from the US or the UN. Many of the "Palestinians" chose to leave or were forced to leave the lands they had worked for centuries, and became displaced persons, in refugee camps. Somehow they forgot the concept of war that I mentioned earlier, and felt that although they had waged war against the Jewish state, there were no consequences for their decisions to wage this war, or at least support its going forth.

   Ever since these wars there have been more and more "Palestinians" crying for the "right" to return to lands lost during armed warfare against the Israelis. The Israelis realize full well that although there may be land enough for refugee camps for Moslems who lose a war against Israel, the only land for a defeated Israel is the sea to their west! The stated Arabic purpose in this area is to drive the Israelis into the sea! It is also interesting to note that no Islamic nation has offered their own land to resettle these Palestinian refugees.

   These things having been said, the Israelis took a chance to promote peace in their region by giving some of their conquered lands to the Palestinians, even though their own people had built towns and lives on these lands, and had improved the land so it was arable again. So far I don't see anything good coming from this sacrifice, but at least the Israelis have shown that they are willing to sacrifice to bring peace to their region. Can the Palestinians do the same? Not from what I have seen so far.

   Dave