Yes, I follow your reasoning, Dickey. The trouble is, things get very complicated as time goes by, and many innocent people end up suffering on both sides because of previous historical situations that they were not personally a part of.

Example: You are quite right that the Indians had the moral high ground when the whites arrived from Europe, because it was their (the Indians') land that was being invaded. Likewise, the Indians had the moral high ground as the whites moved westward into Indian lands. All well and good.

However...consider the plight of any number of ordinary white settlers in Virginia, let's say, (or anywhere along the frontier) a few generations after the first whites arrived, when a war party of Indians comes storming out of the woods and scalps and tortures their family members and burns their cabins down and commits the most hideous atrocities upon them. (Have you read some of the books about stuff like that? It was almost unbelievable what marauding Indians did to their captives....just as it was almost unbelievable what the whites sometimes also often did to Indian villages.)

Now...those white people who were being raided weren't recent immigrants from somewhere else. They were born on that land. Therefore, they naturally felt that that was their natural home...and it was, at that point. They were not Europeans any longer. They were not immigrants. They were North Americans. As such, they were just as outraged at being invaded and slaughtered as the Indians were...and for precisely the same reasons.

And in both cases they saw the "other guys" as inhuman monsters for attacking them in that fashion when all they were trying to do was live from one day to the next and feed their families.

You see how misunderstandings can arise, hatred can arise, and both sides feel totally justified and feel that the other is wrong?

Now move it to the Middle East. You have a situation there where BOTH sides think they were there first! The Jews say: "Well, we were there back in Biblical times." The Muslims say: "So were we! We've always been here."

They're both right about that. ;-) And they are both not listening with any real attention to what the other one is saying.

You go far enough back and they were BOTH from the same group of Semitic people in that part of the world in ancient times! So it's a family quarrel over an ancient split into two (actually three) religious paths. Jewish-Christian-Muslim. It's downright ridiculous...like the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland.

Now you said, "Muslim claims Israeli's land is really his and constantly attacks Israeli."   Ah! But there were Jews, Christians, AND Muslims all living in Palestine in reasonably good harmony for some considerable time before the modern state of Israel was formed in 1948. The war started AFTER European and other foreign Jews from elsewhere arrived, committed terrorist acts upon the British administration and the Muslim population in that region, and carved out a new country for themselves by force of arms. And yes, terrorist acts were committed then by both sides. No doubt about it.

But can you see that in 1948 it was the European Jews who were the equivalent of Spanish conquistadors or European colonists of North America...arriving on a foreign shore and claiming the land in the name of some grand vision they had...against the will of most of its locally existing inhabitants?

So as far as I'm concerned...in 1948 the Muslims had the moral high ground, because they were being invaded by a bunch of Europeans who happened to be Jews. ;-) The Muslims were the "Indians" in that scenario. Like the Indians they reacted to extreme violence with extreme violence of their own.

But hey...some time has gone by since then, and as usual the situation has grown far more complicated than it was in 1948. Any Jewish person born in Israel since 1948 is not a foreigner to that land. He's not an immigrant or an invader. He will feel a deep connection to the place and will defend it as his homeland...and so he should, in my opinion! Everyone's true home is the land he was born on.

So now you have a situation where both the Palestinians and the Israel-born Israelis have an equally valid claim to that land, as far as I'm concerned, to believing that that area is their homeland.

It is obviously necessary to compromise in order to settle something like that. Everybody has to get something, but nobody is going to get it all.

The compromise I would suggest is this:

1. Israel returns the occupied lands outside its 1948 borders, and agrees not to invade any neighbouring country or bomb any neighbouring country. They henceforth engage in only genuinely defensive military actions against an outside attack, not in offensive operations outside their own borders.

2. The Palestinians receive a homeland that is adequate to allow them to function reasonably well as a modern nation. I would suggest the west bank of Jordan and some areas around where Gaza is, but it would take some thought as to how to set it up so it could work. (and it would take some generosity...ha! ha!...from some of the Arab states in donating land)

3. The various Muslim militias agree not to attack Israel as long as conditions 1 and 2 are met.

4. The various Muslim nations agree the same...not to attack Israel as long as conditions 1 and 2 are met.

5. A narrow international buffer zone be established around Israel and manned by strong and well-armed U.N. forces to secure the Israeli AND the Arab borders from outside attack. If any attack is launched by any party (Israel included), then the U.N. members provide significant military response against it, and treat it as an outlaw.

Equality of rights all around, okay? Everyone gets treated with respect, and everyone has to act responsibly or pay the consequences.

Heh! And you know what? There's not a dog's chance in hell that that will ever happen. I'll tell you why. The Israelis and Arabs have no respect for one another. They BOTH think they can win, and they both intend to. They have no intention of meeting the other guy halfway. And the world in general (meaning the U.N. and all its members) is far too self-interested and too lacking in unity to take the sort of courageous stand I am suggesting above). Furthermore, the Israelis are too proud and too lacking in trust of the U.N. or anyone else out there to agree to anything that limits their free rein to attack whomever they wish when they want to.

So it won't happen.

Pretty sad situation. You cannot divide that dispute into "good guys" on one side and "bad guys" on the other, Dickey. You just can't. There are completely innocent ordinary people on BOTH sides who feel that they are honestly defending their homeland (cos they were BORN there) and resisting a heartless and criminal aggressor. And you know what????

They're both right about that!!!

Their failure of vision is this: they don't realize that the "other guy" is just the same as them. They see only their own pain.