Jim, Respectfully(this time), finding the 'blame' on who is more 'justified' in their positions, isn't going to 'solve' the problem. The Israelis took that land, because they felt, that logistically and tactically, they were more vulnerable to attacks from the Iranian backed and supplied Palestinians(along with other 'foreign' enemies, fighting them. The piece is a small piece, not that the size matters, but the location and proximity for missile launches, etc, etc. When, in times past, they made concessions, they were still attacked from that area. Now what I just said, in regards about that doesn't 'justify' or make the problem go away...so in that respect, you do have your point...However, the Israelis want better assurances, that if they enter another peace agreement, that the attacks from that area(or any area) will cease..and in that, they DO have a point...MEANWHILE, back in Iran, they are working up their nuclear program, and stalling for time. whether or not you, or anyone feels that their program is merely for energy, or for weapons, the fact remains, that Israel, among others feel that if Iran achieves success, that the situation will grow more tense and escalate. I think we can agree on that. I think the pressure is on Israel, to 'hold off' taking any preemptive strikes, while other nations(or 'financial concerns', allow a conflict with Iran and the Saudis, as per my previous post. It boils down to a gamble with a race against time, as to how to 'solve' the Iranian factor, in supplying the Palestinians. It should be pointed out, that when the Jews were returning, back in the late 40's and early 50's, that the Jews and Arabs did co-exist, peacefully in Israel. The British were the main targets of the more militant Jewish factions. That is a matter of history, and a true fact. Their tensions escalated later.
The wild card here is the Saudis and Iranians, more than the Israelis and Palestinians. I do believe the two could work out their differences, IF there wasn't outside 'influences', either from the other Arab nations, or the West. Would you agree on that point?...setting aside any personal biases you may feel one way or the other.
Hey, BTW..it's been a good dialogue with you on the subject..Bobad included....AND, this exchange probably has shed more light on the situation, than all the clouded areas of grey, which keeps the REAL concerns away from the mainstream information outlets!
After all, it really is a convoluted mess, with more 'players' involved, than just the Palestinians and Israelis...and in 'solving it' that HAS to be taken into account!
But, judging from the history of man, we always seem to pick the messiest, bloodiest, more pain-ridden path, making room for the exploiters, than the most direct, peaceful paths. History has clearly shown us that...but as I've said before, 'History teaches us that man doesn't seem to learn from history!'

What do you think?

GfS