cont,

>> “All the Palestinian factions are keen to take credit for the withdrawal which, they say, would not have taken place were it not for years of armed resistance.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/middle-east-crisis/last-israeli-troops-pull-out-of-gaza-strip/2005/09/11/1126377206279.html

>> “Gaza withdrawal is a defeat for Israel, says PA foreign minister”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1124590916759

Israel has negotiated with everybody and anybody who actually had the power to make peace, and many who did not. It shows that Israel is actually interested in peace. If only we could say that about Hamas.

Article 13, Hamas charter>> “ Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of [Hamas]. …Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question … , [Hamas] does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. …There is no solution for the Palestinian question EXCEPT THROUGH JIHAD. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with.”

Article 11 Hamas charter >> “[Hamas] believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”

BTW, they aren’t referring to their side of the green line here, just in case you had any doubts.

The latest ceasefire/truce is, in my opinion, a ruse to allow Hamas to rearm and re equip. Israel goes along with it for a number of reasons. Firstly Israel IS actually interested in peace and IS prepared to negotiate. And secondly, if, or more likely, WHEN, Hamas break the ceasfire, Israel will be SEEN to be the party actually interested in peace.

It looks like it won't be long.
see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000068.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4272883.ece

Paul L.

Jordan has regained the land that it lost in the Six Day War?

That must come as a surprise to all the inhabitants of Jersualem who were governed by Jordan. Didn't the Arab Brigade, a Joranan force, try to defend Jerusalem against Israeli attack?

Compare a map of Jordan in 1966 with that in 1968, and then today.

The West Bank was part of Jordan up to 5 June 1967, it isn't any more.

Do you still want to stand by your statement that: "Egypt and Jordan, who both lost land to Israel after the six day war, have since regained it after they made peace with Israel."

It should be axiomatic that one form of injustice and oppression . . . regardless of how, when or where it starts, or what excuse or justification has been given for it . . . eventually creates its own enemy . . . in an opposite form of injustice and oppression. Both sides in this issue have been constantly arguing over who "started" it . . . who struck the "first blow". In any such conflict over long periods of time, with conflicting moral claims over the same land by different people who both have historical ties to that land, one reaches a point where the question of who threw the "first blow" becomes irrelevant. Neither side is just going to voluntarily "go away", and, unless they WANT a massive tragedy of epic proportions on their hands, they will need to find a middle-ground where NEITHER side gets ALL of what they want. They both need to acknowledge the suffering of the OTHER, and collectively realize that the infliction of any NEW injustice by either side will simply perpetuate the same old cycle.
Unfortunately, whenever the official administrations of both sides in this conflict have managed to hammer out an agreement on any particular FACET of their differences, the rejectionist extremists on one side or the other always try to undermine or sabotage the agreement by engaging in some provocative act.
I personally am in despair over this issue, especially because I have friends on both sides. Until there is a transcendent change in the collective mindset, I cannot see any humane solution.