That is usually the case since wars have been fought. I don't get your point. What should have happened? Should the US watch a newly born country of Jews who escaped the massacre of the holocaust be massacred by the Arab armies? Of course they were armed to defend their borders. War is not fought like a chess match with both sides having an equal number of pieces and strengths. Perhaps. But should the US not fund Israel and over the years they were left more and more vulnerable, the Arabs would engulf Israel and the second holocaust would be witnessed. I don't believe that many would deny that if the roles were reversed, Jews would suffer far greater. To me the history of how we got to this point does not matter. Israel is a country. The Palestinians are unfortunately a displaced people. The Palestinians will never be able to claim the lands they truly desire as the country of Palestine unless Israel does not exist. Thus, the cycle of violence. The violence is unfortunate. But I believe that the Israelis have essentially dug-in. They will continue to meet aggression with aggression. This is their existence and they accept it. There is stability within the instability. A very little known fact: Arafat has a $12 Million price tag on his head from Hamas if he accepts peace without including Jerusalem. He is not suicidal. So the war wages on. Peace is there for the taking should Arafat accept the terms negotiated that included everything except Jerusalem. I recommend taking the deal and seeing what the future without violence would bring. Perhaps it would even bring -- over time --a compromise over Jerusalem. I could tell you first hand that the Egyptian led negotiators are very disappointed with Arafat and so should be the rest of the Arab world.
