I explained my reasoning. Bush said that a peace treaty will set the borders by mutual agreement. He also said that it is unreasonable to expect the agreement to precisely follow the Green Line considering Israeli population centers etc on the other side. What this has to mean is that Israel will want Israeli population centers more than Palestine will, and so will negotiate for them. Land on the Israeli side at 5 to 1 ratio? Perpetual water from Israeli aquifers? Obviously, Israel must offer something that Palestinians want more than that land, or there will be no mutual agreement. I see no other interpretation that can make sense. You disagree. You say that you are right because you have studied it and from your study you believe that you are right. I hope you will not be offended that I do not find your argument convincing.
Russian warships fire 26 rockets at ISIS in Syria (Reuters)
from the article: Peres blames Netanyahu for breaching Jerusalem status quo