Palestinians have to accept that they will not get all they want, either. I am an Israeli Jew who accepts the 1967 borders (with certain adjustments), but cannot accept both a Palestinian state AND the "right of return" to mythical homes in Israel that they have never seen. If the so-called "Palestinian people" have a state, why do they need a right to live in another country? The "Palestinians" refused a right of return in 1949 under UN Resolution 194 because of the need to "live at peace with their neighbors". The "Palestinians" refused the same right again, under UN Resolution 242 in 1967, when the solution to the refugee problem was contingent on the cessation of all states of belligerency. Mahmoud Abbas refuses to declare that the signing of a final agreement will signal the end of the "Palestinian-Israeli Conflict". Why should anyone sign a peace treaty if it doesn't signify the end of a conflict? Why should the new Palestinian state be a Jew-free, Arab Muslim state, while Israel would be required to accept any and all citizens of that state who wished to "return" to a supposedly ancestral home they have never seen? The fact that the Arab leadership has brainwashed the Palestinians into believing that only they have any rights, and would murder any Palestinian official who settles for less than everything they demand is not Israel's problem. Arab and Palestinian leadership backed itself into a corner with this, and they'll have to figure out how to get out of it on their own. The operative word is COMPROMISE--finding a solution that neither side really likes, but can live with. Unreasonable demands from one side or the other are the real obstacle to peace, and so far, the unreasonable demands have come from the Palestinians.
Report: IDF find M-16 rifle hidden in Palestinian's car in West Bank (Haaretz)
from the article: A Palestinian state born in South America