A long running idea in the Israeli position about a Palestinian state (for those Israeli who agree to its existence) in that Israel will evacuate most of the West bank, then exchange most of what it kept for Israeli territory, but some extra territory will be kept by Israel without an exchange. For example, according to the Clinton parameters, Israel would keep a net of 2-3% of WB after all the exchanges. With Olmert, Israel came to roughly this figure. The Palestinians of course demand that the territorial exchange will be at a 1:1 ratio, so that Israel will keep no net territory. Looking at it from a moral point of view, 2% of the West Bank is about 0.5% of pre-1967 Israel. Should Israel insist on such a minute land grab? It resembles the parable of the Poor Man's Lamb presented to King David by Nathan the Prophet (2 Sam. 12). I think that once we get to a net gain of just a few percent, Israel is morally bound to give it up. The People of the Bible should follow its teaching.
U.S., allies carry out 24 airstrikes on ISIS targets in Iraq, Syria (Reuters)
from the article: Netanyahu examining possible future borders of a Palestinian state
The answer can be summed up in one word, narcissism, which manifests itself in three principal ways. There are ways to overcome this love of self, however.16:16 28.04.16 | 0 comments