No insults were meant, the fact is most people have no idea of the history of Resolution 242, that is all I meant to say.

I object to the whole formulation of Land For Peace because it can't bring peace. Peace can be only achieved when both sides are ready for it. The land for peace formula encourages the Arabs to not really want peace but to want land. If Israel today signed a peace treaty with Syria and withdrew completely from the Golan would ther be peace? How could there be after Bashar Assad described Israel as worse then the Nazis? Look at Lebanon, Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon according to the UN, yet the fighting goes on. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Israelis are ready to make peace with all their meighbors and are ready to make painful territorial compromises. The same cannot be said for the other side. No Arab leader has prepared their nation for peace. This is why after more then 20 years of peace with Egypt, it is at best a cold peace, where the newspapers are full of anti-semitism, tourism is non-existant etc. This is why,in Jordan, anyone who promotes or deals with Israelis is boycoted and not allowed to work. Peace can only come when it is Peace for Peace. Of course, there may be territorial negotiations etc. but those need to be secondary. The reason why Sadat was so successful in 1977 was that he at least seemed to embrace this nation, he came to Jerusalem and declared that he wanted peace. Because of that he got all the territory that he wanted. Unfortunately, he was assasinated and the Egyptian people have not continued in that path.