Option, in reading mlsoft reply to your post, I see I failed to address the question you asked about Palestinians deserving a state and Kurds not. You see, the Palestinians already have a state, it is called Jordan (70% plus Palestinians), thus as far as deserving, no they don't deserve a second state when the Kurds still do not have a single state. The real politiks of the situation is that after 1967, suddenly the West bank Palestinians decided they want an additional state (they never wanted such a state when they were occupied and annexed by Jordan. As far as the "moral issue", it is quite clear, Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 hoping to expand its state's border to the Mediteranean. They failed, and signed a Peace agreement between Jordan (the Palestinian state) and Israel that eliminated the annexation of the West Bank (from 1950) to Jordan. The parallel is Germany signing a peace agreement in 1945, resulting in the loss to Germany of East Prussia, to Russia and Silesia to Poland, and making permanent the solution to the the Alsace/Loraine dispute in favor of France. Why should the two situations be different?
From a moral point of view, the Palestinians refugees are no different that the Jewish/Arab refugees that were absorbed by Israel, thus the moral thing to do is indeed complete the population exchange that started in 1948 when Jews were expelled from all Arab countries, and relocate the Palestinians into the properties confiscated by the various Arab nations.
Is that a realistic solution? I am not sure, but it is the moral one.
Zeev
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
