A few interesting topics were brought up. We can articulate them and point to a few main ones:

1)       Egypt did not want Gaza, and they decided that no Palestinian will stay on Egyptian soil, unless he is a short-term visitor. There was strong resistance towards the entrance of Palestinians, exchange of citizens, and remaking of borders, that it is simply not feasible. This conflict is not about land; Egyptian national security will not allow it. In addition, Syria does not acknowledge the existence of Lebanon. There are no ambassadors, and there is a U.N. border agreement that the Syrians firmly reject. So I believe that the idea of territory exchange is not relevant to such an important matter.

2)       The Syrian matter – I am certain that we can say that in 1995, Assad Sr. agreed to complete peace including embassies, in exchange for the Golan Heights in its entirety. The exchange would be peace, demilitarization agreements, embassies and possibly certain agreements with Lebanon. As far as the thesis that the Alawi regime is not capable of peace, I refuse to accept it. The principle that states that a minority regime is not capable of peace is not true. Today things are different. President Bashar Al-Assad made a brave decision, to send his deputy foreign minister to Annapolis. He gave speeches there in a soft tone. It wasn't a simple decision, since the Iranians and Hizballah did not approve. In addition, he continued in his father's ways. I do not know whether he is ready for peace or not; The Americans see him as a terrorist, and the matter is choosing between options. I ask you to address the issue of whether this is acceptable and plausible, to make peace with Syria. Of course, also please refer to Egypt and the leadership within the Arab work which is avoiding a stand-off with Hamas.

Biger:

I would like to address the things you just mentioned – Egypt's attitude towards Gaza – the border between Egypt and Gaza was determined by England and Turkey over 102 years ago, without asking a single Egyptian. And so it is clear why Egypt does not want Palestinians in their territory – they are not Egyptian, and there is no intention to allow a foreign body into their land. The same rule applies to the other borders in the region, which were created by foreign superpowers when the needs of the locals were barely taken into consideration.

Uzi Arad:

I would like to add my opinion to those whose opinion is geographic. In practicality, the prior proposals that were discussed until now fail. In fact, in a large portion of previous efforts, we had reached a deadlock. Oppositely, let's look in a more open-minded way at the idea of territory exchanges. This has existed on paper since the days of Clinton, via the Geneva convention, until modern days. We have seen that the mechanism of territory exchanges is familiar. The Idea has received the official seal of a previous U.S. President, and it mustn't be canceled. The second concept is problematic but is gaining momentum. If the government has started to take interests in the Saudi Initiative that set the '67 borders as a basis… Other states in the region already regard these borders.

A couple of truths were said: for instance, that the '67 borders are not realistic due to the demographic reality, meaning a return to the borders of 1967 is not realistic due to the events of the past 40 years. This statement is valid. Bush said that Israel needs defendable borders, and this must also be translated to some sort of language. Add to this the Syrian connection, and there, Israel has many territorial claims. Here too you can apply Bush's sayings that the '67 borders in the Golan Heights are not as realistic as Judea and Samaria. And so, you may approach the discussions in a more open manner that improves the chances for success. Whoever is fixated will not be able to be helped. Although whoever looks for a new structure, they will have a measure of interest, including Egypt which said, "maybe not now." My advice is this: let's not settle this before it has even begun; there may be better maneuvering possibilities than our previous attempts which led us nowhere.

Question:

I have not heard any reference to what is happening today in Europe. There too have been several border conflicts, and they were able to find a solution. Europe is about to become unified. The European strategy is to add to it the Middle East; I would like to hear about that.

Question:

It can not be that they won't deal with the academics when the conflict is becoming an Islamic one, and not a territorial one. More than half of the residents of Gaza and the West Bank are members of Hamas, which is a religious movement. When dealing with this topic from an academic point of view, you must figure the probability of the solution, so that if the probability is low, you shouldn't meddle with it. You did not address the Islamization of the conflict that is now more than a territorial conflict.

Answer:

According to the Muslim dogma, you can exchange grounds. A solution based on the exchange of territories, although they are sacred, is an acceptable solution whether you are Shiite or Sunni. It is not a matter of real-estate, but a matter of acre in exchange for acre.

We have in the Middle East a special occurrence when compared to Europe. In Europe there were peoples first and then they were surrounded by borders. In the Middle East we were given borders and then populations settled within them. There are no Syrian people just as there aren't an Iraqi people. In the Middle East there were no Palestinian people, but the transfer of borders by the superpowers created peoples according to the new borders, and so perhaps the creation of new borders could also solve today's problems.

Perhaps the problem is not geography and not territorial, and maybe there are cases that cannot be solved and we need to live with it. This unchanging situation has yet passed its test. The last thing is that we are missing the context. All this talk about territorial exchanges, are within the most violent and treacherous realm. For 1,400 years there have been no inter-Arab agreements or the acknowledgement of borders. If only they could grant us, a burden Jewish body, that which they haven't been granting each other.

Even the absence of a solution is a solution. Of we don't reach an accord with the Syrians, we will conflict with them. In the previous Lebanon War, the Syrians supported the Lebanese, and the potential for a clash grew larger. A solution can also affect the direction of developments.