The conflict explained

 (Alan Johnson, BICOM).

"Israel has resolved to share the [red] sliver of land with the Palestinians but only on terms that guarantee there still is a [red] sliver of land into the future, (so, it seeks assurances it can trust on recognition and security).

The Palestinians want part of the [red] sliver today on terms that allow all the land to become [green] in the future (so, it will not recognise Israel as a Jewish homeland, will not compromise on "right of return", and will not say an agreement would be the "end of claims").

 One side seeks a two states for two peoples solution, while one side - now including Hamas and PIJ - seeks the two-stage solution to an all-red map.

The rest is just detail."

_____________

The map is an attempt (alas, often futile) to visualize the actual asymmetry between Palestinians and Israelis. Not the fairy tale of Israel/Goliath so beloved of the Barking Left vis a vis the Palestinian David. It actually explains why Ben Gurion, in 1937, agreed to Peel's partitioning proposal, though it gave Israel a fraction of what Zionism had dreamed about and been promised. He agreed because the Jewish dream of a state of their own and the emergency of Jewish needs at the time could only be realized through this radical compromise. Nations, suffering nations, that dream of states of their own, do not quibble over minor, immaterial details. If they have a dream, they seize the day, the chance of statehood and independence.

To cut a long story short, it is hard to believe that a people who suffer as much as the Palestinians claim to be suffering, will not make a deal to get their state. They are in no rush and not likely to be in any rush, because of the green part of the map.