>>>Yes I am one actually I think the state of Israel (if it had to be established) should have been smaller and made up of one block of territory. Those who wanted to be in it should then have moved into it. It also would have been more easily defended.
>>
>>Okay, another fallacy that needs to be answered. The state of Israel, as created by the UN, was tiny and contiguous. The map on the Israel page of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) does a pretty good job of showing just how small.
>>
>>Here's a pretty good map that shows the region: http://www.mapsofworld.com/middle-east-map.html
>>
>>And here are comparative sizes: http://www.mideastweb.org/countries.htm
>>
>>Israel is about 20,000 square KM. Egypt is over a million square KM. Jordan is 92,000+. Syria is 185,000+.
>>
>>One last data item. At the narrowest point of the 1948 borders, Israel is less than 10 miles wide.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>Obviously, 10 miles is too much for Nicholas. Smaller number, by his words again, would be easier to defend, i.e. he tries to help, actually. Most likely, he means that in case of less than 10 miles Hamas rockets would go further and landed in the next state. It is very bad, Nicholas that you don't show care for that 'next state' that would have to absorb rockets.

But having the West Bank instead of the Sinai with the Jordon as a Wester Border and a Palestinian state between Israel and Egypt would have been much more defensible.