Deciphering Olmert

"“We'll never agree to pull out of all of the territories, because the borders of 1967 are indefensible," Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said yesterday in both London and Paris.

Three points:

1) Israel was born in 1948. Between that date and 1967 were their borders really indefensible as Olmert would have us believe? Seems not given that they lasted 20 years without a major war and then when that war finally came they quickly kicked the Arabs' asses out of the rest of former British Mandate Palestine and occupied it. Does that seem like a country with indefensible borders?

2) Forget 1967, Israel today is full to the brim with the most modern weapons systems in the world. It's really a joke to think that even if all the squabbling Arab countries that surround it were to mass their forces and attack that Israel would fall to them. Israel is the behemoth of the Middle East and let's not forget all those nuclear weapons. They are not weak as much as they would have us believe they are.

3) Most of the territory that Israel wants to hang on to is around Jerusalem. Does this not seem like a grab of the capital that both Israel and Palestine rightly lay claim to? After the unilateral withdrawal, that few countries seem to contest, the Palestinians won't even be able to get near Jerusalem.

What's the real message in your statement Mr Olmert?