Well, clearly that is not the case at all. The US pushed from one coast to the other defeating both the locals (Indians) and competing settlers (Spanish and others) until no border represented a real imminent threat.
That has seldom even been the case in Europe, even up to 60 years ago when WWII smashed through border after border.
There isn't much difference with Israel and her neighbors. And I think the idea that if only Israel would hold the line here or there, everyone would be happy and peace would break out, is a bit naive.
OK, I should have confined the comment to post twentieth century. Nineteenth century rules simply do not apply, unless you are the Russians in Chechnya. As for the poster who pointed to Puerto Rico, we would like to either divest ourselves or give them statehood. But the Puerto Ricans themselves voted to maintain the status quo, so there has been no progress on that front. How many Palestinians in the occupied teritories would vote for the status quo if given the opportunity?
Does anybody but me notice that in all of these posts coming from fanatical Israelis, not once do they ever express gratitude for American support, nor regret for the aggravation their policies are bringing upon our society? No, it's always the other guy's fault. They've had 35 years to deal with this problem, and it's always the Palestinians who are to blame for all the problems. Today, Sharon in his arrogance said he is going to put an end to the terrorism. It must be that he is smarter than all of the Israeli leaders who came before him, because the track record is not encouraging.
I see no reason why we should continue pursuing a foreign policy that goes something like this: send the Israelis a blank check and trust that they will not ignite WWIII.