Steve Shaw - 17 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

"Ok. So tell us how we are going to stop military aid to the Palestinians from surrounding countries. Explain how Hezbollah will be persuaded to leave off. Advise us as to how $3 billion in US military aid to Israel will be withheld. Any idea how Russia will be kept out?"

What you are describing there Shaw was the status quo from 1956 onward. The situation has got slightly worse for the "Palestinians" (Who by the way are a 1970 invention and creation of Yasser Arafat - if you look at it logically by 1970 the Jews of Israel were as much "Palestinian" as any Arab from the region) because the Israelis are now no longer surrounded by rich Arab front line states - Both Egypt and Jordan have signed bilateral treaties with Israel and both have held. that leaves Lebanon and Syria. Both those countries have more than enough problems of their own to worry about taking on Israel and the IDF. Russia is no position to assist, either economically or militarily. The USA has a binding bilateral defence treaty with Israel that guarantees that country's sovereignty dating back to 1948 - tell me on what grounds should that binding treaty be cast aside? The state of Israel has been under constant attack and threat of attack since 1948 - the Arabs could have opted for peace at any time they wished, they chose not to do so, they chose war and must pay the price and accept the consequences of having done so. The Arabs of Palestine who chose to wage war and lost have as much right of return and title to their former possessions as the Jacobites in the 18th century, if you wage and risk all in war and lose the stakes are extremely high, and if you think for one second that real life is like a computer game that is automatically reset to the previous start position then you are a fool living in cloud cuckoo-land.

On two occasions (1967 and in 1973) Israel was under dire threat and the odds were firmly in favour of the Arab armies ranged against Israel - they were an nuclear power then weren't they Shaw? Why did they not use their weapons then? If faced with total annihilation why should they not use the threat of nuclear attack to deter their enemies? The USA does, the Russians do, we do as do the French.

Steve Shaw - 17 Dec 16 - 10:22 AM

"I note your use of quotes. I assume it means that you don't regard Palestinians as actual human beings."

I of course have absolutely no control whatsoever of what you wish to idiotically "assume" but the reasons I always refer to "Palestinians" because they are a political construct of a ruthless, thoroughly corrupt and totally dishonest leader Yasser Arafat - even as I type there are still hundreds if not thousands trying to trace the $millions he stole from the Arabs of Palestine, they have been doing so since Arafat died. The territory of Palestine was defined by the League of Nations in 1920. It was redefined in 1923 when 77% of the territory was hived off for the sole settlement by the Arabs of the region. Since Arafat departed the scene the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other, launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of - these are the people you wholeheartedly support - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and should be roundly condemned - instead you applaud them and cheer on their efforts.

Jim Carroll - 17 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM

"Israel is now indistinguishable from the regime that slaughtered six million Jews and the rest of the world looks on in silence"

That Jim according to the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the British Government is an anti-Semitic remark.