Israel and higher moral standards

"I'm not singling out the world's only Jewish state, I merely hold Israel to a higher moral standard because it claims to be a democracy."

A line I have encountered many times. So here are some thoughts:

If Israel were not a democracy, would you ignore the crimes you claim Israel is guilty of in much the same way that you currently ignore the actual crimes of states like Syria, Iran, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Egypt, Lebanon etc etc?

If you would ignore Israel's crimes should it not be a democracy, are you suggesting that Netanyahu declare himself dictator and suspend all elections?

If you would continue in your anti-Israel activism, what justification would you now offer seeing as it is on the same moral standings as nations you previously chose to ignore because you felt you could hold Israel to a higher moral standard?

I'm genuinely interested, please answer simply.

Stunned into Silence

Tonight marks the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, the day that we remember all the victims of the Nazi genocide. A genocide that many deny, others delight in and some wish to enact all over again. The amount of times I have been told to "go back to the gas chambers" or that someone understood why Hitler left some Jews and that was so that the world would understand why he killed the rest is horrific. Perhaps the world will never be rid of such ignorance and hatred but this post is not about that. Rather it is about my trip to Auschwitz.

Just over a year ago now I visited Auschwitz with my school on a History trip. I did not know what to expect. I mean I knew what happened - I had learnt about it in school; watched programmes about it; read books written on it but with all the knowledge on the Holocaust in the world nothing could prepare you for visiting Auschwitz. You can try and picture the horrors but no matter how many pictures you have seen; irrespective of the videos you have watched and regardless of the knowledge you think you have acquired, nothing will quite compare to actually walking around the crumbling death camp and experiencing the surroundings that were, for 1.5 million people, the last things they saw before their lives were cruelly taken. Sometimes I go through the pictures I took, 4 of which appear here, and try and remember how I felt walking around taking them but I simply can't. It is a place you have to experience to understand.

"To the memory
of the men, women and children who
fell victim to the Nazi Genocide.
Here lie their ashes
May their souls rest in peace."

Understandably, I was nervous on the coach ride there. I was worried that I would not feel anything inside, that emotionally I might not react as would be expected of a Jew.  I need not have worried. There was an eerie silence, a mist appropriately covering the perimeter of the camp and I instantly felt chills go down my spine. From the moment we got off the coach until we sat down for lunch and then until the end of the day, I do not think a Habs Boy uttered a word out of turn (if at all) and the only sound to be heard was the occasional clicking of a camera and the tour guide who every so often would say something about where we were. There was no obligation to listen to her, we were left to wander around freely and take in the site in whatever way we felt appropriate. Silently, slowly and subdued in our case.

It is impossible to take everything in. As I walked around, I was constantly hit by the thought, "This is a place that people were brought to be killed, the purpose of every building on this vast patch of land was to aid, in some way, with the killing of innocent people." Just think about that for a minute. It rendered me immobile on many occasions, whether I had just seen what remained of living quarters or heard stories of children being instantly separated from their parents. The whole thing is literally incredible.

Every so often I would walk close enough to the guide to hear what she was saying. Almost every time it shocked me, just when you thought the horrors of Auschwitz could not get any greater, they would. The most chilling comment, the comment that I can still picture her saying was as we were stood next to one of the memorials (to the left above). There were quite a few of those stone blocks dotted around, always appearing as fours - in Hebrew, English, Roma and Polish. We'd stopped, broadly in our group, gathered around the first set of four we'd come across when she uttered a few words that shocked me to my very core:

"...And it is a sad fact that wherever you walk in Auschwitz you are walking on the ashes of people whose bodies were burnt after the Nazis murdered them..."

She went on but I do not remember what else she said. I lifted my foot up nervously. You could not see anything other than grass but to imagine that, with certainty, you had stepped on the ashes of someone murdered by the Nazis, perhaps even a child, was an image that I do not think I will ever be able to erase from my mind.

The rest of the day followed the same pattern. We would slowly walk around, silently, and every so often something else would be seen or said that would shock us a little bit more. We would see a chimney of a gas chamber; an exhibit of all the hair shaven from the individuals at Auschwitz or hear about the trainloads of Jews arriving on those iconic railway tracks (below and above), many whom were immediately marked out for death. There was no rush, there was nowhere we had to get to and everyone took the day at their own pace. Boys paused and looked around, trying to understand what had happened there; trying to picture what 1.5 million dead bodies would look like but you can't. The more I thought about everything, the more I could not believe that something like this could have actually happened. And then it hits you, "But it did, it actually did." The moment of stunned realisation happened to me many times during the day.

I had never heard so little from a group of Habs Boys before. Of course, you could argue that is not surprising. Sure Habs Boys are loud and whatever else, but when it comes to it very few people, least of all supposedly intelligent ones, could be disrespectful walking around Auschwitz, so of course they were quiet, they were just being respectful. There was something else though. There was a feeling, at least for me, that even if I tried to speak words would not come out. That is what Auschwitz does to you, it renders you speechless so shocked you are by what happened on the very ground you are walking.

If you have not been to Auschwitz, I would recommend it as an experience that is incomparable to any other. You will not enjoy it, that is not the point, but you will learn a huge amount about the unspeakable inhumanity that humanity can show. A lesson that, unfortunately, needs teaching. Dwight D. Eisenhower is alleged to have said of the Holocaust:

“Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened,”

and how right he - or whoever said this - was. 

The systematic plans to exterminate an entire race of people from the face of the Earth is something that, hopefully, we will never ever witness again. That is what we mean when we say never again. 

Those words will stay with me for the rest of my life

Hardly an Apology

News that Turkey and Israel have resumed diplomatic relations is good news. News that it comes on the back of an "apology" is relatively irrelevant for two reasons:

• It wasn't exactly an apology
  
  Netanyahu apologised for "any mistakes which led to the loss of life". Well yes. As far as Israel is concerned, it is always apologetic for mistakes which lead to loss of life and always regrets loss of life full stop. As much as western media will try and portray Israel as some sort of vicious, murderous and blood thirsty nation, content with nothing more than spilling the blood of those who do not accept its right to existence this is simply not the case. So of course Israel is apologetic for any mistakes which lead to a loss of life.
  
  
  Crucially, there was no apology for the raid itself. Frankly, that is not something Israel has to apologise for anyway. 

• There was probably an incentive involved
  
  Quite simply, Obama must have convinced Netanyahu that it would be worth his while. Perhaps  it has to do with Turkey's strategic position with regards to Iran or just simply the importance of ties with neighbouring states for reasons including, but not limited to, the fact that Syria is in a very dangerous mess at the moment.

So not only has Netanyahu (correctly in my view) not apologised for the raid itself but the apology he has made was probably helped along by an incentive anyway. Hardly news really.

My Letter To George Galloway

Below is a letter I have just sent to George Galloway MP regarding his upcoming attendance at Warwick University's Middle East and Africa Forum.

"Dear Mr Galloway,

I am a Warwick University Student who has recently purchased a ticket to attend the Middle East and Africa Forum you will be attending on 2nd March. In light of recent events at the University of Oxford, I feel I should inform you ahead of time that there may be Israelis present at the event. Indeed, for what it is worth, I, myself, hold an Israeli passport (with some pride I may add). I hope you will see my good intentions for I only do so because I do not want a situation where you feel that you have been misled in anyway as you claimed to have been with the Oxford University debate you so superbly stormed out of.

I look forward to an engaging debate and forum where all opinions are heard, listened to and respected regardless of already held beliefs.

Yours Sincerely,

Raphael Levy (Oh I am Jewish as well)"

I doubt I will get a reply. Maybe, just maybe, Mr Galloway will surprise us all and inform me that he shares my anticipation for a proper debate with all those present on the topics that will be discussed at the forum in question. Seeing as he has blocked me on Twitter I do not think I will hold out much hope.

Grumbles about Gun Control

Some say I moan too much. It is probably difficult for me to disagree with that, especially given the nature of this post. The gun control debate is an interesting one. Once you get rid of the, and excuse my frankness, nut-jobs who think "1776 will commence again" or that 9/11 was an inside job, for example, I think there are arguments on both sides. Let's be clear, I do not for a minute support having armed guards outside schools, but some of the "Gun Control isn't the answer" arguments have some strength - namely that the cause of gun murders (whilst not helped by guns - duh!) are not solely caused by the ease of getting guns, necessarily. Things like mental health checks, better background checks and a programme to change the gun culture in America are all policies which can be implemented without actually restricting the sale of guns to people that "the right" believe are entitled to them (although we can argue all day long about whether anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle, for example). And if anything, I think these are all policies which will be much more effective than banning certain types of guns or all guns, in America at least.

The point of this blog, however, is not to argue for or against gun control but it indicates 12 major grumbles I have with the pro-gun arguments. It is attempts at arguments like these which make me support Barack Obama in America because the alternative is the sort of people who think the below points are good ones. It says a lot about the state of the American right that I support Barack Obama almost out of pity because he has to put up with such irrational, moronic and patently absurd opposition. Anyway:

1. "Handguns are the major cause of gun murders, not semi-automatic rifles, why don't you ban those?" which is usually preceded or followed by "You are anti the second amendment".

Look, you can wave your stats at me (or, rather, Ben Shapiro can wave them at Piers Morgan) all day long, we can have a debate about that if you want, keeping in mind, all the while, what Disraeli said about statistics: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics". What infuriates me is when you try and argue that people who support a ban on semi-automatic rifles but not handguns are anti-constitutional. It does not say anywhere that Americans have a right to semi-automatic rifles. In fact, the reason most people aren't in favour of banning handguns is exactly for the opposite of what you seem so relaxed about accusing them of. They aren't anti-constitutional, rather they are pro the constitution - they support the right of Americans to own a handgun (and thus bear arms). They just happen to think that a semi-automatic rifle is not necessary. And you know what? It probably isn't. But either way, accusing someone of being anti-constitutional for wanting to ban semi-automatic rifles and then asking them why they don't ban handguns is ludicrous. You simply cannot have it both ways - stop trying to paint some of these people as anti-constitutional when really they just want fair and proper gun control all the while supporting what I, as Brit who feels able to solve his problems with a good dose of sarcasm and not pissing people bigger than me off, think is a ludicrous right to bear arms.

2. "How can you support gun control, you support abortion"

This is usually followed by a number of abortions carried out in the USA. I understand why people do this - if you're so concerned by the death of innocent children, then you should be pro-'life' (why the anti-abortion campaign is labelled as 'pro-life' when it is a) in no way pro the life of the women forced to have a baby and b) simply anti-choice - the right would not like that!) because life begins in the womb. However, the whole point about pro-choice people is that they do not believe this and to base an argument on this premise being accepted when it simply is not is plain lazy. Ignoring that, it is also irrelevant. They are two separate arguments and, frankly, I'm tired of people trying to get in a case for abortion being illegal when arguing about gun control. Stop changing the subject. 

3. "Barack Obama has bodyguards, why shouldn't our children?"

On the face of it, this seems a reasonable point. When you have a little think, you will realise just how absurd the link made to make this point is. When someone goes off to kill innocents for whatever reason, he does so without due care and attention to whom he kills - armed guards at a school, children, bystanders - it really doesn't matter to him or her who ends up dead. However, when someone attempts to kill the President, killing 3 secret service staff and a butler really does not send the same message. Therefore it makes sense to protect the President to ensure that this *target* survives. Armed guards, however, cannot protect every target of the mass murderer which is simply "anyone". Try harder. Make better arguments for putting guns in schools. By children. 

4. "But we need our guns to defend ourselves against the government"

This is usually followed by some reference to either Hitler or a collection of mass murderers who took the guns before embarking on their programme of mass murder. It is comments like this that make me think humanity is a lost cause and the only way it is redeemed is if there are just a huge amount of internet trolls about. Aside from the fact it is simply incredibly disrespectful to the millions who suffered at the hand of the Nazis, let's take a moment to consider what this comparison means. Essentially, gun control is what led to 6 million Jews dying. Not Hitler. Not hateful ideology. But gun control. How ignorant, disrespectful and frankly disgraceful. Sigh. But yes, back the point. Let's ignore the reference to history and people like Hitler and concentrate on the absurd notion that a semi-automatic rifle will be a defence against the military power of the United States. Even the most insane right-wing American idiot must realise that this is a ludicrous reason to have guns. Putting aside the fact that Obama is not going to start a civil war against America (no matter what the American right may believe), if he chose to and really wanted to, I think he'd win. Semi-automatics banned or not. So please stop it.

5. *Insert Gun Control Advocate Here* is dancing on the graves of children

Often followed by the brilliant, "I bet you are happy those children died, it allows you to advance your agenda." What?! Other than making it sound like the agenda is, wait for it, for kids not to die, this is such a horrible point to make. Let's be quite clear, not one gun control advocate wants kids to die - that is kind of the point and to claim they are happy that massacres happen so they can advance a case for gun control is ludicrous. Argue for no gun control all you want. Make salient points though, ones that don't require you to claim that people are happy kids die.

6. "I THOUGHT BOMBS WERE ILLEGAL"

I tweeted a few hours after the tragic Boston Marathon explosions, asking how long it would be before someone tweeted something along the lines of explosives being illegal in reference to gun control. I am afraid "Making things illegal doesn't stop them happening" is not an argument. It's not a valid point. It requires a very loose definition of the word point to be one. It's barely a relevant statement. If I'm honest I cannot believe I only just remembered this one now. Sigh.

*In other news, could I just add my voice to the growing number expressing condolences and well wishes to all those affected by the tragic events that unfolded in Boston earlier today. Let's hope the perpetrators are brought to justice quickly.*

7. Ah, but the statistics show that these states with stricter gun control actually have higher gun murder rates.

Um. No. Just no. If you think this is a good argument look up the following words in a dictionary: 'correlation', 'does', 'not', 'imply' and 'causation'. We all know statistics are misleading:

Have you stopped to consider how many of those murders were with guns bought in that particular state? In other words, the issue is not gun control but the lack of it in surrounding states. Was the murder carried out by a gun holder who purchased his gun legally in a state with lax gun laws and would not have been able to purchase it in the state with stricter gun laws?

Have you done research into how many of those 'murders' were suicide? Or accidental? I.e. because of the existence of guns in the first place, not the lack of the beautifully named 'good guy with a gun'.

Have you examined the type of gun control in place against that which is being proposed? Not all gun control is the same, surprisingly, so you cannot blanket reject anything termed gun control based on statistics from a state which may have a completely different type of gun control.

Until you do all this research, your statistic is a meaningless number. You may as well tell me the number of people who purchase tomatoes in Dorset.

8. "Criminals break the law anyway."

So legalise everything? I really do not get this point. Of course, criminals break the law, that is not an argument to not have laws.

9. "Murder can be carried out with any object"

You try killing 30 people with a vegetable peeler.

10. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

This is akin to the above grumble and indeed can be responded in exactly the same way (i.e. guns make it easier to kill people) but let's accept the logic for a minute. I agree, people do kill people. So perhaps we should have some sort of legislation that...erm...you know...er...checks what sort of people we let buy guns? Like background checks on the people trying to purchase a gun. Revolutionary.

11. "But we are judging all *law abiding* gun owners by the actions of a few nutters"

I just saw this tweet RTed onto my timeline:

 "Don't judge all Muslims by the acts of a few nutters...but the acts of a few nutters makes it ok to judge all *law-abiding* gun owners?"

Ignoring the fact this was the sort of person who absolutely does judge all Muslims by the actions of a few, this is just a ludicrous point to try and make. Firstly, and most importantly, there is no comparison between calling for gun control and suggesting that maybe it is just little teeny tiny bit racist (or, you know, very racist) to argue all Muslims are suicide bombers or terrorists. Absolutely no comparison whatsoever. I mean, is the point this person is making that, because we do not call all Muslims terrorists, we should not have gun control? Seriously? Behave.

12. Gun Control wouldn't have stopped massacre X or event Y

First off, is it not interesting how the NRA and gun nuts in America seem to have an apparently exclusive ability to predict exactly what would have happened if something had been the case. More importantly, this is simply irrelevant. Even if I accepted that gun control would not have prevented massacre X, this does not then entail we should all do absolutely nothing about gun violence. For some reason, gun control is held to this impossibly high standard where it needs to solve all problems ever for the rest of time. It seems to me that even if a direct link between enacting gun control and ending all wars could be found the NRA would still be against it. They'd probably complain it didn't cure cancer or something. Go away.

I have edited this post a few times now. One day it might just be complete and I will have exhausted the list of stupid, lazy and frankly absurd arguments people make against the gun control case. Until then I will continue adding to this list. Whether I am pro or anti guns (I think you can pretty much guess) is irrelevant, I enjoy debating. What I do not enjoy is lazy or ignorant people throwing meaningless statistics at me or making lazy arguments to make emotive points. There is a real debate to be had about whether gun control will work in America and I think it is a good debate. Unfortunately, I think that even with banning high capacity magazines or semi-automatic rifles, the murder rate in America due to gun violence will not fall significantly nor will there be fewer mass shootings. Why? In part, because the right is correct to say people who want to kill will find a way to do so (this does not then imply "GIVE EVERYONE GUNS"), but more importantly because of improper background checks, mental health ignorance and the gun culture that exists in the US. So it is not as simple as banning guns, a select few or all of them, the three aforementioned things need to be changed in addition and as a priority.

The World's Gone Crazy

I live in a Western Liberal Democracy. My mum as a woman has full human rights; I am free to practise my religion; I do not live in fear of suicide bombers or a repressive regime. I really have no reason to be fed up, to have had enough, to be frustrated but for some reason, I am. Why? Because the world's gone crazy.

I live in a world where it is debated by Human Rights Watch whether Iran's repeated calls for the destruction of Israel are illegal with the ultimate conclusion, so far, that this is just fine but the worlds' leaders and media fall over themselves to blast Israel for authorising plans to build houses in land that is rightfully theirs under Oslo.

I live in a world where the murder of anywhere between 60,000 and 120,000 (your guess is as good as mine) Syrians is completely acceptable provided they are murdered by conventional means and not through the use of chemical weapons but where Israel's fundamental right to self-defence against terrorists committed to her destruction is called into question.

I live in a world where Hamas and Fatah fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians but it is only Israel's retaliation aimed at killing terrorists and only terrorists that is deemed worthy of media attention.

I live in a world where Syrian babies are dying daily but this brought to the world's attention only through Hamas' use of pictures of the Syrian war dead as pictures from Gaza.

I live in a world where the UN debates 21 resolutions on Israel and only one on Syria, setting a on hour time limit for this resolution leaving the rest of the day to debate an Israeli one, but it is Israel's reaction to constant rocket fire that is deemed disproportionate.

I live in a world where there is an Arab state in Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Somalia, UAE, Libya, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Djibouti and Comoros but it is the existence of the one Jewish State which prevents peace.

I live in a world where the Arab World refuse to recognise a (Jewish) State of Israel; sponsor, partake and glorify terror; refuse every peace deal that has ever been offered; have declared wars of destruction against Israel on more than one occasion and a Palestinian Authority that rejects negotiations in favour of unilateral moves; has no authority in half the state set aside for a future Palestinian one yet it is Israeli actions which are deemed counter productive to peace.

I live in a world where the Palestinian Leadership and Arab world harbour no desire for peace, seek the ultimate destruction of Israel and are willing to go to any lengths to achieve this goal, but the world presses Israel to do more to achieve peace.

Finally, I live in a world where all of the above is true for the simple fact that Israel is a Jewish state.

Posted with Blogsy

A Few Questions for Palestinian Statehood

On Thursday, the United Nations will vote (almost certainly) to recognise a Palestinian State based on Pre-1967 borders. They will do so primarily through a hatred of Israel (Abba Eban once remarked, "If Algeria introduced a resolution that stated the Earth was flat and Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions) but also through a sheer ignorance of the situation and the recent history of the Israel/Palestine conflict (no Biblical history needed). Perhaps it is worth clarifying that when I refer to Palestinians, I do mean the Palestinian leaders (the same goes for Arabs). Whilst I would argue that if there was a strong desire for peace at the level of the average Palestinian, there would be more efforts to force their leaders' hands into pursuing a peace agenda, I feel it is unfair to label all Palestinians as anti-peace simply for the lack of these moves. They live under regimes that dictate what they should believe, restricting their rights and blaming the resulting suffering on Israel and therefore if peace is to come in this situation, it must come from the Palestinian leaders. However, they simply do not want peace. The problem is not the general population but the leaders themselves. You can argue for days about barriers to peace on both sides - settlements, the Israeli position on Jerusalem, rocket fire, terrorist attacks etc etc etc, but none of these get to the heart of the matter: The Arabs do not want peace or care about a Palestinian state but genocide of the Jews and the destruction of the (Jewish) state of Israel.

For all of you who find my previous comment offensive, wrong, ignorant, any of the above or anything similar I politely request you answer the following questions:

1. If the Palestinians had a true desire for peace, why did they reject the 1947 UN partition plan which (having already designated 4/5 of the Palestine Mandate to Arabs in the form of Jordan) established a Jewish state and an Arab state in the remaining 1/5, with about 50% of the land each?
2. If the Arab World truly desired peace, why did they react to the establishment of a Jewish State by launching a war filled with hatred to destroy this Jewish state resulting only hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees?
3. If the Arab World was so genuinely concerned with the establishment of a Palestinian State (ignoring the existence of a Palestinian state in Jordan), why did Jordan and Egypt not establish a one in the West Bank and Gaza which they respectively occupied between 1949 and 1967?
4. If the Arab World so desired peace why did they decide the best way to achieve this would be by launching yet another war of hatred against Israel in 1967? 
5. What happened the last time an Arab nation was occupying the West Bank and what does this tell you about the current desire to reestablish Arab occupation of the West Bank? 
6. If the Palestinians genuinely only wanted a Palestinian State with eastern Jerusalem as its capital why have the rejected every single offer of a state which includes this? 
7. If the Palestinians want peace, why did the withdrawal from the Gaza strip in 2005 lead to the election of Hamas and constant rocket fire against Israeli civilians?
8. If the Palestinians genuinely want peace with Israel and a two state solution, why do they continue to insist on the right of return of Palestinian refugees (made so by the 1947 war of hatred against Israel) to flood Israel with Palestinian Arabs so rendering it a defacto Palestinian state? 
9. If the Palestinians believe in a two state solution, why do Arab states continue to not recognise the existence of Israel but rather call for the destruction of the Zionist entity?
10. If Palestinians genuinely desired peace, why do they insist on preconditions before even entering peace negotiations?
11. How do you explain the continued use of violence and terrorism against the Jewish population of Israel (and indeed the world)?
12. If the Arab world cared so much about the Palestinians why:

• Did Jordan's Regime murder thousands of Palestinians in 1970?
• Do they not have the right to own property or land, access the health system and require special permits to leave their refugee camps in Lebanon?
• Do Palestinians in Egypt have restrictions on the most basic of human rights?
• Does Hamas store and fire its rockets from within the civilian population in Gaza, using them as human shields against Israel, actively putting them in harms way?
• Is it in Israel that Palestinians enjoy the greatest level of human and civil rights, religious freedom, political representation etc?

Perhaps I can help you out:

1. Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel. 
2. Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
3. Because they do not care about the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but a Palestinian state to replace Israel. In short, because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
4. Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
5. A war was launched against Israel to cause its destruction. They continue to not want peace with Israel but a platform from which to launch the destruction of Israel. 
6. Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel. 
7. Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
8. Because they reject the existence of Israel.
9. Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
10. Because they do not want peace with Israel. 
11. They do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel. 
12. Because they do not care about the Palestinians but realise they are a useful tool in their desire to destroy Israel. 

So please forgive Israel for being wary at this latest publicity stunt from Abbas at the United Nations. Time and again Palestinians have been offered peace and time and again it has been rejected and is usually followed by a war against Israel. The last time there was an Arab power occupying the West Bank, Israel had to defend itself from yet another war of hatred aimed at destroying the state of Israel and the Jewish people. How many times must Israel defend herself from Arab powers who's aim is the destruction of the Jewish State? Any Palestinian state established on Pre-1967 borders leaves open the very possibility of yet another war against Israel launched in very much the same way as the 1967 war - the Arab commitment to 'Pre-1967' borders is nothing to do with a state of Palestine (if they wanted a Palestinian state, they were offered a much larger one which they rejected in 1947) but is a calculated move to threaten Israel. Unilateral moves at the United Nations do not established secure borders for Israel, something history shows us is necessary.

There is no denying the simple fact that there are barriers to peace on both sides that could be removed (and shouldn't be added to). This, however, makes the naive assumption that the Arab side desire peace. If the Arabs wanted peace, they could have had it years ago. Instead, from the very beginning, they chose the path of war and destruction against the Jewish people, a nation whose destruction has been sought by: Ancient Egypt, the Philistines, the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, the Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Crusaders, the Spanish Empire, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. 

Not one of these civilisations, nations or empires still exist. The Jewish People remain.