« "The race relations circus" | Main | Harriet Harman introduces her Discrimination Bill »


"George Osborne said noone should underestimate the difficulties that the Bush adminstration have faced in the post 9/11"

Some might argue that the difficulties have been somewhat self-inflicted....

"Both stated that they still support the Iraq war"

A continuation of Labour's failed foreign policies is not what people want to hear.

"He repeated his commitment to a dialogue with Syria. He has previously spoken of an acquaintanceship with Syria."

"The Shadow Foreign Secretary stood by his belief that Israel's behaviour in the Lebanon war had been "disproportionate" and militarily ineffective."

Better from Hague, its hard to see how a man who can draw the above conclusions can still lend himself to supporting the war in Iraq.

'Zionism: William Hague said that he was a Zionist if Zionism means being a friend of Israel who believes in its right to exist and its right to defend itself.'

If only !

In fact Zionism is a racist philosophy which holds that Jews are the chosen people and should therefore be able to take what they want off the Palestinians.

Hague has to face up to this uncomfortable fact. If he doesn't, he'll be no more use to the region than Blair is.

The progress in Iraq hailed by William Hague has happened because of a surge of troops and change of strategy that William Hague opposed.

Dave, good points, coming out and declaring themselves to be 'Zionists' just plays right into the hands of anyone with an anti-Israel agenda. I wouldn't call Zionism racist but for British 'goy' politicians to try and pass themselves off as 'kosher glatt' is bad tactics if they want to be seen as objective in middle-east affairs. Nothing wrong with offering support for Israel if that is what they want to do, but watching these clips one gets the feeling that Hague and Osborne are beholden to a pro-Israeli lobby, which won't play too well when trying to portray themselves as being objective in foreign policy.

It ought not to be beyond the wit of William Hague and George Osborne to be able to distinguish between democracy and liberty. Hague rightly points out that a democratic Middle East now would probably not be favourable to our interests. But that is because the region has festered under the yolk of tyrants for decades and has no tradition of civil society or democracy.

What ought - indeed, needs - to happen before democratisation is a process of libertification (if such a word exists). Mubarak, for instance, should be pressured to cede some ground to civil society, to stop locking people up willy nilly, and to make Egpyt a generally freer place. A benign despotism, in other words, ought to be the first objective. Then, perhaps, Middle Eastern society will enjoy enough breathing space to develop the social moeurs necessary for democracy to flourish.

Bush's fixation on the big bang of democratisation rather than on the small steps of libertification is at the root of his administration's difficulties over the past 7 years. No Middle Eastern state will democratise overnight. The mere thought of it scares the regimes witless.

The fact that 80 candidates and MPs were present just goes to show how powerful CFI is within the Party. They are, though, a biased organisation from a pro-Zionist PoV. William Hague and others would be better to get information on the Middle East from non-biased organisations.

Personally, I support a two-state solution but we have to remember that many Zionists are opposed to this, yet it's always the poor Palestinians that get the blame for the current stalemate.

Alexander, I can't see where Hague said that 'a democratic Middle East now would probably not be favourable to our interests'

He might have said it somewhere else, but I hope not !

Cultural relatavism is all very well, but history shows that democratic states are a lot more stable and secure than non-democratic ones.

Dave, you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. Nowhere have I advocated "cultural relativism". As for Hague's comments: they do imply that a democratic Middle East tomorrow would not favour our interests. If Israel would be less secure, then you can bet your bottom dollar that we would, too. Hague, I am sure, is well aware of that.

Alexander, Israel's lack of security is the consequence of it's violent occupation of Palestine.

Until the conflict which that has created has been resolved, Israel will not be secure (hence my previous comments - it is extremists like the Zionists who are making this so difficult).

As for the implication of Hague's comments, we'll have to disagree. Personally, I think that Osborne hit the nail on the head when he said that 'The best long-term guarantee of peace and stability is the emergence of more and more democracies'

Dave, let me make this as simple as possible for you:

Democracy in the Middle East in the future = Good.
Democracy right now in the Middle East = Bad.
Route to Democracy in the Middle East in the future = Expanding the realm of liberty.

As for your comments on Israel, I'm not going to get into a discussion with you because you seem clearly to have made up your mind.

The political systems in the middle-east, Israel excluding, have to reflect the socio/religious culture of those countries. Otherwise there will continual discord between what democratic legislators want and what the majority of the people want. Alexander is right in saying that democratic change has to be gradual, there can be no imposition of democracy.

Unbelievable. The Chairman of Tottenham Conservatives has written some sense.

Justin, on one issue, we're two of a kind!

Good stuff from Tony Makara and, of course, Dave.

The Conservative Friends of Israel Annual Dinner event is always a must for any aspiring Conservative politico. My mole tells me this year was no exception. As always this year’s event was expertly managed by a capable and very attractive team of soon to be notables – but enough about Robert Halfon. The ambassador gave, I am told, a confident oration on the Anglo Israeli association and the part Conservatives have and continue to play in nurturing it. Both Conservative speakers appear relaxed and witty in their exchanges with Times journalist Daniel Finkelstein. Diners apparently left the event in good spirits after a hearty meal confident that Israel’s future was safe in Conservative hands.

However, despite the capabilities of CFI (an excellent organisation run by capable and devoted staff that I greatly support) watching the event on Conservative Home it left me feeling a little depressed at the comments of our soon to be Foreign Secretary. William Hague confidently declared that he was a Zionist if that meant someone who believed that Israel had a right to exist. Let me repeat - he supported Israel’s right to exist and this gained a clap from the audience. The bar for Zionism these days seems to be set somewhat low. Now let us ask ourselves in what other audience in the world would the right of an existing nation state to exist gain a round of applause? Would Hague have said this at a meeting of German MPs or French MPs? In short, support for Israel must mean more than a few words at a lunch declaring a right to exist for Israel. We also need Conservative politicians to support the right of Israel to defend herself when attacked.

On the issue of Israel defending herself William Hague appears less than a committed friend. Famously he declared elements of Israel’s defensive measures in southern Lebanon to be disproportionate. This he declared at the meeting to be correct. Israel needed a candid friend and Britain could not co-opt her foreign policy to that of any other power. Well maybe so. However, might it not have been better for the UK to declare public support for the democracy which was under attack by the fascistic terrorist movement and privately advise Israeli politicians a change of course would be advisable? Friends after all rarely publically condemn their pals when those pals were the ones attacked.

Hague’s actions in the Lebanon debacle seem to be those of someone who calculated they could make some political leverage from criticising Israel. Perhaps Hague saw a chance to cause the then Labour leader Tony Blair difficulties because Blair would not criticise Israel when much of the Labour party wanted Blair to. Israel needs friends unwilling to play politics with Israel’s security. In fact it needs friends willing to expend political capital on its behalf not gain it at Israel’s expense. This is why Hague’s other comments at the meeting make for fearful reading.

Hague has been meeting extensively with Syrian officials and has made the comments of their dictator known to Israeli officials. This sounds very similar to Obama’s tea and biscuits with dictators policy. However, it goes further than that policy. The UK under a Hague foreign policy would, it seems, try to play the role of honest broker in the Middle East rather than that of staunch ally to the Middle East’s only stable functioning Liberal Democracy - Israel. This would no doubt involve many more exotic trips to Arab dictatorships all in the cause of understanding. The idea that Britain should stand against a Syrian dictatorship involved in the assassination of Lebanese political opponents, which sponsors Hizbollah and is closely allied with Iran (our main enemy in the region) does not seem to feature. Also not mentioned is the fact that Syria has made large arms purchases from Russia ($6 Billion worth of arms to be precise) strengthening the threat it poses to Israel. That Syria refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist. That Syria demands Israel return the Golan Heights as part of an agreement. In effect we in the west are asking Israel to hand over a vital strategic point from which most of northern Israel can be bombed to a dictatorship. If Israel were to withdraw from the Golan there is little to prevent Syria using it as a base to shell Israel. This has happened before in both Southern Lebanon and Gaza. These both became bases for terrorist activity against Israel when Israel withdrew. Presumably If Israel retaliated against Syrian attacks Hague would once again find Israel’s defensive response disproportionate. Thereby, it might be more advisable that Israel retain control of this essential strategic defensive position than surrender it in exchange for a piece of paper promising peace.

William Hague then proceeded to declare the need to establish and maintain relations with the Gulf States. This is not in itself a bad policy. Britain must trade and relate with many interesting states to achieve its interests. However, what was not mentioned was that unlike Hague the Gulf States do not recognise Israel’s right to exist. This detail could prove important to a friend of Israel. It would be worthy of mention at such an event and helping Israel achieve such recognition could prove a good Conservative policy. Instead Hague simply explained that the region was complex and that there were many differences in the Arab Muslim world that needed to be recognised. This I agree with. The Arab Muslim world is split on many issues. One issue on which Arab regimes of all shades seem to find agreement on though is their opposition to Israel. In most cases they refuse to recognise its right to exist. Perhaps we Conservatives should be pressuring Arab regimes to recognise Israel. Perhaps we should be candid with Arab states as to our support for Israel’s right not merely to exist but to defend herself when attacked.

Departing the meeting my friend greeted the Israeli ambassador to Britain. Ron Prosor is a kind and decent man motivated to do the best for his country. He apparently was pleased with the proceedings as well he should be. There were no doubt many friends of Israel in the room and CFI are more than capable of motivating them to act. However, watching William Hague’s comments I wonder whether Hague belonged at a Conservative Friends of Israel meeting or whether next year he might find more who shared his views at another event – A Council for Arab British Understanding Event perhaps. Sorry Hague maybe that was a bit low or disproportionate as you like to say.

A lot of cr*p on this thread. So many of its neighbours want Israel eliminated. Israel is the only democracy in the region (despite what Hague says, Iraq's not proven yet). Of course Conservatives need to be on Israel's side.

Alex, I can't believe you're running away from this discussion ! I was enjoying it so much more than the work I'm supposed to be doing ;)

I do think you're wrong about Hague, though.

YOU might fear an outbreak of Democracy in the Middle East, but according to the above article neither Hague nor Osborne share your view.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Agreed, CCHQ spy. It's scary how the anti-Israel zealots come crawling out of the woodwork every time Israel is mentioned. Some people have short memories, it seems.

'A lot of cr*p on this thread. So many of its neighbours want Israel eliminated. Israel is the only democracy in the region (despite what Hague says, Iraq's not proven yet). Of course Conservatives need to be on Israel's side.'

CCHQ, the only way we can help is by being on the 'side' of the moderates in both camps.

Eventually, this conflict will be resolved by:

1 - The Israelis ending the occupation (which will involve them standing up to the Zionists)

2 - The Palestinians ending their attempts to reclaim the whole country (which will involve them standing up to the Islamists).

I think Portillo made the point that if it wasn't for the extremists this settlement would have been reached a generation ago.

Robert Raymond, do you accept that at the end of the long-planned massive cleansing operation in the summer of 1949 more than 5000 Palestinians had been killed and 800,000 people had been dispossessed and driven from their homes? That Israel controlled 78% of Palestine and within a short time had effectively stolen with violence approximately 84% of the land and buildings behind the Green Line?

Israeli politicians and their supporters insist on discussing only post-1967 Palestinian grievances. This continued moral amnesia allows Israel's dismissal of internationally recognised Palestinian refugee claims and its pretense of generosity in offering to give up land for peace - this land being the hinterland of East Jerusalem, but not part of Jerusalem itself, and the poorer half of the West Bank, divided by settlements and cris-crossed with Israeli-only roads.

How about a bit of humility at the well-organised activities on which the State of Israel is founded? Please don't ask Britons, of all people, to support the 'politics' of today's regime.

What nearly all of us do support is peaceful reconciliation and co-existence, whether that is called the state of Israel or the state of Palestine. Why don't we talk about how to achieve this peace a bit more regularly? It is never too late to do the right thing.

'Agreed, CCHQ spy. It's scary how the anti-Israel zealots come crawling out of the woodwork every time Israel is mentioned. Some people have short memories, it seems.'

Bad show, Alex.

If you don't want to contribute to the discussion, fair enough.

But don't lower the tone by becoming a 'troll'.

Thank you, Mr. Mayhew. Traditionally, the Party and the Country, esp. the FO, have been more pragmatic about this subject than we seem to be now. Whilst supporting Israel’s right do exist (which we all do), we should continue to work with Arab counties to find a lasting settlement by aiming for a two-state solution.

"More pragmatic" - for this read making no moral distinction between the Liberal Democracy Israel fighting for its life and the fascistic Baathist dictatorship attacking her i.e. Syria - see Hizbollah in southern Lebanon.

I think the Middle East and Europe have suffered quite enough from the Foreign Offices pragmatism - if you don't believe me ask the Czechs/Poles/insert small nation screwed over by our foreign office in the cause of so called moderation.

"A lasting settlement by aiming for a 2 state solution" - well the Palestinians are voting Hamas and this movement does not recognise Israel's right to exist. So if one of those 2 states is a Hamas led Palestine how do you expect to deal with this? No doubt more pragmatism - condemning Israel for defending herself etc

Instead we could actually be moral and say we support a western liberal democracy over the fascistic and Islamist regimes that surround it and are attacking it. Just a thought.

Dave, the only troll on this thread is you. Moreover, since you seem to struggle with even basic logical inferences (not to mention basic grammar), I hardly think it's worth discussing anything with you.

Glyn, you should, perhaps, ask why they do support Hammas?

"William Hague and others would be better to get information on the Middle East from non-biased organisations."

Which organisations do you have in mind, Justin?

For what it's worth - I too support a two-state solution though I know I come from a rather different viewpoint to yourself on this particular issue.

There are lots of independent think tanks, Sally, and let's not forget the Conservative Middle East Council (which, unlike CFI, is neutral).

Glyn, wouldn't you rather back the Palestinian/Israeli majority who want a peace settlement rather than give carte blanche to one side or another ?

Both the Zionists and the Islamists are hell bent on keeping the conflict going.

Neither seem particularly concerned about the suffering their actions bring to their own communities, let alone anybody elses.

Don't you think that we should be helping the moderates to overcome these fanatics ?

"Glyn, you should, perhaps, ask why they do support Hammas?"

Perhaps because virulently anti-Semitic material is drummed into young Palestinians from an early age. Their textbooks are full of Jewish conspiracy theories and other appalling nonsense. Jews are routinely portrayed in the Arab press as hook-nosed Shylocks. If you want a taste of it, just watch the "Running of the Jew" scene in the Borat film - it's a skit, but much of the Middle East isn't a million miles away from that.

' . . . let's not forget the Conservative Middle East Council (which, unlike CFI, is neutral).'

Thanks for the tip, Justin. I hadn't heard of this one before.

Justin - neutrality between the fascistic Arab regimes which surround Israel and the Liberal Democratic state of Israel is immoral. This neutrality nonsense is nothing more than relativism. There are two sides to every story but in this case the Palestinian side is wrong - it is not acceptable to vote Islamo fascist.

As to why the Palestinians support Hamas I would say:

1. Their provision of social welfare and the image of them as incorruptible.
2. A general wave of Islamism which is growing throughout the Middle East.
3. Their opposition to any accomodation with Israel based on a 2 state solution.

You should ask - will unconditional concessions to Hamas result in that movement moderating its aims? I would say this is unlikely. Sooner or later you will run out of scraps and the crocodile is still hungry at this point I would not like to be Israeli. Sounds a little dangerous.

No, Alexander, it's because these people are destitute. They have very limited access to food, electricity, gas, medicine, and running water, things we take for granted here in the West. Israel has made things worse with the erection of a huge Berlin-style wall. In the words of the great Ronald Reagan, I say, 'Tear down that Wall!'.

Lets shoot down this Israeli security fence = berlin wall right now.

Berlin wall - to keep its people in.
Israeli security fence - to keep people out.

Unless you think your garden fence is equivalent to the Berlin wall please acknowledge how ridiculous this comparison is.

As for the poverty point - a very significant proportion of the worlds population is in poverty - see India - they don't embrace suicide bombing or lionise those that do. There is no excuse for the actions of Hamas or the Palestinian peoples support for them.

Justin, the wall surrounds the West Bank, where Fatah is strongest. Hamas's bastion is in the Gaza Strip, which Israel left unilaterally in 2006.

So Israel leaves, yet the rockets continue. And you wonder why some Israelis have given up on the Palestinians?

Keep 'em in, keep 'em out - Gaza is basically a ghetto on the old Warsaw model.

Just as the European anti-semites wanted the Jews contained, so the Israeli's want to do the same to the Palestinians.

It's obviously been completely counterproductive as far as security is concerned. You cansee how Hamas have capitalised on the rage this treatment has created within the Palestinian community.

Meanwhile Hamas's response, and the ongoing tit for tat rocket/artillary exchanges, have been equally damaging to the peace process.

Frankly, why any Brit would want to support either side's abuses is beyond me.

Glyn Gasgarth should note that Israel's record over many decades has almost certainly helped provoke organisations such as Hamas.
And, of course, the building of settlements over the border.

Giving up the Gaza strip. Big deal. It is, I think, one of the most, if not, the most overcrowded pieces of land in the world.

"Gaza is basically a ghetto on the old Warsaw model".

That is a quite obscene statement. Are you suggesting that Israel is planning to exterminate the Palestinians?

Tim, ban this troll.

Unless you believe in unrestricted immigration into the UK - which does not sound like a Conservative position to me - the difference between keeping people in and keeping them out is obvious.

What record would you be talking about there - being invaded by Arab states bent on her destruction? Ceeding land for peace with Egypt? Being one of the few countries in the world founded by UN vote.

The counter productive element of Israels defensive strategy is the idea that simply withdrawing will engender a civilised response from Hamas. With Israel it seems they are damned if they stay and damned if they go. Would have been better if they had not withdrawn then this Hamas state would not have emerged.

Some of the comments above seem to be taking Hague and Osborne to task for seeing the Middle Eastern problem as it is, rather than as those contributors perceive, or wish it to be. The hard fact is that it is in Britain`s national interest for there to be stability in the Middle East, now and for the foreseeable future.We have an oil-based economy and until we have in existence an effective, alternative source of power, continuing instability in that crucial area of the world, with its constant danger of war, will be greatly against our own national interest.
Like it or not, Israel exists. Many Arab State leaders wish it did not and they are not above political point-scoring in their attitude to its existence. Those countries in the region that are developing WMD capabilities now, or at least aspire to develop them, might prove willing to take a chance to destroy Israel. The latter for its part has never let anyone be in doubt that it will not sit idly by in the face of such a threat and will surely reply in kind. The fall-out, in all senses, from such a conflagration does not bear thinking about; but think about it we must. For the Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary to take up entrenched positions at this stage would not be helpful; any further than to say our aim in government would be to help establish and maintain long-term stability. Blaming and name-calling now is far from helpful in this difficult task; although the FCO`s historic Arabist sympathies cannot be discounted as they have tended for decades to skew British policy in the region!

"why any Brit would want to support either side's abuses is beyond me"

There is no moral equivalence.

Israel is a democracy under attack.
Hamas led Gaza is an Islamo fascist terrorist state waging a war of aggression against Israel.

I tend to favour the Liberal democracy when they are fighting an Islamo fascist state what do you do?

We need to discuss ways of defeating Hamas not just ignoring them or worse as some people on this list seem to be suggesting apologising for them/negotiating with them.

"Zionism means being a friend of Israel who believes in its right to exist and its right to defend itself."

That is my definition of Zionism too and that is why I am proud to describe myself as a Zionist.

Glyn, it is Israel which is occupying Palestine, not the other way around.

To accuse Hamas of waging a 'war of aggression' does seem to miss this point !

I totally agree with you about defeating Hamas though.

My point is that you defeat the Islamists the same way you defeat the Zionists, and that's by backing the moderates within their own communities.

You encourage moderation by attaching costs to extremism. This makes moderation pay. When people say negotiate with everyone and pledge unconditional support for a Palestinian state moderation by Palestinians is not encouraged.

As for occupying Palestine - Israel has withdrawn from Gaza - and look what happened. We don't want this in the West Bank too.

Interestingly - anyone who would like to read about the indoctrination of Palestinian children to martyr themselves and hate Israelis can do so here.

The Report is entitled Hate Education.

The TaxPayers Alliance have done some great work exposing how we the British taxpayer are funding this. Would be interested in whether people think this is conducive to a lasting peace and what we should do about it.

Glyn, there is very little point in debating with an anti-Israel fanatic like Dave. They don't live in the real world. You can point out obvious facts - like the fact that Israel left Gaza two years and the rockets continued - but it just sails over their heads and they continue banging their fanatical little heads against the wall.

"Zionism means being a friend of Israel who believes in its right to exist and its right to defend itself."

Sally, I don't think that this is a definition of Zionism at all. If it was, everybody would be a Zionist.

Zionism is a political ideology which is as damaging to Israel as Islamism is to the Palestinians.

'As for occupying Palestine - Israel has withdrawn from Gaza - and look what happened. We don't want this in the West Bank too.'

The Gaza strip is a worthless strip of nothing which is of use only as a ghetto.

The idea that withdrawing the IDF from the place and then walling in the inhabitants was a step on the peace process is a mistaken one.

What you say about encouraging moderation by attaching costs to extremism is an interesting idea.

Did you have any examples in mind ?

Comparing a legitimate political movement like Zionism with the Hamas terrorist movement is completely unjustified.

There is no equivalence. Hamas engage in suicide bombings. The worst you can say about Zionists is they settle in the West Bank - well earlier people were saying Israel had no right to prevent Palestinians entering Israel and could not build its fence. Either people can settle/move where they want or they cannot.

If we are talking of moderation lets agree that the settlements in the West Bank outside Israels capital Jerusalem are unhelpful and they need to be stopped but Israel has a right to build a fence around its property as I do round my garden.

The IDF withdrew from Gaza. The whole world said they wanted Israel to withdraw from Gaza and they did. Where are your thanks to Israel?

Also Israel was a worthless strip of nothing. Then loads of intelligent dynamic and hard working Jews forced to flee their homes in Europe and the Middle East came to join the existing Jewish population in building a modern Liberal Democracy.

These people were refugees too. At the same time as the Palestinians they were refugees and look at what they did - a great free country was built.

Now look at the Palestinians. They are in camps ostracised by their Arab brothers living on hand outs from the world with their children being taught to be suicide bombers.

Look at Gaza - Israel pulls out. Do the Palestinians say right now let us build a modern liberal democracy and encourage the trade and development that will give our children a better life - no they do not. They begin to shell Israel.

Consider that when Israel moved to re-allow fuel shipments a mystery Islamist organisation decided to bomb the shipment. 2 Israeli civilians dead trying to deliver fuel to Gaza. No prizes for guessing who bombed the shipment or why.

Rights of Arabs within Israel proper:

To vote.
Free speech.
Freedom of Worship.
Freedom of association with non violent movements.
Freedom to form their own political parties.
Freedom to be gay - see gay Palestinians fleeing to Israel.
Right of Palestinian women to be educated and seek jobs with similiar employment rights to men.

Rights of Palestinians in other Arab states:
Not full citizens.
No right to vote.
No political representation.
Severely restricted rights of association.
Being gay often results in a prison sentence or worse.

Consider there are rights other than that to national self determination and Israeli Arabs have more rights in Israel than Palestinian Arabs have in any Arab country.

It would probably help if idiots didn't define Zionism as meaning that 'Jews are superior to everyone else and can therefore do what they want to the Palestinians.'

Zionism is simply the belief in a Jewish homeland, and as such is a creed that things Jews are the same as everyone else who have a country to call home.

Much like any other political creed, there are varieties and arguments about how best to carry it out. I, personally, think that Israel should withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank (despite the fact that the historical Palestine the Palestinians appeal to included much of Jordan) but that the right and need of Israel to remain an independent Jewish state is inviolable.

Tell us more about 'Israel proper' Glyn. 'Israel actually' might have slightly fewer problems if her borders tallied rather more exactly with those - and I'm guessing here - of 'Israel proper's'. Care to tell us what the borders of 'Israel proper' are?

David is spot on in the point made last night.

As for Dave (a different user)
You said: Sally, I don't think that this is a definition of Zionism at all. If it was, everybody would be a Zionist.

A definition from "Zionist-israel" website.

"Zionism is the national revival movement of the Jewish people. It holds that the Jews have the right to self-determination in their own national home"

Or from "zionismontheweb":

"Zionism is the national revival movement of the Jews. It holds that the Jews are a people and therefore have the right to self-determination in their own national home"

Your definition was:

"Zionism is a racist philosophy which holds that Jews are the chosen people and should therefore be able to take what they want off the Palestinians."

I think you are completely mistaken and should apologize for misreprsenting the definitions. I have given you two well accepted organizations that both have definitions that fit in with William Hague and Cameron. Please stop accusing them of not knowing when their understandings match that of zionist groups while yours are very dissimilar.

Israel proper - per 1967 borders plus East Jerusalem (Israels capital) and the Golan Heights.

Palestinian state - Gaza and West Bank.

The formation of the latter being reliant on building up a Palestinian security infrastucture sufficient to stop attacks on Israel.

Also necessary is a Palestinian regime in power in Palestine willing to accept a two state solution and deploy its security forces to eliminate the attacks on Israel that currently render it impossible.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker