What bollocks. Books like this start off with the idea, 'Israel wants to make the occupation permanent," and then find all evidence that supports this idea and discard all evidence that undermines it.

I'll read the book at some point, but in the meantime, I'll be willing to bet lots of dosh on two key points: 1) I bet the book ignores the fact that Israel has constantly offered to return the land, has in fact returned 90% of the land it captured in 1967, and has had since the late '90s state policy to end in a two state solution (just as it had before 1948 - that, as always, rejected by the various Arab parties to the conflict). The explicit offers to Arafat and Abbas will likewise be ignored, as well as the fact that along with rejecting these offers, Arafat and Abbas didn't make any counter-offers, proving they're not interesting in negotiating peace. All of this will be ignored by the book, or breezily dismissed as attempts to fool the West.

2) Also lacking from the book will be pragmatic alternatives. There'll be plenty of 'Israel should have done,' but not 'if they had have done these nice things, what would have realistically happened?' or 'given the military reality of lots of Arab states declaring their intent to destroy Israel, what could (as opposed to should) Israel have pragmatically done? What choices did Israel have?'

Questions like that might not lead to answers I like, but at least they open the author to the possibility of having a sensible book open to possibilities, not one selectively using evidence to prove a point determined before pen was put to paper.

Yes, Yehudi, and with the average Jew's so-called historical talent for wisdom and understanding, it is a wonder the Israeli Jews have not woken up to the fact, that their new-found arrogance coupled with nuclear rockets ready to go will most likely cause the next World War

Israel has had its back against the wall for decades.

With the other militant arab countries sponsoring and arming the radicals in palestine who hide amongst the population, Israel is no longer in a position to negotiate with the moderates whilst having to fight the extremists.

The notion that if Israel did nothing the palestinians radicals would be reasonable is naive to the point of stupidity.

Elder of Zion, where do you get the crystal balls from?

I want one so that I can make bombastic statements about the book under review without taking the trouble of actually reading it.

Perhaps the crystal ball would be cheaper than the book. That would be an added bonus.

"Israel wants to make the occupation permanent", is the sentence that got you going. Maybe you don't need a crystal ball or a name like Elder of Zion to be able to work that out. Of course they do -isn't that what Zionism is all about?

Um, no. Zionism is about having a Jewish state. It was all well, good and happy in the 1949 Armistice lines until the various Arab states declared war on Israel in 1967, which resulted in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

It's been the same pattern since before the formation of Israel - the Arabs attack, Israel wins, the world blames Israel, giving the Arabs wiggle room to attack again. Again they lose, again the world blames Israel, et cetera ad nauseum.

Elder of Zion.

With the up to date nuclear arsenal they now have, surely Israel has more dangerous designs than just defending themselves against the Palestine Arabs.

Our worry is that sometime in the future Israel might just drop a nuclear bomb on Iran, otherwise why do they maintain such nuclear rocketry, and the arrogance that goes with it?

BB, WA.

Bushbred,

Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 70s and has never had to use them.

Considering that they were attacked on many sides without provocation in 1948, 1967, and 1973 all before they had nukes, and not since they acquired nukes, I would say that it has been a very successful deterrent policy.

The danger is that Iran might feel emboldened to re ignite the conflict if it obtains such weapons.

With an estimated 200 warheads, a strike at one of its cities would drastically weaken Israel and Israel's response is not likely to be a tit for tat response, but more likely a knock out blow to all hostile nations.

If Iran were stable and rational, this would not be a concern, Russia and the USA were not stupid enough to let the cold war escalate into a hot war, but Iran might.

Shadow Minister, an armoured nuclear little Israel backed by America just does not fit into the modern scientific conception of balance of power.

We only hope Obama can handle it without more War-War?

Regards, BB, WA.