Shadow Minister, your thoughts do not tie in with much of the Middle East I have studied.

In fact, we believe they tie in with much of the pressure from the more smart-arsed Jewish migration occurring straight into the US after the allied victory against Hitler.

If you actually were a Shadow Minister, might say that like too many MPs you lack that philosophical sense of history that should be strongly middle-road which certainly discourages the one-eyed sense of history which George W Bush pushed so much - unfortunately aided so much by Blair and our own historically uneducated Howard.

Shadow_Minister

Permit me a correction.

Israel has not suffered an attempted invasion since it demonstrated a willingness to USE its nukes as it did in the Yom Kippur war.

This should not detract from the brilliant performance of the IDF in simultaneously defeating numerically superior Syrian and Egyptian attacks.

On the Syrian front small Israeli units displayed reckless courage in conducting sustained attacks on Syrian supply lines. Despite sustaining heavy casualties those units managed to cut Syrian fuel supplies. That brought the Syrian attack to a halt. The IDF was then able to roll back the Syrian force. By war's end Damascus was within range of Israeli artillery.

On the Southern front a small force under the command of then General Sharon crossed the Suez Canal and destroyed the Egyptian anti-aircraft missile batteries on the ground. The IAF was then able to interdict supplies to the Egyptian force in Sinai. The Egyptian offensive ground to a halt. The war ended with the Egyptians entirely surrounded by Israeli forces.

The tactics Israel used in that war are still being studied in war colleges around the world.

At the time the Egyptians and Syrians claimed they never intended to destroy Israel, merely to recapture territory lost in the 1967 war. They were especially keen to get this story out AFTER they had been defeated. The claim was widely repeated by the Arabs' usual apologists who presumably also believe in the tooth fairy and Father Christmas.

It is not clear to me why Israeli nukes should be any more "illegal" than Indian or Pakistani nukes. Or for that matter American nukes.

So-called "international law" notwithstanding, any country threatened with invasion will arm itself with whatever weapons it deems necessary to defend itself.

Countries do not have a "right to exist". Countries exist so long as they have the means and the will to defend themselves against enemies who wish to destroy them. That is the reality of the world.

Fortunately for Israel they have never lacked good scientists able to provide them with the ultimate deterrent.

Middle East needs UN Multinationalism

Stevenimeyer, though your survival of the fittest policy does favour in certain historical situations it does not favour in today's Middle East where middle road UN policies have long been advocated by academics.

To be sure Israeli military aptitude appears admirable, but modern history shows that it has to be carefully watched by means of a multi-national authority.

That was why a much stronger United Nations was advocated not long after WW2, when the Future Peace Code as well as the `Marshall Plan were broken after the US moved into Iran followed not long after by both American and British oil companies.

Could say that such foolish action especially by America, helped to begin the autocratic single top-nation bastardry that has continually angered many West European nations like Norway and Sweden, as well as the remodelled West Germany of course, which after the curse of autocratic Nazism, today knows how important global multinationalism must be not only for the Third World but especially so for the First World.

As one with a smidgoen of Jewish heritage himself can admire how they have proved themselves in all manner of ways through history, but I only pray that this day they try to prove their mental abilities more in a more modern multi-nationalism.

It must be reminded to all that survival of the fittest is just another term for tribalism, so lets look forward in the most fitting fashion for the time.

Regards, BB, WA

Bushbred,

I'm sorry that I lack the mawkish lack of objectivity that you call a "philosophical sense of history"

For example you happily label Israel's nukes as "illegal" when Israel never signed the NPT and has no legal obligation with respect to nukes (whereas Iran has signed the NPT). And without justification or substantiation you ascribe to Israel an over readiness to use the nukes in spite of clear evidence of restraint in the face of massive assault.

I would be worried if my lecturer based his lectures on sentimentality rather than facts.

Israel had the legal right to build nukes and strong survival based motivation to do so. Iran has neither.

PS I am not an MP or even a member of a political party.

stevenlmeyer,

While I like most of your analysis I would argue that Israel "demonstrated a willingness to USE its nukes as it did in the Yom Kippur war" is conjecture, even though I personally believe that if the invasion had been looking like succeeding they probably would have used them.

While the brilliance of Israel's military, and the incompetence of the Arabs ensured Israel's survival from the first 3 invasions, relying on this is hardly a long term survival strategy, as there is always a chance the Arabs could learn from their past mistakes.

Shadow Minister

The Arabs have learned their lesson. They no longer think in terms of inflicting a decisive military defeat on Israel. Instead their tactic is to delegitimate the country. They have succeeded in painting Israel as the world's "resident evil" – the country all "right thinking" people love to hate.

This strategy seems likely to prove successful. Israel is dying the death of a thousand cuts.