For over three thousand years Israel has served as the religious and cultural focus of Jewish life and remains so to this day. The Jewish connection to the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) spans over 3,000 years. The birthplace of the Jewish people is the Land of Israel. There, a significant part of the nation’s long history was enacted, of which the first thousand years are recorded in the Bible; there, its cultural, religious and national identity was formed; and there, its physical presence has been maintained through the centuries, even after the majority were forced into exile. During the many years of dispersion, the Jewish people never severed nor forgot its bond with its homeland: in their prayers, traditions, poetry and historical scriptures Jews from around the world expressed their yearning and longing for their holy land.

A special place in this spiritual connection was given to Jerusalem. It is the site of both the First and Second Temples, which were the centres of Jewish religious and social life until the Second Temple's destruction by the Romans in 70 CE. For three millennia, Jews all over the world have looked to Jerusalem for hope and inspiration. The city represents the national and religious aspirations of the Jewish people, and as such is one of the most potent symbols of Israel, Judaism and Jews everywhere. Israel also respects the claims of other religions to their holy sites in Jerusalem, and under Israeli law, believers of all religions have access to their holy sites, and each religion governs its own holy sites.

Where does the story of present-day Israel begin?

The emergence of the Jewish national movement occurred towards the end of the 19th century and the objective of an independent Jewish homeland in Israel gained strong international support with the Balfour Declaration, issued by the British government in 1917. During the First World War, British policy became gradually committed to the idea of establishing a Jewish national home in Palestine. After discussions in the British Cabinet and consultation with Zionist leaders, the decision to support the foundation of a national home for the Jewish people was made known in the form of a letter written by Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild. The letter represents the first political recognition of Zionist goals by a great power.

In September 1922 the Supreme Court of the League of Nations approved Great Britain's Mandates for Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and Palestine. The League of Nations recognised the ‘historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine' and the ‘grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.' Under the British Mandate, three-quarters of the territory formed the Emirate of Transjordan, later the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The remaining territory was administered by Britain, although in the face of increasing violence, the matter was handed over to the United Nations in 1947.

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 called for the partition of the British-ruled Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. It was approved on 29 November 1947 with 33 votes in favour, 13 against, ten abstentions and one absent. The resolution was accepted by the Jews in Palestine, but rejected by the Arabs in Palestine and the Arab states.

With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Jewish independence, lost nearly 2,000 years earlier, was renewed.

Zionism is the national movement of the Jewish people, calling for sovereign Jewish life in the Land of Israel. The origin of the word ‘Zionism' is the biblical word ‘Zion,' often used as a synonym for Jerusalem and the Land of Israel.

Historically, Zionism emerged as part of the growing national movement in the last quarter of the 19th century. Much like other national groups, Jews aspired to establish an independent and sovereign entity in the land of their ancestors. Zionist leaders, most notably Theodor Herzl, hoped that the fulfilment of such aspirations would allow for the renewal of Jewish culture, language and traditions. Following recurring persecutions of Jews all over Europe, Herzl was the first to bring the Jewish need of an independent sovereign state to world attention, and make the Jewish people a player in the world political arena.

Like any other national movement, Zionism has interacted with other ideologies, resulting in the formation of Zionist currents and sub-currents. In this respect, Zionism is no different from other nationalisms, which also espouse various liberal, traditional, socialist and conservative leanings.

The establishment of the State of Israel marked the realisation of the Zionist goal of attaining an internationally recognised, legally secured home for the Jewish people in its historical homeland, where Jews would be free from persecution and able to develop their own lives and identity.

At its very core, the Arab-Israeli conflict is a national-territorial dispute. In other words, this is a conflict between two nations that struggle over conflicting claims to the same land. As history has shown, territorial agreements between Israel and its neighbours have paved the way for peace, with Egypt in 1979 and with Jordan in 1994. Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is possible to follow it to the initial rejection by the Arab leadership of the UN Resolution that legitimised the establishment of the State of Israel. It remains the fundamental stance of Israelis that any solution to the conflict must respect the need for two states living peacefully side by side in secure borders.

The Arab-Israeli conflict began at the very moment Jews attempted to fulfil their aspirations and longing for their historical homeland. Arab violence against the Jewish population of Palestine existed prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, and prior to the beginning of Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza following the 1967 Six Day War. This undermines any claim that Palestinian or Arab violence is the result of Israeli occupation of the territories in 1967. Arab violence was widespread during a wave of anti-Jewish riots in 1920-1921, as well as during the ‘Disturbances' of 1929, the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939, and in numerous other incidents of anti-Jewish aggression throughout the pre-state period.

The UN Partition Plan of 1947 was an attempt to solve the dispute between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. However, on the eve of the implementation of the UN Partition Plan, Arab terror was stepped up and eventually led to the joint Arab invasion of 1948-1949 by the armies of Transjordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Though the plan took into consideration a just division of the territory of mandatory Palestine between the Jewish and Arab populations, the plan was rejected and answered instead by aggression and war.

This pattern, in which Israel willingly accepts international resolutions while the Palestinian leadership continually rejects them, was repeated in 1967 with UN Security Council Resolution 242. The resolution, largely drafted by the British ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon, introduced the concept of a two-state solution to the conflict. The resolution calls for ‘secure and recognised boundaries' as a precondition to ‘the establishment of a just and lasting peace' in the region, and calls on Israel to withdraw from territories it had taken. In effect, Resolution 242 describes a peace process in which Israeli territorial withdrawals are matched by guarantees of its safety and recognition. By using the phrase ‘territories', rather than ‘all territories' or even ‘the territories', Resolution 242 deliberately left room for negotiations between Israel and its neighbours over the precise delineation of boundaries. Israel has accepted the resolution, along with UN Security Council Resolution 338 of 1973 which restated the same principle of ‘land for peace'. The long refusal of the Palestinian leadership to accept these resolutions, its refusal to renounce terror and to recognise Israel's right to exist, delayed meaningful peace talks between the sides. Once the PLO under Yasser Arafat did accept the basic premise of Resolution 242, progress was possible. So long as Hamas does not accept the ‘land for peace' formulation, further progress will be difficult.

Yet even during peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, terror attacks against Israelis never ceased. Terrorism reached a peak when the conflict was closest to ending, at the height of the Oslo peace process in the mid-1990s and in 2000, soon after the Camp David II talks.

From 1947 to the present day, Israel has proven its commitment to international resolutions and initiatives that aim to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict, despite recurring Arab and Palestinian aggression. The UN General Assembly and Security Council have passed several resolutions in an attempt to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. From the pivotal General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947) and later in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), it has been outlined by the international community that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be resolved through territorial compromise and the securing of safe and recognised borders for Israel and the future Palestinian state. While Israel has repeatedly respected these resolutions, Palestinians and the Arab states have refused to fully abide by these resolutions: at best, UN resolutions have been partly implemented while others were ignored completely.

Before the establishment of the State of Israel, the Jewish leadership in Palestine accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan, though the borders for the Jewish state were drawn with no consideration for security and were virtually indefensible in the long-term. The Partition Plan also gave the Arab community of Palestine a state and the opportunity for self-determination. The Arabs rejected this offer of long-term peace.

From Independence to the 1990s

After the 1948 War of Independence Israel signed a series of armistice agreements with Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan. The agreements included territorial concessions to the Arab countries despite their refusal to sign peace treaties with Israel.

In an address to the UN General Assembly on 10 October 1960, Israeli foreign minister Golda Meir asked Arab leaders to meet with prime minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Gamal Abdul Nasser, who was then president of the United Arab Republic (the pan-Arabist federation of Egypt and Syria between 1958-1961), answered on 15 October by saying that they would never recognise the Jewish state. Just nine days after the 1967 Six Day War, the Israeli cabinet offered to pull out of the Sinai and the Golan Heights in return for peace. The Arab leaders rejected the offer in a statement that has come to be known as the ‘Three Noes' of the Khartoum Arab League summit of September 1967: ‘no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel'.

History clearly shows that when a sincere and committed Arab leadership has made efforts to reach a viable peace agreement, Israel is ready to make dramatic efforts and substantial compromises. Such was the case with the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement signed in 1979. Egyptian president Anwar Sadat found a willing Israeli administration prepared to seriously negotiate the terms for a peace agreement between the two countries. Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin was ready to withdraw from all of the Sinai Peninsula, including the dismantling of Israeli towns and military compounds.

The 1990s: a concentrated effort for peace

In May 1989, Israel presented a new peace initiative to resolve the conflict between Israel and its neighbours. The initiative called for the strengthening of the peace with Egypt as a regional cornerstone; the promotion of full peaceful relations with the Arab states; improvement of the refugee conditions though international efforts; and elections and interim self-rule for the Palestinians. The break-up of the Soviet Union and the Gulf War that followed produced a change in the political order of the Middle East, prompting the Arab world to reassess its attitude toward Israel and to enter into negotiations to build a new future for the Middle East.

During the 1990s, Israel's elected leadership proved that it was willing to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a peaceful resolution in accordance with international agreements, even at the cost of painful compromises. In 1991 a conference was summoned in Madrid, hosted by the Government of Spain and co-sponsored by the United States and Soviet Union. The conference opened on 30 October 1991 and lasted for three days. Following the Madrid Agreement a series of bilateral negotiations were initiated in an attempt to resolve the conflicts between Israel and its neighbours. Over a dozen formal rounds of bilateral talks were subsequently hosted by the US State Department in Washington. Israel's pursuit of peace bore fruit once again when Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein of Jordan signed a peace agreement between the two countries in 1994.

In parallel, Israel and the Palestinians were negotiating directly, and secretly. In September 1993, the Israeli government and the PLO signed the Oslo Declaration of Principles. The agreement included autonomy for the Palestinians as an interim stage towards final status talks, and Israel's agreement to provide the Palestinians with the necessary conditions for self-government. This policy was backed by concrete actions: Israel made possible the return of the PLO leadership to the territories in July 1994; Israel aided the PA in establishing governing mechanisms and even supplied the PA security forces with policing equipment; Israel also provided the Palestinian leadership with financial assistance and proactively led initiatives for the development of joint projects that would promote peace and regional cooperation. Following the withdrawal of Israeli forces from 450 Palestinian towns and villages in 1993, Israel withdrew its forces from the seven main Palestinian cities in 1997.

Throughout the 1990s Israel was engaged in far-reaching negotiations with the Palestinian leadership. Even though these negotiations were shadowed by ongoing Palestinian terrorism, Israel continued to offer dramatic concessions to encourage the chances for peace. These efforts reached a peak at the Camp David summit in July 2000 when prime minister Ehud Barak offered extensive withdrawals in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that would lead to the formation of an independent Palestinian state and offered unprecedented compromises on Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. These offers were answered by a premeditated wave of violence and terror, at levels previously unknown.

These steps and others prove Israel's historical commitment to the peaceful resolution of the conflict with its Arab neighbours and with the Palestinian people.

On 12 July 2006, Hezbollah terrorists launched an unprovoked attack on an Israeli border patrol. They infiltrated Israeli territory, killed three soldiers and kidnapped two - Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. The attack was accompanied by a massive barrage of missiles and mortar shells at Israel's northern communities and IDF posts. Facing this aggressive assault on its sovereign territory, Israel acted immediately to halt the missile attacks on its northern regions and bring about the safe release of the kidnapped soldiers. During the war, which lasted for 34 days, Hezbollah continued to target Israeli civilians, sending several hundred rockets into northern Israel. Israel made every effort to avoid civilian casualties, though there were instances in which Lebanese civilian lives were lost.

Hezbollah has used densely populated areas in major towns and villages in Lebanon to operate its terror infrastructure. Missiles are hidden in houses and are fired from residential neighbourhoods, thus exposing innocent people to tremendous risks. In fact, Hezbollah terrorists use the Lebanese population as human shields. Commenting on this issue, Jan Egeland, former UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, said that ‘Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending... among women and children. I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this.' Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan said that Hezbollah's terror actions hold ‘an entire nation hostage.'

There is no territorial dispute between Israel and Lebanon. In 2000, Israel complied with UN Security Council Resolution 425 to the satisfaction of international monitors, withdrawing to the internationally recognised border. However, Lebanon continues to ignore international obligations to take effective control of south Lebanon and disarm terror groups, as required in UN Security Council Resolution 1559.

Israel withdrew all its forces from Lebanon in May 2000 and the IDF was deployed only along the Israeli side of the international border. Israel completed the withdrawal in full compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 425, which required Israel to withdraw to the internationally recognised border. UN inspectors from the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) surveyed the border (the ‘Blue Line') and certified Israel's compliance, as did UN secretary-general Kofi Annan in a letter to the UN Security Council in July 2000.

Despite Israel's hopes that the withdrawal would provide new opportunities for security and stability in the region, the Lebanese army did not deploy its forces in the south of the country, as is demanded in UN Security Council Resolutions 425 (1978), 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006). The southern regions of Lebanon thus have been left to the control of the Hezbollah terror organisation. Hezbollah has used the years since Israel's withdrawal to increase its arsenal of missiles and other weaponry. Hezbollah enjoys close relations with the regimes in Syria and Iran, which supply the organisation with financial and military aid.

Hezbollah has continually used the Israeli-Lebanese border to carry out terror attacks against Israelis. On 7 October 2000, less than five months after Israel's withdrawal, Hezbollah terrorists bombed an Israeli patrol vehicle and kidnapped three IDF soldiers. The soldiers were killed in the attack and their bodies were brought back only in January 2004 when Israel agreed to release hundreds of Lebanese terrorists held in Israeli prisons. Between May 2000 and June 2006, Hezbollah carried out 111 anti-aircraft attacks; 42 anti-tank missile attacks; 28 rocket attacks; nine shooting attacks; 11 explosive device attacks; and 16 infiltration attempts.

In July 2006, Hezbollah attacked Israel, firing Katyusha rockets and mortars at Israel and kidnapping two Israeli soldiers. From hardened positions along the southern border of Lebanon, and using Iranian and Syrian supplied weapons, Hezbollah continued to attack Israel for over a month. Between 300,000 and 500,000 Israelis were displaced from their homes; Israeli responses targeted Lebanese infrastructure. Over a thousand people were killed on both sides.

On 11 August 2006, the UN Security Council approved Resolution 1701, which calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah, withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon and the deployment of Lebanese armed forces and an enlarged United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to southern Lebanon. While Israel withdrew its forces, completing its full withdrawal by the end of the year, Hezbollah remains in possession of its weapons, and the deployment of the Lebanese army has only been partial. Israel continues to face rocket attacks from Lebanon.

Israel remains committed to peaceful existence with all its neighbours, despite ongoing Palestinian aggression and threats from Iran and Syria. In April 2003, the US State Department released the text of the ‘Roadmap' peace plan for returning to discussions on a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Roadmap specifies the steps the Israelis and the Palestinians are required to take to reach a settlement, and a timeline for doing so. It is sponsored by the Quartet - the European Union, the UN, the US, and the Russian Federation. Israel has stated its clear support for the Roadmap and has acted according to its principles. The Palestinian leadership has taken no steps toward the implementation of the plan.

The Quartet's representative in the region is former British prime minister Tony Blair. His predecessor, former World Bank president James Wolfensohn, concluded an Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) in the West Bank and Gaza.

In October 2003, former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon initiated an historic plan to withdraw Israel's forces from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank. The disengagement plan was implemented in August 2005 and received widespread international support. The plan aimed to provide improved conditions for the renewal of the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership.

The implementation of the disengagement plan proved once again that even with the immense difficulties involved, Israel is willing to make painful compromises in an effort to achieve peace with its neighbours. This complex endeavour is a price Israel has been willing to pay to attempt to bring about improved relations with the Palestinians.

On 28 March 2006, Israeli citizens provided a vote of confidence in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's convergence plan to withdraw Israeli forces from large portions of the West Bank and dismantle most of the Israeli settlements in them, should bilateral negotiations with the Palestinian leadership fail to bear fruit first. PM Olmert's government declared its commitment to exhaust the possibilities of a negotiated resolution of the conflict. PM Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and other members of the Israeli cabinet have met with Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in an attempt to initiate a bilateral, negotiated process with the Palestinian leadership. However, such negotiations were rendered impossible while the Hamas government was in place. With the creation of a new PA government, there are signs that Israelis and Palestinians can return to the negotiating table.

Since the 1974 Arab League Conference held at Rabat, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) has been recognised as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO remains the international representative of the Palestinians, and holds observer status - with the name ‘Palestine' - at the United Nations General Assembly. Although the PLO is a coalition of groups, Fatah - under the leadership of Yasser Arafat until his death in 2004 - has taken the dominant role since 1969. In 1988, the PLO declared an independent Palestinian state, accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242 and recognised the State of Israel. In 1991, Israel and the PLO met for the first time in negotiations, at the post-Gulf War Madrid Conference. In 1993, following secret negotiations, the PLO and Israel signed the Oslo Accords, paving the way for Palestinian self-rule with the intention of reaching independence.

As part of the Oslo Accords, the PLO established the Palestinian National Authority (PA) as the transitional body that would run Palestinian affairs until a final Israeli-Palestinian agreement. In 1994, Yasser Arafat was elected as Ra'is of the PA, a term that can be translated either as ‘chairman' or ‘president'. The elections also established an 88-member legislature, the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). On Arafat's death, Mahmoud Abbas was elected as the head of the PA. While Arafat ran the PA directly for most of his leadership, he answered international pressure in 2003 by appointing a prime minister, although he granted the position limited authority. In February 2006, elections for the PLC, now extended to 132 members, produced an unexpected victory for Hamas, an Islamic party with strong links to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and to the Iranian regime. It nominated Ismail Haniyeh to be prime minister.

Facing strong international opposition because of its refusal to recognise Israel, to renounce violence or to accept previous Palestinian undertakings as binding on it, the Hamas government struggled to maintain even a basic standard of living for Palestinians. In June 2007, after an armed coup against its Fatah rivals in Gaza, PA Chairman Abbas dissolved the Hamas-led government and appointed an emergency administration under the leadership of former finance minister Salam Fayyad.

Arab and Palestinian terror was widespread before the establishment of the State of Israel, thus refuting any claim that Israel's occupation caused violence. In fact, Palestinian terror was carried out even when Israel reached out its hand to its Arab neighbours in peace. Even after Israel voluntarily withdrew more than 9,000 citizens along with its troops from the Gaza Strip in August 2005 and turned the area over to the PA, Palestinian terror groups have used Gaza as a launching point for more than 500 terror attacks against Israel. Thus, even when Israel has no presence in Palestinian territory, Palestinian terror against Israelis continues.

While Palestinian and Arab spokespeople often claim that the recent Palestinian campaign of terror is a result of Israeli ‘occupation', the assumption that ‘occupation' causes terrorism is historically flawed. Arab and Palestinian terrorism against Israelis existed prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, as well as prior to the beginning of Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza as a result of the 1967 Six Day War. The PLO was established by the Arab League in Cairo, Egypt in 1964, three years before the Six Day War. The deadly assault against Israel began long before the West Bank of the Jordan River was under Israeli control.

Arab terrorists have been targeting Jews and Israelis for almost a century, even before the establishment of the State of Israel. According to a proposed UN definition, terrorism is the peacetime equivalent of war crimes. Acts of terrorism are intended to kill or seriously injure civilians or non-combatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or international organisation to act or refrain from acting in a particular or general way. Terror attacks on Israelis fit this model; indeed, Israel has been a target of terrorism since its independence.

Jews in Palestine were subjected to acts of terror even before the establishment of the State in 1948. Anti-Jewish riots in 1920-1921, the ‘disturbances' of 1929 and the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939 all saw anti-Jewish Arab violence. In the 1950s, ‘fedayeen' terrorist border incursions into the newly established State of Israel were characterised by acts of terror ranging from malicious destruction of property to the brutal murder of civilians.

One of the most notorious methods used by Palestinian terrorists is suicide bombing. Palestinian suicide terrorism started in 1994, shortly before the beginning of the Oslo peace process. At first, most of the suicide attacks were carried out by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Islamist terror organisations that draw inspiration and operational guidance from the Lebanese Shi'ite terror group Hezbollah. Hamas and the PIJ initially focused their suicide attacks on military targets in the West Bank and Gaza, but rapidly shifted their attacks to civilians in city centres, crowded areas, buses and entertainment venues throughout Israel. During the second intifada, the secular nationalist Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades (the armed terror wing of the Fatah faction) also began launching suicide attacks against Israelis.

From September 1993 to July 2007, 1,389 Israelis were murdered in Palestinian terrorist attacks, with thousands more maimed and injured in hundreds of shooting, bombing and suicide attacks. Since September 2000, approximately 24,000 separate attacks have been carried out by Palestinian terror organisations against Israelis. Palestinian terrorists pursue the most vulnerable targets - commuters, children, the elderly and unassuming civilians going about daily routines in public places. In order to inflict maximum death and casualties, suicide terrorists often coat their bombs with bolts, nails and rat poison.

Hamas: Hamas is a radical Islamic organisation that emerged in the early 1980s from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It came to prominence during the early stages of the first intifada, although its Charter was issued in 1988. Hamas has become a leading perpetrator of attacks against Israeli targets, as well as against suspected Palestinian ‘collaborators' and Fatah rivals. Hamas has carried out suicide bombings and attacks using mortars and short-range rockets in the West Bank, Gaza and inside Israel.

Hamas utterly rejects the peace process, which involves the surrender of ‘Islamic land' and the recognition of Israel's right to exist on it. The central aim of Hamas is to establish an Islamic state in all territory defined as ‘Palestine' (from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River). This is to be achieved through armed struggle. Hamas has led suicide bombing attacks against Israel since the early 1990s, and has taken responsibility for over 115 terror attacks since September 2000. Hamas's military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades, has been proscribed under the UK's Terrorism Act 2000 since February 2001, which means it is outlawed in the UK. It is also outlawed in the EU and US.

Hamas gained an unexpected victory in the January 2006 elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council and formed the PA government, headed by Ismail Haniyeh. During its time in office, the organisation refused to renounce terror attacks against Israelis or acknowledge Israel's right to exist. After its armed takeover of Gaza in June 2007, the Palestinian government was dissolved and Hamas dismissed. Despite this, Hamas remains in functional control of Gaza.

Hezbollah: Hezbollah (Party of God) is a Shi'ite organisation, based in Lebanon since 1982. Ideologically and religiously inspired by the fundamentalist Iranian regime, it has received extensive military support from Iran and Syria. Through their support and encouragement, Hezbollah became the leading terror group in Lebanon, and also participates in Lebanese parliamentary politics. Since the early 1980s, Hezbollah has carried out numerous terror attacks against Israelis and has caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. In addition, Hezbollah has acquired a large arsenal of missiles that have been fired at Israeli communities. Although Hezbollah claims its attacks are aimed at ending Israeli ‘occupation' of Lebanon, it has in fact continued its aggression against Israelis even after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has been known for his venomous rhetoric and has called repeatedly for the destruction of the State of Israel.

With its attack on an Israeli border patrol on 12 July 2006, in which three IDF soldiers were killed and two kidnapped, Hezbollah instigated a month-long war with Israel. During this period, Hezbollah fired approximately 3,700 missiles at Israeli towns and villages in the north of Israel, killing over 150 Israelis and injuring thousands more. Hezbollah uses the civilian population in Lebanon as human shields by hiding its terrorists in densely populated areas and firing its missiles from within towns and villages. In doing so, Hezbollah has exposed the uninvolved population to enormous and unnecessary threats in direct violation of international law.

Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades: The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are an armed Palestinian group, controlled by Fatah, the secular Palestinian nationalist movement. Formed in October 2000, the group has taken responsibility for hundreds of terror attacks (including suicide bombings) in which Israeli civilians have been killed. The Brigades' infrastructure, leadership, operatives and funds all hail from Fatah. The Brigades operate in the West Bank, Gaza and inside Israel.

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ): The PIJ is committed to the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through Jihad (holy war). The PIJ considers Israel and pro-Western, secular Arab regimes to be manifestations of Western imperialism in Islamic lands. The group's terrorists see themselves as laying the groundwork for the day when the great Islamic Arab army will be able to destroy Israel in a military confrontation. The PIJ has been responsible for over 50 attacks (including suicide bombings) against Israeli targets since September 2000, and the group is outlawed in the UK under the Terrorism Act 2000. The PIJ is considerably smaller than Hamas, and draws inspiration from a combination of Iranian Shi'ite Islamist revolutionary ideology and Palestinian nationalism.

The Popular Resistance Committees (PRC): The PRC is a terrorist organisation active in the Gaza Strip. The organisation was founded in September 2000, at the beginning of the second intifada, by former Fatah and Palestinian security apparatus members. Its ranks also include ex-Hamas terrorists and operatives who belonged to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The organisation was founded by Jamal Abu Samhadanah who formerly belonged to Fatah/Tanzim.

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP): The PFLP was founded in 1967 with the stated objective of liberating all of ‘Palestine' to establish a democratic socialist Palestinian state. The group has a long and bloody record of terrorism and murder, both inside Israel and internationally. The most renowned attack occurred on 6 September 1970, when the PFLP hijacked four Western jetliners, rerouting them to Jordan where they were blown up.

The PFLP has carried out a large number of attacks that have claimed the lives of many victims, including the assassination of the late Israeli tourism minister, Rehavam Ze'evi in 2001. Since 1973, the PFLP has concentrated its activities in the local arena, carrying out attacks in Israel, Jordan and Lebanon.

Israel assists in the international community's effort to provide for Palestinians throughout the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. With the appointment of an emergency government by Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in June 2007, Israel began to release funds to the PA that it had withheld when Hamas headed the government. Lacking transparent financial infrastructure, the PA has relied on foreign aid, but the international community has refused to transfer funds to the Hamas-led government while Hamas refuses to accept the Quartet's principles - renouncing terror, recognising Israel and upholding existing agreements between Israel and the PA.

Israel continues to help the Palestinian people with humanitarian aid including medical supplies and food. This policy was expressed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in May 2006, when he clarified that Israel ‘wouldn't allow one baby to suffer one night because of a lack of dialysis.' Even during the battles between Fatah and Hamas factions in Gaza in the summer of 2007, Israel continued to allow the transfer of aid. This was recognised by John Ging, who heads the United Nations Works and Relief Agency (UNWRA) in Gaza, when he praised the cooperation with the IDF. ‘They have been very proactive since the crossings have been closed. We have had excellent cooperation,' Ging said.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) reported that Israel's efforts to provide the Palestinians with medical aid were in fact rejected by the Hamas-led PA in May 2006. Despite these rejections, Israel continues to provide healthcare for Palestinians who are treated in Israeli hospitals.

In order to bypass the Hamas-led government and prevent the risk of a humanitarian crisis, the international community devised a mechanism to provide Palestinians with all their basic needs. The Temporary International Mechanism channelled funds to humanitarian causes directly. Its function should now be replaced by the PA government, though it may remain in place in Gaza where the situation remains unclear.

Israel has undertaken to build a security fence in order to stop terrorists from entering Israel from the West Bank - and has been able to reduce terror attacks against Israelis by 90%. Contrary to common misrepresentation, it is 95% fence and 5% wall. A similar fence was constructed around the Gaza Strip in 1994 as part of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement between Israel and the PLO; this fence has proven to be very effective in preventing attacks on Israel. Security fences have been constructed all over the world, including in other conflict areas such as Kashmir and Cyprus.

By 30 April 2006, 335 kilometres of the security fence were constructed and operational, while work is progressing to complete other sections of the fence. However, Israel has refrained from continuing work on sections which are under legal discussion, and work will resume only once they are approved by the Israeli courts. Most of the security fence has been planned to follow the route of the Green Line (the 1949 Armistice Line) and will not include more than 10% of the West Bank territory.

The sole purpose of the security fence, as stated in the Israeli government decision of 23 July 2001, is to prevent terror attacks against Israeli citizens. While the final border between Israel and the Palestinians has to be determined by negotiations, the route of the security fence is determined solely by the immediate and pressing need to save Israeli lives by preventing Palestinian terrorists from reaching Israeli populations.

By July 2004, nearly a year since the first sections of the fence were installed, the number of terror attacks originating from areas where the fence was in place had dramatically dropped by more than 90%. Had the PA cracked down on terrorism emanating from the West Bank, the security fence might not have been necessary.

While the fence may be controversial, it is agreed by all Western democracies that Israel has the right to defend itself from terror. Following the ruling of the International Court of Justice in July 2004, then-foreign secretary Jack Straw commented, ‘We have to understand why the Israelis put up the barrier. They did so to protect themselves from the effects of terrorism.'.

One of Israel's key considerations in constructing the West Bank security fence has been to keep disruption to Palestinian lives at a minimum, while providing security to the citizens of Israel. The route of the fence has been amended to achieve this. Israel's Supreme Court, having heard petitions from Palestinians, as well as joint petitions by neighbouring Israeli and Palestinian villages, adjusted the course of the fence. Israeli officials have subsequently proposed a number of alternative routes for sections of the fence, with the new route now closely following the Green Line. The route has been moved several times by the Supreme Court in order to decrease hardships on the Palestinians.

The design, construction and operation of the security fence aim to balance the imperative to protect innocent lives from terror with the humanitarian needs of the local Palestinian population. To achieve this goal, Israel attempts to avoid separating landowners from their land. In cases where such separation is unavoidable, agricultural gates have been built, allowing farmers to cross into their land. Wherever possible, the fence is built on state-owned, rather than private lands. Five commercial terminals are being constructed to enable movement of pedestrians and vehicles between Israel and the West Bank and to allow for the efficient transfer of goods.

The international community demands that Hamas acknowledges Israel's right to exist, renounces terror and recognises previous agreements between Israel and the PA. Hamas continues to refuse these demands. Hamas is a fundamentalist Islamic terror organisation that has been conducting terror attacks against Israelis for almost two decades. Despite official Israeli objections, Hamas took part in the elections for the PLC in January 2006 and, contrary to early predictions, was able to gain a large majority in the Palestinian parliament and seize control of the government. It led the PA until the summer of 2007, when it was dismissed by Chairman Abbas.

Regarding the international response to Hamas, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on 20 June 2006 that ‘the international community and Israel believe in the same principles: no legitimacy can be given to a terror organisation or a government led by a terror organisation.' The international community has agreed upon three fundamental conditions, without which contact with the Hamas-led PA will not be held:

a. Hamas must renounce terror and cease its support for any terror activity.

b. Hamas must recognise Israel's right to exist.

c. Hamas must abide by previously signed agreements between Israel and the PA.

Without a clear commitment to abide by these three principles, the international community will not engage in relations with Hamas.

The Palestinian refugee problem existed prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. There have been Arab Palestinian refugees since 1947, when a predominantly voluntary exodus, encouraged by the Arab states, followed the UN proposal to partition the land into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.

Israel accepted the proposal, while the idea was rejected by the Arab states, which declared war on the nascent State of Israel and hence gave way to the refugee problem. Israel's Declaration of Independence offered full citizenship and equal rights to all Arabs living within the 1948 borders at the time and indeed, all the Arabs who lived in Israel during 1948 are equal Israeli citizens.

The problem was originally amplified by the fact that many Arab states were either unwilling or unable to accept Arab Palestinians as equal citizens. Many of the refugees and their descendants still live in squalid conditions. Lebanon, for example, had a clause added to the 2002 Saudi peace initiative to ensure that it would not have to integrate refugees into its society in the event of a final treaty. Arab leaders frequently manipulate the conditions in refugee camps in order to garner world support, and more importantly, world aid. If refugees were allowed entry to the civil system, Palestinian living conditions would improve vastly, laying the foundations for positive momentum in the peace process.

The Palestinian leadership has failed to help the Palestinian refugees, though it has had ample funds to do so. Corruption and mismanagement resulted in substantial aid money going into the pockets of the late PA chairman Yasser Arafat, rather than to improving the lives of Palestinian refugees. The international community has been directing large amounts of money to the PA, but this money has failed to improve the life of the Palestinian refugees. With little support from the Arab states and without effective Palestinian leadership, they remain dependent on international organisations. Even after Israel withdrew all its forces and dismantled all its settlements in the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2005, the Palestinian leadership did not use this to improve the living conditions of the large refugee population. Instead, the areas previously held by Israel are used as launching grounds for Qassam rockets fired at the south of Israel.

It is also important to bear in mind that some 850,000 Jews were displaced in 1948 from Arab countries. 600,000 of them settled in and were absorbed by Israel.

Palestinians should have the right to return to an eventual Palestinian state, as called for in the framework of a two-state solution in various international resolutions since 1947. When many Palestinians speak of the right of return, they do not mean just to a future Palestinian state but to Israel. Israel is a small country about the size of Wales. Given regional demographics, Israel would quickly cease to be a Jewish state if the right of return to Israel were granted. Were Jews to become the minority in Israel, it is unlikely that the state could offer the Jewish minority the security guarantees that were among the main reasons for the creation of Israel.

The right of return to Israel has been ruled out by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who said, ‘The Palestinian demand for the "right of return" [to Israel] is totally unrealistic and would have to be solved by means of financial compensation and resettlement in Arab countries.' Israel and other world economic powers outlined a framework for this compensation at Camp David II in 2000.

A positive solution to the Palestinian refugee problem can be found by allowing those Palestinian refugees who wish to do so to return to a future Palestinian state. Refugees who would wish otherwise should be allowed to stay in their countries of residence and granted civil status. Financial compensation has also been raised as part of the international and regional effort to provide a solution to Palestinian refugees.

While Arab terrorists deliberately aim to kill innocent people, Israel's military operations are aimed solely at the perpetrators of violence and terror. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) take every precaution to ensure that civilians are not casualties of the conflict. For every accusation of an unnecessary Palestinian death, an inquiry is launched by the Israeli authorities, and, if proven, appropriate action is taken against those responsible. However, there have been several instances in which conclusive evidence revealed that accusations against Israeli soldiers were not only unfounded, but actually fabricated in order to shift responsibility for the deaths from Palestinian terrorists.

On the other hand, Palestinian terrorists set out with the aim of murdering innocent Israeli men, women and children, and this deliberate murder of innocent people cannot be justified or excused. It is Israel's stance that only determined PA action to end terror attacks on Israelis - a PA obligation stipulated throughout the Oslo Accords, clearly delineated in Phase I of the Roadmap and in the requirements posed to Hamas by the international community - can bring terror to a halt.

No. There is no historical, political or factual basis on which to compare Israel with apartheid South Africa. During apartheid in South Africa, certain groups were not citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population. South Africa created a legal system that formalised segregation on the basis of skin colour. Blacks were not allowed to vote or be elected to public office, their movement was restricted and they were systematically impoverished.

The Arab minority in Israel are full citizens with voting rights; there are 11 Arab MKs, including Minister without Portfolio Ghaleb Majadale and Deputy Speaker Majallee Whbee (Whbee has also served briefly as Acting President). Justice Salim Joubran holds a seat on the Israeli Supreme Court; Arabs can volunteer and serve in the Israeli army, as many Arab Druze and Bedouins do; Israeli Arabs study and teach in every Israeli university; diplomatic positions are open to Israeli Arabs, and they have held key posts in Finland (Ambassador), Atlanta (Consul-General), San Francisco and elsewhere. All minority groups in Israel, including foreign workers, enjoy social benefits, healthcare and access to state-funded education. As such, a comparison of the social reality of Israel to that of South Africa during apartheid has no basis.

Fundamental differences exist between Hamas and Sinn Fein, which refute any basis for comparison. Most obviously Sinn Fein never called for the eradication of Britain, while Hamas repeatedly calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Following the Hamas victory in the PLC elections in January 2006, some people sought to interpret Hamas's successful participation in the elections as part of an overall move towards democratic engagement along the lines of other groups, particularly Sinn Fein. This argument is inaccurate in several important respects.

While Sinn Fein claimed to represent the nationalist or republican community of Northern Ireland, the group did not seek the establishment of a fundamentalist Catholic state, nor the eradication of Britain. Hamas, on the other hand, finds inspiration and justification for its existence, actions and aims in a particularly militant strain of Islam. Hamas was founded in 1987 as an explicitly Islamist group, arising out of the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, itself an organisation wedded to a militant fundamentalist variety of Islam.

Sinn Fein is a political party, with representatives in the Dail Eireann (the Irish Parliament in Dublin), the Northern Ireland Assembly and Westminster. It formally denies links with the Irish Republican Army (the IRA), though senior Sinn Fein members, including Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, have admitted to being members of the IRA Army Council. The distinction between military and political activity in Hamas is even less clear, with no distinction between armed action and the pursuit of political power.

Violence has been used differently by Hamas and the IRA. IRA targets were usually, though not always, selected by reference to a theory of ‘legitimate targets' that singled out members of the British government and the security services. Hamas does not differentiate between security personnel and civilians. This is explained by Hamas's theological commitment to target Jews, with no distinction. Hamas does not take any measures to minimise casualties. On the contrary, suicide bombers have chosen their targets - buses and cafes, for example - with a view to maximising the loss of innocent life.

Unlike the IRA and Sinn Fein, Hamas has made no meaningful moves towards a reappraisal of its core ideology that would enable it to be a partner for peace or to begin a process towards that point. Unlike Sinn Fein and the IRA, Hamas does not recognise the principle of consent. Unlike the IRA, Hamas has not entered into a process of decommissioning its weapons, or of renouncing the use of violence in principle. In its charter, Hamas declares its aim not as seeking a negotiated settlement with Israel, but its destruction. In addition to anti-Israel sentiment, Hamas's charter also includes anti-Semitic elements such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Fundamental differences exist between Hamas and Sinn Fein, which refute any basis for comparison. Most obviously Sinn Fein never called for the eradication of Britain, while Hamas repeatedly calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Following the Hamas victory in the PLC elections in January 2006, some people sought to interpret Hamas's successful participation in the elections as part of an overall move towards democratic engagement along the lines of other groups, particularly Sinn Fein. This argument is inaccurate in several important respects.

While Sinn Fein claimed to represent the nationalist or republican community of Northern Ireland, the group did not seek the establishment of a fundamentalist Catholic state, nor the eradication of Britain. Hamas, on the other hand, finds inspiration and justification for its existence, actions and aims in a particularly militant strain of Islam. Hamas was founded in 1987 as an explicitly Islamist group, arising out of the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, itself an organisation wedded to a militant fundamentalist variety of Islam.

Sinn Fein is a political party, with representatives in the Dail Eireann (the Irish Parliament in Dublin), the Northern Ireland Assembly and Westminster. It formally denies links with the Irish Republican Army (the IRA), though senior Sinn Fein members, including Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, have admitted to being members of the IRA Army Council. The distinction between military and political activity in Hamas is even less clear, with no distinction between armed action and the pursuit of political power.

Violence has been used differently by Hamas and the IRA. IRA targets were usually, though not always, selected by reference to a theory of ‘legitimate targets' that singled out members of the British government and the security services. Hamas does not differentiate between security personnel and civilians. This is explained by Hamas's theological commitment to target Jews, with no distinction. Hamas does not take any measures to minimise casualties. On the contrary, suicide bombers have chosen their targets - buses and cafes, for example - with a view to maximising the loss of innocent life.

Unlike the IRA and Sinn Fein, Hamas has made no meaningful moves towards a reappraisal of its core ideology that would enable it to be a partner for peace or to begin a process towards that point. Unlike Sinn Fein and the IRA, Hamas does not recognise the principle of consent. Unlike the IRA, Hamas has not entered into a process of decommissioning its weapons, or of renouncing the use of violence in principle. In its charter, Hamas declares its aim not as seeking a negotiated settlement with Israel, but its destruction. In addition to anti-Israel sentiment, Hamas's charter also includes anti-Semitic elements such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

No, boycotts are not a legitimate action and undermine the fundamental need for open channels of communication and mutual respect. No substantial international process can exist in an environment of rejection and misdirected pressure. In addition, boycotts are passive acts that do not contribute to the advancement of a peaceful and just resolution of the conflict in the Middle East. As the history of the conflict shows, boycotts have been aimed at Israel to harm its international standing and change its policies, but have failed to do either. Far from helping the Palestinians, boycotts hinder democratic dialogue on which prospects for peace and security in the Middle East rely.

No justification exists for an economic boycott of Israel. It is contrary to all rules of free trade and open markets. The goal of an economic boycott is to isolate and weaken Israel economically, and thus make the state non-viable. While Egypt and Jordan have direct trade links with Israel, most Arab states continue to refuse to trade directly with Israel. The economic boycott highlights the reluctance of many Arab states to reach a settlement of the conflict through negotiations and dialogue. It would be more productive for the League of Arab States to use its influence and power to end Palestinian violence, and to promote a return to negotiations and Arab-Israeli normalisation. The Roadmap peace plan specifically calls for the normalisation of relations between the Arab states and Israel, including the return of trade links. The Saudi peace initiative, or Beirut Declaration, re-affirmed by the Arab League in 2007, could be an important step in this process of normalisation.

For similar reasons, no justification exists for an academic boycott of Israel. An academic and cultural boycott, which has been promoted by the University and College Union (UCU) and the Unison trade union, contradicts the very idea of freedom of science and art, the fundamental principles of scientific ethics and the open spirit of international cooperation between scientists and artists. Taking such discriminatory measures based on nationality sets a dangerous precedent, as it establishes prejudice against individuals on the basis of their ethnic, religious or political identity.

An academic boycott not only hurts academics, but also academia. Israel's intellectuals include Israeli Arabs and critics of the government. It is counterproductive to suggest that Israel, a country that celebrates academic freedom and allows its academics to write whatever they wish, should be subjected to such a boycott. In fact, prominent Palestinian academics such as Sari Nusseibeh, President of Al Quds University, were outspoken against the intentions in the summer of 2007 to promote a boycott of Israeli universities and academics.

Leading voices in the UK, Europe, the US and the Middle East have clearly expressed their objections to the use of boycotts and have called for positive, constructive action towards peace.

Iran calls for the eradication of the State of Israel, and is the only country in the world to openly and bluntly do so, which makes its pursuit of nuclear capabilities all the more worrying. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is notorious for his threatening rhetoric against Israel. Ahmadinejad expressed this in early 2007, saying that ‘with the help of all the Lebanese and Palestinian fighters, we will witness the destruction of [the Israeli] regime in the near future.' In addition, Ahmadinejad repeatedly denies the Jewish Holocaust. For example, in February 2006 he said, ‘They [the Jews] have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews.'

Iran has been led by a radical and fundamentalist Islamic leadership for almost three decades. Recently, Iran has been directing its efforts towards the development of a nuclear capability that raises the level of threat it poses to Israel and to the region. Although Iran claims that its nuclear programme is required for civil use, reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) indicate that Iran's refusal to allow a full international inspection of its nuclear facilities, and its lack of transparency, point out its intention to develop nuclear weapons. The international community has offered Iran a package of incentives that might persuade its leadership to abandon uranium enrichment. Iran has so far stuck to its hard line and refuses to abide by international demands on nuclear proliferation. Iran already possesses weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological warheads, and has threatened to use them.

In addition, Iran views terrorism as a legitimate means to further its ideological and strategic aims. Iran assists Islamic terror groups and organisations that strive to attack Israel, sabotage the political process and destabilise the regimes of the more pragmatic Arab countries. Iran supports and assists Palestinian terror organisations such as the PIJ and Hamas, providing them with military and financial assistance in their violent activity against Israel. In addition, Iran openly supports the Lebanon-based Hezbollah terror organisation by providing financial assistance, weapons, ammunition and military training. Iran supplied Hezbollah with the missiles and rockets that hit all major cities and towns in the north of Israel in the war of 2006, killing and injuring hundreds of Israelis.

The combination of radical fundamentalist Islam, open endorsement of terrorist violence and its pursuit of nuclear capabilities makes Iran the most severe threat to the existence of Israel and to the stability of the region.