Sixty years have passed since Israel adopted this policy of bloodshed against the Palestinians and the Arabs; however, apart from the mental effects on its own citizens in the future and in spite of the many wise voices of its intellectuals about the impact of its actions on its image in the world as an occupation force, it has actually brought nothing but shame for its citizens today and tomorrow.

In spite of all this, the approach that Israel has taken for the last sixty seems to have made it bloodthirsty, and the more brutal and violent it becomes, the more sadism it develops an as innate trait which helps it survive as an occupation power implanted into strange surroundings.

Even though some ignore that, the world has for over sixty years been looking at us as only corpses, and humans surrounded by blood, not only in Palestine, but in the entire Arab world.. in Syria and Lebanon or in Egypt, which suffered the most bloodshed during that period, specifically since 1948, as well as in Iraq and other Arab countries.

Even before the Jewish state was established on the land of Palestine it has exercised extreme violence against the Palestinians in a drive that has become clear since then, namely to expel the Arab inhabitants from their homeland and establish the Jewish state instead. This is a strategic objective which has many manifestations, the latest of which, but possibly not the last, was the recent bloody massacre in Gaza.

The Jews voice their (political) creed every day. The statements recently made by the Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni, about the situation on the ground, and future Israeli moves, assert that "the Palestinians can only celebrate their independence day after they remove the word Nakba (catastrophe) from their dictionary."

About Israel's Arabs she said more clearly: "To the Palestinian citizens in Israel, whom we call Israel's Arabs, we may say that the key to your national aspirations is found elsewhere .

This is a truly serious statement which reveals Israel's intentions and future plans designed to expel the Arab citizens from the Jewish state to a Palestinian state, particularly in view of the fact that this statement followed Israel's declaration that it is a purely Jewish state, something which received immediate support from the outgoing American President George Bush.

Regarding the Palestinian refugees she added: "The solution to the Palestinian refugee problem should be within the framework of a Palestinian state (Where?)... Israel should not open its doors for the return of these refugees.

Livni is no longer calling for "the suspension of terrorism " in Gaza alone or for peace but for a "change of the formula" in the Middle East, as probably clarified by a statement from the US a few days after Israel launched its all-out war on Gaza. Suddenly emerging from oblivion, John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the UN, wrote an article in the Washington Post calling for closing the file of an independent Palestinian state through annexation of Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan.

On the "Swiss Info" website, he Lebanese writer Saad Mahyo gave details about this subject saying that Bolton is not only a staunch American neoconservative but also an American Likud Zionist and one of the main participants in the American "clean severance" document, which was published in the early 1990s and called for scrapping the "land for peace" formula, and in turn peace treaties between the Arabs and the Israelis and replacing them with the balance of power principle, to change the formula in the Middle East. He pointed out that Bolton did not make his call in a vacuum. There is a wide group of the pro-Israel American elite who support the 1967 theory of the partition of Palestine among Egypt, Jordan and Israel. The leading representative of this group is Daniel Pybus, termed the "black knight" in the US, because of his Zionist extremism. He has bean lobbying for this option in Washington since January 2008. He justifies his argument as follows:

• Yasser Arafat, then Mahmoud Abbas, failed in turning Gaza into a new Singapore and in averting the rise of Islamic radicalism there and, consequently, the idea of Palestinian sovereignty over the strip must be given up.
• Washington and other Western capitals must declare the self-rule experiment in Gaza a failure and press the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to give a hand, perhaps by giving Gaza extra Egyptian territory an even annexing the entire strip to Egypt as an Egyptian governorate.
• The letter step will be culturally logical and self-evident: the accent of the people of Gaza is similar to that of the inhabitants of Sinai, with whom they have stronger family and economic ties than with the West Bank. Even the real roots of Gaza's Hamas movement go to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood rather than to the Palestinian nationalist movement.

Concluding, he said: "Turing these informal relations into formal ones through annexation of Gaza to Egypt will achieve a number of objectives at a stroke: 1) Prevention of rocket attacks against Israel, 2) Revealing the artificiality of Palestinian nationalism, 3)Breaking the deadlock in Arab-Israel relations." In this way he asserts that Israel's procrastination in peace negotiations and its armed violent practices are not haphazard or hurried measures but a pre-determined strategy, even before the creation of the Jewish state.

Though surprising to us, what this report suggests is a hard reality indeed, but the Israeli strategy and practices of successive governments, as far as the conflict with the Palestinians and Arabs is concerned, clearly show that these statements are not new or incidental, but old, pre-programmed polices. Each policy represents a plan which is most likely based on a pre-determined schedule as well, according to which Israel's strategy is pursued, whatever the government or its political approaches may be within the framework of the Jewish state.

This strategy has persisted since Israel started its expansionist plan and is highly likely to continue in the future. It is clear that the main aspect of this strategy is based on another element, which is the natural result of the first, namely stressing that Israel will remain the most powerful force in the region. That's what it always assets now and then through bloody massacres, land assaults and occasional air strikes against Palestine, Lebanon and even Iraq destroying the nuclear reactor project. Many of these assaults and strikes have been described as massacres of thousands of Arab martyrs designed to affirm its power and invincible military might.

The implicit though self-evident meaning is that the Arabs in return and by necessity must be the weaker party in this conflict. That was clearly shown during the recent war and earlier Israeli attempts to neutralize powerful Arab parties involved in the conflict, then sow seeds of discord among Palestinian factions, as seen in this crisis, or among the Arab parties themselves.

In the context of this strategy we can understand why for the long duration of its conflict with the Arabs Israel did not propose a single real peace plan in the region, nor did declare, even once, what marks its borders or where they stand.

For sixty years of conflict, then negotiations with the Arabs, Israel has not put forward any practicable proposals or any acceptable peace plan which meets the requirements of peaceful coexistence in an area whose fringes border the biggest countries in the region. Furthermore, it often reverses its actions. For example, it raided the Gaza Strip which it had withdrawn its troops from and vacated its settlements in September 2005 under a unilateral "disengagement" plan.

Israel's full-scale offensive in which ground forces attacked innocent children and women, in the light of an indifferent attitude towards Israel on the part of the superpowers Israel's disregard for the change of the US administration and its role in the Arab-Israeli issue as Livni said before President Obama's inauguration all this makes it necessary for the Arabs to welcome the recent Kuwait Summit as a real start of Arab awareness of the need to stop the expansion of the Jewish state at the expense of the Palestinian people and Arab land.

The region's circumstances, the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the international stance towards Israel have proved that any solution to the problem is only possible from within the conflict spot and that no Arab country can alone do that however powerful it may be, as no unilateral agreement with Israel has borne any real fruit. We approached the superpowers, the UN as well as international blocs during the cold war, with no material change on the ground, but further expansion for the Jewish state and further weakness and retreat for the rightful owners of the land.

Accordingly, Israel's fixed, clear-cut strategy can only be confronted with a counter policy based on the conviction that the Jewish state survives and excels at the expense of Arab weakness and backwardness. This conviction requires that all Arab parties set their differences aside, muster their efforts and act in good faith towards one another to draw up a long-term joint Arab work plan to find realistic mechanisms to halt Israel's expansionist plan, with a parallel joint plan for scientific, economic and social development and the development of such self-power that enables the Arabs to handle the conflict to their advantage.

As a matter of fact, the Arab world can only face the world and Israel with power, which in turn can only be achieved through overall social development, then military development. The experience of decades has shown that keeping a stockpile of weapons and military equipment without overall human development is a waste of time and energy.

Accordingly, a new course to make the Arab world a true deterrent force based on logic must be adopted. It is hoped the Kuwait Economic and Social Summit which was held last January and its development in the Arab world theme is a real approach to develop such Arab power that s capable of defending the Arab world and citizens against any regional domination or foreign occupation force.