Well, this is interesting.

IRAQ:

UN Resolutions violated, ignored: 16

Countries attacked, invaded, violated: Iran, Kuwait

Countries occupied for years: NONE

Countries currently occupying: NONE

Territory illegally annexed: NONE

Wars started: 1980, 1990

Possesses weapons of mass destruction: To be determined (No)

Possesses nuclear weapons: No

Most notable atrocity against civilians: 5,000 Kurdish civilians were killed in the village of Halabja, March 1988

Currently under a regime of UN sanctions: Yes

ISRAEL:

UN Resolutions violated, ignored: 68

Countries attacked, invaded, violated: Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia

Countries occupied for years: Egypt, Lebanon, Syria

Countries currently occupying: Syria

Territory illegally annexed: Golan Heights, Jerusalem, Palestinian Territories

Wars started: 1956, 1967, 1982

Possesses weapons of mass destruction: Yes

Possesses nuclear weapons: Yes

Most notable atrocity against civilians: 17,500 Lebanese civilians killed in 1982 invasion of Lebanon

Currently under a regime of UN sanctions: No

Unlike the post this is aimed at, I do have my source: http://www.aljazeerah.info/Documents/Comparing%20UN%20Resolutions%20for%20Iraq%20and%20Israel.htm

(The parenthetical addition is mine.)

but but.. isreal are the goodies !!

Oh, I'll wait now for the outrage from Kiamat over the atrocities perpetrated by the government of Israel. Since he's such a fan of outrage in general, surely I needn't wait long?

Reading your post reminds me of the old question...lets see - how does it go...

What is the definition of "is". I think it applies here.

Gee, maybe if nations quit shooting rockets full of anti-personnel shrapnel into Israel's civilian population, kidnapping folks, calling for their destruction and randomly attacking, then Israel would lighten up?

And as for Lebanon? A government that consistently allowed Hezbollah to continually rocket a neighbouring nation *invited* attack.

Maybe if Hezbollah didn't rocket Israeli civilians and then hide in their own civilian population, I'd feel more sympathetic.



This is what Israel got, for trying to withdraw. Lesson learned?

Questions of sympathy or the lack thereof might have more weight if Israel weren't just as, or even more, inclined to slaughter civilians.

See, all of the chatter in the world over who did what to whom, spoken in general terms, doesn't change the fact that the hard numbers give just a taste of the truth about Israel, as a country.

This has nothing, by the way, and before someone plays that card, to do with Jewish people in general or even Israeli citizens in particular. Israel has its anti-war protestors, too, you know, despite the fact that they're ignored (just like ours are). I no more condemn out of hand the average Israeli citizen for the atrocities committed by Israel than I condemn the average American citizen for our own atrocities.

Ok, I'll bite.

You are in charge of the Israeli government. You just withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon.

In return, you had your civilian population rocketed with missiles full of little steel balls, designed for maximum antipersonnel effects, and it goes on day after day.

The perpetrators are hiding behind their women and kids, laughing at you and preparing to kill some more people tomorrow with more and better rockets from Iran.


Just what are you gonna do?

Ahh, you rely on an unknown author posting on an anti-semitic propaganda site for your information. Great source.

That "information" is so biased and innacurate that it's almost unbelievable that anyone would just accept it as fact.

* Jerusalem is part of Israel.

* The Palestinian Territories are not Syrian territory. Ask a Palestinian, see what they say.

* Israel did not occupy Egypt. Israel occupied part of Egypt, the Sinai Penninsula, after Egypt made clear it was preparing to invade Israel.

* Moreover, show me proof Israel has nuclear weapons. If you don't, your accusations are as unfounded as Bush's about Iraq's WMD program.

Given those innacuracies, the whole document is in question. Find a source that actually reflects history, not one opinion based on Arab propaganda.

I'm sorry, but you are off-topic.

If you would care to discuss the posted statistics on their own merits, that would be lovely. I'm not here to defend Lebanon, nor do I have any particular desire to, nor does it have anything to do, really, with this post.

Would it be more palatable for you if I quoted American propaganda instead?

Remove "statistics", insert "anti-semitic propaganda".
Carry on.

Gladly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem

No country has recognized Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 rejected it as a violation of international law.

Edit: To be clear, that's in response to your "Jerusalem is part of Israel" disinformation. I know you said more, but please give me time.

UN Resolution = Irrelevant.

Jerusalem is part of Israel.

... illegally annexed. You're really not very good at this, are you?

Well, we disagree. I find it incredibly on-topic, because I think we all agree that there will be more statistics like the above, and soon.



Note that in the statistics, the presumption is that Israel shouldn't exist at all (no land whatsoever).

If many Arab nations agree that Israel must go, then let's see them use their high ethics and demand that sovereign Kurdistan be restored to the Kurds. Turkmenistan gets territory too.

Oh, and don't forget the Assyrians - did you know that many came to Central California? http://www.nineveh.com/The%20Assyrians%20of%20the%20San%20Joaquin%20Valley,%20California.html Where is the outrage about the loss of sovereign Assyria? It goes on and on.

Failing the return of all *those* sovereign territories, asking for the return of Israeli lands is all hypocritical bullshit.

The 'media history' that most people are fed with regard to the Mideast is sorely lacking in fact.

As for the rest ...



I'm unclear as to who specifically said they were ...



That would constitute occupying Egypt. If an invading foreign army occupied, say, California, we could correctly say the United States was occupied by an invading army. It is not necessary to cover every square inch of a country to occupy it.

Secondly, Israel may have justified a preemptive attack with a claim that Egypt was preparing to invade, but those claims, as we have seen even once again just recently, that preemptive attacks are necessary tend to be little more than excuses to stage invasions.



Oh dear. This isn't especially obscure knowledge. Once again, I lazily point you to the Wikipedia as a starting point ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

What you're missing here, Desmond, is that I don't have the agenda that you seem to think that I do. I'm simply pointing out that Israel, far from a saintly "good guy," is, as a country, as cynically wicked as any of them ... and better armed.

It doesn't follow that I'm therefore a champion of the Arab world, here to espouse their glorious virtues.

I can appreciate the stated point, very well in fact.

But these stats are inherently biased. The supposition from the territories stat alone is that Israel has no right to exist.

This is why it comes off as 'championing'. Not trying to be antagonistic toward you, simply stating how those stats read.

Just about all the modern Mideast national borders were created by historic colonial powers. Where is the 'legality' for any of these borders?

There wasn't any - it was 'might makes right'. Ask the British and French why they drew the lines where they did; why they set immigration policies as they did.

anti-Israeli Government is not the same as anti-semitic.


just sayin'

There wasn't, and I'm not defending that, either. In all honesty, if you want to get technical about it, I'm not sure Israel should exist, but it does now, so we're clearly well past that and on to other things. After all, you could as easily make a case against terrorities stolen -- yes, stolen -- from Mexico by the U.S.

Even dismissing territories annexed entirely, Israel doesn't come out of this looking especially pretty. Perhaps more importantly, given that point, Israel comes out of this looking not pretty but also looking like it gets special priviledges. And so now we find ourselves back at "might makes right," which of course it does ... in a sense. It's exactly the sense in which the U.S. is "right" even now.

Apparently, since I'm rather anti-U.S. government as well, I'm also anti-white, anti-black, anti-Asian, anti-Native American, anti-hispanic, and the list goes on ...

your basically anti "humanity" if you dont agree with the "goodies"

Define..Goodies please.

Yes, sadly - the way of the world.

United States, stealing from Mexico, who stole from Spain, who stole from the Aztecs, who stole from the Toltecs. Incidentally, the Toltecs were bloody murderers themselves... the list goes on.

You bet, Israel is a privileged friend of Britain and the United States. They are an ally, no denying it, and far from perfect. But they don't cheer in the streets when US planes are hijacked and flown into downtown buildings. Tad bit of a reason to continue favouring them as a friend and ally, perhaps, because, well... they are a friend and ally.

People forget really fast. The League of Nations (the UN's equally milquetoast precursor that passed for 'international law' back then) was perfectly comfortable with the assignation of what is now Israel and Jordan to Britain after WWI. I suppose there was always the option of giving it to the defeated Ottoman Turks, with a bottle of champagne and a note, but... no.

The British came up with the Balfour Declaration (Jewish homeland). It was clumsy, and to deal with the hatred from just allowing Jews to live there (remember, no Jewish state at all yet) they eventually made an Arab province called Transjordan. With the approval of the League of Nations. In hindsight, it was almost begging to create warring states this way, mmm?

But there is no going back. Israel exists, Transjordan became Jordan and now has a 'king' - a 'king' of an area that was nothing more than a British-defined province. Odd, isn't it?

Coming roundabout, this is why I think it's really relevant to answer the questions of modern current events. What's a moral fellow to do? I really wish I *had* an answer for Israel, that didn't involve striking back hard.

Why Isreal and america of course... dont you watch Fox?