Well, time has changed since the 60s. Israel now has one of the most efficient and modern army of the region - as opposed to the hastly assembled of the time - and has the nuclear bomb (which no one seems to mind. Israel is the only country in the region - save Iraq- that actually conquered it'S neighbour in the past 50 years)

Israel's army was always more efficient than the other armies of the region and thank G-d for that. Nevertheless, you are wrong. Israel is not "the only nation that conquered it's [sic] neighbour in the past 50 years. That's one of those silly urban legends used by some. Syria invaded Lebanon and occupied it for more than a decade. I admit that the other invasions failed, but that was simply due to Arabs losing when they tried to conquer. Syria and Egypt have attempted to conquer but failed. So I cannot see why it is relevant that Israel succeeded. I do reject your idea that we can risk all-out war again just because Israel would likely win it. The current situation is far preferable to that. I am surprised that anti-war people don't see it that way. They usually pretend to dislike war. But here they would gladly (let Israel) risk it.

I don't think Syria would temp fate that much. Except off course if they had Turkey with them.

Turkey would not join Syria in an attack on Israel.

Jordan is not in a state to wage any war of that scale, and Egypt.. hmm.. I don't know about Egypt.. I think it does not want to loose whatever commercial ties it has with europe.

If the so-called Muslim Brotherhood takes over commercial ties are not a priority. The Taliban did not worry about commercial ties either. Another war between Israel and Egypt would probably result in an Israeli victory as Israel will probably use a "disproportionate response" to defend her people against genocide. And the world, especially the UN, will condemn Israel, for both the Egyptian attack and the Israeli victory. Even if Israel should lose (and Israel only has to lose once, her enemies will not withdraw in exchange for a peace treaty) and the Arabs can kill all the Jews (or "drive them into the sea"), Israel will be blamed, I am sure.

Well, the usual reason U.N. apply sanctions is because the target country broke international laws - which Israel have done on many occasions -.

Very funny. Those "international laws" are usually made up on the spot. They are never applied to any other country and can never be found written down before Israel "violates" them. If you want to see what fascism is, look at the UN. Fascism is all about making up laws that never existed before, at least not for everyone, and use them against Jews.

I realy do have to say that i do not believe that the Iranian leader is only seeking to have nuclear power fo domestic reasons .When he states that Isreal should be wipped off the face of the earth . ALL of you debaters out there ,just stand back and let that statement sink in .if you of a christian belief y,you cannot practice your reigion openly in Iran ,in fact one can do very little ''OPENLY'' in Iran or else the state religious police haul you off to place where you will not be heard of again and if you are a woman , well they get the nearest crane and a strong rope and hang them from it..now there is a nice '' civilised '' society ...
As long as there are terrorist groups willing to die for ALLAH BY FLYING planes into civillian buildings and being funded by states like Iran .Do people honestly believe that a sucide bomber would not use a nuclear device if he /she had the chance..i honestly believe that if IRAN DEVELOPES A NUCLEAR CAPABILITY. IT WILL PASS ON THE KNOW HOW TO TERRORISTS GROUPS THAT HAVE IT IN THEIR HEARTS ..YES IN THEIR HEARTS THE URGE TO CAUSE UTTER DESTRUCTION AND KILLING .
if people believe that a sucide bomber would not use such a device to kill even more people we,well then i have to ask ..WHO IS TRYING TO FOOL WHOM
I REALY HATE TO SAY THIS BUT THERE IS NO CHOICE .IF THE FREE NATIONS OF THIS WORLD DO NOT GET TOGETHER AND AGREE A MILITARY STRIKE AGAINST IRAN THEY ARE ONLY DELAYING THE DAY WHEN IT WILL COME TO PASS THAT THERE WILL BE NO OTHER CHOICE .....THEN WHAT HAPPENS
I SAY SEND IN THE PLANES NOW ...BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE .

Again, your point it totally baseless. First, if such laws really were "made on the spot" and simply antisemitic-oriented, the U.S. would veto them - as it is in their power -.

Israel is breaking more than a fair share of international laws, is wrong about the oppression and colonization of Palestinian territories - on both moral and legal ground -.

On the other side, Israel is right to defend itself. It has the right to exist, and the way the other arab countries treated it in the past was awful.

Treating the U.N. as "fascism" simply because they are doing sanctions against Israel is an insult to the victims of the Holocaust - the victim of true Nazi Fascism -.

(btw, I don't see what the problem with the basic "fascism" ideology is. Not the monstrosity the Nazi created, but the true basic idea. Look up wiki)

Criticizing Israel - or any Jew community for that matter - doesn't make you a Nazi, nor an antisemite. Doing so is using a cheap trick to allow these people to act as if they can do no wrong.



You simply don't know what you are talking about. Search "refining capacity" in the part of using oil as energy power. Try to look up Iran's: they have absolutely nothing.

Again, your point it totally baseless. First, if such laws really were "made on the spot" and simply antisemitic-oriented, the U.S. would veto them - as it is in their power -.

Assuming that all US administrations were always totally perfect and willing to risk that for Israel, yes.

Israel is breaking more than a fair share of international laws, is wrong about the oppression and colonization of Palestinian territories - on both moral and legal ground -.

"Opression"... are you trying to make me laugh? The so-called "opression" is simply the result of Israel having to defend itself against terrorism. Other countries usually expell the population of territories they capture (as happened to 12 million Germans who lived in what is now Poland). "Opression" is a funny term. You can call something "opression" and it is suddenly evil. Do you think there would be any "opression" in the "Palestinian territories" if the "Palestinians" would not insist on attacking Israel and Jews all the time? If so, why do you think that?
And "colonization"... well, a few thousand Jews are living where Jewish communities existed for thousands of years before the Arabs expelled them in 1949. The "Palestinians" call a similar mechanism "right of return". But when Jews (not Israel, these are not government projects) do it, it's "colonization".
And before we forget it, a Jewish town in the West Bank is obviously a "settlement" or "outpost". The UN have similar definitions.

Treating the U.N. as "fascism" simply because they are doing sanctions against Israel is an insult to the victims of the Holocaust - the victim of true Nazi Fascism -.

Israel is also a victim of "true Nazi fascism". Learn about the roots of the PLO and their mentor, the "grand mufti" of Jerusalem (or as Hitler knew him, that Bosnian SS recruiter who wanted to wipe out the Jews in the middle east that Hitler couldn't get).
Tell me, why doesn't Syria have to pay reparations to Israel for attacking and losing? And why is Israel not entitled to keeping land taken in defensive wars?
For some reason the UN, when they were founded by the victors of WW2, saw all these things different when it was Russia winning a war and taking land.
Russia is attacked, invades Prussia, keeps Prussia, expells the people who live there, colonizes it: no problem.
Israel is attacked, invades the Golan, keeps the Golan, does not expell the people who live there, colonies it: breach of international law.
China is not attacked, invades Tibet, keeps Tibet: no problem.
So please don't tell me that this "international law" Israel is breaking is really a "law" that applies to everyone equally, as opposed to applying only or more strictly to the Jewish state.
The fact is that if "Palestinians" shoot rockets at a Jewish school on the other side of the border and Israel responds, the UN react and condemn Israel.
Do you remember the last Lebanon war? A Lebanese militia, part of the Lebanese government no less, shot rockets at Israel for _five years_. Five years. And only when Israel responded (with rockets after dropping leaflets telling civilians to leave the region) did the UN consider it a war. And Israel was condemned for it.
It's not a war when Jews die. It's only a war when the first non-Jew dies. And it's Israel's fault. How often did the UN condemn Lebanon for the five years of rocket attacks? Did anybody in the UN even care?

Criticizing Israel - or any Jew community for that matter - doesn't make you a Nazi, nor an antisemite. Doing so is using a cheap trick to allow these people to act as if they can do no wrong.

If you criticise Israel for what Israel didn't do or for things that you wouldn't criticise other countries for, it does make you an anti-Semite.
You cannot just call "opression" and pretend that that is an argument against Israel. They are in a war. Shooting at the enemy is NOT opression, especially when the enemy demands the war. It's only "opression" when Jews do it.
There are people in Germany who complain that the US opressed Nazi Germany. I call them anti-American. What do you call them?

You simply don't know what you are talking about. Search "refining capacity" in the part of using oil as energy power. Try to look up Iran's: they have absolutely nothing.

And why are they working on a nuclear project instead of building refineries? Did you even think about that? Iran needs petrol, not electricity. Iran has oil. Oil can be used to produce electiricy and petrol. Yet Iran is working on a project that solves a problem Iran doesn't have instead of focusing on a project that would solve one of Iran's biggest problems.
Did you know that petrol is hard to come by in Iran because of the inadequate refining capacity? People are only allowed to buy a certain amount per month.
Gee, people, THINK.

"Much the same mixture of exhilaration and invective marked the first flush of war in the other Arab capitals. "Kill the Jews!" screamed Radio Baghdad. A Syrian commander offered the rash prediction to radio listeners that "we will destroy Israel in four days.""

Time Magazin, Friday, Jun. 16, 1967.

"Kill the Jews"

Was that a breach of international law? Was Israel winning a breach of international law?

Why don't we forget about "international law"? What is "international law" anyway? Where is is written down? And whom, apart from Israel, does it apply to? Does anybody think "international law" makes attacking Israel illegal? The Arab countries certainly don't think so. Which "international law" did Israel break? Is there an "international law" that says that one must not occupy land one takes in a war? (Why does it not apply to Russia and Poland, or China?) Is there an "international law" that says that settlers must not move into occupied territory? (So why do "Palestinians" demand a right to return that would presumably apply when Israel is beaten and occupied?) Is there any "international law" that applies to both Israel and other countries?

Note that there is an international law (in the Geneva Convention, I believe) that forbids governments from moving population into occupied territory.

However:

1. Russia and Poland did it. (Again, I don't blame them.)

2. Israel does not do it. (The settlers are not moved by the government.)

3. The Geneva Convention only applies if both sides in a conflict subscribe to it, but the "Palestinians" do not.

Nevertheless I have no doubt that this "international law" applies to Israel. It doesn't apply to Russia, or Poland, or the "Palestinians" (who want a "right to return", i.e. a government-sponsored move into an occupied Israel, should Israel lose). Israel does not violate it. And according to its own rules it does not apply. But it still applies to Israel, doesn't it?

Danielost,

The Sunnis in Iraq are very much on America's side now. They don't care much about Israel any more, now that they have felt what it is like not to rule a country but to be Al Qaeda's targets.

The Sunnis, Christians, and Druze in Lebanon are on America's side:

“It would be bad for Lebanon and for the Middle East if the US withdraws from the Middle East. Because we will face a different Arab and Muslim world. It is very strange and ironic that even the pro-Iranians in Iraq are asking the Americans to stay. You could write a theater about it. Making the Americans totally withdraw from the Arab world would be a mistake, would be a disaster for the moderates in the Arab world. The radicals and the Iranians would win.”

Walid Jumblatt, Druze leader (Lebanon) (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001383.html)

I have no idea why (western) liberals want us to listen only to the anti-American and anti-Semitic elements in the Arab world. Why not listen to those who don't hate us and give them what they want?

because if bush wins they lose