|
Shamrock... the difference between Iraq and Israel, is that Israel act in REACTION. Understand that. They hold the west bank, and Jerusalem because letting them go back to Jordan is militarily undefensable. Given that every Arabic nation declared war on them, and that only Egypt have acknowledge Israel's existence, let alone right to exist, the decision to keep hold of a buffer zone, to SAVE THE LIVES OF IT'S PEOPLE, seems fair.
No Arab invasion = no six day war = no Sinai/West Bank/Gaza possession.
It's called consequences.
Iraq, on the other hand premptively invaded Kuwait, under Hussein. The problem was not Iraq, but Hussein. The TYPES of resolutions he broke are extreme also, such as using internationally banned chemical weapons on his own subjects, the Kurds. The burning of the oilfields was an ecological disaster.
You comparison then is moot, silly, irrelevent and pointless. It is also a STRAW MAN argument. Regardless of what happened to Israel, the issue is Iraq. The way another nation is treated in no way justifies or condemnes the way Hussein was treated.
|