> ''The fact is that most anti-Israeli U.N. resolutions are passed by its General Assembly, which comprises delegates from every country in the world, and whose decisions are not binding. The U.N.'s binding resolutions are those passed by the Security Council, which has only five permanent members,'' the paper added.
>
I wasn't aware of that fact. Thankyou for pointing that out.

> And it is felt by myself and pretty much anybody else who supports Israel that there is a virulently anti-Israel opinion in the world. This is the same U.N. where you have quite a few member nations who would like nothing better than to see Israel destroyed, and who don't have much of a problem proclaiming this.

I really hope that no-one would think me anti-Israeli. I agree very strongly that Judaism and Israel have had an extremely rough ride throughout history, and it would be sick, wrong and very racist to deny that they have been on the receiving end of some very nasty treatment and sentiments. I wasn't aware that the resolutions passed against Israel didn't carry any weight - that'll teach me to carry out insufficient research. Or no research, if I'm brutally honest.

However. And it's a big however. There is no doubt that Israel has also given its neighbours a rough ride since its inception. A quick search on the net reveals that there have been some terrible atrocities committed by Israeli terror groups (Shtem, Irgon and Haganah come to mind) and that Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is a very contentious legal issue. One of the big problems is that Israel is, basically, an artificial state. Don't start yelling at me; I say this because Israel was set up as a home for vast numbers of badly treated and displaced Jews. That doesn't mean it shouldn't have been set up; it just means that it is more prone to instability and enemy activity than a state that has been in place for many more years. You're correct that, without US support, Israel would have disappeared a long time ago. But is it right to supply arms to a nation that occupies other territories? I don't know, I'm no moral disputant. But, even though Israel does get the "short end of the stick", its history means that if you offer *any* criticism about it, you get shouted down as an anti-Semite and a racist. By the way, the conspiracy theorists who claim that there's a Jewish plot to undermine all our values are dangerously deluded; it's very dangerous to go that far. But inability to offer criticism has led to lopsidedness in world opinion.

>Conversely, I don't see many nations professing that they would love to see the Arab world destroyed.

How about Israel?

>Israel is constantly getting the short end of the stick, and were it not for American support and protection, would no longer exist, nor would probably any of its citizens. These anti-Israel resolutions are bogus, and there is good reason why they aren't passed in such a way as to actually mean anything.

Then why the hell is there an international body that exists to pass resolutions that don't actually mean anything? The US has vetoed several resolutions that would "require" Israel to pull out of its occupied territories (again, legality is very thorny, but votes in the General Assembly suggest that everyone except Israel and the US think they shouldn't be there.)

This post is not meant as a rant against Israel, or the Jews. As I said, they have suffered terribly throughout the years. But this should not give them carte blanche in the Middle East.

Si-"I hope this post conveys the sentiment it was meant to"-gi