Bob

At the moment I I live in what you would describe as "West Jerusalem". But for the first six months I was here, I lived in what people like you refer to as "East Jerusalem". Either way, all of the "settlements" adjacent to Jerusalem will always be a part of Israel, even in the event of some sort of final-status agreement with territory swaps. You live in some sort of dreamworld where the 1949 Armistice Lines are somehow what define legitimate Israeli borders... and why? Just because the UN says so. Why does the UN say so? Because they say so.

Well, that's quite a bit more complicated. Let's say I assume you're right about the guilt of these people, and that they should be imprisoned and/or executed - the lack of justice on this issue isn't a "conservative" issue. It's just a flawed system.

If you'd simply pay attention to the video, you'd realize he's not specifically talking about social services being available to the poor via the government. Actually, he makes no mention of that - you brought that up. He's simply referring to cash handouts that people give to beggars in the street. If the reward of free money for begging in the street was removed, perhaps these people would be more inclined to seek work. I know this is certainly true in Jerusalem, as I see the same beggars in the same places all the time. I also admit to giving them money. It's because Jerusalem is always filled with tourists, and there is a lot of free money to be had by looking miserable and begging for money in high-traffic tourist areas. If people stopped giving them money, the reward for begging would be removed. As far as Stossel's recommendations, he seems to be in agreement with the lady that states it is better to give money to trustworthy organizations than to beggars in the street. I think it's quite obvious that many people who beg shouldn't be begging. In Ottawa I saw it all the time - twenty-somethings begging for money and "squeegee kids". It was really pathetic.

Depends on the treason. Treason A isn't necessarily the same as Treason B. It depends what was done.

Although he's a bit ideological with his libertarianism, this is a good series. Follow the links to see all the videos. I caught this a few days ago on Fox News.

Since when? White-collar crime is just another component of crime that is generally inadequately addressed by the justice system - light sentences and sub-par justice. As far as GostHacked's reference to Madoff, I'm sure many people agree with me - he should be executed, and his entire family arrested and interrogated, as well as confiscation of all assets. His family continues to live the good life.... why is that?

Culture and values are certainly a huge part. Culture and values also contribute to poor economic performance. Marxists, however, would lead you to believe that money is the source of every human phenomenon. In other words, if somebody does something wrong, it's because he or she didn't have enough money to do something right.

So their higher representation in murder statistics is somehow connected to the quality of their homes, how much welfare they receive, and how well they do in school? What does this mean - we need to spend more money on this population? Tell us exactly what you think must be done.

In all seriousness, I just don't care what this law or that organization or this expert or that report says. There's right and there's wrong. This isn't that complicated. If there is terrorism coming from an area, it must be stopped. Unfortunately, terrorism against Israel almost exclusively arises from areas that have civilian and civilian infrastructure. Unfortunately, these civilians and the civilian infrastructure often serve a dual purpose and are a part of the terrorist system. Unless the terrorists cease their violence, we'll continue seeing harm befall civilians and civilian infrastructure. Israel cannot sit idly by while under attack, it's that simple. And no amount of fluffy reports from organizations claiming to advocate on behalf of human rights is going to change that. If you have a beef with civilians being harmed, then direct your attention against the terrorists.

It's also important to remember that whatever Human Rights Watch or Amnesty say is absolutely true, genuine, and devoid of politicization. Their "reports" certainly cannot be questioned or challenged. Because we all know that HRW and AI are firmly committed to honest to goodness human rights. After all, it's right there in their mission statements. Why would they ever lie or misrepresent things??

Actually, no. I'm just a Jewish professional living in Jerusalem.

Not much point reading the rest of your post after this ridiculous introduction.

Here's a recent lecture he delivered at his alma mater, regarding his career as a journalist. I was wondering where he had disappeared to, as he was one of the greatest reporters at CNN when he was covering the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Turns out he burned out after all those years of living in the war, and got PTSD. He's also no longer with CNN and producing a documentary. Some really, really, really interesting insights into these wars towards the end of this lecture. You can follow the links to see the rest of the videos.

Having a conversation with you is a waste of time.

Personally, if there was a real partner for peace among the Palestinians, relinquishing minor settlements would be a worthwhile compromise towards Palestinian statehood. Compensation for refugees? Is that some sort of sick joke? How about this, we'll compensate them for the seven hundred thousand Arab/Palestinian refugees if they compensate us for the million Jewish refugees from Arab/Muslim lands. Jerusalem cannot be divided. It's the Israeli capital. If anything, its borders should be expanded further in "East Jerusalem". If there really was a peace agreement in good faith, safe passage of course should be given between Gaza and Judea/Samaria. The problem is, of course, the Palestinians don't have a legitimate representative in Judea/Samaria and have elected terrorists to rule them in Gaza. We cannot make an agreement that the Palestinian leaders don't have the ability to deliver. A future Palestine could, presumably be largely sovereign. It must be demilitarized, though. Anyways, this is all hypothetical. We will never see a peaceful resolution. Things are getting worse, not better. The situation is so messed up for so many reasons I don't even want to get into, now. There is no reason to be optimistic about a two-state solution with mutual recognition considering how things are going, and have been going, for many decades.

You can repeat yourself as much as you'd like, you're still lying and you know it. You're not speaking to idiots here. We know what "intentional" means, and how it can be accurately in this context. You're trying to redefine it for obvious political purposes. Israel doesn't intentionally attack civilians, and we all know it. Or at least, people should know it. I also never suggested that infants weren't innocent. In that thread I explained I hadn't read the ages of the children being referenced - I didn't know were talking about children that were so young. Your desperation to attack me is simply a result of you being backed into a corner saying shit we all know isn't true.

Legitimate and necessary, as terrorists operate in civilian buildings. How do you not understand this? Legitimate and necessary. Oh, you'd prefer the IDF go in with handguns? The war took place in heavily-populated areas, that's what happens. Have a problem with it? Blame Hamas. What in the world...? What about it? You think the school wasn't being used for terrorism? You swallow every allegation in the Goldstone Report as if Palestinian eyewitness testimony is sufficient grounds to understand what really happened, and as if the IDF has a responsibility to explain itself to people like yourself who have no interest in the truth, anyways.

Nobody agrees with bloodyminded, he's simply wrong and he knows it. And he continues to dig the whole because he doesn't want to relinquish rhetoric about Israel "intentionally" targeting civilians. We're all fluent in English here, he can't bullshit us with respect to our own language. He's trying to redefine a word for political purposes.

A more accurate hypothetical example would be if your neighbour regularly shoots at your home from his property, always changing locations - sometimes from this window, sometimes from behind that tree, sometimes from under his car, etc. There is no possible way for you to kill your neighbour by simply walking into his house, as there are IEDs, land mines, and other traps all around. You also don't know how many others are on his property or in the neighbourhood that will assist him if they see you exposed. These neighbours who are sympathetic to his attempts to murder you will call him is they see you walking towards his home so that he might prepare himself to kill you. So in the interests of protecting your family.... That should give a richer picture of the kind of position Israel is in with respect to terrorism from Gaza.

You're still wrong. This is simple English, and you're trying to massage the semantics to make Israel look bad. You're lying about the meaning of "intentional", and you know it.

No, the UN did not "make" Israel. It's certainly much, much, much more complicated than that. And no, the UN cannot "unmake" Israel. It's certainly much, much, much more complicated than that. You're certainly out-of-touch with respect to the relationship between Israel and many other UN member states, especially at the Security Council. Moreover, your post seems to imply that the UN's and its subsidiaries' anti-Israel bias is actually debatable, when the most superficial examination would instantly reveal this obvious truth. If you've got something to comment on regarding the video, go ahead. Otherwise, don't expect people to spend much effort replying to things you make up on the spot. Your entire post is pure garbage. The icing on the cake, obviously, is the suggestion that Israel is some criminal/state state going around engaging in criminal and terrorist activity, and stealing land.

"Complete surrender"? What are you talking about? They need to get into negotiations and stop the violence. The problem is, they cling to demands that cannot be delivered, make excuses not to negotiate, and continue terrorism. Therefore, the status quo resumes. And you obviously think that's a good idea. It's easy for people like you, completely disconnected from the circumstances (and largely ignorant about relevant history and context), to cheer the Arabs on in forums like this. It's also pathetic. As far as my interest in an accord, of course I want a resolution to this conflict. Unlike you, I actually care about this situation. What I am not interested in, however, is an accord that is unacceptable. People like yourself spin this situation into the following story - "Israel won't accept Arab demands, therefore Israel doesn't want peace." Or, as you just recently put it, "Renouncing violence and sitting down to have negotiations (the Palestinian Authority refuses to negotiate unless "settlements are frozen") is the same as 'surrender', therefore Palestinians should continue doing what they are doing." Nice perspective you have there!

The sad truth is that Goldstone's recent op-ed doesn't really matter. Even a formal redaction of the fraudulent report from the UNHRC wouldn't mean much. It took the UN fifteen years to overturn the "Zionism is racism" resolution infamously passed in 1975. And so what? The same people who advanced that hatred still believe it, as do many others. The sad truth is that the UN and its subsidiaries, in the words of the wise Irwin Cotler, is a vehicle through which anti-Zionist propaganda and rhetoric is "laundered". Hatred against Israel and Jewish national rights is given a level of legitimacy through the UN and its subsidiaries. It's sad, and it's sick, but it's true. And Obama's a big fan of the UN.

Some interesting facts she shares: 1. Out of ten emergency sessions held by the UN in its history, six have been about Israel - and the last session has been reconvended for than a dozen times since 1987. A million dead in Rwanda, and over two million killed in the Sudan never got one emergency session. 2. In 2009, 20 resolutions condemning Israel for human rights violations, with four other condemnations for four other states. 2. At a time when 240 persons were raped in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, between July 30 and August 3, 20 miles from a UN base... the UN council did nothing, no emergency sessions or debates, no resolution, no investigations, no statements, no nothing. Yet when it came to the Koran burning that hadn't yet taken place, the President of the Council issued a condemnation and demanded "practical steps to end such intolerance". One of the overarching themes of this brief lecture is how dangerous the current Obama administration's approach to foreign affairs is towards Israel, and by extension, to justice and equality for the Jewish people. Specifically, Obama's seeming affection for the UN and "internationalism" is worrying. Apparently, there is a "credible" report that Obama is trying to force Israel to heel by threatening to not use its veto against future anti-Israel UNSC resolutions. It's frightening, but it's something those of in-the-know already know. I think this lecture will be of particular interest to the Americans in here as it directly deals with Obama's approach towards the UN, which we know is part-in-parcel to his overall internationalist worldview.