bud

silly me. i keep forgetting that the actions of the chosen state must receive a different and unique response. what i find interesting about the serbians is that 60% of them are against the arrest of this war criminal. i haven't seen any polls, but i assume the israeli war criminals would receive a higher support from israelis.

bib's many no's is an indication that he cannot be and does not want to be a partner in a real and just peace. uri avnery said it best: Now, with all the roads blocked, only one path remains open: the recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations coupled with nonviolent mass action by the Palestinian people against the occupation. The Israeli peace forces will also play their part, because the fate of Israel depends on peace as much as the fate of Palestine. Sure, the US will try to obstruct, and Congress will jump up and down, But the Israeli-Palestinian spring is on its way.

read an article from uri avnery in regards to bibi's visit to where he rules. here are some excerpts: Bibi and the Yo-Yos By URI AVNERY It was all rather disgusting. There they were, the members of the highest legislative bodies of the world’s only superpower, flying up and down like so many yo-yos, applauding wildly, every few minutes or seconds, the most outrageous lies and distortions of Binyamin Netanyahu. It was worse than the Syrian parliament during a speech by Bashar Assad, where anyone not applauding could find himself in prison. Or Stalin’s Supreme Soviet, when showing less than sufficient respect could have meant death. What the American Senators and Congressmen feared was a fate worse than death. Anyone remaining seated or not applauding wildly enough could have been caught on camera – and that amounts to political suicide. It was enough for one single congressman to rise and applaud, and all the others had to follow suit. Who would dare not to? The sight of these hundreds of parliamentarians jumping up and clapping their hands, again and again and again and again, with the Leader graciously acknowledging with a movement of his hand, was reminiscent of other regimes. Only this time it was not the local dictator who compelled this adulation, but a foreign one. The most depressing part of it was that there was not a single lawmaker – Republican or Democrat – who dared to resist. it's true. it was quite depressing watching the yes-men and women, like a bunch of servants, nodding and clapping to whatever filth that came out of bibi's mouth. this pathetic display by the u.s. lawmakers cements the fact that bibi and AIPAC rules them.

speaking of free ride, the israeli government, thanks to the american government are getting a free ride despite the savage attack on the gazans that killed 1000 defenseless civilians.

what will this mean? it will certainly improve the lives of the gazans who continue to live in dire conditions due to the effects of the blockade by israel and the former dictator and israeli/u.s. yes-man, mubarak. the biggest concern, especially from the israeli perspective, will be the increase of weapons movement into gaza. this could be a good test to see if hamas will be able to continue its own self-imposed ceasefire and put aside, what many consider a failing tactic of arms struggle, which has failed to create any progress for the quest for palestinian statehood. then again, as it has happened in the past, israel has been quite successful in provoking hamas in the name of self-defense and have drawn them into cycles of violence. violence that have done nothing but to punish the people of gaza but also stall any progress in a real and just peace. something the current israeli government seems to be okay with. link to the news

it's not discrimination because they're not citizen of canada. immigrating to canada (or any other country) and becoming a citizen is a process and in order to get a passport and be able to vote or run for PM, they have to first become a canadian citizen. once they choose to become a citizen, they will have the exact same rights as any other canadian. in the united states, one group of citizens have a privilege over another. that's discrimination. that's not applying the same logic. that's just babbling. why don't you just accept that you're wrong, instead of dragging yourself in the mud like this?

yes. it's not discrimination because they are not a canadian citizen. however, if they want to become prime minister, they have the option of becoming a canadian citizen. in the u.s., for some, being a citizen of u.s. is not enough and they can never run for presidency. this is discrimination. are you done or are you going to continue with your ridiculous comparison?

that's funny.

you cannot compare the two. it's very simple; one has the option of becoming eligible (in canada) and the other can never become eligible (in the u.s.).

way to shove your own foot in your own mouth. your own post supports my post. you made a post in the thread and the following was said: In May 2010, a poll by Angus Reid found that more than two-thirds of Canadians, a 69% majority, would like to see a Canadian serving as Canada's head of state, and a 52% majority of Canadians support reopening the constitutional debate to discuss replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state, [...]When asked who they would prefer as a monarch after Queen Elizabeth II, three-in-ten Canadians responded by saying there should be no monarch after her. 31% of Canadians also want members of the Royal Family to stop visiting Canada. Also in May 2010, an online poll by Leger Marketing for QMI Agency found that majority 59% of Canadians said that they had little or no interest in the Queen's visit to Canada, while 39% did. The poll found that only 32% of 18 to 34 year-olds had an attachment to the crown. In the 65-and-over group, 46% reported an attachment. One fifth of Canadians said the Queen should stay home, and that furthermore, "Canada should sever its ties with the British Crown". In June 2010, a national poll by the Association for Canadian Studies found decidedly lukewarm feelings about the concept of monarchy. The survey found that 49% of Canadians had a negative reaction to the word "monarchy", compared to just 41% with a positive reaction. In the Maritimes, where the Queen would begin her Canadian visit, the majority 60% registered a negative opinion of monarchy, compared to only 37% positive. (The poll did not refer to the Canadian monarchy or to the Queen specifically, but to the concept of monarchy.) A poll by Ipsos-Reid, also in June 2010, found that the majority two-in-three Canadians agree the royal family should not have any formal role in Canadian society, and reported growing sentiment that Elizabeth II should be Canada's last monarch. A fifth poll, conducted by Harris-Decima for The Canadian Press a few days ahead of the Queen's nine-day visit to Canada in June, found that nearly half of Canadians, 48%, consider the monarchy to be "a relic of our colonial past that has no place in Canada today." An Angus Reid poll just after the Queen's visit found that 36% of Canadians want Canada to remain a monarchy, 30% prefer having an elected head of state, and 21% felt it made no difference to them. your debating skills are incredible.

overruled AW and BC2004! any person is able to run to be a prime minister once they become a citizen. some will have to wait to become citizens, but the important issue is that they do have the option of becoming able to run for the prime minister's office. whereas in the states, if you're a citizen but were not born in america, you will never be able to run for presidency.

you're far too generous by applying a 50/50 blame on the groups. one look at the facts and the history of concessions shows who is okay with the status quo and whose agenda benefits from negotiations not happening. this is a reason why israel has stalled as long as they have.

first of all, i did respond, which i will get to below. second, how many times have you failed miserably in responding to my posts? especially the times where i've asked you to show some quotes to back up your defaming posts about me? so either follow your own expectations and rules you set for others or stfu. the palestinians, just like pretty much all u.s. presidents believe that the settlements should be frozen. it's understandable that this should not be negotiated just like accepting israel as a state and accepting a future palestinian state. how about we do a breakdown of what each side believes is not negotiable and then we can talk about the absurdly of bibi's theatrics and double speak. palestinians: - settlement freeze in the occupied territories (a no-brainer and something that the international community and all u.s. presidents have agreed on - even some past israeli pm's have accepted and followed) natanyahoo: - no to east jerusalem being the capital of a future palestinian state - no to freezing settlements in east jerusalem and west bank - no negotiation with hamas since they do not recognize a palestinian state (understandable in my opinion since they're unwilling to officially recognize israel. but then again, hasn't likud officially sworn to never allow a palestinian state?) - no to having certain palestinian representatives at the negotiations - no return of refugees so you tell me american woman, how is this even comparable?

i would have to disagree based on the donations the number of democrats receive from AIPAC. it's not only the republicans who receive money from AIPAC. money speaks. here is the list of u.s. reps who have received money from AIPAC. it's kind of silly to try to paint this as dems vs repubs when both are effectively influenced the same way.

agreed. it was midnight's children that brings me back to reading more of his books. unfortunately none of his following novels have been able to come close to it. back to the original topic; the growing international pressure aside, israel is imploding. the powers that tip the scale in israeli political agenda are, unfortunately, the extreme rightwing parties who are pro-settlement and anti-palestinian statehood. they're not able to accept that a palestinian state is going to happen. then you also have the group of businessmen who use these groups for support and who are making a killing from the developments in the occupied territories, including east jerusalem. so they're fine with milking it as long as they can and they'll invest their money into lobbying and pushing the israeli government towards the destructive direction. one of the biggest obstacles that the extreme right wing israeli government is facing are the growing number of jews outside of israel who are speaking out against them.

most people don't really care about old people who are stuck in the past. Canadians apathetic about monarchy: poll http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/06/28/monarchy-poll-canadians-628.html

freezing the settlements has been supported by pretty much all u.s. presidents as it's an obligation according to international law. so it's a no-brainer that it should be frozen. i also think there cannot be any negotiation between the two as long as hamas does not officially recognize israel and likud does not officially recognize palestinians right to a state. settlement freeze and recognition is a must if you want to go forward, instead of sideways.

i've read many of rushdie's books. the latest was shalimar the clown, which was a fun and adventurous read. i'd agree with you that satanic versus was a bit of a dull read. it received far more attention than it deserves. based on many of rushdie's characters i find that he has an undeniable dislike for muslim fundamentalists and a slight crush on the jews. this is one of the reasons he is so well received in the jewish community. that said, the ayatollah and the rest of the like-minded iranian mullah's are a bunch of idiots. they are as repugnant as people like pat robertson and rabbi yitzhak shapiro.

how far up natanyahoo's hoohoo is the american congress willing to go? is this what million dollars of AIPAC donation gets you? bipartisan support from congress? are the american people as enthusiastic as their reps about natanbooboo? of course not, they're not receiving millions of dollars from AIPAC. here is a list of AIPAC donation recipients. there is a direct correlation between the level of cheer for bibi to how much money the congressman/woman receives from AIPAC. obama's own party is showing more support for a leader of another state. the american congress is an embarrassment. natanyahoo says peace must be negotiated, however, HOWEVER, he lays out several things that are not negotiable. double speak much president natanyahoo?

**cricket**

you can try to brush this as 'nothing to see here', however, reality is that the american culture is making a u-turn and becoming more intolerant towards muslims. the main reason is ignorance and the acceptance of the fear mongering they repeatedly see in the mainstream media.

from most of the threads i see in this forum, i would have thought religious extremism and sexism only occurs in islam (and that all muslims are the same in their views and practices).

update released by the newspaper: "In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status... Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive."

too sexy for the hasidic. Hillary Clinton's expression, right hand clasped over her mouth in astonishment, is largely responsible for making the above photo iconic--and, to at least one newspaper, sexually suggestive. more on the hot stuff, hillary: "The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive," Rabbi Jason Miller explains in The Jewish Week.

who ID'd him? the same CIA that forged evidence before the iraq war?