bud

u.s.' policy towards israel destabilizes the region and puts americans and american's security in jeopardy. you may be okay with another country having so much influence in your foreign policy that jeopardizes american's security, but many don't and i'm sure more would also voice their concern if they knew what exactly happens and the type of influence AIPAC and israel have on your government.

phew! good thing that we went to the second page. lets pretend this information is not out there: this is too much influence: http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1292/9212013.html (Following is a transcript of the Oct. 22, 1992 conversation with President David Steiner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) recorded without his knowledge by New York businessman Haim (Harry) Katz. Its existence was first revealed to the Washington Times and its release triggered Steiner's resignation. DS: Yeah! Well, we might lose him. There's been such a sea change, such trouble this year, I can't believe all our friends that are in trouble. Because there's an anti-incumbency mood, and foreign aid has not been popular. You know what I got for, I met with [u.S. Secretary of State] Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear. . . HK: Right. DS: Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about. HK: Such as? DS: $700 million in military draw-down, from equipment that the United States Army's going to give to Israel; $200 million the U.S. government is going to preposition materials in Israel, which Israel can draw upon; put them in the global warning protection system; so when if there's a missile fired, they'll get the same advanced notification that the U.S., is notified, joint military exercises—I've got a whole shopping list of things. HK: So this is from Baker? DS: From Baker and from the Pentagon. HK: So, not so, not.. . DS: Why did he do it, you know, why did he do it? Last year I was a bum. This year I said look Jim, we're going to fight on the F-l5s. Israel doesn't want to fight, I said, but some people on it are going to come up on the floor of the Senate and the House and they're going to fight. If you'll do this, I think I can hold them back. But you've got to do it right away. They didn't want to fight. I said, "You don't want a fight before the election. It's going to hurt Bush. We don't want a fight before the election. We don't want to fight at all. Why can't we work something out?" So we cut a deal. You can't repeat this. HK: You're right. But you met with Baker. . . DS: Personally. HK: Personally. Because you know, he's the one who cursed, who cursed the Jews. DS: Of course, do you think I'm ever going to forgive him for that? HK: Unbelievable. I said... DS: Do you think I could ever forgive Bush for what he did September 12th a year ago? What he said about the Jews for lobbying in Washington? HK: Do you think that Baker has a legitimate concern for the Jews? From what I hear, do you think he's anti-Semitic? DS: I wouldn't go so far as to say that. He's a pragmatic businessman, he's a very tough lawyer. He does whatever it takes. HK: And that's why.. . DS: If we didn't have an election this year, you would get [unintelligible] from him.

this is too much influence: http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1292/9212013.html (Following is a transcript of the Oct. 22, 1992 conversation with President David Steiner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) recorded without his knowledge by New York businessman Haim (Harry) Katz. Its existence was first revealed to the Washington Times and its release triggered Steiner's resignation. DS: Yeah! Well, we might lose him. There's been such a sea change, such trouble this year, I can't believe all our friends that are in trouble. Because there's an anti-incumbency mood, and foreign aid has not been popular. You know what I got for, I met with [u.S. Secretary of State] Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear. . . HK: Right. DS: Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about. HK: Such as? DS: $700 million in military draw-down, from equipment that the United States Army's going to give to Israel; $200 million the U.S. government is going to preposition materials in Israel, which Israel can draw upon; put them in the global warning protection system; so when if there's a missile fired, they'll get the same advanced notification that the U.S., is notified, joint military exercises—I've got a whole shopping list of things. HK: So this is from Baker? DS: From Baker and from the Pentagon. HK: So, not so, not.. . DS: Why did he do it, you know, why did he do it? Last year I was a bum. This year I said look Jim, we're going to fight on the F-l5s. Israel doesn't want to fight, I said, but some people on it are going to come up on the floor of the Senate and the House and they're going to fight. If you'll do this, I think I can hold them back. But you've got to do it right away. They didn't want to fight. I said, "You don't want a fight before the election. It's going to hurt Bush. We don't want a fight before the election. We don't want to fight at all. Why can't we work something out?" So we cut a deal. You can't repeat this. HK: You're right. But you met with Baker. . . DS: Personally. HK: Personally. Because you know, he's the one who cursed, who cursed the Jews. DS: Of course, do you think I'm ever going to forgive him for that? HK: Unbelievable. I said... DS: Do you think I could ever forgive Bush for what he did September 12th a year ago? What he said about the Jews for lobbying in Washington? HK: Do you think that Baker has a legitimate concern for the Jews? From what I hear, do you think he's anti-Semitic? DS: I wouldn't go so far as to say that. He's a pragmatic businessman, he's a very tough lawyer. He does whatever it takes. HK: And that's why.. . DS: If we didn't have an election this year, you would get [unintelligible] from him.

with all due respect, your comment does not add up and does not make sense. the occupation AND the expansion (you forgot this important part - that the israeli government continues to expand the settlements), has been going on for decades. the rocket attacks are relatively new and were not happening in the past. lets be honest about the situation: despite what the apologists say, the occupation and expansion has nothing to do with israel's security. in fact, israel would be more secure if they stopped violating the law. gaza is still 'occupied' by the legal definition. israel has control over the airways, the borders and the movement in and out of the territory. it's basically an open air prison. israel continues to put extreme pressure on the gazans by limiting what goes into the territory. this of course, is a violation of humanitarian law. so please don't try insult anyone's intelligence with the security mumbo jumbo. the theory just doesn't add up. investigations and reports by various groups, including the goldstone report have concluded otherwise. really? here are jews in new york, celebrating the killing of arabs. you should find the interest in the truth instead of repeating myths orchestrated by the hasbara (israeli propaganda machine)

are you seriously trying to sweep what israel has done under the rug as 'oh it's just a nation at war'? really? the goldstone report, headed by a respected international judge, experienced in international law, war crimes prosecutor, a nazi hunter and who happens to be a zionist (yes, it matters, since the israeli apologist will try to discredit anyone due to their background) found that israel committed war crimes in gaza. israel continues to violate international law by illegally occupying and expanding settlements, not to mention the illegal wall that has cut into the palestinian land, which has been deemed illegal by the international court of justice. all major human rights organizations have repeatedly called on israel's numerous violations committed by israel. canada's official stance in regards to the occupied territories is in line with the UN. of course, harper has decided to push all that aside and become an unconditional supporter of israel. harper is an embarrassment.

you and your canadian comparisons are hilarious!

it's your decision if you want to sit here and pretend that bush deserves credit for what's happening while pretending that bush and pretty much every other american presidents' policies have not been the major reason that these dictators have stayed in power for so long.

i'm sorry, but please stop supporting islamo-fascist pizza and coffee.

they're on special at walmart for $2.99

what a gem. mr. canada is a satire.

your theory? you are repeating a silly conspiracy theory by glenn beck. ugh. why am i replying to this crap?

"islamic caliphate" sounds like we have a few glenn beck viewers here spreading lunatic glenn beck conspiracy theories.

so any nation who calls itself democratic should be given a free pass when it comes to violating human rights and international law? is violating human rights part of being a democratic nation? do tell.

how did you come up with that conclusion? anyway, i can't respond to another one of your irrational comments until you're able to respond to the other irresponsible comments you've made in other threads. go answer jbglobe.

even if it means trampling all over someone else's rights. that's what's wrong with zionism. i don't think anyone (normal) argues that jews have a right to protect themselves from persecution. it's how they have created the state of israel, how they refuse to agree to what their borders are and the conditions that they've put the palestinians in which has most of the world up in arms.

which one of these nations do we show support for?

*ding*

jbg you make irresponsible and irrational comments and then run off when you're confronted. weak.

not supporting israel's policies does not mean you support hamas or dinner jacket.

what the? you can't be serious.

i approve people's freedom and democracy. who they choose is their decision. do you approve of democratic elections? eh? if you truly support democracy, then you'd support the egyptian people. support for democracy should not selective. there are egyptian muslims and christians on the streets of egypt, wanting mubarak out. a dictator who has been killing their rights for over 30 years and you're still not supporting them? shame on you and shame on harper.

did you miss the news? here is a piece from the star: Harper follows Israeli line on Egypt Harper’s line, lobbied to him by the Canada-Israeli Committee, emphasizing “stability” by keeping Mubarak, ostensibly to avoid “a vacuum.” Harper wants “a future that’s not simply more democratic but where that democracy is guided by such values as non-violence, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of religious minorities.” It’s scandalous that a Canadian prime minister is saying that. It is the Mubarak regime that for decades has violated the most basic human rights of Egyptians, ignored the rule of law, and presided over multiple incidents of violence against Coptic Christians, while playing up its own phony Islamist credentials to cover up its lack of democratic legitimacy. Whereas most Egyptians want Mubarak gone, Harper wants him to stay. This despite past Conservative promises to promote democracy abroad. He is squandering a historic opportunity to do so in the Arab Middle East.

he has gone out of his way to support mubarak, a dictator, as opposed to showing support for the people of egypt and democracy. israel has way too much influence over harper. this is another example why canada lost a seat in the UN. harper is failing us and ruining our image internationally.

as a canadian, what's really sad is harper's support for the dictator, mubarak and his contempt for the people and democracy. he even outlasted the obama administration who finally gave in and said he should go. israel has way too much influence on harper.

you need to pay a little closer attention to what is written. i described 'israel's system'. really now? CIA factbook - ethnic groups: Jewish 76.4% (of which Israel-born 67.1%, Europe/America-born 22.6%, Africa-born 5.9%, Asia-born 4.2%), non-Jewish 23.6% (mostly Arab) (2004) says the guy who starts his first 2 comments with misinformation. this is why the land law was brought up. the land law is obviously discriminatory. i meant to say the ILA owns over 90% of the land, regardless, the JNF has extensive control in how that the land is administered. even after the recent changes in the law, which didn't really change much: Under Israeli law, the ILA is a public institution. It controls approximately 93% of the land in Israel (approximately 19.5 million dunums, including land owned by the state, the Development Authority (13%) and the JNF (13%). The Basic Law: Israel Lands defines this land as “Israel Lands” held in perpetuity for the benefit of the Jewish people. Along these lines, Israeli law prohibits the transfer of “Israel Lands” through sale or any other way. This prohibition is in line with the JNF statute, which also defines its lands as public, i.e. Jewish “national,” and not private property. Accordingly, the ILA leases land on long term contracts. Up until its 2009 amendment, the Israel Lands Authority Law gave the JNF 50% representation in the ILA administration. This allowed the JNF to become a key player in the process of decision-making and policy setting pertaining to all land administered by the ILA, and not only the portion it “owned” directly. JNF in the new Israeli land law- Maintaining its special status Recent legislation of the 2009 Israel Lands Authority Law and the amendment of the 2010 Land Acquisition Law introduced changes of the land tenure system in Israel which were met with domestic political opposition. These changes, however, have not weakened the status and role of the JNF, but quite the contrary. In many ways, Israel’s land policy has not changed despite the passage of many years since the establishment of the state, and irrespective of the reality already created by this policy since the 1950s. The impact of recent legislation on the JNF can summarized as follows: First: under the new laws, the JNF will continue to hold large representation in the Israel Lands Authority with 6 of 13 members. This means that the JNF will continue to play a key role in the development of policies and programs pertaining to 93% of the land of Israel. Second: in order to facilitate “development” through the privatization of lands owned by the JNF in urban areas, the state and the JNF will exchange lands. The state will receive JNF land in urban areas which it can then privatize, while the JNF will receive 50-60,000 dunums of land in the Galilee and the Naqab (Negev), both areas with a substantial Palestinian population. As in the past, the JNF agrees that the new Israel Land Authority will manage its lands, whereas the latter is committed to doing so in line with “the principles of the JNF in regards to its lands” (article 2). In addition, the JNF has committed to contribute 100 million NIS to further development of the Naqab from its own sources. The new laws are yet another attempt to bypass legal oversight and to legislate against the right to equality in regards to land. The JNF’s statute excludes non-Jews from benefiting from its land. Thus any transfer of public land to the JNF as provided under the law will prevent equal access to land. In other words, the state will be able to “Judaize” more land and discriminate against its non-Jewish citizens in the Naqab and the Galilee by transferring these lands to the JNF good. you're admitting that israel's land laws are discriminatory towards non-jews. this law is not democratic. anything else you say after the above is moot. uh oh. red herring. it's typical that you've gone from comparing israel's laws and society to canada and u.s.'s, which is what this thread is about, to that of other countries that have nothing to do with our discussion and democracy. 'oh yeah?! at least we're not as bad as...' weak.