even george bush refused to accept jerusalem as the capital of israel

[Guest American Woman]

there is a hasbara bot

This sums up your position as far as I'm concerned. Call someone a hasbara bot. Again. And again. And again.

[dre]

You missed my point entirely. How many countries have embassies in Jerusalem? Right... exactly.

As for the rest of your post, why doesn't Israel just annex the land then? Provide Palestinians a right to vote along with taking on the responsibility of providing them with proper living conditions?

Therein lies the difference between the land grabs.

Demographics and the desire for racial and religious pureness are the reason for that. Assimilating a few million more arabs would speed up the end of the jewish majority.

[dre]

To be hypocritical on this is to have a holier-than-thou attitude about Israel, as Canada's First Nations people are living with the consequences of what our ancestors did to them. And that includes not getting the vote until AFTER Israel made it's "land grab." So much for your "18th century European colonial mentality," eh?

We get to keep what we took, treating the inhabitants miserably for hundreds of years AND we get to judge Israel as oh-so-terrible for wanting to keep what it annexed as a result of aggression directed at them. To me that is very hypocritical, as you try to dismiss it all as "18th century European colonial mentality."

So thats really your story? Canadians or Americans that oppose the 50 year long military occupation, and illegal theft of land and resources are hypocrits because the British set up shop in North America hundreds of years ago?

:lol:

[BC_chick]

Oh, I see. They have to currently be denied the right to vote. Israel has to live up to standards that it took Canada over a hundred years to achieve.

FYI, "the right to vote" isn't an all inclusive standard of how the "inhabitants are treated." As I said, the treatment/conditions of First Nations people in Canada is quite current.

What hypocrisy? You sit in judgement of Israel for not jumping to do what it took Canada years and years and years to do - as you sit in the land of the First Nations people, enjoying the good life because of what our nations' ancestors did. But that's not current. The First Nations people were given the right to vote in federal elections without losing treaty status just over fifty years ago, and of course 50 years ago was ancient history.

So answer me this: since the Arab aggression resulting in Israel's "land grab" happened before First Nations people got the vote, back in ancient times, why shouldn't Israel have been able to keep the land they annexed, since apparently we weren't into a "modern thinking" mindset waaaay back then?

To be hypocritical on this is to have a holier-than-thou attitude about Israel, as Canada's First Nations people are living with the consequences of what our ancestors did to them. And that includes not getting the vote until AFTER Israel made it's "land grab." So much for your "18th century European colonial mentality," eh?

We get to keep what we took, treating the inhabitants miserably for hundreds of years AND we get to judge Israel as oh-so-terrible for wanting to keep what it annexed as a result of aggression directed at them. To me that is very hypocritical, as you try to dismiss it all as "18th century European colonial mentality."

Ironically, when some criticize Muslims and Arab countries as violent and living in the dark ages, some of the Israel critics who say 'grabbing land is not what modern nations do' are the first to say that they have to be able to progress on their own timetable, and that is hypocritical too.

As I said, it's all quite hypocritical, and I'm sure not going to sit here polishing my halo as I criticize Israel.

When the Arab world consents to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation, get back to me - especially in light of all the Islamic nations that the world recognizes.

The amount of time lapsed had nothing to do with FN getting the right to vote, it had everything to do with civil rights movements of the time which included the right to vote to blacks and women.

Quebec didn't grant women to right to vote until the late 40's does that mean I should not criticise countries around the world TODAY that deny women the right to vote just because we had a history of it too? Of course, that doesn't make me holier-than-thou though, does it?

It's amazing the lengths you go to to justify denying Palestinians basic civil rights. Heck, why stop at civil rights, you can go back further to slavery and then you can argue how GOOD they have it.

[BC_chick]

So thats really your story? Canadians or Americans that oppose the 50 year long military occupation, and illegal theft of land and resources are hypocrits because the British set up shop in North America hundreds of years ago?

:lol:

You know, you've got the right approach on this. Her stance is nothing short of comical, there's not much to do but laugh.

[Guest American Woman]

You know, you've got the right approach on this. Her stance is nothing short of comical, there's not much to do but laugh.

Yes, of course. My stance is "comical." Your stance, however, expecting Israel to recognize the civil rights of people who refuse to even recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and expecting Israel to live by different standards than the rest of the world have been held to, as you ignore and downplay everything that doesn't support your mindset, is all that's holy and right.

[BC_chick]

Yes, of course. My stance is "comical." Your stance, however, expecting Israel to recognize the civil rights of people who refuse to even recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and expecting Israel to live by different standards than the rest of the world have been held to, as you ignore and downplay everything that doesn't support your mindset, is all that's holy and right.

Your lack of response to my post (to you) is noted. So is your continued justfication of israel's defiance of its obligations as a military occupier.

[Guest American Woman]

Your lack of response to my post (to you) is noted.

So you expected me to take the time to respond to your post after reading this? - "Her stance is nothing short of comical, there's not much to do but laugh." Now that's comical.

So is your continued justfication of israel's defiance of its obligations as a military occupier.

As is your continued expectation of Israel to respect the rights of people who don't respect Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation, as well as your continued expectation for Israel to be held up to higher standards than the rest of the world.

[TheNewTeddy]

despite what israel says, east jerusalem is not recognized to be part of israel by the world. including u.s. and canada.

"East Jerusalem" as used by Israel is not part of Jerusalem as recognized by the rest of the world.

[BC_chick]

As is your continued expectation of Israel to respect the rights of people who don't respect Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation, as well as your continued expectation for Israel to be held up to higher standards than the rest of the world.

Um, no there are actually no conditional clauses in order for the occupier country to uphold its responsibilities under international law.

It's up to Israel, as a modern democracy, to give Palestinians self-determination (two-state solution) or to annex the land and give them citizenship.

This is not holding Israel to any higher standard than other nations.

[TheNewTeddy]

I still don't see what the big deal is with accepting that the Israeli Government is based in Jerusalem. In particular, in that part of Jerusalem that was part of Israel in 1967.

[Bonam]

Um, no there are actually no conditional clauses in order for the occupier country to uphold its responsibilities under international law.

See this is the problem with a lot of critics of Israel on this board. You seem to revere "international law" as if it were something perfect, infallible, to be trusted and followed and accepted without question. But legality is not morality. Just because something is a law does not make it right. There are many laws that people disagree with, that there is healthy debate over. To me, acting ethically or morally, according to some self-consistent principles of morality, is far more important than following some arbitrary laws to the letter. And if somewhere in international law it really says that Israel owes something to a group of people that is constantly trying to eradicate Israel, launches rockets at it, sends terrorists and suicide bombers into Israel, etc, then that part of the law is immoral. Never would I respect any law that says I must do something for someone who is trying to kill me. If the law really says that, then it is the law that is wrong, not Israel.

[bud]

it is the law that is wrong, not Israel.

israel is not above the law. no one should be above the law.

demolishing palestinian homes, confiscating the land and then building jewish only homes in order to increase the population of jews in east jerusalem is not moral. continuously dragging your feet in order to increase illegal settlements on palestinian land is not moral. setting fires to mosques, to homes, to farms and

and then not investigating them is not moral. not sure what kind of moral standards you have, but those actions fall way under majority of the world's moral standard.

by the way, the standard response of "eradicate israel" and "not accept israel" is just more hot air that is repeated by you and the rest of hasbara bots such as american woman. the PLO (arafat) officially accepted israel as a state, as according to international law since 1988 and re-iterated it at the oslo accord with rabin. abbas has done the same since arafat's death. the palestinians are willing to negotiate based on the internationally recognized 1967 border. this is a fact that you continue to forget in your justification of israel's violations of international law.

why do you need to be corrected every single time? how many times do the facts need to be repeated?

Edited September 12, 2012 by bud

[Guest American Woman]

Um, no there are actually no conditional clauses in order for the occupier country to uphold its responsibilities under international law.

Um, you're critical only of Israel, as you give a pass to those who refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Apparently that's escaped you.

Furthermore, if the citizens of the "occupied country" are Palestinians, why should they be given the right to vote in Israeli elections? Last I heard, Canada didn't give foreigners living in Canada the right to vote. Seems to me it would be pretty ignorant on Israel's part to give the vote to foreigners who don't recognize Israel as a Jewish state - and are presently citizens of a country that's blowing Israeli citizens up. Sorta like how no other country would do so.

It's up to Israel, as a modern democracy, to give Palestinians self-determination (two-state solution) or to annex the land and give them citizenship.

I see. The onus is on the "modern democracy" to do what you consider the right thing, regardless of the effect on Israelis' security, while the 'not a modern democracy' is completely given a pass - simply because it's not a modern democracy, evidently, and apparently doesn't know any better. We can't expect them to change and get with the times - the responsibility all falls on Israel, because non-Israelis say so. Non-Israelis whose countries do what they feel they must do in order to protect themselves. Because international law is to be abided by in all situations, all instances. It's as simple as that. If it's international law, regardless of one's own laws, regardless of one's specific security concerns, regardless of whether or not they are dealing with people not abiding by international law themselves, every country must abide by it - or be forever chastised by the rest of the world. Because that's what's happening, right? Or do only "modern democracies" have to abide by it? Or more to the point, specific, singled out modern socities?

This is not holding Israel to any higher standard than other nations.

Nooooo. Not at all.

[bud]

Um, you're critical only of Israel, as you give a pass to those who refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Apparently that's escaped you.

hey look sherlock:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin

Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat

Chairman

The Palestine Liberation Organization

[Guest American Woman]

hey look sherlock:

How about pointing out where it says "Jewish State?" Cuz I ain't seeing it, Einstein. Furthermore, it's not all up to him, is it?

Edited September 13, 2012 by American Woman

[JerrySeinfeld]

How about pointing out where it says "Jewish State?" Cuz I ain't seeing it, Einstein. Furthermore, it's not all up to him, is it?

Obama is anti Israel. Plain and simple. we all know it. In his little world he could not give two shits about whether or not Iran nukes Israel.

[Smallc]

Obama is anti Israel. Plain and simple. we all know it.

Obviously, some of us didn't get the memo.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Obviously, some of us didn't get the memo.

No you didn't. This memo was for smart people.

Edited September 14, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[Guest American Woman]

This memo was for smart people.

That explains it then; you got it by mistake and didn't understand it.

[bleeding heart]

Obama is anti Israel. Plain and simple. we all know it. In his little world he could not give two shits about whether or not Iran nukes Israel.

And I still don't believe you're a knuckledragging moron, no matter how long you continue the pretence.

But as a friendly reminder, I'd suggest to you that some people are becoming convinced, so....maybe keep that in mind.

[dre]

How about pointing out where it says "Jewish State?" Cuz I ain't seeing it, Einstein. Furthermore, it's not all up to him, is it?

Whether they recognize Israel as a "Jewish State" or not is utterly irrelevant. All that matters is that they respect their sovereignty and territorial boundaries.

[kraychik]

See this is the problem with a lot of critics of Israel on this board. You seem to revere "international law" as if it were something perfect, infallible, to be trusted and followed and accepted without question. But legality is not morality. Just because something is a law does not make it right. There are many laws that people disagree with, that there is healthy debate over. To me, acting ethically or morally, according to some self-consistent principles of morality, is far more important than following some arbitrary laws to the letter. And if somewhere in international law it really says that Israel owes something to a group of people that is constantly trying to eradicate Israel, launches rockets at it, sends terrorists and suicide bombers into Israel, etc, then that part of the law is immoral. Never would I respect any law that says I must do something for someone who is trying to kill me. If the law really says that, then it is the law that is wrong, not Israel.

Leftists like BC_chick and bud don't even know what international law entails, they just use it as a catch phrase when trying to slander Israel. "International law" is a nebulous and generally nonsensical term. And even if we invoke "international law", it is th eso-called "Palestinians" that are in violation of it left, right, and centre.

[kraychik]

I still don't see what the big deal is with accepting that the Israeli Government is based in Jerusalem. In particular, in that part of Jerusalem that was part of Israel in 1967.

At the end of the day, Jerusalem is Israel's capital and seat of government whether leftists "recognise" it or not. Israeli sovereignty is exerted across all of Jerusalem, and the Knesset and Supreme Court are located in Jerusalem.

[kraychik]

I like how the camera pans to the two Arabs in the crowd every time during the votes.

It was one of the rare moments of honest camerawork from the mainstream media, in this instance: C-SPAN.