Why give a crap who is closest to our values? Well, in all fairness not everyone does. The ultra-leftist anti-western fringe which you so aptly represent does eagerly ally themselves with Islamofascists and fundamentalists with whom they have nothing in common (other than knee-jerk hatred of the west and western values). Most people are far more reasonable, intelligent and selective in their alliances though.
a person, your last two posts were dead-on. ZZZenu slobbers on the outside while thinking "Touché" in silent.
No, on the inside I think you are a common self absorbed drug addict. Oh, I think that on the outside too... Of course I am only thinking what you have already confessed to here at ET Town... No pattern recognition skills needed, just read the history... I also think you are filled with resentments and self loathing which are at the root of your mental illness...that is something that you haven't copped to yet... p.s. Where is the imagination today? Can't even come up with anything but a repetition of slobber? Dude, you are slipping...
"the usa NEEDS a reason to be in the middle east besides the obvious(oil), israel also acts as an instrument of american interests in the reigon....i do think ideologically speaking, it's important for us to defend israels right to exist... they are the lone outpost of democracy in an otherwise tyrannical and barbaric region... israel is proof of what civilization can accomplish" You brought up oil you goof, which Israel does not provide, in fact the tensions that Israel causes in the Middle East likely increases the price of oil due to a "war premium" mentality. Israel is not the lone outpost of democracy. Iraq is a democracy. In Iraq, you don't have to be Jewish of or jewish heritage to vote...so Iraq is more democratic, and more important as an example to other Arab nations... Israel is only proof of what America has accomplished. Without America's support following WWII, Israel would not exist. This idea that America needs Israel more than Israel needs America is a byproduct of mental illness...or generations of inbreeding.
This is democracy? Israel and apartheid IMEU, Nov 10, 2006 1. What is apartheid? 2. Why do some people consider Israel to practice apartheid? 3. What do Palestinians outside Israel have to do with Israeli apartheid? 4. What are the categories of people living under Israeli rule? 5. Is it accurate to consider Israel's treatment of its Palestinian citizens a form of apartheid? 6. How does Israel discriminate against non-Jewish citizens? 7. What are key differences between South African apartheid and Israel's policies toward its Palestinian citizens? 8. Is it fair to consider Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza a form of apartheid, when these areas are not part of Israel? 9. Why do Palestinians call Israel's "security barrier" the "apartheid wall?" 10. How has the international community reacted? 1. What is apartheid? "Apartheid" refers to the official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites and, more broadly to any social system that separates and discriminates against people based on race or ethnicity, especially when that system is institutionalized by laws or decrees. 2. Why do some people consider Israel to practice apartheid? Israel and South Africa are different in many ways. There is ample evidence, however, that Israeli policies meet the broader definition of apartheid by separating and discriminating against Palestinian Arabs, through systems that are institutionalized by laws and decrees. Some of these policies bear resemblance to South Africa during its apartheid era. Since its inception, Israel has striven to establish and maintain a strong Jewish majority within the state, treating the ratio of Jews to non-Jews as a national security issue. Israel's recently-appointed Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Threats, Avigdor Lieberman, considers the Palestinian citizens of Israel to be a great "demographic threat" facing Israel. Over the years, Lieberman has advocated ridding Israel of its indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. He said in a November 5th 2006 interview with the Sunday Telegraph that Palestinian citizens of Israel, who comprise roughly 20 percent of Israel's population, were a "problem" that requires "separation" from the state. He added, "We established Israel as a Jewish country. I want to provide an Israel that is a Jewish, Zionist country. It's about what kind of country we want to see in the future. Either it will be an [ethnically mixed] country like any other, or it will continue as a Jewish country." Many Israeli policies -- from the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinian Christians and Muslims in Israel's founding years and the denial of their internationally-recognized rights to return to their homes, to the route of Israel's current "security barrier" -- are designed to preserve Jewish demographic predominance. This has led to discriminatory policies against all major categories of Palestinians either living under or affected by Israeli rule, including Palestinian refugees in exile. http://imeu.net/news/article003473.shtml
More democracy... Analysis Israel on trial George Bisharat, The New York Times, Apr 4, 2009 This article was originally published by The New York Times and is republished with the author's permission. Chilling testimony by Israeli soldiers substantiates charges that Israel's Gaza Strip assault entailed grave violations of international law. The emergence of a predominantly right-wing, nationalist government in Israel suggests that there may be more violations to come. Hamas's indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians also constituted war crimes, but do not excuse Israel's transgressions. While Israel disputes some of the soldiers' accounts, the evidence suggests that Israel committed the following six offenses: * Violating its duty to protect the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. Despite Israel's 2005 "disengagement" from Gaza, the territory remains occupied. Israel unleashed military firepower against a people it is legally bound to protect. * Imposing collective punishment in the form of a blockade, in violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In June 2007, after Hamas took power in the Gaza Strip, Israel imposed suffocating restrictions on trade and movement. The blockade - an act of war in customary international law - has helped plunge families into poverty, children into malnutrition, and patients denied access to medical treatment into their graves. People in Gaza thus faced Israel's winter onslaught in particularly weakened conditions. * Deliberately attacking civilian targets. The laws of war permit attacking a civilian object only when it is making an effective contribution to military action and a definite military advantage is gained by its destruction. Yet an Israeli general, Dan Harel, said, "We are hitting not only terrorists and launchers, but also the whole Hamas government and all its wings." An Israeli military spokeswoman, Maj. Avital Leibovich, avowed that "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target." Israeli fire destroyed or damaged mosques, hospitals, factories, schools, a key sewage plant, institutions like the parliament, the main ministries, the central prison and police stations, and thousands of houses. * Willfully killing civilians without military justification. When civilian institutions are struck, civilians - persons who are not members of the armed forces of a warring party, and are not taking direct part in hostilities - are killed. International law authorizes killings of civilians if the objective of the attack is military, and the means are proportional to the advantage gained. Yet proportionality is irrelevant if the targets of attack were not military to begin with. Gaza government employees - traffic policemen, court clerks, secretaries and others - are not combatants merely because Israel considers Hamas, the governing party, a terrorist organization. Many countries do not regard violence against foreign military occupation as terrorism. Of 1,434 Palestinians killed in the Gaza invasion, 960 were civilians, including 121 women and 288 children, according to a United Nations special rapporteur, Richard Falk. Israeli military lawyers instructed army commanders that Palestinians who remained in a targeted building after having been warned to leave were "voluntary human shields," and thus combatants. Israeli gunners "knocked on roofs" - that is, fired first at corners of buildings, before hitting more vulnerable points - to "warn" Palestinian residents to flee. With nearly all exits from the densely populated Gaza Strip blocked by Israel, and chaos reigning within it, this was a particularly cruel flaunting of international law. Willful killings of civilians that are not required by military necessity are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes under the Nuremberg principles. * Deliberately employing disproportionate force. Last year, Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, head of Israel's northern command, speaking on possible future conflicts with neighbors, stated, "We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction." Such a frank admission of illegal intent can constitute evidence in a criminal prosecution. * Illegal use of weapons, including white phosphorus. Israel was finally forced to admit, after initial denials, that it employed white phosphorous in the Gaza Strip, though Israel defended its use as legal. White phosphorous may be legally used as an obscurant, not as a weapon, as it burns deeply and is extremely difficult to extinguish. Israeli political and military personnel who planned, ordered or executed these possible offenses should face criminal prosecution. The appointment of Richard Goldstone, the former war crimes prosecutor from South Africa, to head a fact-finding team into possible war crimes by both parties to the Gaza conflict is an important step in the right direction. The stature of international law is diminished when a nation violates it with impunity. George Bisharat is a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law.
Well Optional let me show case my political skills once more. You forgot to mention arguably the largest lobby of them all, AARP. There is a need for a lobby like aipac because of pervasive anti semitism. Size of the lobby does not necessarily indicate control.
I did forget AARP, must be memory failing due to advanced age. Size of the lobby does not necessarily indicate control. Exactly, which is why there is concern that Jews who make up only around 2% of the US population and have such a small group have such profound influence on our supposedly representative democracy. You baselessly call anyone that has issues with the political policy of Israel an anti Semite. Are these anti Semites because they oppose the state of Israel and their political practices? <img src=http://islamicmyths.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/444191293_img.jpg>