Netanyahu Speaks to Joint Session

[+joc]

So when I show you that the settler population in the West Bank was 1,000 in 1972 and over 400,000 today, that doesn't joggle your mind over this at all as anything "relevant", you'd rather focus on a photograph. Well of course you would.

I personally am glad there are 400,000 if that is indeed true...which...I doubt because it came from you..but...I'll take that number at face value...how many of those are palestinian?

[Yamato]

As far as Yamato goes, wherever a Jew jabs a stick into the ground, that's an illegal settlement.

Well that shows how damned ignorant you are of everything I've actually said. Why don't you find a flea bit of evidence of this garbage you spew in my archives?

I just said that Israel is a country under international law and thus it is a legal entity. I just said Israel has a right to exist. How blind, deaf and dumb are you not to be able to see that, and come here and post another one of your BS ad hominem attacks?

What I have said, is that I would sign a bill into law giving every Jew in Israel or the occupied territories $100,000 to start a new life in the US and I meant that. It's the most anti-Zionist policy, unless the $100,000 isn't rich enough. But it doesn't hurt a hair on anyone's head. But it does beg the question, why isn't the US good enough for Jews, Ravenhawk? Why isn't my neighborhood good enough for a Zionist to settle on?

[Yamato]

Well, be fair Yamato. You published a set of three photographs illustrating what was implied to be an illegal settlement. It's not unreasonable to verify that this is indeed the case.

Based on your posting history, I don't think you're even capable of differentiating an illegal Israel settlement from a legal one, so I don't believe your question is honest. Can you provide an explanation why illegal settlements are illegal, and provide a few examples of such illegal Israeli settlements, and then we can address the legal status of the anecdote in the picture.

As for the 1972 figures; Jewish residency would have been at a serious low because - untill five years previously - the West Bank was a province of Jordan, and all the Jewish residents where killed or expelled. So you have to consider that a proportion of that "400,000" would represent residents who returned to their towns and villages when the West Bank was liberated, and their offspring since 1972 ?

Would British settlements on a hilltop in Israel be legal today because they were returning to their homes after Zionist terrorists bombed them out? No, but they could be given a right to return under a legal framework under international law. The West Bank isn't a province of Jordan today anymore than Israel is a territory of the British Mandate. How is your question legally relevant?

[RavenHawk]

It has changed and both Bush and Obama changed it.

In that respect, Presidents do make changes and most of them have made them with “the best interest of the nation at heart” and Constitutional. I really wouldn’t call that *change* - it’s a tweak. However, Obama has promised to make fundamental change. That does not have the best interest of the nation at heart. Bush put America first when he made changes. His problem was that he tried too hard to compromise with the Progressives and made some bad decisions. He tried too hard to be a *uniter*. That was just not him.

An authorization to use force against Al Qaeda which deferred to the authority of the UN is what allegedly authorized us to go to war against Iraq and anywhere else by any future President no matter how Democratic or no matter how Socialist or no matter how Fascist. That is moral hazard.

Time to wake up. That is the Constitutional power of the President no matter how they lean. Authorization to go after al Qaeda was never deferred to the UN. To go after Saddam for breaking the ceasefire was a separate issue. The error that the Bush Admin made was to lump them together. Your so-called deferment was to *play* by the rules that you seem to be so adamant about doing until you find it inconvenient. The Invasion of Iraq had become the most legal war in history. This act was to build a coalition, not get permission to invade. It was leadership. The legal hoop-jumping was to prevent anyone from having a leg to stand on in objection.

- I'm glad you have perfect faith in the nameless future politicians you don't know anything about, but American Zionists aren't perfect.

- I don't think we're bombing people because they aren't intelligent. But if the definition of intelligent is going to get that hijacked, then okay.

Not in the nameless future politicians but in the system that our Founding Father gave us. I believe that it is stronger than Obama and Socialism. But here you go again, “American Zionists” have nothing to do with this. You just like to try to insult everyone and anything that is in your way.

And what did *bombing* have to do with that comment? Zip, zilch, zero. The comment was that intelligent people understand that we share our best ideas. Can’t you keep up with your own post?

It wasn't designed to suffer Statism. Socialism is but one kind.

I think I said that… But a Constitutional Republic doesn’t fall under statism. As much as you want it to be, just any government is not statist. A government that protects the Rights of its citizens is not statist. I guess under the control of Progressives and Rinos, the argument can be made that because of the increase of social programs and the cutting of the defense budget, this government is failing to protect the Rights of its citizens. If you want to go there, I’m open for debate. But our support for Israel is in no indication of statism or failing to protect its citizens.

Our neocons promised a smooth ride, in Iraq. Rumsfeld didn't know if the war there was going to take 6 days or 6 weeks or 6 months but he figured they wouldn't need body armor. Not too intelligent, that one.

Unfortunately that is true. They were trying to placate the Left. I was screaming at the television, “don’t be playing name that tune with how long this was going to take”. I think the Administration couldn’t deal with this being a multi-generational endeavor. The Bush Admin had gotten skittish with the amount and intensity of the hatred spewed by the Left. Now thanks to Obama, it’s going to take longer and cost more blood and treasure.

-

- Nor should an individual one of them be forced to.

- Correct, but that doesn't make it a threat either.

Of course you are confused. When it comes to the real world, you are clueless.

Yes. But that isn’t the point and hence why you are confused. All 7 billion will not care to share our best ideas and will attack us for it because those ideas are a threat to their existence. A threat to their Rights.

To some portion it does. Even if it’s just 1%, that’s still 7 million and I suspect that it’s more than that.

If the sensibilities are people using violence against other people who have never treated them violently, I don't share in that and neither should you.

It doesn’t matter what you or I think. Ideas are dangerous and when people are threatened by them, they will react. So sharing our best ideas with the world is dangerous to some. But in your specific example, Muslims have used violence against the Jew for 1400 years. Being free of that kind of treatment threatens the self-proclaimed superiority of Islam. Nothing can be allowed to challenge Muslim authority. I support putting an end to that. Because until that happens, reform cannot. That idea is dangerous.

We the people are responsible on behalf of that piece of paper which is the law. It shouldn't just be a piece of paper, it should be on your mind and your conscience as well. The Constitution is always in force, however, we don't need to exercise it.

Excuse me?! We exercise our Rights every moment we breathe. But who is going to enforce it? Who’s going to protect your Rights? That’s a simple enough question isn’t it? No piece of paper is going to protect our Rights.

Some of the lack of that need is explained by the lack of any mention of the prosecution and punishment in the case where Congress doesn't declare war, and Obama goes shooting his missiles off anyway.

And again, Congress does not need an up/down vote to declare war. They do it with the power of the purse. The War Powers Act is merely an observation of that Constitutional power. It is implied by the fact that the President is the Commander-in-Chief. I personally may not like Obama shooting off missiles but that is within his powers. Now if shooting off these missiles infringe on my Rights then that is something else which is not covered under the War Powers Act.

- It's clear that if people don't care, it won't get exercised.

- You won't know what your rights are unless you apply them and find out.

That’s true. But that has nothing to do with the War Powers Act. If people don’t care, then we get Presidents like Carter and Obama, but that doesn’t change the ability of a President to react to threats to this nation.

The Low information voter doesn’t understand what their Rights are. They think it’s how much dole they can milk from the coffers.

The Constitution does have something to do with providing the law on how we interact with other countries. It authorizes the federal government to enter into treaties. That Constitutional authorization should be the extent of our government's reach, other than the authorization to declare and wage war. Too many people keep too many agreements that aren't bound by law much too seriously. Obama could end the welfare to Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, with one phone call.

Wow! That was totally amazing. Not only are you bouncing around which is making this conversation difficult, you are also spreading on the BS thick. No, Obama cannot just end the aid with one phone call. To end that aid, it must pass the lower House first, then the Upper, then the POTUS. That is Constitutional and you want to violate it. Authorizing the federal government to enter into treaties *IS* providing the law on how we interact with other countries.

- Or, what the universe intended or did not intend. I don't think it's arguable that we're products of the universe. But why question it?

- Israel blowing up mosques in Palestinian territory has nothing to do with defending our rights. It has everything to do with jeopardizing them when we enable it.

No one is questioning that. The question was who or what defends and protects our Rights? A piece of paper? The intentions of the Universe?

Well first, I’d want to know why is Israel blowing up mosques? Could it be because they are being used as bases to attack Israel? Israel defending herself does not jeopardize the defense of our Rights. In fact it’s the converse. Israel not defending herself endangers our Rights. We let Israel go down, we just encourage those forces to bring us down.

- Again it's up to we the people. It is only people who can be concerned, who can express an emotion.

- We are not blessed by the rights we have to then be expected to be free of responsibility in preserving them.

- According to another terrorist state and its supporters..

This is just pure gibberish. It’s up to *WE* the people only if we are American citizens.

You speak pure gibberish most of the time but once in a while, you state something very profound. But the question remains, who protects them? The Constitution only identifies them and lays out the responsibility of the government. And I just gave you the answer.

If you weren’t an anti-Semite, I might have asked North Korea? Israel is not a terrorist state.

That's not logical. If I'm concerned about everyone, I should be onboard to do what is necessary to prevent anyone from getting the bomb including you, me, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Canada, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. And about 200 other countries so that "everyone" isn't just rhetoric.

It’s perfectly logical. It wouldn’t be necessary to be concerned about every nation developing nuclear capabilities. Just those that have questionable character. Israel has been the most responsible nation in handling their arsenal. Of course, it requires people that understand what character is. But because the last President was elected on celebrity and not character, that kind a shows that most people do not understand what character is.

- I'm sure there's an extra-thick slathering of that grime on the Middle East forum today now that I'm out.

- I'm also quite sure you've been hard at work there yourself teaching everyone what Islam is.

Actually, it’s cleared up now that you’re *out* but it seems to be caked on here in this forum.

Well someone has to. But the pendulum is swinging back. I’m not the only one. I have people already telling me that I’ve got to read “Heretic” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I haven’t even seen it on sale yet.

[RavenHawk]

Well that shows how damned ignorant you are of everything I've actually said.

Actually, it is very astute. I’m not the only one that sees right through you.

Why don't you find a flea bit of evidence of this garbage you spew in my archives?

I don’t have to. You provide the evidence by opening your mouth?

I just said that Israel is a country under international law and thus it is a legal entity.

Israel is not under international law. It is a state unto itself just as any other nation is. That’s the purpose behind Zionism.

I just said Israel has a right to exist.

Coming from you, it is just so much Kitman or lip service. All your statements like this come with caveats. “Israel has a right to exist but not to own any land”, etc.

How blind, deaf and dumb are you not to be able to see that, and come here and post another one of your BS ad hominem attacks?

More insults uh? I would be blind, deaf, and dumb if I were to turn away from the BS you spew without calling you on it.

What I have said, is that I would sign a bill into law giving every Jew in Israel or the occupied territories $100,000 to start a new life in the US and I meant that. It's the most anti-Zionist policy, unless the $100,000 isn't rich enough. But it doesn't hurt a hair on anyone's head. But it does beg the question, why isn't the US good enough for Jews, Ravenhawk? Why isn't my neighborhood good enough for a Zionist to settle on?

It is the Zionist dream. No amount of money would buy them off. Thinking so is a sign of how clueless you are. The US is very good for Jews, it’s just not their land. Israel is their land. I would think that trying to buy someone off for mere trinkets would do more harm to more than just a hair. That is insulting to no end. Why don’t you sponsor a Palestinian family to come live in your house?

[Yamato]

"Someone has to" teach them about Islam, huh Ravenhawk? And you're the one to do it!

Please explain how Israel is "the most responsible"? They're the "most responsible" nuclear power in the world with zero transparency. How does that work?

The US Constitution enumerates the powers of government. If the power isn't in the Constitution, the government doesn't have it. Conversely, if a right isn't in the Constitution, it doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. Why don't you read the Ninth Amendment? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Now that that's established, how many times do I have to repeat my statement that the US Constitution doesn't legally protect Palestinians before we can stop repeating it? You're singing to the choir. What about Americans who move to Palestine though? What about Americans living outside the US? Does the Constitution protect the rights of those Americans?

Let's protect Furkan Doğan then. He lost his right to life when he was shot multiple times in the back of the head. What's the status of his protection?

In May 2011, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. government to release documents related to its knowledge and role in the attack, which it has thus far blocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furkan_Do%C4%9Fan#Center_for_Constitutional_Rights_lawsuit

Bombing is a very acute example of how we treat people in the world. It's perhaps the most egregious of our foreign policies.

No, Obama cannot just end the aid with one phone call. To end that aid, it must pass the lower House first, then the Upper, then the POTUS. That is Constitutional and you want to violate it.

Sorry, please cite the US law making US welfare to Israel require an act of Congress to stop.

The question was who or what defends and protects our Rights? A piece of paper? The intentions of the Universe?

I've already answered this question and you're still asking me? People must defend their rights, perpetually and always. Whether they are lucky enough to have a US Constitution which legally acknowledges them. If you concede we recognized our rights before our government existed, you can't float your statist BS that rights come from government.

[RavenHawk]

What I have said, is that I would sign a bill into law giving every Jew in Israel or the occupied territories $100,000 to start a new life in the US and I meant that.

So it would take $5 billion to force relocate only 50,000 Jews. You are a hypocrite and an anti-Semite. Supporting Israel at $5 billion a year offends you but you would gladly empty our treasury to kick the Jew out of Israel.

[Yamato]

Actually, it is very astute. I'm not the only one that sees right through you.

I don't have to. You provide the evidence by opening your mouth?

Israel is not under international law. It is a state unto itself just as any other nation is. That's the purpose behind Zionism.

Coming from you, it is just so much Kitman or lip service. All your statements like this come with caveats. "Israel has a right to exist but not to own any land", etc.

More insults uh? I would be blind, deaf, and dumb if I were to turn away from the BS you spew without calling you on it.

It is the Zionist dream. No amount of money would buy them off. Thinking so is a sign of how clueless you are. The US is very good for Jews, it's just not their land. Israel is their land. I would think that trying to buy someone off for mere trinkets would do more harm to more than just a hair. That is insulting to no end. Why don't you sponsor a Palestinian family to come live in your house?

Show us the evidence. I don't see any, but I've opened my "mouth" 11,832 times so surely there's something?

Sorry was it "BS I spewed" when I said Israel is a country under international law and has the right to exist? Acknowledge it and move on.

It is the Zionist dream. No amount of money would buy them off. Thinking so is a sign of how clueless you are. The US is very good for Jews, it’s just not their land. Israel is their land.

The US isn't an American's land because they're Jewish? How anti-Semitic is that?

I would think that trying to buy someone off for mere trinkets would do more harm to more than just a hair. That is insulting to no end. Why don’t you sponsor a Palestinian family to come live in your house?

Then why don't you think it does harm for Israel to buy illegal settlers off with 20,000 Shekels? Why isn't that insulting to no end? Why don't I buy a Palestinian familiy to come live in my house? Because I don't want to buy an Israeli family to come live in my house. This is something you're having a whale of a hard time understanding: I'm not suggesting anything exceptional for Israel or for Palestine. I'm suggesting we enforce the law. Now it's surely time for your Zionist amnesia to return and forget all about what we've already gone over legally a dozen times before.

[Yamato]

So it would take $5 billion to force relocate only 50,000 Jews. You are a hypocrite and an anti-Semite. Supporting Israel at $5 billion a year offends you but you would gladly empty our treasury to kick the Jew out of Israel.

Fifty billion dollars to citizen 500,000 people is a bargain given the kind of money we're spending on our failed policies in the Middle East.

[+and-then]

You make it sound as though 2000 is a tiny number.

No, that is not my intent. A thousand dead who weren't actually shooting back - half of THOSE being children is a horrible tragedy. But this war went on for 50 days - and it never even began until Hamas refused to stop firing rockets. I'm never going to convince anyone here that Israel isn't evil incarnate so I don't bother. But I call hypocrite on anyone who supports a group whose approach is as Hamas. Israel's only choice with Hamas is to fight them and kill some civilians or to simply allow them to target Israeli citizens with impunity. There seems to be no third choice. You and any other person here who are Palisymps would never refrain from fighting back if your life and the life of your loved ones was endangered daily for years. But because you believe that Israel has taken land that is not their's then whatever the Palestinians do in resistance is acceptable, correct? If not then perhaps you could clear that up for me since I've been accused of making claims and statements about your motivations in error.

[RavenHawk]

Fifty billion dollars to citizen 500,000 people is a bargain given the kind of money we're spending on our

Then you are a hypocrite from your own mouth. The high and mighty words you claim to espouse mean nothing. They are empty. By your own definition, this is welfare. That’s no bargain.

failed policies in the Middle East.

That’s real generic don’t you think? Supporting Israel is a success. The surge in Iraq was a success. It’s only been when Progressives like Carter, Clinton, and Obama have screwed up the ME policy.

Obama has released documents on Israel’s arsenal to Iran and he plans to announce an unwritten deal with Iran to produce enriched uranium in a previously unknown underground bunker. I bet you were one of several that said they didn’t have any. Will the IAEA be allowed to inspect it? So you are partially right. This is one big Fnckup! This would be grounds for impeachment.

[Yamato]

Then you are a hypocrite from your own mouth. The high and mighty words you claim to espouse mean nothing. They are empty. By your own definition, this is welfare. That's no bargain.

That's real generic don't you think? Supporting Israel is a success. The surge in Iraq was a success. It's only been when Progressives like Carter, Clinton, and Obama have screwed up the ME policy.

Obama has released documents on Israel's arsenal to Iran and he plans to announce an unwritten deal with Iran to produce enriched uranium in a previously unknown underground bunker. I bet you were one of several that said they didn't have any. Will the IAEA be allowed to inspect it? So you are partially right. This is one big Fnckup! This would be grounds for impeachment.

Your defenses of criminal behavior are truly bottomless.

The illegal settlements are a threat to our security. You've offered no successful alternatives to eliminate this threat. You can wax poetically about your beloved 2nd invasion of Iraq, but the surge in Iraq didn't eliminate the threat it only grew the threat. The welfare has amounted to what already, over a hundred billion dollars with no end in sight. So if it's a choice between a one-time welfare that stamps out the criminal activities, and permanent welfare that puts a bullseye on our foreheads, I'd prefer the former if I were you.

Suddenly it's not so stupid anymore is it, 20,000 shekels worth of "buying people off for trinkets"? You've just ignored all over that, how convenient. It's okay when Israel does it, it's a grievious insult to you for me to dare suggest that Israel settlers move off of the illegal settlement and live in the US instead, and move in right next door to you maybe. How's that going to ruin your life? Why do they need to be over there? I have a better idea, don't pay them a dime, simply cajole and convince them to move to the US where they'll be safe. Let's solve the security concerns of Israelis and end the Zionist criminal enterprise at the same time.

[Yamato]

I personally am glad there are 400,000 if that is indeed true...which...I doubt because it came from you..but...I'll take that number at face value...how many of those are palestinian?

It came from Wikipedia as well as the Israeli press in a link already posted. And why don't you just look this number up if you even care? It would take seconds not minutes to accomplish. I guess not knowing and attacking my credibility instead is just...easier.

Are you ready to create the State of Palestine with me? Are you finally ready to support a two-state solution? If the one-state solution will "destroy Israel", if the 1967 borders are "indefensible", then join me in supporting the alternative of other creative land swap proposals that will leave half of the settlers where they are?

Looking forward to the two state solution, none of them are Palestinians at the moment because the word Palestine is the name of the 2nd state. So by asking such a rhetorical question as "how many of them are Palestinian?", you do a bangup job of confusing us and erasing Palestinians' national identity as well. A Palestinian will be defined as a citizen of Palestine. If some settler chooses to live there, he will be a Palestinian.

[RavenHawk]

"Someone has to" teach them about Islam, huh Ravenhawk? And you're the one to do it!

Somebody is going to have to do it. Most Muslims aren’t. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Walid Shoebat seem to be just two that are. I’m just adding my voice to them.

Please explain how Israel is "the most responsible"? They're the "most responsible" nuclear power in the world with zero transparency. How does that work?

Zero transparency is non sequitur. Israel doesn’t go around threatening to wipe out nations. They don’t flaunt their nuclear capabilities. It’s low-keyed and understood that her arsenal is the weapon of last resort. She prefers to use her conventional forces for defense.

The US Constitution enumerates the powers of government. If the power isn't in the Constitution, the government doesn't have it. Conversely, if a right isn't in the Constitution, it doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. Why don't you read the Ninth Amendment? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Hence the “War Powers Act” (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)! Going to war is not a right retained by the people (US Constitution I.8.11 & I.10.3 (exception)).

Now that that's established, how many times do I have to repeat my statement that the US Constitution doesn't legally protect Palestinians before we can stop repeating it? You're singing to the choir.

Then don’t bring it up by contradicting yourself. Giving aid to Israel is not unConstitutional.

What about Americans who move to Palestine though? What about Americans living outside the US? Does the Constitution protect the rights of those Americans?

Not necessarily. If Hamas eggs on Israel, those Americans need to seek shelter. The US could pull them out of harm’s way, forcefully if need be but if they don’t want to go, it is ultimately up to them. Is Hamas holding them? If that’s the case, then that could be an act of war requiring a response. And that’s true with any other place.

Let's protect Furkan Doğan then. He lost his right to life when he was shot multiple times in the back of the head. What's the status of his protection?

There are personal actions that one can take that abandon one’s rights. This is one such activity. It’s just like Rachel Corrie. Rights come with Responsibilities. Stupidity does not excuse one’s Responsibilities.

In May 2011, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. government to release documents related to its knowledge and role in the attack, which it has thus far blocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furkan_Do%C4%9Fan#Center_for_Constitutional_Rights_lawsuit

And? The US is not responsible for individual stupidity. What about how this Administration left 4 people to die in Benghazi. Those men were there on behalf of its government and it turned its back on them. They had no choice where Dogan did.

Bombing is a very acute example of how we treat people in the world. It's perhaps the most egregious of our foreign policies.

Bombing is not a policy. We don’t treat people by bombing them. People are sometimes the target of bombings. People do die. That is the nature of bombs. But you hijacked the comment anyway. Unless you think that bombs are America’s best ideas??

Sorry, please cite the US law making US welfare to Israel require an act of Congress to stop.

There is no US Law making US welfare to Israel a required act of Congress. But there are various Laws giving Israel aid. I’ve noted one (Pub Law 95-481). But I also found Pub Law 113-296, which seems to be the latest incarnation of 95-481.

I've already answered this question and you're still asking me?

No you haven’t

People must defend their rights, perpetually and always.

And how do they do that?

Whether they are lucky enough to have a US Constitution which legally acknowledges them.

What’s wrong with having their own Constitution? Our Constitution is but a piece of paper with certain concepts written on it. How do you protect that if it means anything at all to you?

If you concede we recognized our rights before our government existed,

I don’t concede the fact, I acknowledge it.

you can't float your statist BS that rights come from government.

I never have claimed that our Rights come from the government. I state that it is the responsibility of the government to protect those Rights.

[+joc]

It came from Wikipedia as well as the Israeli press in a link already posted. And why don't you just look this number up if you even care? It would take seconds not minutes to accomplish. I guess not knowing and attacking my credibility instead is just...easier.

Are you ready to create the State of Palestine with me? Are you finally ready to support a two-state solution? If the one-state solution will "destroy Israel", if the 1967 borders are "indefensible", then join me in supporting the alternative of other creative land swap proposals that will leave half of the settlers where they are?

Looking forward to the two state solution, none of them are Palestinians at the moment because the word Palestine is the name of the 2nd state. So by asking such a rhetorical question as "how many of them are Palestinian?", you do a bangup job of confusing us and erasing Palestinians' national identity as well. A Palestinian will be defined as a citizen of Palestine. If some settler chooses to live there, he will be a Palestinian.

Yammie,

I don't know one person on this forum...not ONE who is against a two state solution. The only ones...the ONLY ones on the planet who are against a two state solution are the Palestinians themselves.

The only problem with a two state solution is that...Palestine refuses to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate state. That equals death to a two state deal before a breath of hope is even taken. Okay...your turn to blather on....I have a suggestion...why don't you start by calling me a Zionist, Statist, Neo-Con....

[Degen]

Yammie,

I don't know one person on this forum...not ONE who is against a two state solution. The only ones...the ONLY ones on the planet who are against a two state solution are the Palestinians themselves.

The only problem with a two state solution is that...Palestine refuses to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate state. That equals death to a two state deal before a breath of hope is even taken. Okay...your turn to blather on....I have a suggestion...why don't you start by calling me a Zionist, Statist, Neo-Con....

As you have been shown before and most likely ignored because it doesnt fit your narrow view is that the palestiinians are willing to go the two state solution and have agreed to the multiple preconditions that israel keeps throwing at them, but every time that happens israel walks away from the table. Just about everything you say is backwards to the reality of the situation

[Yamato]

Somebody is going to have to do it. Most Muslims aren't. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Walid Shoebat seem to be just two that are. I'm just adding my voice to them.

If the problem is Islam, or "moderate Muslims" as the "former" terrorist Shoebat indicates, then you've specified no good policy ideas to address it here. We wouldn't have the relationship that we do with the Wahabi Saudi Arabia, we wouldn't have the relationship we do with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and the rest of the region. We wouldn't have Muslim allies but because you we do, you need a litany of excuses for those relationships, none of which will wash with the anti-Islam pretense. You can tell me Islam is bad, and it doesn't make the policy right. It doesn't make fighting their battles for them in Iraq or Syria right. If moderate Muslims are so bad then stop helping them with government assistance.

Zero transparency is non sequitur. Israel doesn't go around threatening to wipe out nations. They don't flaunt their nuclear capabilities. It's low-keyed and understood that her arsenal is the weapon of last resort. She prefers to use her conventional forces for defense.

Not allowing any transparency for their programs or capabilities isn't "not flaunting" it's not sharing any information, period. A classified document was just released on Israel's arsenals, I'm sure you read Shoebat's article. They don't want to announce it because they don't want to start a nuclear arms race in the region according to Shoebat. A reasonable assumption. Except what you're saying trying to make the exception for Israel. Israel does wipe out nations, Palestine is case in point. Netanyahu threatens Iran on a regular basis. We're sanctioning Iran up to here, what more do you need? Any policy decision or agreement made not bound by treaty can be reversed by the next President with the stroke of a pen and a phone call. Even if Obama makes the ulitimate mess and starts a war against Iran, the next President can be the new Commander in Chief and do what Ron Paul just suggested at the institute: Just march home.

Hence the "War Powers Act" (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)! Going to war is not a right retained by the people (US Constitution I.8.11 & I.10.3 (exception)).

Going to war isn't anyone's right. The Constitution authorizes the government with this power. The Constitution doesn't give any rights to govt, it specifies its powers.

Then don't bring it up by contradicting yourself. Giving aid to Israel is not unConstitutional.

I haven't contradicted myself. The Constitution doesn't protect anyone's rights but Americans. Here you can admit that the Constitution doesn't protect foreigners rights, so why are you paying money for it? That's not Constitutional at all. There's nothing in the Constitution authorizing government to do that, and there's a lot of things this government does that there is no authority to do. That's how you get such a gigantic government and trillions of dollars more debt every few years. If you want to have any authority enumerated by the Constitution to hand out foreign welfare, write a law that's a treaty between us and that welfare recipient, and sign it. And don't violate it in the future without revisiting it, rewording it, getting people to approve the changes, signing it and following the law that you've signed, like the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Not necessarily. If Hamas eggs on Israel, those Americans need to seek shelter. The US could pull them out of harm's way, forcefully if need be but if they don't want to go, it is ultimately up to them. Is Hamas holding them? If that's the case, then that could be an act of war requiring a response. And that's true with any other place.

Whether conditions "required" a response or not, their rights are protected anyway. Your rights don't get turned on when they're needed, they're already there.

There are personal actions that one can take that abandon one's rights. This is one such activity. It's just like Rachel Corrie. Rights come with Responsibilities. Stupidity does not excuse one's Responsibilities.

"Stupidity" results in the denial of our rights? What law is that?

And? The US is not responsible for individual stupidity. What about how this Administration left 4 people to die in Benghazi. Those men were there on behalf of its government and it turned its back on them. They had no choice where Dogan did.

Again, cite the law that says the US isn't responsible for its own citizens in the world when they're "stupid".

Bombing is not a policy.

Of course it's a policy. What an asinine statement.

We don't treat people by bombing them. People are sometimes the target of bombings. People do die. That is the nature of bombs. But you hijacked the comment anyway. Unless you think that bombs are America's best ideas??

Bombs seem to be some of the only ways of treating people depending on what politician we listen to. You trust Obama to bomb the right people because bombs have a "nature" all their own? I think bombs are some of America's stupidest ideas because they're terroristic not dipomatic. If you can't think of anything intelligent to say to Iran and you'd rather just make war with them instead, we'd wind up with another isolationist policy that can't communicate with our enemies. Where is silent treatment and isolationism documented to be effective in our foreign policy?

There is no US Law making US welfare to Israel a required act of Congress.

There is no US law that you can find binding US welfare to Israel. That's precisely why it doesn't take an act of Congress to end it.

But there are various Laws giving Israel aid. I've noted one (Pub Law 95-481). But I also found Pub Law 113-296, which seems to be the latest incarnation of 95-481.

I see nothing there addressing the billions of dollars being given to Israel every year from an appropriations bill from 1978 which predates the foreign welfare to Israel we're discussing here. So either they hadn't thought of it yet and the bill is irrelevant, or this timely law from the same year as the Camp David Accords should account for it already, and where is it?

But it's much worse than that, because nfortunately US laws forbid the foreign welfare to Israel in the first place, going back to 1961.

Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: "No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."

Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: "No security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."

Subsection (a) of the International Financial Assistance Act of 1977 required that assistance would be limited to countries "other than those whose governments engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."

I suggest you do some homework on internationally recognized human rights and Israel's violations of them. Not the ones you recognize. Not the ones I recognize. Not the ones the US Constitution recognizes. The rights internationally recognized.

No you haven't

Oh my I don't know how you keep missing it! I'll say it again. People must defend their rights, they're the first and last line of defense. Therefore it follows that Palestinians (who are people) must defend their rights. It doesn't matter who helps them or who doesn't. You can't legally make exceptions to human rights established under international law to coddle any government.

And how do they do that?

By exercising them.

What's wrong with having their own Constitution? Our Constitution is but a piece of paper with certain concepts written on it. How do you protect that if it means anything at all to you?

What are you talking about? Our Constitution is the rule of law. It is a binding legal document, not "a paper with concepts". It has powers enumerated to government and rights reserved to people.

I don't concede the fact, I acknowledge it. I never have claimed that our Rights come from the government. I state that it is the responsibility of the government to protect those Rights.

Obviously it's the responsibility of more than just the government if you can also acknowledge that rights precede government. It was the responsibility of the people to defend their rights before our Constitutional government was even established, so obviously if you can get the chronology right, it's not necessary to have government (and by extension, Statehood) to have rights.

[Yamato]

Yammie,

I don't know one person on this forum...not ONE who is against a two state solution. The only ones...the ONLY ones on the planet who are against a two state solution are the Palestinians themselves.

It's clear you have no knowledge of Palestinians. Why don't you do some homework and find out what Palestinians really think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution#Public_opinion_in_Israel_and_Palestine

The people responsible for building the settlements on top of the other state are obviously the people who don't want the other state.

The only problem with a two state solution is that...Palestine refuses to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate state. That equals death to a two state deal before a breath of hope is even taken. Okay...your turn to blather on....I have a suggestion...why don't you start by calling me a Zionist, Statist, Neo-Con..

That's a problem in your own head. But you won't acknowledge what Palestinians actually say and you have no sources to dispute what Palestinians are shown to support.

Consider a list of neocons that we can easily consult on the internet. What opposition to neoconservative policies do you have? This is a good opportunity for you to distance yourself and I'll give you an honest chance and the benefit of the doubt to do so.

It doesn't matter what you are. However you and I stylize ourselves doesn't change the facts. It doesn't change the reality that there are Zionists and neocons. It doesn't change what Palestinians really want. I have no basis to understand how or why neoconservatism or Zionism doesn't confer with the very ideas you express here, and so if there is some kind of basis for that, that is you and you alone, and it doesn't shape my opinions on policies, politics, rights, principles, laws, or anything else, no matter what you are or what you're called. What you are doesn't determine what I think. You're not important to me and I'm not important to you, so let's discuss something else from now on.

"The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right. That's the conclusion I've been forced to these last few years. And to insist that America adopt exactly the same constant-war-as-survival that Israelis have been slowly forced into... But America is not Israel. And once that distinction is made, much of the neoconservative ideology collapses." ~ Andrew Sullivan

It's like Chuck Hagel once said: "I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator." Neocons are likely the first to need the reminder and the last to learn the distinction.

[Yamato]

In that respect, Presidents do make changes and most of them have made them with "the best interest of the nation at heart" and Constitutional. I really wouldn't call that *change* - it's a tweak. However, Obama has promised to make fundamental change. That does not have the best interest of the nation at heart. Bush put America first when he made changes. His problem was that he tried too hard to compromise with the Progressives and made some bad decisions. He tried too hard to be a *uniter*. That was just not him.

Alright

Time to wake up. That is the Constitutional power of the President no matter how they lean.

It sounds like you're still making the mistake you were making years ago on THC. Article 1 Section 8 is exclusively for the Congress. It has nothing to do with the President. It says declare the war, period. That is the law. It's not multiple choice. There is no "Power to declare war, unless...". Yes, the President can mobilize military force in an emergency per the War Powers Resolution, if even that's Constitutional, but the Congress should not be so derelict in its duty to write up a declaration of war and vote on it up or down. Put the politicians noses to the grind and make them responsible for it.

Authorization to go after al Qaeda was never deferred to the UN

UN authority was the authority cited in the authorization to use force against Iraq. I would have voted for that. That is not a war declaration. That was one step away from war. Talking about it hypothetically at the pleasure of the President is not a substitute for declaring the war. Saddam Hussein violating UN resolutions was the actual basis for the potential of force using, rather than the mythical and now almost legendary "weapons of mass destruction".

Politicians don't deserve such liberty to not even have the balls or the expectation of our people to vote on a declaration, with the word WAR ON IRAQ actually written on it. I mean really, how difficult is that?

. To go after Saddam for breaking the ceasefire was a separate issue. The error that the Bush Admin made was to lump them together. Your so-called deferment was to *play* by the rules that you seem to be so adamant about doing until you find it inconvenient.

Actually I'd like to ask the people in charge what the difference is between UN Resolutions we have to enforce vs. the UN Resolutions we have to ignore. There is no principle to be found there. There's politics. And politics aren't a valid reason for denying anyone their rights.

The Invasion of Iraq had become the most legal war in history. This act was to build a coalition, not get permission to invade. It was leadership.

If you're talking about the first invasion of Iraq, that might be true. That was one awesome coalition and one for the history books. I think that Bush 41 made the right decision and the world should have continued to suffer Saddam Hussein until some smart and brave Iraqi individual(s) could get close enough to the brutal dictator to kill him.

The legal hoop-jumping was to prevent anyone from having a leg to stand on in objection.

Oh how nice, I'm sure they'll love their new peglegs.

Not in the nameless future politicians but in the system that our Founding Father gave us. I believe that it is stronger than Obama and Socialism. But here you go again, "American Zionists" have nothing to do with this. You just like to try to insult everyone and anything that is in your way.

Yes the system the Founders gave us. The Congress has the power to declare war. That is not to be taken lightly, explained away, replaced with lesser laws, or subverted by handing the authority to the President and saying: "Wherever you wanna go and whenever you wanna go there." That's the kind of illegal madness that happens when you declare war on a method.

And what did *bombing* have to do with that comment? Zip, zilch, zero.

I want to keep the comments about policy. Bombing has plenty to do with how Israel treats Palestinians and how Obama treated Libyans for just two examples.

The comment was that intelligent people understand that we share our best ideas. Can't you keep up with your own post?

Palestinians aren't intelligent because they understand in a painful and visceral way that we share our worst ideas too?

I think I said that… But a Constitutional Republic doesn't fall under statism. As much as you want it to be, just any government is not statist. A government that protects the Rights of its citizens is not statist. I guess under the control of Progressives and Rinos, the argument can be made that because of the increase of social programs and the cutting of the defense budget, this government is failing to protect the Rights of its citizens. If you want to go there, I'm open for debate. But our support for Israel is in no indication of statism or failing to protect its citizens.

I'm not making that RINO argument, I have to keep repeating that people are responsible for defending their own rights. They do that in the end through government reforms oftentimes, but government isn't the origin. It can be the instrument by which rights are protected but it doesn't have to be. Rights are for and begin with the individual, ravehawk. They're human. That's the origin of rights, not this government or that government.

Statism is endearing faith in the State. In your case, the State of Israel and the US policies that enable it.

All 7 billion will not care to share our best ideas and will attack us for it because those ideas are a threat to their existence. A threat to their Rights.

That's why you can't impose democracy, or Zionism, at the barrel of a gun.

Even if it's just 1%, that's still 7 million and I suspect that it's more than that.

1% = 70 million

It doesn't matter what you or I think. Ideas are dangerous and when people are threatened by them, they will react. So sharing our best ideas with the world is dangerous to some.

It's not just about sharing our best ideas, it's also about refraining from sharing our worst. Putting America in its best light will enhance our security, our liberty and our happiness.

But in your specific example, Muslims have used violence against the Jew for 1400 years. Being free of that kind of treatment threatens the self-proclaimed superiority of Islam. Nothing can be allowed to challenge Muslim authority. I support putting an end to that. Because until that happens, reform cannot. That idea is dangerous.

That sounds like revenge to me. "Putting an end to Islam." And you have a very helpful spin on 1400 years of history to help you. What an adventure.

[Yamato]

Excuse me?! We exercise our Rights every moment we breathe.

If that were true we wouldn't be losing them.

Who's going to protect your Rights?

I'm an American so I'm lucky to say my government has got my back. For the downtrodden of the world like Palestinians who have no such luxury, they have to do the full mission themselves.

And again, Congress does not need an up/down vote to declare war. They do it with the power of the purse.

An up or down vote is exactly what they need. Some politicians with some political balls to stand up on their feet and put their name on the war, or not. That's how you win a war. There's none of this nonsense about purses and the ensuing politics sure to follow. Everyone knows where everyone stands. Everyone is in the game. The country is united. The war would get won. That's better than losing every war since we last declared one.

But instead we have undeclared unwinnable commercial wars started on false pretenses, and now they're declared with a purse. That is crap policy that's destroying us.

The War Powers Act is merely an observation of that Constitutional power.

You're referring to the War Powers Resolution? Not FDR's War Powers Act?

That's true. But that has nothing to do with the War Powers Act. If people don't care, then we get Presidents like Carter and Obama, but that doesn't change the ability of a President to react to threats to this nation.

Obama can't even obey War Powers in what he did to Libya. That was an impeachable offense. Where's the epic threads of discussion about that?? But no, "Benghazi" becomes a conspiracy about movies and emails.

The Low information voter doesn't understand what their Rights are. They think it's how much dole they can milk from the coffers.

That's exactly what AIPAC and CUFI and their puppets in govt are counting on.

Wow! That was totally amazing. Not only are you bouncing around which is making this conversation difficult, you are also spreading on the BS thick. No, Obama cannot just end the aid with one phone call. To end that aid, it must pass the lower House first, then the Upper, then the POTUS. That is Constitutional and you want to violate it. Authorizing the federal government to enter into treaties *IS* providing the law on how we interact with other countries.

Good, so show me the treaty that provides the law on how we interact with Israel.

The aid is just appropriations. It's not mandatory spending, it's not direct spending. You can't even find the appropriations for the foreign aid to Israel. It's lost in some omnibus spending bill isn't it? The idea of which any real conservative should oppose on principle. You sure as hell can't find any US treaty binding us to it.

Well first, I'd want to know why is Israel blowing up mosques? Could it be because they are being used as bases to attack Israel? Israel defending herself does not jeopardize the defense of our Rights. In fact it's the converse. Israel not defending herself endangers our Rights. We let Israel go down, we just encourage those forces to bring us down.

Slippery slope.

This is just pure gibberish. It's up to *WE* the people only if we are American citizens.

Oh so it's not up to any other people in the world. Just American citizens, right.

I might have asked North Korea? Israel is not a terrorist state.

If we're going to fear monger about nukes, North Korea would be the first nation to monger about. They're saying they're at war with us, they're threatening us, and to the best of our intelligence, they're testing and building nukes.

It's perfectly logical. It wouldn't be necessary to be concerned about every nation developing nuclear capabilities. Just those that have questionable character.

And just who's the authority on what is "questionable character"?

"Declaring war with the power of the purse" might be the craziest thing you've said yet. If it's really gotten that bad, it's much worse than even I thought. Why would we let our politicians get away with that any longer?

[Space Commander Travis]

" Israel is not a terrorist state."? Depends who you ask. Ask a Palestinian (not that any Israeli or any of their supporters would of course, since Palestinians are unpeople) and you might get a different opinion. Having one's home flattened, whether you're still in it or not, might be thought of by those on the flattened side as being a form of terrorism.

[+joc]

It's clear you have no knowledge of Palestinians. Why don't you do some homework and find out what Palestinians really think?

http://en.wikipedia....l_and_Palestine

The people responsible for building the settlements on top of the other state are obviously the people who don't want the other state.

That's a problem in your own head. But you won't acknowledge what Palestinians actually say and you have no sources to dispute what Palestinians are shown to support.

Consider a list of neocons that we can easily consult on the internet. What opposition to neoconservative policies do you have? This is a good opportunity for you to distance yourself and I'll give you an honest chance and the benefit of the doubt to do so.

It doesn't matter what you are. However you and I stylize ourselves doesn't change the facts. It doesn't change the reality that there are Zionists and neocons. It doesn't change what Palestinians really want. I have no basis to understand how or why neoconservatism or Zionism doesn't confer with the very ideas you express here, and so if there is some kind of basis for that, that is you and you alone, and it doesn't shape my opinions on policies, politics, rights, principles, laws, or anything else, no matter what you are or what you're called. What you are doesn't determine what I think. You're not important to me and I'm not important to you, so let's discuss something else from now on.

"The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right. That's the conclusion I've been forced to these last few years. And to insist that America adopt exactly the same constant-war-as-survival that Israelis have been slowly forced into... But America is not Israel. And once that distinction is made, much of the neoconservative ideology collapses." ~ Andrew Sullivan

It's like Chuck Hagel once said: "I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator." Neocons are likely the first to need the reminder and the last to learn the distinction.

If you are quoting Chuch Hagel...that is all I need to know about your politics.....Left. You are an Anti-Semite. It doesn't matter what you or the rest of the Palestinians think about Israels right to exist. Nine countries voted against. That you side with those nine countries...that you side with Iran...that also tells us about your politics. You aren't a Libertarian, You are not a Conservative...You sir are a Liberal. Your politics are straight down the line with Obama. Case closed. You have now clearly identified yourself...as all Liberals sooner or later do...and so...case closed. I win...check mate.

[+joc]

As you have been shown before and most likely ignored because it doesnt fit your narrow view is that the palestiinians are willing to go the two state solution and have agreed to the multiple preconditions that israel keeps throwing at them, but every time that happens israel walks away from the table. Just about everything you say is backwards to the reality of the situation

You people spout your lies...and expect me and others to believe them. As long as Hamas is shooting rockets into Israel there will be no agreement. Period. Go talk to your Iranian Terror buds Dregen. Ask them to stop funding Hamas and Hezzbolah.

See, that's what you people on the Left do..you lie. And you repeat the lies of other Liberals. I'm not buying the lies of the left Dregen. And neither should you...but...you do...so...not a lot left to say.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Joc, alot of countries don't like Israel, infact Israel is one of the worst countries to hate. Israel has and always will be a nation that no one likes.

Iran is being sensible about all of this, Israel is acting like a brat as always wanting to get attention, yet no one cares because other nations are worrying about other matters.

Netanyahu doesn't want a two state plan because hes greedy and only cares about Israel and Israel alone. He wont care about the US if they were a war. Oh yes when was the last time Israel helped the US?

[Degen]

You people spout your lies...and expect me and others to believe them. As long as Hamas is shooting rockets into Israel there will be no agreement. Period. Go talk to your Iranian Terror buds Dregen. Ask them to stop funding Hamas and Hezzbolah.

See, that's what you people on the Left do..you lie. And you repeat the lies of other Liberals. I'm not buying the lies of the left Dregen. And neither should you...but...you do...so...not a lot left to say.

Why dont you try backing up what you say for a change. Its all talk and hot air from you, only opinions but you speak it as truths. I would say you lack credibility but that would imply you had some to begin with.