Marc39
Rookie
- Jun 19, 2009
- 10,018
- 204
- 0
- Banned
- #221
Certainly, Israel's lobby holds great influence on Congress. However, AIPAC represents only the far right-wing policies of the Israeli government - it does not represent wide-spread opinion in Israel.
In fact, according to a recent poll in Israel taken March 16-17 2010 (taken after the recent dispute over the settlements) a “sweeping majority of Israelis” see Obama’s treatment of Israel as “friendly and fair.” 56% said they don’t believe Obama is anti-Semitic or seeking to bring down the Netanyahu government. A much smaller percentage, 27%, thought Obama is anti-Semitic.
I never said Pres. Obama was anti-semiticm, mainly because i don't believe so. I DO velieve that he never gave PM Netanyahu a chance, and was waiting for an chance to create an uproar, a chance given to him by Eli Yishay's (Idiotic or Subversive, depending on who you believe) decision to allow the building of 1,600 residnetial units i Jerusalem.
You did not include my first paragraph, where I replied to your claim that the flap over the settlements was "Obama's Agenda" - I said that many more around the world have come to the same conclusion.
The snippet you included above was actually a response to your remark "Thank god for Congress."
You seem to have misread the poll. Slightly less than half (48%) of the Israelis polled said that Israel must keep building in the capital, even at the expense of a rift with the United States. That's not "most people" by any mathematical means.
And even more interesting, that number was not very far ahead of the 41% of Israelis who answered that Israel must stop building in Jerusalem until the end of the negotiations.
Again, it's up to the most powerful countries to decide what to ignore and what not to. I gave you several examples of violators that (in the end) didn't get ignored. Right now, the U.S. government ain't ignoring Israel's illegal behavior. Whether this will lead to dramatic changes remains to be seen.
However, once the U.S. stopped protecting South Africa, the abomination of Apartheid came to an end. International action actually saved South Africa from itself.
Regarding its capital - Israel is free to proclaim its capital anywhere inside its internationally recognized borders. However, it does not have recognized sovereignty over occupied territory, which includes Jerusalem. The Israeli government can continue lying to itself, or face reality - the status of Jerusalem is a matter for final negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Appartheid was the discrimination of the South African government against its own citizens for the color of their skin. Israel treats the palestinians differently not because of their religion, ethnicity or the color of their skin, but because they are citizens of what is still an enemy entity. it has nothing to do with race.
I mentioned South Africa as an example of a nation whose violations of international law were not ignored. There is no question that Israel has not been formally accused of Apartheid under international law. Rather, Israel is in violation of the Geneva Convention and U.N. resolutions regarding its conduct in occupied territory.
Israel is absolutely not in violation of the Geneva Conventions nor is Israel in violation of any binding UN resolutions.
The Pallies are in flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions in targeting Israeli civilian population centers through violence and terrorism and in fighting out of uniform and engaging in routine human-shielding. Furthermore, Hamas has denied Gilad Shalit his rights under international law.
Pallies are in violation of UN resolutions prohibiting the funding and support for terrorism.
You are unfamiliar with the matter, so, don't pretend otherwise.