What's the capital of Israel?

What is even scarier is the lack of promotion of real education and real world skills. Simply indoctrinations and agenda to become sheeple of the commie puppetmasters.

What do you expect when Republicans mock critical thinking skills? :cool:

Critical thinking as in "Gee, wonder when that next welfare check will be in the mail?". That type of critical thinking?
 
What is even scarier is the lack of promotion of real education and real world skills. Simply indoctrinations and agenda to become sheeple of the commie puppetmasters.

What do you expect when Republicans mock critical thinking skills? :cool:

Critical thinking as in "Gee, wonder when that next welfare check will be in the mail?". That type of critical thinking?

You tell me. I've never collected a welfare check. :cool:
 
If Obama could find a way to register Palestinians he would. He just doesn't get that he is suppossed to represent America. I bet he would bow to a camel if it could vote.
 
6a00e398246ac988330120a934126a970b-800wi.jpg



BLULOOLOOOOO! BLULOOOOLOOOOOO!!! Israel is no goodz!! BLULOOLOOOLOOOOO!!! Obama No name Israeliz Capitalz !!!!!!!!!!!!BLULOOLOOOOO! BLULOOOOLOOOOOO!!! Tel Avivz!!! NO!!! BBLULOOLOOOOO! BLULOOOOLOOOOOO!!! Jerusalemz!!!! BLULOOLOOOOO! BLULOOOOLOOOOOO!!! Israelz musts be destroyz!!!! BLULOOLOOOOO! BLULOOOOLOOOOOO!!! Israel is no goodz!! BLULOOLOOOLOOOOO!!! Obama No name Israeliz Capitalz !!!!!!!!!!!!BLULOOLOOOOO! BLULOOOOLOOOOOO!!! Tel Avivz!!! NO!!! BBLULOOLOOOOO! BLULOOOOLOOOOOO!!! Jerusalemz!!!! BLULOOLOOOOO! BLULOOOOLOOOOOO!!! Israelz musts be destroyz!!!! BLULOOLOOOOO! BLULOOOOLOOOOOO!!! HACKEN DA HAMEN!!!
 
Last edited:
Exactly. They know damned well that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, but they won't say it because they know it will annoy Islamists in the Middle East and they're just so busy kissing ass over there.

And yes... the BBC omitted Israel's capital from their website, while posting like information about other countries:
BBC's Olympics webpage omits Israel's capital - Israel Culture, Ynetnews

no, they won't bother with it because the white house is not a high school geography class.

Then what is the White House's "policy" on what the capital of Israel is?

i think it is a position, but it may be a policy. anyway, since truman, and since the creation of the state of israel, the white house's position has always been that the status of jerusalem was that of either a corpus seperatum, (an international city), or later, that the status was to be determined by negotiation between the two parties, the israelis and the palestinians.

interestingly, in one of the few cases where the USA didn't use its veto power on israel's behalf, UN resolution 478 passed, a resolution condemning israel's "jerusalem law", a law which declared jerusalem as israel's undivided capital.

the woman knew the answer and it was a deliberate attempt to embarrass obama. perhaps jay carney should have given her the short, two hour version detailing every nook and cranny of every position on jerusalem from truman throgh eisenhower to carter, reagan, the bushes etc. many could have done a six hour presentation. instead he gave her the short answer. and we are not just talking about obama here, we are talking about the office of the president of the united states. it was a cheap stunt.

and romney's position, if elected, will be the same. bet on it.
 
I never knew there was an international problem with their capital till this post, and thats totally why obamas guy wouldnt answer the question. Thanks for the thread, it brought something to my attention that i didnt know. He should have said what side obama was, but they are too scared to be firm. Socialism first, truth last.

the question was improper and impolite and designed to trash obama needlessly. it embarrassed the office of the presidency on what is sure to be an international stage. furthermore, the jewish woman (BBC News America) knew the answer to the question and jay carney correctly stated the answer.

not one single president since truman has recognised al quds/jerusalem as the capital of israel. before truman, it was not a state. the fate of al quds/jerusalem is rightfully relegated to the final status negotiations. israel has consistently refused to negotiate that final status on some pretext or another since what seems like forever. some are fooled. i am not. the reason for such delay is to build more settlements on the west bank and erase any possibility of a viable palestinian state.

now i a going to sat something, and i am sure every single one of you will disagree with me. i imagine you have already. what i have said above is genocide according to the 1948 UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, whose signatories include the USA and israel.

history will record that. i do not want this country, that i served in the u.s. army in the sixties and that my son is serving now in the u.s. navy, to be any way complicit in such atrocities. this is no time to continue playing politics with the lives of israeli and palestinian children at stake.

only two countries around the world recognise al quds/jerusalem as the capital of israel, el salvador and guatamala.

The White House press briefing is not an international stage. Follow up questions to announcements that the US is expanding its ties with Israel seem like a perfectly normal portion of the press briefing, even if the lefties on this forum think otherwise.

if the whole world is watching, and you are kidding yourself if you do not think the whole world is watching that, then i think that is an international stage.

asking a question that you know the answer to is not a perfectly normal question. it is pursuing an agenda, and you are kidding yourself again if you think she did not know the answer. she asked the question to embarrass president obama. an honest question would have been "is the white house going to continue to maintain the position that the status of jerusalem be determined by the peace negotiations?" i am quite sure jay carney could have answered that with "the white house's position since the time of truman is that the status of jerusalem was to be determined by negotiation and we see no reason to change that position at this time."

it is not an "either-or" question.

i am neither a lefty or righty. i throw right, bat both...pulling the ball when i bat right and hitting where the ball is pitched when i bat left. ricky henderson was an oddity, throwing let and batting right.

i will say this though. from looking at things generally, the lefties seem a lot more calm and rational than the righties, not to mentioned better inormed.
 
You didn't argue that all Israel needs to achieve peace is give up half of Jerusalem?

You said land was GIVEN. PAST TENSE. Show me where. I was just suggesting a possibility, i.e. hasn't happened yet. Don't try and squirm out of this by claiming some sort of equivalency!

Land for peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if i steal a hundred dollars out of your pocket and then, for whatever reason, i decide to return it, that doesn't count as me giving you a hundred dollars.
 
No there is more to it than that. He talked about "our policy" WTF does that mean? He could have said Jerusalem, NEXT!!!!!!!! but he didnt, why?

Because ownership of Jerusalem is in dispute, dumbass, and we can't see being a fair broker if we take sides in that dispute.

Eventually, Israel is going to have to give parts of Jerusalem back to the Arabs.


You don't think the US should take sides in a dispute between a group of terrorists and a friendly ally?

seems like to me that, before israel became a state, we didn't really have any enemies in the mideast and the only "terrorists" (i don't like that word) as you call them, were blowing up the british army headquarters in a hotel in al quds. i believe it was that same group that blew up the SS Patria, a refugee boat boat filled with jews, their own people, in jaffa harbour.

now, if you are concerned about allies, we would have plenty more if we dropped israel like a hot potato. i bet the "terrorist" label would be on the other foot too.
 
seems like to me that, before israel became a state, we didn't really have any enemies in the mideast and the only "terrorists" (i don't like that word) as you call them, were blowing up the british army headquarters in a hotel in al quds. i believe it was that same group that blew up the SS Patria, a refugee boat boat filled with jews, their own people, in jaffa harbour.

now, if you are concerned about allies, we would have plenty more if we dropped israel like a hot potato. i bet the "terrorist" label would be on the other foot too.
__________________
wrapped in the wind


Wrapped in the wind and folded neatly into absurdity...Israel will NEVER give back any portion of Jerusalem and to think that your either stoned, stupid or both...I'm going with both...Your terrorist friends in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank don't care about land, all they want is blood. They don't want a portion of Israel, they want it all.
You live in a fantasy world where if we drop Israel, all our troubles are over. We put a Muslim in the White House and they still try and come after us. You need to wake up and smell what your shoveling
 
Are people really arguing this? The fucking capital is Jerusalem, how do I know, it's got he effing star on the map. Just ask the jews, their country, their capital. Fuck those whiney palestinans, move to jordan or syria if you dont like it.
 
Before its liberation Jews were not allowed to visit the holy places, under Arab rule Jewish head stones were used to pave roads, now everyone has access, Jerusalem will never again be divided


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJCWlJHiDQo&feature=related]Yom Yerushalayim / Jerusalem Day - Celebrating 40 Years Of Jerusalem United - YouTube[/ame]
 
the question was improper and impolite and designed to trash obama needlessly. it embarrassed the office of the presidency on what is sure to be an international stage. furthermore, the jewish woman (BBC News America) knew the answer to the question and jay carney correctly stated the answer.

not one single president since truman has recognised al quds/jerusalem as the capital of israel. before truman, it was not a state. the fate of al quds/jerusalem is rightfully relegated to the final status negotiations. israel has consistently refused to negotiate that final status on some pretext or another since what seems like forever. some are fooled. i am not. the reason for such delay is to build more settlements on the west bank and erase any possibility of a viable palestinian state.

now i a going to sat something, and i am sure every single one of you will disagree with me. i imagine you have already. what i have said above is genocide according to the 1948 UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, whose signatories include the USA and israel.

history will record that. i do not want this country, that i served in the u.s. army in the sixties and that my son is serving now in the u.s. navy, to be any way complicit in such atrocities. this is no time to continue playing politics with the lives of israeli and palestinian children at stake.

only two countries around the world recognise al quds/jerusalem as the capital of israel, el salvador and guatamala.

The White House press briefing is not an international stage. Follow up questions to announcements that the US is expanding its ties with Israel seem like a perfectly normal portion of the press briefing, even if the lefties on this forum think otherwise.

if the whole world is watching, and you are kidding yourself if you do not think the whole world is watching that, then i think that is an international stage.

asking a question that you know the answer to is not a perfectly normal question. it is pursuing an agenda, and you are kidding yourself again if you think she did not know the answer. she asked the question to embarrass president obama. an honest question would have been "is the white house going to continue to maintain the position that the status of jerusalem be determined by the peace negotiations?" i am quite sure jay carney could have answered that with "the white house's position since the time of truman is that the status of jerusalem was to be determined by negotiation and we see no reason to change that position at this time."

it is not an "either-or" question.

i am neither a lefty or righty. i throw right, bat both...pulling the ball when i bat right and hitting where the ball is pitched when i bat left. ricky henderson was an oddity, throwing let and batting right.

i will say this though. from looking at things generally, the lefties seem a lot more calm and rational than the righties, not to mentioned better inormed.

Was the whole world watching Obama's address to AIPAC where he said Jerusalem must be the undivided capital of Israel? Was the world watching when the State Department started referring to Jerusalem and Israel as separate legal entities? Which of those is Obama's position?

By the way, the biggest partisan hacks on this board all insist they are independent. If you want to prove you are independent show, don't tell
 
Last edited:
You said land was GIVEN. PAST TENSE. Show me where. I was just suggesting a possibility, i.e. hasn't happened yet. Don't try and squirm out of this by claiming some sort of equivalency!

Land for peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if i steal a hundred dollars out of your pocket and then, for whatever reason, i decide to return it, that doesn't count as me giving you a hundred dollars.

If I have a house and my neighbors move their deadbeat relatives into my basement and then insist they own the house it doesn't mean they own the house.

See, I can throw analogies around too, mine are just a little closer to the truth than yours.
 
Because ownership of Jerusalem is in dispute, dumbass, and we can't see being a fair broker if we take sides in that dispute.

Eventually, Israel is going to have to give parts of Jerusalem back to the Arabs.


You don't think the US should take sides in a dispute between a group of terrorists and a friendly ally?

seems like to me that, before israel became a state, we didn't really have any enemies in the mideast and the only "terrorists" (i don't like that word) as you call them, were blowing up the british army headquarters in a hotel in al quds. i believe it was that same group that blew up the SS Patria, a refugee boat boat filled with jews, their own people, in jaffa harbour.

now, if you are concerned about allies, we would have plenty more if we dropped israel like a hot potato. i bet the "terrorist" label would be on the other foot too.

Seems to me like our involvement in the Middle East goes back to the 1800s. You can pretend we didn't have enemies back then if you like, just don't expect me to agree with you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top