Democrats & Liberals Archives

Twenty Good Reasons to Vote Republican on Tuesday

Here are twenty good reasons to vote Republican.

1.) You are the last remaining Loyalist to the Crown and you are hoping for the restoration of the Monarchy in the Rebellious Colonies.


2.) You want to reward the party that controls all three branches of government for leading us into an unnecessary war. See: An unnecessary war.


3.) You want to reward the party that controls all three branches of government for victory in Iraq. See ...Iraq Victory.


4.) You want to reward the party that controls all three branches of government for for victory in Afghanistan. See: The Rise of Jihadistan.


5.) You want to reward the party that controls all three branches of government for giving huge tax breaks to the rich. See: Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich.


6.) You want to reward the party that controls all three branches of government for building bridges to nowhere. See: A bridge to nowhere.


7.) You want to reward the party that controls all three branches of government for running the biggest deficit in history. See: White House Predicts 2004 Deficit Of $445 Billion -- the Biggest Ever.


8.) You want to reward the party that controls all three branches of government for gutting the Constitution through the Patriot act. See: Patriot Act vs. Constitution.


9.) You want to reward the party that controls all three branches of government for gutting the Constitution through the: Antiterrorism Bill on Detainees.


10.) You want to reward the party that controls all three branches of government for refusing to raise the minimum wage. See: General Information on the Minimum Wage.


11.) You want to reward the party that controls all three branches of government for teaching uppity poor people their proper "place" in New Orleans. See: KATRINA TIMELINE.


12.) You want to reward the party that controls all three branches of government for helping the Terri Schiavo family make a deeply personal family decision. See: Schiavo autopsy shows irreversible brain damage. See also: Timeline: Terri Schiavo case.


13.) You want to reward the party of a President that bald faced lied when he repeatedly said that he would not wiretap Americans without a warrant. See: Bush 2004-2005: "[A] wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed."


14.) You want to reward the party whose President chose an Attorney General who lied through his teeth to Congress over illegal wiretapping. See: Gonzales Apparently Lied over Wiretapping to Congress


15.) You want to reward the party whose President most Americans want to see impeached. See: Zogby Poll: Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping.


16.) You want to reward the party of a President who "cherry picked" intelligence on Iraq. See: Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq.


17.) You want to reward the party of a President who did not send enough troops into Iraq to stabilize the country and win the peace. See: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied.


18.) You want to reward the party of a President that outsourced the job of getting bin Laden at Tora Bora to bin Laden's "very close" friend Khalis. See: Lost at Tora Bora.


19.) You want to reward the party of a President that wants to fix Social Security by breaking it worse. See: Business Week: Social Security .


20.) You want to reward the party of a President whose white house lied about their extensive involvement with Jack Abramoff. See: Abramoff Put White House Contacts at 400.


This is not an exhaustive list. There are many more good reasons to vote Republican on Tuesday... Rising poverty, insecure borders, Abu Ghireb, torture memos, Tom Delay, Dubai ports, no bid contracts, the Iraqi government refusing to allow the U.S. military to even search for a kidnapped soldier. over a hundred Americans dying per month in Iraq, over 2800 dead Americans in Iraq, over 47,000 wounded Americans in Iraq, Mark Foley, somewhere between 100,000 and 600,000 dead Iraqis, Bob Ney, over 240 dead Americans in Afghanistan, Jack Abramoff, Rev. Ted Haggard promoting family "values" in Colorado, Dennis Hastert, "free speech zones" in the land of the free and the home of the brave... These are all good reasons to reward the Republican party with your vote. There are many other good reasons to vote Republican on Tuesday. What are some of yours?

Posted by Ray Guest at November 5, 2006 6:30 PM
Comments
Comment #193489

Ray,

That’s a good list but you left out a biggy.

#21: You still love the party that’s formed a new “peace initiative” in the Middle east. (Based on the belief that Israel can do no wrong.)

I’ll let you name #21. I just want to know why we are still supporting Israel.

Why?

Israel pledges to press on with Gaza offensive despite humanitarian crisis

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061105/world/israel_palestinians_10

WHY?

Maybe #21 should be: “I want to support the party that doesn’t have a clue what diplomacy is”.

I don’t know, I’m at a total loss for words here.

Posted by: KansasDem at November 5, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #193491

Ray: Have you tried posting this on the red blog?Do not be surprised if they take it seriously.

Posted by: BillS at November 5, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #193492

22) The Bankruptcy Bill was really, really… uh… special. Reward the Republicans who passed this beaut with your vote. If you have real estate of $5 million or more, or a trust, and you are misfortunate enough to suffer expensive health problems, no worries! This bankruptcy legislation only applies to “the little people.”

23) Oh wait. You already mentioned Social Security reform. The Republicans declared a crisis- a crisis!- and despite having majorities in every branch of government, the Republicans did… well… nothing at all. No plan ever even showed up in committee. What courage! What conviction!

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #193493

So you are aware, your witticism is really not helping your position at all.

Posted by: Zeek at November 5, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #193495

Here’s another few reasons to vote Republican from their close neo con friends. There again, with friends like this, who needs enemies?

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=647

Talk about rats deserting a sinking ship………

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 5, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #193496

Keek,

Is it harming anything or anyone?

Posted by: KansasDem at November 5, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #193497

“Is it harming anything or anyone?”

Only himself, KansasDem.

Posted by: Zeek at November 5, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #193499

24.haliburton cost overruns, shoddy work, overcharges and questionable accounting practices in Iraq.

25.Thousands of missing weapons

26. Closure of the Iraq auditing program after disclosure of the thousands of missing weapons.

Posted by: Ric at November 5, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #193500

Oops, should have been Zeek. Sorry.

Posted by: KansasDem at November 5, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #193504

#27 If we keep at it we will be able to force thousands of young women back to the coathanger or back street butcher for family planning where they belong. All that horrible sex and they did not invite us.

Posted by: BillS at November 5, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #193506

#28. We can drive all of those nasty homosexuals back in the closet. We know now it’s a perversion:
Haggard say’s so:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061105/us_nm/religion_evangelist_scandal_dc_1

Posted by: KansasDem at November 5, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #193507

#28 To keep Paris Hilto and Anna Nicole Smith from paying an inheritence tax. After all they earned it.

Posted by: BillS at November 5, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #193508

excuse me #29
Kansas
You forgot ,Back to the closet and the House cloakroom with the pages.

Posted by: BillS at November 5, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #193515

BillS,

That is the beauty of this article. The Repubs won’t argue with it because they really do think this is all great. On most of these issues the American people think otherwise… Too bad I could not post it over there.

Thanks all. Keep the reasons coming.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 5, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #193520

Ray:

You know, if you guys don’t win and win big on tuesday, this will be a historical election, but not for the reasons you on the left hope for.

As much as the Republicans have done to mess up this last several years, you should be winning up 40 at least in the house.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 5, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #193523

Craig,

Yes, except for gerrymandering, we should not win any. Everything is our fault anyhow, if we win even one seat, then absolutely everything will be our fault. And now conveniently Bush has got the Iraqis to chose now to convict and sentence Saddam. I have thought all along that the election would be close.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 5, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #193526

#30-
To teach them to use more deceptive tactics like this to get re-elected, rather than earning their return by good policy and voter sympathy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #193530

#31 So we can continue to give incentives to companies to send good paying jobs overseas because we need cheap imports because we are running out of good paying jobs.

Posted by: BillS at November 6, 2006 1:21 AM
Comment #193540

#32, you want to reward the party that puts acquiring power and protecting it ahead of all other concerns like the nation’s future, her people, or the Constitution. In this regard, however, the DNC and RNC are mirror images of each other.

So, if you have a Democrat incumbent and Republican incumbent, vote for each’s challenger as millions of American voters will do this year. Eventually, the DNC and RNC, unable to keep incumbents in power, will wake up and put the nation, her people, and solving problems, first on thier agenda, as the only way to restore voter’s faith in incumbents in either party.

Bad government comes from bad politicians voted in by a public which has not seen the wisdom of voting them out, as the means to control their behavior.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2006 4:13 AM
Comment #193541

#33 because you hope this time every voting machine will be “tuned” to switch every vote for democrats into a vote for republicans. And vice versa. ;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 6, 2006 5:03 AM
Comment #193546

#35 They were able to take the sympathy and support of many nations throughout the world after 9/11 and turn that into a deep mistrust and dislike for the United States.

#36 Introduced words like “nukular” and “turd blossom” into the American vocabulary.

#37 A Not many administrations can brag that they had a member who “shot someone in the face.”

#38 Outside of a mishandled, clusterf**k of a war, has done little or nothing for America.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 6, 2006 8:01 AM
Comment #193548

#34 To continue the momententum of alcoholism, drug abuse, corruption, perversion, deception, and immoral practices in government.

And to think they claim to be the best representaition for the moral majority. Doesn’t seem to say much for the values of the religious sect does it.

Posted by: Ric at November 6, 2006 8:23 AM
Comment #193549

Ray:

Thanks for your article. With an ever decreasing voter intellect these days, many potential voters simply read headlines without reading the story. Your headline might just possibly give someone the notion that there are 20 good reasons to vote Republican, and they might just vote that way on the basis of the headline.

It wouldn’t be a substantive or intelligent vote, based on those perameters. But it would be a vote nonetheless. I’m sure the Republican part thanks you. I’m guessing that somehow Karl Rove mindmelded with you to make you do his bidding. :)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 6, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #193555

Joebagodonuts,

“Thanks for your article. With an ever decreasing voter intellect these days, many potential voters simply read headlines without reading the story. Your headline might just possibly give someone the notion that there are 20 good reasons to vote Republican, and they might just vote that way on the basis of the headline.”

A. We’re very aware of the erosion of voter intellect(Bush 04)was reelected after all.

B. Even the Bush apologists know that there is no way to create a list of 20 reasons to vote Republican. Most Republicans can’t come up with 3.

C. Thanks for admitting Karl Rove’s political strategies were geared towards the not so bright.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 6, 2006 8:50 AM
Comment #193569

#40
Because it swelled your heart with pride the way that Duke Cunningham took “personal responsibility” for accepting many bribes after he was caught and went to jail.

#41
Because you admire how the GOP wanted to reward the makers of computerized voting machines with legislation that made them richer due to the fact that they’re heavy Republican contributors and supporters. You’re in love with the idea that the GOP doesn’t care if our election systems are fair and accountable.

Btw, I’ve voted already on an absentee PAPER BALLOT, and didn’t vote for one Republican.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 6, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #193579

42. No Child Left Behind
43. Bush’s Energy Plan
44. The Bush Environmental policy
I’ve already voted absentee here in Calif. I’m somewhat optimistic that Orange County will actually count it.
Steve

Posted by: Steve at November 6, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #193580

KansasDem

#21

That’s an easy one. Because they are the only democracy in the middle east. And they have been in a battle for their very existence for 60 years. They are surrounded by people who want to drive them into the sea and obliterate them from the map.

Anyone who sees the “Palestinian” struggle and Israel’s right to exist as morally equivilent is morally bankcrupt.

Posted by: Keith at November 6, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #193581

KansasDem

“The death toll in Israel’s five-day sweep through the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun rose to 47 on Sunday, when three Palestinians, including two Hamas militants, were killed, according to Palestinian health officials. Israel launched the drive last week to try to stop to daily rocket barrages aimed at Israeli towns.”

This is from your article.

Do you think much of Tijuana would still be stabding if they were launching daily attacks on the US?

Posted by: Keith at November 6, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #193592

Keith,

Israel is not the Middle East’s only democracy; Turkey is. If Israel were a real democracy, they would let the Palestinans vote.

Wouldn’t you lob rockets at Mexico if they invaded the United States and defeated the United States Military?

Posted by: Warren P at November 6, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #193596

You want to vote for the Party that freed the slaves.

You want to vote for the Party that established our National Parks.

You want to vote for the Party that finally got us out of Vietnam.

You want to vote for the Party that sent troops to the southern states to enforce integration in education.

You want to vote for the Party that stopped North Korea’s aggression.

You want to vote for the Part that re-established diplomacy with China.

You want to vote for the party that gives you your own money back to you so you can spend it how you see fit.

You want to vote for the party that established the largest wildlife refuge in the Pacific.

You want to vote for the Party that has given the most money ever to help Africa combat AIDS.

You want to vote for the Party that had the first Male African American Secretary of State.

You want to vote for the Party that has the first Female African American Secretary of State.

You want to vote for the Party that reunited the Union.

You want to vote for the Party that ended the Cold War.

Posted by: RedStapler at November 6, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #193599

45. A much bigger government is necessary to keep up with the demand to do less auditing, less regulatory oversight, less tax/royalty collection, provide little to zero leadership during a crisis, keep the borders wide open, and gather less intelligence about our enemies abroad. Maybe if republicans double the size of the federal government in the next 2 years we might even be able to revert back to the September-1928 level of oversight.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 6, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #193606

Lest we forget:

46)You want to reward the party that controls all three branches of government for posting nuclear technology on the internet—in arabic.

Posted by: jrb at November 6, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #193615

Warren

Why should they let the Palistinians vote? They are not citizens. Israel never invaded Gaza and the West Bank. They were attacked and defended themselves. Did you miss the news last year, THEY PULLED OUT OF GAZA. Yet the rockets kept coming.

If the Palestinians wanted peace with ther neighbor they would have had it years ago.

Posted by: Keith at November 6, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #193625

yo redstaplehead

R: You want to vote for the Party that freed the slaves.
Me:and the party that invited all the racist southern democrats to join the party after LBJ ended reconstruction.

R: You want to vote for the Party that established our National Parks.
Me: And gave the land away to oil barons and mining interests over the last 30 years.

R: You want to vote for the Party that finally got us out of Vietnam.
Me: By cutting and running? Or by not learning from this past mistake to make a worse one in Iraq in 2003. Those that do not know history are doomed to force the rest of us to repeat it.

R:You want to vote for the Party that sent troops to the southern states to enforce integration in education.
Me: see above - letting the bastards that turned dogs loose on blacks into the Repug party. That great bastion of racial tolerance Jesse Helms (I hope you are enjoying hell - good riddance).

R:You want to vote for the Party that stopped North Korea’s aggression.
Me: when did it stop? after you let them get nukes?

R: You want to vote for the Part that re-established diplomacy with China.
Me: so they can buy our country, steal our jobs and send us cheap plastic crap?

R: You want to vote for the party that gives you your own money back to you so you can spend it how you see fit.
Me: by borrowing it from your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren so we can have this quagmire in Iraq

R: You want to vote for the party that established the largest wildlife refuge in the Pacific.
Me: and are allowing global warming that will ensure that there will be no humans left thus creating the whole earth as a protected wildlife refuge (though cockroaches will be the only thing left to enjoy it).

R: You want to vote for the Party that has given the most money ever to help Africa combat AIDS.
Me: and tied it to worst method of reducing AIDS that has ben concieved: abstainence only

R: You want to vote for the Party that had the first Male African American Secretary of State.
Me: who was fired because he was the only reasonable thinking person in the administration.

R: You want to vote for the Party that has the first Female African American Secretary of State.
Me: who is a lying sack of feces - doesn’t have a shred of credibiltiy - and let 9-11 happen (“who could have imagined that anyone would fly planes into buildings”)

R: You want to vote for the Party that reunited the Union.
Me: and is doing their best to rip it apart - using lame issues like gay marraige and flag burning and the like to drive a wedge between Americans.

R: You want to vote for the Party that ended the Cold War.
Me: at least took all the credit for ending the cold war - left us with a ridiculous deficit and the military industrial complex running foriegn policy and started a hot war in Iraq that is already lost - hey at least they’re batting .500 1 win (cold war) 1 loss (war on Iraq & terror).

I can’t believe the party of Jesse “where’s my hood” Helms, Trent “I’m with Jesse Helms” Lott, and George “Macaca” Allen still tries to pull that “Party of Lincoln” shit - weak, weak, weak!

Posted by: tcsned at November 6, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #193651

Thanks all for comments. I see many excellent reasons here to vote Republican. I think I like Philippe Houdoin’s reason best of all. He wrote:

#33 because you hope this time every voting machine will be “tuned” to switch every vote for democrats into a vote for republicans. And vice versa. ;-)

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 6, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #193652

joebagodonuts,
It is true that Karl Rove probably has mindmelded me. That must be why I am feeling so evil and so smart.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 6, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #193660

Ray: Great post!

Another good reason to vote Republican: A psychiatrist will note your delusions, your utter disconnect from reality, and your keen sexual interest in children and, then, prescribe some really powerful “happy” pills for you.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at November 6, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #193668

TCSNED,
BEAUTIFULLY STATED! COULDN’T HAVE RESPONDED BETTER MYSELF, EXCEPT FOR THE LAST ONE. THE REPUBLICANS TOOK CREDIT FOR WINNING THE COLD WAR BUT AMERICA ONLY WON IT BY DEFAULT. THE USSR IMPLODED UPON ITS OWN CORRUPTION, MISCONSTRUED POLICIES, EXPLODING MILITARY BUDGETS, ALONG WITH MASSIVE NATIONAL ALCOHOLISM (70% OF ALL ADULT MALES ARE “ALKIES”). BUT COME TO THINK OF IT, CORRUPTION,RIDICULOUS POLICIES, BLOATED MILITARY SPENDING AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE ARE BECOMING OUR TRADEMARKS MORE AND MORE EACH DAY. WONDER WHOSE GOING TO TAKE CREDIT FOR OUR COLLAPSE? CHINA? IRAN/ARAB WORLD? LIKE YOU SAID MY FRIEND, “THOSE WHO DON’T LEARN FROM HISTORY…”
HAWAIIAN DON

Posted by: HAWAIIAN DON at November 6, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #193691

Warren

Why should they let the Palistinians vote? They are not citizens. Israel never invaded Gaza and the West Bank. They were attacked and defended themselves. Did you miss the news last year, THEY PULLED OUT OF GAZA. Yet the rockets kept coming.

If the Palestinians wanted peace with ther neighbor they would have had it years ago.
Posted by: Keith at November 6, 2006 01:33 PM

Keith, the Israelis have been building illegal settlements in the West Bank since 1968. They have effectively been annexing Palestinian land even since, most recently by building a so called security wall. From today’s Irish Times ” David Grossman, one of Israels most admired authors…….appeared in public for the first time since the death of his son in the Lebanon war to deliver an impassioned speech criticising the government for “hollow” leadership and for failing to negotiate with the Palestinians……..Mr Grossman told the crowd “the deaths of young people are a terrible, screaming waste, but no less terrible is the feeling that, for many years, the state of Israel is wasting not only the lives of her sons, but also the miracle (of the creation of the state),the opportunity to create an enlightened adn democratic nation here.” The crisis facing Israel was “much deeper than we feared, in every respect,” he added. “There is a feeling that there is no King in Israel. The military political leadership is hollow.” Mr Grossman said the government had been quick to go to war in Lebanon this year, but show to respond to any opportunities for talks with its opponents or to find a solution to the Palestinian conflict.

“Any logical person in Israel or Palestine knows today the lines of a possible settlement of the conflict between the two people” he said. “Talk to the Palestinian people, talk to the sorrow and the deep wounds they have. Acknowledge their deep suffering. Doing so will in no way diminish your or Israel’s position.” - Rory Mc Carthy (Guardian Service)

That Keith, from a man who lost his son in the service of Israel. I’d say he has a lot more at stake than you, heckling your predjudice and propaganda from a very safe place. No matter how hard the apologists for Israeli injustice try to hide this evil, it cannot be glossed over. And one day, justice must be done. This evil had fuelled much hatred and given us the legacy of much conflict and insecurity in our world today.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 6, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #193696

Andre Hernandez, Adrienne, and tcsned, you all three ROCK!!

Posted by: ray at November 6, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #193697

Paul

You are under the mistaken assumption that the settlements in the West Bank are illegal. There is no grounds for that. The area is disputed territory. Not occupied territory.

Not been negotiating with the Palenstians! What do you think they have been doing for 40 years.

The nPalenstinians want to WIPE OUT Israel. So what do you want them to do?

Posted by: Keith at November 6, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #193702

No grounds Keith eh? How about the fourth Geneva Convention?
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5FLDPJ

12. The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to refrain from perpetrating any violation of the Convention. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof. They recall the need to safeguard and guarantee the rights and access of all in-habitants to the Holy Places.

The above extract from the fourth Geneva Convention, as per the link provided for your education Keith. If you want to join the debate, get your facts straight.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 6, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #193719

I think that Dr. Poshek now has the best reason to vote Republican. He wrote:

Another good reason to vote Republican: A psychiatrist will note your delusions, your utter disconnect from reality, and your keen sexual interest in children and, then, prescribe some really powerful “happy” pills for you.

Keith,

“disputed territory” ??? Please.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 6, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #193720

International Humanitarian Law in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
International humanitarian law prohibits the forcible transfer of segments of the population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied as a result of the resort to armed force. This principle, which is reflected in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, was drafted immediately following the Second World War. As International Red Cross’ authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, the principle was intended to protect the local population from displacement, including endangering its separate existence as a race, as occurred with respect to the forced population transfers in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary before and during the war. This is clearly not the case with regard to the West Bank and Gaza.

The attempt to present Israeli settlements as a violation of this principle is clearly untenable. As Professor Eugene Rostow, former Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs has written: “the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there” (AJIL, 1990, vol. 84, p.72).

The provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding forced population transfer to occupied sovereign territory cannot be viewed as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been ousted. Nor does it prohibit the movement of individuals to land which was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and which is not subject to private ownership. In this regard, Israeli settlements have been established only after an exhaustive investigation process, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel, designed to ensure that no communities are established on private Arab land.

It should be emphasised that the movement of individuals to the territory is entirely voluntary, while the settlements themselves are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice.

Repeated charges regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements must therefore be regarded as politically motivated, without foundation in international law. Similarly, as Israeli settlements cannot be considered illegal, they cannot constitute a “grave violation” of the Geneva Convention, and hence any claim that they constitute a “war crime” is without any legal basis. Such political charges cannot justify in any way Palestinian acts of terrorism and violence against innocent Israelis.

Politically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory based not only on its historic and religious connection to the land, and its recognized security needs, but also on the fact that the territory was not under the sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli control in a war of self-defense, imposed upon Israel. At the same time, Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain legitimate claims to the area. Indeed, the very fact that the parties have agreed to conduct negotiations on settlements indicated that they envisage a compromise on this issue.

Posted by: Keith at November 6, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #193722

Ray

Here’s some more for you.

MYTH

“Israel ‘occupies’ the West Bank.”

FACT

In politics words matter and, unfortunately, the misuse of words applying to the Arab-Israeli conflict has shaped perceptions to Israel’s disadvantage. As in the case of the term “West Bank,” the word “occupation” has been hijacked by those who wish to paint Israel in the harshest possible light. It also gives apologists a way to try to explain away terrorism as “resistance to occupation,” as if the women and children killed by suicide bombers in buses, pizzerias, and shopping malls were responsible for the plight of the Arabs. Given the negative connotation of an “occupier,” it is not surprising that Arab spokespersons use the word, or some variation, as many times as possible when interviewed by the press. The more accurate description of the territories in Judea and Samaria is “disputed” territories.

In fact, most other disputed territories around the world are not referred to as being occupied by the party that controls them. This is true, for example, of the hotly contested region of Kashmir.13

Occupation typically refers to foreign control of an area that was under the previous sovereignty of another state. In the case of the West Bank, there was no legitimate sovereign because the territory had been illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Only two countries — Britain and Pakistan — recognized Jordan’s action. The Palestinians never demanded an end to Jordanian occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state.

It is also important to distinguish the acquisition of territory in a war of conquest as opposed to a war of self-defense. A nation that attacks another and then retains the territory it conquers is an occupier. One that gains territory in the course of defending itself is not in the same category. And this is the situation with Israel, which specifically told King Hussein that if Jordan stayed out of the 1967 war, Israel would not fight against him. Hussein ignored the warning and attacked Israel. While fending off the assault and driving out the invading Jordanian troops, Israel came to control the West Bank.

By rejecting Arab demands that Israel be required to withdraw from all the territories won in 1967, the UN Security Council, in Resolution 242, acknowledged that Israel was entitled to claim at least part of these lands for new defensible borders.

Since Oslo, the case for tagging Israel as an occupying power has been further weakened by the fact that Israel transferred virtually all civilian authority to the Palestinian Authority. Israel retained the power to control its own external security and that of its citizens, but 98 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza came under the PA’s authority. The extent to which Israel has been forced to maintain a military presence in the territories has been governed by the Palestinians’ unwillingness to end violence against Israel. The best way to end the dispute over the territories is for the Palestinians to fulfill their obligations under the Oslo agreements, reform the Palestinian Authority, stop the terror and negotiate a final settlement.

Posted by: Keith at November 6, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #193724

3. Taking into account art. 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and bearing in mind the United Nations’ General Assembly Resolution ES-10/7, the participating High Contracting Parties reaffirm the applicability of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and reiterate the need for full respect for the provisions of the said Convention in that Territory. Through the present Declaration, they recall in particular the respective obligations under the Convention of all High Contracting Parties (para 4-7), of the parties to the conflict (para 8-11) and of the State of Israel as the Occupying Power (para 12-15).

“It also prohibits the transfer of parts of the Occupying Power’s civilian population into the occupied territory, forcible transfer or deportation of protected persons from the occupied territory, and destruction of real or personal property, except when such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”

All above from;
Annexe 2 - Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention: statement by the International Committee of the Red Cross

Geneva, 5 December 2001

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5FLDPJ

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 6, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #193730

Paul

Do read anything anybody else posts or just keep posting the same thing?

Posted by: Keith at November 6, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #193731

Israel has no right to be in the West Bank. Israeli settlements are illegal.”

FACT

Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria — the West Bank — since ancient times. The only time Jews have been prohibited from living in the territories in recent decades was during Jordan’s rule from 1948 to 1967. This prohibition was contrary to the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations, which provided for the establishment of a Jewish state, and specifically encouraged “close settlement by Jews on the land,” which included Judea and Samaria.

Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are “illegal.” Stephen Schwebel, formerly President of the International Court of Justice, notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.1

According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution, Rostow noted, “allows Israel to administer the territories” it won in 1967 “until ‘’a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’’ is achieved.”2

MYTH

Posted by: Keith at November 6, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #193780

Palestine is an occupied country, after achieving independence in 1948 it was occupied by Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Syria. In 1967 Israel waged a pre-emptive war against Egypt. Because their ally was attacked, Syriq, Jordan and other nations counter-attacked Israel, but unfortunately Israel’s counter-counter-attack was successul and all of Palestine came into Israeli control.

Posted by: Warren P at November 7, 2006 7:51 AM
Comment #193793

Keith,

I have to go work the election so I will just take umbridge with one phrase for now. You wrote: “won in 1967” - you mean conquered in 1967.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 7, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #193801

TCSNED:

What about Senator Robert Byrd? Democrat, former member of the Clan and voted against the Civil Rights Act, as well as other things.

Posted by: RedStapler at November 7, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #193804

SO THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION HAS MORPHED INTO ANOTHER ISRAELI/PALESTIANIAN DEBATE.HOW ABOUT A SOLUTION. SINCE THE USA AND ISRAEL ARE SO DEEPLY IN BED WITH EACH OTHER, AND ISRAEL IS SUCH A SORE SPOT(FOR THE ARABS), JUST FESTERING AWAY ON THE CUSP OF THE ARAB WORLD; AND THE ARABS ARE CONSTANTLY THREATING OUR AND ISRAELS MUTUAL DESTRUCTION, I PROPOSE THIS SOLUTION…

WE EXPROPRIATE THE STATE OF WYOMING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY PURPOSES AND OFFER IT TO RELOCATE ALL THE RESIDENTS OF ISRAEL. WE TURN OVER THE HOLY SHRINES TO INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CONTROL, ALLOWING THE PALESTINIANS TO MAINTAIN THE SITES AND DO BUSINESS THERE, CREATING EXCELLENT JOB OPPORTUNITIES VIA INT’L TOURISM AND GUARANTEEING FREEDOM OF WORSHIP FOR ALL BY INT’L SECURITY FORCES. THE TRANSPLANTED JEWS DON’T HAVE TO BUILD THEIR PROMISED LAND IN THE DESERT, BECAUSE ITS ALREADY THERE, SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY THEIR BEST FRIEND IN THE WORLD. THEY CAN RECREATE THIER OWN SOVEREIGN COUNTRY WITH PERMANENT SECURTY, AS LONG AS AMERICA STAYS INTACT. AS TO THE FORMER WYOMING RESIDENTS, THEY’LL HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, THAT LIVING IN AN AMERICA THAT HAS NEW YORK, L.A., CHICAGO AND PERHAPS OTHER CITIES TORCHED BY SOME SICK FANATICS, WILL NOT BE A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THEIR HOLDING ON TO THEIR BELOVED HOMESTEADS. AS TO THE JEWISH CLERICS, PRETTY MUCH THE SAME GOES FOR THEM. THEY WON’T CARE FOR THEMSEVELVES BEING TORCHED ALONG WITH THEIR BELOVED ISRAEL, SO EVENTUALLY THEY’LL HAVE TO MOVE OR PROBABALY DIE. THIS WOULD BE A DIFFUCLT TRANSITION, BUT THE ALTERNATIVES ARE SO MUCH MORE HORRIFIC THAT THIS COMPROMISE WILL HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED BY ALL. NOW SHOULD THE NUT CASES STILL PERSUE THEIR VICIOUS DEEDS AGAINST THE NEWLY REDESINGNED AND HEAVILY DEFENDED NORTH AMERICA, THEN I GUESS THEY’LL HAVE TO CONSIDER LIVING WITHOUT THEIR HOLY SITES…MECCA,QOM, ETC

Posted by: HAWAIIAN DON at November 7, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #193808

Hawaiian Don

You do realize that except for the dome of the rock, there are no holy Islamic sights in Jerusalem?

Posted by: Keith at November 7, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #193809

Don Ho

I missed the part about Jewish Clerics. This just shows that you don;t know a whole lot about Israel or the Jews. Israel is probably one of the most secular countries in the middle east if not the world. And Judaism does not have a clerical hierarchy.

Posted by: Keith at November 7, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #193814

Keith,

I appreciate your contribution to the debate. You wrote:

In the case of the West Bank, there was no legitimate sovereign because the territory had been illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Only two countries, Britain and Pakistan, recognized Jordan’s action. The Palestinians never demanded an end to Jordanian occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state.
The fact that the Palestinians accepted Jordanian rule means in principal and practice that the West Bank was under sovereign Jordanian control. I accept that Israel had and has a legitimate self defense need to occupy the West Bank and Gaza. West Bank and Gaza were outside of the internationally recognised borders that were established for Israel so it is certain that the West Bank and Gaza did not belong to Israel, which means that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied territories - period. Occupying a territory for military and strategic reasons does not grant the internationally recognised right to plant your flag and build settlements. When you build settlements in occupied territory then the occupation becomes a de facto illegal conquest, which it is quite proper to resist.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 7, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #193830

What’s the point Ray, he’s not listening and his mind is closed. That or he’s a determined propagandist who is not really interested in the truth, but in hiding it.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 7, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #193841

YO KEITH, THEN WHO ARE THE MYRAIDS OF CATS AT THE THE WAILING WALL WEARING BLACK,HOLDING THEIR BOOKS, SUPPLICATING WITH PAYSIH (CURLY LOCKS OF HAIR)SWINGING? I’M USING CLERIC IN A GENERIC SENSE, MY FRIEND. THIS IS ONLY A DISCUSSION, NOT A TREATISE MEANT FOR DISSECTION.WE ALL KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF GUYS LIKE YOU WHO KNOW THEIR HISTORY INSIDE AND OUT. HOWEVER, IT’S THAT VERY HISTORY THAT’S GOTTEN US INTO THIS MESS AND IT’S OUR ARGUING OVER SEMANTICS THAT STULTIFIES ORIGINAL IDEAS AND SOLUTIONS. I’M JUST THROWING SOMETHING NEW OUT THERE FOR DISCUSSION. RADICAL YES, BUT ORIGINAL. HOW ABOUT SOME FORWARD ORIGINAL THINKNG ON YOUR PART… OR DID I SAY OR SPELL SOMETHING WRONG AGAIN?

Posted by: HAWAIIAN DON at November 7, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #193842

Red -

I am not defending Byrd - though I believe he apologized for his earlier poor civil rights record and mended his ways. Even if he has changed the way he has voted I would doubt that he has really changed his heart on race issues. I can’t believe that he is still running for another term - I don’t think he’ll be around for the next 6 years. West Virginia hasn’t had an honest election since they seceded from Virginia in the 1860s. I don’t think anyone associated with the Klan should be allowed to serve this country including Robert Byrd. You are correct for pointing out this example on the blue side of the aisle. The HOR and the Senate are full of old, rich, white men on both sides and plenty of bigots on both sides. I do think that, on balance, the GOP has more race problems than the Dems have since LBJ cut the southern racists loose in 1964. However, it is true that Goldwater courted the racist wing of the Dem party after the Civil Rights act.

Posted by: tcsned at November 7, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #193854

Hawaiian Don:
How about bringing all the Mexicans to the U.S. as that is their dream. Then send Israel to Mexico, that way the Ariabs are rid of the Jews, The Jews have their own country, and the Mexicans are in the U.S. That way Everyone should be HAPPY and we won’t have to put a fence up on the border then.
Just a thought.
Papioscar

Posted by: Papioscar at November 7, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #193856

DEAR PAPIOSCAR, THAT’S WHAT I LIKE A NOVEL IDEA! EXCEPT THAT THE JEWS HAVE DONE ENOUGH NATION BUILDING IN THE DESERT AND I DON’T THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE TO DO THAT AGAIN. YEAH I KNOW EVERY MEXICAN WILL BLOG ME ABOUT WHAT A GREAT NATION MEXICO IS…BUT THEY’LL BE TYPING ON THEIR COMPUTERS IN SANTA ANA CALIF.!!!

Posted by: HAWAIIAN DON at November 7, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #193932

Will someone please explain to Hawaiian Don how to release the Caps Lock key?

Posted by: Six at November 8, 2006 7:37 AM
Comment #193963

DEAR SIX,
CREATIVE LICENSE!

Posted by: HAWAIIAN DO at November 8, 2006 9:47 AM
Comment #193985

Hawaiian Don - where do I register for a creative license - is there a test? :)

Posted by: tcsned at November 8, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #194114

DEAR TCSNED,
GOOD NEWS/ BAD NEWS. GOOD NEWS, THERE’S NO TEST. BAD NEWS, YOU’VE GOT TO GO TO THE DEPT. OF LAZYA** KEYBOARDERS, OFFICE OF THOSE WHO DON’T GIVE A HOOT,KAILUA-KONA ON THE BIG ISLE AND REGISTER THERE. I GOT THERE EARLY AND CLAIMED EXCLUSIVITY TO THE “CAPS ONLY” LICENSE.
SORRY GANG,
HAWAIIAN DON

Posted by: hawaiian don at November 8, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #194268

Darn, then I’ll have to put on my slippahs hop on a plane and fly to the Big Isle and register - I think

I’ll take itallics :)

give me a chance to visit some friends, have some Lava Java, and a great beakfast at Huggo’s on the Rocks!!!

Posted by: tcsned at November 9, 2006 12:16 PM
Post a comment