it's disingenuous to claim "Israeli Apartheid" without acknowledging the twenty-plus arab/muslim states that currently don't allow Jews to live, vote, work, and practice their faith without discrimination, or fear.

Perhaps all the Jews who fled, were killed, or were driven out of these countries will be welcomed back with open arms if Israel became a single state - but somehow I seriously doubt it.

So you're saying that a 2-state solution is practically (strange word to choose considering your entire perspective) ethnically cleansed (synonymous with "Dead" nowadays).

and then you're saying that the dead should return to israel.
a...ha.

Would it mean the end of israeli jewish people? Probably.
Do you understand the meaning of "Apartheid" or "Ethnic Cleansing"? Absolutely not.

you see the same thing anywhere you go in the third world. wholesale terror is "counter-terror", while retail terror is "terrorism".

Study: U.S. Middle East policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby

By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by the country's pro-Israel lobby, according to a study published Thursday by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Chicago.

Observers in Washington said Thursday that the study was liable to stir up a tempest and spur renewed debate about the function of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby. The Fatah office in Washington distributed the article to an extensive mailing list.

"No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical," write the authors of the study.

John J. Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago's political science department and Stephen M. Walt from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government do not present new facts. They rely mainly on an analysis of Israeli and American newspaper reports and studies, along with the findings of the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem.

The study also documents accusations that American supporters of Israel pushed the United States into war with Iraq. It lists senior Bush administration officials who supported the war and are also known to support Israel, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and David Wurmser. The authors say the influence of the pro-Israel lobby is a source of serious concern and write that it has even caused damage to Israel by preventing it from reaching a compromise with its neighbors.

Only democratic country with major muslim population is Turkey. There is separation of Religion and State. Turkish Republic doesn't have a religion attached to it. Because it doesn't discriminate among religions on government level. So there is democracy and total rejection of sharial law.

Whereas, rest of the muslim countries don't have that freedom. People are oppressed, dictated what to believe, which is Islam in this case. No religious freedom, along with lack of women rights, etc..

-Solak

like I said I am comfortable relying on the muslims organisations who challenged the use of sharia law because it is discriminitory against women.....that is fundmental flaw that goes directly against a democratic process...

Wow, it really must suck in the Middle East then ?

They have no respect for women at all. They treat dogs better.

Tell me why the national flags of many Muslim countries have swords on them – a sword is not for shaving beards, it’s only for killing.

Well, if you are happy with that. I can't imagine how you would be happy living under sharia law.
You know there is no separation of religion and state. No religious freedom and women's right non-existant under sharia law. Sauudi Arabia and Iran have those laws. Not sure about, what's living like in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc.

Modern muslims need to be majority in the Middle East. Right now, it doesn't look so good.
First and foremost, governments must be secular. Separate Religion and State. Otherwise, we are kidding ourselves with having freedom, etc.

Right now, only Turkish Republic is secular in the muslim world last time I checked. I could be wrong..

so if the women does not have the financial means to take care of an accidentally conceived child she is forced to have an abortion?.....

Bosnia- Bosnia muslim sepratist started the conflict by attmepting to break away form the Yugoslav federation. yes the serbs went way over board but the conflict started with muslim speratist.

Kosovo, Started by ethic albanian but religiously muslim sepratist.

Cyprus, invaded by Turkey in a continuation of a hellenic/ilsamic fued goign back to when the prohets armies first emerged in Arabia.

The middle east was carved up by the League of Nations (Europe) after the collapse of the ottoman Empire in WW1. Givne the Muslim hsitory of dividing conquered territory among the victors. i woudl say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

More recently ther eis nassers closing of the Suez, OPEC taking a stab and global blackmail, Ilsamic funding of sepratist inside of Russia etc

Yup but there are two type sof ignorance. Uniformed and willfull. Islamic apologist are willfully ignorant so which is worse?

Rather it was the half-hearted dissaprovals expressed by "moderate" community leaders
following the event, coupled with the outright indignation expressed by Muslims
on the same London streets where so much blood had been shed just months earlier ....
.....and over cartoons which weren't printed in a single British paper.

The major difference is the teaching that no one is assured they will get to heaven from the Quran teachings..........unless you die (blow yourself up) for your cause.....then you are assured. I don't think their commitment was taken into consderation when the US decided to take them on in battle. .

Did you know the RCMP uses lie detector machines to screen applicants, and that there are those who have been caught having 'relations' with their farm animals while they were applying to the police force in the Prairie Provinces? They don't get charged...they just aren't chosen to go to the next level.

I would suggest starting another thread to find out

Woman loses frozen embryos fight

A woman left infertile after cancer treatment cannot use her frozen embryos to have a baby, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
Natallie Evans started IVF treatment with her then partner Howard Johnston in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up.

Ms Evans went to the Strasbourg court after exhausting the UK legal process.

She now hopes to appeal to the Grand Jury of the European Court, but still wants her ex-fiancé to change his mind.

Ms Evans said: "I'm still as determined to do whatever it takes to have a child of my own."

She added: "Howard may feel it's too late for him to change his mind, but it's not."

But Mr Johnston said: "It seems that common sense has prevailed.

"The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family."

But he added: "I'm not thinking about this in terms of a victory."

Ms Evans' legal team had asked the judges to consider whether the UK law, under which the six stored embryos would be destroyed in October this year, was in breach of her human rights.

Right-to-life

In the court's judgement, decided by a panel of seven judges, said: "The Court, like the national courts, had great sympathy for the plight of the applicant who, if implantation did not take place, would be deprived of the ability to give birth to her own child."


But it was ruled, in a majority verdict that, even in such exceptional circumstances as Ms Evans', the right to a family life - enshrined in article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights - could not override Mr Johnston's withdrawal of consent.

It also ruled unanimously that the embryos did not have an independent right to life.

Cancer diagnosis

The UK's Court of Appeal and High Court had both ruled that Ms Evans, who is in her early 30s, could not use the embryos and she failed in her bid to take the case to the House of Lords.


Send us your comments
Ms Evans, from Wiltshire, underwent IVF treatment following a diagnosis of ovarian cancer in which the embryos were created and placed in storage.

She has argued that Mr Johnston, from Gloucester, had already consented to their creation, storage and use, and should not be allowed to change his mind.

Current UK laws require both the man and woman to give consent, and allow either party to withdraw that consent up to the point where the embryos are implanted.

A Department of Health spokeswoman welcomed the European Court judgment.

She said the department recognised the distress caused to Ms Evans during the legal process, and added a review of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which included the issue of the storage of embryos, was currently underway.

'Ticking clock'

Josephine Quintavalle of the pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said of the court's ruling: "It's an inevitable judgement, but a very sad one."

She said Mr Johnston had "become a father" when the embryos were created, and should have compassion for Ms Evans.

But Michael Wilks, of the BMA ethics committee: "It's the right verdict, but a terrible situation."

However Dr Wilks called for a change to the five year limit for embryos to be stored after one partner withdraws consent should be extended so there was less of a "ticking clock".

So it would be alright with everyone if they have seal farms and then gave them a lethal injection. Would that be acceptable.

I think you ar econfusign human bieng with that of a person

As a pro-lifer I feel that the zef is indeed a person and should be afforded equal protection under the law including the right to life as enshrined in the 14th even if this grants the zef temporary primacy over the mothers body.

A human being is a living organism for it's entire life cycle form creation to death. It can never be anything but a full and complete human being. Sentience is not a requirement neither is viability. The DNA code is the only qualify. A zygote is as human as you or me.

If sentience was required then newborns who are not self aware would be excluded. Their senteince develops over time as the brain matures through exposure to out side influences. Also a person in a coma is not sentient although there were at one time. Can a person will alzheimer's accurately be said to posses sentience?

If you would have read further on in my post you would ahve seen that I identified the fact tha tin soem areas of the law the zef is indeed denied personhood. However that does not change the purely scientific fac tthat it is both alive and fully human. Sentience is not required to be a human or even to be a person in many cases.

The very first cell created after the egg gets fertalised is as fully human as you are.

This is not taking snippets or cutting and pasting that's your specialty to try and razzle dazzle the readers by claiming your a paralegal. All that really means is your not good enough for law school so you hang around lawyers as a gopher.