Israel rules Pollard not prisoner of Zion

Science Daily ^ | January 16, 2006

[Howlin]

JERUSALEM, Jan. 16 (UPI) -- Israel's high court ruled Monday against convicted spy Jonathan Pollard's request to be deemed a prisoner of Zion and repatriated from the United States.

Pollard, a civilian U.S. Naval intelligence analyst pleaded guilty to espionage on June 4, 1986, and received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled.

He was granted Israeli citizenship in 1996 after Israel recognized his status as a spy and pledged to fund his legal expenses, the Jerusalem Post reported.

However, in court the government argued that Pollard cannot be granted the status because Zionist organizations and activities are not banned under U.S. law.

Pollard's wife, Esther, told Army Radio she found it "unbelievable" that Israel would work to release killers in other countries but let Pollard stay in prison.

[Johnnyboy2000]

"You will eventually give up both of your kinds of "optimistic scenario," because we (several nations) are not going to let that happen."

I don't believe "the powers that be in America are concerned with the survival of a Jewish State. The njust want stability so that America can do business in that region. The Arab world is a market that is waiting to be opened to American business. It is an emerging market, that is not emerging as fast as we would like because of the conflicts in the region including ths conflict. Young people in Saudi, Jordan, and Iran listen to raock music and hip hop from America, and watch American movies. Imagine what you would think as a teenager in these countries where dating is outlawed. They hate these governments. If we can reach out to these communities in creative ways, they will do our work for us to democratize the region and bring it out of the Dark Ages.

[Johnnyboy2000]

The United States of America has three goals in its foreign affairs.

1)Defend the US from foreign enemies.

2)Open new markets, and protect existing ones so that the US economy can continue to grow and prosper.

3)Premote represntative government and human rights around the world

These are listed in order of importance.

[familyop]

Don't try to feed me that crap in a discussion about defense. I've pledged oaths for various duties to defend our country, its allies, states and to protect in cities.

If you want to learn something about the situation with Iran, read the following.

A carnival of Iran absurdities
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1560516/posts

[familyop]

"I don't believe "the powers that be in America are concerned with the survival of a Jewish State."

Maybe you're in a Democrat state.

If so, beyond our obligation to our allies, try reading our 2004 Republican Party Platform (search phrase). Bear in mind, the way things are going in Gaza. The EU recently stopped funding to the PA (FR post). The World Bank is not yet giving its part to the Palestinians. And if Hamas wins in elections, the USA must stop funding (law). Why give money to terrorists (including Fatah) for weapons?

[rcocean]

When did you have to take an oath 'as an American citizen' to defend a foreign country?

Sounds unusual.

[familyop]

"When did you have to take an oath 'as an American citizen' to defend a foreign country?
Sounds unusual."

...good. [grin] See the excerpts.

"...do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. . ."

Find the word, "treaties" (with alliances in mind) in the following.

U.S. Constitution, Article II

Then return to "orders" in the Oath.

Here's a note of caution, though. If liberaltarians/loserdopians look at that document, they tend to feel a burning sensation in their skins, begin to lose consciousness, and only recall of a few words from it.

[familyop]

On a topic related to a reason behind the post above and the thread, here are some interesting and important excerpts from Article I.

"Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit;. . .No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war,. . ."

Only the worst of losers try to violate that.

[Johnnyboy2000]

""...do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. . ."

Find the word, "treaties" (with alliances in mind) in the following.

U.S. Constitution, Article II

Then return to "orders" in the Oath."

You are on shaky ground. Nothing in Article II (or in The Constitution as a whole)says anything about taking oaths to defend other nations. It says the President can make treaties with the advice of congress. I am also not aware of any treaty that binds the US to to go to war for Israel. If there is one it should be need Israel to protect us from anything.

You have also implied several times that Israel is some type of buffer between the West and Islamist terrorism. If this is true why did 3,000 Americans die on 9/11? Why have hundreds of Spanish citizens been killed in terror attacks? Why was the British subway atacked? A small nation the size of New Jersey with 6 million people is not a buffer between Islam in the West. Israel's existence does not make the US any safer. The argument that it does is a fallacious. Have 3,000 Israelis been killed in a single terrorist attack?

[Johnnyboy2000]

"Maybe you're in a Democrat state.

If so, beyond our obligation to our allies, try reading our 2004 Republican Party Platform (search phrase). Bear in mind, the way things are going in Gaza. The EU recently stopped funding to the PA (FR post). The World Bank is not yet giving its part to the Palestinians. And if Hamas wins in elections, the USA must stop funding (law). Why give money to terrorists (including Fatah) for weapons?"


The Republican Party is just like the Democratic Party in the sense that its leaders will always say what sounds good in order to appeal to its base. The people who really run this country know that the survival of any one nation has little to do with the interests of the US. Many people n America and our government share your emotional attachment to Israel, but that is all it is, emotional. It is not rooted in any real need for that country to exist. It really makes littled differenc to long term US interests. The US has a lot more riding on the existence of friendly oil and petroleum producing states than it does on the existence of Israel. They have nothing to brng to the table that we need. That country is the only one in the region that doesn't produce oil or anything else of value.

[familyop]

"You have also implied several times that Israel is some type of buffer between the West and Islamist terrorism."

..."implied" in what ways?

"If this is true why did 3,000 Americans die on 9/11?"

...because elements in quite a few Arab nations seek to kill or convert every individual of the rest of the world to Islam.

"Why have hundreds of Spanish citizens been killed in terror attacks?"

...because elements in quite a few Arab nations seek to kill or convert every individual of the rest of the world to Islam.

"Why was the British subway atacked?"

...because elements in quite a few Arab nations--roughly 80 million of them by one estimate--seek to kill or convert every individual of the rest of the world to Islam.

"A small nation the size of New Jersey with 6 million people is not a buffer between Islam in the West."

Terrorists and their sympathizers are so evil, that they believe that to be a good argument against the existance of Israel. Germans before and during WWII were also culturally set against "sentimentality" and believed that bullying and cowardice was strength. Your argument is fallacious, in that it's the effort ratio to the population number that counts. Those 6,000,000 people have destroyed and other punished quite a few terrorists, given their small tax base and military--terrorists who also seek to conquer western Europe, the USA and the rest of the world.

"Israel's existence does not make the US any safer. The argument that it does is a fallacious."

No, your argument against the existance of Israel is dishonest and is a fallacy. First, Israel is now fighting Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other organizations recognized by the USA as terrorist organizations. ...and then some.

"Have 3,000 Israelis been killed in a single terrorist attack?"

Far more of them have died by Islamist terrorist attacks than have our own people or the people of our other allies--many of them children. But by much of what you've written in this thread so far, we see that and your affinity for a culture that cheers at the assassinations of groups of children and publicized beheadings of our fellow citizens.

[familyop]

"Many people n America and our government share your emotional attachment to Israel, but that is all it is, emotional. It is not rooted in any real need for that country to exist. It really makes littled differenc to long term US interests. The US has a lot more riding on the existence of friendly oil and petroleum producing states than it does on the existence of Israel."

That's a statement of support for our declared enemies and against the existance of a friendly country--something you denied earlier in the thread. It's obvious by some of your previous statements in the thread that you aren't being honest in mentioning "friendly oil...producing states." There's nothing friendly about some of the terrorist regimes you've stated sympathy with so far.

"They have nothing to brng to the table that we need. That country is the only one in the region that doesn't produce oil or anything else of value."

The terrorist Arab countries would attack us with or without Israel's existance. Oil/money are not our most significant motivations for going to war or declining to do so. You obviously don't have a high regard for our USA.

You'll have a much more difficult time arguing for the existance of Islam. About the only way to keep Islam from being utterly destroyed will be to talk yourselves out of any and all noticable hatred and antagonism against Jews, Christians, Hindus and others.

[familyop]

As for "oil," we're not very far away from killing every semi-human roach in Iran that opposes the existance of Israel or any other good country.

Those who will be allowed to live will get along with us just fine. Then we'll move to the next Palestinian-supporting terrorist regime, and so on, until we finally arrive at re-situating and reeducating the terrorist culture that, in part, now resides in Gaza. In a decade or two (unless we see an opportunity to nuke the world's trash sooner), the "Arab world" will be as compliant and docile as became other groups that we once denazified.

[familyop]

Johnnyboy2000, how do you expect us to regard supporters of terrorism?

[familyop]

Of course 4 out of 5 people in the USA support Israel. The reasons are obvious.

[Johnnyboy2000]

"Of course 4 out of 5 people in the USA support Israel."

Everyone who pays taxes in the US supports Israel.

[Slings and Arrows]

What you are talking about is called "appeasement." There are also several uglier words for it.

Throw your friends to the wolves, and you'll run out of friends before you run out of wolves.

[Admin Moderator]

Wrong site bucko. Take it elsewhere.

[fallujah-nuker]

The other poster made this point by describing the demographic bomb. the only way solve that would be for Israel to commit genocide. Committing genocide to protect the purity of a race. Where have I heard that before. Although they are your enemies, you have more in common with neo-Nazis and Islamists than I do. I don't speak about entire groups of people in blanket terms and state that they have less of a right to exist than I do.

You could have had the courtesy to include the person you were quoting, a moot point since you seem to be absent now. The Islamists are not a threat to the racial purity of the Jewish people, they are a threat to the survival of the Jewish people. The Iranians do not want to marry Israeli's, they want to wipe Israel from the map, they have been crystal clear about that.

The modern day Haman who runs Iran was elected by the people of Iran, they are responsible for putting him in power. If Israel is forced to annihilate the threat then the people of Iran who placed the threat in power will merely be reaping what they themselves sowed.

The course of action you propose for Israel would rest on the assumption that they should place less value on the lives of their own population than the lives of the enemies population. Were I or my loved ones to be attacked by wolves I would shoot the wolves, I would not worry about the fate of the wolves.

[fallujah-nuker]

...The Arab world is a market that is waiting to be opened to American business. It is an emerging market, that is not emerging as fast as we would like because of the conflicts in the region including ths conflict. Young people in Saudi, Jordan, and Iran listen to raock music and hip hop from America, and watch American movies...

You blew what few shreds of credibility you had left with this one! Sacrifice the lives of our troops so that Kanye West and the Dixie Chicks can sell more albums overseas is a terrible idea.

[fallujah-nuker]

The United States of America has three goals in its foreign affairs.

1)Defend the US from foreign enemies.

2)Open new markets, and protect existing ones so that the US economy can continue to grow and prosper.

3)Premote represntative government and human rights around the world.

This is the best one yet! I love number two the best, we are running a 700 billion trade deficit and you maintain that one of our goals is to protect existing markets.