Helen Thomas passes.

[Gatekeeper]

One of the few who actually asked hard questions of people in power.

Precisely.

She pissed off Republicans, Democrats and anyone else who held power and potentially abused it. That's what *good* journalists do — they ask the hard questions, the ones that might hurt somebody's feelings, the ones that, if answered honestly, help bring light to the dark places.

In the twilight of her life, she said some things that did cast a cloud over herself. Throw the first stone if you've never done anything like that in your life — I expect there will be no takers.

The death of Helen Thomas is a blow to good journalism everywhere, and folks who genuinely believe in freedom ought to be cognizant of that fact. Yes, guns, bombs and soldiers have their role in keeping you free, but so do the folks who wield pens and ask tough questions.

[Hauldren Collider]

I would vote for we just have better cultural values than other people.

QFT

[C0ckney]

No. it's not. Support for Israel in Canada is widespread and the current Canadian government in far more hardline in its support for them than the current US administration.

I think it is a combination of liking an underdog (origins of Israel) historical grievance (the Jewish people) and Israel being a functioning democracy in a desert... Other than that I don't know.

that's just not true. here are some numbers for public support, from the jpost



as you can see, canada and the US are quite far apart.

interestingly israel seems to enjoy considerable support in sub-saharan africa.

[C0ckney]

Clearly it must be zionist control of the media

that would actually make more sense than the laughable reasons you've presented thus far. you provide an excellent example of my point. despite having no connection with israel, you are prepared to embarrass yourself by posting ridiculous and obviously false justifications in its defence. why?

really though the great jewish conspiracy isn't a very attractive theory to explain america's and american's views. if zionist jews really controlled politics and public opinion in america, surely they'd have little difficulty in doing the same in other places. yet views on israel are markedly different in other countries. so again we come back to the way the issue is framed by the media, and politicians. i'm genuinely curious as to why this is.

[Wezil]

His comment about our government is true though. You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger supporter than Harper. He tries to see how far up he can stick his tongue.

[Wezil]

I'd be curious to see the numbers from a few years ago (I'm too lazy to try and find them of course) to see if they are changing.

I know I have gone from Blue to Orange on Israel in the last number of years.

[Elok]

Actually, I think there is a prohibition on settling occupied lands.

Section III. Occupied territories
Article 49 - Population transfer [hide]

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

[EDIT: snipped for length]

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal.[9] Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and communities in the Golan Heights, areas which have been annexed by Israel, are also considered settlements by the international community, which does not recognise Israel's annexations of these territories.[10] The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[11][12] The International Court of Justice[13] also says these settlements are illegal,[14][15] and no foreign government supports Israel's settlements.[16] In April 2012, UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon, in response to moves by Israel to legalise Israeli outposts, reiterated that all settlement activity is illegal, and "runs contrary to Israel's obligations under the Road Map and repeated Quartet calls for the parties to refrain from provocations."[17] Similar criticism was advanced by the EU and the US.[18][19] Israel disputes the position of the international community and the legal arguments that were used to declare the settlements illegal.[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

[Elok]

Also from Wiki's article on Israeli settlement:

According to Talia Sasson the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than 4 decades that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law.[101]

After the Six Day War, in 1967, Theodor Meron, legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry stated in a legal opinion to the Prime Minister,

"My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."[92]

International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention,[96] major organs of the United Nations,[97] the European Union, and Canada,[98] also regard the settlements as a violation of international law. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination wrote that "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law."[99] Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law.

Under "[Pro-]Legality Arguments" it lists only arguments by Israelis. See also the section on "land ownership," which is a bit bulky to quote here. The Palestinians are worse, but we shouldn't be subsidizing these blaggards.

[C0ckney]

I'd be curious to see the numbers from a few years ago (I'm too lazy to try and find them of course) to see if they are changing.

I know I have gone from Blue to Orange on Israel in the last number of years.

here are some numbers from 2007. they are very similar to the 2012 numbers.

[C0ckney]

His comment about our government is true though. You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger supporter than Harper. He tries to see how far up he can stick his tongue.

we all know that harper is an american plant.

seriously though, the kind of support, financial, diplomatic and political that america gives to israel would be hard for anyone else to match.

[Wezil]

We obviously don't have the economic power of the US but our Cons will do anything to offer political support.

This government will have official meetings with Israelis in the occupied territories. International outrage be damned.

[C0ckney]

We obviously don't have the economic power of the US but our Cons will do anything to offer political support.

This government will have official meetings with Israelis in the occupied territories. International outrage be damned.

i take your point.

why do you think the government is preapred to be so out of step with public opinion on this issue (besides the vast jewish conspiracy of course...)?

[Wezil]

The religious base loves Israel (the answer you were looking for wrt to the US support btw). Cons don't govern for Canadians, just Cons.

[Ben Kenobi]

Cons don't govern for Canadians, just Cons.

And the NDP apparently govern for everyone.

[C0ckney]

that makes sense for canada, and i suppose that israel/palestine isn't that important for most voters, so the government can afford to go against public opinion to please its base. however, i'm not so sure that it explains america. i mean, in canada you say that the support for israel is something that one party does, yet in the US both parties seem to support israel 100%. i suppose it is an important issue for some in both parties (jews for the democrats, fundamentalist christians for the republicans) and that might go so way to explaining it. i'm not sure it explains the level of support for israel among those who are neither jews or fundamentalist christians.

edit: x-post - replying to wezil.