Dual citizenship debacle- or mountain out of a molehill

There was a big stink about Diane Rehm's interview with Bernie Sanders. Maybe because she so rarely makes mistakes and is so far above other people doing this job. Maybe because she's part of the "liberal media" people love to hate. Maybe people love Bernie Sanders that much??? Well, I kind of hope it's the latter.

She did state rather than ask at around 24:20 on her show, you're a dual Israeli citizen, or something to that effect, but I was under the impression she was floating that out there with a pause for him to respond, refute, agree, disagree, etc. I would hardly call it bungling the interview, a massive oops or an accusation, as so many headlines read.

She was just moments before that "accusation" tossing him questions from Facebook, so I wasn't clear as to whether this may have been part of that or not. I also read that an intern may have grabbed the list he is said to be on of dual citizens from a comment on Facebook, so the list has spurious origins/source. True, you shouldn't take these things as fact. But, if there is a rumor that you are a dual citizen, you need to clearly state whether you are or are not and shouldn't be offended unless you have already publicly addressed it, as with the Obama birth certificate issue. If it is legal to be a dual citizen and president, then it will still beg some questions and possibly conflicts of interest. I don't think it is anti-Semitic to ask questions to clarify how this would affect his foreign policy and other positions. Another good reason why I don't think it should be offensive to ask about a dual citizenship rumor given the office he wants to run for and he is in a period of public vetting is that it is so hard to get this information from other sources (also why Diane Rehm should have been skeptical. . .). See this Counterpunch article from a guy who tried.

But now we know it is irrelevant.

So all this for nothing really.

A non issue.

Undisputably stolen land in Palestine

The last post with the mention of Avigdor Lieberman and all his racist remarks, as well as Obama's seemingly tougher stance toward Israel made me think of something else that is a no-brainer:

Should Israel be allowed to annex Palestinian land, but not give the residents citizenship?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052901018.html

"Nor is there mention of the neighboring village of Nuaman, whose lands were annexed to Jerusalem but whose residents hold Palestinian identity cards, and are therefore classified as illegal residents in their own homes."
*this quote from : http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1083089.html

This is unbelievable! People debate about whether refugees for 1948 and the various wars should be allowed back to their homes in Israel (even though this right is as valid as the creation of the state of Israel). You can debate whether the land is Palestine or Israel, which border from which war to recognize, but there can be no defense for this position in the case above. Annex their land, but don't accept them as citizens?? That's theft! No question. No way around it. But what are we going to do about that?? What do we do with governments that violate law like this? From the look of it, pay them, praise them, and continue calling the night day, of course!

Change is great, but not in this case, obviously.