Are you, or is anyone in the international community aware that the clauses in the "San Jose Accord" violate the Honduran constitution? How can anyone promote such an accord? Would any country allow any international judgement violate its own constitution, if so where would the laws and protections it provides to its citizens stand? Even if you don't agree with what is happening in Honduras it is your duty as responsible newscasters to at least report that one of the major faults with this accord is its blatant violation of the Honduras' constitution and thus the interim government cannot support it without violating the constitution itself. The interim government position is not one of stubbornness but a position of defense of the national constitution.

Good news coverage – concise but enlightened. Thanks

American pressure to stop building new settlements?

are you joking?

america is still paying the settlements with weapons and money whyle americans it self have to suffer without work and money

I would be interested to know the factors in President Obama's sudden turnaround in regards to the settlement freeze in Gaza? It seemed to be quite a quick and unexpected change of heart. On the topic of Manuel Zelaya, I don't think it's the best idea to cut power, water and phone lines to the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa. Surely the Hondurans and Brazilians could try and solve this problem together instead of the two nations at loggerheads?

There are no laws that Israel is defying by building within existing settlements and if she were building new settlements, which she is not, she would still not be breaking any "laws".

The international concensus that they are illegal is based on a distortion of the law for political purposes.

No new settlements have been built by Israel for a number of years and any outposts that have been built are illegal under Israeli law and are dealt with accordingly.

The US administration admits that it was mistaken to demand Israel freeze settlement activity and it is irresponsible for you to refer to Israel as defying law and the US when she is prepared to negotiate all issues with those who are prepared to recognize Israel's right to exist as the homeland for the Jewish people.

Many speeches have been mentioned at the UN General Assembly. Some leaders have spoken several years in a row (including the US President), but obviously many have never given a speech. Does anyone know what determines if a leader gets to speak? I would think most politicians would want that stage and would request it, but clearly that is not what happens. Thoughts?

The world should know that American ways of doing business is not always the same as it is in this case, PR relations to the UN by President Obama is a stant. It is not on the world intrest to continue to sell military equipment to for example to Israel and at the same time telling the world to stop doing what they doing.

Conflict in the world will never stop unless President Obama clamp down on illegal military sales to warlords in Afghanistan who channel the equipment back to the Taliban to fight, and to give a reason for NATO and US to stay on.

Ghadafi is critical on US and Europian union of cheap deals to world while the world is in need of FOOD.

I thought the speech of Ghadaffi was fantastic!

He is the only one who can say the truth out loud.

The UN doesn't work, didn't stop any wars, constantly used by the super powers to mainipulate the smaller nations.
I actually find the idea of moving the UN a good one, the US has tons of "security issues" with visas and stuff, so why bother host an international organization where leaders have to fly from all over, apply for visas, and citizens of NY would probably be relieved too!

Libya has paid victims of attacks compensations, and they r still called terrorists. What about the US? when will it pay to the citizens of all the countries it had intervened in? Vietnam? Japan? Chile? Panama? Iraq? Aghanistan?

Look in the mirror people!

I'm appalled at the world governments' condemnation of Honduras' struggle for democracy. Everyone knows Chavez is funding Zelaya's movement. Their goal is to have the November elections cancelled because of a "crisis", for which Zelaya had to come back and stir things up. The UN was full of Presidents asking for the reinstatement of Zelaya, obviously fearing the same for themselves, without considering the constant violations of the constitution by the former president. Human rights? They are being violated by Zelaya's followers, who have attacked police, raided supermarkets, burned cars, and attacked citizens, among many others. President Micheletti has an amazing team of honest Hondurans, who have tried to explain what really happened. If Zelaya had remained in office for one more day, Honduras today would be ruled by a dictator and congress would have been abolished. After what we are seeing, neither the OAS, the UN or any country would have helped us. Today, we have democracy and constitutionality, so we are much better off than we would have been.

Gaddafi spoke the truth, the people who talk about illegal immigration fail to realize the youth of Asia, Africa, Latin America are just returning back to the colonial masters to bring back what was once their forefathers.

Hala
Your statement that "Israel continues to defy laws to stop building new settlements in the occupied West Bank" is misleading and playing the Arabs propaganda card.

Based on the international low and moral justness the Israeli settlements are legal
.**********
Read the following facts

The media with the enormous impact on masses should report the troughs/

1: International law is very clear.
The legal disposition of territories conquered in a defensive war can be determined only by a peace treaty between the belligerents.

Israel is the victim of Arab aggressions

If such a peace treaty is absent, the continued sovereignty and economic activities of the victim of aggression over its newly won territories is completely legal as long as such activity does not unfavorably prejudice the indigenous inhabitants.

2: Moral Justness
Israel was the only local sovereign state on this land during the last 3000years.
Jews unchanged culture for consecutively 3500 years is rooted in Israel.
Jews leaved in this land continually for 3500 years.
Only China and India share with Israel such a cultural continuity
The land known today as Israel, Jordan and the West Bank has been recognized as Jews homeland by the League of Nations in 1920.
Jews was entitled to live over all this land.
Israel was painfully ready to accept an independent state on only 15% of this land in 1947 and 1967.
But the Arabs didn't agree to their 85% of land.
They wanted (and still want) no Jews and the all land.
Arabs are denying the rights of Jews for 1 small state leaving peacefully with 22 Arab states governing territories 600 times larger than Israel.
Jordan conquered the west bank during while attacking the fragile Israel state in 1948.
The international border between the British mandate and Jordan includes the West Bank.
Judea and Samaria are disputed territories and their future will be decided by negotiation.

3:The 242 resolution and 1967 border:
Israel would be required to withdraw its armed forces only

"FROM TERRITIRIES – NOT FROM ALL THE TERRITORIES—

Following Arabs attempted to destroy Israel in 1967 According to Security Council Resolution 242 (superseding Resolution 181 from 1947), Israel was permitted to administer the land until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" was achieved. Even then, Israel would be required to withdraw its armed forces only
"FROM TERRITIRIES – NOT FROM ALL THE TERRITORIES—
that it administered