Skip to main content

View Diary: Ask Senators For Balance In MidEast "Dear Colleague" Letter (Updated) (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac20

    On the Mufti Muhammed Amin al-Husseini's former property?

    Oy.

    .
    .
    .

    I don't know what to tell you, PP.  E. Jerusalem is contested.  I have no problem whatsoever in Israel giving up the WB and Gaza, with some land-swaps.  I don't have a problem with Israel giving up the Muslim majority areas of E. Jerusalem.

    Either way, tho, there is no reason why Jews should not be allowed to live there.

    As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

    by Karmafish on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 09:59:18 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  No west Jerusalem is contested (10+ / 0-)

      East Jerusalem is Palestinian.

      "As president I will recognize the Armenian genocide." Barack Obama

      by palestinian professor on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 10:47:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It could have been. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deaniac20

        We shall see.

        As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

        by Karmafish on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:06:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's simply factually untrue (6+ / 0-)

        First of all, the Jewish population of Jerusalem exceeded the Palestinian population of Jerusalem for at least 100 years before the 1948 war...often by a sizeable amount.  The absence of Jews from East Jerusalem following the 1948 war is because of the Jordanian occupation...it was no different from Arab villages that had their residents driven out during the 1948 war.

        Second, under the UN Partition Plan, Jerusalem, east, west, north and south, was to be an independently administered city. It was not designated to be part of Israel, and it was not designated to be part of the Palestinian state.

        Therefore, the Palestinians have no greater claim over any part of Jerusalem than the Israelis.  The facts simply do not support your assertion that "East Jerusalem is Palestinian."

        In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

        by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:12:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is my response to anyone that says that East (9+ / 0-)

          Jerusalem is disputed.

          If so, then west Jerusalem is disputed.

          "As president I will recognize the Armenian genocide." Barack Obama

          by palestinian professor on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:47:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo

          The British did a census in the 1920's that clearly showed a majority Arab population.

          •  The demographics (6+ / 0-)

            are not relevant here, in any case.

            •  Why? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Karmafish, oldskooldem

              He said it was "Palestinian." That would seem to be an argument based on demographics. It's a loser for him in any case.  First, to say it is Palestinian is an argument that is a hair's breadth away from outright bigotry -- "it is Palestinian, no non-Palestinians (or is it just no Jews) allowed!!"  Second, even if his claim is based on the fact that from 1948 to 1967, East Jerusalem had no Jews, that negates any Palestinian claim of "return." If a Palestinian village was cleared out in 1948, and no longer has Palestinian residents, then by his claim, it is now Israeli.  

              No matter how he argues it, he fails.  He can be a bigot, he can negate the Palestinian "right of return," or he can just concede that he was wrong, and that Jerusalem will be dealt with through negotiations.

              In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

              by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:40:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are really stretching here (6+ / 0-)

                trying to accuse pp of bigotry. Nowhere did he say that Jews were not allowed. Why resort to ad hominems, Paul?

                •  He said "East Jerusalem is Palestinian" (0+ / 0-)

                  What does that mean? If there are no non-Palestinians there, why not? Where they driven out? Excluded by law?  Saying "East Jerusalem is Palestinian" necessarily implies that it is not anything else, be that Jewish, Israeli, etc. That's language of exclusion -- it is OURS, not THEIRS.  Pursuing that line of argument will lead him down the path to bigotry, and I don't think he wants to go there. I'm giving him an out, if he chooses to take it.

                  In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                  by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 10:16:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So, (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    capelza, heathlander, Aunt Martha

                    are Israelis being exclusionary when they say that Jaffa is Israeli? First, why do you assume that there can be no Jews in the state of Palestine? Second, considering your opposition to the Palestinian right of return, why are you so offended by a Palestinian rejection of the Jewish right of return?

                    As for this:

                    I'm giving him an out, if he chooses to take it.

                    You know I like you, Paul, and I generally enjoy our exchanges, but I find that a little too self-important.

                    •  So it's "too self-important" (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Karmafish

                      to say that I'm giving Palestinian Professor the benefit of the doubt, that I don't think he's a bigot? That I'm trying to find a way to interpret his statement in a way that doesn't show bigotry?

                      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                      by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 11:24:49 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, but it comes off (5+ / 0-)

                        as if you are the arbiter of who and who is not a bigot.

                        And again, given the history of pp's contributions and given the multiple alternative ways that his statement can be interpreted, I think we can all safely say that he is not a bigot nor did he intend the comment to be bigoted.

                        I'll give you my take on what he said. When he said East Jerusalem is Palestinian, I interpreted it to mean that it rightfully belongs to the Palestinian state and not to the Israeli state. You can certainly disagree with that (I do not for the record, but it is no way bigoted.

                        •  I don't think he is bigoted either (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Karmafish

                          I really have never seen anything to lead me to think otherwise. As I pointed out in my comments, there were different ways to interpret his statement. I think what does happen is that people get caught up in their bubble of like-minded people, and don't often consider how their rhetoric might be interpreted outside the bubble.

                          In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                          by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:04:01 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  bizarre (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                callmecassandra

                "He said it was "Palestinian." That would seem to be an argument based on demographics"

                No, it's an argument based on legal sovereignty. As the International Court of Justice ruled, and as the UN has repeatedly affirmed, East Jerusalem constitutes "occupied Palestinian territory". Demographics don't come into it.

                "First, to say it is Palestinian is an argument that is a hair's breadth away from outright bigotry -- "it is Palestinian, no non-Palestinians (or is it just no Jews) allowed!!""

                No, that doesn't follow at all. Ramallah is also Palestinian, in the sense it is legally reserved for a future Palestinian state. That doesn't mean that no Jews will be allowed to live in Ramallah. Do you really believe this nonsense, are you just trolling again?

                "Second, even if his claim is based on the fact that from 1948 to 1967, East Jerusalem had no Jews, that negates any Palestinian claim of "return.""

                Good thing, then, that his 'claim' isn't based on that. Again, Paul: it's Zionists who rely on the racist discourse of demographics, not Palestinians trying to realise their internationally recognised legal right to a state on the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital.

                •  So tell me, mr. expert (0+ / 0-)

                  How does the UN reconcile the Partition Plan, passed by the UN, with this later view that Jerusalem is somehow "occupied Palestinian territory?" Under the Partition Plan, the Palestinians weren't entitled to Jerusalem.  So what suddenly made it "Palestinian" in the UN's view, when the UN had already decided it was not Palestinian? Is there a principled basis for this 180-degree about-face?  Or was it just a political decision driven by the makeup of the UN?

                  What exactly is the principled basis for this 180-degree about-face?  You're the expert, so surely you know the difference between principles and politics...don't you? No, I guess you don't.

                  By the way, you should review the rhetoric of anti-Zionism from Palestinians and their cheerleaders like yourself -- it's riddled with bigotry.  Every time you talk about indigenous people vs. European colonialists, you are making an argument based on bigotry. Every time you talk about "our land" vs. "them," you are making an argument based on bigotry.  Any time you talk about a Jewish state in the middle of the Arab Middle East, you are making an argument based on bigotry.

                  In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                  by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 09:04:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  OK, we can take the word of Paul in Berkeley (8+ / 0-)

          or we can take the overwhelming verdict of the International Court of Justice, which ruled that East Jerusalem constitutes "occupied Palestinian territory".

          It's true, East Jerusalem is not contested: it's occupied territory from which Israel must withdraw.

          •  The court of justice was wrong (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            livosh1, oldskooldem

            First of all, its decision is counter to the UN partition plan. Second, Israel did not participate in the proceedings.  The ICJ made a political decision with no basis in law, kind of the like the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore...or is it your claim that if a court decides a case, then the court is always right?

            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

            by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 07:42:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  can you hear yourself? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              capelza, corvo

              is it your claim that if a court decides a case, then the court is always right?

              by your standards israel cannot just decide that all of jerusalen belongs to them. there is no precedence in international law that allows for this just as there is no precedence that israelis can take over large swaths of land in the WB. except in the bible.

              •  Sweetheart, I'm a lawyer (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                livosh1, Karmafish

                So I know that (1) courts are often wrong, and (2) a case that is tried without one of the parties present is not truly adversarial, and therefore does not meet the standards of adjudication that are the foundation of a court system.  The ICJ was a kangaroo court, and everyone knew it. At least Bush v. Gore was contested, and it was still a political decision.

                In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 10:19:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  so who decided all of jerusalem (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  capelza, corvo

                  belonged to israel? israel?

                  a case that is tried without one of the parties present is not truly adversarial, and therefore does not meet the standards of adjudication that are the foundation of a court system.

                  again

                  by your standards israel cannot just decide that all of jerusalen belongs to them.

                  was the 'other party' present when israel decided it was no longer negotiating wrt jerusalem? i'd say it was not truly adversarial and therefore does not meet the standards of adjudication that are the foundation of a court system. or are you asserting there needs no body of law to recognize this development and israel can unilaterally decide what is or is not by facts on the ground and the world community just has to shove it.

                  btw, the sweetheart lingo does nothing for your argument.

                  •  Now you're just talking gibberish (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    livosh1

                    Come back when you have even a glimmer of understanding.

                    In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                    by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:34:33 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  like shootin fish n a barrel using your own words (0+ / 0-)

                      you don't like it when you have to abide by your own standards do you?

                      gibberish my ass, you just got cornered.

                      go ahead take the last word. i'm done trouncing you, AGAIN.

                      •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Karmafish

                        You really are delusional, as well as hateful.  You can hold an apple in one hand, and orange in another, and think you are holding onto a bicycle.  You have no clue what the adults are talking about here. Why don't you go back to your little Code Pink friends, and let the grownups continue without you.

                        In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                        by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:51:17 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  I thought Israel submitted a written... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...brief contesting the court's jurisdiction?

                  In any event, the real power, as we all know, is at the Security Council.  That's where the the resolution was vetoed by the US.  But the General Assembly petitioned the court for the advisory opinion.  That doesn't strike me as any less legitimate per se as certifying legal questions for a state supreme court.  

                  The GA has done it before in the past.  I read the decision a bit ago and I'll have to revisit it.  It might make a nice diary topic somewhere down the line.

                  In any event, I don't think an advisory opinion is per se illegitimate.  This was more of an Andrew Jackson moment for the US than anything else: Let them enforce it.  

                  What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

                  by Alec82 on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 06:16:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Like I say, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              callmecassandra

              people can go with the international legal consensus as expressed by numerous UN resolutions and the highest judicial organ of the United Nations, or they can go with the, uh, 'analysis' of an overtly partisan lawyer from Berkeley.

              Tough call.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (126)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (50)
  • Environment (38)
  • Elections (36)
  • Media (34)
  • Republicans (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (29)
  • Jeb Bush (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Iraq (25)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • LGBT (16)
  • Health Care (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site