Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site