Pages

Jump to bottom

26 comments

1 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Jan 23, 2011 12:49:24pm

So if one wants to be labeled pro-Israel one is not allowed any substantial criticism of Israeli settlement policies? Wow.

2 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Jan 23, 2011 12:55:29pm

And from a man who wrote this dreck, no less:

[Link: www.commentarymagazine.com...]

3 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jan 23, 2011 1:04:10pm

re: #1 Sergey Romanov

So if one wants to be labeled pro-Israel one is not allowed any substantial criticism of Israeli settlement policies? Wow.

No, but with J Street this is becoming a pattern: They never back Israel forcefully, nor on issues that really matter.

4 Buck  Sun, Jan 23, 2011 1:06:53pm

Please enlighten us... specifically which Israeli policy are being criticized here.

Not just settlements, but is West Jerusalem a settlement? Can you be Pro Israel and call Jerusalem a settlement?

5 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Jan 23, 2011 1:08:14pm

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

No, but with J Street this is becoming a pattern: They never back Israel forcefully, nor on issues that really matter.

I see that they don't back it on issues on which it is wrong.

6 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Jan 23, 2011 1:11:17pm

re: #4 Buck

Please enlighten us... specifically which Israeli policy are being criticized here.

Not just settlements, but is West Jerusalem a settlement? Can you be Pro Israel and call Jerusalem a settlement?

West Jerusalem is not Israeli, re: #4 Buck

Please enlighten us... specifically which Israeli policy are being criticized here.

Not just settlements, but is West Jerusalem a settlement? Can you be Pro Israel and call Jerusalem a settlement?

I think you're lost a bit. Care to give the exact quotes from the statement you disagree with? So as not to engage in fantasies.

7 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Jan 23, 2011 1:12:12pm

re: #6 Sergey Romanov

East Jerusalem is not Israeli re: #4 Buck

Duh.

8 researchok  Sun, Jan 23, 2011 3:13:51pm

Actually, East Jerusalem is a part of Israel, as the state was partitioned in 1947 by the UN.

It was occupied in 1948 by Jordan after the coordinated attack on Israel after the partition and her subsequent Declaration of Independence.

After the agreed upon ceasefire, Jordan promised access to Holy Sites as a part of the terms of the agreement.

Jordan never allowed that access as promised an in fact, evey Jewish house of worship in the Old City was destroyed.

Further, the 1967 'borders' are not borders and never were borders. They are and remain temporary armistice lines.

9 Bob Levin  Sun, Jan 23, 2011 3:33:22pm

re: #5 Sergey Romanov

You're saying that you can look at the situation there with enough clarity to tell if Israel is wrong, with no possible arguments that support their position?
As you know, I support Israel a great deal, but I have to make sure to keep my perspective in sight at all times. For instance, if someone were to argue with me about international law, the best I could do would be to go to Wikipedia, but I wouldn't be able to engage from that perspective.

I can focus on history, morality, what I know of rhetoric, psychology and politics. However, that doesn't cover all of the factors, and there are counterarguments to mine that I simply can't address.

I feel very confident that if anti-Semitism wasn't a factor in regional politics, there would be no problems at all. The region could be one of the most productive and helpful areas in the world.

10 researchok  Sun, Jan 23, 2011 3:37:35pm

For purposes of clarification- East Jerusalem was to in Israel proper. The city was to be under UN administration as a corpus separatum - a separate body, to be run under an international UN administration.

However, the partition plan was never accepted by the Palestinians.

11 jordash1212  Sun, Jan 23, 2011 7:37:28pm

To be fair, the objection is with 1967 borders, which puts East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank. It's rather convenient for the Arab nations and especially the Palestinians to call for 1967 borders in peace negotiations considering what they have historically rejected, but those are their terms that Israel chooses to dismiss. I don't even know what the "international community" recognizes anymore. I think naysayers of Israel are inclined to accept the 1967 borders as the new standard because it can easily be turned into evidence of Israeli aggression (despite the obvious buildup of united Arab forces that triggered a number of Israeli redline offenses).

It's really difficult to discuss what the proper boundaries of Jerusalem should be with the complicated recent history mixed with the ancient history. But when you hear about Israel violating international law with its settlements, they are likely referring to 1967 borders. I'm not positive but I think (per what I said above) the international community is inclined to believe the land taken by Israel in the Six Day War was unjustified and should not be recognized internationally as Israel proper, excluding whatever land was originally guaranteed by the UN partition in '47 -- even Alan Dershowitz has said that Israel is acting illegally in continuing its settlements. If you put it that way, it's certainly a more persuasive argument for groups like J-Street, but that really is a provincial argument for anyone that scratches the surface of the conflict's history.

12 Bob Levin  Sun, Jan 23, 2011 9:04:01pm

What is passing for international law, a type of Jim Crow? Geographically, this isn't like a conflict between Russian and Poland, this is like a conflict between the Bronx and Queens. So someone built a subdivision or city outside of an imaginary line--and this is a cause for war? I don't think so. No one is saying take down the houses, they are saying that Jews shouldn't be living in them.

The Jews could leave tomorrow, Arabs could move in and everything is fine? Guess what, that's not fine. That's racism.

13 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey  Mon, Jan 24, 2011 5:19:54am

re: #1 Sergey Romanov

Sure, you can be pro-Israel and be critical of settlement policies. I view American's chapter of "Peace Now" as much more honest than J-Street. The latter NGO has too much of a disingenuous track record.

14 jordash1212  Mon, Jan 24, 2011 8:59:34am

re: #12 Bob Levin

This is a conflict like Poland and Germany when you are trying to determine borders for a sovereign nation. Your analogy is false because the the Israeli settlements disrupt the process to form a sovereign Palestinian state. By saying that the settlements are just neighborhood disputes, you are dodging the problem by not acknowledging that the Palestinians have both a desire and a right for self-determination. It's not a matter of learning to share land with the Israelis -- they've been doing that since '48 -- but giving them their own land.

15 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Jan 24, 2011 9:07:55am

re: #9 Bob Levin

What I'm saying is that no one but Israel accepts EJ as part of Israel, so it's not. At this point even the "state" of South Ossetia has more of a claim to legitimacy on a similar issue, being accepted by more states. I'm not saying EJ should not be a part of Israel in the future. Its status should be decided through negotiation. But meanwhile it's not a de jure part of Israel just because Israel says so (just like South Ossetia is not de jure a state, just because it itself, Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Nauru say so).

16 Bob Levin  Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:41:17am

re: #14 jordash1212

You are confusing self-determination with racism, and--if Fatah succeeds
in their goals, genocide. These laws are no different than Nuremberg laws. They already have their own land, and if they would just form an official country, they could start surveying it and creating plats.

If you own a house, you know that this is not a simple process. We own our house because the US is a sovereign nation, with states that have legal, surveyed boundaries that have been divided into plats, from which deeds are created, bought and sold.

If the PA really wanted to deal with this problem--without killing Jews, then they would declare a state in areas A and B, get the surveying teams out, and get the paperwork done. After that, it's a matter of price. And if they chose a process that did not involve killing Jews and keeping us behind certain lines, they would find that it is easy to purchase property.

In the US, that is called self-determination.

And if this blatant Antisemitism wasn't on full display in this process, Israel would probably assist them in surveying area C. The cities would not be an issue at all since the city would contribute to the tax base. This is why all city and state governments not interested in mass murder welcome property development.

17 Bob Levin  Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:56:04am

re: #15 Sergey Romanov

What I'm saying is that no one but Israel accepts EJ as part of Israel, so it's not.

Are you sure you want to make that argument? It could be used to justify slavery too. It was used to justify slavery. But that didn't make slavery morally acceptable. By the way, slavery was also justified as being a form of self-determination.

Its status should be decided through negotiation. But meanwhile it's not a de jure part of Israel just because Israel says so (just like South Ossetia is not de jure a state, just because it itself, Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Nauru say so).

Someone has to take care of it, make sure the buildings are not hazardous, pick up the trash, make sure the streets are cleaned, insure that it doesn't become a place of skirmishes among squatters, send police into to resolve disputes, have courts to further resolve disputes and criminal violations. And Israel has been doing that. Is there such a thing as Palestinian building codes? Are those codes enforced, or are Israeli building codes enforced? If you walk into a building in EJ and turn on the lights, whose building codes do you hope have been applied?

Again, if the issue was simply property management, then there would be no conflict. There is conflict because mass murder lies at the heart of the dispute. And this attempt at mass murder began in 1947 and has never stopped--unless you can tell me the date that it stopped. Or you can tell me just how the murdering and Olympic team is somehow relevant to building a hotel in East Jerusalem, or blowing up a school bus filled with children, or.......

18 jordash1212  Mon, Jan 24, 2011 12:58:25pm

re: #16 Bob Levin

It's hard to form a country when you're disallowed from forming your capital in disputed land. The sooner you admit that the Palestinians have as much right to Jerusalem as the Jews, the easier this will be to swallow. The Palestinians want a capital in East Jerusalem and it's entirely reasonable for them to hold off building the rest of their state if the desired center of all government activity is not available.

Pairing self-determination with racism is heavy-handed. Once you pretend that Fatah represents all Palestinians, it is you who sounds just as racist as any faction of Palestinians that supports violence against Israelis. By treating Fatah as representative of all Palestinians and all Palestinians represented by Fatah, you're going to polarize the Palestinians even more and decrease any sense of identity, which is the whole point here: the Palestinians feel so historically dejected, any mention of peace before true recognition of their existence becomes cynical humor.

19 Buck  Mon, Jan 24, 2011 1:33:55pm

re: #15 Sergey Romanov

What I'm saying is that no one but Israel accepts EJ as part of Israel, so it's not.

I am finding it incredible that you can say that and not be more challenged.

1. I really don't think you can reliably say that no one else thinks that East Jerusalem is part of Israel. There are others who think that Jerusalem is part of Israel, and cannot be divided.

2. The idea that Israel cannot possibly be right if (almost) everyone else thinks differently is troubling. (almost) Everyone thought Israel was committing piracy a few months ago, but that didn't mean they were right.

3. I really think you need to do some research about Jerusalem. It has been the capital city for jews for almost 4 thousand years. Let me be even clearer, there has been a CONTINUOUS jewish presence in Jerusalem for as long as a recorded history of the area.

4. I think it is naive to think that stopping the building of homes in Jerusalem would somehow satisfy the PA and bring them to the table. As if during the time that Israel did stop construction it was considered by anyone to be significant. AND even if the PA wanted to make peace.... they don't have the authority over the Palestinians, and cannot make a deal anyway.

JSTREET and I suppose you (based on what you have said here) can only see Israel making concessions, unilaterally... as if that has ever worked...

20 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Jan 24, 2011 1:48:31pm

re: #19 Buck

I am finding it incredible that you can say that and not be more challenged.

1. I really don't think you can reliably say that no one else thinks that East Jerusalem is part of Israel. There are others who think that Jerusalem is part of Israel, and cannot be divided.

It's illustrative you don't name a single other state. Even the US doesn't officially accept EJ as part of Israel.

2. The idea that Israel cannot possibly be right if (almost) everyone else thinks differently is troubling. (almost) Everyone thought Israel was committing piracy a few months ago, but that didn't mean they were right.

Bad analogy. In matters of territory the official acceptance is paramount. Basically, if most states will accept South Ossetia as a state it will be a state. It's not a state now since most other states don't accept it as a state. So it is with EJ.

3. I really think you need to do some research about Jerusalem. It has been the capital city for jews for almost 4 thousand years. Let me be even clearer, there has been a CONTINUOUS jewish presence in Jerusalem for as long as a recorded history of the area.

How does it make EJ a de jure part of Israel? Kiev was a capital of the Ancient Rus. Should we, Russians, take it back for this reason?

4. I think it is naive to think that stopping the building of homes in Jerusalem would somehow satisfy the PA and bring them to the table. As if during the time that Israel did stop construction it was considered by anyone to be significant. AND even if the PA wanted to make peace... they don't have the authority over the Palestinians, and cannot make a deal anyway.

This may or may not be so (e.g. the Palestinian Papers that were just released shed some new light on the issue), but this is not what we're discussing. It may very well be in everyone's interest for EJ to become an official part of Israel, accepted by everyone. Or not. But this is not the issue at hand. Until the issue is negotiated, it's simply a fact that one can call buildings in EJ "settlements". It's not even a value judgment. And personally I think (and J-Street seems to agree) that Israel should not build in disputed territories.

21 Buck  Mon, Jan 24, 2011 6:21:49pm

Many of these countries seem to leave the final status to be resolved through negotiations. However it is lazy to not cover off what happens if one side does not have the authority to negotiate, or resolve the issue.

Fatah does not have the authority, and Hamas will never negotiate.

NOTHING in the leaked documents you refer to changes those two critical points.

There is NOT any agreement, treaty, or international understanding which applies the corpus separatum concept to Jerusalem.

22 Bob Levin  Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:15:50pm

re: #18 jordash1212

I'm not sure if you're serious. This is politics. The cards on the table are what you can work with. I don't know what percentage of Palestinians Fatah represents any more than I know what percentage of people voted in this state's last gubernatorial election. But the governor is the governor. If I live in this state, that's the governor. If I can't make that basic assumption, there isn't a discussion.

So, who do I talk about? How do I talk about this issue if I can't say that the government has a role in the regional politics and has some relationship to the electorate? These are not rhetorical questions.

The Palestinians want a capital in East Jerusalem and it's entirely reasonable for them to hold off building the rest of their state if the desired center of all government activity is not available.

No, this isn't reasonable. If you want a state, you begin wherever you can begin. The US began on the east coast, and it became a nation before westward expansion came to San Diego, which has the best weather. However, given their history (I understand I'm using a generalizing pronoun, but I'm waiting for you to tell me the correct way of phrasing this), I'm not convinced that nation building is their top priority.

So, since you know my point and don't like the way I said it, I'll just wait for you to give me instructions on language.

23 Bob Levin  Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:39:01pm

re: #20 Sergey Romanov

And personally I think (and J-Street seems to agree) that Israel should not build in disputed territories.

Why not?

I really do like the Bronx/Queens analogy. Or New York City, New Jersey. If someone from the Bronx wants to rehab and rent a building in Queens, no one cares. There is no possibility of violence. No one will get killed.

What makes the West Bank and Israel so different? If there is peace, then the populations will intermingle, right? There would be commerce between the two nations, right? Israel has a very high population density. It's reasonable to spread out, build some suburbs. Of course, the taxes would go to the nation of Palestine, what's the problem?

You and I both know that there are other factors at work in the region besides questions about land. And these other factors are paramount. Those are the facts on the ground.

24 Bob Levin  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:16:33am

re: #14 jordash1212

I must have missed this comment, so I'll respond now.

This is a conflict like Poland and Germany when you are trying to determine borders for a sovereign nation.

I think that this is a true statement, on a certain level. I don't think we agree on the nature of that level. So be it.

Your analogy is false because the the Israeli settlements disrupt the process to form a sovereign Palestinian state.

Not really. They could easily declare Ramallah as their capital and begin the surveying and the paperwork. Wasn't the capital of the US, New York City at one time?

By saying that the settlements are just neighborhood disputes, you are dodging the problem by not acknowledging that the Palestinians have both a desire and a right for self-determination.

Then they should begin. They'll need a banking system, an education system that strives towards technical and scientific innovation--and they'll have to hook up with whatever international body is responsible for patents and copyrights (what does a Palestinian inventor do for a patent, go to Israel?) I suppose they would need to generate electricity, create a democracy, since that does lead to prosperity and innovation. Ah, sanitation. They'll need to put in sewers and work with Israel on water purification projects---is any of this happening right now? If it is, then nothing has stopped it. If it's not, then why not?

It's not a matter of learning to share land with the Israelis -- they've been doing that since '48 -- but giving them their own land.

No, they haven't been sharing. They've been at war, and still are at war. They're not even sharing the Temple Mount, since they say there was never a Jewish Temple on that site. We might have a different view of the meaning of sharing. In 1948 they declared war on Israel. And the war hasn't stopped yet. Any reason you can think of for the declaration of war in 1948? I mean, what were the Arab goals? Self-determination? Don't think so. What was Nasser's goal, self-determination? Nope.

25 Bob Levin  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:19:25am

Oops. I did reply to your #14 earlier. My mistake.

26 Buck  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 8:14:13am

The idea that the Jerusalem building violates and international law forces you to accept the Palestinian twisted history lesson that any part of Jerusalem is “Arab” land. It isn't Palestinian, and never was. Not before 1967, or after.

However if one accepts this story, then followed to its logical conclusion — as some here have done — this brings us to question the legitimacy of Israel itself.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
US Military M17 & M18 Pistols Causing Unintentional Discharges Documents detail U.S. soldiers shot by their own Sig Sauer guns; military says no reason for concern Around lunchtime on Feb. 8, 2023, inside an administrative office at Fort Eustis in Virginia, a sergeant with the Army’s 221st Military ...
William Lewis
9 hours ago
Views: 65 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
The Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ...
teleskiguy
2 weeks ago
Views: 720 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0