Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Mar '10 16:50
    We've all heard the whining and hand wringing about the recent plans for the 1,600 new units that have brought everyone from members of the Obama administration to ignorant European armchair quarterbacks railing against Israel. So, to make sure YOU know enough to comment about the situation with a modicum of comprehension for what is actually happening, see if you can answer a few simple questions about the 1,600 new approved units.

    1) The "Ramat Shlomo" neighborhood in which the units are to be built is..

    a) within municipal Jerusalem
    b) outside municipal Jerusalem

    2) The "Ramat Shlomo" neighborhood is...

    a) an entirely Jewish neighborhood
    b) a mostly Arab neighborhood
    c) A mixed neighborhood

    3) The new units are set to displace how many Palestinians?

    a) Zero
    b) some number other than zero

    4) Are the units to be built in pre-existing Arab East Jerusalem?

    a) no
    b) yes

    5) The new units will be built on land that is...

    a) uninhabited rock
    b) lush farms
    c) land already developed by Palestinians

    6) The closest neighborhoods to Ramat Shlomo are primarily...

    a) Jewish
    b) Arab

    7) Ramat Shlomo is...

    a) well within several other Jewish neighborhoods outside the Green line
    b) The edge of the frontier between the Jewish neighborhoods and the Arab neighborhoods
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Mar '10 16:51
    PS:

    If you answered:

    a

    a

    a

    a

    a

    a

    a

    Then congratulations! YOU are qualified to intelligently discuss the issue.
  3. 25 Mar '10 18:11
    where's the NYT on this? are they just rollling over to anti-Israel propaganda?
  4. 25 Mar '10 18:17
    Originally posted by sh76
    PS:

    If you answered:

    a

    a

    a

    a

    a

    a

    a

    Then congratulations! YOU are qualified to intelligently discuss the issue.
    are you dissing Hillary Clinton?
  5. 25 Mar '10 18:20
    the first autocomplete on images.google.com for Hillary Clinton is "hillary clinton cleavage" .
  6. 25 Mar '10 18:20
    sh76, do people in your office have to wear ties to work?
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Mar '10 18:25
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    sh76, do people in your office have to wear ties to work?
    Not always... just when we meet clients.

    I do admit being somewhat curious as to where this is going though.
  8. 25 Mar '10 18:30
    i used to work for an east coast agency, but our branch was in the midwest. we had to wear ties even on fridays, unlike everyone else on the project.
  9. 25 Mar '10 18:31
    probably worn a tie less than 10 times, since. not much call for it in california.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Mar '10 18:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    probably worn a tie less than 10 times, since. not much call for it in california.
    Ties are much less common than they used to be. In the old days, every attorney had to wear a full suit and tie every day. In the late 90s/ early 00s, in the red hot lawyer market in NYC, firms started allowing more casual dress as a means to attract law students without raising costs. When I interviewed in 2000/2001, I often met with attorneys in colored button down shirts and slacks; no suit; no tie; no fancy shirt.

    Although the market has obviously softened, a full return to the formal dress of yesteryear has not been effected.
  11. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    25 Mar '10 18:46
    Originally posted by sh76
    We've all heard the whining and hand wringing about the recent plans for the 1,600 new units that have brought everyone from members of the Obama administration to ignorant European armchair quarterbacks railing against Israel. So, to make sure YOU know enough to comment about the situation with a modicum of comprehension for what is actually happening, see if ...[text shortened]... ne
    b) The edge of the frontier between the Jewish neighborhoods and the Arab neighborhoods
    Let's see if you get these:

    1) Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem are:
    a) A flagrant violation of international law
    b) Just fine

    2) Palestinians are allowed to build in East Jerusalem:
    a) almost never
    b) whenever they like

    3) Israel is attempting to:
    a) annex East Jerusalem by creating 'facts on the ground'
    b) bring about peace and justice for all

    If you answered 'a' to all, then you understand what the fuss is about.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Mar '10 20:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Let's see if you get these:

    1) Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem are:
    a) A flagrant violation of international law
    b) Just fine

    2) Palestinians are allowed to build in East Jerusalem:
    a) almost never
    b) whenever they like

    3) Israel is attempting to:
    a) annex East Jerusalem by creating 'facts on the ground'
    b) bring about peace and justice for all

    If you answered 'a' to all, then you understand what the fuss is about.
    Except that Ramat Shlomo is NOT East Jerusalem.

    First, it's not in the eastern part of Jerusalem, it's north. The area due south of Ramat Shlomo is Jewish West Jerusalem. Ramat Shlomo does not so much as border an Arab neighborhood.

    Second, it cannot be "Arab East Jerusalem" (which is, of course, the only significance delineated by the term "East Jerusalem" ) because it was never an Arab neighborhood in the first place.

    The only possible relevance that this could have to East Jerusalem is that it's over the Green Line. But that obviously can't be the sole criterion in determining what is considered East Jerusalem, as the entire West Bank is over the Green Line.

    The fact that a smart guy like you so casually confuses Ramat Shlomo with East Jerusalem is a testament to the misleading manner in which the media has reported this story. I also made this same mistake until a resident of Jerusalem explained all of this to me just yesterday. Of course, I went to Google Earth to confirm; and he was, of course, correct.

    As for your questions:

    1) There's no such thing as international law; except that countries are generally bound to treaties they sign. Countries don't have the authority to bind other sovereigns by their own laws. That's why they call countries "sovereigns" i.e., because they have their own sovereignty. As I believe that Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem are not just fine; neither answer is correct.

    2) (a) is closer than (b); though it's probably somewhere in between.

    3) Israel has already annexed East Jerusalem. In any case, the Ramat Shlomo buildings are irrelevant to East Jerusalem. As for answering the question in a complete vacuum, probably a little of each; though in all likelihood, East Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state, if a comprehensive agreement is ever reached.
  13. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    25 Mar '10 21:19
    Is the Israeli government building homes for Arab Israelis anywhere?
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Mar '10 21:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Is the Israeli government building homes for Arab Israelis anywhere?
    The Ramat Shlomo homes are not being built by the government. They are being built by developers. The big "announcement" was merely an approval of the application by developers to build on the land.

    If what you're really getting at is whether Israel discriminates in terms of whom it allows to build what where... well, then, yes, it does.

    Israel is a "Jewish state," remember? It has no separation of Church and State. For better or for worse (and you obviously believe for worse, but that's neither here nor there), Israel was established as a Jewish state. Arab countries discriminate in terms of who can build what where as well.

    You want to ask whether a religious state should exist or whether all states should be entirely secular and should never prefer one religion over another? Fair question. But religious states do exist. Israel is only one of many score.
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    25 Mar '10 21:34
    Originally posted by sh76
    Except that Ramat Shlomo is NOT East Jerusalem.

    First, it's not in the eastern part of Jerusalem, it's north. The area due south of Ramat Shlomo is Jewish West Jerusalem. Ramat Shlomo does not so much as border an Arab neighborhood.

    Second, it cannot be "Arab East Jerusalem" (which is, of course, the only significance delineated by the term "East Jerusale ...[text shortened]... he capital of the Palestinian state, if a comprehensive agreement is ever reached.
    Countries don't have the authority to bind other sovereigns by their own laws.

    Yes they do. For example, World War II was the Allies binding the Axis to the Allies' laws.