Israel as "occupiers" and other bull poop - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Oxcoug · 05-29-2008, 03:41 AM

It's always good to check in on CG to get a little of the usual comedy from Mike Waters. You may want to call Israel an "occupying nation" - but it doesn't match any precedent for that concept in history and it doesn't mean anything. It's just a rhetorical game you like to play.

No "occupying nation" in history has been surrounded by neighbors which are publicly committed to its destruction.

No "occupying nation" has ever gone to such lengths to avoid trampling on the "occupied" (like using rubber bullets while the "occupied" blow up school cafeterias and old people celebrating holy days). Or like giving its judiciary real review over the acts of its military - and frequently, substantively rebuking its military.

No "occupying nation" has voluntarily ceded away territorial gains - as Israel did with Gaza - and celebrated it as an act of national conscience.

Israel responded to a real - and historically documented - existential threat in 1967. It was surrounded by hostile states and armies massed on its borders. The 60s were charged with explicit statements from Arab leaders expressing their intent to annihilate the state of Israel. There was no question at all (and is none in retrospect) that the Arab states hoped to comprehensively crush the State of Israel which had been founded by a UN charter twenty years earlier.

Israel's reaction to those planned attacks was purely an act of self-preservation. And there is virtually no serious scholar who would say otherwise. (Having studied the sources for a year to write a graduate dissertation I can make that claim as first hand knowledge). Note: "serious scholars" generally don't include Guardian editorialists. Also, don't waste my time with any Benny Morris pre-2002 (when he woke up) trendy "new historian" garbage.

In the aftermath of that conflict Israel kept some of the territories it seized - and with good reason. Syria had used the Golan Heights to shell Israeli farms in the north. Syria demonstrated that it was committed to Israel's destruction, there was no way Israel could justify giving back that strategic position - and no way anyone other than a politically motivated hack would suggest that they should.

As for Gaza and the West Bank - Israel SHOULD give much of that back. Oh, wait, they already did give Gaza back. And they'd leave it alone to - if it wasn't repeatedly used as a base for terror operations against civilians.

The West Bank is the ONLY area where any legitimate grievance can be claimed against Israel as an "occupier." But until the Palestinians stop teaching their children that Jews are "apes and pigs", and showing "Greater Palestine" (i.e. - no Israel) in their textbooks, and stop enabling terror attacks on Israeli civilians there is simply no basis for a conversation.

Also never discussed is the fact that an equivalent number of Jews were kicked out of Arab capitals and dispossessed in 1948 - they're not claiming "right of return" or expecting to get it. They started from scratch and moved on.

I know it's fun for you Mike - to run against the grain of conventional Mormon thinking and all of that. Keep at it.

05-29-2008, 03:41 AM	#1
Oxcoug Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 69	Israel as "occupiers" and other bull poop It's always good to check in on CG to get a little of the usual comedy from Mike Waters. You may want to call Israel an "occupying nation" - but it doesn't match any precedent for that concept in history and it doesn't mean anything. It's just a rhetorical game you like to play. No "occupying nation" in history has been surrounded by neighbors which are publicly committed to its destruction. No "occupying nation" has ever gone to such lengths to avoid trampling on the "occupied" (like using rubber bullets while the "occupied" blow up school cafeterias and old people celebrating holy days). Or like giving its judiciary real review over the acts of its military - and frequently, substantively rebuking its military. No "occupying nation" has voluntarily ceded away territorial gains - as Israel did with Gaza - and celebrated it as an act of national conscience. Israel responded to a real - and historically documented - existential threat in 1967. It was surrounded by hostile states and armies massed on its borders. The 60s were charged with explicit statements from Arab leaders expressing their intent to annihilate the state of Israel. There was no question at all (and is none in retrospect) that the Arab states hoped to comprehensively crush the State of Israel which had been founded by a UN charter twenty years earlier. Israel's reaction to those planned attacks was purely an act of self-preservation. And there is virtually no serious scholar who would say otherwise. (Having studied the sources for a year to write a graduate dissertation I can make that claim as first hand knowledge). Note: "serious scholars" generally don't include Guardian editorialists. Also, don't waste my time with any Benny Morris pre-2002 (when he woke up) trendy "new historian" garbage. In the aftermath of that conflict Israel kept some of the territories it seized - and with good reason. Syria had used the Golan Heights to shell Israeli farms in the north. Syria demonstrated that it was committed to Israel's destruction, there was no way Israel could justify giving back that strategic position - and no way anyone other than a politically motivated hack would suggest that they should. As for Gaza and the West Bank - Israel SHOULD give much of that back. Oh, wait, they already did give Gaza back. And they'd leave it alone to - if it wasn't repeatedly used as a base for terror operations against civilians. The West Bank is the ONLY area where any legitimate grievance can be claimed against Israel as an "occupier." But until the Palestinians stop teaching their children that Jews are "apes and pigs", and showing "Greater Palestine" (i.e. - no Israel) in their textbooks, and stop enabling terror attacks on Israeli civilians there is simply no basis for a conversation. Also never discussed is the fact that an equivalent number of Jews were kicked out of Arab capitals and dispossessed in 1948 - they're not claiming "right of return" or expecting to get it. They started from scratch and moved on. I know it's fun for you Mike - to run against the grain of conventional Mormon thinking and all of that. Keep at it. Last edited by Oxcoug; 05-29-2008 at 03:54 AM.