Israel as "occupiers" and other bull poop

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

lol. Sure you have, buddy. Sure.

Silly oxcoug should know better. Only Leb is allowed to declare himself the victor of a debate.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I love how Ox preempts legitimate criticism of Israeli actions by framing them as "reactions."

It allows things like Israel using 79% of the water from the Mountain Aquifer and 100% of the water from the Jordan Basin (the two water systems in the West Bank), to be seen as simply a reaction to Palestinian violence.

And the bulldozing of over 4,100 Palestinian homes since 2000? Thats just a reaction too. Kind of like how Sadam Hussein's bulldozing of Iraqi homes was just a reaction.

Jewish families setting up the homestead in what is often a war zone? Just a reaction.

Excessive lethal force by the IDF, force documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International? Just a reaction.

No Palestinian economy because of the cost of bringing in and manufacturing goods in what amounts to a concentration camp? Just a reaction.

Celebrating the UN charter, but violating UN resolutions with carefree abandon? Just a reaction.

Displacing Palestinians in 1948? Just a reaction. It's not like zionists hadn't been trying to compell the Jewish return to Palestine for decades or anything. No that couldn't possibly be the case.

You can have power without accountability if everything you do is "just a reaction."

Fortunately, plenty of Israelies know better than to frame Israel's activities as "just reactions."

[SeattleUte]

By the way, before Israel occupied the West Bank it was occupied by Jordan.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I love how Ox preempts legitimate criticism of Israeli actions by framing them as "reactions."

It allows things like Israel using 79% of the water from the Mountain Aquifer and 100% of the water from the Jordan Basin (the two water systems in the West Bank), to be seen as simply a reaction to Palestinian violence.

And the bulldozing of over 4,100 Palestinian homes since 2000? Thats just a reaction too. Kind of like how Sadam Hussein's bulldozing of Iraqi homes was just a reaction.

Jewish families setting up the homestead in what is often a war zone? Just a reaction.

Excessive lethal force by the IDF, force documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International? Just a reaction.

No Palestinian economy because of the cost of bringing in and manufacturing goods in what amounts to a concentration camp? Just a reaction.

Celebrating the UN charter, but violating UN resolutions with carefree abandon? Just a reaction.

Displacing Palestinians in 1948? Just a reaction. It's not like zionists hadn't been trying to compell the Jewish return to Palestine for decades or anything. No that couldn't possibly be the case.

You can have power without accountability if everything you do is "just a reaction."

Fortunately, plenty of Israelies know better than to frame Israel's activities as "just reactions."

I'm just sniper fire. Lewbowski and you are artillery. Keep it up.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm just sniper fire. Lewbowski and you are artillery. Keep it up.

Lebowski and SIEQ, do you agree with Waters that Israel was the de facto and de jure aggressor in the Six-Day war, and it was an unjust war?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Lebowski and SIEQ, do you agree with Waters that Israel was the de facto and de jure aggressor in the Six-Day war, and it was an unjust war?

I'm not familiar with Mike's position, but I think the following should be part of the discussion:

Responsibility: When the UN General Assembly convened an emergency session right after the 1967 war, not a single country unilaterally asserted that the Arab countries solely caused the war. There were various perspectives expressed, including that Israel was the aggressor, that all parties to the conflict were at fault, and that attempting to determine responsibility was useless.

The U.S.S.R. put forward a resolution condemning Israel. The U.S. didn't sign on--but not because the resolution condemned Israel. The U.S. didn't sign on because the Soviet's resolution didn't also condemn the Arab nations. The following is from the U.S.'s statement in the Official Records of the General Assembly Fifth Emergency Special Session from June 17-September 18, 1967:

"Israel alone is to be condemned as an aggressor [by the Soviet resolution]--though surely, in the light of all the events, both recent and long past, that led up to the fighting, it would be neither equitable nor constructive for this Organization to issue a one-sided condemnation."

Israel's Options: I think Israel had other reasonable options. It could have asked for a redeployment of UN forces on its Egyptian border. It also could have accepted the temporary suspension of the Straits of Tiran issue proposed by the UN Secretary General.

Pre-Emptive Attack: According to a scholar at the conservative (and Jewish) Shalem Center in Jerusalem, Egypt probably didn't intend to attack Israel. Avraham Selam noted that, "The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan...and Nasser's defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike."

I'm drawing these points from Finkelstein's 2005 book, and from my notes on his book.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

But they did manage to combine for two personal attacks. Well done boys. I mean - I can take a personal attack or two, but please at least pretend you've got something intelligent to say on the substance. Give it a try, eh?

This is great. Oxcoug jump in with both guns blazing, questions Mike's faithfulness, and then cries "personal attack!" when he is not warmly received.

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

Mike - thanks for the compliment about me being a "great intellect" on CB. Not a claim I'd make for myself, but so kind... but then how, amid all of the hilarious pretentiousness all the self-serious intellectualizing that goes on here at CG - how would I not be here? I love how desperately you want to be respected as an intellectual.

So CB isn't a hive of intellectual activity. But it's also not a hive of intellectual pretension.

And by the way - speaking of pretensions... were you going to at least pretend that you have an argument to back up your trendy attack on Israel?

This one had me laughing all night. I can't think of a single poster more pretentious, more self-aggrandizing, or more condescending than Oxcoug. On any board. Funny stuff.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

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.

Oxcoug: Your arguments suck.

You're basically saying that Israel is supposedly "nicer" than other occupying nations, and therefore they should not be called occupiers.

No occupying nation in history has been surrounded by hostile nations? Therefore Israel is not an occupying nation? Yeah, that makes sense.

Israel gave up territory under international pressure, and therefore they are not an occupying nation?

I would never say that Israel has no right to exist. But Israel has also been unjustifiably harsh and aggressive toward palestinians (to put it mildly).

[Oxcoug]

Mudphud - this one is fun. You saying "your arguments suck", is packed with irony, since those sucky and substanceless three words are the essence of your argument.

I didn't say they can't be called "occupiers" - I said that they don't fit any historical precedent for that concept or its usage. Care to challenge that?

Israel gave up territory under international pressure - mate, Israel whole existence is under "international pressure" and none of that pressure compelled them to withdraw from Gaza any more than it's compelled them to withdraw from the Golan. They withdrew under overwhelming internal pressure. If you doubt this try read Ha'aretz for a month. I'm sure that's too much to ask from someone that wants the right to hold kneejerk opinions.

So do two things:
1. Try defining "unjustifiably harsh" - how "harsh" is unjustifiable when your neighbor routinely shells civilian communities, condones suicide bombings, and refuses to abide by the Oslo Accords?
2. Try addressing the substance of my argument than some isolated corner of it that you think looks vulnerable.

[Oxcoug]

It's time for me to "crawl" back to CB because.... you're running from a challenge like a little child? That makes sense.

Your last thread was about the Palestinian "right of return". This one is about Israel as an "occupying nation." They are different threads.

So since Sooner (AKA Mudphud) gave me an explicit invite to come to CG (his words were that you needed another "intelligent" voice over here) I'll kick around the place occasionally until somebody shows they can make an argument on the substance of this question.

Again: until the Palestinians start living up to principles agreed on in the Oslo Accords (of which they have failed to deliver on almost every pt), stop attacking civilians, and stop teaching their children that Israel will not exist in the future and stop militarizing their children.

If they want a conversation, they start with those things. Israel has been ready for peace for a long time. The Palestinians proved they weren't ready for peace at Camp David in 2000 (give Dennis Ross "The Missing Peace" a read on that if you'd like to educate yourself).