Apartheid in the West Bank

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

"If"? You have to be kidding me. If you form this as an uncertainty, then I am not sure we even have the basis for discussion. Amazing.

Should I have written that I will assume "Palesitnians" can prove prior ownership of land occupied by Israel and loss of it when Islamic countries were at war with Israel? Because I will be happy to.

Regardless, Israel shouldn't be expected to make any UNILATERAL concessions. Palestinians will get their land back as part of a comprehensive BILATERAL treaty that guarantees Israel's security, insofar as that is possible. How can you expect otherwise? Israel shouldn't be expected to do anything unilaterally. Hezbollah and Hamas, the real "Palestinians," continue to wage war by terrorism against civilians and to pledge continuous efforts to totally destroy Israel.

YOU are dodging this latter point. The reductio ad absurdam of your bleeding heart is that Israel should just make unilateral consessions absent a peace treaty, even as Palestinians are bent in its destruction.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The West Bank was part of Jordan in 1967 and Jordan was the least aggressive of the hostile neighbors. And Israel attacked first. Surely you know this. Either way, it does not justify imposing apartheid-like conditions.

This statement really blows your cridibility. If you have an argument that Israel attacked the West Bank first, it was a preemptive strike and a defensive maneuver in response to initial aggression by a confederation of Islamic states aimed at utterly destroying Israel. Nobody but you and Jimmy Carty, apparently, believes Israel started the Six Day War.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

That's about as biased a summary as I can imagine on the situation. And did you seriously compare them to the Nazi aggressors while at the same time defending the aggressors? Wow.

My point is that "Palestinians'" raison d'etre is their status as a front for Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qeda, vicious Islamofascist theocracies that are implacable enemies of Western democracies.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You did not even begin to address my main point: the comparison of the settlements/occupation to apartheid. Nor have you attempted to explain how these human rights abuses have anything to do with security. To borrow a tactic from you, I will take your silence on the matter as an admission of defeat.

Yes I did. As long as Palestine is a war cry and a front for the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qeda, at war with Israel and announcing intentions to utterly destroy Israel, this situation is quite different from apartheid.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It started with the forcible expulsion of the non-Jews in 1947. Don't kid yourself.

This is an argument. What is your point here? Do you as well believe Isreal has no right to exist?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Should I have written that I will assume "Palesitnians" can prove prior ownership of land occupied by Israel and loss of it when Islamic countries were at war with Israel? Because I will be happy to.

You explicitly stated that whether or not land was forcibly taken was an open question. The settlements, the highways, and the land outside the new wall, not to mention the water belonged to the Palestinians. Nobody (but you apparently) considers that to be an open question.

Your sole justification for said confiscation is this nebulous "state of war". And now you are willing to broaden those conditions to conflict with any Islamic countries. By that logic, anything is justifiable. Rape, murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, whatever. You don't seem willing to place any ethical or moral restrictions on Israel. You have no moral basis for your argument.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Regardless, Israel shouldn't be expected to make any UNILATERAL concessions. Palestinians will get their land back as part of a comprehensive BILATERAL treaty that guarantees Israel's security, insofar as that is possible. How can you expect otherwise? Israel shouldn't be expected to do anything unilaterally. Hezbollah and Hamas, the real "Palestinians," continue to wage war by terrorism against civilians and to pledge continuous efforts to totally destroy Israel.

YOU are dodging this latter point. The reductio ad absurdam of your bleeding heart is that Israel should just make unilateral consessions absent a peace treaty, even as Palestinians are bent in its destruction.

Your claim that Israel has been asked to make UNILATERAL concessions illustrates extreme ignorance of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Unilaterial concessions have never been on the table.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This statement really blows your cridibility. If you have an argument that Israel attacked the West Bank first, it was a preemptive strike and a defensive maneuver in response to initial aggression by a confederation of Islamic states aimed at utterly destroying Israel. Nobody but you and Jimmy Carty, apparently, believes Israel started the Six Day War.

Please. Don't lecture me about the Six Day War. I never claimed that that the pre-emptive strike was wholly unjustified. But you are dodging the fact that Jordan was the least threatening of the neighbors. You are also dodging the fact that the conflict started 20 years earlier. And most importantly, you have failed to illustrate how this justifies the current apartheid-like conditions. What do the settlements have to do with security?

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

My point is that "Palestinians'" raison d'etre is their status as a front for Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qeda, vicious Islamofascist theocracies that are implacable enemies of Western democracies.

That's just Sean Hannity-esque bullshit. And you claim my credibility is shot.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Yes I did. As long as Palestine is a war cry and a front for the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qeda, at war with Israel and announcing intentions to utterly destroy Israel, this situation is quite different from apartheid.

No, you have NOT answered the question. More specifically, you have failed to counter my detailed list of facts comparing the occupation/settlements to apartheid. Rather than denying the facts, you are simply justifying them, but without any sound logic. How does the destruction of homes, the confiscation of water, and the building of settlements inside the occupied territories promote security? Not even the Israelis make that argument.

[ERCougar]

This is a really interesting discussion.

You may continue.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You explicitly stated that whether or not land was forcibly taken was an open question. The settlements, the highways, and the land outside the new wall, not to mention the water belonged to the Palestinians. Nobody (but you apparently) considers that to be an open question.

Your sole justification for said confiscation is this nebulous "state of war". And now you are willing to broaden those conditions to conflict with any Islamic countries. By that logic, anything is justifiable. Rape, murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, whatever. You don't seem willing to place any ethical or moral restrictions on Israel. You have no moral basis for your argument.

You are also dodging the fact that the conflict started 20 years earlier. And most importantly, you have failed to illustrate how this justifies the current apartheid-like conditions. What do the settlements have to do with security?

No, you have NOT answered the question. More specifically, you have failed to counter my detailed list of facts comparing the occupation/settlements to apartheid. Rather than denying the facts, you are simply justifying them, but without any sound logic. How does the destruction of homes, the confiscation of water, and the building of settlements inside the occupied territories promote security? Not even the Israelis make that argument.

By your reasoning the Allied bombing of Nazi German cities and 9/11 are morally equivalent because they both involved bombs and destruction of buildings and killing. I'm not surprised, because Jimmy Carter (notoriously) holds similar views. Equating the West Bank with apartheid is the same thing. You have now joined the the leftist self-hating fringe cult of Jimmy Carter and Noam Chomsky.

No, the bombing of Nazi Germany and 9/11 are not the same thing. Yes, that's a value judgment but we'll have to part company on that point.

You don't like my analogy? It's a perfect and precise illustration of the silliness of yours and Jimmy's.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Your claim that Israel has been asked to make UNILATERAL concessions illustrates extreme ignorance of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Unilaterial concessions have never been on the table.

Then what are you complaining about? What do you expect Israel to do while "Palestinians'" military class are engaged in trying to completely destroy Israel?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Please. Don't lecture me about the Six Day War. I never claimed that that the pre-emptive strike was wholly unjustified.

Whew. I'm glad we can agree on that much.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

But you are dodging the fact that Jordan was the least threatening of the neighbors.

Wait a minute. I thought we just agreed the preemptive strike was justified.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

That's just Sean Hannity-esque bullshit. And you claim my credibility is shot.

Sometimes Hannity gets it right.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

By your reasoning the Allied bombing of Nazi German cities and 9/11 are morally equivalent because they both involved bombs and destruction of buildings and killing. I'm not surprised, because Jimmy Carter (notoriously) holds similar views. Equating the West Bank with apartheid is the same thing. You have now joined the the leftist self-hating fringe cult of Jimmy Carter and Noam Chomsky.

No, the bombing of Nazi Germany and 9/11 are not the same thing. Yes, that's a value judgment but we'll have to part company on that point.

You don't like my analogy? It's a perfect and precise illustration of the silliness of yours and Jimmy's.

Nonsense. I don't equate the two. Nor do I support bombing of civilians. Neither does the current US military, thank God.

That's pretty clever how you throw in that analogy as a diversion. Slick attempt to put me on the defensive and draws the attention away for your lack of a response. Sneaky bastard.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Then what are you complaining about? What do you expect Israel to do while "Palestinians'" military class are engaged in trying to completely destroy Israel?

That's funny how you keep using the terms "military" and "military class" when discussing the Palestinians. Rocks, molotov cocktails, and pipe bombs against tanks and F-16s.

So in the end you refuse to refute the parallels between the settlements and apartheid. Rather you simply justify it. In your view, it is not an occupation but a constant state of war. And somehow this confiscation of resources and property is part of this defensive effort. More accurately, you give the Israelis carte blanche because the Palestinians deserve it.

It seems you have two trump cards you like to play:

(1) Israel's right to exist. (Forget for a moment that the Palestinians have agreed numerous times to acknowledge this right as part of a peace settlement) One of the Palestinians' great crimes in your eyes is defiance of their right to exist as a country. And yet you seem to show no sympathy or concern for the Palestinians right to exist as a country. First you deny the legitimacy of their identity as a people and then you suggest that they should simply find another place, much like the Jews displaced by the Nazis. Perhaps you miss the irony.

(2) Terrorist acts. You have repeatedly implied a zero-tolerance policy for acts of terror. Until there is 100% eradication (as if that is remotely possible for 3.7 million people living in poverty and under an occupation), you give the Israelis license to commit whatever human rights violations they see fit. But what is the distinguishing feature of terrorism that makes it so reprehensible? It is the fact that it randomly targets non-combatants within a civilian population. It doesn't follow civilized rules of conflict. It is barbaric. The great irony is that you see no problem with destruction of homes and confiscation of land and water from random members of the other civilian population. Not to mention the fact that far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israelis rockets and tanks than Israelis have died from terrorist attacks. In the end, what is the difference? The Israelis have squandered their moral authority. And so on we go, year after year, decade after decade in an endless spiral of violence and conflict.

I've got to hand it to you, you are a dedicated and zealous apologist for Israel. Given the poll numbers I have seen you are far more supportive of the occupation and settlements than the average Israeli. Perhaps I was wrong to compare you to Sean Hannity. Pat Robertson would probably have been a more accurate comparison.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Nor do I support bombing of civilians. Neither does the current US military, thank God.

Our and our Allies' military bombed civilians in WWII because we were faced with a real threat of destruction of our civilization. You don't know what we'd do if confronted with a similar threat again. I'm guessing we'd go to some pretty extreme lengths to save ourselves if confronted with that magnitude of menace again. I think you and Jimmy Carter are taking for granted the peace, security and ease of life hard won by warriors whom you condemn.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

That's funny how you keep using the terms "military" and "military class" when discussing the Palestinians. Rocks, molotov cocktails, and pipe bombs against tanks and F-16s.

So in the end you refuse to refute the parallels between the settlements and apartheid. Rather you simply justify it. In your view, it is not an occupation but a constant state of war. And somehow this confiscation of resources and property is part of this defensive effort. More accurately, you give the Israelis carte blanche because the Palestinians deserve it.

Let's review what facts YOU have (grudgingly) admitted in this exchange. Israel's conquest of the West Bank occurred in the Six Day War as an understandable preemptive strike against an attempted total destruction of Israel by a confederation of Islamic states citing Palestinians' displacement as justification.

Palestinians are currently ruled by the Islamofacsist militaristic organizations of Hamas and Hezbollah, whose explicit aim is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Hamas, Hezbollah, and possibly other terrorist organizations including Al Qeda engage in ongoing acts of war against Israel including terrorism/suicide bombings.

Were those rocks that Hezbollah was slinging at Israel?

You also agree that Israel should not be expected to do anything that is not part of a bilateral peace agreement.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It seems you have two trump cards you like to play:

(1) Israel's right to exist. (Forget for a moment that the Palestinians have agreed numerous times to acknowledge this right as part of a peace settlement) One of the Palestinians' great crimes in your eyes is defiance of their right to exist as a country. And yet you seem to show no sympathy or concern for the Palestinians right to exist as a country. First you deny the legitimacy of their identity as a people and then you suggest that they should simply find another place, much like the Jews displaced by the Nazis. Perhaps you miss the irony.

I do not deny the Palestinians' right to exist. I have said that reparations to the Palestinians including land would be a natural term of a comprehensive peace agreement. But I do not expect Israel to do as you and Jimmy Carter ask unilaterally. Apparently you agree, so what's the problem?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

(2) Terrorist acts. You have repeatedly implied a zero-tolerance policy for acts of terror. Until there is 100% eradication (as if that is remotely possible for 3.7 million people living in poverty and under an occupation), you give the Israelis license to commit whatever human rights violations they see fit. But what is the distinguishing feature of terrorism that makes it so reprehensible? It is the fact that it randomly targets non-combatants within a civilian population. It doesn't follow civilized rules of conflict. It is barbaric. The great irony is that you see no problem with destruction of homes and confiscation of land and water from random members of the other civilian population. Not to mention the fact that far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israelis rockets and tanks than Israelis have died from terrorist attacks. In the end, what is the difference? The Israelis have squandered their moral authority. And so on we go, year after year, decade after decade in an endless spiral of violence and conflict.

Now you are mischaracterizing my position. I have said Israel should not be expected to do as you ask unilaterally. However, I have been very clear that Israel should be expected--as it has expressed willingness--to give consideration as part of a peace agreement. But as long as Palestinians' army continues to wage war against Israel with the aim of totally destroying it, might makes right. How could you expect otherwise?

Your comment about the impossiblity of controlling a hostile population of 3.7 million is a telling admisson legitimizing Israel's security concerns with unilaterally giving their sworn enemy autonomy and/or full citizenship rights.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Nonsense. I don't equate the two. That's pretty clever how you throw in that analogy as a diversion. Slick attempt to put me on the defensive and draws the attention away for your lack of a response. Sneaky bastard.

Given your admissions (see above) I don't see how you can equate Isreal's occupation of the West Bank with apartheid. I have shown they are not the same thing. Clearly the analogy is as superficial as saying, "9/11 and the Allied bombing of Germany both involved blowing up buildings in cities and killing civilians, so they are the same thing."

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I've got to hand it to you, you are a dedicated and zealous apologist for Israel. Given the poll numbers I have seen you are far more supportive of the occupation and settlements than the average Israeli. Perhaps I was wrong to compare you to Sean Hannity. Pat Robertson would probably have been a more accurate comparison.

I've got to hand it to you, comparing ME to Pat Robertson and calling me an apologist are hurtful slurs. Sneaky bastard.

The poll numbers you cite are like the U.S. poll numbers purportedly showing a strong majority of Americans favor abortion. It all depends on how the quesion is asked. I have stated I favor peaceful settlements of Palestinians on the West Bank, with full rights of citizenship and/or autonomy--as part of a peace agreement--but not as unilateral action by Israel. I'm sure an overwhelming majority of Israelis agree with me.

What I disagree with, and what this debate has been about, is the propagandistic slur aparteid applied to Isarel, not whether Palestinians are a people or deserve a country under certain conditions. Clearly you and Jimmy Carter have overstated your case.

[MikeWaters]

Lebowski, what did Pat Robertson say in the above post? I really don't have the energy to wade through his lies.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Lebowski, what did Pat Robertson say in the above post? I really don't have the energy to wade through his lies.

SU wins

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think you and Jimmy Carter are taking for granted the peace, security and ease of life hard won by warriors whom you condemn.

So if one questions the deliberate mass bombing of civilians, one is condemning the sacrifices of the soldiers in WWII? What complete horseshit.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I do not deny the Palestinians' right to exist.

You most certainly did.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

...But I do not expect Israel to do as you and Jimmy Carter ask unilaterally.

...I have said Israel should not be expected to do as you ask unilaterally

...concerns with unilaterally giving their sworn enemy autonomy and/or full citizenship rights

Where on earth do you get this "unilaterally" nonsense? No one, especially Jimmy Carter, is asking for a unilateral agreement. He brokered the Camp David accord which secured peace between Israel and Egypt. A peace which lasts to this day. He is simply pushing for a similar outcome with the Palestinians. Stop being so obtuse.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Given your admissions (see above) I don't see how you can equate Isreal's occupation of the West Bank with apartheid. I have shown they are not the same thing.

No. You have not countered any of the facts I presented.You still have yet to present me with a single reason based on security for the settlements and the confiscations. All you have done is make excuses. Hell, the Israelis don't even make that argument. They claim that God gave them the land and is their birthright. Given your attitude on religion, I am not surprised that you are dodging that theme.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Where on earth do you get this "unilaterally" nonsense? No one, especially Jimmy Carter, is asking for a unilateral agreement. He brokered the Camp David accord which secured peace between Israel and Egypt. A peace which lasts to this day. He is simply pushing for a similar outcome with the Palestinians. Stop being so obtuse.

If we agree that the Palestinians' way out of their predicament and misery is a BILATERAL peace agreement between Israel and the war mongers on the Palestinians' side, why are you and JC calling it apartheid? "Apartheid" presupposes that the situation is under Israel's total control.