Israel as "occupiers" and other bull poop

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

Because it doesn't trust that the PLO/Fatah/Hamas will do enough (or... anything) to prevent terrorist attacks... which gets back to its correct belief that none of those governing factions are really committed to Israel's right to exist.

The first thing Israel demanded in the Oslo accords - as a backdrop for trust and concessions - was that the PLO constitutionally acknowledge and commit itself to Israel's right to exist. The PLO agreed to do this... and never did.

`If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country, It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?' - David Ben-Gurion

[Indy Coug]

Were the Israelites justifed in seizing the Promised Land during the Exodus? Certainly, this 20th century "takeover" has been a lot more humane than the one 3,000+ years ago.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Were the Israelites justifed in seizing the Promised Land during the Exodus? Certainly, this 20th century "takeover" has been a lot more humane than the one 3,000+ years ago.

I would say No they were not.

If Monson asks me to kill men, women and children to possess their lands, I would hope that I would refuse, and call it what it is: murder and genocide.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

While I question the legitimacy of Zionism, I have used the term "occupying nation" solely in terms of the West Bank. Israel itself calls this the "occupied territories". How is it not an occupation? I can't believe this is even an item for debate.

Some would (not without reason, I submit) call the Isaraeli capture of the West Bank poetic justic, not conquest. Oxcoug is clearly right that the weight of responsible opinion is that the Six-Day War was an intelligent and well executed preemptive strike against a planned invasion and all-out effort to destroy Israel. Augustine would have called it a "just war."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

`If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country, It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?' - David Ben-Gurion

Everybody here probably understands the dynamics better than I.

The right to exist is at least the language which causes the stumbling block. And absent a nuclear holocaust, Arabs who mouth a desire to annihilate Israel won't succeed.

It seems negotiators should be able to find some workable, tradeable concept here. Having some Middle Eastern clients, from what I can tell, if there's one thing they enjoy more than arguing, it's bartering. And yes I've read small bits and pieces about the Oslo accords, but it seems we've really not got past stage one.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I would say No they were not.

If Monson asks me to kill men, women and children to possess their lands, I would hope that I would refuse, and call it what it is: murder and genocide.

If that is even how it happened. Do you really wish to rely upon tradition later recorded as scripture especially if the devil is in the details?

[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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Were the Israelites justifed in seizing the Promised Land during the Exodus? Certainly, this 20th century "takeover" has been a lot more humane than the one 3,000+ years ago.

You know you are on shaky moral and logical ground when the best you can do is point to major historical injustices and say "See, that was worse."

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You know you are on shaky moral and logical ground when the best you can do is point to major historical injustices and say "See, that was worse."

The beginning of the moral ground is the possibility that the initial seizure of the Promised Land in the Old Testament had a divine seal of approval.