Israel as "occupiers" and other bull poop

[Oxcoug]

why does Israel have a military presence in Gaza and the West Bank?

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.

To this day it never found its way into any PLO/Fatah document. Which left Israel thinking (fairly) - they do not acknowledge our right to exist and therefore we can only assume they remain committed to our destruction, therefore we cannot cede these territories which will be used to attack our civilians to their control.

But for the record - I am in total agreement that many of the West Bank settlements need to go. By force if necessary. Ironically, so are a majority of Israelis.

[Oxcoug]

befriended by Arafat. Again mate - stop dealing in simplifications.

He makes the case. Stop pretending you can dismiss the case with an offhand reference to him being an American.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

why does Israel have a military presence in Gaza and the West Bank?

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.

Perhaps you can explain to us how the ever-increasing settlements and the confiscation of water from the West Bank promotes security? That is one of the main points of our debate.

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

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.

To this day it never found its way into any PLO/Fatah document. Which left Israel thinking (fairly) - they do not acknowledge our right to exist and therefore we can only assume they remain committed to our destruction, therefore we cannot cede these territories which will be used to attack our civilians to their control.

The Palestinians will only agree to that when they get an agreement that is fair. They would be foolish to officially concede that point prior to that time. It is a bargaining chip. And don't try to bullshit us, the Israelis have never made a remotely fair offer; i.e., one with sufficient water, contiguous land, and autonomy to be able to develop an economy and have a future.

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

But for the record - I am in total agreement that many of the West Bank settlements need to go. By force if necessary. Ironically, so are a majority of Israelis.

Good for you. Then I am going to assume that you agree that the theft of water is immoral also.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

Nice doggy. Go back into your kennel now.