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.

Ma'ake · 05-29-2008, 04:40 AM

I can understand & sympathize with defenders of Israel, given the Arab nations' seeking Israel's destruction, endless Palestinian attacks, incessant hatred toward jews & Israel, etc.

I get all that, it makes sense...

Well... up until learning who blew up the King David Hotel. Weren't Menachem Begin & his pals really some of the pioneers of modern terrorism?

Why didn't the Jews take the offer & go to South Africa, or South America? (Possible answer - religious intoxication)

The "Holy Land" is anything but. What a disaster.

Jeff Lebowski · 05-29-2008, 04:41 AM

My goodness. That's all you've got?

SU, are you taking note? Mr. Hotshot studies at Oxford and this is his best defense. Speaks volumes.

MikeWaters · 05-29-2008, 04:42 AM

It's conventional Mormon thinking to think like an ass? I don't think so.

You are a great intellect on CB. Not here.

Oxcoug · 05-29-2008, 05:22 AM

uhhh...nothing. Exactly as expected. Lebowski's lost so many arguments to me over the years that he's decided to make no effort. Probably we're all better for that.

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?

Oxcoug · 05-29-2008, 05:29 AM

to a fairly detailed breakdown of Israel's territorial claims and how the term "occupying nation" is misplaced in terms of historical precedents.

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?

MikeWaters · 05-29-2008, 05:38 AM

You really expect that after a thread with more than 360 replies, we are going to repeat everything just for you?

Time for you to crawl back to CB.

SoonerCoug · 05-29-2008, 05:48 AM

Quote:

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 · 05-29-2008, 01:46 PM

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 · 05-29-2008, 01:57 PM

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).

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.

05-29-2008, 04:41 AM	#3
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	My goodness. That's all you've got? SU, are you taking note? Mr. Hotshot studies at Oxford and this is his best defense. Speaks volumes. __________________ "... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. Last edited by Jeff Lebowski; 05-29-2008 at 04:56 AM.

05-29-2008, 05:22 AM	#5
Oxcoug Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 69	Hah - Lebowski and Waters team up and deliver.... uhhh...nothing. Exactly as expected. Lebowski's lost so many arguments to me over the years that he's decided to make no effort. Probably we're all better for that. 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?

05-29-2008, 05:29 AM	#6
Oxcoug Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 69	Waters + Lebowski = zero substantive response to a fairly detailed breakdown of Israel's territorial claims and how the term "occupying nation" is misplaced in terms of historical precedents. 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? Last edited by Oxcoug; 05-29-2008 at 05:38 AM.

05-29-2008, 01:57 PM	#10
Oxcoug Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 69	Waters the fairly inartful Dodger 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).

05-29-2008, 04:40 AM	#2
Ma'ake Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: SLC Posts: 441	I can understand & sympathize with defenders of Israel, given the Arab nations' seeking Israel's destruction, endless Palestinian attacks, incessant hatred toward jews & Israel, etc. I get all that, it makes sense... Well... up until learning who blew up the King David Hotel. Weren't Menachem Begin & his pals really some of the pioneers of modern terrorism? Why didn't the Jews take the offer & go to South Africa, or South America? (Possible answer - religious intoxication) The "Holy Land" is anything but. What a disaster.

05-29-2008, 04:42 AM	#4
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	It's conventional Mormon thinking to think like an ass? I don't think so. You are a great intellect on CB. Not here.

05-29-2008, 05:38 AM	#7
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	You really expect that after a thread with more than 360 replies, we are going to repeat everything just for you? Time for you to crawl back to CB.

05-29-2008, 01:46 PM	#9
Oxcoug Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 69	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.