Israel as "occupiers" and other bull poop

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

Lebowski's lost so many arguments to me over the years that he's decided to make no effort.

lol. Sure you have, buddy. Sure.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

lol. Sure you have, buddy. Sure.

He's kicked your ass so far in this thread.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

He's kicked your ass so far in this thread.

we don't really care about the opinions of guys with pocket protectors.

the more oxcoug talks, the more he admits he is moving towards our position.

[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

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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

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.

This is just silly. Of course they are an occupying nation. And of course it is a unique situation.

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

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.

Gaza is a shit-hole. Always has been. There were only a few small Israeli settlements there. It is massively overcrowded and there is not enough water to support the population.

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

The West Bank is the ONLY area where any legitimate grievance can be claimed against Israel as an "occupier."

Yes, and it represents the main bulk of the occupied territories, and has been the main point of our debate. What exactly is your point?

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

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.

And thus the cycle continues.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This looks interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/185...K2RB0D54WF98AD

Written by an Israeli, a senior lecturer at Haifa University. Tex and SU should let this guy know that terms like "ethnic cleansing" are verboten.

Ironically, I think the internal debate in Israel regarding this conflict is often more balanced and objective than that in the United States.

[SeattleUte]

Waters, kindly cease the "you Mormons think" epithet. I get your point but that brush is too broad here.

Let me draw the logical conclusion from Ox's detailed points for you: Israel is a reflective liberal democracy subject to the whimsy, opinions, and collective conscience of its constituents. (Aside: this factor has evolved and changed over time, becoming more or less hawkish in response preceived good or bad faith on "Palestinians'" part.) Within Israel and the greater Jewish community and among Israel's friends there is an ongoing difference of opinion and free debate about how to deal with the Palestinian problem. In contrast, the Palestinians comprise a military dictatorship imbued with a warrior cult and implacable hatred for the West and particularly Israel. The purpose of its existence is to annihilate Israel, which in addition to being the only democracy in the Middle East, and the only country there except arguaby Turkey with a secular ethos at its core, holds special historical and symbolic significance to the West.

You are kidding yourselves if you think this dispute is between Israel and a bunch of poor, wretched brown people huddled in tents on its border. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda, etc. all wage war constant war against Israel in the name of "Palestine." Waters and Lebowski, you woud be their appeasers.

Oxcoug said no "occupier" in history has been surrounded by hostile forces. This is not technically correct. See, e.g., Napoleon's army in Russia. It is, however, highly unorthodox to call a soverign nation an occupier where it is surrounded by overwhelming hostile nations and would have no place else to go were it to leave. It would be abandoning its own country.

Thus, I would like those who are anti-Israel here to explain precisely the extent to which Israel is an "occupying nation" in the same sense Germany was occupying Poland.

(Aside: there was once a huge Jewish population in Poland. No more. And those that weren't murderd emigrated to the U.S., Isarael and elsewhere and so far as I know haven't asked for anything from Germany.)

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Oxcoug said no "occupier" in history has been surrounded by hostile forces. This is not technically correct. See, e.g., Napoleon's army in Russia. It is, however, highly unorthodox to call a soverign nation an occupier where it is surrounded by overwhelming hostile nations and would have no place else to go were it to leave. It would be abandoning its own country.

Thus, I would like those who are anti-Israel here to explain precisely the extent to which Israel is an "occupying nation" in the same sense Germany was occupying Poland.

(Aside: there was once a huge Jewish population in Poland. No more. And those that weren't murderd emigrated to the U.S., Isarael and elsewhere and so far as I know haven't asked for anything from Germany.)

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.

[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.