Israel as "occupiers" and other bull poop

[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.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by 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."

I'm just sniper fire. Lewbowski and you are artillery. Keep it up.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm just sniper fire. Lewbowski and you are artillery. Keep it up.

Lebowski and SIEQ, do you agree with Waters that Israel was the de facto and de jure aggressor in the Six-Day war, and it was an unjust war?

[Spaz]

It's obvious, to me, that the debate on this issue is not about peace between Palestinian & Israeli (which is, IMO, impossible due to mutually exclusive goals), but about the moral correctness of the actions of Israel in regards to those territories referred to as "occupied".


To me, this argument comes down to the following:

1. When is it OK for a victorious nation to claim territory from other nations following a war?

2. When bordered by an aggressive, belligerent people, what actions are acceptable to protect your citizens?

3. What actions were taken that were unrelated to the security of Israel?


Personally, I have a hard time blaming a country for holding onto assets taken from the aggressors during a war that threatened the complete destruction of it's people, and which assets provide security against an escalation of violence against it's citizens.

On the other hand, I recognize that actions taking by an occupying force will invariably involve atrocities that should rightfully be condemned.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

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.

Yes, I said that it'd be nice to have another intelligent ultraconservative, which you are. You folks entertain me.

I don't blame you for your positions. I consider you to be a victim of hacks like Tucker Carlson. See below:

[SoonerCoug]

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.

Yes. When God says it's OK to kill people, then it is moral. Thank goodness for the Nephi/Laban story and the Old Testament. Where would our perception of morality be if we didn't know it was OK to kill people?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Lebowski and SIEQ, do you agree with Waters that Israel was the de facto and de jure aggressor in the Six-Day war, and it was an unjust war?

I'm not familiar with Mike's position, but I think the following should be part of the discussion:

Responsibility: When the UN General Assembly convened an emergency session right after the 1967 war, not a single country unilaterally asserted that the Arab countries solely caused the war. There were various perspectives expressed, including that Israel was the aggressor, that all parties to the conflict were at fault, and that attempting to determine responsibility was useless.

The U.S.S.R. put forward a resolution condemning Israel. The U.S. didn't sign on--but not because the resolution condemned Israel. The U.S. didn't sign on because the Soviet's resolution didn't also condemn the Arab nations. The following is from the U.S.'s statement in the Official Records of the General Assembly Fifth Emergency Special Session from June 17-September 18, 1967:

"Israel alone is to be condemned as an aggressor [by the Soviet resolution]--though surely, in the light of all the events, both recent and long past, that led up to the fighting, it would be neither equitable nor constructive for this Organization to issue a one-sided condemnation."

Israel's Options: I think Israel had other reasonable options. It could have asked for a redeployment of UN forces on its Egyptian border. It also could have accepted the temporary suspension of the Straits of Tiran issue proposed by the UN Secretary General.

Pre-Emptive Attack: According to a scholar at the conservative (and Jewish) Shalem Center in Jerusalem, Egypt probably didn't intend to attack Israel. Avraham Selam noted that, "The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan...and Nasser's defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike."

I'm drawing these points from Finkelstein's 2005 book, and from my notes on his book.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

Yes. When God says it's OK to kill people, then it is moral. Thank goodness for the Nephi/Laban story and the Old Testament. Where would our perception of morality be if we didn't know it was OK to kill people?

What do you think God REALLY intended to happen once Moses got the Israelites to the scenic overlook of the Promised Land?

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

Yes. When God says it's OK to kill people, then it is moral. Thank goodness for the Nephi/Laban story and the Old Testament. Where would our perception of morality be if we didn't know it was OK to kill people?

I enjoy the comedy involved when one places one's own sensibilities on the acceptable actions of God.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Spaz

I enjoy the comedy involved when one places one's own sensibilities on the acceptable actions of God.

It's the inevitable and unfortunate byproduct of wearing a "WWJD" bracelet.