Israel as "occupiers" and other bull poop

[Oxcoug]

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).

[Indy Coug]

[MikeWaters]

Link to evidence that Israel has lived up to the Oslo accords?

[Oxcoug]

http://www.amazon.com/Missing-Peace-...2070345&sr=8-1

That's if you'd really like to get familiar with the subject.

Bottom line - the PLO violated nearly EVERY item it agreed to in the Declaration of Principles. In fact, while STILL in Oslo Arafat notoriously was telling Arab media (in a closed Arabic meeting) that he didn't take them seriously and that they were a means to an end.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

http://www.amazon.com/Missing-Peace-...2070345&sr=8-1

That's if you'd really like to get familiar with the subject.

Bottom line - the PLO violated nearly EVERY item it agreed to in the Declaration of Principles. In fact, while STILL in Oslo Arafat notoriously was telling Arab media (in a closed Arabic meeting) that he didn't take them seriously and that they were a means to an end.

From the Washington Post review of the book:

Still, when Ross steps back and reviews the trail of tears that the peace process became, he argues that both sides failed to live up to their commitments. Palestinian leaders failed to stop, and even gave support to, the suicide bombers, while Israelis never really eased the grip of their military occupation or stopped building and expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

We know Clinton blamed Arafat, for not taking the crumbs that Israel offered. That's hardly news.

[Oxcoug]

(and arguably a misrepresentation) of Ross's case - Ross does say (as would I - I have never said and don't believe that Israel is blameless) that both sides bear blame. But not equal blame, and not even close.

If you do read the book - which I would really recommend to anyone (though it is long), the man's knowledge of the conflict is probably greater than anyone on the planet - you'll see that his assessment that both bear blame is the way in which a 15 year old kid bears some blame in a fight with his 12 year old brother for not being mature enough - even though the 12 year old was the aggressor from the beginning.

[MikeWaters]

The American diplomat thinks that the Palestinians were the impediment to peace.

Shocker.

[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.