(12-26-2016 01:55 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I believe in the goodness of people. When people are treated fairly people will live in peace. No justice no peace.

It really is a shame that you have to be wrong about this, I certainly wish it were true, but it's not. The simple proof is history. I could say "if this is possible, show me a period of time where people were treated fairly and lived in peace together." You would probably reply with something like "that's the problem, someone always comes along and treats people unfairly, so the peace is lost." That of course sets up my reply of "that's what you get for believing in the goodness of people."

This will really hurt your belief system, but peace really only occurs when dealing with strictly homogeneous groups. For man that would mean race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc., essentially the exact opposite of the multi-culturalism that we have been told makes us all better. Proof of this can be found in a few places, first by looking at the safest places on the planet, such as Japan, Norway, Sweden, etc where you have extreme levels of commonality, and the second is just by looking at nature, i.e. The animal kingdom.

Unfortunately, man is an aggressive beast that thrives by imposing its will. So anytime you have conflicting wills, you will not have peace.

Owl,

What did we do when terrorists set bombs off at the Boston Marathon? Did we lob rockets at an apartment building? These are police matters. These people live under occupation. Maybe if they were treated with basic human dignity Israel wouldn't have as many problems as they do.


How would Texans react if their houses were stolen from them in the middle of the night? What if Mexico invaded Texas and Texas lived under occupation? Put yourself into Palestinian shoes one time too. You wouldn't tolerate living under those conditions.

(12-27-2016 12:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl,
What did we do when terrorists set bombs off at the Boston Marathon? Did we lob rockets at an apartment building? These are police matters. These people live under occupation. Maybe if they were treated with basic human dignity Israel wouldn't have as many problems as they do.

What would have been the point of lobbing rockets at an apartment building when there was no indication that the bombing had been masterminded from a command center within that apartment building?

This is not a police matter, and that's where you people on the left start to get it all badly wrong. The Palestinians have clearly stated their intent to be an existential threat to Israel, and have been acting in accordance with that intent. That was not the case with the Boston marathon bombers.

I'll repeat the question that you refuse to address. You're Israel, they're rocket bombing your civilians, they're running the operation out of a command post that is in an apartment building. If you attack the command post, some of their civilians may die. If you don't, some of your civilians certainly will. In that situation, what do you do?

Quote:How would Texans react if their houses were stolen from them in the middle of the night? What if Mexico invaded Texas and Texas lived under occupation? Put yourself into Palestinian shoes one time too. You wouldn't tolerate living under those conditions.

Again, not a valid comparable because Texas isn't rocket bombing Mexico and Texas hasn't threatened to eradicate Mexico from the face of the earth. Suppose Texas did those things. You're Mexico. What do you do?

I agree that living conditions for the Palestinians are terrible. But it's not like they were doing fine until Israel came along and ruined it. Living conditions in Gaza have sucked for two millennia. I have looked at it from their point of view. I don't think they have any choice but to resort to terrorist acts. I don't think those terrorist acts leave Israel any choice but to respond the way that they have. There is no peaceful solution--one state or two states--with things as they are. Each group needs a home country. There's no viable way to do that within the existing footprint of Israel. So what do you do? I mean, Mach, what do YOU do?

(12-27-2016 12:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-27-2016 12:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl,
What did we do when terrorists set bombs off at the Boston Marathon? Did we lob rockets at an apartment building? These are police matters. These people live under occupation. Maybe if they were treated with basic human dignity Israel wouldn't have as many problems as they do.

What would have been the point of lobbing rockets at an apartment building when there was no indication that the bombing had been masterminded from a command center within that apartment building?

This is not a police matter, and that's where you people on the left start to get it all badly wrong. The Palestinians have clearly stated their intent to be an existential threat to Israel, and have been acting in accordance with that intent. That was not the case with the Boston marathon bombers.

I'll repeat the question that you refuse to address. You're Israel, they're rocket bombing your civilians, they're running the operation out of a command post that is in an apartment building. If you attack the command post, some of their civilians may die. If you don't, some of your civilians certainly will. In that situation, what do you do?

Quote:How would Texans react if their houses were stolen from them in the middle of the night? What if Mexico invaded Texas and Texas lived under occupation? Put yourself into Palestinian shoes one time too. You wouldn't tolerate living under those conditions.

Again, not a valid comparable because Texas isn't rocket bombing Mexico and Texas hasn't threatened to eradicate Mexico from the face of the earth. Suppose Texas did those things. You're Mexico. What do you do?

I agree that living conditions for the Palestinians are terrible. But it's not like they were doing fine until Israel came along and ruined it. Living conditions in Gaza have sucked for two millennia. I have looked at it from their point of view. I don't think they have any choice but to resort to terrorist acts. I don't think those terrorist acts leave Israel any choice but to respond the way that they have. There is no peaceful solution--one state or two states--with things as they are. Each group needs a home country. There's no viable way to do that within the existing footprint of Israel. So what do you do? I mean, Mach, what do YOU do?

I'll simply add this, as this is definitely not my forte, BUT.

The single largest issue I have witnessed, personally in my life of witnessing stuff, hasn't been Israeli "oppression", or war-mongering for years and years from Israel promising to wipe the Palestinians off the face of the earth or forcing them into the sea.

It's been 2 things. Which we all witness here, today, locally, all the time.

Enrichment of those that promise "if you'll just fight this next battle" somehow that'll help the kid in the street throwing rocks. The terrorist assshole Arafat died a million, if not Billionaire and did next to nothing to better the people he purported to serve. Corruption, always the cornerstone of despots, dictators and tyrants.

If these Palestinians are such bedeviled victims for the past gazillion years, supposedly at the hands of the Israelis,... why hasn't someone else taken them in? Jordan? Iraq? Egypt? Bueller?

Really?!? I get they have some claim to the ground they sleep on, but don't the Syrians all living in Germany, France, and wherever else have a similar claim? Why is it that these "refugee's" are all okay to head off to better climes like the US of A, yet the Palestinians have been stuck there for, what? 60 years?

Nah. It's a vendetta, plain and simple. They will fight to the death if it can serve the purpose of extinction of Jews and elimination of the State of Israel. This is why we need to stand fast, not behind, but in front of Israel. And stand firm. Not like this asshat organizer currently packing her bags.

(12-26-2016 02:04 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  I barely have a fight in this, but my grandmother was Palestinian. In '48, her village (now part of Israel) was ransacked by a zionist militia, she was forced out of her home, and people she knew killed. She and her family fled and were never allowed to return, many of which wanted to die where their families grew up for generations. FWIW, her father (my great-grandfather) fought with the Arab Legion against the Axis powers in the Mediterranean theatre during WWII...and lost everything when Israel was formed.

I'm for peace and a two-state solution, but it's a two-way street. The Arabs need to understand that Israel is here to stay and their citizens deserve peace. But on the other side, Israel needs to stop taking more land from the Palestinians and should recognize their fundamental freedoms as humans.

I think that's a very reasonable post. I think there are two disparate positions among Palestinians and their supporters (who I don't think understand that at all): one is the focus on historic injustice, the second is dogmatic, religious-based.
The weight of the first - real or perceived - may fall more to one side than the other... I suspect there are substantial abuses on both sides. The first of those can be remedied by various means, including repatriation, compensation, negotiated agreements, and a peaceful resolution, but would have to be done in such a way that it is acceptable to both sides.

The second of those is not subject to reason, is not possible to remedy without capitulation on the Israeli side, or total victory from the Islamist side.

Palestinians and their advocates present a face of raising the position without acknowledging or conceding that there will be no movement toward peace without having the second position attainable. HAMAS (but typically not their western liberal stooges) is fairly straightforward in saying that they will accept a negotiation that Israel would make toward a permanent solution, but HAMAS would only accept it as a medium-term (40 year) cessation of hostilities, after which, they would expect to resume the effort to destroy Israel.

My understanding of the history of settlements is that there are multiple rationale for their existence, and multiple advocates throughout history. Their primary rationale were (1) provide a first line of defense for invasion or insurrection, and (2) a ploy to bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table. They are currently a complete mess. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew all of its settlements from Gaza and some of its settlements in the West Bank, and what resulted is a series of Obama's wars and calls for further withdrawals as a precondition for talks ... i.e. in exchange for nothing. It is irrational to expect the Israelis to contribute to the creation of a second front of an indefinite war and to release all restrictions for the arming of both Gaza and the West Bank.

I think that at this stage, the two state solution is dead... Israel cannot and will not agree to action that will end the state as it knows it (the so-called one-state solution), and it is not willing to replicate Aleppo in Palestine, which is what would be required for it to unilaterally put an end to the war (an Israeli state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River). The restrictions on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are the necessary response to one vector of attack against Israel after another. This is about as good as life will ever be for the Palestinians, and they should be thankful that they don't face an opponent like either side in Syria ... one side enslaves women of its opponents offers them as rewards to foreign fighters who thrive on rape/murder fantasy, and kills the men. The other side uses chemical weapons and (genuinely) discriminate attacks against all facets of civil society. The world witnesses genocide unfold in real life, and says nothing, but the Obama administration cooperates with the perpetrators of that genocide in condemning Israel (and we still wait on Obama's response to the Russians... at this stage, it will no doubt be some kind of anti-democratic retribution targeting the incoming Trump administration).

I'll add two things. The Palestinians were not lobbing rockets at Israel before having their lands stolen from them. Two it's not all Palestinians. That is called collective punishment and according to the Geneva Conventions Article 4 it is a crime against humanity.


One more thing I read the Bush administration in 2004 allowed a UN vote criticizing the settlement building. Take it one step further. Why don't Native American Indians still fight? The obvious answer is they have been assimilated into our culture. We have given them voting rights. At the end of the day that is what has to happen or you will live in a constant state of war or threat of it.

What is absolutely crazy about this. This culture knows exactly what it's like to have their lands and possessions stolen from them. They have been ethnically cleansed. They SHOULD BE the most sensitive to it! So their answer is to do it to somebody else? Make concessions break bread. Find peace. Basically do the exact f'in opposite of what they are doing.

(12-27-2016 07:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'll add two things. The Palestinians were not lobbing rockets at Israel before having their lands stolen from them.

The Palestinians were not lobbing rockets because they didn't have rockets to lob. They have been pretty consistently attacking Israel with whatever means they had since at least 1949.

Quote:Two it's not all Palestinians. That is called collective punishment and according to the Geneva Conventions Article 4 it is a crime against humanity.

First, you should read the Geneva Conventions. It's not Article 4, it's Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that contains the language to which you appear to be referring. You should actually read this stuff for yourself instead of picking up talking points from blogs.

Second the Geneva Conventions don't apply here, for at least two reasons. One they apply in wartime and this isn't war. Two, even in war, they don't apply if the other side isn't following them. You made a big deal out of the Israeli attack that destroyed an apartment building in which the Palestinians had installed a military command center. Do you understand that placing a military command center in an apartment building is a violation of the Geneva Conventions?

Your lack of knowledge is showing here. You should really make an effort to understand what the Geneva Conventions actually say before you try to quote them.

Quote:One more thing I read the Bush administration in 2004 allowed a UN vote criticizing the settlement building.

And in response, in 2005 the Israelis dismantled and abandoned their settlements in Sinai. How did the Palestinians react?

Quote:Take it one step further. Why don't Native American Indians still fight? The obvious answer is they have been assimilated into our culture. We have given them voting rights. At the end of the day that is what has to happen or you will live in a constant state of war or threat of it.

One, our treatment of Native Americans is nothing to write home about. Two, Palestinians explicitly reject assimilation into Israeli society and culture, in both word and deed.

You're wanting a solution that doesn't exist, and you are criticizing Israel for not providing it.

(12-27-2016 07:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What is absolutely crazy about this. This culture knows exactly what it's like to have their lands and possessions stolen from them. They have been ethnically cleansed. They SHOULD BE the most sensitive to it! So their answer is to do it to somebody else? Make concessions break bread. Find peace. Basically do the exact f'in opposite of what they are doing.

I have a friend who lives in Israel. You're misunderstanding the Israeli mentality. They have a siege mentality. Their very existence is a constant threat. Imagine living with the stress that on any day, you, your family, and your race of people could be wiped out. Your family moved to Israel because no where else was safe. Imagine you personally know people who were abducted and murdered, blown up for riding a bus, or stabbed in a market because of their race. Millions of your race were murdered in Europe. Now, you have a country of your own, but you have to defend it vigorously because no one in the world will protect you. Additionally, there is a religious component that this is your god given land. Your religious text promotes an eye for eye so you give back as good as you get. You've attempted peace in the past only to have the Palestinians break it repeatedly. You know they will never make peace.

I don't judge the Israelis because I haven't walked a mile in their shoes. I understand the injustice that the Palestinians feel as well. It's probably similar to our Native Americans. But our natives don't murder, bomb, and terrorize civilians on purpose then praise/deify the murderer. How to do you make peace with someone who's primary goal in life is to utterly destroy your race? I would submit it is not possible for Israel to make peace with most of their Muslim neighbors. But I don't think it is any of America's business meddle in their affairs either.

(12-27-2016 07:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Why don't Native American Indians still fight? The obvious answer is they have been assimilated into our culture. We have given them voting rights. At the end of the day that is what has to happen or you will live in a constant state of war or threat of it.

There were warring tribes and peaceful tribes. Peaceful were herded and "savages" were killed.

Those willing to fight weren't assimilated, they were killed. They aren't around to vote.

(12-27-2016 07:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What is absolutely crazy about this. This culture knows exactly what it's like to have their lands and possessions stolen from them. They have been ethnically cleansed. They SHOULD BE the most sensitive to it! So their answer is to do it to somebody else? Make concessions break bread. Find peace. Basically do the exact f'in opposite of what they are doing.

When your choice is to do it to someone else or have it done to you, which do you choose?

You're wanting a solution that doesn't exist, and criticizing Israel for not providing it.

You assume that playing nice with the Palestinians means they will play nice in return. What if they won't? History says they won't. And Israel's very existence depends on their not making that assumption in error.

Owl please.

These are crimes against humanity and no the Palestinians did not put a command center in an apartment building. That is you who is misinformed and that is you taking a talking point. They have targeted Hamas leaders and if civilians get caught up in the collateral damage so be it. They have a careless and wanton attitude towards Palestinian blood. They have bulldozed houses. Over 48,000. Entire neighborhoods have been displaced because a suicide bomber came from the area. Again collective punishment.
The United Nations (UN) and human rights groups such as Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross who oppose the house demolitions reject the IDF's claims, and document numerous instances where they argue the IDF's claims do not apply.[3] They accuse the Israeli government and IDF of other motives:

Collective punishment, the punishment of an innocent Palestinian "for an offence he or she has not personally committed."[3][26]
Theft of Palestinian land by annexation to build the Israeli West Bank barrier or to create, expand or otherwise benefit Israeli settlements.[3][27]
According to the United Nations, about 1,500 homes were demolished by the IDF just in the Rafah area in the period 2000-2004.[28]

In 2004, Human Rights Watch published the report 'Razing Rafah: Mass Home Demolitions in the Gaza Strip'.[29][30] The report documented what it described as a "pattern of illegal demolitions" by the IDF in Rafah, a refugee camp and city at the southern end of the Gaza Strip on the border with Egypt where sixteen thousand people lost their homes after the Israeli government approved a plan to expand the de facto "buffer zone" in May 2004.[30][31] The IDF’s main stated rationales for the demolitions were responding to and preventing attacks on its forces and the suppression of weapons smuggling through tunnels from Egypt[32]

(12-27-2016 07:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'll add two things. The Palestinians were not lobbing rockets at Israel before having their lands stolen from them. Two it's not all Palestinians. That is called collective punishment and according to the Geneva Conventions Article 4 it is a crime against humanity.


One more thing I read the Bush administration in 2004 allowed a UN vote criticizing the settlement building. Take it one step further. Why don't Native American Indians still fight? The obvious answer is they have been assimilated into our culture. We have given them voting rights. At the end of the day that is what has to happen or you will live in a constant state of war or threat of it.

Because the US Army hunted them endlessly until they had no choice but to surrender or starve. Contributing to this was the almost eradication of the buffalo herd which many of the tribes relied on not only as their primary food source but for many of their everyday items. It was a classic military tactic....harass the enemy and deny them access to food and they'll submit.

Because of this the tribes became reliant on the white man for food and goods and the only way they would have access would be if they submitted and moved to reservations. Generations of Native Americans have been feeding off the government teat since living in abject poverty on reservations, even to this day.

You need to answer why collective punishment isn't a crime against humanity. You need to answer why it is ok for the IDF to target civilian populations do to their ethnicity. You need to answer why that is not ethnic cleansing.

Why in the world the American right tolerates it is beyond me.

It reminds me of children who have had horrible acts done unto them. They in turn do that to others when they are older. It's terrible.

Let's put this into terms that you guys can somewhat relate to and understand. Imagine that Israel is the EPA. The Palestinians are the Bundy boys. Let's say the EPA wants to confiscate their lands to save a sand crane or tortoise. Boy you guys would be arming up your dune buggy's and Humvees and ready to go to battle. Hell most of you would buy a ticket for an airplane within a week. You guys would be so fired up after FoxNews and Drudge got done with you. Just imagine Israel was the Environmental Protection Agency confiscating homes in the name of stopping global warming instead of bulldozing women and children in homes. I forget sometimes the things that really fire you guys up. Think of the Palestinians as a giant corporation like Exxon Mobil. Maybe then you could find some compassion.

It's called war Mach, and it's not one that Israel started. Palestinians have for decades stated that their greatest desire is to eradicate the Israelis. After the Holocaust the Jewish people aren't going to take any risks.

Ironically your Native American deal shows exactly why the settlements are necessary. The west wasn't really tamed until Americans moved out there and started building homes and towns. With towns came security. Same thing here.

Do the Bundy ranchers pose an existential threat to the very existence of the EPA if they were left unchecked? And do they headquarter their operations in an apartment complex to use civilians as human shields?

(12-26-2016 12:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You either believe in Universal Human Rights or you don't. You are either against collective punishment or you're not. You either are against targeting civilians or you are not. Not hard.

So you support the side that repudiates all that and wants to exterminate the Jews and drive them from the Middle East and has largely done so with their Christian brothers?

(12-27-2016 10:51 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You need to answer why collective punishment isn't a crime against humanity. You need to answer why it is ok for the IDF to target civilian populations do to their ethnicity. You need to answer why that is not ethnic cleansing.

First, you need to establish that the IDF is targeting civilian populations due to their ethnicity. Since the IDF is not doing that, that's going to be a very difficult proof.

What the IDF is doing is attacking military targets that their intel indicates are existential threats to Israel, even if human shields are involved. The crime against humanity in that case is the use of human shields by the Palestinians. That is specifically prohibited under international law. How do you feel about that crime against humanity? You don't seem to be much bothered by it.

One huge difference between what the IDF is doing and what the Palestinians are doing is that the IDF is attacking military targets and incurring collateral damage to civilians as a result, whereas the Palestinians are attacking indiscriminately, without regard to the military significance of their targets. One of those is a much bigger violation of human rights than the other, and the IDF isn't the bigger one.

As long as the Palestinians pose an existential threat to Israel--which they do in both word and deed--and as long as they hide the launch points for those threats behind human shields, exactly what should Israel do? You keep saying what Israel should not do, but aside from getting together for a Kumbaya party, you haven't indicated what they should do.

Here's a hypothetical for you. Assume the Palestinians are committed to the eradication of Israel, that they are launching deadly attacks against civilians with no military significance, that they are hiding the launch points for such attacks behind human shields, and that they are unwilling to enter into peaceful resolution. We can discuss later whether that is an accurate depiction of the situation. But for now, suppose that it is (and Israel sincerely believes that it is), then if you are Israel, what do you do?

(12-27-2016 10:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  These are crimes against humanity and no the Palestinians did not put a command center in an apartment building.

Source?

Regardless of any specific case, it is clearly true that the Palestinians have consistently hidden military targets behind human shields. That is a crime against humanity. And that basically takes the IDF off the hook from a Geneva Conventions standpoint. See, for example:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/G...-1949.html

or

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_Conventions

The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.

(12-27-2016 07:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'll add two things. The Palestinians were not lobbing rockets at Israel before having their lands stolen from them. Two it's not all Palestinians. That is called collective punishment and according to the Geneva Conventions Article 4 it is a crime against humanity.


One more thing I read the Bush administration in 2004 allowed a UN vote criticizing the settlement building. Take it one step further. Why don't Native American Indians still fight? The obvious answer is they have been assimilated into our culture. We have given them voting rights. At the end of the day that is what has to happen or you will live in a constant state of war or threat of it.

1948 was a war of extermination by the Arabs. They lost. They were massing in 1967 when the Israelis attacked first. They attacked in 1973. They have been using terror ever since.

The Jewish people have been driven out of the middle east three separate times, by the Assyrians, Babylonians and Romans. They were driven out of Europe by the Germans. Their homes and property were taken. They were massacred and driven out of several areas of Palestine in the early 1900s. They view it as reclaiming land that was stolen from them.

Now probably none of the people who actually lost homes are still alive. But how many of the Palestinians who lost their homes in 1948 when their Arab brothers tried to exterminate the Jews are still alive?