The Republican Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

Also, this is what scares me:

 

http://gawker.com/israel-pulls-all-troops-...gaza-1616233024

 

Look at the comments. Zero understanding. "Oppressor" is always worse than "oppressed" without regard to historical context.

[illinilaw08]

Also, this is what scares me:

 

http://gawker.com/israel-pulls-all-troops-...gaza-1616233024

 

Look at the comments. Zero understanding. "Oppressor" is always worse than "oppressed" without regard to historical context.

 

Comments sections are always scary and terrible, but those were pretty bad...

 

Jenks, thought you would be interested in this Wiki entry about the proposal and collapse of Dubya's Roadmap. It's Wikipedia and there definitely appears to be some editorializing in there, but thought it was an interesting read...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_map_for_peace

[Balta1701]

Sure, but the counter is what else is Israel supposed to do? Hamas purposefully puts their weapons and people in large public places like schools and hospitals SPECIFICALLY so that when Israel knocks them out they can tell the world how awful Israel is. And the world eats that crap up and they forget Hamas started the whole thing by kidnapping and killing Israeli citizens and/or launching rockets.

 

edit: and the disproportionate numbers just comes down to military strength and sophistication. It's getting mad at the 10 year old for being more physical than the 4 year old. Hamas (and Palestinians who support Hamas) picked the wrong fight and they're hoping the world takes pity on them. If Hamas could they'd go back to their car/bus bombing days. But security is too good for that now.

Hopefully without taking a side too strongly here...one thing seriously bothers me about this claim and the repetition of it. Let's say that the citizens of Gaza, through any variety of elected leadership, wanted to have any military resources whatsoever, to protect their territory and all the things that come with it.

 

Where would they put it?

 

This is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. It's almost physically impossible to have any sort of installation that isn't within the explosion radius of a large missile that isn't also within range of a school/hospital/day care facility, just because everything is within that range. If a missile installation is installed anywhere within Gaza, it by definition has to be using everyone around it as human shields because there is literally no open space.

 

The alternative hypothetical...let's say that Hamas wanted to avoid putting children in harm's way so they declared their intention to develop a standard military base. Anyone think that would be allowed?

 

So it's a catch-22. The only scenario that is acceptable is a completely disarmed population under the complete authority of Israel. Anything else is either prohibited or using human shields.

 

So when I read this claim, I read it as claiming that these people should have no right to any sort of military or self defense of any kind, because that's what it translates to in a physical sense.

[Jenksismyhero]

Hopefully without taking a side too strongly here...one thing seriously bothers me about this claim and the repetition of it. Let's say that the citizens of Gaza, through any variety of elected leadership, wanted to have any military resources whatsoever, to protect their territory and all the things that come with it.

 

Where would they put it?

 

This is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. It's almost physically impossible to have any sort of installation that isn't within the explosion radius of a large missile that isn't also within range of a school/hospital/day care facility, just because everything is within that range. If a missile installation is installed anywhere within Gaza, it by definition has to be using everyone around it as human shields because there is literally no open space.

 

The alternative hypothetical...let's say that Hamas wanted to avoid putting children in harm's way so they declared their intention to develop a standard military base. Anyone think that would be allowed?

 

So it's a catch-22. The only scenario that is acceptable is a completely disarmed population under the complete authority of Israel. Anything else is either prohibited or using human shields.

 

So when I read this claim, I read it as claiming that these people should have no right to any sort of military or self defense of any kind, because that's what it translates to in a physical sense.

 

We're talking about a terrorist organization holding weapons (and using weapons), not a peaceful sovereign government. Because of that I don't think they should have any military, at least not until they can show that they're not going to provoke violent conflicts again.

 

Also, instead of wasting money on their military, why not try to do SOMETHING for the people there?

[EvilMonkey]

Hopefully without taking a side too strongly here...one thing seriously bothers me about this claim and the repetition of it. Let's say that the citizens of Gaza, through any variety of elected leadership, wanted to have any military resources whatsoever, to protect their territory and all the things that come with it.

 

Where would they put it?

 

This is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. It's almost physically impossible to have any sort of installation that isn't within the explosion radius of a large missile that isn't also within range of a school/hospital/day care facility, just because everything is within that range. If a missile installation is installed anywhere within Gaza, it by definition has to be using everyone around it as human shields because there is literally no open space.

 

The alternative hypothetical...let's say that Hamas wanted to avoid putting children in harm's way so they declared their intention to develop a standard military base. Anyone think that would be allowed?

 

So it's a catch-22. The only scenario that is acceptable is a completely disarmed population under the complete authority of Israel. Anything else is either prohibited or using human shields.

 

So when I read this claim, I read it as claiming that these people should have no right to any sort of military or self defense of any kind, because that's what it translates to in a physical sense.

So they just store rockets inside UN schools because they don't have a specific base just for them? They instruct citizens to NOT leave the launch area because they really wouldn't have anywhere else to go? That is your defense? If Hamas wanted to avoid putting children into harms way they could open up the myriad of tunnels they built to the public, like bomb shelters. But they don't.

 

[Balta1701]

We're talking about a terrorist organization holding weapons (and using weapons), not a peaceful sovereign government. Because of that I don't think they should have any military, at least not until they can show that they're not going to provoke violent conflicts again.

 

Also, instead of wasting money on their military, why not try to do SOMETHING for the people there?

Well, first of all, they were legitimately elected as the leadership of the territory in an election the last US President pushed hard for at the time. But seriously let's just ignore that and focus on another point.

 

You've now outlined a major problem and another Catch-22. To keep these areas from having anything that could possibly be used as a component in a weapon, Israel keeps such a tight blockade on civilian supplies and equipment that the area is in a constant state of complete economic starvation. Unemployment rates sit at about 40%. Even construction supplies, things that would "do something for the people there" can't get in because heavy construction equipment has clear military uses.

 

Any time I try to put myself in those shoes...try to imagine being a young male with literally no opportunity to improve the lives of myself or my family as long as the Israeli blockade exists, and no hope of having the Israeli blockade lifted, I ask myself what I would do and my answer winds up being that I'd try to fight in any way I could.

 

To keep weapons out of the hands of willing fighters, the blockade has to be so formidable as to deny basic human dignity, and the denial of basic human dignity creates an army of young men willing to do whatever they can to fight back.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, first of all, they were legitimately elected as the leadership of the territory in an election the last US President pushed hard for at the time. But seriously let's just ignore that and focus on another point.

 

You've now outlined a major problem and another Catch-22. To keep these areas from having anything that could possibly be used as a component in a weapon, Israel keeps such a tight blockade on civilian supplies and equipment that the area is in a constant state of complete economic starvation. Unemployment rates sit at about 40%. Even construction supplies, things that would "do something for the people there" can't get in because heavy construction equipment has clear military uses.

 

Any time I try to put myself in those shoes...try to imagine being a young male with literally no opportunity to improve the lives of myself or my family as long as the Israeli blockade exists, and no hope of having the Israeli blockade lifted, I ask myself what I would do and my answer winds up being that I'd try to fight in any way I could.

 

To keep weapons out of the hands of willing fighters, the blockade has to be so formidable as to deny basic human dignity, and the denial of basic human dignity creates an army of young men willing to do whatever they can to fight back.

 

Yeah, they were elected, but they're also a terrorist organization. They don't recognize Israel. They publicly call for the annihilation of Israel and the Jews that live there. They've started 2 wars and invaded Israel twice in the last 70 years. (edit: sorry, they being Palestinians for the wars)

 

I think Israel sorta is in the right in defending itself as it does. It would suck to be a young Palestinian as you've outlined. I'd probably feel the same way. But, ya know, take out your anger out on the older generation and the religious leaders that are continuing the conflict, not the country that is acting in a pretty reasonable manner given the situation.

 

Maybe if Hamas actually cared, they'd tell the North Koreans and Iranians to provide them with food and money and a basis for an economy instead of rockets and guns.

 

edit: keep in mind too that Israel continually acknowledges that Palestinians exist and have a right to a "state." They continue to offer them land. We can talk about the settlement issues, but really there are no borders here. Israel won the war(s), so they get to determine the borders.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Yeah, they were elected, but they're also a terrorist organization. They don't recognize Israel. They publicly call for the annihilation of Israel and the Jews that live there. They've started 2 wars and invaded Israel twice in the last 70 years.

 

I think Israel sorta is in the right in defending itself as it does. It would suck to be a young Palestinian as you've outlined. I'd probably feel the same way. But, ya know, take out your anger out on the older generation and the religious leaders that are continuing the conflict, not the country that is acting in a pretty reasonable manner given the situation.

 

Maybe if Hamas actually cared, they'd tell the North Koreans and Iranians to provide them with food and money and a basis for an economy instead of rockets and guns.

And again, what good is food and money and the basis for an economy if those basic necessities cannot legally enter the area?

 

And if I'm in an area being bombed and starved I'm not going to con side fit a "pretty reasonable response".

 

Also, what two wars have they started? This one and 2009? That seems like an awful stretch to say that Hamas has invaded israel twice in 70 years.

 

Israel has some right to defend itself in this way, but the real problem is that what may be right for their short term defense ensures that this problem cannot and will not be solved by destroying the chances for a positive life.

[illinilaw08]

Yeah, they were elected, but they're also a terrorist organization. They don't recognize Israel. They publicly call for the annihilation of Israel and the Jews that live there. They've started 2 wars and invaded Israel twice in the last 70 years. (edit: sorry, they being Palestinians for the wars)

 

I think Israel sorta is in the right in defending itself as it does. It would suck to be a young Palestinian as you've outlined. I'd probably feel the same way. But, ya know, take out your anger out on the older generation and the religious leaders that are continuing the conflict, not the country that is acting in a pretty reasonable manner given the situation.

 

Maybe if Hamas actually cared, they'd tell the North Koreans and Iranians to provide them with food and money and a basis for an economy instead of rockets and guns.

 

edit: keep in mind too that Israel continually acknowledges that Palestinians exist and have a right to a "state." They continue to offer them land. We can talk about the settlement issues, but really there are no borders here. Israel won the war(s), so they get to determine the borders.

 

Jenks, I'm not sure that's accurate. And at best, it's misleading (see the Wikipedia article I linked a couple posts back).

 

Israel's revisions to the last "road map" for peace called for, "The provisional state will be demilitarized, with provisional borders and "certain aspects of sovereignty", and subjected to Israeli control of the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, plus its airspace and electromagnetic spectrum (radio, television, internet, radar, etc.)."

 

That's a pretty tough definition of a "state."

 

And look, Israel has plenty of reason to worry about giving too much control to the Palestinians. But let's not pretend that Israel has been a constant proponent of a Palestinian state.

 

EDIT: That quote came from the Wikipedia article on the last peace talks from a couple posts back...

Edited August 6, 2014 by illinilaw08

[Jenksismyhero]

And again, what good is food and money and the basis for an economy if those basic necessities cannot legally enter the area?

 

And if I'm in an area being bombed and starved I'm not going to con side fit a "pretty reasonable response".

 

Also, what two wars have they started? This one and 2009? That seems like an awful stretch to say that Hamas has invaded israel twice in 70 years.

 

Israel has some right to defend itself in this way, but the real problem is that what may be right for their short term defense ensures that this problem cannot and will not be solved by destroying the chances for a positive life.

 

Yeah see my edit above re the wars. I'm combining the two to point out at that Hamas presently and Palestinians historically have forced Israel's hand. They've created their bed, now they have to lie in it.

 

I agree with your last point. That's where this becomes a very difficult and complex problem to solve. But I think the first step HAS to be getting rid of Hamas leadership and Palestinians showing that they can live in peace for a lengthy amount of time. They have to regain that trust. Otherwise there's no hope here. Smuggling weapons and firing them into Israel isn't going to do that.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks, I'm not sure that's accurate. And at best, it's misleading (see the Wikipedia article I linked a couple posts back).

 

Israel's revisions to the last "road map" for peace called for, "The provisional state will be demilitarized, with provisional borders and "certain aspects of sovereignty", and subjected to Israeli control of the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, plus its airspace and electromagnetic spectrum (radio, television, internet, radar, etc.)."

 

That's a pretty tough definition of a "state."

 

And look, Israel has plenty of reason to worry about giving too much control to the Palestinians. But let's not pretend that Israel has been a constant proponent of a Palestinian state.

 

EDIT: That quote came from the Wikipedia article on the last peace talks from a couple posts back...

 

Right, that's why I put "state" in quotes - they want a lot of control over a supposedly independent nation. But they do at least acknowledge that Palestinians have a claim to land there. And they keep offering them that land.

[Balta1701]

Right, that's why I put "state" in quotes - they want a lot of control over a supposedly independent nation. But they do at least acknowledge that Palestinians have a claim to land there. And they keep offering them that land.

Well, if you really get into the issues in the West Bank of settlements, I see very little evidence that "They keep offering them that land" is accurate. Israel has absolutely been attempting to annex as much of the west bank as possible and I don't know how that could be denied.

 

In fact, it plays into the Gaza problem as well. The fact that Israel is taking all this land is one major component about why the the Palestinian Authority has no respect of the people. They can't get any concessions whatsoever from Israel and Israel continues taking that land, so why should anyone respect that government instead of turning to Hamas? It is a major issue in preventing the establishment of any alternative government. It's not the only issue and the PA has long had major corruption issues of its own, but that part plays a major role.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, if you really get into the issues in the West Bank of settlements, I see very little evidence that "They keep offering them that land" is accurate. Israel has absolutely been attempting to annex as much of the west bank as possible and I don't know how that could be denied.

 

In fact, it plays into the Gaza problem as well. The fact that Israel is taking all this land is one major component about why the the Palestinian Authority has no respect of the people. They can't get any concessions whatsoever from Israel and Israel continues taking that land, so why should anyone respect that government instead of turning to Hamas? It is a major issue in preventing the establishment of any alternative government. It's not the only issue and the PA has long had major corruption issues of its own, but that part plays a major role.

 

They've proposed land swaps. So yes, they'll take the settlement areas out of the West Bank, but they'll also give land back in return.

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-report...o-palestinians/

 

It's entirely possibly that's worthless land, I have no idea.

[Balta1701]

They've proposed land swaps. So yes, they'll take the settlement areas out of the West Bank, but they'll also give land back in return.

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-report...o-palestinians/

 

It's entirely possibly that's worthless land, I have no idea.

If you actually go into that article it makes clear how hesitant the current Israeli leadership would be to accept any deal that could even be framed as fair...it stresses Netanyahu wants to gain extra territory in any swap and maintain a lot of the territory that has been developed over the last 14 years since Arafat said no to the last real shot at a negotiated settlement.

 

That fits into the Problem. Israel wants to keep basically everything they've annexed, which requires them giving the Palestinian Authority basically nothing in negotiations. They can't have territorial integrity, they can't have statehood, they can't have military or strong security forces, they can't travel freely, they can't build an economy. They're not being offered anything that would be worth accepting, and thus there's no reason for the people to care about them.

[Jenksismyhero]

If you actually go into that article it makes clear how hesitant the current Israeli leadership would be to accept any deal that could even be framed as fair...it stresses Netanyahu wants to gain extra territory in any swap and maintain a lot of the territory that has been developed over the last 14 years since Arafat said no to the last real shot at a negotiated settlement.

 

That fits into the Problem. Israel wants to keep basically everything they've annexed, which requires them giving the Palestinian Authority basically nothing in negotiations. They can't have territorial integrity, they can't have statehood, they can't have military or strong security forces, they can't travel freely, they can't build an economy. They're not being offered anything that would be worth accepting, and thus there's no reason for the people to care about them.

 

I still say - so what? Israel won the wars. They have no obligation to "play nice" and give into Palestinian demands. If peace and prosperity requires the Palestinians to lose a little land, you do it. Hamas is just getting their people killed for no gain. And again, they can have those things, eventually, IF they can earn back some trust. But you know what doesn't earn trust:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/world/mi...p-news&_r=1

 

Right after the cease fire ends they fire 33 rockets (and some before the cease fire ended, if the reports are true). And of course that provoked a response from Israel leading to the death of a 10 year old. Their strategy here makes zero sense. Well, actually it does a little. Because despite being the problem and provoking the killing, they're starting to win the PR war.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

I still say - so what? Israel won the wars.

This is in contradiction to your earlier response. My statement was that the reason why no one other than Hamas's "kill israelis" mantra has any authority in the area is that Israel is taking all the land they can, expelling people from that land, and generally offering nothing of value in negotiations. You replied that Israel has made some possible offers of land in reply, but when I point out how inadequate that is, you say "So what".

 

That continues the problem. Your response "so what" leaves me with no reason whatsoever to not die while fighting Israel if I live in that area. They're taking my land, they're not giving anything up, they're dropping bombs all around me, I can barely get food and water, I'm probably going to die in a bombing anyway, why shouldn't I try to get my hands on a weapon and go down fighting?

[Jenksismyhero]

This is in contradiction to your earlier response. My statement was that the reason why no one other than Hamas's "kill israelis" mantra has any authority in the area is that Israel is taking all the land they can, expelling people from that land, and generally offering nothing of value in negotiations. You replied that Israel has made some possible offers of land in reply, but when I point out how inadequate that is, you say "So what".

 

That continues the problem. Your response "so what" leaves me with no reason whatsoever to not die while fighting Israel if I live in that area. They're taking my land, they're not giving anything up, they're dropping bombs all around me, I can barely get food and water, I'm probably going to die in a bombing anyway, why shouldn't I try to get my hands on a weapon and go down fighting?

 

I'm saying (1) it's not as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Isreal isn't taking anything and everything it wants without giving up something in return. It might be somewhat lopsided, but hey, "so what," that's what happens when you invade a country and try to kill their people. You lose things you once had. And (2) yes, at the end of the day "so what" again when your people are dying. Cut your losses, take less land, live in peace and eventually the blockades will end. But not until you cut ties with a terrorist organization and not until you can be trusted again.

 

You're basically arguing that they should all fight an unwinnable war instead of taking concessions and living in peace. That makes zero sense.

 

 

[Balta1701]

I'm saying (1) it's not as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Isreal isn't taking anything and everything it wants without giving up something in return. It might be somewhat lopsided, but hey, "so what," that's what happens when you invade a country and try to kill their people. You lose things you once had. And (2) yes, at the end of the day "so what" again when your people are dying. Cut your losses, take less land, live in peace and eventually the blockades will end. But not until you cut ties with a terrorist organization and not until you can be trusted again.

 

You're basically arguing that they should all fight an unwinnable war instead of taking concessions and living in peace. That makes zero sense.

And you're arguing that the country which is taking the land their homes sit on and blockading them will change course and allow those people to live in peace, which from their perspective makes just as little sense. Which again, leaves me no reason to do anything but fight alongside that terrorist organization.

[cabiness42]

Regardless of how much in the wrong Hamas and Israel are, every time Hamas starts hostilities they end up losing territory. I guess eventually they will either figure out some other way to solve their problems or end up with no territory left.

[Y2HH]

And you're arguing that the country which is taking the land their homes sit on and blockading them will change course and allow those people to live in peace, which from their perspective makes just as little sense. Which again, leaves me no reason to do anything but fight alongside that terrorist organization.

 

...or realize you're an American living in America and don't have to fight on EITHER side of wrong.

[illinilaw08]

I'm saying (1) it's not as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Isreal isn't taking anything and everything it wants without giving up something in return. It might be somewhat lopsided, but hey, "so what," that's what happens when you invade a country and try to kill their people. You lose things you once had. And (2) yes, at the end of the day "so what" again when your people are dying. Cut your losses, take less land, live in peace and eventually the blockades will end. But not until you cut ties with a terrorist organization and not until you can be trusted again.

 

You're basically arguing that they should all fight an unwinnable war instead of taking concessions and living in peace. That makes zero sense.

 

The problem here is that, for the Palestinians, even when the bombings are not happening, the concessions basically turn Gaza into a prison.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22197938

 

The story linked above from the BBC is indicative of that. Basically, 22 Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip (including a former Olympian) were not allowed to travel to Bethlehem for the Palestinian Marathon in 2013 because the runners would have to travel through Israel to get there, and those trips are allowed "only in exceptional humanitarian cases."

 

The position Israel took during the Dubya peace talks was that Israel would need to maintain a significant amount of control of the Palestinian state (see my earlier post on the subject).

 

Put yourself in the shoes of the Palestinians and you can see why they wouldn't take the "concessions" that Israel is demanding.

 

In the West, we have an easier time putting ourselves in the shoes of an average Israeli (not surprising, they are our allies) than we do the average Palestinian.

 

There is a reason this conflict has been going on for 70+ years and any attempt at resolution falls apart. Israel wants to ensure its security (understandable in light of the history here) and the Palestinians want freedom (again, understandable). With every Palestinian civilian death and with every rocket fired into Israel by Hamas, however, the odds of resolution become more remote.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

The problem here is that, for the Palestinians, even when the bombings are not happening, the concessions basically turn Gaza into a prison.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22197938

 

The story linked above from the BBC is indicative of that. Basically, 22 Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip (including a former Olympian) were not allowed to travel to Bethlehem for the Palestinian Marathon in 2013 because the runners would have to travel through Israel to get there, and those trips are allowed "only in exceptional humanitarian cases."

 

The position Israel took during the Dubya peace talks was that Israel would need to maintain a significant amount of control of the Palestinian state (see my earlier post on the subject).

 

Put yourself in the shoes of the Palestinians and you can see why they wouldn't take the "concessions" that Israel is demanding.

 

In the West, we have an easier time putting ourselves in the shoes of an average Israeli (not surprising, they are our allies) than we do the average Palestinian.

 

There is a reason this conflict has been going on for 70+ years and any attempt at resolution falls apart. Israel wants to ensure its security (understandable in light of the history here) and the Palestinians want freedom (again, understandable). With every Palestinian civilian death and with every rocket fired into Israel by Hamas, however, the odds of resolution become more remote.

 

Sure, but their own actions caused that problem. Israel didn't just wake up one day and decide they were going to install blockades and implement travel restrictions.

 

I guess to me that's my issue with this. I see both sides and can understand the motivations of both sides. But the history says the Palestinians f***ed up twice by thinking they could take over Israel. So guess what, because THEY f***ed up, THEY have to concede more in order to obtain some kind of peaceful resolution.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

And you're arguing that the country which is taking the land their homes sit on and blockading them will change course and allow those people to live in peace, which from their perspective makes just as little sense. Which again, leaves me no reason to do anything but fight alongside that terrorist organization.

 

SOME of the land. And Israel offered SOME land back.

 

Again, they lost the wars, they have to give up more to obtain peace. Fighting accomplishes nothing but getting their own people killed. Living on less land > not living at all. They can't possibly expect Israel to just give in and change their minds while they're being hit with rockets.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Sure, but their own actions caused that problem. Israel didn't just wake up one day and decide they were going to install blockades and implement travel restrictions.

 

I guess to me that's my issue with this. I see both sides and can understand the motivations of both sides. But the history says the Palestinians f***ed up twice by thinking they could take over Israel. So guess what, because THEY f***ed up, THEY have to concede more in order to obtain some kind of peaceful resolution.

And when that is the option presented...terrorism will always be the end result because that's how the world works.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't remember where we were talking about data security and breaches with medical records, but here's a big whoops:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/18/technology...hack/index.html

 

 

Doesn't sound like they got medical data, just SS#'s and identifying info.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Jenksismybitch