F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 25

[Marvolo]

Yeah the rich paying off people to shut them up is pretty typical. It's one of the perks that comes with being filthy rich. It's that "**** you." money.

 

[Aximili86]

Ahh, yes. Victim blaming.

I wonder at what point you will acknowledge that the Palestinians have it worse than black South Africans.

Yes, yes they do. The Palestinians have it horrible over there nobody's disputing that. But you're not bettering your position by electing a militant group as your official representatives, calling for the other side to be eradicated. No military on earth is going to tolerate this type of behavior on their border from an opposing voter-bloc literally calling for their destruction.

Again, it's the whole "the underdog must be right, they have less power" fallacy. Israel should demolish the settlements and move the borders back to where they were in '67. That's not going to be enough though. From there Hamas wants lands lost in the '47 war, which'll never happen. Even if it does, they're still Jews, they've supposedly gotta die, 'cause we're Hamas and we're funny like that.

They have a right to be pissed-off about the embassy, and protest in turn. Protest, not attempt to cross the border fence en-masse and set brushfires in Israeli fields with kites set alight and sent across the fence.

What do you want/expect the soldiers to do? You've got 10 000 people massing on that border according to the CNN guy on the ground. A hundred of them rush the fence yesterday - you do nothing about that, those other 9900 are going to take note and potentially follow suit. It's like with cops and riots - the policy is you let people protest, but as soon as those first broken windows and trashed cars happen, you move in and nip it in the bud before it becomes something else entirely.

Seriously, what would you have them do? This isn't the permanent fortified wall part of the border, this area is a glorified chainlink fence, 10 000 people are going to be able to take it down/get through it given an opportunity/a little time. So you, what, when the tear gas and skunk-water doesn't disperse the crowd?

This is the theoretical-minded ignorance on display by the left on this. I get you want the '67 borders back, and hell, I agree with you on that. But Israel can't tolerate what's going on with that border now, they have to do something in response. Tear gas & skunk-water is option A, they did it. The fires & kites ramp up and an estimated hundred-or-so people move on that fence, you're opening fire. You just ****ing are, that's not even an Israeli thing.

And, depressingly, they'll be pulling this same crap tomorrow, we're probably going to see a few-dozen more Palestinians wasted for Hamas propaganda purposes. Same way they stash the rockets in schools, and cry foul when the building's taken out outside of school hours and after having warning leaflets dropped hours earlier. Same old ****, different instance.

 

[DeadPresident]

It's always curious that Israel's most ardent hate doesn't come from the Middle East, it comes from the comfortable countries that have no enemies at their gates. Always the comfortable citizens in the USA, France, Sweden, Norway, or England who don't have to worry about their safety that condemn Israel for defending its citizens.

This concept of self-defense as aggression is an odd one. When a violent threat arrives we'll see who holds on to the view that a government shouldn't defend its citizens.

 

[Aximili86]

Pretty much. Cue the Simpsons episode with Baron Cohen's character ranting about "Americans and their arch-enemy Canada" and such.

Look, the Palestinians have a right to be furious over the embassy. That's fine. They have a right to be out protesting in the streets, expressing themselves. Hell, burning Israeli & American flags if they want to, go for it.

You're taking your life into your hands if you're moving on that border though, let alone sending **** over it. They know this. The Hamas higher-ups want it to happen, because it paints Israel in a ****ty light when their inevitable rational response makes the news. Everyone'll conveniently ignore whatever counter-evidence Israel is going to put out there, it's just the way it'll go.

The Hamas brass aren't idiots. Ruthless as **** with their own people's welfare, but not idiots.

Pretty funny how they're now saying they "might discourage" protests tomorrow, too, after the IDF flat-out said if it happens again they'll be targeting the Hamas leaders/representatives personally with air ordnance. Yeah, not so expendable yourselves, are you guys? The people that voted for you though, nah, send them out as cannon-fodder. Cool. *Eyeroll*

 

[Morg]

Her spokespeople have already said she’ll likely be in the hospital for a few days recuperating.

News saying a week now

 

[samsnee]

So why is Cheetoh so concerned with saving jobs in China now? I thought he was all AMERICA FIRST. It couldn't be because his organization has a licensing deal with a Chinese theme park resort that just got a huge loan from the Chinese government could it? Nah....

 

[squeekness]

So why is Cheetoh so concerned with saving jobs in China now? I thought he was all AMERICA FIRST. It couldn't be because his organization has a licensing deal with a Chinese theme park resort that just got a huge loan from the Chinese government could it? Nah....

He only cares about himself, so yeah. Either he owes them money or it's part of some greater deal.

 

[Sithborg]

It's always curious that Israel's most ardent hate doesn't come from the Middle East, it comes from the comfortable countries that have no enemies at their gates. Always the comfortable citizens in the USA, France, Sweden, Norway, or England who don't have to worry about their safety that condemn Israel for defending its citizens.

This concept of self-defense as aggression is an odd one. When a violent threat arrives we'll see who holds on to the view that a government shouldn't defend its citizens.

Pretty much. Cue the Simpsons episode with Baron Cohen's character ranting about "Americans and their arch-enemy Canada" and such.

Look, the Palestinians have a right to be furious over the embassy. That's fine. They have a right to be out protesting in the streets, expressing themselves. Hell, burning Israeli & American flags if they want to, go for it.

You're taking your life into your hands if you're moving on that border though, let alone sending **** over it. They know this. The Hamas higher-ups want it to happen, because it paints Israel in a ****ty light when their inevitable rational response makes the news. Everyone'll conveniently ignore whatever counter-evidence Israel is going to put out there, it's just the way it'll go.

The Hamas brass aren't idiots. Ruthless as **** with their own people's welfare, but not idiots.

Pretty funny how they're now saying they "might discourage" protests tomorrow, too, after the IDF flat-out said if it happens again they'll be targeting the Hamas leaders/representatives personally with air ordnance. Yeah, not so expendable yourselves, are you guys? The people that voted for you though, nah, send them out as cannon-fodder. Cool. *Eyeroll*

No, the enemy at our gates is ourselves.
[waits for the next mass shooting]

 

[Aximili86]

Lame.

 

[MaceB]

You guys are better informed on this topic than I, but whenever I think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.. it brings to mind a quote I like from Game of Thrones:

"We make peace with our enemies, not our friends."

In order for this thing to work, Israel has to be more willing to make concessions. If they aren't willing to give up anything, then the peace process can't go forward.

 

[Mad Ones]

I don't get how you can defend the Israeli occupation of Palestine, given how many Palestinians have been displaced, abused, and killed. Israel actively does all it can to disrupt organized political activity, so of course there will be hardliners.

 

[samsnee]

Religion divides more than unites.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

You guys are better informed on this topic than I, but whenever I think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.. it brings to mind a quote I like from Game of Thrones:

"We make peace with our enemies, not our friends."

In order for this thing to work, Israel has to be more willing to make concessions. If they aren't willing to give up anything, then the peace process can't go forward.

I think it's obvious by now as long as Israel has the United States in its back pocket they'll keep doing whatever they want.

 

[Aximili86]

You guys are better informed on this topic than I, but whenever I think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.. it brings to mind a quote I like from Game of Thrones:

"We make peace with our enemies, not our friends."

In order for this thing to work, Israel has to be more willing to make concessions. If they aren't willing to give up anything, then the peace process can't go forward.

The concessions don't end though, that's the thing. There's a reasonable amount that Israel can and should give on this (territory-wise), but you don't do that without some reasonable guarantees from the other side's officials.

And basically what it comes down to is, "We want the Dome Of The Rock". That's something Israel can't and won't give up, it's right in the ****ing heart of Old Jerusalem. Unless someone comes up with some pragmatic practical way of both sides sharing it, it's never happening.

The borders should be rolled back to where they were in '67. But that's not what they're fighting over, at the core. You dismantle the settlements that are being covered as the main sticking point recently (which they should), it's not solving anything. Hamas gonna Hamas until the Palestinians are in control of the Dome. Which...good luck, basically. Ain't happening, ever.

Keep in mind, the last time the Palestinians came to the negotiating table was in 2009. Friggin' 9 years ago. There was an attempt in 2014 which fizzled out basically immediately, but generally speaking there hasn't been any even willingness to get in a room together for a decade, and Israel's actually offered.

Mad Ones, that's a hilariously one-sided perspective on this. Yeah, no Jews have been abused & killed in this cluster**** of a situation. Naaah. Again, basically what your argument comes down to is "territory was lost in '47, so anything goes - anything since then is fair game from the Arabs 'cause the other guys have the cash & resources."


EDIT: Another goddamn thing, the news with this dead baby. For ****s' sake, CBS, context much? Maybe don't take your infant along to a Day Of Rage, d*ckhead. It's horribly sad what happened, but you knew teargas was going to be a part of the proceedings yesterday, maybe exercise a little basic parental responsibility and go along sans-young-child, if you really feel the need to be there on the border.

And again, the target audience just eats this crap all up. "IDF kills baby". It's such bull*****.

 

[DeadPresident]

This conversation is never going anywhere, many believe that all of Israel's actions (most of which escalated over a long period, frequently where the escalation was caused by hard line Arabs refusing any Jewish presence in the region and using violence as their first recourse) mean that they have to concede ground to the point where Palestinians and Arabs have the majority of the power in the region, which would invariably lead to an eventual expulsion of Jews from the area.

Because of the fraught history Palestinians will continue to try and remove all Jews from Israel until they succeed - and the more aggressive Israel gets in its own defense the more sympathy that sentiment will get from so-called progressives yelling about an Apartheid state.

Completely forgetting the hundreds of opportunities between the late 1800s until the Arab-Israeli war where the Arab representatives in Palestine could have stopped fighting the presence of Jews but chose an all or nothing approach, rolled the dice by attacking the Jews, and lost.

 

[Sithborg]

Why is it Israel is the only nation that can get away with shooting unarmed protesters? Any other nation that killed 50+ unarmed protesters would get international condemnation. Listening to most of you, we shouldn't have sanctioned South Africa for apartheid.

 

[MaceB]

The concessions don't end though, that's the thing. There's a reasonable amount that Israel can and should give on this (territory-wise), but you don't do that without some reasonable guarantees from the other side's officials.

If they want to act in good faith towards Peace, I think the only reasonable thing would be for Israel to call for peace negotiations with Palestine and the UN as a broker.
Craft a deal that is internationally binding that:
- creates an independent UN council that can inspect and verify the deal
- give that independent council the authority to inflict economic punishments if the deal isn't adhered to by either side.
- create a written out series of consequences, voted on by the UN itself, in order to avoid one side backing out unilaterally.

I see what your saying that this is all based on trust. How do you work with a bad actor, who you know won't be satisfied? IMO, The answer is to have an independent referee. Unite the world in a solution, and hold Israel and Palestine accountable. How likely is that? Probably not very likely. But if Israel were somehow magically open to that kinda thinking... it could happen. Israel is the key to the peace process. It's up to them to offer the olive branch.

 

[Aximili86]

You act like they were there walking back and forth holding signs, Sithborg, not burning tyre-fires to attempt to conceal their rushing the border fence (which the IDF has released on film, there's proof).

It's not protesting at a certain point. This wasn't even the usual stone-throwing scuffles with Israeli patrols, this was literally an attempt (not by all of them, but the ones who were shot at) to get through the fence. Hamas literally released public advice on the quickest routes through to Israeli neighborhoods should anyone actually make it across.

Again, you ignore this. They weren't firing at the 10 000 people milling around on their side of the border, they fired on those who moved on the fence.

Think about it, if these guys actually do get across and a large segment of those 10 000 follow them in to continue their demonstration on actual Israeli soil, there's only going to be a lot more violence, more Palestinians killed. A few thousand people, in-Israel, sent in by Hamas, for street-by-street urban fighting. Nah man, you wouldn't want to prevent that if you can. Better not fire at the young men at the tip of the spear trying to get through the chainlink. After your tear-gas and other nonlethal options haven't dissuaed them.

Israel's letting them protest. They're just not letting them into Israel, them or their makeshift incendiaries they've been sending over. Why so reluctant to distinguish?

Uhh, Mace? The UN? Seriously? :P C'mon now. The UN can mediate talks, but what the hell are they going to do practically? You divide Jerusalem down the middle, without a big-ass concrete wall separating them, and Israel still having the Dome & temple, violence is going to be even more frequent than it is now. Surely you see that. And the UN's hardly going to suddenly do more than write an angry letter to Abbas telling him his people are being naughty, Team America style.

 

[DeadPresident]

Why is it Israel is the only nation that can get away with shooting unarmed protesters? Any other nation that killed 50+ unarmed protesters would get international condemnation. Listening to most of you, we shouldn't have sanctioned South Africa for apartheid.

You keep using this example ignoring context completely.

Did Britain legally give the right to sovereignty to one group in South Africa? Did the group who was supposed to share land with arriving group begin attacking the arriving group almost as soon as they arrived?

Did black South Africans ever fire rockets into Afrikaner neighborhoods? (You ignored this question before - I assume you'll do so again). Did Umkhonto Wesizwe ever use black children as political tools by taking them into harms way as a mechanism to garner international hatred for whites?

Your analogy is really horribly flawed. Britain mandated that Jews could move to Israel because Britain controlled that land after engaging the Ottoman Empire in WWI and the Ottoman empire lost. It's not a case of Jews just invading land with zero authority, it's got almost zero similarity to Apartheid South Africa at all.

The BDS types just love using that word because it implies Jews in Israel (which was created to stop Jews being slaughtered in pogroms, much like Arabs are being slaughtered in their own homelands now) are as evil as Afrikaners in the early 1980s were who used Nazi ideology to try and justify segregation. That line of logic is bordering on slander and completely negates the entire reason why Israel was created in the first place.

 

[DeadPresident]

If they want to act in good faith towards Peace, I think the only reasonable thing would be for Israel to call for peace negotiations with Palestine and the UN as a broker.
Craft a deal that is internationally binding that:
- creates an independent UN council that can inspect and verify the deal
- give that independent council the authority to inflict economic punishments if the deal isn't adhered to by either side.
- create a written out series of consequences, voted on by the UN itself, in order to avoid one side backing out unilaterally.

I see what your saying that this is all based on trust. How do you work with a bad actor, who you know won't be satisfied? IMO, The answer is to have an independent referee. Unite the world in a solution, and hold Israel and Palestine accountable. How likely is that? Probably not very likely. But if Israel were somehow magically open to that kinda thinking... it could happen. Israel is the key to the peace process. It's up to them to offer the olive branch.

This was tried, and the United Nations was the referee - and each and every time that a solution was close the Palestinians would refuse, occasionally the Israeli contingent and the Palestinians would both refuse.

The UN in the early 1900s declared the need for a Jewish homeland, which everyone is conveniently forgetting. There was an impartial party (or at least as impartial as you can get in this scenario) and they deemed it worthwhile for the nation of Israel to exist. By and large the Arab contingents were the ones who stuck by the "No Jews in Palestine" line and then began attacking the Jews when the UN's mandate didn't match their desire to have all the Jewish migrants expelled.

Yasser Arafat was presented with a solution in 2000 that most Palestinians would see as fantastic today, but instead of signing it they insisted on suicide bombings to provoke Israel and Arafat delayed until the peace process fell apart completely.

 

[Aximili86]

Mhm. Not to mention the very notion of "Palestinians" (as opposed to various Arab tribal groups who were previously at each other's throats before a common enemy emerged) pretty much came about after the Jews showed up.

 

[Doug_Moore]

Still, the most bizarre thing in his strange rant on Fox and Friends was him admitting just how bad of a husband he was. A card for her birthday, especially with all the affair talk in the news...

I thought it was a groundbreaking moment for him. I do believe it was the first time he admitted any kind of fault in public.

(Feel free to correct him if he's done it before becoming President.)

So why is Cheetoh so concerned with saving jobs in China now? I thought he was all AMERICA FIRST. It couldn't be because his organization has a licensing deal with a Chinese theme park resort that just got a huge loan from the Chinese government could it? Nah....

[YT]HL7o6np84pg[/YT]

He's been praising China since he announced his Presidential campaign. There's no doubt in my mind he's taking Chinese contributions just like The Clintons did. There's been too distraction with Russia. Focus on The People's Republic who he's really in bed with (He praised Xi for getting rid of Presidential term limits!)

 

[MaceB]

Uhh, Mace? The UN? Seriously? :P C'mon now. The UN can mediate talks, but what the hell are they going to do practically? You divide Jerusalem down the middle, without a big-ass concrete wall separating them, and Israel still having the Dome & temple, violence is going to be even more frequent than it is now. Surely you see that. And the UN's hardly going to suddenly do more than write an angry letter to Abbas telling him his people are being naughty, Team America style.

I'm not saying enforceable peace talks are very likely no, but it is what would be needed. The UN nations would need to unite together to essentially make an economic threat: either abide by this deal (whatever that deal might be) or the world will collectively sanction you both to economic ruin. The world would have to be unified and clear in the deal. In order for peace to work, it'd need a third party like the UN to enforce it. If it were just a one-on-one deal with Israel/US and Palestine... nope, there won't be any enforcement mechanisms and we know what happens then.

And since Israel has the upper hand right now, it's basically up to them to make it happen. They have to be the ones to initiate peace, because they are the ones with the most to lose.

In terms of a wall.... I don't know where you're coming from on that one. That's not what I'm suggesting.

 

[DeadPresident]

I'm not saying it's very likely no, but it is what is needed. The UN nations would need to unite together to essentially make an economic threat: either abide by this deal (whatever that deal might be) or the world will collectively sanction you both to economic ruin. The world would have to be unified and clear in the deal. In order for peace to work, it'd need a third party like the UN to enforce it. If it were just a one-on-one deal with Israel/US and Palestine... nope, there won't be any enforcement mechanisms and we know what happens then.

And since Israel has the upper hand right now, it's basically up to them to make it happen. They have to be the ones to initiate peace, because they are the ones with the most to lose.

They tried this for almost five decades, and each time whether it was due to a zero-compromise policy from Palestinians or a combination of Israelis and Palestinians it all fell apart, and because we've had almost a collective thirty years of hard line military violence from Israel the modern generation only remembers a time of 'bloodthirsty, evil Israel'. Israel tried initiating peace, their agreement in 2000 would've seen a large swathe of land given back to Palestine with a number of other religious and practical concessions like handing over the Temple Mount, and it was thrown in their faces.

Most nations in the surrounding area and the Palestinians want Israel to pay in blood, they don't want peace, they want the Jews out.

 

[MaceB]

They tried this for almost five decades, and each time whether it was due to a zero-compromise policy from Palestinians or a combination of Israelis and Palestinians it all fell apart, and because we've had almost a collective thirty years of hard line military violence from Israel the modern generation only remembers a time of 'bloodthirsty, evil Israel'. Israel tried initiating peace, their agreement in 2000 would've seen a large swathe of land given back to Palestine with a number of other religious and practical concessions like handing over the Temple Mount, and it was thrown in their faces.

Most nations in the surrounding area and the Palestinians want Israel to pay in blood, they don't want peace, they want the Jews out.

I hear you man. I'm just trying to offer up solutions. I mean yeah.. it's been tried before and failed before. It may fail this time too. But we've got to try and fail again I guess.
What's your solution?