Scott Mayers

So how are you so sure their is any problem with the Muslims/Palestinians? I mean, if we take your dismissal of hypocrisy as it is convenient to ignore the relevance of an moral highground FOR Israel, than whatever happens happens. They're all winners and losers simultaneously. I just now question who, why, and how you are selecting ANY formal legitimacy whatsoever. I'm guessing that you're a Christian with only one concern in mind.....that those Jews that you feign to favor are just your utility to get your Christian Armageddon initiated?

They were and remain so.Since when? When Islam was formed? 610-632CE? I'm curious to know precisely when or where you derive the starting point of Israel? How has Iraq being partially landlocked got anything whatsoever to do with dar al Islam and the insistence by Muslims that there can be nothing in those lands but a Muslim nation? The fact that the Muslims all throughout the Middle East have been a problem of most other countries with way more discriminatory power and that the example of Iraq is a good example. We spun it to make Saddam appear as though he attacked Kuwait for simply no reason whatsoever other than that he was some kind of cruel moody despot. But besides this, you need to also look back through history from the beginning of Islam and seem to forget how the WHOLE of Europe created the Crusades to also demonize and take over those lands. The Muslims had way more hardships in their growth based on arrogances of those like yourself imposing such a standard of 'hatred' to look forward to. Even the Jews, as despised by many as they had, left no room for the Muslim since their inception. "Dar-al Islam" is a an acceptance of Islam but with a tolerance for non-Muslims, by the way. If you think this is 'wrong' and they preceded the State of Israel, are you admitting the Israeli Jew's own state and its much less 'tolerance' for Muslims representates them as making Israel somehow MORE justified? Please tell me the when the Muslims had it in for the Jews initially. Also, considering the Muslims were there for so long, tell me what makes you think their own evolution was not of the Middle East and to Palestine. Take a step back to those Crusades. Considering what they went through, what makes them even as remotely tolerant as you suggest they were. You also indiscriminately stack all Arabs as having some common thought of some presumed position. Contradicted by reality. There are millions of Palestinians still living in Israel proper, with Israeli citizenship and rights.And you ignore the rest, right? You have X population of people who won't or can't fuss in a country purposely designed to favor Jews, but Y population excluded, whom if included democratically, would have ruled there instead. Hmmmm. Kinda reminds me of Gerymandering except you just kick the population that competes with the pluralities among the Jews from participating. But you still have to establish Israel's right to have forcefully designed a country in a country pre-existing. And you can't base it on the prior rule from Turkey as Turkey was NOT the Palestinians and were as much abused by them if you take the dar-el Islam to include their rule. It's called EXPLOITATION. Look up the term. You're using it inappropriately. What does it matter if the Muslims there BEFORE Israel should have had any preference of religion. Does that excuse ANYONE to step in and intolerantly take over with their own brand of intolerance? I don't care for Islam anymore than Judaism nor Christianity and all for similar reasons. The point is that the Muslims were there before and still have relatives and people ALIVE today who are being continuously suffering from contemporary abuses.

And why discussing definitions is important. You are appearing to demand "war crimes" to be defined with something legal with respect to some authority you accept. I interpreted the title as necessarily hyperbolic and a clear 'opinion' to be debated with respect to the intent here. It is a 'value' term because with respect to nature, 'crime' has no meaning and so is subject to what each person determines what should or should not BE morally questioned. Since the subject of moral opinion of what should be considered 'criminal' is at issue, I raised the hypocrisy of what Israel interprets is 'criminal' of the Palestinians in contrast to what they themselves behave. This is relevant and yet you dismiss this based on what? You're belief that Israel or those supporting it have the only right to define who is or is not 'criminal'?

Already on topic. I gave a specific definition of this and strongly believe that if we are to repair political problems with issues like this one, it requires to take care with the definitions we use. You've noted your disagreement to what is not, in your opinion, a "war crime", and it doesn't add value when you should be directing this concern towards Big Guy, who titled this thread. Contextually, he is trying to show various problems with the defaulted assumption of Israel to be a fair entity in contrast to the Palestinians as being defaulted to being 'criminal' (as in they are the 'terrorists'). In order to deal with the problems requires expending some effort to understand the words we use differently to describe things on this issue.

I think Mono-culturalism is the intent of any particular 'subgroup' of society who prefers to see all people under the reign of their genetic and cultural controls. Multi-culturalism IS better in that it at least prevents any one OF THEM to rule with ease. However, for any such mono- or multi- groups, these all only act to preserve this with exclusion of many others. It's never universal. Why have two official languages, for instance? Either we should have one or all. In this instance, the language would be most 'civilized' if we pick one because otherwise it should require we learn two or more languages. Some say this is good but it IS a relative luxury and superfluous. Having distinct languages and other cultural things segregates us with power. This is why those cults most interested like it. It both keeps them relatively more 'secretive' and isolates their children form being influenced by outsiders. It divides, but is 'sold' to us falsely as "diversity". A diverse culture is voluntary and allows people who aren't perfectly 'fit' to some ideal PURE genetic/cultural ideal. Nationalism is the belief in these cultural groups to have laws that favor their genetically related groups with their stereotypical cultures, rituals, etc. But you are right, Moonlight, that they CAUSE a clash of cultures. Otherwise, we'd all be able to choose our lifestyles, something many people think is trivial and unnecessary to protect. Nationalists, Monocultural or Multicultural belief, for instance, that "cultural appropriation" is somehow a 'crime': see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation .

The word in English for 'intefada' is uprising or revolt. The plural and capitalizing refers to particular events in recent times. But we use these more obcure words to attempt to hide their generic meaning so as not to interpret them in a good light. We say, "Jihad", to make the meaning, 'loyal', or 'duty bound', unusual and have our media contextualize it instead to mean, "A violent religious dictum for war against the Non-Muslims with extreme prejudice and hatred". [innuendo] I choose the word, Nationalism to encompass all I said that both describes the original intent politically in the early 1900s and to indicate its common link to other forms of ethnocentrism, including sexism, chauvinism, and other prejudices and discriminator practices that assume an essential link between ones genetic(biological) inheritance and some environmental behavior (culture/ritual/etc) that have only contingent connection to reality but get forcefully linked for political reasons. There is no other word that encompasses this sufficiently without having to spell out this whole paragraph for every use of the meaning. It is also what it originally meant in politics with respect to "National Socialism". We use the word, "dictator" for instance in which it is intended to draw a negative connotation of a strictly single person who commands some government. Yet originally, in an opposite way, this term meant literally, 'speaker', who was understood to be precisely what our Presidents, Prime Ministers, or even a "speaker of the house" or "chairman" signify. Yet notice how its use has affect in its derogatory use now? It makes it easy to mistaken old renderings of those who used the term (like Marx) as some kind of lover of totalitarianism inappropriately. You have a better suggestion? Or are you forcing me to distinctly separate each kind of ethnocentric belief that ties ones belief that their genes and culture require political laws distinctly?

bush_cheney2004, Oh 'silly me'! I guess you solved the problem plain and simple: MIGHT IS RIGHT! Do you expect the Palestinians should just stay quite like good little children? How can they possibly expect to eat their pudding before they eat their meat?

I don't know your idiom here but isn't "Nationalism" or "National Socialism" more clear as I define it that to hide its roots with the term, "Nazi", where many don't know its meaning? Take the word, "intifada", as one word you opt to use. By using the foreign word with its rhetorically sold anti-Muslim sentiment hides the fact that it is just a word for "an uprising". "Nationalism" covers this with clarity to what and where the problem lies, not simply for this discussion for me but to much of our political problems in all places and times. We are always competing with 'cults' who by default supersede the power of any individual by the force of their convictions. Religion is one factor of this. But worse, and one in which I'm most concerned about, is the fact that the politics that is most extreme are ones that combine a belief in one's genetic ancestry and some asserted cultural, religious, or other claims, to justify why they should have exception to being relatively 'criminal' in some different context than others normally. Your ancestors smoked peyote? It's a ritual of your religion? You require a law to distinctly permit you a right to this because it is intrinsic to both your great-great grand parents and you 'own' this right by default? Your ancestors laid the foundation for the Middle East and all modern established most powerful religions in the West? So your ancestor's "founded" this nation and so have a special privilege for all time to require preservation of your family's fortunes you inherit because of it? I want a cult too. I'd like to assert that my religion and my genetic heritage requires that I have everything I want for the wanting. That I should rule the world. That I could drink and fuck everything and anyone I choose to because it is in my inherent nature and lifestyle (my OWN cult). If everyone agrees to grant me this, I'll shut up right now and stop complaining, I promise!

bush_cheny2004, I am through with your concern to dismiss the 'hypocrisy' thing. Maybe you're just playing me here? Bored? If you beg this word to mean precisely one definition you have specifically in mind, you are attempting to dismiss an affective term to describe the issue with sense. Then you can hope to demolish the argument with an absurdly obscure term instead. It is a myth that Hitler had no 'reason' for his actions. This is a purposefully expressed propaganda just as it is with Communism in the West; .....Capitalism being expressed as "Imperialistic" as to only imply it is a system irrationally designed with only Paris Hilton -like ignorance and naivete. I recognize too that Israel IS doing this with reason. The 'reason' though is, just as it was with any National Socialists of all times (and don't bother trying to go PC on its more particular recent use in the last century), is that they BELIEVE in a JEWISH STATE called Israel that contains all lands of which includes what remains of Palestine today and more. Israel preplanned to overtake Palestine and to displace the people there. They did it like preditors stalking some obsession and playing dumb to all this and obscuring it is absurd. It would be like some other woman (or man) who comes to your home and appears to be aiming to steal your spouse. At first, you might welcome her into your home as a friend without notice of her intents. As you get to know her, you later discover that she's appearing to be around too often claiming time with your husband (wife) for more and more often. You can't quite prove it but seem suspicious when you discover from others she's been pining for him for a long time, writing and making plans for a future wedding with him and everything. Would you find reason to start becoming concerned? Of course NOT, you'd have to say, right? I mean, then you might end up sounding a bit hypo..... ! You'd just be paranoid right. Its' all just in your head. I'm sure you know where this heads. The Zionist Jews had stalked Palestine for their own and have finally stolen it as its prized obsession. But it still has kids from its last 'spouse' and they are a pain in the ass. She doesn't want to overtly kill them because it would expose her as the ones hating them and Palestine would divorse you. But she simply begs father Palestine not to invite them dinner, make plans to send them off to camp lots, and for every chance, put up new barriers to 'hopefully' make them get a 'hint' and fuck off, run away from home, or kill themselves. (the little spoilt brats!) Father Palestine has no eyes or is at least not looking whenever she gives his children dirty looks and sneers, when she sabbatoges them in shadow of other onlookers so that they and not 'you' would get the blame. Eventually, just as expected, Palestine's children begin to throw outrageous tantrums, pointing fingers as Stepmom Princess Zion acts all innocent and doey eyed. She's managed to be trusted to take away all their allowances and other valuables because of their extreme tantrums. It's they, and not her, she cleverly stages, that HATE her, not the other way around. Her only 'fault' was that she loved Palestine with such unmistakable passion. How can such LOVE make her out to be some 'monster'? ...right?

This is getting tiresome. The popular default to favor Israel is quite entrenched. Before responding to bush_cheney2004, I wanted to note a documentary I saw today on PBS. "Welcome to Leith" [http://www.pbs.org/video/2365698306/] It demonstrated a White Supremacist KKK moving into a North Dakota town to which would be worthy of seeing. What is interesting is that it shows how relatively weak both they and the community were in being tolerant. Of course, the supremacist was being quite vocal and adamant. But it also appeared that no one was trying to even remotely try to be calm an instead of trying to defeat them in opposing hostility, they could have tried to reason with them based on their own beliefs. It seems apparent that the two main characters there had other issues to which they likely interpret reality as oppressing them in kind to those lie Rue here. I don't want to derail this and perhaps could open a separate thread on it. But I recommend checking it out and it might help to try looking at a different case of Nationalism to see what the comparison to Israel is. Note how it appeared their number one belief was that 'Multiculturalism' was intensionally a hidden means to destroy the 'white man'? Of course, I recognize that Multiculturalism IS a problem as it is the legal position to accept a specific SET of Mono-cultures in most opposition to the general stereotype of the 'White' population having the significant benefits of the society. Notice these people's impoversishment, their health, mental and otherwise. Note too that they are reactively taking just another FORM of the same extreme they oppose, a Culture. They simply believe that the only way to WIN is to ACTIVELY FAVOR one particular culture. Why most don't see the third alternative to simply abandon allowing culture to be privileged or imposed on people based on their ethnicity, ....an Acultural or at least an Intercultural stance instead?

Yes, this is my take on it too. And for Rue or others, this support of stance does NOT mean we are conspiring or share all the same views on everything. I get the emotions that some may have on these. Someone of the best character and skills to argue a point WOULD still find it too difficult NOT to find offence to someone who questions yourself or a loved one that has had some horror imposed upon them to certain extremes. This is why you should try to remove yourself from the conversation if it is too close to home to avoid blowing up.

Thank you at least for this repair. Now let me see if I am able to attempt to try going further without discovering more problems I cannot answer in fairness. To this you continue: You're misreading accent in context to my whole philosophical take on this. The 'supposedly' was not a denial of the Holocaust. It was the understanding that the Holocaust was obviously presumed a horrific 'penalty' against the Jews BUT that instead of demanding they get their lands, property, and citizenship restored appropriately in Germany, as they claim as much theirs, they just opted to take the opportunity granted them to take advantage of the opportunity of their victimhood and chaos following the war to take over Palestine with the forces of the Allies. Besides being highly deceptive even for those already trying to do this in Palestine, they used this as a means to optimize their own behavior against the Palestinians as if they were dumb non-owning serfs floating about without any concern of whether Jewish Nationals were about to co-opt their lands and whatever fortunes lie in the remnants of smoldering fumes of the war. I am very 'left-wing' oriented but completely NON-NATIONALIST. [Even being 'left' worries me with the forms of Nationalsims there too!] I don't believe that any GROUP should impose cultural ownership based on their ethnic roots (genetic + cultural beliefs, including religion). I don't approve of Islam nor Christianity as a right to impose theocratic forms of governments either. So attempt to poison my well all you want,...but it is YOU, and NOT me, who is a "Nazi" type here. And this is the irony, (if you are actually just being sincerely naive, that is). You seem most affected to what I say precisely because you find my words threatening to your own belief in some likely Jewish Supremacy of your own thinking. Pandering to others here to go against me is like attempting to send me off to the Ghetto. Do I not have a right to compete for my views here? It appears you are. See my first responses above. The Jews [i'll assume you one unless you assure me you aren't] DIDN'T have a home in Palestine but in Germany. By moving to Palestine, you (to include your Zionist belief) were simply taking advantage of the post-war chaos and the 'meek' and unorganized Palestinians (who were ALSO previously of a distant-centered regime assumed 'abusive' to them). Your people (Zionist Jews, that is) thus exploited the powers of the Allies and your numbers to impose upon the lands their in a CLEAR attempt to take over ALL of your believed ancient homeland. Let's see. ....German (we'll say) 'aboriginals' assert historic/religious ties to the lands which derived their Nationalism in order to stage their own 'Zion'. Compare....Jewish Nationals assert they were most 'aboriginal' to Palestine based on their own historic/religious ties theire which derived their Nationalism there. The German-nationals initially demanded assimilation (something not even the Jews demanded of the Muslims...they just wanted them out). Then they isolated them in Ghettos as they took over Jewish-owned entities they believed were 'official acts' (legal in Germany at the time. The Jews in Palestine isolated themselves as well as the Muslims non-voluntarily of the Palestinians there, established 'ownerships' they declared 'valid' in the laws both of the Turkish Empire and to the British temporary 'laws' in their holding at war's end. They offered the Palestinians 'exile' (like the Jews in Germany) but since they wouldn't or couldn't go anywhere, you isolate them in camps. With more need to be 'respectable' of the world's eyes, instead of forcing most directly, (like an abuser cleverly knowing how to harm their spouses without leaving clear marks), they backed the Palestinians out of their homes, made (make) obviously clear predudicial acts like buldozing homes on claims like, "oh,...you left home early today and we thought that you just abandoned your home justly and so had to tear it down for fear of it rotting within hours potentially causing hazardous conditions for the neighbors." Your singing to the choir with me on these things. But you don't get the irony that the Israelis are doing this precisely to the Palestinians. You think you are so high and mighty over them? If the Muslims (properly, Palestinians) are horrible people, the Israelis are ten times more than that since they keep acting on their continued settlements, the WALLS, the checkpoints, etc. I KNOW you know this and am guessing that you are only here as a loyal Nationalist serving to propogate the Israeli cause for damage control. Smearing others as Anti-Semitic for daring to question the Israeli Supremacists? Let's see....hmmmm.....So if you don't like the KKK and have cause to argue against them, since they believe in White Supremecy, should this too assure that you are an Anti-Caucasic hater? I take issue with them too. And since I'm 'white' I'm going to also be accused by them of "betraying my 'race'". Does this not sound familiar to you Rue? You make a good "Nazi" Rue. Propogate that others have their own secret hidden agendas attempting to get you. Obviously you don't know who I am nor what I represent. Like my atheism, you might think of me as anationalist (abscent of a belief in National Supremacies, prides of genetic/environemental heritages/inheretages) and am also ANTI-Nationalist as I am ANTI-Religious because I see these as the underlying anti-rational means to defend intolerant behaviors by removing the ultimate 'Authority' to assure your supremacies for provisional abuses in power. They all originate in some discrepancy between people's economies. But the more 'wealthy' or powerful extremes have more fear of losing what power they have and so utilize their positions in power to optimize their intolerant behaviors; The 'poor' who also can become abusive, do so out of desperation more often and so always appear as the 'terrorists'. Nationalisms arise out of both. For more plural countries, Nationals in the dominant positions fight for a MONO-cultural command, while those in relatively indominant but equally desiring Nationals, opt for a MULTI-cultural form (until, that is, they have the power to rule!) So although I like/love culture, I'm for voluntary associated ones (not inherently defined in law) and go against all Nationalisms. I can't bother going on here until you get your facts straight. Accusating me as you are doing is demonstrating not only HATE, but falsely trying to distort me as a human without appropriate cause. But then again, maybe this is your 'duty', right? You MUST be ANTI-Caucasic, ANTI-Muslim, ANTI-X, -Y, and -Z, right?

Let me start on the last point. You are implying that I should be looking elsewhere on the declaration that the Muslims were the ones initially at fault here. Did you know that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a non-religious Communist organ? Did you know that the reason they had problems with Iran and Kuwait were about being LANDLOCKED and extorted through being unable to have direct access to the sea? Now these WERE Muslim countries bordering them as much as the makeup of their own people. But the powers of the Western world to profit on the oil going through Kuwait is an example of how the economics of our countries intervene in ways that utilize the propaganda we get that demonize the Muslims based on some apparently unusually 'hostile' set of beliefs. Nationalisms arises out of the very forces of economic impoverishment imposed upon people from without or to those exiled from their own lands. Palestinians were exiled by the Jews establishing the 'State of Israel' forcefully and with CLEAR intent to do so. They were very VOCAL to this intent, made deals with illegitimate 'landowners' external to the Palestineans, declared their 'ownership' of property within Palestine as their sovereignty, and both prevented Muslims their from the system they formed within these settlements as they cleverly stole the territory beneath their feet. The Israelis set the president for all that is occurring today as other countries think it best to join in on the same behavior rather than sit back and let the others take it for them. They witness the rest of the world powers supporting the problem and so feel hopeless to do anything other than to react in the best way they can. Like David, of the Goliath story, any use of 'terrorism' is a last ditch effort to fight using whatever resources they have. If they had big guns, tanks, planes, and other nice toys, they too would be fighting back in the same "gentlemanly-like" manners you and others think are somehow not considered "terroristic". Religions are all Nationalistic in some form or another. But the ones most extreme belong to the most Ethnically Proud people who ARE racist by default of their unusually strong 'favor' of their cultish beliefs in their genetic and inherent superiority as they believe is granted them of their gods. They are MONO-culturalists. And while they may 'accept' trivial minorities among them, this is more about appearances and is limited only enough to hopefully prevent others of being certain of how discriminatory they actually are.

No, you don't seem to be logically able to grasp the distinctions or are just purposely glossing over it. The 'crime' is what the hypocrisy points to: "a pot calling the kettle black" is the commons saying. Hypocrisy is NOT a fallacy of accusation when the authority of the opinion is inconsistent with the opinion they hold sincerely against the opponent they are accusing in opposing ways. It IS a fallacy when one accuses another of some inconsistency that lacks relevance to the nature of the argument. Israelis believe they were done wrong by National Socialism and thus despise this form of government; Yet they have reconstructed their State (Israel) repeating the same form of National Socialism they pretend is distinctively different when it isn't. And even your reasoning, "..as it is irrelevant to nation state actions to attack real or perceived existential threats." is skewed since this reasoning is sufficient to justify Hilter's Holocaust too. No, as Israel's actions are consistent with previous policy and actions, specific to intifada(s), occupation, rocket attacks, kidnappings, suicide bombings etc. "Fairness" has absolutely nothing to do with it. You seem awkward here. If you are asserting 'fairness' of no value between the parties in conflict regardless, then anything goes. Then you should have nothing to contrast who did right or wrong. You can't pick and choose which event in the middle of back and forth events you dislike to blame of the side you distaste. The argument has to be about where and who started it, who is in power to stop it, and to whether they are STILL continuing in their behavior that caused it in the first place. You can't place the burden on Palestinians. They are enslaved and being harassed with more violence than any other victims of Supremacists behave in America. And the 'policies' you speak of are NOT Palestinian. Do you have to follow Canadian 'policy' if we imposed some charge and conviction against the U.S.? You are attempting an unnecessary distraction with your own imposing definition. Contextually, the OP as am I or others who 'agree' to the meaning here is an opinion being argued. If I said that you were not 'right', would you now demand that I prove how I somehow think you are 'left'? Not sure I follow your reasoning, but conviction by lawful judicial proceedings is by definition "authoritative". Such convictions can be appealed in the same lawful framework. Most convicts say they are innocent (not guilty) because they know "the truth". WHOSE law? It was Hilter's 'laws' to try and convict the Jews within his own system. Should we now retrace those later convicted of "war crimes" involved in the Holocaust as also NOT committing "war crimes" by formal definition according to the law of the Germany at the time? If you don't like the word, it only appears that you are hoping one opts to use a more subtle word that dimishes the force of opinion here. That's fine....many people feel that way. My position is also quite straightforward....Israel will act for nation state interest(s) when faced with existential threats the same as any other, and should not be held to a different standard. Moral inconsistencies are irrelevant. Okay, so you ARE just arbitrarily favoring the Israelis without prejudice for or against either Israel nor Palestine. The concern that I have (without speaking for all others) is that the conflict of this source specifically acts as the controlling 'seed' to which all other conflicts in the Middle East have derived. It is no longer the ONLY one. But Israel, like I've said before, has the most significant POWER to which they alone hold to either extinguish the fire they started or to fuel it more. I'm unsure of what you mean by "prices paid in Palestine"? "Prices paid" by whom? The rest of the world at present is paying for this lately as being required to help out the refuges in ways they cannot afford. Where is Israel here? Should they not be opening their doors? No, this is a false conclusion. The Palestinians are free to pursue a failed intifada strategy as they please, legitimizing Israel's security actions and interests. The presumed economic and military superiority is real and not subject to any parent/child interpretation.Launch rockets...get bombed many times over. This is not complicated. This is just sad. If you pick strength of force as all that justifies one's right to power, you too then support Hitler's interpretation of the same. It was this belief that ALL that MATTERS in reality is WINNING, to the Nazis. The ones who forcefully make their WILL succeed through determination is what was DEFINED as all that mattered as morally relevant. You have a right to this belief. But then why do you even care about this thread at all? Why are you concerned about the particular interpretation of some of Israel versus others? You can't pick on some definition of "war crimes" as what bothers you here. If the law convicted you of one tomorrow without truth, you perhaps think you have to accept this. Maybe, like many, you believe a higher power will repair human injustices in the end anyways, right? But this has to be your OWN sacrifice to take on...you can't impose others to accept the sacrifices for your own beliefs.

Argus, I'll have to come back later to respond. Hopefully by then Rue would have also repaired his words and I may read past it to respond too.

Did what I say fly over your head? Read back what I'd said and then quote precisely where I remotely implied 'hypocrisy' itself is a crime. I clearly demonstrated with good examples the difference of errors. The 'crime' is the actions of Israel to BE criminal but to accuse the Palestinians of it hypocritically.....not that the crime is 'hypocrisy' of which hypocrisy itself is some official 'crime' by definition. You appear to be trying to hold the OP to something you literally interpret in your head beyond context of his expression and prefer not to veer into the depths external to this strict interpretation. So let me ask you this instead: Do you find anything inappropriate or unfair of Israel's actions which have possibly caused the Palestinians any reason to be even remotely justified in their own actions or reactions? I think you must have missed my point for sure now. Big Guy titled this thread, "Israeli War Crimes" and you are trying to force this to be proven by the standard of an official 'war crime' by some assumed authoritative court decision or tribunal in order for such an opinion to be held valid, right? If you are charged with an offence you KNOW is clear and evidently false, you expect all people to accept the language of the authoritative judgement even in contrast to this fact regardless of potential first-hand witness simply because it is 'official'? If a court and jury convicted you falsely of some crime you certainly did not commit, do you think it appropriate to use the same language of yourself even if it counters your own knowledge as though the accusation and conviction were 'true' regardless of what you know? I argue with respect to the logic of the situation as it appears the OP is doing, not to any official opinion by some court, whether it exists or not, but to my own opinion and back it up. I believe what Israel is doing is a 'crime' and is one in which Israel would also deem a 'crime' should their justification for action against the Palestinians is one they would not approve of for themselves. If I think it alright to hit you but that you should not hit me, while you may choose to interpret my hypocritical behavior not relevant to some particular argument I might have for my actions (I could be a Supreme Kind of Person doling out justice for you naughty behavior, right?), how should some third party interpret things objectively between us without assuming some presumed neutral significance between us? You FAVOR the Israeli side and DISFAVOR the Palestinians and so think there is some 'normal' assumption of Israeli Supremacy by default here. You thus do not interpret it allowable to equate what wrong the Israeli side does to the Palestinians as a justification for Palestinians to do the same in return. For you, Israel is like the Parent and Palestine a disobedient peasant child who should know their natural position of inferiority. So you don't interpret that a parent is being hypocritically liable to punishing its child in ways that should be returned in kind.

Rue, I request that if you quote me, you quote me precisely as I have written and not include words that I had not said. I had to look back to determine where the hell you quoted the following upon just starting to read: I had not anywhere spoken the last sentence in your quote here and inappropriately places false accent and interpretation of me prior to arguing. Please avoid adding interpretation you have of my quote if you should choose to quote. If you wonder why I don't like responding to you, it is your means to purposely misrepresent something with clear deception of what has been written. And I DID grant you charity to be sincere initially here. I welcome disagreement and argument for your own position. But I can't bother with your tactics as if you are talking to and about someone I am not but you think I should have to defend!!

The fallacy I pointed to earlier (Tu quoque) is one that refers to when hypocrisy does NOT appropriately fit with the accusation. If one is arguing against A, it is not appropriate to incite hypocrisy if one does not argue against B with similar force or recognition unless it is towards themselves as a B by virtue of their own belief they hold. As such, if one BELIEVES X (as some crime, for instance) and such a belief is personally justified of themselves, should they hold that others must also hold X (as some crime here), the nature of the act they accuse of the other must also be one they accept of themselves or its value is arbitrary. If the U.N. is some body that declares X a 'crime', this is irrelevant to some particular member like Israel to assert X when they themselves do not treat this as a crime of themselves. The clear intent of the OP here is to point out the hypocrisy of Israel, not the U.N. to be 'criminal' with respect to their own values as they charge the Palestinians of behaving 'criminal' towards them. Why should Israel be permitted fair capacity to be abusive while the Palestinians be considered most vial? Would you think that it be alright to have some police officer pull you over hammered out of his mind to arrest you for drinking? The 'crime' for both you and the police officer is drinking under the influence of alcohol. The police officer or anyone supporting his right to charge you would be 'hypocritical' should we trust the him as authoritative of this offence regardless of how he himself behaves. And ironically, you again make the error of me being 'hypocritical' without appropriate qualification. If you think that I'm being hypocritical, you have to prove that I hold the same standard of belief FOR MYSELF, not of what others like Canada, the U.S., etc, stand for hypocritically. Using a similar example above, you are like a drunk driver who gets pulled over by a (non-drinking/non-hypocritical) cop who arrests you and you try to point out the hypocrisy of him not to arrest the other drunk drivers that left with you at the same time from the bar. ??!! Its at best a hopeful distraction. "Wait, there's someone MORE drunk than you sir?! I'm sorry, I'll let you go on your way then. Thanks for pointing this out. I'll get right on that!."

"War crimes" are terms itself intentionally worded for affect by the OP and is appropriate in context to direct the attention towards Israel it deserves. The fact is, "war crimes" is ALWAYS as subjective a term when 'crime' is merely a legal definition of those empowered to create those laws. The point is that Israel is being HYPOCRITICAL to laws that they themselves would and DO deem 'criminal' if and where the same behavior they opt to use as justice against the Palestinians should not apply to themselves. This is why I point to the Nationalism here. This lies at the root of interpretation. If one interprets only their own Nationality as all that requires 'fairness' in moral rectitude, then they are simply defining outsiders by default who offend themselves as morally repugnant strictly. To be non-hypocritical, we should expect that if Israel should find it 'fair' to build walls, set up settlements, or all other seemingly 'just' things against Palestinians, should you not expect Israelis to be doing this equally among themselves? Why would they only 'trust' their own by default and distrust the Palestinians with extreme opposition? I dare the Israelis to try simply to build one wall against a 'friendly' Israeli, place checkpoints around their homes, opt to tear down their homes should they leave it empty and 'unoccupied' for a few hours, and then see how well such a 'friendly' Israeli remains a friend to their own Nation. The truth is, they would NEVER do this and KNOW that such behavior, even if apparently 'justified' by some poor Israeli behavior, would not be justified without fair trial presuming them innocent until proven guilty. To Israel though, ALL Palestinians are defaulted to 'guilty'. And why? Because the Israeli knows they 'own' this guilt for their own actions against the Palestinians but have little concern to reflect upon it for fear of losing what they have established regardless.

You clearly don't know what the actual National Socialists were and this is understandable considering how our world has since obliterated any actual sense of them with purpose. National Socialism was as much 'democratic' as Israel is. The democracy is LIMITED to the Nationality of which the "Nationalism" refers to. It is a trivial distinction to refer to Hitler alone as what Nazis stood for and is counter to what their original party was created for. Hitler was only one of a possible set of realities of which National Socialism leads to, including any revised version to make it more 'democratic' with respect to its favored Nationality. (Hitler purged those with divergent views that could have lead to alternative representations of Nazism that may have been more 'democratic') I don't care how apparent the setup is for Israel. As long as it was and is devised as a Nation of Jewish Peoples with priority (as the Zionism that initiated it refers to), it IS intrinsically biased to favor Jews with a clear understanding that they are both Jewish by culture AND by heritage (ancestrally related). The Zionists from the beginning intended to take over Palestine regardless of any concern for the people there. When the first groups 'settled', they made purchases of illegitimate authority (the Turkish Empire 'owners') in defiance to those living there in Palestine. What 'legitimacy' of this alone undermines the respect for the previous Palestinians just as it would be for you to purchase property you KNOW is stolen of some other group and expect you did this 'legally'. When the empire was overthrown, the British as contemporary occupiers also had no right to simply treat these Palestinians as 'floaters' like they had no say to re-establish their own before such was volunteered by this and the other external countries to the Zionists. Then, when the settlers had arrived, they also created exclusive colonies, acted as they were their own 'country' in disrespect of the actual Nation they resided in. This is like if I and a collection of my Canadian friends and family had bought up some land in the U.S. and then simply declared our owned lands "Canadian" in exclusion of American law with complete inclusion of Canadian ones. This is an illegitimate action and was intended from the start with even arrogant record of this. The ONLY reason other U.N. countries even permitted this was for the same reason many countries now are resisting the onslaught of refuges.....it is preferable to redirect the burden to support an uncertain people elsewhere than to easily let them in, regardless of anyone's compassion. But note that even these countries likely had as much prejudice against the Jews and only welcomed them to 'steal' by their official sanction property in some land that (1) was not theirs, and (2) would FAVOR the collective Christian believers who felt that to satisfy their own religious ideals would require the temple at Jerusalem to be rebuilt as 'predicted' to reassure the second coming of Christ as inevitable! Don't try to bullshit me or others in how much 'better' the Jews are versus the Muslims. I personally find FAVOR in the Jewish ideals and lifestyle over the Muslims. If I were to tally up all the heroes I admire in entertainment, science, or any area, the largest plurality of them for me would likely be of those who are Jewish in some way. So my own personal thinking has zero reference to any distaste of a Jew. What IS the problem is that the STATE OF ISRAEL is one set up to purposely displace any and all people that are or were in Palestine to create a biased state of Jewish Nationalists, not simply some 'new' democracy, as this can be found anywhere. Had democracy been the goal, those desiring it would have returned to the very lands they were supposedly penalized prior to post war Europe. That is, since the war was won by the Allies and to the U.N. of which this derived from, they had the power and success of the war to assure the Jews who were abused in Europe up to the end of WWII should have been able to go BACK to places like Germany, reclaim stolen or lost properties, etc. Instead, Zionists had their cake and ate it too. They demanded both compensation for the losses AND to take over the land of which they believed their rooted ancestors came from, Palestine. So it doesn't matter how 'democratic' you think they are relative to those they've already accepted in their stolen lands, you are only attempting to mislead when you assert Israel as somehow MORE fair than the Muslims. Much of the Muslim extremism that does exist is as minority among them until the rest of the world treated them with the same kind of hatred that the Jews of the past had experienced in kind. To solve the extremists among Islam, you have to first tackle the factors that create or enhance the conditions that gave them their extremism, namely Israeli Nationalism. This means first to tear down those walls, stop the settlements, open dialogues that express the honest realities each experience and are responsible to have caused the other, and to join up collectively as one people in that region that allows democratic representation of everyone, not simply the tiny token minorities Israel uses as a necessary prop for Western eyes to excuse as sufficiently 'tolerant'.

The point of which you purposely hide the context of is that the Israelis ARE National Socialists. As to the second sentence that is intended to imply that Arab and Christian Israelis would disagree, this is NOT representative of what the state of Israel has set up. If by any chance these sub-member groups were granted the capacity to dominate Israel, it would no longer BE a Zionist State. These particular minorities are intended to both REMAIN minorities and have to be such that they presently ACCEPT the superiority of the Jewish-constituted state by default. If this wasn't the case, the Israelis would automatically accept the Palestinian Muslims as members of their democracy too. From the start, they excluded these 'first nation' peoples from participating. And had they not, any possible state that would have existed democratically would have by default have a Palestinian majority to this day. They aren't a similar group. They're a nation. And they're far from the only nation which has protections for their culture and values. Most nations do, in fact, to one degree or another. Take a look at Japan some day. Yes. And this would be like if the KKK had opted to fixate on some particular State in America, optimized their economic resources to buy property up there, segregate themselves from the non-white/non-KKK supporters until they had sufficient power to demand Separation from the Union of the United States! Then to such a 'state' this would most assuredly mark them out as a VERY powerful group should this happen, right? Japan used to be like this up to WWII and while this no doubt still exists, it is accidental. Nor have the Japanese there stolen some previous residents homes to create Japan [at least in recent times for as far as I follow their ancient history]. This may be true. But it is 'true' regardless of ones' intent. The German Natives too had this in mind. But no matter what they could do to try to favor their ingroup, they were always at a disadvantage based solely on relative economic impoverishment by contrast to the Jews there. Christianity also aided in what 'strengthened' the Jews by their own abolition of middle-men profiteering (usury). As such, even the discrimination against the Jews then actually fostered their (Jewish) fortune as well as their isolation for this very principle. However, even throughout the present Catholic empire, the Christians at least must have had some virtue of their existence with respect to the same usury advantages which only enhanced Jews in kind. Taking out this initial 'Christian' value, even Christianity no longer had laws against usury and why the concern of an unbalanced condition of having a need for Jewish segregation was required. But since they maintained this in light of changes for those particular Jews who still believed in keeping their segregation, it makes them more of a cult when or where they maintain biasing favor to their ingroup with exclusion to outsiders. I've pointed out that with respect to certain industries, it is important that no one culture, especially ones that are so segregate in essence, should have power in them with dominance, regardless of how potentially nice they could appear to be. Israel may not be a 'street gang'. But this contingency is only by virtue of the wealth they accumulate to require using 'street' methods. I can VALUE what means the Israelis may permit of themselves. A certain 'pride' is necessary for self-confidence and optimism to permit change for the better. This doesn't help though if you are simply so unfortunate to be born into some contingent genetic-classed group which is at the opposite economic spectrum. Would you blame the impoverished people of some common genetic origin as 'owning' their doomed fate in direct opposition to how you favor Israel for their 'owning' their own pride for their own successes? We live in an interdependent world of which the successes of some require essential losses of another. If you credit the Jews for their ability to succeed based on 'good' stereotypes, you must discredit those, like the Blacks in the U.S. as having some intrinsic 'bad' stereotypes that earned them their misfortunes too. So it is not correct to credit Jewish cohesiveness as a virtue as this is PRECISELY what the Nazis believed and why they went against them with most forcefulness. The Nazis were derived of the same social anarchistic ideals of Communism but recognized that to concern themselves with the whole was delusional because those who still exist as believing in their distinctness and empowered to preserve it would only use such a platform as a false means to take the reigns of control prior taking over in some Nationalistic favor among them regardless. They feared the "Jew" as being unbeatable (eternal) regardless of what could be thrown at them BECAUSE of their NATIONALISM, and why they believed that regardless of any real compassion one might hope to hold for the whole, those with nationalistic strength would supersede those preferring universal compassion. They also perceived the Communists as being composed of those same Jews intent on only utilizing the myth of universal compassion as a means to delude others until they are trapped under their authority. In some ways, this made sense considering that Marx had to revise the means to the ideal of an anarchic state with a contemporary dictator who would command anyways. This logic only seemed impossible to assure the ideal because you'd still have to trust that the person leading was not particularly interested in their own ancestral roots or biased to naturally favor those of their own inherent associations. Thus "National Socialism" was and IS a model that the Nazis derived from the Jew, as they perceived it. Their campaign to wipe them out was only in the belief that the Jews themselves were Nationalistic but using a subterfuge to harm others as opposed to being more direct. (Knife in the back as opposed to knife in the front) And now, here you and others are crediting the very background stereotype that granted virtue to the inevitable actions of those like Hitler to be empowered to the same things that also cause the supposed greatest harms. I don't know if you are just being naive or just treating this as a game in light of knowing this. If you favor the Nationalism of Israel at present, you are supporting a National Socialistic ideal that ALWAYS tends towards harming some out-group at minimum. I'm NOT saying here that this is 'wrong' in respect to nature itself. However, if you logically recognize this AND still maintain that the Israeli is any different to those they most oppose, I find this most hypocritical. Two wrongs don't make a right. And if Hitler was solely in the 'wrong' (including presuming that the Jews' eternal strength resided in their Nationalism), then the Zionists attempts to take over in Palestine to create the state of Israel is just repeating the same kind of abuse. Perhaps these people simply believed that since the world is doomed to be evil, we may as well optimize our own power in the same light (to be evil too), ....just be more clever about it. I don't believe the Nazis were completely irrational contrary to the smear against them afterthefact. I don't personally agree to it but know that there is at least an equal justification for Israel to do this for the same reason. Was Hitler right afterall though? If Zionisim IS correct and fair, than ironically, Hitler was too. And supporting Zionism and Israel is just proving this. Our best solution is to dissolve Nationalism if we are to actually believe in some universal compassion. OR should we all follow suit and enhance our Nationalisms instead? I don't have the answer and hate politics for its contradictions. But if we don't recognize the truth of the logic here, we won't be able to find some POSSIBLE better means to solve them creatively.

Hmmm, I didn't know we were discussing Quebec, Japan, First Nations, or even Switzerland in this thread. But perhaps if or where you can assure that I don't question Nationalism anywhere else, you might have some justification to question this of me. Your appearing to accuse me of some form of hypocrisy here which is both not true of me (because I'm consistently against this anywhere and of anyone) and to whether this if true, matters of this particular argument. (Tu quoque fallacy)

The health costs to handle a person dying of cancer is less than the cost of maintaining them in an old folk home or other palliative care for twenty living in diapers. I question this already with respect to our tobacco laws and the 666% taxes of actual cost (And yet people blame the tobacco companies for poorer behavior?) I find this criminal of society just as it would be to command we sign up for some cult. My body, my health. Our system ALREADY discriminates against smokers even within the Health care providers. It is indirect and relatively 'hidden'. A smoker would get placed at the back of a cue for backed up services. The extortion of such taxes limits the cash an addict must use to put towards other 'healthier' lifestyles or things that tease the more wealthier ones to eventually find a good reason to quit motivationally, voluntarily, and naturally. It would be unwise to legalize other drugs HERE IN CANADA for this reason. The U.S. is different though as they actually alter their prices better with respect to supply and demand. Legalizing pot is only intended to act as an extorted tax grab (mainly against the poor) and acts as a means to reduce the taxes of the wealthy. Decriminalization is all I think we can hope for with fairness.

Some people don't like National Socialists. A National Socialist is one who supports a State of one significant culture and their genetic ancestrally related peoples to be favored in the context of ownership in the hands or absolute control of these people ONLY. The government thus designed is to FAVOR this ethnicity with some myth or religion that grants them some 'official' justification to the properties they hold via some more supreme force, or Nature itself. While Israel is 'democratic' for Israeli Jews, they don't extend this right to non-Jews constitutionally. They would NOT allow other groups to exist there to potentially supersede their supreme rule as a cult. As to size, while the Jewish population is quite minimal with respect to all other peoples, the Israeli Jews act as a GANG of one genetic-cultural binding and so actually represent one of the larger 'gangs' with respect to similar groups (like the KKK, or Black Panthers, etc.) Also, they are absurdly most successful economically as a group in the world stage and this cannot occur without some means to conspire favor to their own implying opposing disrespect for all others. If you think Israel should be considered 'fair', you'd have to equally accept other groups, including the Palestinians, to react as a gang in kind. Why should they submit to your demeaning anti-Muslim behavior (hatred)?

I'm not a progressive OF belief in some absolute morality to nature. But does my own intellectual Nihilism justify anything I should do with respect to laws? If I accept no moral means even simply created by our conventions (= through government), why should anybody even care to listen to anything anyone says? I understand we are IN a dog-eat-dog world. But governments serve those intent to COMPETE with ideas to create laws (as forms of 'morals') and so this competition should include the means to fight for our opinions, even without the same standards that one's wealth or power provides them inherently. Progressives are often those prevented from the same standards going into life that the Conservatives enjoy by default. So you can argue that the Conservatives are more 'unfair' especially when they back their own illegitimate natural right of 'ownership' with highly remote Gods with their fixed morality imposed on us all.