Scott Mayers

I don't like Nationalism of any sort and believe this factor is the number one underlying problem of conflict everywhere, next to differences of economies. I'm broad-ranged and so the Israeli conflict is only one of many things I prefer to tackle. Note Nationalism to me is the Ego- or Ethno-centricity that underpins politics based on group associations. But it includes those who might be Feminists or Masculinists (rare) instead of Humanists, for instance. I include concerns of other groups too who assert some form of 'ownership' to some class, (like homosexuals, for instance) who assert some genetic AND combined cultural truths belonging to that class. Israel is a big one because it defines much of the problems in the Middle East. I am as equally skeptical of others, like the Muslims or Palestinians but find they are in a phase of Nationalism from the grass roots level (beginning stage). So in order to stop the continuous cycle, we need to target those most in power to recognize that it is they, and not the presumed 'terrorists' (usually those at the bottom of some economic ladder) who are required to voluntarily change first. Israel was a reaction to the prior era of the Holocaust but became the very abusers they resented out of fear of it occurring. But so was Germany before them and what gave rise to their Nationalism. Both must stop but the ones at top economically presume innocence while the ones at the bottom are considered terrorists. Would you have better success asking the starving person(s) at the bottom to do all the sacrificing when they can't even sacrifice what they haven't got? No, you ask the ones who CAN afford the risk to take the chance.

You mean that YOU cannot follow the depth (or the big words?). Please don't attempt to insult what you yourself may be incapable of understanding. If you have a question, ask it and I can try to put it in words you might be able to understand. But I'm not going to speak Twitter (sound bites)or presume one has at best a kindergarten vocabulary in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I prefer to assume by default the best of one's potential education and go from there.

By the way, I just noticed the link at the bottom. It says, "Back to The Rest of the World"! I thought this was rather funny. Did anyone else notice?

No, I'm just disagreeing with you. That goes without saying. You have evaded responding to my response to your accusations and assumptions of who is abusing who in the Middle East. No, you haven't.Stating I haven't doesn't prove I haven't and is more about trying to evade it. You didn't make one except to suggest western media are biased. But we're not talking merely about media but subject matter.That was a response to your accusation that Aljazeera is a phony organization with its own biased motive without qualification and to the fact it is of a severe minority with respect to Western media. Your purpose is to disqualify ANY dissenting view by dismissing that media as a whole with severe prejudice. My comment is not against our Western media with absolution but the weight of such is politically biased itself and so if Aljazeera should be accused of this, it is in hypocritical disrespect. You mean by legally moving there and legally buying land? How is that 'the logic of the Jew"?Your accent placed to the 'logic of the Jew' is not one I endorse as you are inappropriately presenting me as implying ALL Jews have some common logic. The 'logic' is the rationale of the Zionist Jews who PARTICULARLY initiated the take over of Palestine and have succeeded. The 'legality' is moot as is the 'legality' of those committing atrocities of the Holocaust. The explanation given by those accused of Nazi crimes was that "they were just following orders". That is, the LAW of the present Germany they were a function of LEGITIMIZED (that is, LEGALIZED) their right to behave. If you are holding on to the belief in 'legality' based on the political reality of some place and time, it would be hypocritical again to assert the Nazis who were convicted had done anything 'wrong' in kind. Whose "dead horse"? This is precisely at issue and you can't simply pick and choose which things you recognize at fault of those you favor. Who are you to assert which issues are closed universally? A does wrong to B who then does wrong to A who then does wrong to B who.... You simply pick favor to A and knowing A initiated a cause that is understood to be originally wrong, dismiss it as a "dead horse" so that you can place B as the initial source of all fault. The Israelis (the 'A', here) began the problem relative to the Palestinians. The declaration of its "legality" for their purchase is suspect since their understood and clear AIM was to take over Palestine as is even the very clear function of the Zionist purpose to create a Jewish-only State. If they were at least 'fair' why would they not declare this in the countries they were coming from instead? Germany, for instance, should have been the 'homeland' of those Jews emigrating from there and actually for those to even leave it seems to suggest that those like Hitler were justified in their claims of Jews to be 'foreign'. Why did the U.N. sanction Jews to have a right to Palestine instead of to the lands that they were from? Why didn't the U.N. demand that the Jews who were abused in Germany require a right to return to Germany? The reality is that the U.N. was NOT a function of ALL nations at that time and had their own discriminatory and arrogant beliefs, especially of the Palestinians, considering they sanctioned such 'legitimacy'. Such 'legitimizing' did NOT involve the Palestinians and so the U.N. is just as at fault for such. But those Zionists knowing this only 'optimized' their circumstances by accepting the U.N. for precisely their favor. And then they DIRECTLY acted to monopolize Palestine as their own. Well, there were enough violent anti-Jewish pogroms in old Palestine to do that.Really? You already admit of some 'legality' to which you feign is as much FROM the Palestinians as by the Ottomans and to the foreign coalition (the U.N.). If the Palestinians were so 'unkind' prior to the Jewish settlements, how the hell did such a body of people have even 'legitimized' the Jewish presence in there in the first place? This is absurd and contradictory.

You're being evasive here. I've given you logical examples of equivalence to the occurrences of which you are not answering to. Instead, you've just restated your opinion without attending to my argument. You have to go back to the logic of the Jews to have even justification for settling in Palestine in the first place. They have done so with UNFAIRNESS to the Palestinian people with clear and logical means to take over that land as their own, regardless of the concern of the people there. To establish fault of the Palestinians requires proving they themselves had violated the Jews first. This has not been done because the Zionists intent was to co-opt the land of the Palestinians FIRST. This IS the crime the State of Israel has with respect to the same virtues they admitted others must recognize of themselves through history. The Palestinians were NOT the particular peoples who violated the Jews in the diaspora for which they are being penalized for. And the same union of countries who also contributed to such past discrimination are now supporting a Jewish state only to 'pay' for such guilt BUT at the expense of the Palestinians as a scapegoat. The rest of the world didn't have the right to legitimize theft 'elsewhere' or to volunteer what was not theirs to give.

NO, history and the logic I spelled out here demonstrates that the Jewish settlers of Palestine OR of the Ottoman empire is suspect regardless of the supposed 'legality' involved. See my above reference to myself as not 'owning' a piece of the land in Canada I'm born into. I did not CHOOSE NOT to have such ownership and cannot compete with those who do. But should some culture, ethnicity, or any other group have such a fortune to buy up the lands around me, do they have a right to expel me of this land? Do they have a right to assert themselves as 'some other Nation' privileged to their own laws in disrespect of Canada? And if Canada was taken over by some other sovereignty, does that sovereignty have the right to dictate that my right to be here regardless of the change of sovereignty requires appropriately treating me an equal in this or any other government that takes over? The Palestinians (who did not have official 'ownership' by some other sovereignty) were still Palestinians. And to treat them as now subject to be dismissed for some 'legality' is not different than accepting the same for those asserting formal legitimacy of whatever sovereignty existed. This is why I pointed out the Nazi scenario. The Nazis who were tried afterwards for the Holocausts based such declarations of 'legitimacy' (the present Nazi laws) as invalid because their internal personal moral compass clearly demonstrated either hatred OR at minimal, some INDIFFERENCE to the concerns of the Jews fate. This is PRECISELY what the Jews settling in Palestine/Ottoman Empire did to those Palestinians. The legitimate 'ownership' of the Palestinians too where they DID exist were and still are treated as illegitimate simply based on the Jewish-only legal system designed to favor Jews exclusively at the expense of any other people there. Mufti or other people you may mention have no significance here. The Palestinians are also individuals and are not 'owned' by some particular leader's actions or their beliefs. I'm an evolutionist. It doesn't mean I 'own' Darwin's Christian beliefs.

I do not OWN land here in my country. Does this mean I am NOT Canadian? Does it mean I simply opted NOT to buy? And, if foreigners, whether they had some 'country' or not, come here with fiscal power to purchase land here to any extent of their fortune, and then attempt to impose their 'ownership' as a right to declare themselves a sovereignty distinct from Canada and then discriminate against me via their segregate laws (not of Canada nor of my non-ownership status),is such 'owners' privileged to co-opt my own right to this land? ....to segregate laws for themselves and me (or my kind) as if I am the 'foreigner' here?

The names of the particular people of this history are not logically valid. I follow Darwin's logic for Natural Selection but don't revere his Christianity as it is not relevant to the logic of evolution. What DOES matter with regards to Israeli history is that those initially 'settling' in Palestine, had the SINCERE intent to take over those lands from those inhabiting it with disrespect of them. You mentioned the fact that the Ottoman Empire was whom these initial Israelis 'purchased' such lands from. Yet if this was an intolerant regime, it was equally intolerant against those Palestinians and so any 'purchase' made to respect the Ottomans is not made in good faith to those Palestinians inhabiting that region. The Israeli 'settlements' also created their own 'settlements' with exclusion to Islamic respect of that Empire regardless as if it WAS understood even by the Ottomans that such 'purchases' were also implying these people were non-Nationals of that Empire NOR of the Palestinians, the Israeli claim is purposely deceptive and invalid. Even by our present standards of 'statehood' with respect to some hosting country, we don't think that when or where some foreign nationals purchase land, that this implies the land itself is no longer sovereign to the country hosting their right to purchase. That is, if I as a Canadian, went to the U.S. and purchased a house, that house is still necessarily American, no matter what my foreign sovereignty is of. I can't then presume that MY own laws of the country I came from MUST be recognized in that American home. I cannot declare that house as NOW CANADIAN territory with exclusivity to me or other Canadians. This is what Israel did with clear and decisive intent to steal the land from the Palestinians. And if you question this, than do you not also question a Nazi being charged for some crime as asserting they were 'just following orders' (according to the legal status of their land) as equally valid? Is it not the case that you think the 'settlers' had purpose and intent to take advantage of the Palestinians as not a crime regardless of the Ottoman laws that may have permitted such 'purchases'? In good faith, were the Zionists there not both against the Ottomans AND the Palestinians because they intended to exploit the laws only to co-opt that land as a foreign owned sovereignty (not of either the Ottomans nor of Palestinian allegiance)?

You are capitalizing "Cause" as if it is some specific movement. If so, perhaps Wilhelm Marr also is a 'founder of some Cause' in equal measure of concern. Why not simply resort to saying, "Anti-Jew"? It seems more indicative of what those accused of it are supposedly believing than to create a term that acts with such lack of clarity. It seems itself a term used to obscure whether one has some specific opposition to some arbitrary belief (say, of the religion, "Judaism") rather than impose some intentional meaning of bias to ones genetic inheritance (being related ancestrally to one who did believe in Judaism).

"Born out of anti-Semitism"? What is a "Semite" if it does't include those of Palestine too? Is not the Israeli cause anti-Palestinian? "Antisemitism" itself is a term which is begging if those who are presumably "Semite" are themselves provisionally allowed to discount their own "Anti-" isms. Is Antisemitism one who is anti-Israeli or one who is anti-Jew?

Why is it that ANY dissenting opinion on Israel always defaulted to presuming it ANTI-JEW? This is absurd rhetoric and is not accounted for considering such sources are relatively non-existent in contrast to the rest of our Western media promoting an unusual biased support for Israel.

Let's begin with the fact that this is a site of discussion between particular people. As such, because everyone comes from different backgrounds, we have different common uses of words. And so the first thing we often must do if we are getting deep into some controversy is to define our various different meanings to try to understand each other. This requires understanding that dictionary definitions are not universally shared nor have authority to determine what one means. Even with those who share the same words and meanings have multiple meaning of the same term, which acts as a VARIABLE. And the biggest confusion comes when we use a word in one meaning but transfer it without noticing. Dictionaries are lists of common words with their VARIOUS meanings in use by some community. But dictionaries are also themselves not intended to be perfect nor to command what words people MUST use. You mentioned before, Rue, that you have the right to 'define' who you are and don't need someone else telling you what it means. In the proper context, this is correct. However, you don't seem to connect this fact with even our personal NAMES. Above, I've underlined the word, "Mayer", to which you have and continue to use to refer to me contrary to how I spell my name AND to the fact that it is not the 'culturally' accepted way people refer to one another unless they are intentionally indicating insult with purpose. So, if you want to be 'sincere', let's start with referencing me with how I define myself. You may refer to me as "Scott", or "Scott Mayers", as I refer to you as "Rue" and not my own preferred "Rude" to which demonstrates how using ones' name can indicate respect or disrespect. Next, since words are used arbitrarily and have multiple meanings, the dictionary only acts as a guide to help us understand each other. However, you can explicitly define a term to refer to whatever each person within some given conversation choose to. [i happen to be studying Turing Machines at present and find it difficult to interpret the particular definitions he uses to describe things unconventionally. The word, "computable", by most conventionally means some understood finite result that is 'computed' by some machine. But because he is making a proof, he opted to specifically define/redefine this term to specifically mean those results of some machine that creates an [i]infinite[/i] set of digits composed of ones (1) or zeros (0).] So, for the sake of this argument between you and I, and, if you are sincere, let's begin with the words, "Jew" and "Jewish", just to begin. If one is refers to one who is a "Jew" or "Jewish" means possibly, (1) A person who believes in Judaism or at least follows its philosophical aspects. It may also mean, (2) A person who is related by ancestry to someone who was Jewish of definition (1). As a third one, (3) Any one who is of both one who follows Judaism and who is ancestrally related to one OR just one or the other. [combination of (1) and/or (2)] You may propose extra ones of course. Note that we use all of these conventionally. What is different about this term should become apparent if we compare this with the definition of "Christian". When one is understood to be a "Christian" it may mean (1) A person who believes in Christ or at least follows the philosophical aspects espoused of this in some way. BUT, normally, although one may opt to define this as such, this same term would be awkward to define one as (2) A person who is related by ancestry to someone who is Christian. That is, it is most unusual for one to define themselves as "Christian" based on definition (2) because it implies one must have some inherent factor to qualify them as "Christian", something most Christians would default to assume is non-sense. If "Christianity" was necessarily a label to include those born of someone who believes in Christ, then this indicates those who do think a Christian is one who inherits their belief is also one who does not 'choose' it. This is the underlying comparative problem here and why others (like myself) have contention with those who accept the term "Jew" to mean ALL those definitions above. It implies there is some inherent factor necessary to qualify one as a "Jew". I accept definition (1) but, if the meanings of (2) or (3) apply, it implies that there is some genetic inherent factor to one who is merely born into some ancestral relation to a Jew [of definiton (1)]. You would be hypocritical to accept calling YOURSELF a "Jew" or "Jewish" by the second or third definition in any way because you would be DEFINING yourself as necessarily believing yourself as qualified as one solely based on some accident of birth, AND, to then also demand that others do NOT infer you are implying some special/distinct status for being such. You are stereotyping yourself because you are imposing a meaning to who you are as intrinsic to your heritage as if you have no choice to the matter of what you actually believe or not. This is because you imply that you 'own' the arbitrary factors of your ancestor's behaviors. If this is sane to you, this would be like defaulting to believe that if any one of one's ancestors had molested one of their own children, then you, as a descendant 'own' this act. How does the actions of one's parents get 'owned' to their descendant? Please respond to this first. If you at least understand what I'm getting at, you might begin to understand why me or anyone else would or should have contention with Israel. This is because the Israeli State is founded on an assumption of the "Jew" or what is "Jewish" is not simply one who follows Judaism, but to one who is at least BORN to some ancestor who was. How does this arbitrary factor(that is, culture)make one have a 'right' to some land based on the fact they have defined themselves of the above definitions inclusive?

You make a lot of logical fallacies here. Your feigning of some 'challenge'of me is what some might do to "throw it out there" by asserting I have some position and demand that I either confirm or prove that it isn't the case. I can't tell if you are sincere or not. But I assure you, my problem is with YOU personally, not some whole subset of humans, whether "Jewish" or any other group. If you're sincere and want to understand, go to my new thread on "Nationalism" and we can try to discuss issues WITHOUT reference to your personal identity. You may be just too affected to be fair here. Read your words here again. You're begging some universally fixed definition of "dumb" when it often has two distinct meanings, one of which is 'mute' and the other which references one as "ACTING with naivete or stupidity." Definitions are just created symbols (usually words) that represent any idea one chooses. While it can be used rhetorically in ways to attempt to transfer one into thinking one meaning over another, I was in no way being unnecessarily creative in my use of "Nationalism" to which you initially complained of. But see that thread...and try not to take offence personally to presuming you 'dumb'. It is one realistic option to which I infer based on your behavior. I won't respond to you unless you can respect me.

I defined it already. It is genetic and cultural factors combined that some people believe is intrinsic or 'natural'. While one's inherent genes are unavoidable, the cultural factors are only due to ones environment. They are 'inherent' by the opinions of those supporting "ethnicity" because it combines the genetic reality with some arbitrary stereotypes (one's cultural identifiers) that have nothing to do with one's genes nor necessary for survival. I believe culture of every kind is 'owned' by ALL Earthlings equally. And so I welcome culture. But I don't welcome distinct laws that enable particular cultures to have laws created to foster nor diminish other ones. Note that "culture" includes ones' religion. Your particular example question on left-handedness? No, left-handedness is a genetic factor BUT can become cultural if one misappropriates some arbitrary stereotypes of left-handed people as if they have some other related inherent quality to ALL of them. One's left-handedness may have some neurological factors in common which may correlate with left-handedness. But if this leads to a type of behavior NECESSARILY, this behavior would NOT be a cultural thing. A person born very large with a husky voice, for instance, will lead them more likely to be much louder than others and make them appear more dominating as some accidental side-effect. But this too, while it can help create some seeds to define culture, it is the assumption that culture itself, like one's preference for some type of television show, are arbitrary and is not justified to belong (be 'owned') to some genetic class of people. It would be like saying women (all) are born to where high heels!??

Key word..."groups". Contrary to what you default to assume, we all do NOT associate with some cultural group regardless of where we come from and it stereotypes the immigrant to some assumed cultural identity. As to showing respect to the country you are adopting to, it stands to reason that such new people have an onus to at least learn some minimal defining language or 'culture' with respect to being able to understand the constitution and the laws they are expected to follow. Also, I have no concern to one's voluntary freedom to choose their associations. My problem is to how countries like ours predesignates specific groups of people based on ancestry as FIXED within the constitution in perpetuity. It treats these specific groups as mentioned above as a species. This has nothing to do with choice. We conserve two languages for instance as 'official'. This should either be ONE or ALL. Any other number demonstrates the nature of the bias with clarity. We conserve Christianity (specifically for the Catholic Anglican and French-Roman Churches as is indicted with our Separate school system and the right of the regular Public schools to have freedom to espouse Christianity to their students). We may expect this of intolerant countries and they may be of a worse degree. But these are still not representative of the nature of free people. As to another example of which I personally find troublesome is how the law favors the First People a right to not require paying taxes on tobacco and the assumption they have some intrinsic cultural right to gambling, as if these were inbred in their genes distinct from others. You could also look at it in another way with respect to smoking: it could be reasonably inferred that the 'dominant' culture doesn't have the same compassion of concern to prevent Natives from getting Cancer considering the absurd degree they go to for all other cultures. Either way, these supposed cultural 'ownerships' are absurd unless they are absolutely universal to each individual. Why can I not be considered a legal 'culture' of my own and have laws that provide what I believe is intrinsic to my lifestyle? If things like tobacco smoking and gambling are somehow an intrinsic 'right' to the First Peoples, why should not alcohol be a 'not-First-People's' cultural default and require being exempt in law for those who've had such roots? I'm not saying we should FAVOR all of us to be tax exempt here. I'm just saying that this is an example of how we create laws here that FAVOR Nationalistic interests.

I'm confused at your interpretation or lack of interpreting me here? The point I'm referring to is to the fact that ANY LAW is made to favor/disfavor groups based on ethnicity with uniqueness. Your argument is invalid to my concern unless you ARE supporting a right for SOME groups to have favored laws exclusive to others. It would make better sense if you'd asserted ALL ASSOCIATIONS are permitted and supported by LAW. This is NOT the case here in Canada. We have, in our Charter of Rights, for instance, a preferential ethnic preservation for all time of three main cultures: The Ontario based English Anglican Catholics, the Quebec French Catholics, and the First Nations People. Token appreciation for other ACCEPTED cultures/ethnicities have to conform formost to these specially privileged groups. How does their ethnicity, culture, or genetic heritage have anything intrinsically applicable to ALL people?

I'm not against groups, Tim. I'm against the politicizing that leads to systems that favor arbitrary group distinctions that have no relevance to a mere logical description of their association. I thus agree to free association. I disagree to laws that favor ethnic conservation positively OR to those laws that discriminate exclusively to others for factors not related to their necessary classification. I use the 'red-head' example before to describe how my 'red-headedness' may classify me based on my hair color and may thus have potential reason for some laws that may aid me if it is based on something intrinsic to having red hair. (perhaps red-hair could make one more prone to some disease and thus require some special medical attention) BUT, if I extend my classification to include behaviors not relevant to hair color, like some culture of red-heads, this would be acting ethnocentric as I am claiming some relevant connection of having red hair to arbitrary cultural factors that all people have a right to choose from.

Here's the link to my thread to relate to Nationalism....http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25623-nationalism-is-the-doom-of-all-politics/

Nationalism Defining a Semantic meaning to a concept intentionally understood by those using the term within politics I define Nationalism as the preferential stance to conserve one's ethnicity distinctly from all others with political force (in a set of formal laws) that is based on some assumed 'Natural Law' [or Divine Power, or God] making it valid by them to segregate groups of people with unequal forms of treatment. That is, one proposing a favor for "Nationalism" favors some group of people (never all) for some belief they are unique as a group based on both a genetic ancestral connection AND some culture, tradition, religion, etc, as if the environmental and arbitrary factors are 'owned' (or shared as each member in that group as their 'own'), AND that they deserve laws that both serve them uniquely for their beliefs as well as to preserve such uniqueness at the expense of some other group they may believe risks their own in an opposing extreme. As a simple example, consider one's immediate and extended family that had some common set of traditions and beliefs that was passed down. 'Naturally' we understand that to favor one's own in this way is NOT a fault. But if one intrinsically believed their family and its tradition is also patently 'owned' such that they believe laws of the community at large must respect them with absolution to their right to have those that specifically foster their selective segregation at the expense of some or any part of the community, even if such discriminates against outsiders unequally, this treats this or other accepted groups as 'beyond' reproach from others to question. The biggest problem is that it creates classifications of groups based on ethnicity even for those who have similar heritage but disagree to such traditions. It disfavors progress by commanding all future people to keep specific past traditions and have them tied protectively to specific people based on their genetic heritage, not choice. Ones who opt out of their 'natural' roots and cultures for other ones are deemed outsiders and thus by definition no longer count as a member of that 'Nation' which only preserves the 'purity' to the Nationalist belief. That is, you may 'freely' opt out of such a classification but then no longer get recognized as an authorized member of the group. But this assures by definition that the Nationalists remain committed by defining OUT those who democratically may disagree to those traditional associations imposed upon them. Also, such Nationalism MUST come at the expense of at least some non-member to be defaulted NOT to be privileged to the same exceptional treatment. If the treatment was universal, the National concern would not exist except as the whole of ALL people within the political boundaries. Note how the assumption of Nationalism to sometimes be attributed to the land arises. This land-based understanding though is included in ones ethnicity if one assumes they have original or Ab-original (Native or Natural) claims of their ethnicity also to the land for which they desire their laws to be uniquely favored. But Nationalism is NOT simply one's land-claims but to their traditions, cultures, or other things they associate with as an identifying group regardless of whether they are referencing a right to special land-claims. What matters is that their claim to the lands where they exist is based on their ethnic roots, the genetic AND cultural heritage (inheritances) by historical accident. Nationalism treats people as distinct as species regardless of any claims to the contrary. It should be expected that if one is aiming to support their in-group exclusively in law, that it would be unusual and less favorable by those outside to accept such groups to exist had they sold their intent to be of universal compassion. It would be self-defeating unless such a group were of the powerful majority. So those who ARE Nationalists cannot be expected to be honest about what the logical implications of Nationalism are: segregation, division, ...ethnocentrism, discrimination, racism, and intolerance. Instead, many will attempt to sell it off as supporting things like 'diversity'. The problem is, this "diversity" respects only such groups officially accepted, NOT ALL GROUPS, nor those non-associated with such group-think beliefs, the ultimate of which is the individual. Nationalism plays on presuming what one favor does not imply disfavoring others by contrast. But unlike normal descriptive classifications, the Nationalist bases their defining in-groups by properties that don't uniquely disqualify others of inclusion. Yet these properties they are claiming are 'owned' in their mind as specific (as a 'species') in such a way that is NOT TRUE. This 'ownership' is assumed to be a function of their species that deserves laws that both demand they have the right to keep these arbitrary set of behaviors as well as to impose restrictions of those outside these groups from 'co-opting' them, as though their behaviors are also a copyright. But this 'copyright' has no limit and is deemed perpetual. On Definitions of "Nation" and "Nationalism" While we use the term "nation" to describe one's country, the term is not precisely mapped to territory alone as it implies not only those within the defining boarders but to some minimum culture based on their Constitutions and so is appropriate with respect to the set of all countries in the world. But the specific meaning of "nationalism" does not imply that all people supporting ones' country makes them a "Nationalist". We use the term "Patriotism" to describe one's pride in their country and its 'national constitution' but it does not NECESSARILY require one to favor a particular ethnicity. But some countries, like Israel DO support both pride in their 'country' as well as to their ethnicity. And this makes them "Nationalistic" with the intentional meaning as applied politically. The Nazis also were "Nationalistic" too and where their name partially comes from. In our country, Canada, "Multiculturalism", is the formal term to define a collection of distinct cultures and when or where this is applied in law, becomes a form of "Nationalism" as well, since it specifically creates laws for or of peoples based on tradition and cultures and their genetic heritages.....that is, ethnicity. So while Nazis or Zionists may be Nationalistic, these 'right-wing' states of belief are just Mono-cultural, where our Multicultural form here is more 'center-and-left-wing' forms of Nationalism. It might be best to describe these as either Socially Liberal to Multi-nationalists versus Socially Restricted to One Nationalist group. Thus, I interpret Nationalism as prevalent in all political persuasions. I also believe that it is this one factor that significantly prevents ANY form of political government from ever being able to competently succeed no matter how these other main ideals could possibly exist without. It is the cause of failure of all Constitutions because the tendency of those who believe in Nationalisms are sufficiently powerful enough even if in significant minority to act with such extremes that act to divide even the most compassionately collective soul of us all. Nationalism in all its forms are THE cause of all problems and division. They also contribute to economic differences in the world because those Nationalists in power will tend to favor those of their believed unique species apart from those who are not. They command the attention in poor communities as well in what we refer to as 'gangs' where ghettos are concerned. However, where POWER is also favored by default to those Nationalists of the more wealthy, this makes them most at 'fault' because the ones in struggling communities only act out BECAUSE of desperation, and not necessarily BECAUSE they originally had some intrinsic belief in any common ethnic factors. The extremes foster the new Nationalists from one group in antithesis to some other who at least appears to prevail. And should one Nationalist group of some previous generation suffer based on some Nationalists of some extreme opposite in power, when and if the 'weaker' group(s) becomes empowered, they tend to amplify their own Nationalism with more strength becoming the next extreme in POWER who foster other new Nationalists on the opposite spectrum in a never-ending cycle of abuse. Nationalism must be challenged for what it is everywhere. Unless we ever rationally do so, we are doomed to perpetually repeat these mistakes and will never have a chance to make any political view stand out as better than others with sufficient long-term success. Edit: Spelling on one of two words and added two words (I saw the other misspelling but can't find it now and will edit again if I do).

Who says I'm not? I think it was a crime to 'reserve' our Natives as if they were a distinct species. And for the kinds of attempt to 'fix' this through various means ALWAYS came down THROUGH Nationalistic types: namely the means of government to attempt to use Religious organs (of their own Nationalism)to have authority to 'assimilate' the Aboriginal to their own 'cults'. I've just prepared something for a new thread I'll post right away on "Nationalism" to separate my concern specifically apart from any Nationalism specifically. But understand that I don't accept supporting the State of Israel out of a universal disdain for ANY Nationalism anywhere. But I'll leave it to that thread. Give me a few minutes.

Wow. I take a few days break from the Internet and discover my email full of notifications of responses on this! I must say up front, I can't make heads or tails of Rue here and I'm guessing his own attitude to be overtly deceptive here is something I'd be impossible to alter. He/she either lacks necessary logic or he/she's playing dumb on purpose. Definitions, for instance, have no ABSOLUTE value of truth nor falsehood and require explicating them in discussions or debate. I noticed he pointed to a definition I do include in my own for "nationalism" but either can't notice or is purposely feigning such ignorance. I can't defend a negative....I nor anyone can attempt to disprove an accusation of something they are not. He/she's appearing to target me directly and NOT my argument too. So I won't bother with you Rue unless you can respect me with sincerity. I could accuse you of being a child predator and demand you prove you are not. Would this be appropriate behavior of me? As to bush_cheney2004's response to me: Your Haiti comparison is beyond my own background and would require me to look up whatever you are even talking about before I could make any remote comment. I haven't noticed anything you assert nor am I MY GOVERNMENT. I don't defend the country I am born to as I already have enough reflective concerns about it to which I don't approve. So your comparison is invalid even by these facts alone. Because they can....and will. Israel will abandon all occupied territory just as soon as Canada and the United States leave native lands in North America. Sound fair to you ? You're accepting the logic of your own to stand up against imposed external Nationalists to infiltrate your country knowing they'd aim only to defeat anyone NOT of their 'kind' yet can't sympathize this with the Palestinians where the State of Israel was imposed upon them from without? I do have concern and DO actively complain against this attitude. I am NOT my Country and don't pretend to defend any supposed stance of my nor anyone's Nation as others do. What matters is that I don't presume one is "terrorist" without respecting the fact that the advantage of the powerful imposing such labels themselves are at least as equivalently "terrorist". I would't use such a label at all except for the fact that those choosing to use this term are using deceptive and hypocritical rhetoric. No, I would ask if you felt that way because I murdered your family last year, or 40 years ago and promised to keep doing it.Huh? If I cornered YOU in this alley, even without overt 'violence', is this not STILL indirect 'violence' against you and thus the same as the Palestinian's violation coming from Israel. Even if I'm not touching you but only preventing you from passing because I'm larger than you, have more powerful weapons, etc, this is STILL an act of violence to which you and others disrespectfully ignore. Sincerity is irrelevant...I am all about reality. Launch a rocket...get bombed ten times over. Any questions ? Reality is that nature is not compassionate for one side nor the other as we are all animals. But under the common goal of civilization, we cannot ignore those declaring some other as 'terrorist' without investigating their own role in this. The reality is that Israel was formed upon a Nationalistic ideal to favor a Jewish-only state. Their prosperity and apparent 'democracy' does not include the Palestinians that were there either and makes them highly 'wrong' if they continue to maintain this as they do today. Notice how regardless of our own abuses in the past for North American Natives, we DO NOT pretend we did nothing 'wrong' as the Israeli-Zionists ARE of their own foundation. This can and will occur here as elsewhere if we are not able to take care to notice what it is precisely that causes the problems everywhere. And I believe it is "Nationalism" that exists anywhere from all spectra of political ideology.

I agree but believe it is an uphill and unlikely battle for us to compete against. The best we can do is to keep trying to entice people to think more. I believe that most people are internally universal in their acceptance of each of us to be equal. But as long as there exists groups who have the power collectively to prefer segregation and hierarchical moral assignments to Nationalities as a whole, they always tend to get their way effectively. I hate politics yet find this unavoidable to require being involved if only to prevent being robbed of my (all our) freedom for the sake of these cults. Edit: I believe they'll just argue that their was no one home at the time. And if they complain, they'll just state that they should have read the LAWS and announcements in the Israeli government office.

I don't doubt your own EXTREME HATRED of ME here. Am I not also deserving of my Independent culture? You have no respect for anyone but your own in-group as admitted in supporting your Nationalism. Thus you are suspect to anything you say since you favor your own above all others with bias because it is impossible to assert a whole group of people as defaulted to being innocent as if you share one consciousness. You no doubt think you do. And if so, then you are DEFINING yourself in opposition to ALL others. While you may negotiate tradeoffs with others who also believe in your discriminatory attitude, you and not me are a HATER and most suspect of being the 'terrorist' logically. But its obvious you can't even speak of me honestly; Its understanding, considering your hatred of me. So there's nothing left to say but that I DO NOT SUPPORT the State of Israel and by those such as yourself acting as you do here prove, you don't care to even try to use reasoning nor fairness in your approach. To me you ARE a criminal of those who believe that people are intrinsically equal and deserving of equal treatment individually. I VERY CLEARLY defined my rejection of the Zionism as it is a belief in Jewish Supremacy. How does this make ALL JEWS responsible? I don't OWN the claims of some White Supremacist for their own belief that ALL WHITE people are somehow a group either. It is you who both creates the stereotypes (positive and negative), just as those white supremacists would behave to implicate me as being of their clan. And you are acting just as a White Supremacist here would to anyone non-white who attempts to defeat their own irrational belief in some 'right' to impose a 'cultural' heritage OWNED BY ALL WHITES collectively. They too would accuse the skeptic of being the racist or hater as they'd actually accept and embrace the same kind of Nationalism you hold. The only difference is that you are on their opposing extreme competing agreeably to take the world stage as a Cult. Now you are out-and-out lying! So unless you retract this, I have nothing more to say to you. I don't like you as you earned your clear disrespect of me and only attempt to contribute to BEING what you WANT others to stereotype ALL JEWS AS. So you're even a disgrace to those Jews who you are trying to foster a purposeful hatred against them as a whole. YOU ARE NOT THE SPOKESMEN FOR ANYONE BUT YOURSELF! Stop speaking for "Jews" as if you are some Race and distinct being that 'naturally' owns some part of Earth as a collective and favorite of Nature itself.

I can't speak for Haiti and how is this even comparative? Are you asserting the Palestinians should be simply happy because the 'relative' evil by the Israelis is somehow not AS evil as those potentially suffering elsewhere? You think people should be 'happy' to be merely alive, even while suffering hunger pains, loss of homes, right to representation in the political processes of the same lands they were stolen from? Even our North American Natives at least have a participatory function in our system far exceeding what the Palestinians have. They have ZERO control in Israeli government because Israel excludes them. So how do you interpret 'exclusion' as something to be 'appreciated'? Why do the Israeli terrorists continue to assert a right to political authority OVER THE PALESTINIANS when they aren't even remotely accepted as humans deserving a right to be politically represented in such a supposedly caring country as Israel? If you, claiming yourself American, are sincere, should you not think it fair then if ANY yet alone a coalition of external countries should take over American's lands, give them to some foreign selected extreme cult and ethnicity, like DEMANDING Americans MUST take in Immigrants contrary to their interest, and then expect Americans NOT TO FIGHT BACK? You're a hypocrite to have any right to call anyone a 'terrorist' if you in turn would think it wrong for a totalitarian takeover of America where the people does not deserve fighting back against such occupiers knowing AT ANY COST!! I assure you, the Palestinians are already MORE PASSIVE given their torturous conditions than the relatively rare violence. But I've already argued that even INDIRECT forms of abuse represent violence in an even more disgusting way for the means those with power can and do such violations against others by merely standing in their way preventing them from moving, succeeding, having rights, etc. Am I violating you if I both bulldoze your home, declare it mine, build a giant wall around it, encouraging my own favored people to do the same, continue to do the same to the remaining places of all your own relatives, require you obey MY PEOPLE's PRIVILEGED laws that you have not role in, prevent you from the appropriate access to the necessary routes to compete, etc, etc, etc? If I cornered you in some back alley, then just stood in your way, claim the passage out is mine then do nothing and wait, would you just sit there loving me because I might offer you my left over lunch scraps as I keep my ground? Do you have a 'human right' to try to walk past me? And if I simply am too big and quick enough to prevent you from slipping past, are you asserting you should passively ACCEPT your doomed scenario or would you possibly get remotely angry? Would you not eventually start thinking of acting out in ways you'd never do normally by trying to kill me? AND, to top it off, if the rest of the world passing that alley also don't do anything but in fact contribute to MY well-being, would you not think your own condition is futile unless you DO SOMETHING MORE DRASTIC? AND, how would you think of other onlookers who watch, notice you throw a rock at me and instead of understanding you are taken hostage, they blame you for deserving your entrapment because you threw a rock? Your reasoning lacks sincerity.

I can't bother wasting my breath on you. You're a spoiled privileged brat as is apparent from your utter ignorance of your own fortunes. I don't believe you'd last a day in the 'privileged' Palestinian camps.