Israel's war crimes in Gaza

[Rue]

Q - What is the difference between a Zionist, an Israeli and a Jew.

A - You are an anti-semite.

/facepalm

Well you tried Scott, I'll give you that much. However I would not let Rue dictate where your place in the universe is either. You did pretext it all with 'this is my opinion', but still got berated for it like many have been before you.

If someone comes on this forum and makes unfounded, fabricated, hateful remarks about Jews I have the right to challenge them and unlike you I make the effort to go through each and every phrase I disagree with and state why.

What do you do? Other then make some passive aggressive remarks designed to bait me and present Sctt Mayer as a victim what did you achieve?

.

You want to cheer lead Scott Mayer's anti-Semitic remarks knock yourself out. The snitty little comments trying to bait me speak for themselves.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Rue

[Rue]

I note Argus responded in post 724 to comments from Scott Mayer including this one:

Scott Mayers, on 25 Feb 2016 - 11:00 AM, said:

'This is where you or other err in complete stupidity. The term "Jew" originally meant 'wander' and derived from the same root to describe a temporal stream or river that only flows in times of good times but dries up in bad ones [a Wadi]. The original 'Jew' was as much derogatory as it was virtuous and implied those who were transient (homeless or unbound to fixed land-ownership). I could go into quite the historical depths on this'.

I did not see the above original comment from Mayers it I will show it is sheer nonsense You will note once again he states something with no reference as if it is fact and poses himself as an expert on Judaism. The above is fabricated.

To start with the word Jew comes from the Hebrew word Yehudi which literally means "from the Tribe of Judah", "from the Kingdom of Judah", or "Jew".

In Hebrew its יהודים, Yehudim (plural) and יהודי, Yehudi, singular.

If you go to the Book of Genesis, Judah (יְהוּדָה, Yehudah) is the name of the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob.

Then in Exodus, the name is given to the Tribe of Judah (Yehudah) and the members of that tribe are said to be Yehudi or Yehudim.

After the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel (Samaria), the kingdom of Judah became the sole Jewish state and this is when the term Yehudi begins to be applied to all Israelites. When the word is first used in the Book of Esther, its meaning expanded to include converts to the Jewish religion as well as descendants of Israelites.

The term Yehudim (הַיְּהוּדִים) can be found for the first time 2 Kings 16:6. Its also in, 2 Chronicles 32:18, Jeremiah 34:9 , Esther 2:5-6, Esther 8:17.

In modern Hebrew, Yehudi is still used and in Arabic its very close, yahudi (singular) and al-yahud (plural).

Technically the word can be used to describe both Jews and Judeans so context of how its used is important

The Aramaic term which Jesus spoke would be Y'hūdāi.

In ancient (Koine) Greek they translated Yehudi to Ioudaios (Greek: Ἰουδαῖος; pl. Ἰουδαῖοι Ioudaioi), dropping the 'h' sound. In Latin, Yehudi was translated as Iudaeus, and in old French it was juieu then giu and today Juif.

The term Jew in English in fact comes from Middle English which took the word Giu from French.

Its "Jude" in German, "judeu" in Portuguese, "jøde" in Danish and Norwegian, "judío" in Spanish, "jood" in Dutch, Ebreo in Italian, Ebri/Ebrani (Persian: عبری/عبرانی‎‎) in Persian/Farsi/Urdu and Еврей, Yevrey in Russian. Yid comes from the shortening of the Yiddish word, Yiddish" used to describe a language Eatsren Jews spoke and so became a Yiddish term for Jews.

In fact when the word Jew was originally used I was not derogatory.

Because the word Jew was appropriated by gentiles and used in negative insulting contexts in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the word was softened to "Jewish" to distinguish it from Jew at that tim

Unlike Mayers him I provide sources:

http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/640221/jewish/What-is-the-Meaning-of-the-Name-Jew.htm

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_judaism_word.htm

Just to show how nonsensical Mayers assertions have become, go look up the origins of the word "wadi.

Wadi is an Arabic word : واد. In Hebrew is close and is spelled ואדי‎ and pronounced Vadi.

It refers to a valley left over from a river or other body of water. In some instances, it has been used to refer to a dry river bed that contains water only during times of heavy rain or simply an intermittent stream .

It appears Mayer found a definiton of wadi that described the river bed with the word "ephemeral" and he's mispelled it "temporal". Emphoral refers oto something short lived, temporary.

Temporal does not refer to something not short lived or didn't last very long but something:

materialistic
physical
sensual
mortal
secular
carnal
fleshly
mundane
nonsacred
nonspiritual
profanestar
subcelestial
sublunary
terrestrial
unhallowed

Not one of those usages would apply to a wadi. A wadi is a valley left after a river or body of water dries up. Period. It has nothing to do with the word Jew or the word wandering.

Neither the words wandering or wadi have anything to do with Jews or the term Jew or Judaism or Jewish.

In regards to Mayer trying to falsely reinvent the word Jew to mean wanderer and throw in wadi for Lord knows what reason, he appears to be perhaps borrowing from the myth of the The Wandering Jew a story from medieval Christian times that spread widely in Europe in the thirteenth century and was written by Christians and told the story of a Jew who, according to legend, taunted Jesus on the way to the Crucifixion and was then cursed to walk the earth until the Second Coming.

There is of course an English word, " vagabond," which refers to someone who has no fixed home and is derived from the Latin word vagabundus, which meant a wanderer, or fugitive. The original wanderer was of course Cain, after he murdered his brother Abel. It's also how Satan is said to have described himself.

It appears however at this point Mayers is just throwing whatever he wants out on the forum and passing it off as factual discourse.

[Scott Mayers]

This is a lot to respond to and I'll try to. But, Rue, or others who may feel offended, just breathe. I do appreciate your responses even though I strongly disagree. Note my own response to accuse you as being anti-non-Jew/Semitic is as much a reflection of you and others calling me or others Anti-Semitic inappropriately. This is a scare tactic to prevent people from inquiry and I'm getting tired of it personally as it affects me and others indirectly and VERY realistically when one can literally be penalized here in our country for speaking up.

Our present society is often against some subset of other people merely for a form of vengeance in the same ironic behavior that created the prior discrimination against the accusers. That is, ALL MEN, for instance, may get penalized by women who were prior victims of some subset of MEN as a class. What ends up happening is that instead of targeting the actual problem, the act of some inappropriate discrimination among 'equals', the tactics to try to FIX the previous problem is to inversely HARM the other. It is often done indirectly by framing the actions one chooses to pose politically to the 'victimized' group in some uniquely special way. For this example, these women might (and do) form a "women's coalition" or group to demand specific FAVOR of their ingroup rather than to derive a coalition of ALL PEOPLE who want to seek to stop discrimination against each other based on ANY SEXUAL BIASES.

What occurs by favoring ones' in-group (what I refer to as Nationality/Ethnicity/Gender/Identification) serves to AMPLIFY the problems that initially caused them to associate because they inappropriately interpret some opposing group as a UNIVERSAL NATION in some false cohesion intent on defeating them. Thus a strict "Feminist" will interpret ALL MEN as the set of those who created the problem. And so they interpret a need to act in sync but in FAVOR for women-ONLY. The neglect of the positive things granting these feminists their justice is oppositely in some way that harms some men as a class. What actually ends up happening is that the particular men who suffer the penalties of such changes are NOT the types of men who initially caused the very problems. AND, the type of men who actually created such problems against those women in the previous conditions, lack the penalties for these changes. Instead, they appear as the ones agreeing to the feminist's stance because those men DO believe that women ARE a segregate being!

The same is for Nationalism and this particular topic. To me, the State of Israel is ACTING with the identical biases to which placed their previous people at stake. But going back in time, for each set of those being victimized, they become the next victimizors because they haven't learned what actually created the problem in the first place.

To assert the Jews of Europe as always victims is wrong. The Jews benefited in sync with any Christian biases as each literally 'agreed' to their segregated differences and utilized those differences for each other's benefits as much as to the other's loses. Thus, where the Christians interpreted it 'illegitimate' to profit upon middle trades (usury), the Jews benefited by this because their religion did not. This is one of the discriminatory factors of the extremes of each religion who caused the more liberal and relatively innocent of either groups in between to be the ones who suffer the consequences. Those Jews or those Christians who did NOT believe in some intrinsic Nationalism, were the ones who protested as it was those Nationalists of either the Jew or Christian who commanded these distinctions MUST exist. And this is just why Zionism is as equally at fault as the Nazis because both believe they are doing nothing wrong for merely FAVORING their own in EXCLUSION of others.

If you, Rue, believe that I'm not understanding what Zionism is, I'm unsure if you are attempting to merely beg me from some legitimate use of terms or you really are ignorant of the intentional means by which others understand. I used the 'X' to demonstrate your irrationality without requiring a need to specify any particular nationalism/ethnicity/race/etc. If you DEFINE yourself as X, you believe that X stands with some clear understanding of some non-X or "complementary" identifier either Universally or Relatively. If I say I'm an X where X=Redhead, this is complementary to non-Redheads, correct? If we restrict ourselves to the 'relative complement' in the universe of (PEOPLE Based on HAIRCOLOR), anything I speak of this in-group, requires relating the significant qualifying factors associated with HAIRCOLOR.

However, if I collectively group Red-heads together due to some concern of others who might discriminate against us for HAVING RED_HAIR, would it solve the problem to demand ONLY that others stop discriminating against Red hair, but not any potential discrimination I or others have for other hair color biases? If I want to stop those from interpreting Red-haired people from discrimination, my LOGICAL means to do so should be to focus on stopping ANY discrimination for ANY hair color by demonstrating equivalence in significance to each person regardless of hair color. It is antithetical to collect other red-heads together as if we DO in fact have some differences we want to enhance of others distinctively. That is, it is stupid to try to encourage others to think of red-heads collectively as having some unique quality of intelligence, for instance, as this only attempts to create a stereotype, while 'positive', is STILL a stereotype and equal in irrelevance to what is common among all people with hair.

If I persist in collecting Red-heads as some segregated group, I would be defeating the means to STOP discrimination but only enhance it instead because I'd merely be agreeing to those thinking Red-heads are different, but disagreeing to which things I WANT others to particularly stereotype me as.

The Zionist Jew fosters the stereotype regardless by demanding MORE distinction rather than to demonstrate equality amongst us all as humans. This is no different to the present Palestinian Muslims in equal belief of their nationalism. But they are the RELATIVE victims of those Jews who act nationalistic to defeat the opposing nationalism from their prior state of being victimized. Its circular and unending until we recognize the logic of what is going on here.

If one establishes X against some non-X, non-X begins to see themselves in some clear Y but falsely interprets all non-Y as X, when non-Y only includes X (as Some non-Y). Sorry for the math/logic here but just replace the variables for any thing where

X + non-X = All people = Y + non-Y

and

X = Some non-Y and Y = Some non-X

The error occurs when one defines themselves specifically as X or Y because of the other's distinction and then interprets all who are not themselves as their opposing complement.

You, Rue, thus falsely accuse me of speaking 'anti-Semitic' because you identify yourself as "Semitic" with distinction and since past Anti-Semites helped define you by their own interpretation of you as being the whole complement of those they despise, you impose others to see you distinctly from the non-Semitic class and anyone who disagrees is by your definition, Anti-Semitic.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[taxme]

Throughout the recent years, report after report from human rights organizations and fact finding misssions have pointed to Israel's continuous violations of international law and human rights. Many of the accusations amount to war crimes. This is exactly why Palestinians need to be part of ICC, so that they can have a chance to have those involved in these crimes to be prosecuted and punished.

After the most recent attack on Gaza, Israel denied entry to Gaza, numerous human rights fact-finding missions, but it did allow in a team of medical experts. What they uncovered is shocking.

Using human shields, attacking medical teams and hospitals, shooting at civilians waving white flags. A new report by Physicians for Human Rights authored by a team of international medical experts documents shocking testimonies of victims and presents new evidence from Operation Protective Edge in Gaza.

...

The team of medical experts that authored the report visited Gaza three times as a delegation of Physicians for Human Rights (PHR). They collected testimonies from dozens of wounded and from medical teams, documented the army’s terrifying actions during the war. At least 15 people testified about and described incidents in which the army bombed a target, and then — after a short pause or immediately after — bombed it again. The result was especially deadly: family members, neighbors, passersby and/or medical and emergency teams that arrived to help the wounded and extract bodies from the rubble, were bombed themselves, were killed or wounded.

...

The Red Crescent described the “double tap” practice as one of the central factors behind the deaths and injuries of their medical teams. A total of 23 medical personnel, 16 of them on duty, were killed during the war; another 83 were wounded. According to the team of experts, 45 ambulances were damaged by army attacks, including an ambulance station, 17 hospitals and 56 clinics that were entirely destroyed or damaged. And all that was after the UN transmitted to Israel the precise coordinates of every medical facility in the Gaza Strip.

All this talk about human shields - Guess who was practicing it:

In another incident a few days later, Israeli soldiers took over a home in the neighborhood and killed the father of the household, according to other family members. Next, they say, the soldiers made the other male family members stand in front of the windows; the soldiers stood behind, rested their weapons on their shoulders and shot outside — using them as human shields.

Here is the full report.

(X)There are just too many Israeli crimes being committed to be able to count them on your fingers or toes. And they are never made accountable for any of the crimes that they have committed. They can legally get away with any crime that they want to commit, and not one politician or country will make them answer to those crimes. Must be nice, eh?

[Scott Mayers]

In reference to etymology, many words with respect to people's identity are politically altered often as one term becomes pejorative at some stage and so gets reinterpreted, often by the in-group, to dissociate its origins and/or to place it in some better light.

The term, "gay", was originally a preferred term that the homosexual community wanted society to adapt. The problem is that those who created this preference believed intrinsically in a universal nature of those who were homosexual, as just another stereotype, "one who seems unusually prissy, happy, effeminate as women". This just became the newer derogatory title rather than defeating it because it was defined by an extreme who were initially most obviously victims of the past targeted. Thus they presumed a positive association of just a limited subset of people only.

I personally don't care which etymology you prefer is true or not, for "Jew". The understanding of the term for 'intermitten wanderer' is sufficiently understood. It became as much a derogatory term depending on times and places. It implied one who is foreign, like another term, "barbar-ian" (for what some thought the foreign speaker sounds like). The term, "jewel", was derived from this as well since this was what one who wanders who carries and trades in money of the past were equated with. "Jew -el" == the "Jew god" in a derogatory reference to what they carry and trade as their 'god'.

"Jesus" = "joshua" = "I am (the same as)"; "Christ" = "one who is officially anointed as ceremonially officiated leader or King by God".

YHWH = "Yah wey" = "je ovah" = the 'ova*' = "The source of life" from some of those using this language. The egg was the earthly reference of the sun, as a Perfect shape and source of all.

There are many others of which I could go into. But I have noticed that for most religious-related ones, much of the terms are contested everywhere and likely intended to try to dissociate unpreferred past associations.

EDIT at *. changed 'oval' to 'ova'. They relate as meaning "egg" or its shape, "imprecise circle-like (oval)".

Edited February 28, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[Big Guy]

(X)There are just too many Israeli crimes being committed to be able to count them on your fingers or toes. And they are never made accountable for any of the crimes that they have committed. They can legally get away with any crime that they want to commit, and not one politician or country will make them answer to those crimes. Must be nice, eh?

You cannot convince a terrorist that it is not good to be a terrorist.

You cannot convince a Zionist that it is not good to be a Zionist.

I have found the most effective method to convey an idea is to give examples of the facts on the ground.

People are not stupid. Compare the actions of the Israelis with the actions of the Palestinians. Compare the killing rate of Israelis with those by the Palestinians. Compare the living conditions of the Israelis with those of the Palestinians. Each tells a story. It does not have to be explained or spun. It is fact.

[Big Guy]

Now the Israeli government is blaming the media for its problems:

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2016/02/spinning-occupation-israel-media-160227093217143.html

When you cannot defend the message then start blaming the messenger.

A shandeh un a charpeh!

[Argus]

(X)There are just too many Israeli crimes being committed to be able to count them on your fingers or toes.

Maybe if you're a guy who needs his fingers and toes to count you are also a guy whose judgement on complex international issues is highly suspect.

[Argus]

People are not stupid. Compare the actions of the Israelis with the actions of the Palestinians. Compare the killing rate of Israelis with those by the Palestinians. Compare the living conditions of the Israelis with those of the Palestinians. Each tells a story. It does not have to be explained or spun. It is fact.

Americans killed a lot more German soldiers than the reverse in WW2. I guess that meant the Americans were evil and brutal people. Heck, the living conditions in America were way better than in Germany too! How evil those Americans were! Perhaps you'd have been agitating for the Germans during that period, eh?

Arabs are among the world's most incompetent solders. They've been batted around by inferior western forces for generations because they have lousy leadership, horrible tactics, and little, if any understanding of unit discipline or logistics. They also have third rate gear. To suggest anyone could judge morality because of that is truly stupid.

[Argus]

What occurs by favoring ones' in-group (what I refer to as Nationality/Ethnicity/Gender/Identification) serves to AMPLIFY the problems that initially caused them to associate be

The Zionist Jew fosters the stereotype regardless by demanding MORE distinction rather than to demonstrate equality amongst us all as humans.

And yet, you can fly into Jerusalem, even as Christian or Buddhist or Muslim, wearing a symbol of your religion, and visiting not only your holy places, but Jewish holy places, as well.

If a non-Muslim is found near Mecca they are arrested. Non Muslims are not permitted there. Nor is anyone permitted to display any non-Muslim symbol, nor to open any place of worship that is not dedicated to Islam in the entire country.

And dar al-Islam is the Muslim version of Zionism nobody seems to ever speak about, but which sets aside the entire middle east as Muslim lands, holy to their faith, which must always be ruled by Muslims.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe if you're a guy who needs his fingers and toes to count you are also a guy whose judgement on complex international issues is highly suspect.

I don't think HJ is using fingers or toes to enumerate issues. Try reading #729

[kactus]

Maybe if you're a guy who needs his fingers and toes to count you are also a guy whose judgement on complex international issues is highly suspect.

And how is your post meant to add to the topic other than just launching personal attacks on other members....funny how you like to talk about judgement of character. The irony of it...

There is a certain truth in that some barbaric acts of the israeli forces in the "colonized territories" is nothing short of war crimes. Unless one is deluded to think otherwise...

[Argus]

And how is your post meant to add to the topic other than just launching personal attacks on other members....funny how you like to talk about judgement of character. The irony of it...

There is a certain truth in that some barbaric acts of the israeli forces in the "colonized territories" is nothing short of war crimes. Unless one is deluded to think otherwise...

How many things can we judge as 'war crimes' which have been done back and forth in the long history of Israeli-Arab violence? Oddly, none of you people who hate Israel ever bring up all the stuff their opponents do, only what the Jews do.

[kactus]

How many things can we judge as 'war crimes' which have been done back and forth in the long history of Israeli-Arab violence? Oddly, none of you people who hate Israel ever bring up all the stuff their opponents do, only what the Jews do.

How many things can we judge as 'war crimes' which have been done back and forth in the long history of Israeli-Arab violence? Oddly, none of you people who hate Israel ever bring up all the stuff their opponents do, only what the Jews do.

That is because this thread is about Israel and its attrocities. If you want to bring up world war two bombings of Germans then I am sure you can post it in relevant thread but it is not related to this topic.

I find it quite strange that everytime the cruelties of israelis is mentioned here there is a tendency to draw a compaison with other countries. It is like saying the reason israel is bombing the hell out of palestinians is because muslims in other countries not behaving they should therefore we can justify our actions...

Edited February 28, 2016 by kactus

[GostHacked]

If someone comes on this forum and makes unfounded, fabricated, hateful remarks about Jews I have the right to challenge them and unlike you I make the effort to go through each and every phrase I disagree with and state why.

What do you do? Other then make some passive aggressive remarks designed to bait me and present Sctt Mayer as a victim what did you achieve?

.

You want to cheer lead Scott Mayer's anti-Semitic remarks knock yourself out. The snitty little comments trying to bait me speak for themselves.

IN the past I had tried to address the difference between the three an you simply called me an anti-semite. Now you accuse someone else that seems to understand the difference but yet you called them an anti-semite.

That's not an explanation on your part , that is a drive by comment that serves only to bait.

I don't consider myself a victim, and I don't play one here. I am simply stating facts that you have the ease of throwing down the anti-semite card to stifle conversation. Years ago I started moving away from the victim mentality I started to gain control of things in my life. You should try that sometime.

On the other note, there is addressing topics and there is nitpicking a post to the Nth degree just for the purpose of berating the person on everything they say. It's a shotgun effect that has not served you well on this forum. More can be said with less.

I don't read your posts or debate you otherwise as it is a waste of time.

[Rue]

This is a lot to respond to and I'll try to. But, Rue, or others who may feel offended, just breathe. I do appreciate your responses even though I strongly disagree. Note my own response to accuse you as being anti-non-Jew/Semitic is as much a reflection of you and others calling me or others Anti-Semitic inappropriately. This is a scare tactic to prevent people from inquiry and I'm getting tired of it personally as it affects me and others indirectly and VERY realistically when one can literally be penalized here in our country for speaking up.

Our present society is often against some subset of other people merely for a form of vengeance in the same ironic behavior that created the prior discrimination against the accusers. That is, ALL MEN, for instance, may get penalized by women who were prior victims of some subset of MEN as a class. What ends up happening is that instead of targeting the actual problem, the act of some inappropriate discrimination among 'equals', the tactics to try to FIX the previous problem is to inversely HARM the other. It is often done indirectly by framing the actions one chooses to pose politically to the 'victimized' group in some uniquely special way. For this example, these women might (and do) form a "women's coalition" or group to demand specific FAVOR of their ingroup rather than to derive a coalition of ALL PEOPLE who want to seek to stop discrimination against each other based on ANY SEXUAL BIASES.

What occurs by favoring ones' in-group (what I refer to as Nationality/Ethnicity/Gender/Identification) serves to AMPLIFY the problems that initially caused them to associate because they inappropriately interpret some opposing group as a UNIVERSAL NATION in some false cohesion intent on defeating them. Thus a strict "Feminist" will interpret ALL MEN as the set of those who created the problem. And so they interpret a need to act in sync but in FAVOR for women-ONLY. The neglect of the positive things granting these feminists their justice is oppositely in some way that harms some men as a class. What actually ends up happening is that the particular men who suffer the penalties of such changes are NOT the types of men who initially caused the very problems. AND, the type of men who actually created such problems against those women in the previous conditions, lack the penalties for these changes. Instead, they appear as the ones agreeing to the feminist's stance because those men DO believe that women ARE a segregate being!

The same is for Nationalism and this particular topic. To me, the State of Israel is ACTING with the identical biases to which placed their previous people at stake. But going back in time, for each set of those being victimized, they become the next victimizors because they haven't learned what actually created the problem in the first place.

To assert the Jews of Europe as always victims is wrong. The Jews benefited in sync with any Christian biases as each literally 'agreed' to their segregated differences and utilized those differences for each other's benefits as much as to the other's loses. Thus, where the Christians interpreted it 'illegitimate' to profit upon middle trades (usury), the Jews benefited by this because their religion did not. This is one of the discriminatory factors of the extremes of each religion who caused the more liberal and relatively innocent of either groups in between to be the ones who suffer the consequences. Those Jews or those Christians who did NOT believe in some intrinsic Nationalism, were the ones who protested as it was those Nationalists of either the Jew or Christian who commanded these distinctions MUST exist. And this is just why Zionism is as equally at fault as the Nazis because both believe they are doing nothing wrong for merely FAVORING their own in EXCLUSION of others.

If you, Rue, believe that I'm not understanding what Zionism is, I'm unsure if you are attempting to merely beg me from some legitimate use of terms or you really are ignorant of the intentional means by which others understand. I used the 'X' to demonstrate your irrationality without requiring a need to specify any particular nationalism/ethnicity/race/etc. If you DEFINE yourself as X, you believe that X stands with some clear understanding of some non-X or "complementary" identifier either Universally or Relatively. If I say I'm an X where X=Redhead, this is complementary to non-Redheads, correct? If we restrict ourselves to the 'relative complement' in the universe of (PEOPLE Based on HAIRCOLOR), anything I speak of this in-group, requires relating the significant qualifying factors associated with HAIRCOLOR.

However, if I collectively group Red-heads together due to some concern of others who might discriminate against us for HAVING RED_HAIR, would it solve the problem to demand ONLY that others stop discriminating against Red hair, but not any potential discrimination I or others have for other hair color biases? If I want to stop those from interpreting Red-haired people from discrimination, my LOGICAL means to do so should be to focus on stopping ANY discrimination for ANY hair color by demonstrating equivalence in significance to each person regardless of hair color. It is antithetical to collect other red-heads together as if we DO in fact have some differences we want to enhance of others distinctively. That is, it is stupid to try to encourage others to think of red-heads collectively as having some unique quality of intelligence, for instance, as this only attempts to create a stereotype, while 'positive', is STILL a stereotype and equal in irrelevance to what is common among all people with hair.

If I persist in collecting Red-heads as some segregated group, I would be defeating the means to STOP discrimination but only enhance it instead because I'd merely be agreeing to those thinking Red-heads are different, but disagreeing to which things I WANT others to particularly stereotype me as.

. This is no different to the present Palestinian Muslims in equal belief of their nationalism. But they are the RELATIVE victims of those Jews who act nationalistic to defeat the opposing nationalism from their prior state of being victimized. Its circular and unending until we recognize the logic of what is going on here.

If one establishes X against some non-X, non-X begins to see themselves in some clear Y but falsely interprets all non-Y as X, when non-Y only includes X (as Some non-Y). Sorry for the math/logic here but just replace the variables for any thing where

X + non-X = All people = Y + non-Y

and

X = Some non-Y and Y = Some non-X

The error occurs when one defines themselves specifically as X or Y because of the other's distinction and then interprets all who are not themselves as their opposing complement.

You, Rue, thus falsely accuse me of speaking 'anti-Semitic' because you identify yourself as "Semitic" with distinction and since past Anti-Semites helped define you by their own interpretation of you as being the whole complement of those they despise, you impose others to see you distinctly from the non-Semitic class and anyone who disagrees is by your definition, Anti-Semitic.

Mayer the above response shows you change the subject when exposed to false statements about th etiology of the word Jew.

In your latest response you again stereotype Jews and I quote:

"The Zionist Jew fosters the stereotype regardless by demanding MORE distinction rather than to demonstrate equality amongst us all as humans.."

You again spew out a subjective negative stereotype of Zionists and Zionism. It Is interesting you Didn't SIMPLY say Zionist in the above response, but singled out only JEW Zionists. Go on then finish what you started. Explain why Christian or Muslim Zionists do not have the same views as Jewish ones. Tell everyone how you ascertained that. Are you so hateful against Jews you aren't even conscious of throwing out the word Jew in your sentences at this point?

Again you offer no source, no methodology, no reference, no basis of conclusion to explain how you arrived at your determination that Jewish Zionism (as opposed to other kinds of Zionism) demands more distinction than other nationalist beliefs.

You stated:

"You, Rue, thus falsely accuse me of speaking 'anti-Semitic' because you identify yourself as "Semitic" with distinction..

Of course I speak as a Jew to someone who is not a Jew telling the their comments are ignorant, offensive, hateful, bigoted, designed to single my people out for hatred for choosing to identify ourselves as a collective...and the term "Semitic with distinction"? Anyone with a collective identity, Palestinian, gay, black, female gender, Christian, Irish, Italian, all use distinctions to explain why they have things in common within their group. Jews have no monopoly on that.

You stated:

... and since past Anti-Semites helped define you by their own interpretation of you as being the whole complement of those they despise, you impose others to see you distinctly from the non-Semitic class and anyone who disagrees is by your definition, Anti-Semitic."

No Mayer, anti-semites do not help define my identity, theydeny my true identity and suggest an alternative one that is hateful, negative, false and untrue and when challenged they repeat the same hateful stereotypes over and over again. This is why I challenge your continuing responses and the words I show you as anti-Semitic . Your words singles out Jews and describe us with negative slurs without any methodology for how you arrive at your slurs.

You stated, "and anyone who disagrees is by your definition, Anti-Semitic."

No you are not anyone. Stop trying to focus away from what you stated and hide behind the status "anyon". Its not anyone's words, its specific words you stated I challenge .I disagree with specific comments you make when they are hateful against Jews and I explain why.

No I do not call everyone on this forum an anti-Semite and no I do not call anyone an anti-Semite simply because they criticize specific Israeli policies. Please provide one comment I made calling someone an anti-Semite simply because they criticized an Israeli state policy.

Yousaid:

"To me, the State of Israel is ACTING with the identical biases to which placed their previous people at stake."

Provide examples and explain how they do this.

You said

" (calling you a Jew hater ) is a scare tactic to prevent people from inquiry and I'm getting tired of it personally as it affects me and others indirectly and VERY realistically when one can literally be penalized here in our country for speaking up."

Don't call yourself people. Take ownership of your hateful words. Stop pretending this is about what other people said. Its not. Its about what you have stated. You bet my challenges are meant to affect you. I am trying to confront your hateful words about MY PEOPLE. Good get tired. Boo hoo and whine while you are at it. Get real, you are no victim on this forum or in Canada and don't play this victim whine that you are going to be put in jail for spewing hatred about Jews or being frightened by me. You seem to have no problem continuing to respond.

You stated:

"To assert the Jews of Europe as always victims is wrong."

No Jew or I have ever said the above in this thread or any other thread on this forum. The above is a negative stereotype you assign Jews that is fabricated in your mind and is projected as reality. Its not-its your thought, you created it and you spew it out and try label Jews with it to incite resentment against Jews.

However I now see your false stereotyping is not just with Jews but no feminists as you stated:

"a strict "Feminist" will interpret ALL MEN as the set of those who created the problem. And so they interpret a need to act in sync but in FAVOR for women-ONLY"

The above comment is nonsense. It is again a stereotype you created of feminists. There is no such thing as a lenient or strict feminist. That is a categorization you invented.

Feminism and clearly you can't grasp what it is but pose as an expert on it, simply stated says there are values in our Western society that discriminate against women either intentionally or unintentionally. Period. It defines women as a collective no differently than Jews do Jews or gays themselves, or blacks themselves. There is no strict or lenient form of feminism that differentiates in seeing men as part of a gender that had favoured treatment. Feminism states BOTH men and women, intentionally and unintentionally can engage in behaviours that reflect gender bias.

No Feminism doe snot simply want things in favour of women any more than Jews want things in favour of Jews or gays in favour of gas. We do not ask for favours. We simply ask to be treated as anyone else.

You equate wanting to be treated the same way as being favoured and that Mayer summarizes in pith and substance you defective reasoning. You stereotype anyone who says there place is somewhere other then where you think it is-is asking for favours from you.

Guess what Mayer, women, Jews, no one wants a favour from you.

You again repeated the Zionists are Nazis anti semite remark and said:

"Zionism is as equally at fault as the Nazis because both believe they are doing nothing wrong for merely FAVORING their own in EXCLUSION of others."

Your words are false and hateful. Zionism never defined the Jew as a superior race as Nazism did Aryan Germans. Zionists have never stated we have not done things wrong-what hateful stereotype. There is no shortage of essays and articles and books from Zionists criticizing ourselves. You spew yet another unsubstantiatedhateful stereotype stating we don't feel we have done nothing wrong.

You stated:

"This is no different to the present Palestinian Muslims in equal belief of their nationalism."

Yet all your statements say otherwise.

You then said:

"But they (Palestinians) are the RELATIVE victims of those Jews who act nationalistic to defeat the opposing nationalism from their prior state of being victimized. Its circular and unending until we recognize the logic of what is going on here..."

Palestinians are not only the victims of Jews. Stop with your blind, rigid, blaming of Jews.Security measures to prevent terror strips not just Palestinians but Israelis of dignities and rights. Interesting again how again you interchange the word Jew for Israeli showing how when you attack what you think is Israeli state policy you attack Jews. Yoou don't use the word Israeli army-you use the word Jews.

[bush_cheney2004]

I find it quite strange that everytime the cruelties of israelis is mentioned here there is a tendency to draw a compaison with other countries. It is like saying the reason israel is bombing the hell out of palestinians is because muslims in other countries not behaving they should therefore we can justify our actions...

Yes...if bombing the hell out of people is good enough for Canada/NATO without ever being attacked in the first place, then by golly, it's certainly good enough for Israel when it is actually attacked.

[Big Guy]

And how is your post meant to add to the topic other than just launching personal attacks on other members....funny how you like to talk about judgement of character. The irony of it...

There is a certain truth in that some barbaric acts of the israeli forces in the "colonized territories" is nothing short of war crimes. Unless one is deluded to think otherwise...

There are many different interpretations of what war crimes are. I continue to state the facts that occur, how many lives are being lost and under what conditions, how the Israelis are treating the Palestinians and how the Israelis are annexing Palestinian land.

There is no opinion to these facts, there is no spin to these facts, there is no way to disagree or disparage these objective findings.

The critics then have only the messenger to demean as a last resort since the message is factual.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes...if bombing the hell out of people is good enough for Canada/NATO without ever being attacked in the first place, then by golly, it's certainly good enough for Israel when it is actually attacked.

Or, as usual, even when it's not attacked.

[On Guard for Thee]

How many things can we judge as 'war crimes' which have been done back and forth in the long history of Israeli-Arab violence? Oddly, none of you people who hate Israel ever bring up all the stuff their opponents do, only what the Jews do.

Speaking of history of violence in the area, perhaps a little study of the Sykes-Picot Agreement or the Balfour Declaration might give some insight into who helped cause a lot of that violence.

[jbg]

Its a matter of intention and policy though. Collateral damage is one thing... reckless collateral damage is another... deliberate collective punishment is yet another.

I'm glad you said that. What about recklessly putting civilians at risk to become collateral damage? Where is it written that Hamas has to fight from within civilian areas?

[Hoser360]

I'm glad you said that. What about recklessly putting civilians at risk to become collateral damage? Where is it written that Hamas has to fight from within civilian areas?

Well, I`m not sure where any person could hide in Gaza when the IDF decides to target an areas with navel and army artillery, air to ground missals fired from drones, aircraft and helicopters. In Gaza there is only civilian area`s (well until the IDF decides to call you on your cell phone or more simply give you a little roof knocking as warning they are going to destroy the building you are in). And please don`t bring up Hamas rockets, that`s a bit of a joke since the rockets fired from Gaza i could make in my garage and were as dumb as a bottle rocket. The claim to fame for the ``Iron Dome`` anti missal deffence system performance stats are based on hitting rockets of a pre-world war 2 design; I would not buy any of that stock.

Try to remember, some of us are trying to understand how approximately 1500 people, non combatants, of which nearly 500 of whom where children, died as a direct result of IDF aggression. And to stress, I am talking about PEOPLE.

[bush_cheney2004]

Try to remember, some of us are trying to understand how approximately 1500 people, non combatants, of which nearly 500 of whom where children, died as a direct result of IDF aggression. And to stress, I am talking about PEOPLE.

They died the same way as PEOPLE in Serbia, or Libya, or Iraq from direct attacks by Canada/NATO air power. But unlike Israel's actions in Gaza, those were not considered atrocities for unknown reasons. Hard to understand that.

What exactly is an atrocity in this context, and who decides that the 'war crimes' label applies ? Has Israel been charged in court...we know NATO hasn't been.

For the mods....there is no limit to the "truth". Hope this new angle is acceptable. Thanks for the warning point.

Edited February 29, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[taxme]

Maybe if you're a guy who needs his fingers and toes to count you are also a guy whose judgement on complex international issues is highly suspect.

(X)Go on the internet and you will find many websites that tell of many incidents of Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. I want to also make it clear that I am no fan of the Arabs either, as they have also done the same. I think that the rest of the world should leave them two be and let them fight it out between themselves. I am fed up with all the news and hearing about all the turmoil that is going on in the Middle East and Israel. Go away.

[Rue]

In post 730 Scott Mayer stated he did not care which version of etiology I responded to him about the word Jew and continued to repeat his false etiology. In so doing he demonstrated he not only can not provide a sourced for his version of the origin of the word Jew but in fact was creating a new one he made up that has nothing to do with the origin of the word.

He then went on to make yet another false statement as to the word jewelry being derived from the word Jew.

It is another blatant example of how he comes on this board states a falsehood as fact and no its not a surprise to me that people would defend him and his rantings on this board. Not a surprise at all. For some anyone should be able to come on this board, spew fabricated nonsense, and as long as it is a false statement about Jews its acceptable. For me its offensive crap and I expose it as that and when someone comes on this board and states he's well informed or he tries, I have this to say to them-when you apologize for such falsehoods you encourage them and more spew out.

Jewellery comes from the word jouel which most probably comes from the word jeu. The Briton word was judicael referring o the 16th century Bishop John Jewel.

It has nothing to do with Jew and anyone can go find out what the old French word for Jew was. It was not jeu.

Its this kind of crap, this fabricated crap passed off as facts about Jews, with no source of course that is the essence of ignorance which fuels negative stereotypes about Jews.

Go on just one of you who has seen fit to say how well informed Scott Mayer is explain how Jew is derived from the word jewellery. Speak up or stop condoning his misinformed fabricated made up fiction about Jews.