Israeli War Crimes

[Argus]

And there are still Canadians who can support that king of oppression.

Shame!

When is our new government going to call out these war criminals to the world court?

This from he guy who has spoken admiringly of Russia and Iran and demanded the government form closer ties with them.

Apparently oppression isn't so very big a deal to you as long as Jews aren't involved, eh?

[Argus]

(1)If you knew the difference between a white supremacist/Nazi and a patriot you would then know why I mentioned their names.

Well, every single person you've quoted is listed by Wiki as a white supremacist and anti-Semite. The web site you've quoted has nothing on it but lies and ant-Semitic crap like the protocols of the elders of zion.

So I think I'm safe in my assessment.

(3)I have no interest in Israel.

And yet here you are, scouring the internet and reading 'radical' anti-semitic, anti-Israeli crap and regurgitating it here.

So clearly you DO have an interest or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm curious what that interest is.

I am just interested in learning about their crimes against humanity as pointed out by just about the rest of the world.

You mean as pointed out by the Muslim world. Are you a Muslim? Or as pointed out in the Nazi world. Are you a Nazi? It's certainly not pointed out in the Western world, of which you are ostensibly a member. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. But you do seem to be highly indignant towards the world's 124th worst human rights abuser, so I'm curious as to why.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

So, why do you think IsraeI is so reviled? Why do so many countries despise Israel? There must be a good reason for that? Well?

Bigotry towards Jews.

[Argus]

Am I talking to a wall?

You're talking to someone who is about as un-politically correct as you will find, who has no problem in condemning foreign cultures and values he disapproves of, and who does so with a fair degree of regularity. You're talking to someone who is not religious, much less Jewish, has no Jewish relatives or close Jewish friends. You're talking, in other words, to someone who might be receptive to condemning a nation or culture like Israel.

All I need is logic and evidence. Neither of which you seem to have at your disposal. Vague mutterings about Jews controlling the government or Israel being a bad country just aren't going to cut it with me. I've been hearing that kind of stuff for decades. It's thoroughly unconvincing.

[Argus]

If you need an answer to your questions, maybe websites like RP or others like it can fill your needed answers. You cannot judge a book by it's covers alone. And I am afraid that you have just looked at the cover only, and have not gone further than that, that is if you have gone there at all. I have and I don't get the impression that I have been made a fool of at all. What I got was both sides of the story. No problem with that is there?

I glanced at it, and noted it contains well-documented anti-Semetic nonsense like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and links to Hitler's Mein Kamph, as well as drivel about and by notorious Jew-haters. The entire focus of the site is anti-Jew and anti-Israel. I don't think I need to go beneath the surface of that kind of muck.

As Michael Hardner has stated, we require real cites here, to back up your statements. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25544-how-to-question-sources-in-a-civil-manner/#entry1137757

Edited April 5, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

Yeah...that's it..."they" own America. And so do several other countries that get American humanitarian, military, and economic aid. They all "own America"....Jordan, Egypt....even the Afghans, who get more than the "Jews" in Israel nowadays.

Why oh why does America do this....it is a wondrous mystery !

It's the notorious Afghan lobby.

[Argus]

The point of which you purposely hide the context of is that the Israelis ARE National Socialists. As to the second sentence that is intended to imply that Arab and Christian Israelis would disagree, this is NOT representative of what the state of Israel has set up. If by any chance these sub-member groups were granted the capacity to dominate Israel, it would no longer BE a Zionist State. These particular minorities are intended to both REMAIN minorities and have to be such that they presently ACCEPT the superiority of the Jewish-constituted state by default.

I'm not sure if this is simply some sort of intellectual exercise or what your point might otherwise be. The behaviour of Israel towards its minorities in granting them rights, including freedom of religion and the ability to vote and be represented in Israel's democratic institutions is entirely at odds with what the National Socialists did in Germany, or what their intellectual counterparts propose everywhere else. In fact, the most obvious evidence Israel is not a National Socialist regime is that it is a democracy, and that it has not sought to expel non-Jews from within its borders.

Israel's state institutions, including an independent court, also behave entirely differently than what one would expect from a 'national socialist' regime. You are equating Israel's religious identity to the racial superiority Hitler advocated while ignoring that all religions make the same basic claims of their worshipers being 'chosen' people who are the favourites of God.

Israel, historically, has been relentlessly attacked by the Muslims around it because they are not Muslim. One wonders why, given your penchant for denouncing nationalism, you don't focus on the far greater nationalism of the entire Muslim world in its violent hostility towards Israel for daring to occupy a tiny sliver of what they regard as lands belonging to the "Ummah". For only Muslim states are permitted to exist in dar al-Islam (The territory of Islam).

Edited April 5, 2016 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmmm, I didn't know we were discussing Quebec, Japan, First Nations, or even Switzerland in this thread. But perhaps if or where you can assure that I don't question Nationalism anywhere else, you might have some justification to question this of me.

Hard to do, since the intent seems to be the definition of "nationalism" in one's own terms...a moving target. The point being that the direct relationship to alleged "war crimes" by Israel is not demonstrated no matter how "nationalism" is defined.

[Scott Mayers]

I'm not sure if this is simply some sort of intellectual exercise or what your point might otherwise be. The behaviour of Israel towards its minorities in granting them rights, including freedom of religion and the ability to vote and be represented in Israel's democratic institutions is entirely at odds with what the National Socialists did in Germany, or what their intellectual counterparts propose everywhere else. In fact, the most obvious evidence Israel is not a National Socialist regime is that it is a democracy, and that it has not sought to expel non-Jews from within its borders.

Israel's state institutions, including an independent court, also behave entirely differently than what one would expect from a 'national socialist' regime. You are equating Israel's religious identity to the racial superiority Hitler advocated while ignoring that all religions make the same basic claims of their worshipers being 'chosen' people who are the favourites of God.

Israel, historically, has been relentlessly attacked by the Muslims around it because they are not Muslim. One wonders why, given your penchant for denouncing nationalism, you don't focus on the far greater nationalism of the entire Muslim world in its violent hostility towards Israel for daring to occupy a tiny sliver of what they regard as lands belonging to the "Ummah". For only Muslim states are permitted to exist in dar al-Islam (The territory of Islam).

You clearly don't know what the actual National Socialists were and this is understandable considering how our world has since obliterated any actual sense of them with purpose.

National Socialism was as much 'democratic' as Israel is. The democracy is LIMITED to the Nationality of which the "Nationalism" refers to. It is a trivial distinction to refer to Hitler alone as what Nazis stood for and is counter to what their original party was created for. Hitler was only one of a possible set of realities of which National Socialism leads to, including any revised version to make it more 'democratic' with respect to its favored Nationality. (Hitler purged those with divergent views that could have lead to alternative representations of Nazism that may have been more 'democratic')

I don't care how apparent the setup is for Israel. As long as it was and is devised as a Nation of Jewish Peoples with priority (as the Zionism that initiated it refers to), it IS intrinsically biased to favor Jews with a clear understanding that they are both Jewish by culture AND by heritage (ancestrally related). The Zionists from the beginning intended to take over Palestine regardless of any concern for the people there.

When the first groups 'settled', they made purchases of illegitimate authority (the Turkish Empire 'owners') in defiance to those living there in Palestine. What 'legitimacy' of this alone undermines the respect for the previous Palestinians just as it would be for you to purchase property you KNOW is stolen of some other group and expect you did this 'legally'. When the empire was overthrown, the British as contemporary occupiers also had no right to simply treat these Palestinians as 'floaters' like they had no say to re-establish their own before such was volunteered by this and the other external countries to the Zionists.

Then, when the settlers had arrived, they also created exclusive colonies, acted as they were their own 'country' in disrespect of the actual Nation they resided in. This is like if I and a collection of my Canadian friends and family had bought up some land in the U.S. and then simply declared our owned lands "Canadian" in exclusion of American law with complete inclusion of Canadian ones. This is an illegitimate action and was intended from the start with even arrogant record of this.

The ONLY reason other U.N. countries even permitted this was for the same reason many countries now are resisting the onslaught of refuges.....it is preferable to redirect the burden to support an uncertain people elsewhere than to easily let them in, regardless of anyone's compassion. But note that even these countries likely had as much prejudice against the Jews and only welcomed them to 'steal' by their official sanction property in some land that (1) was not theirs, and (2) would FAVOR the collective Christian believers who felt that to satisfy their own religious ideals would require the temple at Jerusalem to be rebuilt as 'predicted' to reassure the second coming of Christ as inevitable!

Don't try to bullshit me or others in how much 'better' the Jews are versus the Muslims. I personally find FAVOR in the Jewish ideals and lifestyle over the Muslims. If I were to tally up all the heroes I admire in entertainment, science, or any area, the largest plurality of them for me would likely be of those who are Jewish in some way. So my own personal thinking has zero reference to any distaste of a Jew. What IS the problem is that the STATE OF ISRAEL is one set up to purposely displace any and all people that are or were in Palestine to create a biased state of Jewish Nationalists, not simply some 'new' democracy, as this can be found anywhere.

Had democracy been the goal, those desiring it would have returned to the very lands they were supposedly penalized prior to post war Europe. That is, since the war was won by the Allies and to the U.N. of which this derived from, they had the power and success of the war to assure the Jews who were abused in Europe up to the end of WWII should have been able to go BACK to places like Germany, reclaim stolen or lost properties, etc. Instead, Zionists had their cake and ate it too. They demanded both compensation for the losses AND to take over the land of which they believed their rooted ancestors came from, Palestine.

So it doesn't matter how 'democratic' you think they are relative to those they've already accepted in their stolen lands, you are only attempting to mislead when you assert Israel as somehow MORE fair than the Muslims. Much of the Muslim extremism that does exist is as minority among them until the rest of the world treated them with the same kind of hatred that the Jews of the past had experienced in kind.

To solve the extremists among Islam, you have to first tackle the factors that create or enhance the conditions that gave them their extremism, namely Israeli Nationalism.

This means first to tear down those walls, stop the settlements, open dialogues that express the honest realities each experience and are responsible to have caused the other, and to join up collectively as one people in that region that allows democratic representation of everyone, not simply the tiny token minorities Israel uses as a necessary prop for Western eyes to excuse as sufficiently 'tolerant'.

[Scott Mayers]

Hard to do, since the intent seems to be the definition of "nationalism" in one's own terms...a moving target. The point being that the direct relationship to alleged "war crimes" by Israel is not demonstrated no matter how "nationalism" is defined.

"War crimes" are terms itself intentionally worded for affect by the OP and is appropriate in context to direct the attention towards Israel it deserves. The fact is, "war crimes" is ALWAYS as subjective a term when 'crime' is merely a legal definition of those empowered to create those laws. The point is that Israel is being HYPOCRITICAL to laws that they themselves would and DO deem 'criminal' if and where the same behavior they opt to use as justice against the Palestinians should not apply to themselves. This is why I point to the Nationalism here. This lies at the root of interpretation.

If one interprets only their own Nationality as all that requires 'fairness' in moral rectitude, then they are simply defining outsiders by default who offend themselves as morally repugnant strictly. To be non-hypocritical, we should expect that if Israel should find it 'fair' to build walls, set up settlements, or all other seemingly 'just' things against Palestinians, should you not expect Israelis to be doing this equally among themselves? Why would they only 'trust' their own by default and distrust the Palestinians with extreme opposition?

I dare the Israelis to try simply to build one wall against a 'friendly' Israeli, place checkpoints around their homes, opt to tear down their homes should they leave it empty and 'unoccupied' for a few hours, and then see how well such a 'friendly' Israeli remains a friend to their own Nation. The truth is, they would NEVER do this and KNOW that such behavior, even if apparently 'justified' by some poor Israeli behavior, would not be justified without fair trial presuming them innocent until proven guilty. To Israel though, ALL Palestinians are defaulted to 'guilty'. And why? Because the Israeli knows they 'own' this guilt for their own actions against the Palestinians but have little concern to reflect upon it for fear of losing what they have established regardless.

[bush_cheney2004]

"War crimes" are terms itself intentionally worded for affect by the OP and is appropriate in context to direct the attention towards Israel it deserves. The fact is, "war crimes" is ALWAYS as subjective a term when 'crime' is merely a legal definition of those empowered to create those laws. The point is that Israel is being HYPOCRITICAL to laws that they themselves would and DO deem 'criminal' if and where the same behavior they opt to use as justice against the Palestinians should not apply to themselves. This is why I point to the Nationalism here. This lies at the root of interpretation.

Not necessarily, as the international treaties that instantiate "war crimes" require very specific circumstances to prove elements of the offense (crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, Geneva convention, etc.). Israel (and Canada for that matter) have routinely conducted military interventions that meet such legal definitions regardless of "hypocrisy", which is not a crime.

... Because the Israeli knows they 'own' this guilt for their own actions against the Palestinians but have little concern to reflect upon it for fear of losing what they have established regardless.

As well Israel should...why hold Israel to a different standard than Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Russian Federation, etc. ? "Nationalism" as a common denominator can be eliminated in this context.

[Scott Mayers]

Not necessarily, as the international treaties that instantiate "war crimes" require very specific circumstances to prove elements of the offense (crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, Geneva convention, etc.). Israel (and Canada for that matter) have routinely conducted military interventions that meet such legal definitions regardless of "hypocrisy", which is not a crime.

The fallacy I pointed to earlier (Tu quoque) is one that refers to when hypocrisy does NOT appropriately fit with the accusation. If one is arguing against A, it is not appropriate to incite hypocrisy if one does not argue against B with similar force or recognition unless it is towards themselves as a B by virtue of their own belief they hold. As such, if one BELIEVES X (as some crime, for instance) and such a belief is personally justified of themselves, should they hold that others must also hold X (as some crime here), the nature of the act they accuse of the other must also be one they accept of themselves or its value is arbitrary.

If the U.N. is some body that declares X a 'crime', this is irrelevant to some particular member like Israel to assert X when they themselves do not treat this as a crime of themselves. The clear intent of the OP here is to point out the hypocrisy of Israel, not the U.N. to be 'criminal' with respect to their own values as they charge the Palestinians of behaving 'criminal' towards them. Why should Israel be permitted fair capacity to be abusive while the Palestinians be considered most vial?

Would you think that it be alright to have some police officer pull you over hammered out of his mind to arrest you for drinking? The 'crime' for both you and the police officer is drinking under the influence of alcohol. The police officer or anyone supporting his right to charge you would be 'hypocritical' should we trust the him as authoritative of this offence regardless of how he himself behaves.

...why hold Israel to a different standard than Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Russian Federation, etc. ? "Nationalism" as a common denominator can be eliminated in this context.

And ironically, you again make the error of me being 'hypocritical' without appropriate qualification. If you think that I'm being hypocritical, you have to prove that I hold the same standard of belief FOR MYSELF, not of what others like Canada, the U.S., etc, stand for hypocritically.

Using a similar example above, you are like a drunk driver who gets pulled over by a (non-drinking/non-hypocritical) cop who arrests you and you try to point out the hypocrisy of him not to arrest the other drunk drivers that left with you at the same time from the bar. ??!! Its at best a hopeful distraction.

"Wait, there's someone MORE drunk than you sir?! I'm sorry, I'll let you go on your way then. Thanks for pointing this out. I'll get right on that!."

Edited April 5, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[Rue]

Scott Mayer in post 109 stated:

"Had democracy been the goal, those desiring it would have returned to the very lands they were supposedly penalized prior to post war Europe."

Your ignorance knows no limits.

In the above words he vividly shows he uses this thread not to discuss Israeli state policies but instead to use it as apretext to belittle holocaust surviving Jews for going to Israel.

Where s Bug Guy, Hudson Jones, Eye, Dre, Ghost? Where are all you progressive leftists when such a hateful man

comes on this forum and spews such outrageous hateful crap and you all sit silent?

That is the point of this thread is it not? You put up some flimsy premise you are criticizing Israeli state policies

but this is what it turns into-pathetic neo Nazi tripe.

So all of you defending this Meyer, explain to me how after liberation, Jewish survivors would not have feared

returning to their former homes because of the antisemitism (hatred of Jews) that persisted in parts of Europe

and the trauma they had suffered and the reminders returning to their homes if they remained would bring them.

Sure we just return to neighbourhoods where the same people who turned you in to Nazis live.

No problem.

We just tell the people who stole and took over the Jewish homes, hi we're home get out.

Is anyone this truly ignorant?

Am I to believe Meyer is so ignorant he can't fathom Jews would fear returning home?

Is anyone that ignorant.

What I have to debate this under the pretense its even remotely connected to Israeli state policies?

What I have to point out that for example in postwar Poland, there pogroms (violent anti-Jewish riots), i.e.,

Kielce in 1946?

I really have to explain Jews even if they wanted to had no way of returning home and no government to assist them return home? Meyer is this ignorant and can't fathom thousands of Jews were housed in hundreds of refugee centers and

displaced persons (DP) camps such as Bergen-Belsen in Germany the same camp British bulldozers are shown in a film plowing tends of thousands of dead bodies?.

Do I have to explain to anyone European countries would not take back Jews-they did not want them-it is a fact only

France and the US in Western Europe took back Jews. No one else. In many cases it was because they were all killed. Holland, Denmark, Norway, they were all killed. Meyer is this ignorant?

What do you think he would read for example:

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005129

http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/dp_camps/index.asp

Would any of you who support him and his hatred?

This is how you go about defending Palestinians-ridiculing victims of the holocaust?

You come on a thread and this forum and show everyone your agenda-to belittle holocaust survivors.

That Sir makes you a coward. You belittle the suffering, memory and struggle of people who can not defend themselves.

You didn't come on this thread to discuss Israel-you came on this thread to belittle Jews and ridicule them for

surviving the holocaust.

Let all the people who came on this thread apologizing for you see the depth of your hatred against Jews.

Go on Big Guy, Ghost, Hudson Jones, tell me how accurate and well researched Meyer is. Go on Eye, Dre, the rest of you

As the above site explained in the words I mention above and now this:

"After the Holocaust, there were tens of thousands of Jewish survivors in Poland, as well as refugees who had returned there from the Soviet Union. On comprehending the enormity of the destruction of Polish Jewry and being confronted with manifestations of antisemitism, which reached their zenith with the Kielce pogrom of July 1946, these Jews decided to move westward to the American-occupied zone, and so they too arrived at the DP camps. In 1947, they were joined by a

further wave of Jewish refugees from Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania, and the total number of DP camp inhabitants reached a peak of some 250,000.

Life in the camps in occupied Germany was regarded by most of the Jewish refugees as a temporary arrangement. They sought to leave Germany, and in many cases, Europe as a whole. Yet despite this, and despite the wretched physical conditions, the survivors in the DP camps transformed them into centers of social, cultural and educational activity.

Holocaust survivor and author Aharon Appelfeld relates:

The first entertainment troupes made their appearance: a mixture of old and young people, among them former actors… and all manner of skinny people who found this distraction cathartic. These troupes evolved spontaneously, and went from onecamp to another. They sang, recited, told jokes… the subconscious will to exist propelled us back into the circle of

life.

The Jews in the DP camps established theaters and orchestras. They held sporting events and published more than 70 newspapers in Yiddish. They were among the first to research the Holocaust and initiate commemoration events. They collected testimonies from survivors, gathered written documentation and held memorial ceremonies for the victims.

The survivors found themselves “liberated but not free”. Their starting point was their unique legacy, but their

response was a national one. “In the DP camps, without the framework of a society to absorb them, their rehabilitation was dependent on the formation of a new society, one which struggled for its national existence while fighting for the rehabilitation of its members. The camps were a model for the incremental move from a bruised and battered Europe to a new life - in Israel and America,” wrote researcher Hagit Lavsky.

Different Jewish political parties – secular and religious, Zionist and Socialist – operated in the DP camps, the legacy of the intensive political life led by the Jews of Poland before the Holocaust. With that, the trauma engendered by the Holocaust and the influence of the Zionist activists who came from Eretz Israel meant that the political inclination in the DP camps was predominantly Zionist.

There was a high level of political awareness in the DP camps, and a desire to leave Germany, especially to Eretz Israel. The Jews established Kibbutzei Hachsharah (pioneer training collectives) in which they prepared themselves for Aliyah (immigration) to Eretz Israel.

Due to the establishment in 1948 of the State of Israel and the changes that were made to the US immigration legislation, there were increased opportunities for many of the Jews in the DP camps to emigrate. All the DP camps closed by 1950, except for Föhrenwald, which remained operative until 1957. Most of the displaced persons immigrated to Israel, approximately one third to the US, and several thousand settled in Europe, including in Germany itself, and reestablished communities that had been destroyed in the Holocaust."

Edited April 6, 2016 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

The fallacy I pointed to earlier (Tu quoque) is one that refers to when hypocrisy does NOT appropriately fit with the accusation.

No matter...hypocrisy is not a crime....not even for Israeli "nationalists".

If the U.N. is some body that declares X a 'crime', this is irrelevant to some particular member like Israel to assert X when they themselves do not treat this as a crime of themselves. The clear intent of the OP here is to point out the hypocrisy of Israel, not the U.N. to be 'criminal' with respect to their own values as they charge the Palestinians of behaving 'criminal' towards them. Why should Israel be permitted fair capacity to be abusive while the Palestinians be considered most vial?

See above....nothing special about the UN either in this regard.

Would you think that it be alright to have some police officer pull you over hammered out of his mind to arrest you for drinking? The 'crime' for both you and the police officer is drinking under the influence of alcohol. The police officer or anyone supporting his right to charge you would be 'hypocritical' should we trust the him as authoritative of this offence regardless of how he himself behaves.

Non-starter, as the police officer is legally authorized to detain and/or arrest drivers under the influence. Drinking on duty is a separate matter that may or may not impact a DUI charge/conviction. Again, hypocrisy is not a crime.

And ironically, you again make the error of me being 'hypocritical' without appropriate qualification. If you think that I'm being hypocritical, you have to prove that I hold the same standard of belief FOR MYSELF, not of what others like Canada, the U.S., etc, stand for hypocritically.

With respect to your personal definition of "nationalism", it is not so much hypocritical as irrelevant to the "war crimes" accusation. "Nationalism" can be logically factored out.

Using a similar example above, you are like a drunk driver who gets pulled over by a (non-drinking/non-hypocritical) cop who arrests you and you try to point out the hypocrisy of him not to arrest the other drunk drivers that left with you at the same time from the bar. ??!! Its at best a hopeful distraction.

No, as the frameworks are entirely different. As a licensed driver, I am subject to many civil and criminal limits that are not the same as so called "international" law. The elements of misdemeanor driving offenses are clearly defined and enforced in jurisdictions with law enforcement and judicial proceedings. I have been very consistent about this, noting the large bias for ICC crimes trials for mostly African (Black) nations.

[Scott Mayers]

Rue, I request that if you quote me, you quote me precisely as I have written and not include words that I had not said. I had to look back to determine where the hell you quoted the following upon just starting to read:

Scott Mayer in post 109 stated:

"Had democracy been the goal, those desiring it would have returned to the very lands they were supposedly penalized prior to post war Europe.Your ignorance knows no limits."

I had not anywhere spoken the last sentence in your quote here and inappropriately places false accent and interpretation of me prior to arguing. Please avoid adding interpretation you have of my quote if you should choose to quote.

If you wonder why I don't like responding to you, it is your means to purposely misrepresent something with clear deception of what has been written. And I DID grant you charity to be sincere initially here. I welcome disagreement and argument for your own position. But I can't bother with your tactics as if you are talking to and about someone I am not but you think I should have to defend!!

[Big Guy]

Zionists in the past have used the excuse that "The end justifies the means" for any reason to attain an "end". Some posters accept when passionate argument crosses the line to actual misquotes to achieve an "end".

I am not one of those posters and no longer read or remark on posts by someone prepared to change reality to blur an opposing view.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Big Guy

[Argus]

National Socialism was as much 'democratic' as Israel is..

Demonstrably false. There might have been individuals within the party with some commitment to democracy, but if so they held no power. The party had no elections after taking power.

When the first groups 'settled', they made purchases of illegitimate authority (the Turkish Empire 'owners') in defiance to those living there in Palestine. What 'legitimacy' of this alone undermines the respect for the previous Palestinians just as it would be for you to purchase property you KNOW is stolen of some other group and expect you did this 'legally'. When the empire was overthrown, the British as contemporary occupiers also had no right to simply treat these Palestinians as 'floaters' like they had no say to re-establish their own before such was volunteered by this and the other external countries to the Zionists.

Then, when the settlers had arrived, they also created exclusive colonies, acted as they were their own 'country' in disrespect of the actual Nation they resided in.

What nation? There has never been a nation in that location. Ever. The residents are the descendants of a wildly varying group of Arabs who individually or as tribes moved back and forth through that entire area (including Egypt, Syria, present day Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey). For whatever reason, this or that person or group settled on - as much settlers as anyone who came after them. The area which we call Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire, and before that other empires, going back to when everyone there were Christians and it was part of the Roman Empire before they were overthrown by Islamic armies. To suggest that the only legitimate 'owners' were those who moved in after that is nonsense. How many of the previous 'owners' were slaughtered by the ancestors of those there now? How many of their homes and villages were wiped out to make room for Muslim settlers?

The Ottoman Empire ruled that area for hundreds of years and your suggesting they and their laws had no legitimacy is every bit as ludicrous. It's akin to saying American laws are not legitimate because the US is only about 250 years old, and so only tribal law from the original 'settlers' is legitimate. Tell me, does the Arab immigrant who arrived ten years ago and bought the house next to me own it, or was his purchase illegitimate?

So it doesn't matter how 'democratic' you think they are relative to those they've already accepted in their stolen lands, you are only attempting to mislead when you assert Israel as somehow MORE fair than the Muslims. Much of the Muslim extremism that does exist is as minority among them until the rest of the world treated them with the same kind of hatred that the Jews of the past had experienced in kind.

If the Jews treated the Palestinians with the same kind of hatred they had been treated to there would be no Palestinians. And you are once again ignoring the fact that the very hostility of the Muslims is caused by their own concept that only Muslim nations can exist in that area.

To solve the extremists among Islam, you have to first tackle the factors that create or enhance the conditions that gave them their extremism, namely Israeli Nationalism.

Muslim extremism didn't start with Israel. It started with Islam conquering every land it could and every people it could, and putting them to the sword if they refused to convert. That's how that entire area became Muslim in the first place.

This means first to tear down those walls, stop the settlements, open dialogues that express the honest realities each experience

The honest reality is that the wall was put in place to stop Palestinian suicide bombers from killing innocent Isralis. It is never going to come down until the fanaticism behind that kind of murder disappears.

[Scott Mayers]

No matter...hypocrisy is not a crime....not even for Israeli "nationalists".

Did what I say fly over your head? Read back what I'd said and then quote precisely where I remotely implied 'hypocrisy' itself is a crime. I clearly demonstrated with good examples the difference of errors. The 'crime' is the actions of Israel to BE criminal but to accuse the Palestinians of it hypocritically.....not that the crime is 'hypocrisy' of which hypocrisy itself is some official 'crime' by definition.

With respect to your personal definition of "nationalism", it is not so much hypocritical as irrelevant to the "war crimes" accusation. "Nationalism" can be logically factored out.

You appear to be trying to hold the OP to something you literally interpret in your head beyond context of his expression and prefer not to veer into the depths external to this strict interpretation. So let me ask you this instead: Do you find anything inappropriate or unfair of Israel's actions which have possibly caused the Palestinians any reason to be even remotely justified in their own actions or reactions?

No, as the frameworks are entirely different. As a licensed driver, I am subject to many civil and criminal limits that are not the same as so called "international" law. The elements of misdemeanor driving offenses are clearly defined and enforced in jurisdictions with law enforcement and judicial proceedings. I have been very consistent about this, noting the large bias for ICC crimes trials for mostly African (Black) nations.

I think you must have missed my point for sure now.

Big Guy titled this thread, "Israeli War Crimes" and you are trying to force this to be proven by the standard of an official 'war crime' by some assumed authoritative court decision or tribunal in order for such an opinion to be held valid, right?

If you are charged with an offence you KNOW is clear and evidently false, you expect all people to accept the language of the authoritative judgement even in contrast to this fact regardless of potential first-hand witness simply because it is 'official'? If a court and jury convicted you falsely of some crime you certainly did not commit, do you think it appropriate to use the same language of yourself even if it counters your own knowledge as though the accusation and conviction were 'true' regardless of what you know?

I argue with respect to the logic of the situation as it appears the OP is doing, not to any official opinion by some court, whether it exists or not, but to my own opinion and back it up. I believe what Israel is doing is a 'crime' and is one in which Israel would also deem a 'crime' should their justification for action against the Palestinians is one they would not approve of for themselves.

If I think it alright to hit you but that you should not hit me, while you may choose to interpret my hypocritical behavior not relevant to some particular argument I might have for my actions (I could be a Supreme Kind of Person doling out justice for you naughty behavior, right?), how should some third party interpret things objectively between us without assuming some presumed neutral significance between us? You FAVOR the Israeli side and DISFAVOR the Palestinians and so think there is some 'normal' assumption of Israeli Supremacy by default here. You thus do not interpret it allowable to equate what wrong the Israeli side does to the Palestinians as a justification for Palestinians to do the same in return. For you, Israel is like the Parent and Palestine a disobedient peasant child who should know their natural position of inferiority. So you don't interpret that a parent is being hypocritically liable to punishing its child in ways that should be returned in kind.

[Scott Mayers]

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

[bush_cheney2004]

... The 'crime' is the actions of Israel to BE criminal but to accuse the Palestinians of it hypocritically.....not that the crime is 'hypocrisy' of which hypocrisy itself is some official 'crime' by definition.

Then we are in agreement....any accusations of hypocrisy on the part of Israel are moot....as it is irrelevant to nation state actions to attack real or perceived existential threats.

You appear to be trying to hold the OP to something you literally interpret in your head beyond context of his expression and prefer not to veer into the depths external to this strict interpretation. So let me ask you this instead: Do you find anything inappropriate or unfair of Israel's actions which have possibly caused the Palestinians any reason to be even remotely justified in their own actions or reactions?

No, as Israel's actions are consistent with previous policy and actions, specific to intifada(s), occupation, rocket attacks, kidnappings, suicide bombings etc. "Fairness" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I think you must have missed my point for sure now.

Big Guy titled this thread, "Israeli War Crimes" and you are trying to force this to be proven by the standard of an official 'war crime' by some assumed authoritative court decision or tribunal in order for such an opinion to be held valid, right?

So in addition to personally defining "nationalism", we are to do the same for the concept of "war crimes"? If such terms are so fluid, then anything is possible....war crimes against dogs and cats too, I suppose.

If you are charged with an offence you KNOW is clear and evidently false, you expect all people to accept the language of the authoritative judgement even in contrast to this fact regardless of potential first-hand witness simply because it is 'official'? If a court and jury convicted you falsely of some crime you certainly did not commit, do you think it appropriate to use the same language of yourself even if it counters your own knowledge as though the accusation and conviction were 'true' regardless of what you know?

Not sure I follow your reasoning, but conviction by lawful judicial proceedings is by definition "authoritative". Such convictions can be appealed in the same lawful framework. Most convicts say they are innocent (not guilty) because they know "the truth".

I argue with respect to the logic of the situation as it appears the OP is doing, not to any official opinion by some court, whether it exists or not, but to my own opinion and back it up. I believe what Israel is doing is a 'crime' and is one in which Israel would also deem a 'crime' should their justification for action against the Palestinians is one they would not approve of for themselves.

That's fine....many people feel that way. My position is also quite straightforward....Israel will act for nation state interest(s) when faced with existential threats the same as any other, and should not be held to a different standard. Moral inconsistencies are irrelevant.

So called "war crimes" by Canada, Russian Federation, United States, or Israel are not dependent on the prices paid in Palestine.

You thus do not interpret it allowable to equate what wrong the Israeli side does to the Palestinians as a justification for Palestinians to do the same in return. For you, Israel is like the Parent and Palestine a disobedient peasant child who should know their natural position of inferiority. So you don't interpret that a parent is being hypocritically liable to punishing its child in ways that should be returned in kind.

No, this is a false conclusion. The Palestinians are free to pursue a failed intifada strategy as they please, legitimizing Israel's security actions and interests. The presumed economic and military superiority is real and not subject to any parent/child interpretation.

Launch rockets...get bombed many times over. This is not complicated.

[eyeball]

No matter...hypocrisy is not a crime....

Nor can it be used to defend one.

I'd love to see you represent your country at the Truth and Reconciliation Process at the end of the GWOT.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nor can it be used to defend one.

I'd love to see you represent your country at the Truth and Reconciliation Process at the end of the GWOT.

Any such "Truth and Reconciliation Process" will only have meaning for the rubes who worship such things. Don't hold one's breath waiting for them to happen.

[eyeball]

No, siegerjustiz won't work either.

Targets of the label may consider it derogatory.

Sorry about that, but it is what it is.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, siegerjustiz won't work either.

Sorry about that, but it is what it is.

It sure is....reconcile away if one feels the need. Whoops...there goes another "war crime" to add to the list. What a shame.

[taxme]

Well, every single person you've quoted is listed by Wiki as a white supremacist and anti-Semite. The web site you've quoted has nothing on it but lies and ant-Semitic crap like the protocols of the elders of zion.

So I think I'm safe in my assessment.

And yet here you are, scouring the internet and reading 'radical' anti-semitic, anti-Israeli crap and regurgitating it here.

So clearly you DO have an interest or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm curious what that interest is.

You mean as pointed out by the Muslim world. Are you a Muslim? Or as pointed out in the Nazi world. Are you a Nazi? It's certainly not pointed out in the Western world, of which you are ostensibly a member. So I'm not sureman rights what you're talking about. But you do seem to be highly indignant towards the world's 124th worst human rights abuser, so I'm curious as to why.

"Wiki"? Where does Wiki stand politically? Maybe they are just another cabal outfit for all I know, and they help keep the politically correct bull going.

(1)Can you prove anything mentioned on that website that are lies? I would like to know this.

(2)And no doubt you scour the internet looking for websites that promote the wonders of Israel. So, what's your point?

(3)Well, you finally admitted that Israel is one of the worse human rights abusers around. So, they are no angels, are they? At least the owner of that website that I mentioned doesn't go around killing people. That makes him a lot better human being than your beloved Israel will ever be. But hey.