Israeli War Crimes

[taxme]

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.

Well, maybe the reason for your not being able to be convinced is that you have not delved into it deep enough. Or again, maybe you would just prefer not to get the other side of the story then? But whatever, you keep your beliefs, and I am going to keep mine. Works for me.

[taxme]

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

I thought it was a real website. But besides that, I guess that what you are saying here is that if the website is not considered acceptable to others then it must not be a real website, and anything said on that website should not be made aware of. Or, in other words, another way of saying no politically incorrect websites wanted here. Censorship. At least that is the impression that I am getting.

[taxme]

Bigotry towards Jews.

So, that's it? "Bigotry towards Jews". Chuckle.

[Argus]

"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.

It hardly matters. Google any of your 'patriots' and you'll find lots of descriptions of them as Nazis, anti-Semites and white supremacists.

And if that's not good enough their words convict them.

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

Gee, how about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? A long discredited antisemitic screed. Anyone posting it is unmasking themselves as an anti-Semite.

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

I read basic mainstream news sources like the BBC, CBC, National Post, Globe and Mail and Telegraph.

(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.

Then again, no one is trying to kill him. People have been trying to slaughter Israelis and Jews across the world for decades. And it's web sites like the one you refer to which are partly responsible for why Jewish schools and temples need to have machinegun toting police guarding them across Europe.

[Argus]

Well, maybe the reason for your not being able to be convinced is that you have not delved into it deep enough. Or again, maybe you would just prefer not to get the other side of the story then? But whatever, you keep your beliefs, and I am going to keep mine. Works for me.

Fine. You keep your beliefs based on nothing but ignorance and bigotry and I will hang onto beliefs based on logic and evidence.

[Argus]

I thought it was a real website. But besides that, I guess that what you are saying here is that if the website is not considered acceptable to others then it must not be a real website, and anything said on that website should not be made aware of. Or, in other words, another way of saying no politically incorrect websites wanted here. Censorship. At least that is the impression that I am getting.

What is being said is that web sites run by lunatics and hatemongers cannot be used to prove ANYTHING. If you want to use a web cite as a reference source it needs to be at least moderately respectable.

[Rue]

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

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

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

No that won't work Meyer. In fact its pathetic. Yes the words "Your ignorance knows no limits." are my

words placed accidentally as yours. The post has been edited.

You Sir however now demonstrate you hide from me and the challenge to your words behind a tyo and that

Meyer is pathetic.

I think your above words manifest an element of cowardice given you refuse to deal with the hateful

references to holocaust surviving Jews and acknowledging your assumptions are nonsensical.

I however fully expect not just you but Eye, Hudson Jones, Bug Guy, Ghost, the whole lot of you alleged

leftist progressives to remain silent to your hateful rants and your words which defecate on the memory

of holocaust survivors.

Your use of this thread to spew anti Semitism is there for all to see as is your hiding from my words

behind a typo.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Rue

[taxme]

It hardly matters. Google any of your 'patriots' and you'll find lots of descriptions of them as Nazis, anti-Semites and white supremacists.

And if that's not good enough their words convict them.

Gee, how about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? A long discredited antisemitic screed. Anyone posting it is unmasking themselves as an anti-Semite.

I read basic mainstream news sources like the BBC, CBC, National Post, Globe and Mail and Telegraph.

Then again, no one is trying to kill him. People have been trying to slaughter Israelis and Jews across the world for decades. And it's web sites like the one you refer to which are partly responsible for why Jewish schools and temples need to have machinegun toting police guarding them across Europe.

(1)Descriptions of patriots from the same old Zionist gang. Only ill-informed people will listen to their lies. Patriots are neither of those nasty descriptive lies. And just for your information, those mentioned are not attacking your average Jew on the street. They are attacking Zionism.

(2)The Protocols will always be up for question as to whether it is true or not. I guess that is why it is still being kept around for others to read, and who can come to their own conclusions after reading the book.

(3)I go to alternative news outlets like RT.com Global Research and the Political Cesspool among others for my news. Those sources you mentioned are not trust worthy enough for me to believe. They are a controlled corporate media owned and operated by the Zionist brotherhood.

(4)No, they are just trying to get him jailed for his right to his opinions and points of view. The man never has called for violence or promoted hatred against anyone. Well they must have peeved off a lot of people to require all that protection. No doubt plenty of Muslims. I guess that they are not reviled for nothing, but for a good reason, and now have to protect themselves from what they may have sown. What goes around, comes around.

[taxme]

What is being said is that web sites run by lunatics and hatemongers cannot be used to prove ANYTHING. If you want to use a web cite as a reference source it needs to be at least moderately respectable.

Do you really mean that the website must be moderately acceptable to you? If you do not agree with it's content, then they should not be mentioned here. Those patriots mentioned are certainly not lunatics or hatemongers. Just more media lies. Let others decide what they read at other websites, and let them come to their own conclusions about any website. If someone does not like what is being said, then they have the right to leave the site. If they are a little more interested, then continue on. I don't believe in censorship. Works for me. No one, unless they are promoting hatred or violence, should be silenced for their views and opinions. And those patriots do not promote hatred or violence. If they have, show me where they have said anything like that?

[taxme]

What is being said is that web sites run by lunatics and hatemongers cannot be used to prove ANYTHING. If you want to use a web cite as a reference source it needs to be at least moderately respectable.

If I owned the media, and I didn't like you for your opinions, I could get my gang of puppet reporters to track and find information on things that you may have said or done in the past, and build up a profile of you, and make it appear as though some of the things you have said or done can be considered to be on the lunatic and hatemongering side. Words can easily be twisted around to suit the purpose of the people who are doing it. And it certainly all comes down to who controls the media in Canada. And I have a pretty good idea as to who just does own the media in Canada.

[Scott Mayers]

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.

No, you don't seem to be logically able to grasp the distinctions or are just purposely glossing over it.

The 'crime' is what the hypocrisy points to: "a pot calling the kettle black" is the commons saying. Hypocrisy is NOT a fallacy of accusation when the authority of the opinion is inconsistent with the opinion they hold sincerely against the opponent they are accusing in opposing ways. It IS a fallacy when one accuses another of some inconsistency that lacks relevance to the nature of the argument.

Israelis believe they were done wrong by National Socialism and thus despise this form of government; Yet they have reconstructed their State (Israel) repeating the same form of National Socialism they pretend is distinctively different when it isn't.

And even your reasoning, "..as it is irrelevant to nation state actions to attack real or perceived existential threats."

is skewed since this reasoning is sufficient to justify Hilter's Holocaust too.

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.

You seem awkward here. If you are asserting 'fairness' of no value between the parties in conflict regardless, then anything goes. Then you should have nothing to contrast who did right or wrong. You can't pick and choose which event in the middle of back and forth events you dislike to blame of the side you distaste. The argument has to be about where and who started it, who is in power to stop it, and to whether they are STILL continuing in their behavior that caused it in the first place.

You can't place the burden on Palestinians. They are enslaved and being harassed with more violence than any other victims of Supremacists behave in America.

And the 'policies' you speak of are NOT Palestinian. Do you have to follow Canadian 'policy' if we imposed some charge and conviction against the U.S.?

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.

You are attempting an unnecessary distraction with your own imposing definition. Contextually, the OP as am I or others who 'agree' to the meaning here is an opinion being argued. If I said that you were not 'right', would you now demand that I prove how I somehow think you are 'left'?

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".

WHOSE law? It was Hilter's 'laws' to try and convict the Jews within his own system. Should we now retrace those later convicted of "war crimes" involved in the Holocaust as also NOT committing "war crimes" by formal definition according to the law of the Germany at the time? If you don't like the word, it only appears that you are hoping one opts to use a more subtle word that dimishes the force of opinion here.

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.

Okay, so you ARE just arbitrarily favoring the Israelis without prejudice for or against either Israel nor Palestine. The concern that I have (without speaking for all others) is that the conflict of this source specifically acts as the controlling 'seed' to which all other conflicts in the Middle East have derived. It is no longer the ONLY one. But Israel, like I've said before, has the most significant POWER to which they alone hold to either extinguish the fire they started or to fuel it more.

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

I'm unsure of what you mean by "prices paid in Palestine"? "Prices paid" by whom? The rest of the world at present is paying for this lately as being required to help out the refuges in ways they cannot afford. Where is Israel here? Should they not be opening their doors?

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.

This is just sad. If you pick strength of force as all that justifies one's right to power, you too then support Hitler's interpretation of the same. It was this belief that ALL that MATTERS in reality is WINNING, to the Nazis. The ones who forcefully make their WILL succeed through determination is what was DEFINED as all that mattered as morally relevant.

You have a right to this belief. But then why do you even care about this thread at all? Why are you concerned about the particular interpretation of some of Israel versus others? You can't pick on some definition of "war crimes" as what bothers you here. If the law convicted you of one tomorrow without truth, you perhaps think you have to accept this. Maybe, like many, you believe a higher power will repair human injustices in the end anyways, right? But this has to be your OWN sacrifice to take on...you can't impose others to accept the sacrifices for your own beliefs.

[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).

Let me start on the last point. You are implying that I should be looking elsewhere on the declaration that the Muslims were the ones initially at fault here. Did you know that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a non-religious Communist organ? Did you know that the reason they had problems with Iran and Kuwait were about being LANDLOCKED and extorted through being unable to have direct access to the sea? Now these WERE Muslim countries bordering them as much as the makeup of their own people. But the powers of the Western world to profit on the oil going through Kuwait is an example of how the economics of our countries intervene in ways that utilize the propaganda we get that demonize the Muslims based on some apparently unusually 'hostile' set of beliefs.

Nationalisms arises out of the very forces of economic impoverishment imposed upon people from without or to those exiled from their own lands. Palestinians were exiled by the Jews establishing the 'State of Israel' forcefully and with CLEAR intent to do so. They were very VOCAL to this intent, made deals with illegitimate 'landowners' external to the Palestineans, declared their 'ownership' of property within Palestine as their sovereignty, and both prevented Muslims their from the system they formed within these settlements as they cleverly stole the territory beneath their feet.

The Israelis set the president for all that is occurring today as other countries think it best to join in on the same behavior rather than sit back and let the others take it for them. They witness the rest of the world powers supporting the problem and so feel hopeless to do anything other than to react in the best way they can. Like David, of the Goliath story, any use of 'terrorism' is a last ditch effort to fight using whatever resources they have. If they had big guns, tanks, planes, and other nice toys, they too would be fighting back in the same "gentlemanly-like" manners you and others think are somehow not considered "terroristic".

Religions are all Nationalistic in some form or another. But the ones most extreme belong to the most Ethnically Proud people who ARE racist by default of their unusually strong 'favor' of their cultish beliefs in their genetic and inherent superiority as they believe is granted them of their gods. They are MONO-culturalists. And while they may 'accept' trivial minorities among them, this is more about appearances and is limited only enough to hopefully prevent others of being certain of how discriminatory they actually are.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, you don't seem to be logically able to grasp the distinctions or are just purposely glossing over it.

No, I purposely reject it as a distinction without a difference. "Hypocrisy is not a crime" is shorthand for historical and present nation state interests and associated actions. Israel is but one example.

The 'crime' is what the hypocrisy points to: "a pot calling the kettle black" is the commons saying. Hypocrisy is NOT a fallacy of accusation when the authority of the opinion is inconsistent with the opinion they hold sincerely against the opponent they are accusing in opposing ways. It IS a fallacy when one accuses another of some inconsistency that lacks relevance to the nature of the argument.

An unfortunate reference believed to be racist by some....I prefer "pot...kettle...white" to highlight this. The fallacy, real or perceived, is not relevant to practical and applied foreign/domestic policies.

Israelis believe they were done wrong by National Socialism and thus despise this form of government; Yet they have reconstructed their State (Israel) repeating the same form of National Socialism they pretend is distinctively different when it isn't.

And even your reasoning, "..as it is irrelevant to nation state actions to attack real or perceived existential threats."

is skewed since this reasoning is sufficient to justify Hilter's Holocaust too.

Hitler did not require any reasoning to justify his actions...just the means and will to do so. Accordingly, Israel will attack real and perceived threats regardless of "National Socialism".

You seem awkward here. If you are asserting 'fairness' of no value between the parties in conflict regardless, then anything goes. Then you should have nothing to contrast who did right or wrong. You can't pick and choose which event in the middle of back and forth events you dislike to blame of the side you distaste. The argument has to be about where and who started it, who is in power to stop it, and to whether they are STILL continuing in their behavior that caused it in the first place.

No, as "Conflict Dirt Farm" is well beyond any such point. Mine is and always has been an amoral stance that rejects the blame game as ultimately irrelevant. Nonviolent means has been effective in achieving political and economic goals, but it is not applicable for this conflict.

You can't place the burden on Palestinians. They are enslaved and being harassed with more violence than any other victims of Supremacists behave in America.

And the 'policies' you speak of are NOT Palestinian. Do you have to follow Canadian 'policy' if we imposed some charge and conviction against the U.S.?

You are attempting an unnecessary distraction with your own imposing definition. Contextually, the OP as am I or others who 'agree' to the meaning here is an opinion being argued. If I said that you were not 'right', would you now demand that I prove how I somehow think you are 'left'?

Again, the Palestinians and their anti-Israeli allies have materially contributed to their own circumstance(s). I have watched them do so for more than 50 years, including the assassination of RFK by Sirhan Sirhan in 1968. I accept that decision and outcome just as much as I accept Israel's decision to attack and destroy any threat to its existence. The policies are Palestinian by choice and/or lack of political leadership to pursue a different strategy.

WHOSE law? It was Hilter's 'laws' to try and convict the Jews within his own system. Should we now retrace those later convicted of "war crimes" involved in the Holocaust as also NOT committing "war crimes" by formal definition according to the law of the Germany at the time? If you don't like the word, it only appears that you are hoping one opts to use a more subtle word that dimishes the force of opinion here.

The shaky legal foundation for "war crimes" is well documented but more commonly used these days to rhetorically achieve social/political objectives. The actual elements of such offenses are technical and must be adjudicated to be enforced, unless we are to dispense with such measures just because it's Israel (which never ratified the ICC treaty).

Okay, so you ARE just arbitrarily favoring the Israelis without prejudice for or against either Israel nor Palestine. The concern that I have (without speaking for all others) is that the conflict of this source specifically acts as the controlling 'seed' to which all other conflicts in the Middle East have derived. It is no longer the ONLY one. But Israel, like I've said before, has the most significant POWER to which they alone hold to either extinguish the fire they started or to fuel it more.

This is by design, as Israel wants to remain a regional power. The "others" have/will make choices in their own interests. There is no special burden on Israel in this regard.

I'm unsure of what you mean by "prices paid in Palestine"? "Prices paid" by whom? The rest of the world at present is paying for this lately as being required to help out the refuges in ways they cannot afford. Where is Israel here? Should they not be opening their doors?

Only if Israel wishes to do so. Other nations are not compelled to accept such refugees, and indeed, have rejected millions from Asia and Africa facing far more dire circumstances. Palestine will continue to pay the price for Palestinian choices...or gain from a change in strategy.

This is just sad. If you pick strength of force as all that justifies one's right to power, you too then support Hitler's interpretation of the same. It was this belief that ALL that MATTERS in reality is WINNING, to the Nazis. The ones who forcefully make their WILL succeed through determination is what was DEFINED as all that mattered as morally relevant.

Godwins's Law confirmed. History is filled with far more examples than just Nazis. Being sad about it does not change reality. For instance, Canada and the United States had/have no problem using means/will to subjugate their own "PalestIndians"...for over 200 years.

You have a right to this belief. But then why do you even care about this thread at all? Why are you concerned about the particular interpretation of some of Israel versus others? You can't pick on some definition of "war crimes" as what bothers you here. If the law convicted you of one tomorrow without truth, you perhaps think you have to accept this. Maybe, like many, you believe a higher power will repair human injustices in the end anyways, right? But this has to be your OWN sacrifice to take on...you can't impose others to accept the sacrifices for your own beliefs.

This is not about me, but as usual this is an attempt to swipe at the realities I have presented. Reality deserves a voice....others choose to be the voice of a different reality that does not yet exist. Good luck with that....

[bush_cheney2004]

....The Israelis set the president for all that is occurring today as other countries think it best to join in on the same behavior rather than sit back and let the others take it for them. They

witness the rest of the world powers supporting the problem and so feel hopeless to do anything other than to react in the best way they can.

This not the case....any precedent was set many years before Israel ever existed. It is one thing to condemn Israel's actions as "war crimes" against "helpless" Palestinians, but quite another to distort history to make Israel the lone bogeyman.

[Scott Mayers]

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.

Thank you at least for this repair. Now let me see if I am able to attempt to try going further without discovering more problems I cannot answer in fairness.

To this you continue:

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.

You're misreading accent in context to my whole philosophical take on this. The 'supposedly' was not a denial of the Holocaust. It was the understanding that the Holocaust was obviously presumed a horrific 'penalty' against the Jews BUT that instead of demanding they get their lands, property, and citizenship restored appropriately in Germany, as they claim as much theirs, they just opted to take the opportunity granted them to take advantage of the opportunity of their victimhood and chaos following the war to take over Palestine with the forces of the Allies.

Besides being highly deceptive even for those already trying to do this in Palestine, they used this as a means to optimize their own behavior against the Palestinians as if they were dumb non-owning serfs floating about without any concern of whether Jewish Nationals were about to co-opt their lands and whatever fortunes lie in the remnants of smoldering fumes of the war.

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.

I am very 'left-wing' oriented but completely NON-NATIONALIST. [Even being 'left' worries me with the forms of Nationalsims there too!] I don't believe that any GROUP should impose cultural ownership based on their ethnic roots (genetic + cultural beliefs, including religion). I don't approve of Islam nor Christianity as a right to impose theocratic forms of governments either. So attempt to poison my well all you want,...but it is YOU, and NOT me, who is a "Nazi" type here. And this is the irony, (if you are actually just being sincerely naive, that is).

You seem most affected to what I say precisely because you find my words threatening to your own belief in some likely Jewish Supremacy of your own thinking. Pandering to others here to go against me is like attempting to send me off to the Ghetto. Do I not have a right to compete for my views here?

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?

It appears you are. See my first responses above. The Jews [i'll assume you one unless you assure me you aren't] DIDN'T have a home in Palestine but in Germany. By moving to Palestine, you (to include your Zionist belief) were simply taking advantage of the post-war chaos and the 'meek' and unorganized Palestinians (who were ALSO previously of a distant-centered regime assumed 'abusive' to them). Your people (Zionist Jews, that is) thus exploited the powers of the Allies and your numbers to impose upon the lands their in a CLEAR attempt to take over ALL of your believed ancient homeland.

Let's see. ....German (we'll say) 'aboriginals' assert historic/religious ties to the lands which derived their Nationalism in order to stage their own 'Zion'. Compare....Jewish Nationals assert they were most 'aboriginal' to Palestine based on their own historic/religious ties theire which derived their Nationalism there. The German-nationals initially demanded assimilation (something not even the Jews demanded of the Muslims...they just wanted them out). Then they isolated them in Ghettos as they took over Jewish-owned entities they believed were 'official acts' (legal in Germany at the time. The Jews in Palestine isolated themselves as well as the Muslims non-voluntarily of the Palestinians there, established 'ownerships' they declared 'valid' in the laws both of the Turkish Empire and to the British temporary 'laws' in their holding at war's end. They offered the Palestinians 'exile' (like the Jews in Germany) but since they wouldn't or couldn't go anywhere, you isolate them in camps.

With more need to be 'respectable' of the world's eyes, instead of forcing most directly, (like an abuser cleverly knowing how to harm their spouses without leaving clear marks), they backed the Palestinians out of their homes, made (make) obviously clear predudicial acts like buldozing homes on claims like, "oh,...you left home early today and we thought that you just abandoned your home justly and so had to tear it down for fear of it rotting within hours potentially causing hazardous conditions for the neighbors."

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?

Your singing to the choir with me on these things. But you don't get the irony that the Israelis are doing this precisely to the Palestinians. You think you are so high and mighty over them? If the Muslims (properly, Palestinians) are horrible people, the Israelis are ten times more than that since they keep acting on their continued settlements, the WALLS, the checkpoints, etc.

I KNOW you know this and am guessing that you are only here as a loyal Nationalist serving to propogate the Israeli cause for damage control. Smearing others as Anti-Semitic for daring to question the Israeli Supremacists? Let's see....hmmmm.....So if you don't like the KKK and have cause to argue against them, since they believe in White Supremecy, should this too assure that you are an Anti-Caucasic hater? I take issue with them too. And since I'm 'white' I'm going to also be accused by them of "betraying my 'race'". Does this not sound familiar to you Rue?

What do you think he would read for example:

https://www.ushmm.or...duleId=10005129

http://www.yadvashem...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 make a good "Nazi" Rue. Propogate that others have their own secret hidden agendas attempting to get you. Obviously you don't know who I am nor what I represent.

Like my atheism, you might think of me as anationalist (abscent of a belief in National Supremacies, prides of genetic/environemental heritages/inheretages) and am also ANTI-Nationalist as I am ANTI-Religious because I see these as the underlying anti-rational means to defend intolerant behaviors by removing the ultimate 'Authority' to assure your supremacies for provisional abuses in power.

They all originate in some discrepancy between people's economies. But the more 'wealthy' or powerful extremes have more fear of losing what power they have and so utilize their positions in power to optimize their intolerant behaviors; The 'poor' who also can become abusive, do so out of desperation more often and so always appear as the 'terrorists'. Nationalisms arise out of both. For more plural countries, Nationals in the dominant positions fight for a MONO-cultural command, while those in relatively indominant but equally desiring Nationals, opt for a MULTI-cultural form (until, that is, they have the power to rule!)

So although I like/love culture, I'm for voluntary associated ones (not inherently defined in law) and go against all Nationalisms.

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.

....

I can't bother going on here until you get your facts straight. Accusating me as you are doing is demonstrating not only HATE, but falsely trying to distort me as a human without appropriate cause. But then again, maybe this is your 'duty', right?

You MUST be ANTI-Caucasic, ANTI-Muslim, ANTI-X, -Y, and -Z, right?

[Scott Mayers]

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.

Yes, this is my take on it too.

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

[Scott Mayers]

This is getting tiresome. The popular default to favor Israel is quite entrenched.

Before responding to bush_cheney2004, I wanted to note a documentary I saw today on PBS. "Welcome to Leith" [http://www.pbs.org/video/2365698306/] It demonstrated a White Supremacist KKK moving into a North Dakota town to which would be worthy of seeing. What is interesting is that it shows how relatively weak both they and the community were in being tolerant.

Of course, the supremacist was being quite vocal and adamant. But it also appeared that no one was trying to even remotely try to be calm an instead of trying to defeat them in opposing hostility, they could have tried to reason with them based on their own beliefs. It seems apparent that the two main characters there had other issues to which they likely interpret reality as oppressing them in kind to those lie Rue here.

I don't want to derail this and perhaps could open a separate thread on it. But I recommend checking it out and it might help to try looking at a different case of Nationalism to see what the comparison to Israel is. Note how it appeared their number one belief was that 'Multiculturalism' was intensionally a hidden means to destroy the 'white man'?

Of course, I recognize that Multiculturalism IS a problem as it is the legal position to accept a specific SET of Mono-cultures in most opposition to the general stereotype of the 'White' population having the significant benefits of the society. Notice these people's impoversishment, their health, mental and otherwise. Note too that they are reactively taking just another FORM of the same extreme they oppose, a Culture. They simply believe that the only way to WIN is to ACTIVELY FAVOR one particular culture.

Why most don't see the third alternative to simply abandon allowing culture to be privileged or imposed on people based on their ethnicity, ....an Acultural or at least an Intercultural stance instead?

[bush_cheney2004]

This is getting tiresome. The popular default to favor Israel is quite entrenched.

As is the obsession with "nationalism", however defined and invoked for Conflict Dirt Farm.

What is entrenched is power....the means...and the will... to use it.

[Scott Mayers]

bush_cheny2004,

I am through with your concern to dismiss the 'hypocrisy' thing. Maybe you're just playing me here? Bored? If you beg this word to mean precisely one definition you have specifically in mind, you are attempting to dismiss an affective term to describe the issue with sense. Then you can hope to demolish the argument with an absurdly obscure term instead.

It is a myth that Hitler had no 'reason' for his actions. This is a purposefully expressed propaganda just as it is with Communism in the West; .....Capitalism being expressed as "Imperialistic" as to only imply it is a system irrationally designed with only Paris Hilton -like ignorance and naivete.

I recognize too that Israel IS doing this with reason. The 'reason' though is, just as it was with any National Socialists of all times (and don't bother trying to go PC on its more particular recent use in the last century), is that they BELIEVE in a JEWISH STATE called Israel that contains all lands of which includes what remains of Palestine today and more.

Israel preplanned to overtake Palestine and to displace the people there. They did it like preditors stalking some obsession and playing dumb to all this and obscuring it is absurd. It would be like some other woman (or man) who comes to your home and appears to be aiming to steal your spouse. At first, you might welcome her into your home as a friend without notice of her intents. As you get to know her, you later discover that she's appearing to be around too often claiming time with your husband (wife) for more and more often. You can't quite prove it but seem suspicious when you discover from others she's been pining for him for a long time, writing and making plans for a future wedding with him and everything.

Would you find reason to start becoming concerned? Of course NOT, you'd have to say, right? I mean, then you might end up sounding a bit hypo..... ! You'd just be paranoid right. Its' all just in your head.

I'm sure you know where this heads. The Zionist Jews had stalked Palestine for their own and have finally stolen it as its prized obsession. But it still has kids from its last 'spouse' and they are a pain in the ass. She doesn't want to overtly kill them because it would expose her as the ones hating them and Palestine would divorse you. But she simply begs father Palestine not to invite them dinner, make plans to send them off to camp lots, and for every chance, put up new barriers to 'hopefully' make them get a 'hint' and fuck off, run away from home, or kill themselves. (the little spoilt brats!)

Father Palestine has no eyes or is at least not looking whenever she gives his children dirty looks and sneers, when she sabbatoges them in shadow of other onlookers so that they and not 'you' would get the blame. Eventually, just as expected, Palestine's children begin to throw outrageous tantrums, pointing fingers as Stepmom Princess Zion acts all innocent and doey eyed.

She's managed to be trusted to take away all their allowances and other valuables because of their extreme tantrums. It's they, and not her, she cleverly stages, that HATE her, not the other way around. Her only 'fault' was that she loved Palestine with such unmistakable passion. How can such LOVE make her out to be some 'monster'?

...right?

Edited April 7, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[Scott Mayers]

As is the obsession with "nationalism", however defined and invoked for Conflict Dirt Farm.

What is entrenched is power....the means...and the will... to use it.

I don't know your idiom here but isn't "Nationalism" or "National Socialism" more clear as I define it that to hide its roots with the term, "Nazi", where many don't know its meaning? Take the word, "intifada", as one word you opt to use. By using the foreign word with its rhetorically sold anti-Muslim sentiment hides the fact that it is just a word for "an uprising".

"Nationalism" covers this with clarity to what and where the problem lies, not simply for this discussion for me but to much of our political problems in all places and times. We are always competing with 'cults' who by default supersede the power of any individual by the force of their convictions. Religion is one factor of this. But worse, and one in which I'm most concerned about, is the fact that the politics that is most extreme are ones that combine a belief in one's genetic ancestry and some asserted cultural, religious, or other claims, to justify why they should have exception to being relatively 'criminal' in some different context than others normally.

Your ancestors smoked peyote? It's a ritual of your religion? You require a law to distinctly permit you a right to this because it is intrinsic to both your great-great grand parents and you 'own' this right by default?

Your ancestors laid the foundation for the Middle East and all modern established most powerful religions in the West? So your ancestor's "founded" this nation and so have a special privilege for all time to require preservation of your family's fortunes you inherit because of it?

I want a cult too. I'd like to assert that my religion and my genetic heritage requires that I have everything I want for the wanting. That I should rule the world. That I could drink and fuck everything and anyone I choose to because it is in my inherent nature and lifestyle (my OWN cult). If everyone agrees to grant me this, I'll shut up right now and stop complaining, I promise!

[bush_cheney2004]

I am through with your concern to dismiss the 'hypocrisy' thing. Maybe you're just playing me here? Bored? If you beg this word to mean precisely one definition you have specifically in mind, you are attempting to dismiss an affective term to describe the issue with sense. Then you can hope to demolish the argument with an absurdly obscure term instead.

Just as you would do with a personal definition for "nationalism". The point about hypocrisy is that it doesn't matter, regardless of the meaning.

It is a myth that Hitler had no 'reason' for his actions. This is a purposefully expressed propaganda just as it is with Communism in the West; .....Capitalism being expressed as "Imperialistic" as to only imply it is a system irrationally designed with only Paris Hilton -like ignorance and naivete.

But he didn't need a reason or justification. Post WWI concessions set the stage for a resurgent Germany concurrent with collapsing British/French empires. ME conflict is traceable to this collapse and Pan-Arab "nationalism". Zionists seized the opportunity as well. Advantage Israel.

I recognize too that Israel IS doing this with reason. The 'reason' though is, just as it was with any National Socialists of all times (and don't bother trying to go PC on its more particular recent use in the last century), is that they BELIEVE in a JEWISH STATE called Israel that contains all lands of which includes what remains of Palestine today and more.

Logically then, do/did the Palestinians of Trans-Jordan believe in a state less so ? Do the spoils of war not go to the victor...as before? When will First Nations get their land claims settled ?

Israel preplanned to overtake Palestine and to displace the people there. They did it like preditors stalking some obsession and playing dumb to all this and obscuring it is absurd. It would be like some other woman (or man) who comes to your home and appears to be aiming to steal your spouse. At first, you might welcome her into your home as a friend without notice of her intents. As you get to know her, you later discover that she's appearing to be around too often claiming time with your husband (wife) for more and more often. You can't quite prove it but seem suspicious when you discover from others she's been pining for him for a long time, writing and making plans for a future wedding with him and everything.

This is a silly analogy....Israel declared independence and backed it up with military muscle, just like other nations.

Would you find reason to start becoming concerned? Of course NOT, you'd have to say, right? I mean, then you might end up sounding a bit hypo..... ! You'd just be paranoid right. Its' all just in your head.

????

I'm sure you know where this heads. The Zionist Jews had stalked Palestine for their own and have finally stolen it as its prized obsession. But it still has kids from its last 'spouse' and they are a pain in the ass. She doesn't want to overtly kill them because it would expose her as the ones hating them and Palestine would divorse you. But she simply begs father Palestine not to invite them dinner, make plans to send them off to camp lots, and for every chance, put up new barriers to 'hopefully' make them get a 'hint' and fuck off, run away from home, or kill themselves. (the little spoilt brats!)

More rambling that I don't understand. The history of Zionism and the State of Israel are well documented.

Father Palestine has no eyes or is at least not looking whenever she gives his children dirty looks and sneers, when she sabbatoges them in shadow of other onlookers so that they and not 'you' would get the blame. Eventually, just as expected, Palestine's children begin to throw outrageous tantrums, pointing fingers as Stepmom Princess Zion acts all innocent and doey eyed.

She's managed to be trusted to take away all their allowances and other valuables because of their extreme tantrums. It's they, and not her, she cleverly stages, that HATE her, not the other way around. Her only 'fault' was that she loved Palestine with such unmistakable passion. How can such LOVE make her out to be some 'monster'?

...right?

No. There is no need for such an analogy when the history of the region can be discussed directly without familial fairy tales, emotional appeals, domestic abuse examples, or any other moral constructs. Competition for land and resources is a global circumstance, and frankly far more violent and deadly examples can be found outside the occupied territories or Gaza.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know your idiom here but isn't "Nationalism" or "National Socialism" more clear as I define it that to hide its roots with the term, "Nazi", where many don't know its meaning? Take the word, "intifada", as one word you opt to use. By using the foreign word with its rhetorically sold anti-Muslim sentiment hides the fact that it is just a word for "an uprising".

"Nationalism" covers this with clarity to what and where the problem lies, not simply for this discussion for me but to much of our political problems in all places and times.....

No...you are conflating different concepts that are really off topic. "Intifada(s)" (plural) are directly related to the past/present conflict.

Trying to define/establish your own "nationalism" common denominator that explains all worldly conflict is beyond the scope of this very specific topic about alleged Israeli "war crimes".

[Scott Mayers]

bush_cheney2004,

Oh 'silly me'! I guess you solved the problem plain and simple: MIGHT IS RIGHT!

Do you expect the Palestinians should just stay quite like good little children? How can they possibly expect to eat their pudding before they eat their meat?

[Scott Mayers]

No...you are conflating different concepts that are really off topic. "Intifada(s)" (plural) are directly related to the past/present conflict.

Trying to define/establish your own "nationalism" common denominator that explains all worldly conflict is beyond the scope of this very specific topic about alleged Israeli "war crimes".

The word in English for 'intefada' is uprising or revolt. The plural and capitalizing refers to particular events in recent times. But we use these more obcure words to attempt to hide their generic meaning so as not to interpret them in a good light.

We say, "Jihad", to make the meaning, 'loyal', or 'duty bound', unusual and have our media contextualize it instead to mean, "A violent religious dictum for war against the Non-Muslims with extreme prejudice and hatred". [innuendo]

I choose the word, Nationalism to encompass all I said that both describes the original intent politically in the early 1900s and to indicate its common link to other forms of ethnocentrism, including sexism, chauvinism, and other prejudices and discriminator practices that assume an essential link between ones genetic(biological) inheritance and some environmental behavior (culture/ritual/etc) that have only contingent connection to reality but get forcefully linked for political reasons. There is no other word that encompasses this sufficiently without having to spell out this whole paragraph for every use of the meaning. It is also what it originally meant in politics with respect to "National Socialism".

We use the word, "dictator" for instance in which it is intended to draw a negative connotation of a strictly single person who commands some government. Yet originally, in an opposite way, this term meant literally, 'speaker', who was understood to be precisely what our Presidents, Prime Ministers, or even a "speaker of the house" or "chairman" signify. Yet notice how its use has affect in its derogatory use now? It makes it easy to mistaken old renderings of those who used the term (like Marx) as some kind of lover of totalitarianism inappropriately.

You have a better suggestion? Or are you forcing me to distinctly separate each kind of ethnocentric belief that ties ones belief that their genes and culture require political laws distinctly?

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh 'silly me'! I guess you solved the problem plain and simple: MIGHT IS RIGHT!

Do you expect the Palestinians should just stay quite like good little children? How can they possibly expect to eat their pudding before they eat their meat?

Actually, they are eating their own children with failed policies and leadership.