Isreal has a Right to Exist.

1) "No using the buzz word Zionism, or Zionist; if you have to, describe it instead of using" Which would you prefer instead? Biased, Religious extremists or Stupid? 2) "No race baiting" …what could you possibly mean by this? 3) "No Moral arguments; we are talking about Legal Rights, not personal feelings." Oh, lost the moral high ground already have we? What use is the law without it? 4) "Don't just say they broke international law, you must name the law they broke instead of fishing, with a broad statement." My argument is against the law. 5) "If you claim something is "irrelevant" you must explain why it is so, instead of simply dismissing your opponent's argument." … fair point. Look hoss, how about you leave the counter argument to me? I cant very well win if I'm already going to say something you understand, can I? Im a scientist first and foremost, and I'll be discussing the argument from that point of view. If you want, you can think of those as my terms and conditions. My definitions will be coming from a different book than yours. "Definitions" My opponents attempts to bias the argument by control of the definition of words is actually an appeal to authority fallacy. "An appeal to an authority is an argument that attempts to establish its conclusion by citing a perceived authority who claims that the conclusion is true." [1] This fallacy is very common in law, being an authoritarian organisation. If they cannot disprove an argument, they change the meaning of the words until it matches what they want. It actually boarders on a psychological illness as they are at once delusional and cognitive dissonance [2] which detracts form verisimilitude[3], which is an essential part of deciding which course of action is best. For my own amusement I will now list the flaws in the definitions listed. [1] http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... Definitions; Aggression (as defined by the Convention for the Definition of Aggression) 1.Declaration of war upon another State. Of course this implies that the state has to exist, so one may argue that Palestine never existed, especially since it was not recognised by the UN (appeal to authority fallacy) ultimately though, Israel can be cut by the same sword as it was not a state when it invaded and would have to be considered a civil war, in spite of the fact that a large portion of the ‘settlers' were from another country. 2.Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State. ‘its' what does that mean? whos armed forces? Specifically, using foreign made arms should and does amount to using foreign mercenaries. It actually fits the definition of proxy war aswell as invasion. 3.Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State. I notice they don't want to use the word army, or militia. Perhaps to steer away from an invasion/aggression definition which involves revolution or does not involve a government. 4.Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State. Same problem as 3, only this one obfuscates the possibility of a protest naval blockade, instead choosing to generalise them all as a form of aggression. How convenient it is to assume aggression as the motivation for halting another nations growth, or even, mercenary, proxy-war purchases, especially if it's a civil war. 5.Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection. They've introduced a new word here; Armed bands. Not armed forces. Obviously because in the opposite case of a naval blockade, those being armed may infact be a militia engaged in a civil war or an invading army of another nation. Its interesting to note how they are basically saying that blocking a state is aggression, but so is arming its warbands. This is because arming its army would probably count towards strengthening a nation and its government, however this is again, an appeal to authority because it implies that even a nation run by a dictator that is supported, is not aggression, its more like a proxy war, and I'm sure you'll agree that any kind of war is aggressive. Crimes Against Peace (As Defined by the the Nuremberg Principles VI) 1.Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; Once again, they appeal to authority in order to establish and substantiate a definition of peace. This is an appeal to popularity and history aswell and is of course, unscientific. A more accurate description might be; having a negative impact on the social order or makeup of another state so that they feel it necessary to take action against you to bring it to a stop. 2.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). ‘i'? Well I'm sure this definition is meant to characterise civil war, uprisings, protests and naval blockade protests as a conspiracy to destroy peace, as opposed to, say, natural process of social change, politics and reform. As opposed to defining proxy-wars and false flag attacks, grey on grey etc as a real conspiracy as it seeks to benefit or destroy another state. Probably because Nuremburg treaties and other things would classify as this and also, you guessed it, an appeal to authority of a nations government over its people, protests by whom, counting as a small consensus. War Crime (As Defined by the the Nuremberg Principles VI) •Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to; oIll-treatment of people in a occupied territory Introduced a new word; occupation as opposed to invasion. This is most likely because they wish to support the concept of occupation for other reasons than invasion. But this is obfuscation. oDeportation of slave labor from a occupied territory oMurder of people in a occupied territory Attempting to make a distinction of people from military personnel without actually saying civilian. This is actually because the definition of a person is a corporation. oMurder of prisoners of war oIll-treatment of prisoners of war oMurder of persons on the Seas oIll-treatment of persons on the Seas oKilling of hostages oPlunder of public property An army counts as public property and plunder counts as captured equipment. Thus if they were being completely honest, invasion of a country results in occupation and plunder. If they were trying to be honest they'd say that invasion and occupation are both wrong. oPlunder of private property oWanton destruction of cities oWanton destruction of towns oWanton destruction of villages oDevastation not justified by military necessity. Wow. Nowhere in there does it say terror tactics, or those now referred to as terror-ism count as war crimes. So, essentially, terrorism's legalised as a military necessity if you have a recognised uniform on. It also doesn't mention inhumane acts such as rape. Crimes Against Humanity (As Defined by the the Nuremberg Principles VI) is the next section, I will save the analysis of this for a later post.