Reply #40: I believe it may have to do more with the scope and perspective.

[Poll_Blind]

  I appreciate your comments on the perception of justice by different parties each with differing perspectives. One cannot enter into a discussion of any length about matters of Middle-Eastern politics or offer solutions to problems in the region without acknowledgment that both sides may have equally valid points. However, the discussions in this forum, as opposed to discussions on Usenet or other forums which do not have an ideological anchor, are assumed to be within the context of the Democratic Party's planks.

  The scope and perspective of comments at Democratic Underground are arguably expected to be representative of a Democrat in the Democratic Party. I am not referring qualitatively to comments but to the shared definitions which users draw from, shared definitions being one of the benefits when using a limited scope from a shared perspective. The shared perspective is comprised of the party planks. While individuals may disagree with individual planks, the definition of "justice" is clear. Within this specific scope and perspective, "justice" is synonymous with impartial execution of and equality under the law along with recognition and adherence to such documents as the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

  The concept of "No peace without justice", then, is not a garland of oversimplified or vague ideas but, within the expected context of our political party, Democratic Underground and this forum, quite specific. Other definitions or dissections of "justice", while certainly valid in a different or much broader scope, fall outside of this expected context.

  "The Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel and the creation of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors." From Democratic Party plank, The Middle East

PB