In article <1sn9lm$f2j@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes: >In article <1993May11.013512.28407@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes: >>> >>>So far, you have presented your opinions as opposed to mine. I would >>>hardly take them as facts. >> >>Because you don't agree with them, hmm?? > >No, because a fact and an opinion are two different things. What you are  >expressing here are opinions, not facts.  In the abstract, what you're saying is true.  But the facts happen to agree with me, and disagree completely with you.    >>>I could give you hundreds of words in my mother tongue (Spanish), that >>>are comonly use and you will never find in a dictionary. Even more, I >>>could show you a lot of meanings that words in Spanish have different >>>from those in the dictionary. >> >>We're talking about the latter, not the former.  And what you're talking >>about is slang in the latter.  That *clearly* has never been the case >>here. > >No, I am not talking about slang. I am talking about different uses of the >same language in different places.  Listen, Pinkas.  I'm going to count on the supposition that you think through the opinions you have - something which is, by the way, against my better judgment based on what I've seen from you to date.  We are agreed, aren't we, that dictionaries are *reference books* for the usage of a given language, and in particular for the meanings of the words and phrases which comprise that language?  Now, you are using meanings completely different from, indeed in some cases diametrically different from, those given in the dictionary.  As a reference book, a dictionary contains those meanings in both past and (as much as it can) in current use.  That's also why they are updated so often.  Now, if you are saying things which you give different meanings than the dictionary does, and using non-standard meanings about every word, what is your chance of being taken at face value...?  Just about none.  Just about no one will take you that way because the words mean something different to them.  It's quite clear to me from the response this thread has been getting that that is exactly what is happening.  Ponder that.   >>>And guess why. Isn't it curious that we do not know how many people define  >>>in how many different ways the term Jew, which is the basis of the movement  >>>itself? >> >>No, probably because the question hasn't been asked?  Gee, I hate it >>when people draw conclusions without information, don't you? > >I hate people who cannot read. I did not draw any conclusion. I just  >said that it is curious, considering how heterogeneous the movement is.  What you did was ask a leading question.  In English idiom, the phrase "and guess why..." in the way you used it is a loaded question, with only one answer expected.    I also take offense at being told I cannot read by someone who is obviously having trouble with the subject himself.  Mr. Pinkas, I am a PhD candidate in my field.  One does not get to PhD candidacy if one cannot read.    > >>>the Law of Return and Jewish Nationality is defined in terms of religion and >>>not of cultural identity, even if 80% of those defined as Jews in Isreal >>>are not religious. >> >>For the umpteenth time:  it is NOT defined in terms of religion. >>This has been proven to you over and over again. > >No, it has not. The Law of Return defines a Jew as someone who has a  >Jewish mother and has not converted to another religion. That is  >pretty the same as the religious definition. > > > >>>That IS a problem. I am saying that I do not support Zionism as it is >>>now. I believe that among the people in the Soviet Communist Party some >>>might even had been inspired by noble ideals. Does that change the >>>final results of what happened in the USSR? >> >>Are you now wishing to compare the USSR and Israel?  Or what?  Israel >>does not practice cruelty.   > >Now I understand. You are unable to make abstractions. You cannot  >get the idea from a text and you take everything literally. >Bad thing.  Balderdash.  You know this is false.  I would be able to make the abstraction if it bore any resemblance to the facts of the matter. Yours did not.  The analogy is utterly inapplicable.  I wouldn't be in the field I'm in -- astrophysics -- if I couldn't make abstractions and speculate about the general grand scheme of things.  I also wouldn't be in education -- which I am (and my students give me rather good reviews I'd add) -- if I couldn't draw such analogies.  >About Israel not practicing cruelty, ask those Palestinians in Israeli >prisons, those who were tortured, those whose houses had been blown  >by the Army.  The vast majority of Palestinians in Israeli prisons aren't tortured, and their houses weren't blown up by the army.  In fact, you've seen me protesting such measures ON THIS NET before.  Are you now trying to intimate my agreement with them?  >>>I never said it directly nor indirectly. I am not talking about individuals >>>who defined themselves as zionists here. I am sure most of them are good, >>>honest and caring people. I am talking about the results of the Zionist >>>Movement. >> >>In other words, you are taking that as a monolith, and ignoring the >>dissension within it, disagreement that is expressed freely, and is >>widely based.  Just as bad. > >Can you read or are you just typing at random?   Do you know the meanings of the words you use or do you expect the reader to read your mind?  I can read just fine thank you.  And I don't need someone who is obviously having some troubles with a tongue which isn't his native one telling me how to read the words in my own native tongue.  If it were Spanish, I'd ask you.    >>>I am talking about a Movement whose actions resulted in a >>>Law of Return with a religious definition of Jew, a country that defines >>>nationality based on religion. >> >>Then you're not talking about the movement as it exists today, as I've >>been trying to tell you.  Please read the arguments I've given you!  If >>you can still say this after reading them you need to read them again. > > > > >> >>> I am talking about something I consider >>>a form of racism such as differenciation based on religious belief.  >>>After all, if Arabs in Israel cannot serve in the Army is becasue they  >>>were not born in the "right" religion. >> >>Arabs in Israel not only can but *DO* serve in the IDF.  As you well >>know. > >They can serve, it is true, but they are not allowed to do the all the >same things as the Israeli citizens who happen to be Jews.  Yes, they are.  As you well know.  >> >>OK, fine.  Now we know what you're talking about.  But do you see my >>point about how your words could easily have been taken differently?  > >It is not "we", it was you as in the second person in singular, who cannot >understand a text if things are not explicitly said.  Balderdash.  See above.  Once again, you have a lot of gall and absolutely no right to lecture a native speaker of a language, who is well educated in it, in a language which isn't your own native tongue and with which you're obviously having problems.  >>> >>>So, there is no difference between citizenship and nationality in Israel? >>>Or what do you mean by "Actually, it doesn't"? >> >>I mean exactly that.  Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel have the same >>rights. > >If there is no difference between them, why keeping them in ID's? >Better yet, are you going to tell me that there are no differences in >social life between Arabs and Jews?  Social life is one thing, legal status is another.  Once again, this is a leading question.  >>>So, it follows a religious definition and not a cultural one. That is what >>>I call a form of racism. >> >>No, because the Jewish religion and culture are intimately, inseparably >>intertwined.  If one renounces Judaism, one renounces Judaism.   > >I do not believe that this is true.  Final question:  Is it possible to be both Jewish and Muslim?  Jewish and Christian?  Your response will be enlightening.