In article <1993May10.210603.17797@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:  >>>Fine.  Now if your opinion isn't convincing anyone, and it's getting >>>refuted regularly by the facts (which is the case), isn't it likely that >>>your opinions need some revision? >> >>As I said, I do not want to convice anyone, so, why should my opinions >>convince anyone? >>I do not believe that my opinions are refuted by facts. > >Then you haven't been paying attention to the arguments levelled against >them. They have been, over and over again.  They will be again.  So far, you have presented your opinions as opposed to mine. I would hardly take them as facts.   >>Maybe youy view of a dictionary is the problem here. One thing is the >>accepted meaning of a word by a dictionary, and sometimes a completely >>different thing is what that word came to mean after a long time. > >Hey, what do you think dictionaries are for?  You quite obviously need >one.  A good dictionary gives both, and you well know it.  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.  >>OK. Tell me how many people in Zionist movements define a Jew in a  >>different way, and how many are who define Jew based on a religious way. > >I don't think that data exist on this directly.  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? So, the evidence shows that up to now, Jew, when considered in terms of Israel, 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.   > >>>>In the same way I believe that Irish have a right to nationalism but I do >>>>not support the bombing and killing of the IRA, I believe that Jews have >>>>a right to nationalism but I do not support Zionism as it is right now. >>> >>>Comparing the actions of Israel to that of the IRA is like comparing >>>those of the US to those of Chile under Pinochet (for example), with the >>>IRA in the role of Pinochet.  You really need to get your history >>>straight.  You also need a basic dictionary. >> >>You need to start reading before answering.  >>My point was that because some movement claims to be nationalistic, it  >>does not mean that I consider it to be nationalistic. I did not comapre >>Israel to the IRA. I think that you are starting to put words on my  >>mouth and that is wrong. > >That is no problem.  But once again you are defining Zionism as *ONE* >movement.  You are implying that it is monolithic.  You *KNOW* this is >not and has never been the case.  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? In the same way, even if the Zionist movement is not homogeneous, it does not matter. What matters is the result.  >>I never said that Zionism is monolithic. If you are going to attribute >>me things, present the quotes where I said that. > >You don't say it directly.  You implied it, and I showed explicitly >where and how you implied it.  Now you're trying to wriggle out of it. >Won't wash, and you know it.  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. 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. 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.  > >What you said is that "Judaism is defined according to religious >standards."  Now this can have several different meanings, and you know >it.  One of the meanings that it can have is to say that "Only those who >are religious are defined as Jews".  Another is to say that "Only those >who meet the religious definition of a Jew is one."  And there are >others.  I'm not twisting your words.  I'm trying to make you aware that >your words don't mean what you think they do.  I had never heard the definition: Only those who are religious are defined as Jews. I had always seen the definition: A person is a Jew is his/her mother is/was a Jew, and if such person does not convert, although I had seen people argue about the last part.  >> >>I am not talking about the debate. I am talking about how things are right >>now. When the debate is over, I'll see what happens. >>Right now, things are like they are. >>Let me ask you one thing. I understand that Israel differenciates between >>Citizenship and Nationality. Suppose M(ale) and F(emale) have a child in >>Israel. Which nationality will the child's ID show, according to each one >>of the following cases: > >Actually, it doesn't.  And the citizens' rights are exactly THE SAME in >both cases, anyway.  So, there is no difference between citizenship and nationality in Israel? Or what do you mean by "Actually, it doesn't"?  > >>a) F and M are both Jewish. > >Jewish > >>b) F is Jewsh and M is not. > >Jewish > >>c) F is Muslim and M is jewish. >>d) F is Christian and M is Jewish. > >It'll depend on what religion is practiced in the house.  The original >law of return would still admit such a person if they were Jewish, if >memory serves.  So, it follows a religious definition and not a cultural one. That is what I call a form of racism.  > >>I do not know why you are so touchy. I never said that you did not support >>Palestinian self-determination. I just gave an example of hypocrisy. > >No you didn't.  You had to twist the definition of the word 180 degrees >in order to do so, and everyone else knows it.  I'm not being touchy.  You do not need to assume the representation of "everybody else" to  make your points. You should assume that you are just talking for yourself. About the other stuff, I still believe that the example was a valid one. It would be a hypocrisy to say that one supports nationalism for all and then support Zionism and then disregard the Palestinian's right.  > >> I never >>said that someone in this net is guilty of it. It was just an example. Nothing >>more, nothing less than that. Why did you have to clarify what you think? > >Because what you gave *WAS NOT* an example.  IT WAS an example of how >the definition of a word can be twisted around 180 degrees.    It was an example. You are trying to justify something nobody has  talked about.   >>First, you should know that words have more meanings than those given in >>the dictionary. > >Oh, so now what are dictionaries for?  Reference.  > > >It's not nonsense.  When people read what you write, they have to try to >associate a meaning to those words.  Dictionaries give the meanings of >words, don't they?    yes, but not all of them. A language is something that evolves all the time.  > >>It seems that you cannot answer to the ideas given by others without insulting >>others. Sad. > >Not at all.  What I cannot abide is utter bombast when you've been >proven completely wrong.  Not really. I posted in another post the definition of Zionism. And, in this post you have showed for me what I was telling you from the  begining. Zionism is a form of racism, even if most zionists are not racist in their individual and private lifes. A movement that ask for a State and National rights for a people, and then in practice, that people are defined according to religion is, for me, racist-like.  > > >I never put even one syllable in your mouth.  You have tried to prove >this and you failed.    You did it. Next time be more careful.  >Ha!  There's nothing resembling fact in what you've said.  I NEVER added >*ANYTHING* to what you said.  Do you know the difference between opinion and fact?  > >     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu>  >  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder