In article <1993May10.162032.3955@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes: >In article <1slo0e$ag7@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes: >> >>I do not want to convince anyone. This is just USENET, not the real >>world. I just read the opinions others have about a subject, and sometimes >>I present my opinion. I think that this net is only useful to exchange >>ideas. I never wanted nor I want now to convince anyone of anything. > >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.   >>First, and I repeat it, I never said that the idea of Jews having the >>right to have a State is racist. >>Zionism, as a movement, is more than just that idea. > >In a word:  utter and complete horse puckey.  Look the term up in the >dictionary.  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.   > >> I think that Zionism >>in the way it defines who is a Jew, for example, is racist-like. > >OK, now how would *YOU* define it.  And by the way, you're wrong again. >There is *NO* uniformity of this definition among Zionist movements. >You know this is the case, it's been pointed out on the net directly to >you before, and yet you continue to maintain this delusion.  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.  >>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.   > >[Stuff deleted by Pinkas.  His statement, which I was responding to >with the below, asserted that Zionism was uniform and monolithic]  I never said that Zionism is monolithic. If you are going to attribute me things, present the quotes where I said that.  >> >>That is what makes the basis for Zionist movements. However, I am not  >>considering just that, but the rest of it.  > >In a word:  I don't believe you.  Your words tell a very different >story.  Especially since they are not based on fact, but innuendo and >misrepresentation.   That is your problem. I could certainly interpret this like you are  running out of arguments. First, you put words in my mouth, now, you say you do ot believe me.   >>Which makes an interesting point. People living in a Jewish State have >>shown that Jewish culture includes in it Jewish religion but they are >>not the same. So, the Jewish people living in the Jewish State have shown  >>us that there are some problems in a State where 80% of the people is secular >>but Judaism is define according to religious standards, or where marriage >>is a religious stage, or where the Law of Return defines a Jew according to >>a religious standard. > >No, it doesn't!  Nowhere does the law of return demand that one must be >religious or even believe in G-d to become a citizen of Israel >thereunder.    Why don't you try reading for a change? Did I say that the Law of Return demand a person to be religious? Now, how does the Law of Return define  who is a Jew and who is not? I said that it uses a religious standard: If your mother is a Jew, you are a Jew, if your mother is not Jewish, neither you are. Do not twist my words, please.   >True, there are debates in Israel and abroad about "who is >a Jew?", but those debates are taken up by both religious and secular. >Would you say that religious people should not have a say in that? >Would you deny them their right of free speech?  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:  a) F and M are both Jewish. b) F is Jewsh and M is not. c) F is Muslim and M is jewish. d) F is Christian and M is Jewish. e) F and M are both non-Jewish.    > >>Did those Israelis who do not believe in god and will never do become  >>non-Jews? Why should they still define then a Jew based on what is a  >>religious definition? > >It's called history.  How do you think Jews stuck together through >pogroms for millenia in Europe?  We had to know who was our own.  I for >one do think that some change is in order and that patrilineal descent >is no less legit than is matrilineal (which is *NOT* the religious Jew's >point of view).  There's plenty of room for that in Zionism - as you >well know.  It called history. At some point it was OK. Now, I believe, it is not.    >>According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Inc, >>Publishers, Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 1986, page 593,  >> >>hy-poc-ri-sy: A feigning to be what one is nnot or to believe one does not. >> >>So, saying that one believes in Zionism as a simple matter of people  >>having the right to nationalism, but disregarding the right of the Palestinian >>people to do the same, according to this dictionary, is hypocrisy. > >Utter baloney.  By the way, I do believe the Palestinians have a right >to self-determination, have stated so on this net, and I know you've                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >seen it.    ^^^^^^^^  Interesting. How do you know? Had I ever talked to you about this and  forgotten about that?  >But that right to self-determination cannot be at Israel's >expense.  Israel's security comes first and that security must be >maintained.  You're also twisting words now beyond belief.  If you think >that's what that definition means in this context, you need a first-grade  >course in English.   Which definition are you now talking here about?  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. 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?  >If you didn't use different meanings of words than are in the >dictionary, you might be believable.    Here you have several problems. First, you should know that words have more meanings than those given in the dictionary. Second, it may come to be a shock for you to know that there are more words than those in the dictionary. Third, we can exchange ideas if you want, but you come out with this nonsense about being believable = using the definitions given in a dictionary. It seems that you cannot answer to the ideas given by others without insulting others. Sad.  >If your "facts" at all resembled >even the slightest bit of truth - which they do not - you might be  >believable.    If you did not put words in my mouth, it might be that you might start reading what I had actually said. So far, you come over and over twisting what I said or presenting things I never said as if I had said them. In this way, you are answering to yourself. That is why you do not find it believable. Maybe, if you start reading what I had actually said, and not what you added, you might change your mind.  >But the fact is that there is nothing resembling fact in >what you've said on this thread.  And the fact also is that you're using >different definitions for your words - based on baloney - than anyone >else does.  First, there is nothing resembling a fact in what you added to what I said, as if I had said it.  Seconf, anyone else is supposed to mean "than I do"?   >     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu>  >  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder