This is a part from the book "Israel and the family of nations".
My translation (original in Hebrew).



As we saw, in the UN 1947 Assembly discussions the representatives of Arab states and Arab Palestinians repeatedly claimed that there is no real continuing connection between Jews - Bnei Israel - the ancient, of the land of Judah, to the Modern Jews that sought to establish in this land their natinoal home in the 20th century.
In this manner they tried to establish their claim that Modern Jews are nothing but a religious denomination, whos faithful include people from all sorts of ethnic descents.
Only few Modern Jews, they claim, can be considered the descendants of ancient sons of Israel; In that context they raised the theory about the Khazari provenance of European Jews.
These claims, dubious as for themselves, express, to which extent they can be taken seriously, a racist simplistic perception of Nationality. It is eminent that a communal ethnic descent is not a necessary component of a national identity. To the opposite, a tradition regarding a common descent, a communal myth relating to the ancient past - these are important components of many national cultures.
Even the modern French nationality, which is considered an unmistakable example of civil nationality and not an ethnical one, is not free of that element. Generations of students educated in the French republic upon the expression "Our Gaelic Fathers" - an expression which, in a biological point of view, is untrue for many o them;
Nevertheless this image became part of the French national identity. In those kind of traditions there is, usually, only a grain of Historical truth, although the size of this grain is different from case to case, and this question has no special importance.
The attempt to deny the palpability of modern Jewish nationality under biological and "anthropological" rationales, as the representative of Uruguay phrased it in his General Assembly speech, is a false attempt.
The authors of the UNSCOP report do not refer to these claims at all, just like they do not bother to invent any "scientific" proof whatsoever that indicate the existence of the Jewish People.

What is your definition of Jew.

All definition that i have found so far are religion related and talk about very old bible tale.

Some religious group were living under the roman empire, are they a Roman religious sect ?

So which were their country if they had one, and when ? Why do they loose it ? Why do they quit ?

I know th answer, i want yours.

What is your definition of Jew.


"My" definition is immaterial, just like yours is, to the topic.

Some religious group were living under the roman empire, are they a Roman religious sect ?


"Beni Israel", the Jewish People, existed as a communal group before the Roman empire controlled the land, so saying they are a religious sector of rome is foolish. They were not a religious group, and they did not come from Rome.

So which were their country if they had one, and when ?

They had Judah, and it was destroyed by the Romans.

Why do they loose it ? Why do they quit ?


No one quit, it was destroyed.

the answer is simple- Judaism is a religion, nothing more, but, that religion, and its adherents still have a cliam to the land of Palestine, as it is the birth place of that religion, and its ancestrial homeland- no geneological link is required

Originally posted by Xen
the answer is simple- Judaism is a religion, nothing more, but, that religion, and its adherents still have a cliam to the land of Palestine, as it is the birth place of that religion, and its ancestrial homeland- no geneological link is required

But if it's nothing more than a religioun how do you explain the fact that most jews in Israel aren't religious? Or that most American jews aren't religious, yet they consider themselves jewish?

Originally posted by Xen
the answer is simple- Judaism is a religion, nothing more, but, that religion, and its adherents still have a cliam to the land of Palestine, as it is the birth place of that religion, and its ancestrial homeland- no geneological link is required

The answer is simple if you ignore all facts, literature and reports on the issue, like you did.
Unless you can explain your answer, write/copy an article, a chapter from a book, or anything of that sort - your post is far from being an answer, it is merely an unbased opinion.

no articles here, it is an opinion from a former adhernt, and person born into the Hebrew faith (note that I am now a Roman Polytheist)

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


"My" definition is immaterial, just like yours is, to the topic.


They had Judah, and it was destroyed by the Romans.



1.- :lol: you dont want to fall in quicksand. From your post.

In this manner they tried to establish their claim that Modern Jews are nothing but a religious denomination, whos faithful include people from all sorts of ethnic descents.


2.- When it was destroyed ?

Originally posted by G-Man


But if it's nothing more than a religioun how do you explain the fact that most jews in Israel aren't religious? Or that most American jews aren't religious, yet they consider themselves jewish?

They are heretic jew:lol: and should be excomunated from jew community.

the state of Judea was conqoured by the Romans, but after 3 rebellions, all of which could have been avoided by a better Roman diplomacy in the province (it was conciderd a backwater, and a career dead-end mind you) people of the Jewish faith were exiled from the city of jerusalem for quite a while (though, interestinglly enough, Rome is the largest, and oldest continuos center of Judaism out side of the middle east)

Point 1 makes no sense.
Point 2: I think about 70AD.

Originally posted by Tassadar


They are heretic jew:lol: and should be excomunated from jew community.

You don't know what you are talking about and that's pretty pathetic.

Originally posted by Tassadar


They are heretic jew:lol: and should be excomunated from jew community.

IIRC, Judaism is enlightend more then enough to not have any sort of excomunication

Originally posted by Xen
people of the Jewish faith were exiled from the city of jerusalem for quite a while

So it was related to faith , not nationality. And if my definition of faith is right, it is related to religion ? right ?

You are taking someone who shares your OPINION and use his OPINION to base your OPINION.
Your posts make you look much younger than what your profile stated, which is sad.

faith is religion, but what point are you trying to make?

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
You are taking someone who shares your OPINION and use his OPINION to base your OPINION.
Your posts make you look much younger than what your profile states, which is sad.

me? I odnt think i share his opinio at all, honestlly, hes rubbing off as anti semetic smacktard, at least he is seeming that way to me in this thread

Originally posted by Xen


IIRC, Judaism is enlightend more then enough to not have any sort of excomunication

Oh i mix it up with the catholic, so non-religious jew are like me, a none practisising catholic. they dont excominicate no more, as they will have no more member:lol:

Tassadar and you have the same opinion. Judaism is only a religion.

Originally posted by Tassadar


Oh i mix it up with the catholic, so non-religious jew are like me, a none practisising catholic. they dont excominicate no more, as they will have no more member:lol:

dont be a jackass, excomunication is somthing unique to the later monotheistic religions, as for non-religious jews? the ENTIRE religion is enlightend enough not to do such a thing, as its rather stupid, and would directlly contradict the religion (which christian, and islamic religions, and off braches of those religons do all the time, that is to say, contradict themselves)

Originally posted by Xen
faith is religion, but what point are you trying to make?

That zionist is discrimination base on religious beleif. it is unconstitutional here in Canada and most modern country, as well as UN and human right.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Tassadar and you have the same opinion. Judaism is only a religion.

care to explain how it isnt only a religion? after all, the ethnic make up of the early isralites was the same as the babylonians, and the Assyrians, and no one calles them Hebrew do they?, and then a great majority of eastern european adhernts to the Jewish faith are desceded from Mongolio-Turkic tribes, not realted ot the semites of the middle east at all...

Originally posted by Tassadar


That zionist is discrimination base on religious beleif. it is unconstitutional here in Canada and most modern country, as well as UN and human right.

Zionism is simply pride in the cultureal heritage that comes with te jewish faith, it is no differtn then having pride in your school, your familly, or your nation- and tghe same rules apply- if your arny canadian, you cant really be nationalistic to canada can you? if you not Jewish, you cant exacty be a Zionist can you?

Originally posted by Xen


care to explain how it isnt only a religion? after all, the ethnic make up of the early isralites was the same as the babylonians, and the Assyrians, and no one calles them Hebrew do they?, and then a great majority of eastern european adhernts to the Jewish faith are desceded from Mongolio-Turkic tribes, not realted ot the semites of the middle east at all...

You make the same foolish declarations the Arab leaders made, and those were answered in my first post.
Damn. Read people, read. :p

Originally posted by Xen


care to explain how it isnt only a religion? after all, the ethnic make up of the early isralites was the same as the babylonians, and the Assyrians, and no one calles them Hebrew do they?, and then a great majority of eastern european adhernts to the Jewish faith are desceded from Mongolio-Turkic tribes, not realted ot the semites of the middle east at all...

:goodjob: you know the deal, thats what i was searching for. Its good to talk to someone who share same word definition. Have a good day with our israeli ( nationality) jewish (religion) friends.

This is like talking to a wall. I tried to open a serious discussion, to be confronted by people that at least pretend to be scholarly. I'm very dissapointed.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


You make the same foolish declarations the Arab leaders made, and those were answered in my first post.
Damn. Read people, read. :p

I have, and if you look at my veiw, its very much in between- yes, it is impossible not to acknolage that the practioners of a faith such as Judaism cannot all be connect directlly with the state of ancient Juda, and Israle- BUT to not acknowledge the cultureal legacy that has been passed down- and adopeted by converts to the faith is equally impossible- thus justifying the modern Isralite claim to the land of the house of Israle

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
This is like talking to a wall. I tried to open a serious discussion, to be confronted by people that at least pretend to be scholarly. I'm very dissapointed.

then be dissapionted in your time, I really dont care what you think of me, but fact is, I'm right on this topic

How is that a fact?
You still did nada to write a serious, established post about your extremely dubious "theory" of Nationality and the descent of Jews.

Originally posted by Xen


I have, and if you look at my veiw, its very much in between- yes, it is impossible not to acknolage that the practioners of a faith such as Judaism cannot all be connect directlly with the state of ancient Juda, and Israle- BUT to not acknowledge the cultureal legacy that has been passed down- and adopeted by converts to the faith is equally impossible- thus justifying the modern Isralite claim to the land of the house of Israle

Your post is very hard to understand.
I'll appreciate if you clarify it a bit.

A) not all people of the Jewisg faith are descended from actual isralites

B)the actual majority of modern Jews residing in the nation of Israle are desceded from East european Jews

C)most east European Jews are from the turkic-mogol Khazar tribes in descent

D)using the previous three points it is pointless to even attemt to claim a geneological link to the land of Israle

E)if there are modern Jews, who are not related ot the origional semtic tribes of Israle, then it CANNOT be claimed that Judaism is anything other then a religion

petitio principii.
You are basically saying:

"Well, Judaism is just a faith, because the people of it's faith are...."

I can't answer that. It's logically flawed. It's like saying: "Our team is the best because they will win the first place since they are the best".

BTW, your points show that either you didn't read my first post, or you read and didn't understand what it said completely.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
petitio principii.
You are basically saying:

"Well, Judaism is just a faith, because the people of it's faith are...."



why dont you finish that sentece ;)

"Well, Judaism is just a faith, because the people of it's faith are" NOT desceded from the same origional people, and therefore CANNOT all claim descendce form the orgional nation og Judea, and Israle

my logic isnt flawed, you just dont like it

So you are saying that a Nationality must have ethnicity? That is a very dangerous concept, and one that is, probably, only supported by you.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
BTW, your points show that either you didn't read my first post, or you read and didn't understand what it said completely.

I have read your first post, and franklly I have to say its stupid- there is NO "scientific proof' of the existence of jews because there is no seperation between a jewish person, and any other person- its a RELIGION- its not somthing that is going to turn you into somthing else, your the same as everyone else, not better, not worse, just the same

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
So you are saying that a Nationality must have ethnicity? That is a very dangerous concept, and why that is, probably, only supported by you.


no, I;m saying the MODERN claims of some isralis that Israle is the "home land" is flase, and cannot be used- I'm a Roman, I adhere by Roman principle, including that which citizenship can be bestowed to anyone, of any ethinicity, or religion- as Septimus Severus did in his reign

What DOESN'T make it a National? Why does the Jewish national requeres an ethnical connection while, for example, the English national, or the French national - all do not?

no, I;m saying the MODERN claims of some isralis that Israle is the "home land" is flase, and cannot be used- I'm a Roman, I adhere by Roman principle, including that which citizenship can be bestowed to anyone, of any ethinicity, or religion- as Septimus Severus did in his reign

Why is the claim false? You don't have to be connected to it by blood, if you are connected to it by spirit, culture and will.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
What DOESN'T make it a National? Why does the Jewish national requeres an ethnical connection while, for example, the English national, or the French national - all do not?

that sthe thing there is NO Jewish nation- modern Israle has non practioners fo Judaism living in it, and so did ancient Israle.

as for ethnical connection- perhaps they can be made for a city, but NEVER a country

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


Why is the claim false? You don't have to be connected to it by blood, if you are connected to it by spirit, culture and will.

right, but thats being connected by culture, not by geneology

I don't see your point, or the logic behind your rationale.
You are ought to make yourself clearer.

right, but thats being connected by culture, not by geneology

Just like every other country..

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
I don't see your point, or the logic behind your rationale.
You are ought to make yourself clearer.

I'm trying to, but the more I read the more I think we just have differnt definiton of what amounts to the same thing...

Originally posted by Xen


E)if there are modern Jews, who are not related ot the origional semtic tribes of Israle, then it CANNOT be claimed that Judaism is anything other then a religion

You hit the nail right on the head.:goodjob: .

Originally posted by Tassadar


You hit the nail right on the head.:goodjob: .

No, he missed it by a mile.

alright, if the thread is going to go ANYWHERE, the Iceblaze, you need to point out EXACTLEY with what you disagree with, and HOW

the same goes with you Tassadar, but with what you agree with, and how

E)if there are modern Jews, who are not related ot the origional semtic tribes of Israle, then it CANNOT be claimed that Judaism is anything other then a religion

Okay, Judaism is a national.
A national doesn't require any ethnical connection, only a common myth and culture. Point E of yours, as so, makes no sense.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


Okay, Judaism is a national.
A national doesn't require any ethnical connection, only a common myth and culture. Point E of yours, as so, makes no sense.

thats because it inst disgreeing with you- I'm posting my opinions regarless of what other people are saying- it seem our argument dosent make sense because we agree ;)

We don't agree. You said Judaism is only a religion. I say it is a national. You call that agreeing?
Moreover, you did not post one word, nor did Tassadar in his endless mindless trolls, that proves, indicates, hints or anything that Judaism is NOT a national.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
We don't agree. You said Judaism is only a religion. I say it is also a national. You call that agreeing?
Moreover, you did not post one word, nor did Tassadar in his endless mindless trolls, that proves, indicates, hints or anything that Judaism is NOT a national.
HOW IS A RELIGION A NATIONALITY THEN?

Who said Religion is a Nationality?

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Who said Religion is a Nationality?

you did!

right here-

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
You said Judaism is only a religion. I say it is also a national. You call that agreeing?

No, he missed it by a mile.

Actually, I think he hit it pretty hard on the head. Of course having seen up close the sacrifices the Israeli have needed to make to hold what they consider their home would certainly give one's a completely different perspective on the matter, as would the very fact of having to live under constant threat of death to simply hold the home you have known or dreamed of for most of your life. Wheter seeing the situation up close give a better understanding or a greater bias, I don't know, and I don't think we could agree on an answer even if we tried - obviously we will all consider ourselves less biased.

Yes, you make a good defense on the Jews being able to claim Israel as their culture's homeland. However the failure there is that muslims and christians can both make a very similar claim due to the importance they all give abraham (and quite a few others).

Where the Israeli of today primarily of hebraic (ie, the actual people who lived in Israel back before the Roman expulsion) descent, then they would have a superior claim to most of these others.

However if they are primarily of east european and Khazar descent as Xen claim, then the link of their faith and the culture that was built around it are the only link they have to the land of Israel, then their link is in no way superior than those of the palestinians after centuries upon centuries of living there (which does NOT justify any of the presently ongoing terrorism, one may note), and arguably about equal to the claims the Christians could make to that land.

Oops, didn't mean to say "also".

Yes, you make a good defense on the Jews being able to claim Israel as their culture's homeland. However the failure there is that muslims and christians can both make a very similar claim due to the importance they all give abraham (and quite a few others).

But they give Abraham RELIGIOUS importance (Father of Father of... Jesus) while we give it CULTURAL-NATIONAL importance (Father of the nation).

they are just there, obviously, we can't determine if they're descendants or not, as probably the original have been mixed throughout Europe and Asia. In the few last centuries, they were more like a nation, with a certain sense of unity, independent of blood or skin.
Also, the word jew comes from "Mercator": Merchant, trader, etc.
So, when they existed they weren't what they were for us.
I also don't think someone is a jew because of the surname it has.

Just make a Palestinian State, let's put it in the middle of England, and that's it :D

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Oops, didn't mean to say "also".

JUDAISM
Pronunciation: 'joodee`izum


Matching Terms: Judaist, Judaistic


WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] the monotheistic religion of the Jews; based on the Old Testament and the Talmud
[n] Jews who practice a religion based on the Old Testament and the Talmud


Synonyms: Hebraism, Jewish religion

See Also: Conservative Judaism, Conservative Judaism, faith, Jewish Orthodoxy, Jewry, monotheism, Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Reform Judaism, Reform Judaism, religion




Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Definition: \Ju"da*ism\, n. [L. Juda["i]smus: cf. F. juda["i]sme.]
1. The religious doctrines and rites of the Jews as enjoined
in the laws of Moses. --J. S. Mill.

2. Conformity to the Jewish rites and ceremonies.

JEW
Pronunciation: joo


WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] a person belonging to the worldwide group claiming descent from Jacob (or converted to it) and connected by cultural or religious ties


Where do you see nationalism ?

Before I dive into the rest of the discussion, those of you who are wondering about Tassadar might want to check the "Do You Smoke Weed" thread. His answer there made me seriously rethink everything he's said since then :lol:

After slightly thinking through this, I'd say that I agree with most everything Xen had said. Judaism is a religion that has been transformed first into an identity due to the diaspora, and now due to the state of israel some sort of ethnicity. It really isn't either. The Israelites pretty much died out about 1700 years ago.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
"My" definition is immaterial, just like yours is, to the topic.
Not "your" personal definition, but certainly the one your are talking about.

In other words, what exactly is your point?

I got pretty different impressions of what you maybe getting at from this quite unstructured discussion.

Let me start this way:

There is "Judaism", which is a religion.
There is "The Jewish people" (aka "The Jews"), which are an ethnic group who at least claims to be the descendents of the ancient Jews (Bnei Israel?).
Those two are of course connected but not interchangeable, if I would join the Jewish faith I would not become a descendent of anybody else than before, obviously.

Do you agree with that?

Then your article gets at the Arabs saying that the Jews' claims of being said descendents are not true because most of them would have different roots in reality. This Arab idea is attacked in the article, but apparently not in substance (it is not directly contested that most Jews are not descendents of the ancient Jews) but in methods. The basic message seems to be that a Nation is defined by other things than ethnic coherence.
Now while that is certainly a valid subject to discuss (though equally certainly not a clear fact) it is also evading the Arabs' attack.

What the article and apparently (I'm still quite confused about that) also you in this thread say is that Judaism, not ethnicity, is what "Jews" have in common.
But that would only leave two conclusions:
1) Judaism is only a religion and thus Jews are comparable with Christians but not with for example French or Syrians
2) Judaism is more than a religion, it is also a Nationality.

Apparently the whole point of this is claiming the second. If that is so I can understand the views brought forward here by different people that can't see it.
The idea of a nation is a rather new one, certainly much newer than the end of ancient Israel. For that reason it is quite pointless to claim to be a successor of an ancient nation, as there were none.

But that you claim that is the impression I get from the thread.

The article however seems to get at something different in my view.
It adresses that the Arabs may not necessarily be wrong in saying that many of those who are Jews today are not direct descendents of ancient Israel, but that this doesn't matter because they have over time, by having taking the Jewish culture, been assimilated into the Jewish people and are thus as much in the position to follow ancient Israel as all the others.

This is certainly a comprehensible way of defining a nationality, but the article's claim that it is the only correct one ("It is eminent that a communal ethnic descent is not a necessary component of a national identity.") is without base in my view.
There is no objective definition of something as artificial as a nation. Nationality defined by ethnicity may be dangerous in certain circumstances, but that doesn't make it any less valid than any other definition.

The article's defition leaves me with a problem, though, related to my initial differentiation between Judaism and the Jewish people.
If being Jewish (and here we are at what I quoted again) is a matter of cultural, not ethnical, heritage, that raises the question where cultural heritage begins.
In other words, for how long and how much do you have to be "Jewish" to be a Jew?
Or from a different angle, if it is not about ethnicity that would leave the opportunity for me to become Jewish as much as there is a theoretical one to become American, French or Israeli . But as Judaism is, according to you, not just a religion a simple conversion won't do that for me. What would do it then?

Originally posted by Tassadar

WordNet Dictionary

Webster's 1913 Dictionary


If these are the books you go to in order to check historical issues it does explain a lot.


Originally posted by Tassadar
Where do you see nationalism ?

Under 'N'.

Merriam Webster dictionary:
Main Entry: na·tion·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: "na-sh&-'na-l&-tE, "nash-'na-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 1691
5 a : a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state

Originally posted by Hitro
There is "Judaism", which is a religion.
There is "The Jewish people" (aka "The Jews"), which are an ethnic group who at least claims to be the descendents of the ancient Jews (Bnei Israel?).
Those two are of course connected but not interchangeable, if I would join the Jewish faith I would not become a descendent of anybody else than before, obviously.

Not quite - the Jewish people don't claim to be exclusively the descendents of the ancinet jews. We claim to be a nationality.


Originally posted by Hitro
Then your article gets at the Arabs saying that the Jews' claims of being said descendents are not true because most of them would have different roots in reality. This Arab idea is attacked in the article, but apparently not in substance (it is not directly contested that most Jews are not descendents of the ancient Jews) but in methods. The basic message seems to be that a Nation is defined by other things than ethnic coherence.
Now while that is certainly a valid subject to discuss (though equally certainly not a clear fact) it is also evading the Arabs' attack.

Actually it's the other way around. Arabs evaded recognizing the existence of a jewish people by saying that jews don't directly decend from ancinet jews and therefore they aren't an ethnicly based nationality, while ignoring the fact that it's a culturaly based nationality.


Originally posted by Hitro
What the article and apparently (I'm still quite confused about that) also you in this thread say is that Judaism, not ethnicity, is what "Jews" have in common.
But that would only leave two conclusions:
1) Judaism is only a religion and thus Jews are comparable with Christians but not with for example French or Syrians
2) Judaism is more than a religion, it is also a Nationality.

Not quite - judaism is the name of a religioun, and judaism is the name of a nationality. The two are related but are not the same. You can be a part of only of them.



Originally posted by Hitro
Apparently the whole point of this is claiming the second. If that is so I can understand the views brought forward here by different people that can't see it.
The idea of a nation is a rather new one, certainly much newer than the end of ancient Israel. For that reason it is quite pointless to claim to be a successor of an ancient nation, as there were none.

1. The claim for a jewish nationality is based on the cultural and traditional connection between jews, not on the existence of an ancinet nation.
2. What do you mean by saying there weren't ancinet nations?


Originally posted by Hitro
The article's defition leaves me with a problem, though, related to my initial differentiation between Judaism and the Jewish people.
If being Jewish (and here we are at what I quoted again) is a matter of cultural, not ethnical, heritage, that raises the question where cultural heritage begins.
In other words, for how long and how much do you have to be "Jewish" to be a Jew?
Or from a different angle, if it is not about ethnicity that would leave the opportunity for me to become Jewish as much as there is a theoretical one to become American, French or Israeli . But as Judaism is, according to you, not just a religion a simple conversion won't do that for me. What would do it then?

You don't need to be jewish for any period of time before becoming a part of the jewish people, just like there isn't a timer telling you when someone becomes a true German. You become a part of the jewish people when you feel you're a part of it.

I am curious...

How can modern day Jews move into a part of the world and create their OWN government? They aren't native, and they aren't even wanted... How would America feel if some Hindis moved to Colorado, USA and claimed that the Rockies were a spirtual homeland and declared it a new country? Or even better Indians(from India) moved to Kansas and claimed it was their ancesterol home? A government wouldn't be formed, but they would follow the government of the natives. Why is it that the Jews are allowed to do this? They are people too, they have no right to impose theft (destroying farms/housing) and colonization of land (building new houses on recently destroyed housing).

Originally posted by Azadre
How can modern day Jews move into a part of the world and create their OWN government? They aren't native, and they aren't even wanted...

The same way dozens of other people created their own countries. And the same way humans moved to new areas for thousands of years.


Originally posted by Azadre
How would America feel if some Hindis moved to Colorado, USA and claimed that the Rockies were a spirtual homeland and declared it a new country?

They'll have to learn to live with it.


Originally posted by Azadre
Or even better Indians(from India) moved to Kansas and claimed it was their ancesterol home?

Indians have a country already. Jews didn't.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Azadre
[B]A government wouldn't be formed, but they would follow the government of the natives.

Israel is the only govement of the natives this land has seen in centuries.

Originally posted by Azadre
Why is it that the Jews are allowed to do this?

Because no one can say 'no' to a people wishing to form their country.

Originally posted by Azadre
They are people too, they have no right to impose theft (destroying farms/housing) and colonization of land (building new houses on recently destroyed housing).

Farms and houses were destroyed during wars which we didn't start. A country has a right to defend itself, and its people have every right to live on its land, regardless of what used to be there.

Originally posted by G-Man


Not quite - the Jewish people don't claim to be exclusively the descendents of the ancinet jews. We claim to be a nationality.




Actually it's the other way around. Arabs evaded recognizing the existence of a jewish people by saying that jews don't directly decend from ancinet jews and therefore they aren't an ethnicly based nationality, while ignoring the fact that it's a culturaly based nationality.




Not quite - judaism is the name of a religioun, and judaism is the name of a nationality. The two are related but are not the same. You can be a part of only of them.





1. The claim for a jewish nationality is based on the cultural and traditional connection between jews, not on the existence of an ancinet nation.


These are the best exemples i have ever seen about how to modify word definition to fit political meaning, mixing nationalism and history with religious beleif. To avoid getting the discrimination flag, he distort word definition in such a way, that he justify his personal political point of view.

Linking old religious ritual with nationality and pretend it is a cultur thing, to justify land grabing, is pure hypocrisy.

Well, to return to the main topic, I'm only half jew... and the bad half since my father's family is jew and not my mother's. Actually, my father is from a russian family of jews who had fled to Morocco in 1917. At the Independance of Morocco in the 50's, my grand parents came from Casablanca to Paris with their son, my father.

My jewish family doesn't believe in God. They are pure atheist and my father before all. It wasn't an issue for my father to marry a non-jewish girl for example... (and my mum has a german mother !). I consider judaism as a religion but still as a closed religion. When it's easy to become muslim or christian, it's really hard to become jew... I still think that proves jews are also a people and not only believers. :)

Where do you see nationalism ?

Main Entry: Zi·on·ism
Pronunciation: 'zI-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1896
: an international movement orig. for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel

But, Webster's definition is both unclear and misleading. So, let us use a better source - Britannica:

Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”).

Originally posted by Hitro

Not "your" personal definition, but certainly the one your are talking about.

In other words, what exactly is your point?

I got pretty different impressions of what you maybe getting at from this quite unstructured discussion.

Let me start this way:

There is "Judaism", which is a religion.
There is "The Jewish people" (aka "The Jews"), which are an ethnic group who at least claims to be the descendents of the ancient Jews (Bnei Israel?).

Jewish nationalism, Zionism, doesn't claim Jews are descendants of Bnei Israel. Bnei Israel are the fathers of the Nation in a cultural way. Sort of like the French and the Gaels, as I mentioned earlier.

Those two are of course connected but not interchangeable, if I would join the Jewish faith I would not become a descendent of anybody else than before, obviously.

You have the Jewish nationality, and the Jewish faith.
They are connected, though not every Jew by nationality is also Jew by faith.
But you have to look, for example, at our holidays to understand: Christianity, for example, celebrates the Birth of Jesus because he founded (well, for the argument) the religion. We celebrate the Birth/Escape of the Israelites, because they are part of our Nation, culturally. Abraham, in Judaism, is most recognized not for being the one who founded Judaism the religion - but the father of Israel.


Then your article gets at the Arabs saying that the Jews' claims of being said descendents are not true because most of them would have different roots in reality. This Arab idea is attacked in the article, but apparently not in substance (it is not directly contested that most Jews are not descendents of the ancient Jews) but in methods. The basic message seems to be that a Nation is defined by other things than ethnic coherence.
Now while that is certainly a valid subject to discuss (though equally certainly not a clear fact) it is also evading the Arabs' attack.

It is not evading the Arabs attack. It is a clear fact, for anyone who considers himself non-racist, that the elements of a National do not lie within a common ethnicity, but a common culture. And it does - in the rest of the book - discuss of the Arabs' ludicrous (Khazar) claims, though I didn't want to translate all that since it doesn't have any relevance. Jews do NOT claim they are direct descendants of the Hebrews, and they do NOT claim (as doesn't anyone else) that ethnicity is an essential part of a nationality. If ethnicity IS an essential part of a nationality - Jews would be between the last to be "attacked".

What the article and apparently (I'm still quite confused about that) also you in this thread say is that Judaism, not ethnicity, is what "Jews" have in common.
But that would only leave two conclusions:
1) Judaism is only a religion and thus Jews are comparable with Christians but not with for example French or Syrians
2) Judaism is more than a religion, it is also a Nationality.

How does it leave that conclusion?

Hebrews were a religious nation in ancient times, that dispersed through out the world.
In some stage in Europe they were reffered to as "Jews", but that's just semantics - and in that stage, they were already not direct descendants of Hebrews - and because Nationalism was not encouraged to be revived at that time, they were treated purely as a religion - since, apparently, that was the only thing binding them.

Apparently the whole point of this is claiming the second. If that is so I can understand the views brought forward here by different people that can't see it.
The idea of a nation is a rather new one, certainly much newer than the end of ancient Israel.

"Nationalism" is a new idea, but nations existed for a long time.
It's just semantics really.

For that reason it is quite pointless to claim to be a successor of an ancient nation, as there were none.

So what would you call the Hebrews? anceint "people"?
Same thing, new more conclusive definition:

5 plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group (Definitons of People in Webster)

BTW, nations are referred to in the bible. So to say "Nations" didn't exist is absurd.

5 a : a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state (Definition of Nationality in Webster)

The article however seems to get at something different in my view.
It adresses that the Arabs may not necessarily be wrong in saying that many of those who are Jews today are not direct descendents of ancient Israel, but that this doesn't matter because they have over time, by having taking the Jewish culture, been assimilated into the Jewish people and are thus as much in the position to follow ancient Israel as all the others.

It is much simpler than that. It doesn't matter if they are ethnical Hebrews or not, since that is NOT a requirement for a nation.

This is certainly a comprehensible way of defining a nationality, but the article's claim that it is the only correct one ("It is eminent that a communal ethnic descent is not a necessary component of a national identity.") is without base in my view.

It doesn't claim it's the only one - only that it's not an essential component (read what you quoted).

There is no objective definition of something as artificial as a nation. Nationality defined by ethnicity may be dangerous in certain circumstances, but that doesn't make it any less valid than any other definition.

What isn't valid is to say that ALL nations must require an ethnic component - and that is what the book targets - and, as I see, you aswell.
So far you are just agreeing with the book. It didn't say an ethnical-based nationality is wrong, it said that it is racist and incorrect to say all nations must require an ethnical component - and due to that - the criticism of the ethnicity of Jews doesn't relate to the validity of Jews as a nation.

The article's defition leaves me with a problem, though, related to my initial differentiation between Judaism and the Jewish people.
If being Jewish (and here we are at what I quoted again) is a matter of cultural, not ethnical, heritage, that raises the question where cultural heritage begins.
In other words, for how long and how much do you have to be "Jewish" to be a Jew?

That's a good question, and usually it is dominated by the nation itself or by the nation-state. It's more philosophical, though, than practical - since it doesn't effect the validity of Jews as a nation anymore than it effects the validity of French people as a nation.

Or from a different angle, if it is not about ethnicity that would leave the opportunity for me to become Jewish as much as there is a theoretical one to become American, French or Israeli . But as Judaism is, according to you, not just a religion a simple conversion won't do that for me. What would do it then?

That's a good question. I'll guess you have to integrate with the nation. It is possible, I guess - it happened a lot in Europe.

@Marla_Singer- religious piety, and "difficulty" in converting into a religion are not, nor ever have been the qualifacations for seperating a group of people from others

@IceBlaZe- we're NOT debateing the definition of Zionism, but rather if Judaism crosses the boundaries of a religion intoa nationality.subnationality, which it dosent, but rather seems to be a common miscoception

that said, the Zionistic movement dose not support that misconception at all

I can't understand your posts Xen.
Let's argue in a more organized way:
You'll list the reasons Jews can't have a national movement, and I'll debate them one by one. If they are at all valid.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Well, to return to the main topic, I'm only half jew... and the bad half since my father's family is jew and not my mother's. Actually, my father is from a russian family of jews who had fled to Morocco in 1917. At the Independance of Morocco in the 50's, my grand parents came from Casablanca to Paris with their son, my father.

My jewish family doesn't believe in God. They are pure atheist and my father before all. It wasn't an issue for my father to marry a non-jewish girl for example... (and my mum has a german mother !). I consider judaism as a religion but still as a closed religion. When it's easy to become muslim or christian, it's really hard to become jew... I still think that proves jews are also a people and not only believers. :)

Do you celebrate Hannukah and Passover?

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
I can't understand your posts Xen.
Let's argue in a more organized way:
You'll list the reasons Jews can't have a national movement, and I'll debate them one by one. If they are at all valid.

because "jews" arent a nationality,its a relgion,and its that simple.now, on the other hand, Isralis are a nationality- note that I said ISRALEIS, and that as a citizen of israle, you can be of any religion, not simply a practicioner of Judaism.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


Do you celebrate Hannukah and Passover?

wouldnt Yom Kippur, and Rosh Hashanah be more prudent in determining if that person is practicing the Hebrew faith?

I was asking her about Hannukah and Passover to make a different point. You want me to give you my User name password and that's it?

because "jews" arent a nationality,its a relgion,and its that simple.now, on the other hand, Isralis are a nationality- note that I said ISRALEIS, and that as a citizen of israle, you can be of any religion, not simply a practicioner of Judaism.

First, it would help if you knew how to argue. You can't prove your point just by saying "It's that simple".
Second, it would help if you payed more attention to all the typo's you are making - which turn your posts unreadable.

I dont care about my typos, never have, never will unless its for school work.

as for arguing, its time for YOU to learn how to support your own arguments- HOW then is the RELIGION of JUDAISM a NATIONALITY?

all things said, i dont think my point is wrong, or ways of arguing wrong either- but rather you just refuse to accept the fact that there is no connection between Judaism as a religion, and a nationality what so ever- after all, two of the brightest members of these forums, the bright aaminion00, and the wise Oda Nobunaga have voiced there weighted opinions- and see the same as I do.

I think the clouds of religious ferver, and over zealous national pride are clouding your veiw of things

all things said, i dont think my point is wrong, or ways of arguing wrong either- but rather you just refuse to accept the fact that there is no connection between Judaism as a religion

You failed to prove, base or explain why it is a fact.
I have supplied various information as to what a nationality is, and what doesn't prevent Judaism from being a nationality. You provided none.

, and a nationality what so ever- after all, two of the brightest members of these forums, the bright aaminion00, and the wise Oda Nobunaga have voiced there weighted opinions- and see the same as I do.

This is a serious logical fallacy. It's called argumentum ad verecundiam.
It's basically like saying "Because XXX is smart and he thinks like me, I am right".

I think the clouds of religious ferver, and over zealous national pride are clouding your veiw of things

I don't know what "ferver" is, but it probably doesn't apply to me since I am not religious at all.
"Over zealous national pride"? So since I am Israeli, I must be wrong?

HOW then is the RELIGION of JUDAISM a NATIONALITY?

2000 Years ago existed a group called the "Mocks". The "Mocks" were unique, they were originally a part of a certain tribe, but they thought the faith of that tribe in sculptures is fallacious, and so decided to establish their own faith. A faith in one god.
They decided they can't live with their faith inside that tribe, and they wanted to define themselves - so they walked away from that tribe and established their own Kingdom far away.
The Kingdom only had "Mocks" of the same faith in it, and so the religion and the nationality of the mocks intertwined.
The "Mocks" had a culture that inherits itself from their faith, and it built itself to become a seperate unit from their faith.
Still, the faith and nationality are intertwined - in the holidays of their faith, they actually celebrate their nationality and independence.
A big evil empire conquered the land of the "Mocks" and dispersed them through the planet. No longer a unified nation, forbid to establish any Kingdom, the only thing that apparently kept them connected is their exact same faith - but they also, all, aspired to return to their ancient Kingdom.
The years passed and passed until, due to recent events and the increased development of a movement called "Nationalism", a group that is the cultural continuation of the "Mocks" decided it's time to re-establish a Kingdom for their nation, based on the culture and heritage of the "Mocks". The leaders that decided that were almost all non-religious.
So, today, "Mockkingness" to that movement is a religion, or a Nationality?
Can you be a "Mock" only by nationality, and not by faith? Can you be a "Mock" both by nationality and faith? Can you be a "Mock" only by faith?

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


You failed to prove, base or explain why it is a fact.
I have supplied various information as to what a nationality is, and what doesn't prevent Judaism from being a nationality. You provided none. but havent I- look, its a very easy thing to grasp- a religion is a PERSONAL belife in what migh tbe a highr power, a god, many gods, no god, what ever, a NATIONALITY is a membership in a NATION- a nation being an indipendent, self governenig peice of land- NOT a religion




Originally posted by IceBlaZe

This is a serious logical fallacy. It's called argumentum ad verecundiam.
It's basically like saying "Because XXX is smart and he thinks like me, I am right". I suppose you havent seen our arguments, but simpley put, me and Oda dont see eye to eye on a great deal of subjects- bu tthat dosent matter- what dose matter, is that my own reasonings, and surmizings seem to make more sense then any others- perhaps because they have more thought- and more fact put behind them then any others here


Originally posted by IceBlaZe

I don't know what "ferver" is, but it probably doesn't apply to me since I am not religious at all.
"Over zealous national pride"? So since I am Israeli, I must be wrong? yes- it seesm to be clouding your judgment, and the perception of the facts- look a G-man, he by seems to have a better grasp of the subject then you do

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


2000 Years ago existed a group called the "Mocks". The "Mocks" were unique, they were originally a part of a certain tribe, but they thought the faith of that tribe in sculptures is fallacious, and so decided to establish their own faith. A faith in one god.
They decided they can't live with their faith inside that tribe, and they wanted to define themselves - so they walked away from that tribe and established their own Kingdom far away.
The Kingdom only had "Mocks" of the same faith in it, and so the religion and the nationality of the mocks intertwined.
The "Mocks" had a culture that inherits itself from their faith, and it built itself to become a seperate unit from their faith.
Still, the faith and nationality are intertwined - in the holidays of their faith, they actually celebrate their nationality and independence.
A big evil empire conquered the land of the "Mocks" and dispersed them through the planet. No longer a unified nation, forbid to establish any Kingdom, the only thing that apparently kept them connected is their exact same faith - but they also, all, aspired to return to their ancient Kingdom.
The years passed and passed until, due to recent events and the increased development of a movement called "Nationalism", a group that is the cultural continuation of the "Mocks" decided it's time to re-establish a Kingdom for their nation, based on the culture and heritage of the "Mocks". The leaders that decided that were almost all non-religious.
So, today, "Mockkingness" to that movement is a religion, or a Nationality?
Can you be a "Mock" only by nationality, and not by faith? Can you be a "Mock" both by nationality and faith? Can you be a "Mock" only by faith?

bu there is the problem they CANNOT RE-ESTABLISH ANYTHING! The nation of the "mocks" ceased to exist as soon as your "evil" empire came, and conqoured the land

as for spreading around the planet- your trying to connectit with the jewish Diaspora, but simple fact is, most modern Jews have no linkage what so ever to ancient Israle other then being of the same religion- and, as said before, a religion is a belife- in essence a common thought shared by many of the nature of the divine things in the universe- a religion is NOT a self governing peice of land- which happens to be the requirement to call somthing a nation, and a nation is needed to call somthing a nationality

Originally posted by IceBlaZe (but also in reply to G-Man)
You have the Jewish nationality, and the Jewish faith.
They are connected, though not every Jew by nationality is also Jew by faith.
Okay, let's try to get to the basic points.

I think there a basically two issues here, one is of content and the other is of semantic nature, basically of what you call the first.

I'd call the ancient Hebrews a civilization or indeed a people, not a nation. I'd also not call the Roman Empire a nation, but rather a civilization or, well simply, an empire. But this is just about semantics and rather neglectable when it comes to the real issue(s) of this thread.

From what you said I try to sum up what you seem to mean and please say if you meant something different:

1. There is a religion called Judaism, a Jewish religion
2. There is a Jewish nationality
3. There is Zionism, Jewish nationalism, which apparently isn't a nationality itself but the movement to press for a Jewish one
4. There is modern Israel, which offers the Israeli citizenship, but considering 2 and 3 there is no Israeli nationality, some Israelis may be of Jewish nationality, others aren't
5. Still Israel is a nation
It is not evading the Arabs attack. It is a clear fact, for anyone who considers himself non-racist, that the elements of a National do not lie within a common ethnicity
So far you are just agreeing with the book. It didn't say an ethnical-based nationality is wrong, it said that it is racist and incorrect to say all nations must require an ethnical component - and due to that - the criticism of the ethnicity of Jews doesn't relate to the validity of Jews as a nation.

Here you don't understand my point. I do not agree with the book in this regard. I do think that a definition of a nationality (all nationalities!) that bases them on ethnic coherence is as valid or invalid as any other.
I do consider the whole idea of nationality and Nationalism to be a stupid and illogical one, and thus on the same level as Racism.

Someone says only everyone who belongs to the same ethnic group belongs to the same nation. Automatically that raises the question of at which point in human history you make the division, and as there is no logical solution to that the whole idea is useless.

But, now we're more directly at the topic again, I find the definition given for the Jewish nation equally useless.

The only definition I can somehow agree with is the American one, that basically citizenship and nationality are the same, which of course means that nationality is not really of any further use.

The Jewish nationality defined as a common link of culture is also illogical and simply not coherently defined, basically for the question(s) I raised in my last post.
If Jewish nationality is not just inherited (so based on ethnicity), there has to be the possibility for someone to become Jewish.
You replied to that:
That's a good question, and usually it is dominated by the nation itself or by the nation-state. It's more philosophical, though, than practical - since it doesn't effect the validity of Jews as a nation anymore than it effects the validity of French people as a nation.

It doesn't effect the validity of a nation in the American sense given above (though the respective nationality will then be Israeli and not Jewish), it certainly does effect the validity (in logical terms) of the definition of the Jewish nationality.

And here philosophy is rapidly crossing into politics. After all it is, in Zionist terms, the Jewish nationality that gives those that are part of it the rightful claim to live in the land of ancient Israel.

Consequently thought out that would mean that if I would eventually somehow sometime join the Jewish nationality I would also have a rightful claim on living in a place that I have at this moment no personal connection to at all. And the question still stands at which point and through what I can join it, a question that has no clear answer.

I find this idea very illogical and inconsequent, which I why I consider such a definition as equally useless as a (probably racist) ethnic one.

And yes, I am aware of the problem of justification that this raises for the whole idea of a modern Jewish state in the Middle East. But it is nothing new to me that I have my problems with the Zionist reasoning (or what they percieve as such), which still doesn't make me denying the right to existance of the state of Israel in 2003. That is important to note, as it is a clear difference to the article's view.

Originally posted by Hitro

Okay, let's try to get to the basic points.

I think there a basically two issues here, one is of content and the other is of semantic nature, basically of what you call the first.

I'd call the ancient Hebrews a civilization or indeed a people, not a nation. I'd also not call the Roman Empire a nation, but rather a civilization or, well simply, an empire. But this is just about semantics and rather neglectable when it comes to the real issue(s) of this thread.

From what you said I try to sum up what you seem to mean and please say if you meant something different:

1. There is a religion called Judaism, a Jewish religion
2. There is a Jewish nationality
3. There is Zionism, Jewish nationalism, which apparently isn't a nationality itself but the movement to press for a Jewish one
4. There is modern Israel, which offers the Israeli citizenship, but considering 2 and 3 there is no Israeli nationality, some Israelis may be of Jewish nationality, others aren't
5. Still Israel is a nation


but this is where you are wrong- there was never a "jewish" nationality- ther was an "Isralite" nationality, and a "Judaean" nationality- but never a "Jewish" nationality, as you cannot make a belife into a nationality

@Hitro-as a side note, by definiton, Rome was anation

Originally posted by Xen
but this is where you are wrong- there was never a "jewish" nationality- ther was an "Isralite" nationality, and a "Judaean" nationality- but never a "Jewish" nationality, as you cannot make a belife into a nationality
First of all, if someone is wrong, it is IceBlaZe, as this was, as I stated, meant to sum up his points.

If he is wrong is another matter though, I think he has a point in saying that there is a modern Jewish nationality, what I question is the validity or rather the logic of its definition.

And just to comment your sidenote (spammer! ;) ), how and when and by whom was Rome defined as a nation?
Still as I said I consider this a completely minor issue, don't let us go into it but when I say nation I mean it in the modern sense.

Originally posted by Xen
@Hitro-as a side note, by definiton, Rome was anation
Just to comment a little further on this to make clear what I mean.

There is a difference in the modern and ancient meaning of nation. The latin word "natio" means "people" or "tribe", in German also the word "Volk" (here comes the problem on my part, as "Volk" and "Nation" are not necessarily the same thing in modern terms). Thus an ancient nation is just a people, it is exactly the kind of ethnic definition that is different from most modern definitions of a nation.

Nation (noun)
plural: na-tions;
defined as-
community with its own territory and government

as you can see, Rome fully fits the description of a nation- while the religion of Judaism dose NOT

Originally posted by Xen
Nation (noun)
plural: na-tions;
defined as-
community with its own territory and government

as you can see, Rome fully fits the description of a nation- while the religion of Judaism dose NOT
As for Rome, yes it does, the confusion on my part is connected to different words being used in German where apparently the same is used in English.
Doesn't change the fact that an ancient nation and a modern nation are different concepts, at least for most.

As for the Jews, dictionary.com gives also this definition of a nation:
3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity”

That fits the Zionist idea of a Jewish nation.

but in a geo-political reality, the 3rd dictionary.com definiton is voided- it cannot be applied in a real world national situation

Originally posted by Xen
but in a geo-political reality, the 3rd dictionary.com definiton is voided- it cannot be applied in a real world national situation
They did that quite persistanly since 1948, didn't they? ;)

When it comes to if that makes sense or not I also think it doesn't, as described above. But as I also said I think the same about pretty much all substantial definitions of nationalities.

but they cant any longer- now both christians, and Muslims, if not a few Atheits as well live in israle- it is now impossible to claim it

Err, no. You don't get the point. The Jewish nationality as they claim it is not the same as Judaism as a religion.

Originally posted by Xen
but havent I- look, its a very easy thing to grasp- a religion is a PERSONAL belife in what migh tbe a highr power, a god, many gods, no god, what ever, a NATIONALITY is a membership in a NATION- a nation being an indipendent, self governenig peice of land- NOT a religion

:lol:
Do you know what a "nation" is? It certainly isn't limited to a self governing piece of land. It's no wonder you are "winning" arguments - you are simply twisting/redefining the meaning of the words. :crazyeye:



I suppose you havent seen our arguments, but simpley put, me and Oda dont see eye to eye on a great deal of subjects- bu tthat dosent matter- what dose matter, is that my own reasonings, and surmizings seem to make more sense then any others- perhaps because they have more thought- and more fact put behind them then any others here

This is hilarious. Regardless of the fact that what you said now has nothing to do with what you replied to, I haven't seen one fact of yours here yet. All I see is you twisting the meaning of words to suit your own arguments.

yes- it seesm to be clouding your judgment, and the perception of the facts- look a G-man, he by seems to have a better grasp of the subject then you do

Well, thanks. Me and G-Man do have a lot of disagreements, but actually I think on this issue we think exactly the same. But, again, I see no point in your reference to G-Man. To me it actually looks like an insult, and a pointless troll. I do not see how it promotes your argument.

EDITED

dont be a dildo IceBlaZe, my [b]DEFINITION[/i] of a nation came DIRECT< AND WORD FOR WORD FROM THE FRANKLIN DICTIONARY- IT IS EXACT

dont even try to dis-merit my posts with your slander- it wont work.

Originally posted by Xen
dont be a dildo IceBlaZe, my DEFINITION of a nation came DIRECT< AND WORD FOR WORD FROM THE FRANKLIN DICTIONARY- IT IS EXACT

dont even try to dis-merit my posts with your slander- it wont work.
I showed you that your definition is not the only one, it is therefore not exact.

And as there is no logic in Nationalism you won't be able to prove yours is the only right one. In other words, your point is false this way.

Originally posted by Xen


bu there is the problem they CANNOT RE-ESTABLISH ANYTHING! The nation of the "mocks" ceased to exist as soon as your "evil" empire came, and conqoured the land

Do you think bolding and enlarging the text make it any more to the point?
A "nation" doesn't cease to exist. What you refer to as a state - and indeed - Zionism (Jewish Nationalism) makes no attempt to exactly recreate the old Hebrew state.
I suggest you find out what a "nation" is, before this inanity of an argument continues any further.

as for spreading around the planet- your trying to connectit with the jewish Diaspora, but simple fact is, most modern Jews have no linkage what so ever to ancient Israle other then being of the same religion-

I made it very clear that the connection I reffer to is cultural and quasi-Historical, meaning not History in the true sense of the word, but rather a common mythical History, such as the one of the French regarding the Gaels.

and, as said before, a religion is a belife- in essence a common thought shared by many of the nature of the divine things in the universe- a religion is NOT a self governing peice of land- which happens to be the requirement to call somthing a nation, and a nation is needed to call somthing a nationality

So, if the French nation is prevented from having a self governing strip of land, like during certain wars, it ceases to exist?
Better tell that to the French then. And the Polish. And various other Nations that had times in History being occupied, destroyed, in diaspora etc.
Apparently they have all been living a lie. :lol:
This is indeed an inane argument... It's like trying to prove Apples grow on trees to someone who thinks they are tomatoes.

it IS exact- given what we are talking about- if Juadiasm can be considern a nationality TODAY, in the MODERN sense of the word, it is completly exact

The last post of you seems very unclear to me.
So you agree Judaism can be a national?

Originally posted by Xen
it IS exact- given what we are talking about- if Juadiasm can be considern a nationality TODAY, in the MODERN sense of the word, it is completly exact
Obviously not. If we can consider a Jewish nationality today, which is not the same as the religion Judaism, this nationality obviously doesn't fit the one definition you gave, thus making it not exact.
And I am pretty sure your dictionary also includes the other definitions, otherwise it would be pretty incomplete. You just decided on selective quoting for the sake of fueling your argument that doesn't hold under consequent discussion.

One of the confusing things about Judaism is it's (racist, can be said) exclusivity.
For example, for many Jews, you can't become Jewish.

However, the fact that Judaism was perceived to be something of a national in ancient times can perhaps be seen in the fact that for Jews, a Jew turned Christian/Muslim/Buddhist is still a Jew, even if not by faith.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


Do you think bolding and enlarging the text make it any more to the point?
Its to make sure that you dont miss my point

Originally posted by IceBlaZe

A "nation" doesn't cease to exist. What you refer to as a state - and indeed - Zionism (Jewish Nationalism) makes no attempt to exactly recreate the old Hebrew state.

but your using the old hebrew state as the justifacation for your modern day activities, which is almost the same

Originally posted by IceBlaZe

I suggest you find out what a "nation" is, before this inanity of an argument continues any further.

Nation


A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
The government of a sovereign state.
A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nation

state

adj.
Of or relating to a body politic or to an internally autonomous territorial or political unit constituting a federation under one government: a monarch dealing with state matters; the department that handles state security.
Owned and operated by a state: state universities

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=state
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
as you can see, it my definition of nation that is correct.


Originally posted by IceBlaZe

I made it very clear that the connection I reffer to is cultural and quasi-Historical, meaning not History in the true sense of the word, but rather a common mythical History, such as the one of the French regarding the Gaels.
the connection your making is not as disting as culture- although religion is a facet of culture, ans culture a facet of what makes a national identity, the two to not directley connect with each other


Originally posted by IceBlaZe

So, if the French nation is prevented from having a self governing strip of land, like during certain wars, it ceases to exist? yes

Originally posted by IceBlaZe

Better tell that to the French then. And the Polish. And various other Nations that had times in History being occupied, destroyed, in diaspora etc.[/ occupation[/i[ is differnt from [i]conquest in the reagard that an occupation is usually only a short term holding of land- a conquest is the long term holding of defeated territory

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IceBlaZe

Apparently they have all been living a lie. :lol:
have they? France was only occupied by germany for a very short time- the land of Israle was conqoured by several empires for centuries

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
One of the confusing things about Judaism is it's (racist, can be said) exclusivity.
For example, for many Jews, you can't become Jewish.

However, the fact that Judaism was perceived to be something of a national in ancient times can perhaps be seen in the fact that for Jews, a Jew turned Christian/Muslim/Buddhist is still a Jew, even if not by faith.
Which would make it the ethnic nationality you denied it to be earlier. Which would also give the Arabs (of the article) some credit as certainly not everyone considered to be Jewish today is a descendent of the ancient Jews, and thus still not a Jew.

Originally posted by Xen
Nation


A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
The government of a sovereign state.
A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nation

state

adj.
Of or relating to a body politic or to an internally autonomous territorial or political unit constituting a federation under one government: a monarch dealing with state matters; the department that handles state security.
Owned and operated by a state: state universities

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=state
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
as you can see, it my definition of nation that is correct.

:confused:
You just gave the different definitions, showing that yours is not the only one and still claim it to be correct? Why?

A nation and a state are, as you can see in your own quote, not the same.
have they? France was only occupied by germany for a very short time- the land of Israle was conqoured by several empires for centuries
Poland was wiped off the maps for decades. The Soviet Union consumed many nations for many decades too. They all resurfaced. That's certainly not along your lines of definition.

Originally posted by Hitro

Obviously not. If we can consider a Jewish nationality today, which is not the same as the religion Judaism, this nationality obviously doesn't fit the one definition you gave, thus making it not exact.
And I am pretty sure your dictionary also includes the other definitions, otherwise it would be pretty incomplete. You just decided on selective quoting for the sake of fueling your argument that doesn't hold under consequent discussion.

what you dont seem to understand is the most moder Jew [b]DO NOT[/s] common origins, or history- some are of the Diasopatic Jews, forced out of Israle- some are of the Khazar khante, who converted to Judaism in the middle ages, some are of the Russio-Slavoc stock from kingdoms in modern russia, Poland the Ukrain, and other nations in that area who followed the Khazar example- since they do not share these things, it cannot be said that modern praticioner so fthe jewish faith are of a "religious-nationality"- modern Israle is to modern a state to even concider it- even most US citizens still regard there ancestial origns as a prim distictive mark seperateing ourselves from one another, and the US has been around over 200 years...

this means that the ONLY definition that can be used is the one I gave

Originally posted by Xen

Its to make sure that you dont miss my point

I wouldn't miss it if there was any...



but your using the old hebrew state as the justifacation for your modern day activities, which is almost the same

No, the existence of the old Hebrew state provides cultural connection to the land.



Nation


A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
The government of a sovereign state.
A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nation

Firstly, I suggest you use a higher quality dictionary: www.m-w.com
Secondly, notice what I bolded. It fits Jewish Nationalism verbatim.

as you can see, it my definition of nation that is correct.

The definition of the dictionary is "correct", though could be broader. But that's not your definition. You are systematically discarding parts in the definition.


the connection your making is not as disting as culture- although religion is a facet of culture, ans culture a facet of what makes a national identity, the two to not directley connect with each other

This makes no sense to me.


yes

If so, you are contradicting your beloved dictionary. Do you want that to happen?

have they? France was only occupied by germany for a very short time- the land of Israle was conqoured by several empires for centuries

Again, you are fighting the wind. Look - I'm here, and this wasn't my argument.

Originally posted by Hitro

:confused:
You just gave the different definitions, showing that yours is not the only one and still claim it to be correct? Why?
I'm just lacking a way to organize my thoughts at the moment, but when I do, you'll see why I'm sticking to my guns


Originally posted by Hitro

A nation and a state are, as you can see in your own quote, not the same. right- I needed to make sure Icebalze knows this

Originally posted by Hitro

Poland was wiped off the maps for decades. The Soviet Union consumed many nations for many decades too. They all resurfaced. That's certainly not along your lines of definition.

Poland nationality was quite intact during those times- as it was kept on as a sub-nation of those empires- instead of the nation losing sovereinity, it was only controlled by a differnt monarchy

Originally posted by Xen
what you dont seem to understand is the most moder Jew DO NOT common origins, or history- some are of the Diasopatic Jews, forced out of Israle- some are of the Khazar khante, who converted to Judaism in the middle ages, some are of the Russio-Slavoc stock from kingdoms in modern russia, Poland the Ukrain, and other nations in that area who followed the Khazar example- since they do not share these things, it cannot be said that modern praticioner so fthe jewish faith are of a "religious-nationality"- modern Israle is to modern a state to even concider it- even most US citizens still regard there ancestial origns as a prim distictive mark seperateing ourselves from one another, and the US has been around over 200 years...
I do understand that very well, what you don't understand is that what they claim to be their common origin is not necessarily a common ethnic origin, but rather a common cultural origin, and that one they certainly have.

And while many US citizens know their ethnic ancestry pretty much all of them consider themselves to be (US-)Americans of nationality and not English/German/Irish/whatever.

pointless

Originally posted by Xen
Poland nationality was quite intact during those times- as it was kept on as a sub-nation of those empires- instead of the nation losing sovereinity, it was only controlled by a differnt monarchy
Of course it was. But you said if a nation, like France, would be wiped off the map it would cease to exist, which is not the case, which you seem to know but not to realize.

Originally posted by Hitro

I do understand that very well, what you don't understand is that what they claim to be their common origin is not necessarily a common ethnic origin, but rather a common cultural origin, and that one they certainly have.

but istn a common ethnic origin the exact justifacation needed for all this- and thus lacking one, the entire issue is mute?

Originally posted by Xen
but istn a common ethnic origin the exact justifacation needed for all this- and thus lacking one, the entire issue is mute?
IceBlaZe and the article would call that a racist idea.

but istn a common ethnic origin the exact justifacation needed for all this

Says who?

Originally posted by Hitro

IceBlaZe and the article would call that a racist idea.

but isnt that definiton of Zionism- that said, needing a common ethinic heritage a racist one?

that said, iceblaze didnt say that, and if I implied it, I didnt mean to- I dislike rascim in all its form- which is just one of the reasons I'm so ardent in trying to proove this current defintion of the justifacation for a "jewish" nationality "wrong'

How is that the definition of Zionism?

Originally posted by Xen
but isnt that definiton of Zionism- that said, needing a common ethinic heritage a racist one?

that said, iceblaze didnt say that, and if I implied it, I didnt mean to- I dislike rascim in all its form- which is just one of the reasons I'm so ardent in trying to proove this current defintion of the justifacation for a "jewish" nationality "wrong'
I'm also questioning the article in this sense. I do think that Zionism very much focuses on the ethnic heritage of the Jewish people. IceBlaZe has so far not clearly said what he thinks about it.

I dont think it is exactley, but rather a misconception associated with it

EDIT- this was at the iceblaze comment right before Hitros post

The article says Zionism is not about an ethnical connection. The dictionary says Zionism is not about an ethnical connection. Britannica says Zionism is not about an ethnical connection.

I don't see where the argument is. :confused:

I, of course, think it's not about an ethnical connection. That would be preposterous..

i fthere is not an ethnical connection, then how can one argue it is a nationalty- all the definitoos staste it as a requirement for a nationality- thus with out it, there is no case for it(the nationality of "jewishness")

i fthere is not an ethnical connection, then how can one argue it is a nationalty- all the definitoos staste it as a requirement for a nationality- thus with out it, there is no case for it(the nationality of "jewishness")

It's not a "requirement" for a nationality.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nationality

5 a : a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state b : an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit (as a nation )

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
The article says Zionism is not about an ethnical connection. The dictionary says Zionism is not about an ethnical connection. Britannica says Zionism is not about an ethnical connection.

I don't see where the argument is. :confused:

I, of course, think it's not about an ethnical connection. That would be preposterous..
The article says so, of course. But that could well be, as said in my first post and never really adressed, an evasive maneuver if you consider that the Arabs are probably right about questioning today's Jews complete ethnic Jewish heritage.

And Zionism often doesn't seem to be non-ethnically oriented, as you also reflected but didn't further comment:
One of the confusing things about Judaism is it's (racist, can be said) exclusivity.
For example, for many Jews, you can't become Jewish.

However, the fact that Judaism was perceived to be something of a national in ancient times can perhaps be seen in the fact that for Jews, a Jew turned Christian/Muslim/Buddhist is still a Jew, even if not by faith.
That's the reality I know about as well. And if that's not based on ethnicity I don't know...

I think, as said in my second long post, that any kind of nationality definition of cultural or ethnic kind can be attacked with logic and consequence, and so can Zionism. The problem that arises is, as said, a possibly questionable justification for the state of Israel, but, as also said, that doesn't have to be the case.

"Origin" is very broad, Xen. Mostly the accepted use of it is a mythical History Origin and not a direct ethnic origin.
See, for example, the French and the Gaels.

bu tlook a the "B" definition- it says "b : an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit (as a nation )" its just as valid as the "A" definiton in this topic

Geez. "Just as valid" but not replacing it.

right- it dosent replace, but rather adds onto the fuirst definition- either way, it still rules out "jewishness" as a nationality...

It doesn't add. It's instead of it. Both "a" and "b" are valid definitions.

Enter the word "Sound" in the dictionary, for example, and see.

Xen, haven't we discussed that already? :confused:

Boldface lowercase letters separate the subsenses of a word:

[1]grand . . . adj . . . 5 a : LAVISH, SUMPTUOUS . . . b : marked by a regal form and dignity c : fine or imposing in appearance or impression d : LOFTY, SUBLIME

Lightface numerals


http://www.m-w.com/def.htm

Originally posted by Hitro
Xen, haven't we discussed that already? :confused:

well yes, but using skightlly differnt definitions...

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Boldface lowercase letters separate the subsenses of a word:

[1]grand . . . adj . . . 5 a : LAVISH, SUMPTUOUS . . . b : marked by a regal form and dignity c : fine or imposing in appearance or impression d : LOFTY, SUBLIME

Lightface numerals


http://www.m-w.com/def.htm

and what exactley dose this have to do with the thread (and the link dosent work for me, might just be my PC though, its been acting iffy for a while)

Well, let's just recount this for the sake of ending it:

There are different definitions of what a nation is.

Those definitions are seperate and not necessarily extensions of one another.

Neither of the definitions can be considered the correct one, as there is no logical measurement for that.

The remaining question is which of those definitions the Jewish nationality really links to.

You're giving me a real headache Xen.
You said that the meanings seperated by bolded letters in the dictionary should be added, I said they shouldn't and provided the exact description of what the seperation by bolded letters means as written by those who CONSTRUCTED THE DICTIONARY.
That is what it has to do with the thread.
Yikes.

As you are already at throwing around dictionary quotes, I put in "Jew" into Ice's favourite one:

1 a : a member of the tribe of Judah b : ISRAELITE
2 : a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the 6th century B.C. to the 1st century A.D.
3 : a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
4 : one whose religion is Judaism

Take a look at 3, it says descent or conversion, which is in accordance with the article's view, but which is under logical examination a very unclear thing. Conversion in the religious sense? Where's the difference to the religion then? Conversion in another sense? How does that work?

I think the dictionaries only look at the Religious part of that since Jewish Nationalism is Zionism and not Judaism, which is the Jewish religion.

I disagree, the 3rd part reflects what we talk about here.

My point still is that it is, as all the other definitions of nationalities, except for simple citizenship one, not resistent to logical examination.

Originally posted by Hitro
As you are already at throwing around dictionary quotes, I put in "Jew" into Ice's favourite one:

1 a : a member of the tribe of Judah b : ISRAELITE
2 : a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the 6th century B.C. to the 1st century A.D.
3 : a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
4 : one whose religion is Judaism

Take a look at 3, it says descent or conversion, which is in accordance with the article's view, but which is under logical examination a very unclear thing. Conversion in the religious sense? Where's the difference to the religion then? Conversion in another sense? How does that work?

is this inserting into the merriam-Webster dictionay definition of Nationality, or nationalism? as if it is, i have to say I disagree with the inserts

Originally posted by Xen
is this inserting into the merriam-Webster dictionay definition of Nationality, or nationalism? as if it is, i have to say I disagree with the inserts
:confused:

I inserted "Jew" into the M-W dictionary. That has nothing to do with either nationality or Nationalism.

@Hitro-ohhhh... okay, I see now, it wasnt clear from how you posted what that was the definition of to me...

Going back to Hitros explanation of the two meanings of "nation", this is how I see it.

In the modern use of the word "Nation", "Israeli" is a type of national identification. However nationality doesnt necessarily specify ethnicity. A perfect example is "American". Being an "American" is a sense of nationality, not a sense of ethnicity. Italian, is a sense of ethnicity, and thus one of Italian roots living in America is an "Italian American"; a person of Italian ethnicity and American nationality. The thing about America is that the people have mixed so much that any real sense of ethnicity is hardly present. Thus, Nationality is the only important thing here, whereas ethnicity is secondary and often irrelevent; a sharp contrast to many other parts of the world.

The thing about Jews, is that they had always represented 2 things. On one hand there were "Jews", a people who lived in the Jewish state in the ancient Middle East, who spoke the same language and had the same customs. This is what made them an ethnicity... their same origins and traditions they had from the beginning. They were of course connected to a religion, Judaism. Unlike Christianity and Islam, (and correct me if I'm wrong) Judaism doesn't preach that the whole world needs to be converted. Rather, one is free to do so as they wish. However the Israelites were the chosen people as they were the ones who recieved the religion and to whom Moses delivered the message of god, etc. etc. This is where the other meaning of "Jew" comes from. The religious meaning, of someone who follows Judaism. Since in ancient times this was pretty much just the Israelites, the two basically meant the same thing.

After the diaspora, Jews (ethnicity) came in contact with many other peoples. They of course usually kept to their own ways, but some mixing with the local populaces was sure to occur. Much more importantly however were the various people that converted to Judaism. Judaism was present among the Berbers, Khazars, Arabs, and various other ethnicities who spoke different languages, originated elsewhere, and lived in different countries (Hell, the largest Jewish state in history was in Central Asia). These people considered themselves Jews in the religious sense. Since "Jewishness" in the sense of ethnicity was so connected to "Jewishness" as a religion, the new people assimilated many of the Jewish ethnic customs. This is where some of the confusion begins. Because these ethnic customs that had become part of the Jewish religion were now shared by all Jews regardless of ethnic origins, the only thing that the Jews (ethnicity) had different from those who converted from elsewhere were their roots in the ancient nations of Judah and Israel. Since these nations were long gone, the ethnic Jews and religious Jews were basically interchangable.

Along comes Zionism, which greatly intensifies in the post World War II. Zionists demand a Jewish nation because apparently if one isn't created, Jews will all be killed within a few decades :rolleyes:. So the British decide to get rid of the Jews without gassing them by creating Israel. Why did Jews feel a connection to Jerusalem and their ancient state, even when ethnically many were far different from it? I'd point to the tremendous influence that ancient Israel and the ethnicity within it had on Judaism as a religion. After all, it was a religion given to the Israelites, and it was they who wrote it down and preserved it for hundreds of years. It would be natural for Jews (religion) to feel a connection to the ancient homeland where their faith arose and many of their customs started.

So what is the situation now?

Do the modern Israelis have a nationality? Of course they do. A nationality is based on having a state, and as there currently is an Israeli state, there is also an Israeli ethnicity. Do they have a religion? Well actually yes, because once again like in history, the state is connected to the religion. Israel was created to be a homeland for Jews, so the religion of Israelis (nationality) is Judaism. So called "Palestinian Israelis" are basically aliens in a country of a foreign religion.

But the key question is do the Israelis have an ethnicity? I guess this largely depends on how you look at ethnicity. Modern Israelis all, by virtue of Judaism, have a strong connection to the Ancient Jewish state. As far as I know, in bar mitzvahs (sorry if I spelled it wrong), you read Hebrew, not Arabic or Khazar.

But if you look at ethnicity as a matter of blood and ancestors, then you can't really say that modern "Israelis" or Jews in general are ethnically the same as the inhabitants of ancient Israel. People have mixed (especially in last 2 centuries) and many other ethnicities have had people convert to Judaism. The modern state of Israel is based on an ancient ethnicity, but built for a religion, because if it was limited only to those who were strongly related by blood to the ancient Israelites, well, there wouldn't be that many "Israelis" arround. Are today's Israelis "Jewish" by ethnicity? Perhaps, but they certainly aren't the same Jews (in the ethnic sense) that lived in the area between Egypt and Mesopotamia 3000 years ago.

aaminion00 - you've understood the part of having to meanings for the same term, but the meanings of judaism are not of religion and ethnicity, but rather of a religion and a nationality.

Originally posted by Hitro

Okay, let's try to get to the basic points.

I think there a basically two issues here, one is of content and the other is of semantic nature, basically of what you call the first.

I'd call the ancient Hebrews a civilization or indeed a people, not a nation. I'd also not call the Roman Empire a nation, but rather a civilization or, well simply, an empire. But this is just about semantics and rather neglectable when it comes to the real issue(s) of this thread.

From what you said I try to sum up what you seem to mean and please say if you meant something different:

1. There is a religion called Judaism, a Jewish religion
2. There is a Jewish nationality
3. There is Zionism, Jewish nationalism, which apparently isn't a nationality itself but the movement to press for a Jewish one
4. There is modern Israel, which offers the Israeli citizenship, but considering 2 and 3 there is no Israeli nationality, some Israelis may be of Jewish nationality, others aren't
5. Still Israel is a nation


1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Zionism isn't a movement to press for a jewish nationality. It was based on the idea that the jewish nationality already exists, and called for the establishment of a country for that nationality.
4. Yes
5. Israel is a nation as in a "country"


Originally posted by Hitro
Here you don't understand my point. I do not agree with the book in this regard. I do think that a definition of a nationality (all nationalities!) that bases them on ethnic coherence is as valid or invalid as any other.
I do consider the whole idea of nationality and Nationalism to be a stupid and illogical one, and thus on the same level as Racism.

Someone says only everyone who belongs to the same ethnic group belongs to the same nation. Automatically that raises the question of at which point in human history you make the division, and as there is no logical solution to that the whole idea is useless.

But, now we're more directly at the topic again, I find the definition given for the Jewish nation equally useless.

Perhaps nationality is an illogical idea, but people psychologically need to be a part of a group.


Originally posted by Hitro
The only definition I can somehow agree with is the American one, that basically citizenship and nationality are the same, which of course means that nationality is not really of any further use.

I don't think this can be said about the American naionality. Would an American withouth a citizenship stop being an American?

Originally posted by G-Man
aaminion00 - you've understood the part of having to meanings for the same term, but the meanings of judaism are not of religion and ethnicity, but rather of a religion and a nationality.

but ethnicity is a definition of nationality...

also, that said, I agree with what has been said by aaminion00, a man far more eloquent in his words then I, he is able to express himself much better

Originally posted by Xen


but ethnicity is a definition of nationality...

It is a definition of nationality, but not the one which applies regarding the jewish people - atleast not in the sense which he was talking about which is of an ethnical connection from the start of judaism to today.

Originally posted by Xen
(note that I am now a Roman Polytheist)

No longer Greco-Roman?

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin


No longer Greco-Roman?

yeah, I still am, only differnce is I was to lazy to type it all out at that moment :p