Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!boulder!qso.Colorado.EDU!perlman
From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Israel: An Apartheid state.
Message-ID: <1993May10.210603.17797@colorado.edu>
Sender: news@colorado.edu (The Daily Planet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: qso.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <1slo0e$ag7@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <1993May10.162032.3955@colorado.edu> <1sm3h7$qek@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 21:06:03 GMT
Lines: 288

In article <1sm3h7$qek@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>In article <1993May10.162032.3955@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>In article <1slo0e$ag7@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>>>
>>>I do not want to convince anyone. This is just USENET, not the real
>>>world. I just read the opinions others have about a subject, and sometimes
>>>I present my opinion. I think that this net is only useful to exchange
>>>ideas. I never wanted nor I want now to convince anyone of anything.
>>
>>Fine.  Now if your opinion isn't convincing anyone, and it's getting
>>refuted regularly by the facts (which is the case), isn't it likely that
>>your opinions need some revision?
>
>As I said, I do not want to convice anyone, so, why should my opinions
>convince anyone?
>I do not believe that my opinions are refuted by facts.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the arguments levelled against
them. They have been, over and over again.  They will be again.

>>>First, and I repeat it, I never said that the idea of Jews having the
>>>right to have a State is racist.
>>>Zionism, as a movement, is more than just that idea.
>>
>>In a word:  utter and complete horse puckey.  Look the term up in the
>>dictionary.
>
>Maybe youy view of a dictionary is the problem here. One thing is the
>accepted meaning of a word by a dictionary, and sometimes a completely
>different thing is what that word came to mean after a long time.

Hey, what do you think dictionaries are for?  You quite obviously need
one.  A good dictionary gives both, and you well know it.

>>> I think that Zionism
>>>in the way it defines who is a Jew, for example, is racist-like.
>>
>>OK, now how would *YOU* define it.  And by the way, you're wrong again.
>>There is *NO* uniformity of this definition among Zionist movements.
>>You know this is the case, it's been pointed out on the net directly to
>>you before, and yet you continue to maintain this delusion.
>
>OK. Tell me how many people in Zionist movements define a Jew in a 
>different way, and how many are who define Jew based on a religious way.

I don't think that data exist on this directly.

>>>In the same way I believe that Irish have a right to nationalism but I do
>>>not support the bombing and killing of the IRA, I believe that Jews have
>>>a right to nationalism but I do not support Zionism as it is right now.
>>
>>Comparing the actions of Israel to that of the IRA is like comparing
>>those of the US to those of Chile under Pinochet (for example), with the
>>IRA in the role of Pinochet.  You really need to get your history
>>straight.  You also need a basic dictionary.
>
>You need to start reading before answering. 
>My point was that because some movement claims to be nationalistic, it 
>does not mean that I consider it to be nationalistic. I did not comapre
>Israel to the IRA. I think that you are starting to put words on my 
>mouth and that is wrong.

That is no problem.  But once again you are defining Zionism as *ONE*
movement.  You are implying that it is monolithic.  You *KNOW* this is
not and has never been the case.

>>[Stuff deleted by Pinkas.  His statement, which I was responding to
>>with the below, asserted that Zionism was uniform and monolithic]
>
>I never said that Zionism is monolithic. If you are going to attribute
>me things, present the quotes where I said that.

You don't say it directly.  You implied it, and I showed explicitly
where and how you implied it.  Now you're trying to wriggle out of it.
Won't wash, and you know it.

>>>That is what makes the basis for Zionist movements. However, I am not 
>>>considering just that, but the rest of it. 
>>
>>In a word:  I don't believe you.  Your words tell a very different
>>story.  Especially since they are not based on fact, but innuendo and
>>misrepresentation. 
>
>That is your problem. I could certainly interpret this like you are 
>running out of arguments. First, you put words in my mouth, now, you
>say you do ot believe me.

It's you, not me, who is running out of arguments.  

>>>Which makes an interesting point. People living in a Jewish State have
>>>shown that Jewish culture includes in it Jewish religion but they are
>>>not the same. So, the Jewish people living in the Jewish State have shown 
>>>us that there are some problems in a State where 80% of the people is secular
>>>but Judaism is define according to religious standards, or where marriage
>>>is a religious stage, or where the Law of Return defines a Jew according to
>>>a religious standard.
>>
>>No, it doesn't!  Nowhere does the law of return demand that one must be
>>religious or even believe in G-d to become a citizen of Israel
>>thereunder.  
>
>Why don't you try reading for a change? Did I say that the Law of Return
>demand a person to be religious? Now, how does the Law of Return define 
>who is a Jew and who is not? I said that it uses a religious standard:
>If your mother is a Jew, you are a Jew, if your mother is not Jewish,
>neither you are.
>Do not twist my words, please.

What you said is that "Judaism is defined according to religious
standards."  Now this can have several different meanings, and you know
it.  One of the meanings that it can have is to say that "Only those who
are religious are defined as Jews".  Another is to say that "Only those
who meet the religious definition of a Jew is one."  And there are
others.  I'm not twisting your words.  I'm trying to make you aware that
your words don't mean what you think they do.

>>True, there are debates in Israel and abroad about "who is
>>a Jew?", but those debates are taken up by both religious and secular.
>>Would you say that religious people should not have a say in that?
>>Would you deny them their right of free speech?
>
>I am not talking about the debate. I am talking about how things are right
>now. When the debate is over, I'll see what happens.
>Right now, things are like they are.
>Let me ask you one thing. I understand that Israel differenciates between
>Citizenship and Nationality. Suppose M(ale) and F(emale) have a child in
>Israel. Which nationality will the child's ID show, according to each one
>of the following cases:

Actually, it doesn't.  And the citizens' rights are exactly THE SAME in
both cases, anyway.

>a) F and M are both Jewish.

Jewish

>b) F is Jewsh and M is not.

Jewish

>c) F is Muslim and M is jewish.
>d) F is Christian and M is Jewish.

It'll depend on what religion is practiced in the house.  The original
law of return would still admit such a person if they were Jewish, if
memory serves.

>e) F and M are both non-Jewish.

Not Jewish.


>>>Did those Israelis who do not believe in god and will never do become 
>>>non-Jews? Why should they still define then a Jew based on what is a 
>>>religious definition?
>>
>>It's called history.  How do you think Jews stuck together through
>>pogroms for millenia in Europe?  We had to know who was our own.  I for
>>one do think that some change is in order and that patrilineal descent
>>is no less legit than is matrilineal (which is *NOT* the religious Jew's
>>point of view).  There's plenty of room for that in Zionism - as you
>>well know.
>
>It called history. At some point it was OK. Now, I believe, it is not. 

That's valid, as far as I can see.

>>>According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Inc,
>>>Publishers, Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 1986, page 593, 
>>>
>>>hy-poc-ri-sy: A feigning to be what one is nnot or to believe one does not.
>>>
>>>So, saying that one believes in Zionism as a simple matter of people 
>>>having the right to nationalism, but disregarding the right of the Palestinian
>>>people to do the same, according to this dictionary, is hypocrisy.
>>
>>Utter baloney.  By the way, I do believe the Palestinians have a right
>>to self-determination, have stated so on this net, and I know you've
>                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>seen it.  
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>Interesting. How do you know? Had I ever talked to you about this and 
>forgotten about that?

More than once.  As have others.

>>But that right to self-determination cannot be at Israel's
>>expense.  Israel's security comes first and that security must be
>>maintained.  You're also twisting words now beyond belief.  If you think
>>that's what that definition means in this context, you need a first-grade 
>>course in English.
>
>
>Which definition are you now talking here about? 

The very one you give above.  It is absolutely inconsistent with the
twist you put on it.  

>I do not know why you are so touchy. I never said that you did not support
>Palestinian self-determination. I just gave an example of hypocrisy.

No you didn't.  You had to twist the definition of the word 180 degrees
in order to do so, and everyone else knows it.  I'm not being touchy.

> I never
>said that someone in this net is guilty of it. It was just an example. Nothing
>more, nothing less than that. Why did you have to clarify what you think?

Because what you gave *WAS NOT* an example.  IT WAS an example of how
the definition of a word can be twisted around 180 degrees.  

>>If you didn't use different meanings of words than are in the
>>dictionary, you might be believable.  
>
>Here you have several problems.
>First, you should know that words have more meanings than those given in
>the dictionary.

Oh, so now what are dictionaries for?

>Second, it may come to be a shock for you to know that there are more
>words than those in the dictionary.

Duh.  As a scientist, whose technical terms are very often not found in
common dictionaries, I know this.  But when a term is common, like
hypocrisy, a good dictionary can be regarded as an authoritative source.

>Third, we can exchange ideas if you want, but you come out with this nonsense
>about being believable = using the definitions given in a dictionary.

It's not nonsense.  When people read what you write, they have to try to
associate a meaning to those words.  Dictionaries give the meanings of
words, don't they?  Now, I assume that you'd like to have the words you
use mean what you'd like them to.  But the fact is, you're using very
different meanings than are in the dictionary, or you would like the
reader to assign them new meanings, which they never had.  

>It seems that you cannot answer to the ideas given by others without insulting
>others. Sad.

Not at all.  What I cannot abide is utter bombast when you've been
proven completely wrong.

>>If your "facts" at all resembled
>>even the slightest bit of truth - which they do not - you might be 
>>believable.  
>
>If you did not put words in my mouth, it might be that you might
>start reading what I had actually said.

I never put even one syllable in your mouth.  You have tried to prove
this and you failed.  

> So far, you come over and over
>twisting what I said or presenting things I never said as if I had said
>them. 

Poppycock.

>In this way, you are answering to yourself. That is why you do not
>find it believable. Maybe, if you start reading what I had actually said,
>and not what you added, you might change your mind.

I read what you said.  I did not add anything.  You simply either don't
know that the words don't mean what you'd like them to - which cannot be
the case now since you've been proven wrong and you quite obviously
don't have a defense against the arguments presented, or you're twisting
the meanings.  Which is it?

>>But the fact is that there is nothing resembling fact in
>>what you've said on this thread.  And the fact also is that you're using
>>different definitions for your words - based on baloney - than anyone
>>else does.
>
>First, there is nothing resembling a fact in what you added to what I said,
>as if I had said it. 

Ha!  There's nothing resembling fact in what you've said.  I NEVER added
*ANYTHING* to what you said.



-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
