NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the biggest problems with finding a lasting peace deal is the question of whether or not Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return home into what is today Israel. The Israelis are not convinced because it would displace the people who live there now as well as changing the demographics to the point that it would no longer be a Jewish state. Whatever the merits of the latter argument, that's where things stand.

Many Palestinians meanwhile don't actually want to return. Polls seems to say that more important about the right is the acceptance of their narrative of history and a recognition of the evil that was experienced by generally innocent Palestinians.

So...how about a compensation scheme? In paying some money to the Palestinian refugees or their children, their right would be recognised. At the same time, Israel would not have to deal with the implications of big numbers of Palestinians suddenly coming back. Palestinians could use the money to improve their living standards and finally settle wherever it is they are.

The Aix Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aix_Group) reckons that fair compensation would be a big chunk of money: 55-85 billion dollars. At current exchange rates that is between 41% and 65% of GDP. As a reference, total Israeli public debt is currently 82.7% of GDP.

It also seems reasonable to assume that given the way the current situation has come about, other countries would be obliged to pay part of the bill in some way. Britain comes to mind, Germany perhaps and it seems possible that the US would also help Israel deal with the debt.

What do you think of the idea in principle?

snip... Not a bad idea however you would have to make sure they vacated the area. You don't want them blowing the money on nice new weapons from Iran. How about a nice pacific island. Maybe one that is a foot or two above sea level.

The issue really is getting them another place to go. the Palestinian are kept at refugee camps because they are used as political tools against Israel. If the Palestinian simply dispersed and mixed in with other Arabs then would have simply been like the event that brought them there to begin with.

It also seems reasonable to assume that given the way the current situation has come about, other countries would be obliged to pay part of the bill in some way. Britain comes to mind, Germany perhaps and it seems possible that the US would also help Israel deal with the debt.

What do you think of the idea in principle?

I don't see the Israeli public being sold to this idea. The US certainly would not help fund this scheme. Not only would it be tantamount to admitting error it would require finances the US doesnt have right now. The budget deficit being a major issue at the moment. I doubt the UK would help. With Germany I have no idea.

Polls seems to say that more important about the right is the acceptance of their narrative of history and a recognition of the evil that was experienced by generally innocent Palestinians.
The Israeli narrative is that the Arabs lost that war quite deservedly, because they were in the wrong; that the Palestinians' suffering was largely self-inflicted. Neither side is willing to admit having inflicted evils on the other, though both sides have obviously done so (at least, that seems obvious to any outsider).

Unless this compensation money is allowed to be used to buy Jerusalem, and Israel is willing to vacate said city, I really don't think it matters.

Not a bad idea however you would have to make sure they vacated the area. You don't want them blowing the money on nice new weapons from Iran. How about a nice pacific island. Maybe one that is a foot or two above sea level.
The Palestinians are vastly misrepresented in most discussions.

http://media.economist.com/images/20080510/CFB281.gif

Hamas is only really all that popular in Gaza. Outside the Palestinian territory they don't represent much at all. Most Palestinians have better things to worry about than guns.

The issue really is getting them another place to go. the Palestinian are kept at refugee camps because they are used as political tools against Israel. If the Palestinian simply dispersed and mixed in with other Arabs then would have simply been like the event that brought them there to begin with.
They already have places where they live. As I said, many polls indicate that most actually wouldn't go anywhere even if they had the right to do so. You just have to look at the "camp" in northern Lebanon that was destroyed a few months ago when the army had to besiege it to get various extremists out of there (who weren't Palestinians, by the way, just random Jihadists that had been kicked out of their own countries). They're rebuilding it, because those are their homes. Those people have lived there for 60 years - in practice they don't have anywhere to go in Israel.

The right of return thing is more a matter of principle, part of what makes a Palestinian. A compensation arrangement would recognise that right in a practical way without actually having anyone move.

I don't see the Israeli public being sold to this idea.
It is the single best way I can think of to solve the most complicated issue. Everything else can be sorted out relatively easily if there is the will on both sides.

The Israeli narrative is that the Arabs lost that war quite deservedly, because they were in the wrong; that the Palestinians' suffering was largely self-inflicted. Neither side is willing to admit having inflicted evils on the other, though both sides have obviously done so (at least, that seems obvious to any outsider).
Obviously. But you'd have to say that the Israelis have generally come out of this in a better position and as far as practical reality is concerned, it's not like they have a lot of grounds for complaining that their views aren't heard.

Unless this compensation money is allowed to be used to buy Jerusalem, and Israel is willing to vacate said city, I really don't think it matters.
Jerusalem is a seperate issue, and not one particularly difficult to solve. I am only talking about the right to return here, nothing else. The compensation scheme would just form part of a larger solution.

*snip* Jerusalem is a seperate issue, and not one particularly difficult to solve.

Yes, I'm sure that the Jews would just forget about that whole Wailing Wall thing. No difficulties there.

My whole point was that it doesn't matter. Right to Return, Compensation, Shared-State. All moot. They won't agree on Jerusalem.

Yes, I'm sure that the Jews would just forget about that whole Wailing Wall thing. No difficulties there.
It's really quite simple: move the capital to Tel Aviv, organise a system that allows both Muslims and Jews access to their respective holy sites, just as seems to be possible with the various Christian groups.

No one needs to give up control of the city in a way that impacts religion (other than some hardline Jews, I suppose, but they can be ignored). It is purely political, and therefore a solution can be found.

It's really quite simple: move the capital to Tel Aviv, organise a system that allows both Muslims and Jews access to their respective holy sites, just as seems to be possible with the various Christian groups.

No one needs to give up control of the city in a way that impacts religion (other than some hardline Jews, I suppose, but they can be ignored). It is purely political, and therefore a solution can be found.

And what about the fact that one holy site is built on top of another?

To state that this problem is 'purely political' is a gross over-simplification.

And what about the fact that one holy site is built on top of another?
They're not. There are radicals on both sides who want to claim the entire mount for themselves, but they don't represent general opinion. Fact of the matter is that the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Wailing Wall can be accessed seperately and the use of one doesn't impact the other. It's being done right now, in reality we'd only be changing the politics by no longer having the Holy City under the, political, control of Israel and probably improve access by Muslims to the Mosque.

It is the single best way I can think of to solve the most complicated issue. Everything else can be sorted out relatively easily if there is the will on both sides.

I do not see the will on the side of the Israelis.

They're not.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

There are radicals on both sides who want to claim the entire mount for themselves, but they don't represent general opinion.

The problem with this, is that the Muslim/Arab 'radicals' are leaders in the Muslim/Arab world.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-23,RNWE:en&q=arab+leaders+deny+wailing+wall


Fact of the matter is that the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Wailing Wall can be accessed seperately and the use of one doesn't impact the other. It's being done right now, in reality we'd only be changing the politics by no longer having the Holy City under the, political, control of Israel and probably improve access by Muslims to the Mosque.

The Wailing Wall can only be accessed because Israel re-took al-Quds in 1967. I don't see how the Israelis relinquishing said control improves their lot.

The problem with this, is that the Muslim/Arab 'radicals' are leaders in the Muslim/Arab world.
And we are both well aware that what they say in the media and what they'd actually do on the negotiating are very different things.

The Wailing Wall can only be accessed because Israel re-took al-Quds in 1967. I don't see how the Israelis relinquishing said control improves their lot.
Because it would be a way to end the war.

Without a Palestinian state, it would be rather pointless.

Should be on the negociating table for discussions over the creation of a palestinian state. Perhaps refugees could be given Israeli citizenship, or Palestinian citizenship with compensation, or citizenship in the state they are in currently with compensation. Unfortunately, negociation isn't something either side really seem to putting that much effort into doing at the minute.

Should be on the negociating table for discussions over the creation of a palestinian state. Perhaps refugees could be given Israeli citizenship, or Palestinian citizenship with compensation, or citizenship in the state they are in currently with compensation. Unfortunately, negociation isn't something either side really seem to putting that much effort into doing at the minute.

Syria and Jordan will not give citizenship to the refugees.

Syria and Jordan will not give citizenship to the refugees.

Why not? I am ignorant on this issue.

Why not? I am ignorant on this issue.

in the case of Jordan the argument is the refugees would swamp their population. though more likely it ties to politics. If there are no masses of refugees then they cant hold them against Israel and use it as a means to say Israel is evil.

ALL of the West Bank Palestinians were granted Jordanian citizenship during the Jordanian annexation of that area. Not all of them accepted.

So...how about a compensation scheme?
Nope. Then we'd get demands from every fucking corner flying in.

"We want 93 trillion pounds for the loss of the Golan Heights"
"Aye, well we want 3 times as much for the loss of Israeli life in getting the Golan Heights"
"Hullo, as Lebanon, I'd just like to chip in my opinion in that all of you should pay me super moneys for basically raping me from 1948 onwards"

Nope. Then we'd get demands from every fucking corner flying in.

"We want 93 trillion pounds for the loss of the Golan Heights"
"Aye, well we want 3 times as much for the loss of Israeli life in getting the Golan Heights"
"Hullo, as Lebanon, I'd just like to chip in my opinion in that all of you should pay me super moneys for basically raping me from 1948 onwards"

What about the Canaanites? Don't they deserve something?

What about the Canaanites? Don't they deserve something?
Who doesn't?

The Israelis blew we Brits up, and formed a political party around them (Likut), they've got UN types from all over killed in their wars on Lebanon, various other types in the region killed and so on and so forth.

Who doesn't?

Well, I'm reasonably sure the Zapotec have absolutely nothing to do with that whole area.

Granted, the entire civilization disappeared off the face of the Earth hundreds of years ago, but still.

Well, I'm reasonably sure the Zapotec have absolutely nothing to do with that whole area.

Granted, the entire civilization disappeared off the face of the Earth hundreds of years ago, but still.
Aye, you might think that. But actually, everyone came from about the Levant-ish at one stage or other. Anyone even of remotely Zapotec background could probably claim some compensation.

ALL of the West Bank Palestinians were granted Jordanian citizenship during the Jordanian annexation of that area. Not all of them accepted.

that was when jordan was hoping to annex the west bank. and west bank Palestinians are different from those sitting in the refugee camps.

One of the biggest problems with finding a lasting peace deal is the question of whether or not Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return home into what is today Israel. The Israelis are not convinced because it would displace the people who live there now as well as changing the demographics to the point that it would no longer be a Jewish state. Whatever the merits of the latter argument, that's where things stand.

Many Palestinians meanwhile don't actually want to return. Polls seems to say that more important about the right is the acceptance of their narrative of history and a recognition of the evil that was experienced by generally innocent Palestinians.

So...how about a compensation scheme? In paying some money to the Palestinian refugees or their children, their right would be recognised. At the same time, Israel would not have to deal with the implications of big numbers of Palestinians suddenly coming back. Palestinians could use the money to improve their living standards and finally settle wherever it is they are.

The Aix Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aix_Group) reckons that fair compensation would be a big chunk of money: 55-85 billion dollars. At current exchange rates that is between 41% and 65% of GDP. As a reference, total Israeli public debt is currently 82.7% of GDP.

It also seems reasonable to assume that given the way the current situation has come about, other countries would be obliged to pay part of the bill in some way. Britain comes to mind, Germany perhaps and it seems possible that the US would also help Israel deal with the debt.

What do you think of the idea in principle?

The idea is good in principle, since I doubt many Palestinians would - when it actually comes down to it - want to return to a place that is still under Israeli government control.

However it would need to be operated by a competent third party. A scheme controlled by either Israelis or Palestinians would be seen as being unfair by one side or the other, and both the US and UK have absolutely zero credibility amongst Palestinians. As for the funding of the scheme, I personally think that the Israelis should pay for the full and complete costs of fair compensation. If Israel cannot afford it out of her capital reserves, then they can either raise taxes or borrow.

If she continues to be bailed out of problems brought about (or actively furthered) by her government, then why should that government ever seek to behave responsibly?

My other concern is that the right of the Palestinians to their land is acknowledged, and that the principle of compensation is accepted by all parties as settling a wrong that has been committed.

Edit : - All I putting all this on the assumption that this is part of a final peace agreement that would return to the 1967 boundaries (possibly involving a separate settle for Jerusalem, such as making it a "neutral city" or something similar), which I'd regard as the minimum acceptable solution.

that was when jordan was hoping to annex the west bank.
Jordan (originally "Transjordan") didn't HOPE to annex the West Bank, they DID annex the West Bank.

I don't see the Israeli public being sold to this idea. The US certainly would not help fund this scheme. Not only would it be tantamount to admitting error it would require finances the US doesnt have right now. The budget deficit being a major issue at the moment. I doubt the UK would help. With Germany I have no idea.

Any payoff scheme would be cheaper than fighting the eternal war, in lives and money.

Less psychologically rewarding for many, yes, but cheaper.

The money could have many sources, including land and wealth stolen from Jews when they were being kicked out of Arab nations.

The Arab governments have never offered compensation for this, even though their actions, revoking the citizenship of native born citizens on account of ethnicity alone and forcing them into exile, were criminal- in fact, worse than the Israeli expulsion of Palestinians, since A) they could not use the "we were at war" excuse, and B) unlike Arab nations with their Jewish residents, Israel gives it's Arab citizens equal legal rights.

But even if the Arabs refused their end of the responsibility, it would STILL be cheaper for Israel to pay off Arabs than to maintain the current scenario forever. If I may give a modern spin to the 2200 year old observation of Sun Tzu: Soldiers are expensive.

One of the biggest problems with finding a lasting peace deal is the question of whether or not Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return home into what is today Israel. The Israelis are not convinced because it would displace the people who live there now as well as changing the demographics to the point that it would no longer be a Jewish state. Whatever the merits of the latter argument, that's where things stand.

Many Palestinians meanwhile don't actually want to return. Polls seems to say that more important about the right is the acceptance of their narrative of history and a recognition of the evil that was experienced by generally innocent Palestinians.

So...how about a compensation scheme? In paying some money to the Palestinian refugees or their children, their right would be recognised. At the same time, Israel would not have to deal with the implications of big numbers of Palestinians suddenly coming back. Palestinians could use the money to improve their living standards and finally settle wherever it is they are.

The Aix Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aix_Group) reckons that fair compensation would be a big chunk of money: 55-85 billion dollars. At current exchange rates that is between 41% and 65% of GDP. As a reference, total Israeli public debt is currently 82.7% of GDP.

It also seems reasonable to assume that given the way the current situation has come about, other countries would be obliged to pay part of the bill in some way. Britain comes to mind, Germany perhaps and it seems possible that the US would also help Israel deal with the debt.

What do you think of the idea in principle?

In theory not that bad an idea. In practice completely unworkable.

And what about the fact that one holy site is built on top of another?

To state that this problem is 'purely political' is a gross over-simplification.Religion only plays a role on the Jewish side, and it is in fact the driving force behind the whole experiment called "Israel". For the Palestinians it has always been about livelihood, which was destroyed when the Jews came in en masse.

Religion only plays a role on the Jewish side, and it is in fact the driving force behind the whole experiment called "Israel". For the Palestinians it has always been about livelihood, which was destroyed when the Jews came in en masse.


Given the socialism of many of the early settlers, thats total and utter bollocks.

Given the socialism of many of the early settlers, thats total and utter bollocks.Were those settlers not Jewish?

Were those settlers not Jewish?

Define "Jewish."

Edit: Are the Palestinians not Muslim? (Or Christian?)

Were those settlers not Jewish?

Irrelevant, as theres no direct equivalance between Judaism and intolerance. Otherwise there would be no Jewish liberals, which there most certainly are.

You were unable to account for them the last time you went Jew baiting, if I recall correctly. Care to try again?

Irrelevant, as theres no direct equivalance between Judaism and intolerance. Otherwise there would be no Jewish liberals, which there most certainly are.

You were unable to account for them the last time you went Jew baiting, if I recall correctly. Care to try again?You just don't get it. There is nothing that makes one a Jew except his own or his (assumed/alleged) ancestors' religion.
And Judaism has indeed always been institutionalized intolerance, even more than Christianity or Islam.

You just don't get it. There is nothing that makes one a Jew except his own or his (assumed/alleged) ancestors' religion.
And Judaism has indeed always been institutionalized intolerance, even more than Christianity or Islam.

Actually, I believe someone is a Jew if they're descended from Jacob.

Define "Jewish."One adhering to Judaism or one (allegedly) descended from adherents of Judaism.

Edit: Are the Palestinians not Muslim? (Or Christian?)Not primarily. Primarily they are the inhabitants of Palestine. And their rejection of Jews along the last century was not based on differences in religion but on the Jews' immigration into (in fact an invasion) the Palestinians' homeland and subsequent loss of the Palestinians' livelihood.

Actually, I believe someone is a Jew if they're descended from Jacob.No. They only believe to be descended from folks who were driven out of Judaea by the Romans. Some may indeed believe also to be descended from Jacob. Which is somewhat ironic, because Jacob was no Jew nor even Jew-ish.

One adhering to Judaism or one (allegedly) descended from adherents of Judaism.

The early settlers were definitely of the latter sort--they were quite secular. Their connection to Palestine in particular was cultural, not religious. Their ideology was nationalist, not fundamentalist, and indeed, religiously conservative Jews tended to be quite skeptical of Zionism until the Holocaust.

The simple fact, like it or not, is that mainstream Zionism is not a religious ideology, and never has been.

The early settlers were definitely of the latter sort--they were quite secular. Their connection to Palestine in particular was cultural, not religious. Their ideology was nationalist, not fundamentalist, and indeed, religiously conservative Jews tended to be quite skeptical of Zionism until the Holocaust.

The simple fact, like it or not, is that mainstream Zionism is not a religious ideology, and never has been.There is no such thing as a secular Jew. Jews are not a people, they are a religious group, although they may claim differently. Being a Jew is always rooted in religion, one way or another.

There is no such thing as a secular Jew.

Yeah! Down with reality!

Yeah! Down with reality!So are there secular Catholics or Muslims, too?

So are there secular Catholics or Muslims, too?

Yes.

So are there secular Catholics or Muslims, too?

The situation is not the same. The category of "Jew" is conferred by ancestry (or the conversion ritual), not belief.

Factually speaking, the early Zionists were secular. A large number were atheists, and plenty were politically opposed to religion.

Yes.No. Someone who drops out of Catholicism is no longer a Catholic, and one who drops out of Islam is no longer a Muslim. Someone who remains a Jew has not cut the ties to the religion or the "heritage" which is based entirely on the religion.

Someone who remains a Jew has not cut the ties to the religion or the "heritage" which is based entirely on the religion.

If you had a clue what you were talking about, you'd know that Zionism, being a form of nationalism, was founded on a conception of Jewish identity as a part of the Jewish people (nation), not the Jewish religion.

Repeat your baseless nonsense as much as you want, but truth will stubbornly remain what it is.

:rolleyes:

You just don't get it. There is nothing that makes one a Jew except his own or his (assumed/alleged) ancestors' religion.
And Judaism has indeed always been institutionalized intolerance, even more than Christianity or Islam.


So explain the long, noble liberal, left wing, Jewish tradition then..........

No. Someone who drops out of Catholicism is no longer a Catholic, and one who drops out of Islam is no longer a Muslim. Someone who remains a Jew has not cut the ties to the religion or the "heritage" which is based entirely on the religion.

The definition of secular is a person who is not overtly religious. Another definition is that that person is not ecclesiastical or clerical. Thus, a Catholic that goes to work and does his job and does not discuss religion with his coworkers is a secular Catholic. A Muslim who does the same is a secular Muslim.

Also, for the record, Catholics only remove a person from their roster if one of two things happen:

1) That person dies
2) That person writes a letter to the church resigning as a Catholic

If the person does neither one of these things, but just stops coming to church, he's still counted by the Catholic Church as a Catholic in their numbers.

If you had a clue what you were talking about, you'd know that Zionism, being a form of nationalism, was founded on a conception of Jewish identity as a part of the Jewish people (nation), not the Jewish religion.

Repeat your baseless nonsense as much as you want, but truth will stubbornly remain what it is.The truth is that the idea of a Jewish "nation" is exclusively based on the religion. There is no other defining factor.

:rolleyes:

The truth is that the idea of a Jewish "nation" is exclusively based on the religion.

No, it isn't. And certainly the early Zionists didn't see it that way. In considering their motives, it is their understanding that matters, not yours.

But like most bigots, you prefer to repeat your nonsense instead of actually paying attention to reason and evidence.

No, it isn't. And certainly the early Zionists didn't see it that way. In considering their motives, it is their understanding that matters, not yours.No, it's the facts that matter. Zionists are those who want a Jewish state in Palestine. A Jewish state. And that means something which is ultimately based on religion, as there is nothing else that really defines Jewishness. All "heritage", "culture" and customs derive from their religion.

All "heritage", "culture" and customs derive from their religion.

Yiddish.

Neither myself, nor my country, is obliged to a do anything to remedy the middle east. It may be expedient to do so, and contingent upon this, I would be prepared to intervene, but I feel no moral compulsion or inherited guilt towards the world at large.

Contemporary moralistic, interventionist approaches to international affairs repulse me.

Yiddish.That's just a German dialect and not inherently Jewish. Even I understand Yiddish and I am certainly not Jewish.

That's just a German dialect and not inherently Jewish.

Well, I guess it's true that if you play with definitions the way you want, you can reach whatever conclusions you like.

The (.....)

:rolleyes:

Are you going to answer or no?

There is no such thing as a secular Jew.

My secular Jewish roommate begs to differ.

My secular Jewish roommate begs to differ.

My atheist Jewish fraternity brother also begs to differ.

The fact is UB is a troll or something much worse if he is saying what he really believes.

I would love to flame him, but it isn't worth it. If UB really wants to have a "nice" discussion, he can ask how to contact me so that I can give him his 2 cents in a non-moderated environment.

My secular Jewish roommate begs to differ.

My atheist Jewish fraternity brother also begs to differ.

I'm a secular Jewish atheist and I'm already differing. I don't think UB is interested in listening to anyone but himself.

Contemporary moralistic, interventionist approaches to international affairs repulse me.
It's not a moralistic approach, it's purely functional. If you asked me for a way of solving this based on moral principles, I'd turned the whole place into a set of minarchist communes, none powerful enough to inflict damage on another with the hope of gaining something from it. It's the leadership on both sides who are causing suffering, not the people themselves.

It's not a moralistic approach, it's purely functional. If you asked me for a way of solving this based on moral principles, I'd turned the whole place into a set of minarchist communes, none powerful enough to inflict damage on another with the hope of gaining something from it. It's the leadership on both sides who are causing suffering, not the people themselves.

Largely irrelevant. You suggested that Britain had a moral obligation to Israel and Palestine; morals, by their nature, are not functional. They are abstractions which, in order to justify intervention, require them to be of that particular interventionist model so in vogue at present.

You suggested that Britain had a moral obligation to Israel and Palestine; morals, by their nature, are not functional.
I very much disagree and could make an argument about how the majority of the world's ills are caused by people who insist on dividing one from the other. But that's not the topic of the thread.

They are abstractions which, in order to justify intervention, require them to be of that particular interventionist model so in vogue at present.
The point is simply that the British government, among those of other nations, is partly responsible for the current situation due to the decisions taken by past governments. It is therefore quite possible that Israeli and Palestinian governments, when setting up this compensation scheme, ask for part of the funding from the British government. That request could of course be refused, but unless you want to go down to the level where we're questioning the connection between action, reward and punishment, this is not really a moral question.

As for intervention, you can pretend all you want, but that call was made by people who figured Empire was a good idea, not by me.

I'm a secular Jewish atheist and I'm already differing. I don't think UB is interested in listening to anyone but himself.

UB should talk to Avraham Infeld. He is the ex-President of Hillel International and I have had the pleasure of hearing him speak on several occasions. The main point of many of his speeches is the following: Judaism is NOT a religion! It's much better when you hear him say it himself with his strong accent. He's a smart man.

I see hes still unable to explain the existence of liberal Jews (practicing or otherwise).

I wonder how he'd deal with them IRL...When he gets the kick in the ass does he just stand there and not react?

I'm indifferent to the idea, as long as Britain doesn't pay a penny. The last thing I want is to see is my country's treasury being emptied into the pockets of the Palestinians.

I'm a secular Jewish atheistWhat makes you Jewish? Genetics? Nationality? What if not the strange ideology of Judaism and what it conveys?

What makes you Jewish? Genetics? Nationality? What if not the strange ideology of Judaism and what it conveys?


You still haven't answered the question.....

What makes you Jewish?

My mother being Jewish, technically. There's also the cultural upbringing.

Genetics? Nationality?

No and no. (Zionism did conceive of Jewishness as a "nationality", but I'm not sure the characterization is appropriate in a place where Jews are as highly assimilated as they are in the US.)

My mother being Jewish, technically. There's also the cultural upbringing.So my mother being Catholic makes me a Catholic? And my upbringing in a Catholic environment?

So my mother being Catholic makes me a Catholic?

No. Different rules apply.

A Catholic is an adherent of Catholicism--that's the definition. But the definition of "Jew" is simply not "adherent of Judaism." It is membership in a group, in a people.

To be a Jew is not to believe in Judaism. It is to meet the criteria for Jewness--which, traditionally, encompass either being born to a Jewish mother, or undergoing the conversion process. (Indeed, sincere converts who later relapse technically remain Jews.)

Less traditionally, but still building off the idea of Jews as a people, one might point to any number of cultural ties--which may be tied to the religion, but are not identical to it. There are plenty of ardently atheist, non-religious Jews who identify with Jewish culture.

More to the point, denying that the Zionist sense of "Jew" allowed for secular and atheist Jews is simply idiotic. Both Theodore Herzl and David Ben-Gurion were atheists. Whether or not you think the Zionist definition is a good one is entirely a separate question.

So my mother being Catholic makes me a Catholic? And my upbringing in a Catholic environment?

Still dodging the question....

No. Different rules apply.
I'd beg to differ.

We just have to take a look at the labelling and divides in some Northern Irish and Scottish communities to see that 'Catholic' can refer to much more than simply 'a practising member of the Catholic church'. There are large 'Catholic communities', as well as 'Protestant communities', where very little of the populace are active church-goers, but where children are brought up in 'Catholic culture'.

Many religions and cultures merge into one.

I'd beg to differ.

I didn't mean to suggest that that was true in all cases, just in his.

I didn't mean to suggest that that was true in all cases, just in his.
I sees.

It is a rather confused issue.

To be a Jew is not to believe in Judaism. It is to meet the criteria for Jewness--which, traditionally, encompass either being born to a Jewish mother, or undergoing the conversion process. (Indeed, sincere converts who later relapse technically remain Jews.)

Less traditionally, but still building off the idea of Jews as a people, one might point to any number of cultural ties--which may be tied to the religion, but are not identical to it. There are plenty of ardently atheist, non-religious Jews who identify with Jewish culture.

More to the point, denying that the Zionist sense of "Jew" allowed for secular and atheist Jews is simply idiotic. Both Theodore Herzl and David Ben-Gurion were atheists. Whether or not you think the Zionist definition is a good one is entirely a separate question.

This really is true with the American Jewish youth, I think. Most young Jews (at least, that I've encountered...I'm not a big participant in the community) seem to identify culturally with Judaism, rather than religiously or spiritually. There most definitely is a certain culture that comes with being Jewish that is irrespective of the religion itself. A thought just struck me, though, that some other might find kind of amusing.

UB, in all his illogical and trollish posts, seems to base his argument for Palestinian sovereignty on some kind of nationalist grounds (how accurate this is, I don't know...I've taken to skimming his posts). While it isn't strictly nationalism in the terms of a Palestinian nationalism, the most influential writers of Arab Pan-Nationalism often emphasized the commonality of language as the basis for nationality and a national culture. The point that I find interesting in this, and maybe you see where I'm going, is the importance of Hebrew in Jewish culture. Granted not every Jew speaks Hebrew (or "Jewish" as I've been asked before on multiple occasions:rolleyes: ), hell, it's safe to say that a large majority speak none at all, but I've rarely encountered any that are completely oblivious to the language and, from a general historical perspective, it's been kept alive to one degree or another in each community by at least a small group (generally the rabbis and religious scholars, obviously). I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, it was just a thought that came to my mind while posting so don't get too up in arms if you disagree. :)

Judaism is a nation (in addition to being a religion)

Look up the definition of a nation, or better yet lets see what wiki has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation


Let's see what makes a nation and if Judaism meets the criteria.

Common Descent: Check, Judaism is something passed on by being born to a Jewish mother. On top of that, tradition claims we descend from Abraham. This separates Judaism from other religions. While Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic religions, their followers don't descend from the same ancestry.


Common Language: Check, this also separates Judaism into being a nation while Christianity is just a religion.


Common Culture: Check, see Jewish music, cuisine, art, etc.


Common Religion: Check


UB, you are completely unable to argue logically here and have dodged questions. Take your anti-semitic bullshit and shove it.

Judaism is a nation (in addition to being a religion)
At the very least, there's a major grammatical mistake here.

Israel can accurately be described as a Jewish nation, and Judaism can be described as both a religion and the culture of those people who practise said religion or are descended from those who did, certainly, but unless there's been some major happening in the Middle East I'm unaware of, there isn't a nation called 'Judaism'.

Furthermore, I think many religions can claim to be culture/community-based as well as Judaism. Perhaps not as close-nit or concentrated, but cultures/communities all the same. This is especially true if we think of 'smaller' religions, such as those of tribal peoples.

Common Descent: Check, Judaism is something passed on by being born to a Jewish mother. On top of that, tradition claims we descend from Abraham. This separates Judaism from other religions. While Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic religions, their followers don't descend from the same ancestry.
I'm not sure about Islam, but don't Adam and Eve count for Christianity?

Moreover, as I've mentioned above, many Gentiles claim an inherited religious culture; you get Catholic communities in the same way as you do Jewish ones, to take just one example.

Common Language: Check, this also separates Judaism into being a nation while Christianity is just a religion.
It'd be a lo easier if you were contending that Judaism is a culture rather than a nation; as the latter is patently false. I'll continue as if you were doing so.

To continue with the example of Catholicism, for a large part of its history (and arguably still to this day), Latin was a (is the) common language of the faith. And there must be many other religions that share a common language; Shinto, perhaps?

Common Culture: Check, see Jewish music, cuisine, art, etc.
There's certainly Christian culture; in the Western world it's all around us. Music, art, architecture, festivals such as Christmas and Easter, etc. I can't, however, think of typically Christian food.

And that's just one religion. I think to say that Judaism is unique in that it has its own culture is mistaken, even if Jewish culture is perhaps more close-knit. But then, as many posters have pointed out, it's not as if all Jews live exactly the same life.

The only solution to peace is to give control of the Area to me. along with all weapons and a large contingent of UN troops under my command.

No. Different rules apply.

A Catholic is an adherent of Catholicism--that's the definition. But the definition of "Jew" is simply not "adherent of Judaism." It is membership in a group, in a people.

To be a Jew is not to believe in Judaism. It is to meet the criteria for Jewness--which, traditionally, encompass either being born to a Jewish mother, or undergoing the conversion process. (Indeed, sincere converts who later relapse technically remain Jews.)

Less traditionally, but still building off the idea of Jews as a people, one might point to any number of cultural ties--which may be tied to the religion, but are not identical to it. There are plenty of ardently atheist, non-religious Jews who identify with Jewish culture.

More to the point, denying that the Zionist sense of "Jew" allowed for secular and atheist Jews is simply idiotic. Both Theodore Herzl and David Ben-Gurion were atheists. Whether or not you think the Zionist definition is a good one is entirely a separate question.

The "criteria for Jewness" are exclusively based on Judaism as a religion. Jewish "culture" is derived from Judaism and its rites and rules. Even before Jews went into the diaspora the only thing that distinguished them from others living in Palaestina was their cult.


Judaism is something passed on by being born to a Jewish mother.Passed on genetically or what?

The (...........) what?

Why can't you answer my question?

If you pay the so-called "palestinians" - you should pay the Jewish immigrants who flew to Israel from the Arab countries in 1948-1949, and were forced to give up their possessions. This sum is actually larger than the worth of the property of the so-called "palestinian" """refugees""".

To learn more please go to http://www.justiceforjews.com/legal.html.

Jordan is, and was always, 70% "palestinian", and the "palestinian" state should be there. The "palestinians" should move there, and then there can be peace. This is the only "two states solution" that can work.

Jordan is, and was always, 70% "palestinian",.

Reality begs to disagree.

Reality begs to disagree.

Care to make an argument, or just make ill-informed statements?

Jordan is, and was always, 70% "palestinian",

Okay, first, the numbers aren't that high, and second, most of those Palestinians were not "always" there--they went there as refugees as a consequence of the Arab-Israeli Wars.

and the "palestinian" state should be there. The "palestinians" should move there, and then there can be peace.

Let's be utterly explicit about it: this notion is racist. You're not entitled to deprive people of their homes and livelihoods because people who are allegedly similar live nearby. It only makes sense to do so when you have already dehumanized them: they are not human beings, just "Arabs" who can be lumped with the rest of the amorphous Arab mass. Preferably far away from your colonial project.

:rolleyes:

The "criteria for Jewness" are exclusively based on Judaism as a religion.

Well, not necessarily... the Law of Return, for instance, doesn't use the traditional religious criteria, and if you were actually concerned about the character of Zionism, rather than with propagating your bigotry, that would be a fact worth considering.

But even insofar as they are, so what? They still allow for the existence of secular Jews, which, you'll note, is the point in issue. And they coincide perfectly fine with a nationalist definition of Jewishness such as Zionism was concerned with.

Jewish "culture" is derived from Judaism and its rites and rules.

Again, simply not true. There are plenty of elements in Jewish culture that are simply not synonymous with the religion. Again, Yiddish.

Even before Jews went into the diaspora the only thing that distinguished them from others living in Palaestina was their cult.

And, of course, nothing ever changes over time.

So are you ever going to bother responding to the concrete facts about Zionist ideology and major Zionist figures that I have presented? This discussion about the right formulation of Jewish identity is, as I've noted before, rather beside the point insofar as, right or wrong, the Zionist movement simply doesn't agree with you.

And are you ever going to answer Nodinia's question?

Israel can accurately be described as a Jewish nation, and Judaism can be described as both a religion and the culture of those people who practise said religion or are descended from those who did, certainly, but unless there's been some major happening in the Middle East I'm unaware of, there isn't a nation called 'Judaism'.

Wrong definition of "nation."

"A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality" - American Heritage Dictionary, Definition 3 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nation).

Care to make an argument, or just make ill-informed statements?

Details of the historic population demographic within Jordan are available in a number of encycolpedia. They suggest that its you that are "ill informed". I suggest that you read Soherans post.

Okay, first, the numbers aren't that high, and second, most of those Palestinians were not "always" there--they went there as refugees as a consequence of the Arab-Israeli Wars.



Let's be utterly explicit about it: this notion is racist. You're not entitled to deprive people of their homes and livelihoods because people who are allegedly similar live nearby. It only makes sense to do so when you have already dehumanized them: they are not human beings, just "Arabs" who can be lumped with the rest of the amorphous Arab mass. Preferably far away from your colonial project.

:rolleyes:


Oh come on, racist?:headbang: So, I guess King Hussein of Jordan was a racist anti-Arab. It was he who said so many times that "Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan".

Learn some history, will you? Jordan was a part of the Brritish mandate of the land of Israel, the so-called "palestine". 77% of "Palestine" is nowadays Jordan. The non-bedouines that lived in TransJordan before 1946 are exactly Palestinians.

".

Learn some history, will you? Jordan was a part of the Brritish mandate of the land of Israel, the so-called "palestine". 77% of "Palestine" is nowadays Jordan. The non-bedouines that lived in TransJordan before 1946 are exactly Palestinians.

And in english that says.....?

Oh come on, racist?:headbang: So, I guess King Hussein of Jordan was a racist anti-Arab. It was he who said so many times that "Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan".

And did he advocate removing the Palestinians from the West Bank and putting them in Jordan? No? Then I don't see the relevance.

Not that King Hussein's record toward the Palestinians is particularly one anyone should desire to emulate.

Learn some history, will you? Jordan was a part of the Brritish mandate of the land of Israel, the so-called "palestine".

And soon after the territory was split in effect, into Palestine and Transjordan.

And since when has the boundaries and terminology of the imperialist powers had all that much to do with the facts on the ground?

77% of "Palestine" is nowadays Jordan.

Right, but since there was no Zionist Jewish settlement there, that's irrelevant to considerations of justice.

The non-bedouines that lived in TransJordan before 1946 are exactly Palestinians.

Even if that is true, so what? Does it mean that Israel is entitled, or at any point has been entitled, to deny the Arabs living west of the Jordan what is rightfully theirs? Of course it doesn't. Only under racist assumptions could you conclude that it does.

Not that King Hussein's record toward the Palestinians is particularly one anyone should desire to emulate.
Hear hear. so is every arab leader's record toward the "palestinians". They all want to use their situation for their own goals. No one should believe a word they say about the issue.

Right, but since there was no Zionist Jewish settlement there, that's irrelevant to considerations of justice...
... Even if that is true, so what? Does it mean that Israel is entitled, or at any point has been entitled, to deny the Arabs living west of the Jordan what is rightfully theirs? Of course it doesn't. Only under racist assumptions could you conclude that it does.

Is that really irrelevant that 77% of "palestine" is Jordan? It means that there is already a "palestinian" state.
And where did you see me say that Israel has a right to deny them to live west to the Jordan river? What I said was that it is the only two-states solution that will work. They can still live there, under Israeli rule, but if they want to live in a "palestinian" state, then they have one state, and that is Jordan. Just like the Jews in Brooklyn can live in Brooklyn, but if they want to live in a Jewish state, they have to immigrate to Israel. Saying that the Jews in Brooklyn have a right to their own state in the USA just because they live there is just as sane as saying that the so called "palestinians" have a right to their own state in Judea and Samaria just because they live there.
The right to self determination of the so-called "palestinians" is fully met by existence of the independent Jordan state. The fact that Jordan is not democratic (as is EVERY ARAB STATE), and the minority, the Bedouines, rule over the majority, the Palestinians, should be dealt with inside Jordan and not in the land of Israel.

Offering the so called "palestinians" a state west to the Jordan river means that here will be TWO "palestinian" states, and that shall never be, with G-d's help.

No one should believe a word they say about the issue.

It was he who said so many times that "Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan".

;)

It means that there is already a "palestinian" state.

Sort of. And there are already several Arab states, and plenty of Muslim states, and, hell, dozens and dozens of human states.

But people interested in justice don't use that as an excuse to deny people rights.

And where did you see me say that Israel has a right to deny them to live west to the Jordan river?

East. I meant "east", and edited it later.

Just like the Jews in Brooklyn can live in Brooklyn, but if they want to live in a Jewish state, they have to immigrate to Israel.

Your argument here is stupid, but you know what? I don't care. I'll accept your terms. Treat the Palestinians presently under Israeli occupation as equal citizens of Israel, as Jews in Brooklyn are equal citizens of the United States, and I'll have no moral objection.

Of course, that will never, ever happen.

Wrong definition of "nation."

"A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality" - American Heritage Dictionary, Definition 3 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nation).Well, then Catholicism constitutes a nation.

Well, then Catholicism constitutes a nation.

Except for the "origins", "history", and "frequently language" parts.

H
The right to self determination of the so-called "palestinians" is fully met by existence of the independent Jordan state..

No they aren't. Secondly, isnt that the kind of excuse that was


Offering the so called "palestinians" a state west to the Jordan river means that here will be TWO "palestinian" states, and that shall never be, with G-d's help.

Ooooo, so its G-d thats in charge of national boundaries and repatriation now....What about the people who vote C'thulu?


Well, then Catholicism constitutes a nation. .

Why can't you explain the existence of liberal Jews? Or do they scare you too much to type about them?

East. I meant "east", and edited it later.
then your argument makes no sense.

I'll accept your terms. Treat the Palestinians presently under Israeli occupation as equal citizens of Israel, as Jews in Brooklyn are equal citizens of the United States, and I'll have no moral objection.

Of course, that will never, ever happen.

We finally agree on something. :fluffle:
I am ready to vote for this kind of a solution: Jordan would be declared as the "palestinian" state, Israel's border would be on the Jordan river, and the arabs living there would receive full Israeli citizenship. I assure you 90% of the Israeli Jews would accept that. Will even 10% of the Arabs?

Wrong definition of "nation."

"A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality" - American Heritage Dictionary, Definition 3 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nation).
Using that definition, then I suppose one could call Judaism a 'nation', but then one could also call many organised religions or even shared cultural beleifs as nations, which seems slightly odd to me.

However, it would still mean HaMedinat Yisrael's contention that Judaism is unique in this retention of culture as mistaken.

then your argument makes no sense.

Actually, you're right. I did mean "west." I was confused--I know the geography fine, it's just the arbitrary names for directions that mess me up.

I assure you 90% of the Israeli Jews would accept that.

But now you're flatly wrong. I'd be surprised if 10% would. Have you ever heard of the "demographic problem"? This is exactly what Israeli Jews would love to avoid, and is a principle reason behind the increasing support for some kind of Palestinian autonomy. Four million new Arab citizens with voting rights is their nightmare, because it poses an existential threat to a state that's supposed to be both Jewish and democratic. (Why do you think they have such a reluctance to support the right of return?)

Add in the fact that the two peoples have been killing each other for about sixty years now, and chances look decidedly slim.

I am ready to vote for this kind of a solution: Jordan would be declared as the "palestinian" state, Israel's border would be on the Jordan river, and the arabs living there would receive full Israeli citizenship. I assure you 90% of the Israeli Jews would accept that. Will even 10% of the Arabs?
If Jordan is to be the Palestinian state, its border should be put back to approximately where it was in 1967. That line was unstable, and will have to be adjusted, but the adjustments should be mutual, not one-sided as the line of the wall puts it. Gaza ought to be re-annexed to Egypt.

If Jordan is to be the Palestinian state, its border should be put back to approximately where it was in 1967. That line was unstable, and will have to be adjusted, but the adjustments should be mutual, not one-sided as the line of the wall puts it. Gaza ought to be re-annexed to Egypt.
Not that the ruling strata of Jordanian society have any interest in the place being Palestinian, of course.

Except for the "origins", "history", and "frequently language" parts.Only the "frequently language" part. The origins are as they are in Judaism: conversion. And history? Well, almost all of medieval European history is Catholic history.

Why can't you explain the existence of liberal Jews? Or do they scare you too much to type about them?What's a liberal Jew? One that out of "tolerance" hates Palestinians behind their backs instead of in their faces?

Israel's border would be on the Jordan river, and the arabs living there would receive full Israeli citizenship. I assure you 90% of the Israeli Jews would accept that.Arabs should accept that as well, indeed.

What's a liberal Jew? One that out of "tolerance" hates Palestinians behind their backs instead of in their faces?

You know full well what I'm referring to. Now explain to me how there can be left wing liberal Jews, given your declarations on Jews generally. No whinging, whining, or evasions please.

Only the "frequently language" part. The origins are as they are in Judaism: conversion.

Jews share a common genetic origin... not purely, obviously, not even close, but it's there.

And history? Well, almost all of medieval European history is Catholic history.

"A people." Not "an institution."

What's a liberal Jew? One that out of "tolerance" hates Palestinians behind their backs instead of in their faces?

Do you really find the idea so hard to grasp?

B'Tselem (http://www.btselem.org/index.asp)
Courage to Refuse (http://www.seruv.org.il/)
Gush Shalom (http://www.gush-shalom.org/)

For example.

Do you really find the idea so hard to grasp?


Some people have never really been able to rid themselves of that dratted old idea.

They've already received billions - well, Arafat and his friends have.

If you gave them more money, their leaders would take it and the cycle of "we're poor, oppressed, beknighted Palestinians without a homeland" would continue ad infinitum.

Until they kill every Jew, and burn every Jew out of "Palestine", they're not going to be remotely satisfied. And if they accomplish that, they'll turn on each other shortly.