[pugsville]

kraychik - please give us your definition of "nation" 25 words or less. And for he record are the palestinians a "nations" and are they entitled to state (somehow I think you're going to say no). Surely debate would be easier if you took the small amount of time to define your terms.

[Tailz]

I believe kraychik has answered this quite well. All I would add is that despite my view that making inappropriate comparisons to the holocaust is holocaust denial by another name, I have listened to Asad and given him a full opportunity to justify the use of this expression. If you had read what I had written, you would have seen this. As yet, I still havn’t made up my mind as to whether Asad’s terminology is correct.

Actually, if I am not mistake, the inappropriate comparisons to the Holocaust started with you Sebby, when you posted this comment:

The phrase "death march" in my view is purely propaganda, as it was taken from the infamous death march forced upon the Jews by the Nazis in which tens / hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered. The only reason it is being used here is to draw a parallel, and unless you are absolutely convinced that the two are essentially the same, the use of this term is sick and verges on antisemitic in my view.

So are you sure you wish to describe it as a "death march"? If so, please describe this march that your grandparents did in detail.

Comments that seem to have been inspired by defending some conceived monopoly on the term: Death March. When as obviously indicated in my previous post, there have been a number of Death Marches which historians don’t seem to be asking the same questions about in regard to their authenticity or the use of the Death March terminology. Are you really now going to try and explain that only those Death Marches that were perpetrated against Jews during the holocaust may now use the term, Death March?

You then go so far as to accuse Asad of anti-Semitism because he used the term.

Re your “death march” examples. I would personally find it more convincing if you had links to a source like Wikipedia or something where these examples are clearly described as “death marches”.

Why not just Wiki the term yourself?

With respect, I’m not sure it is possible to “play up” Jewish suffering. While I very much disagree with “crying anti-Semitism”, I think it is also beyond doubt that many people do use this conflict to further anti-Semitism. It is perfectly respectable in my view to regard inappropriate comparisons to the holocaust as anti-Semitism. But one must be sure that such a comparison has been made and that the comparison is indeed inappropriate before using the term “anti-semitism”.

Jewish suffering can’t be played up to a receptive audience? Try Norman Finkelstein’s book, The Holocaust Industry.

Disagreeing with crying anti-semitism... thats ironic, since you wrote in reply to Asad:

The only reason it is being used here is to draw a parallel, and unless you are absolutely convinced that the two are essentially the same, the use of this term is sick and verges on antisemitic in my view.

So who was crying wolf?

DOES ANYBODY KNOW FROM RESEARCH WHETHER OR NOT THIS MARCH WAS RUSHED OR AT A LEISURELY PACE?

For fucks sake! Does it really matter if it was done at a jog or a shuffle?

With respect to Tailz mindless listing off of other marches that 99% of people are unaware of, who cares?

I think the guys I meet at the V.P. Day Memorial (Victory in the Pacific) a fortnight ago would care, considering some of the veterans there survived Death Marches forced on them by the Japanese during the Second World War. The Death Marches forced on Australian troops is taught in history lessons in schools here, along with lessons about the Death Marches during the Holocaust.

99% of people don’t know about such things? Maybe it is just your own ignorance Kraychik?

Most of the Arabs that lived in Israel in 1948 came from other arab territories, in the end of the 19th century and the beggining of the 20th century. 150 years ago if you came to Israel you wouldnt see anything there except swamps and desert, and of courde there wasnt any so called "Palestinian Nation" there thats lie a invented by Jewish traitors and Arabs.

So Palestine was void of life, no one lived there? So then why do you assume that Jews specifically (since if both Jews and Arabs would have to both be introduced to the region), are owed a greater right to be there, if both peoples are totally foreign to that vacant land?

[kraychik]

arthur: Look, a person's identity is his or her's and his or her's alone. I cannot tell someone that they are Jewish and therefore belong to the Jewish nation. If a person chooses to be something else, then he or she is free to make that choice. But Jews choose to be Jewish. That's why Jews identify themselves as Jewish. When someone says he or she is a Jew, he or she is making a choice to define himself/herself in that way and by extension belong to a larger collective: the Jewish nation.

As far as defining the term, I guess I'm mistaken to have assumed that people who participate in these forums, on the whole, are familiar with the term "nation" in the context of political science. Generally speaking, a nation is a group of people that identifies its cohesiveness based on various factors. The factors can include but are not limited to: shared sense of history, shared sense of ancestry (ethnicity and race can play a role here), shared language(s), shared religion (or religion influences), shared culture, shared values, a shared sense of purpose/destiny, etc. The Jewish people identify ourselves, on the whole (of course there will be exceptions on the fringe), as a nation. Nations, and by extension nationalism as a political ideology, are huge factors that have shaped the world we live in over countless years of the history of humanity. Without these concepts and strong attachment to them by populations, we wouldn't have any countries. Put simply, a rejection of Jewish nationhood is an outright rejection of Israel's legitimacy as it is a Jewish state and is founded on this concept. Clearly Israel also includes non-Jews, but this doesn't change the Jewish character of the country. As far as I'm concerned, and I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of worldwide Jewry shares this perspective, that rejection of either Jewish nationhood or (by extension of this reality) the legitimacy and need for Jewish statehood is anti-semitic. That is why my on-the-fly "are you an anti-semite?" three part quiz is so simple. These questions are at the core of the I/P debate with respect to critics of Israel. It is clear to me that the vast majority of criticism of Israel comes from people who reject these fundamentals. Mind you, it should not come as any surprise that anti-Zionist/anti-Israel arguments are often just a mask for anti-semitism. It's modern day anti-semitism in a shitty disguise.

EDIT - Clearly the level of ambiguity here leaves it open to negative people who simply seek to try to deny Jewish nationhood. There are obviously many cheap points that can be scored by identifying variations between worldwide Jewry (i.e. "well, there are Russian Jews and there French Jews, how are they unified?"), but most worlwide Jewry still identify themselves as Jews and support Israel. The simple self-reporting/self-identity of worldwide Jewry establishes the fact that we are a nation, plain as day. So just a simple head's up to the anti-semites in here, I'm not going to take the bait if you try to undermine Jewish identity by looking for holes in this naturally vague definition.

arthur - Your perspective that the Jewish people (a nation) require and deserve our own statehood is by extension a confirmation from you that we are indeed a nation. Mazel tov on this perspective. Being a nation and getting recognition as such by the powers that be was a crucial component in the Zionist quest for Jewish statehood. We've been through way too much bullshit to continue being entirely at the mercy of non-Jews, therefore, we need and now have our own country. On a fundamental level, you're on the right side of this issue. As seen above, the definition of nation has a lot of flexibility, and can qualify to many groups of people.

Lastly, with respect to Palestinians, my honest judgement based on my current understanding of Palestinians is that they are not a unique group of people and are not a nation. As far as I can tell, they belong to a broader nation of Arabic Muslims. I don't see how they are much different from other Arabic Muslims (I know there are some Christian Palestinians) in Lebanon or Syria (aside from not being colonized by the French, which I concede is a significant historical difference, although it is contemporary history), or Jordan or Egypt, or even Saudi Arabia (still many other Ara-/Muslim countries out there). That being said, I'm not opposed to them receiving statehood through a future peace agreement. We've already got so many Arab-Muslim couuntries, what difference does it make if we have another? :-\

[Tailz]

Lastly, with respect to Palestinians, my honest judgement based on my current understanding of Palestinians is that they are not a unique group of people and are not a nation. As far as I can tell, they belong to a broader nation of Arabic Muslims. I don't see how they are much different from other Arabic Muslims (I know there are some Christian Palestinians) in Lebanon or Syria (aside from not being colonized by the French, which I concede is a significant historical difference, although it is contemporary history), or Jordan or Egypt, or even Saudi Arabia (still many other Ara-/Muslim countries out there). That being said, I'm not opposed to them receiving statehood through a future peace agreement. We've already got so many Arab-Muslim couuntries, what difference does it make if we have another?

Americans are not a unique collective mass, nether is Israel a single identity coperative, each conssits of people from many different ethnic backgrounds. Many Americans come from places like China, France, Itilay, Russia, etc. So shall you deny their status as a Nation because their all not one single amorphis blob from one single culteral/ethinc/religious group? Which is what you have just wrote about the Palestinians. You seem to denote the state being defined by the race of its people.

[kraychik]

Different nations have different things that make them nations. If nation A is connected through variable x, y, and z.... nation B may be connected through variables 1, 2, and 3. So the factors that connect Jews into nationhood (to list a few, a shared sense of history, religion philosophy/values, common languages, in some cases common ancestry, etc) aren't the same factors that unify Americans into a nation. You don't measure every nation by the same variables, necessarily. Either way, the definition is vague and clearly has a subjective element, so clearly there will be those out there who seek to exploit these shortcomings in order to advance their bullshit anti-semitic perspective. Put simply, some nations are more loosely held together than others on some variables, but possibly more tightly held via other variables. It'd be a very interesting endeavour to analyze the phenomenon of American nationality and identity. I also never implied that a nation must be entirely homogenous. Clearly worlwide Jewry contains within it a lot of diversity, as we've got Jews from Canada, the USA, South American countries like Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, all way through to many European countries, and even some African countries like Ethipia. Worldwide Jewish unity is an amazing phenomenon, though, especially how Israel galvanized worldwide Jewry. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I think about it.

Anyways, your attempt at trying to poke holes into the concept of nationalism = fail.

[pugsville]

I still dont understand want you mean by nation, how does it differ from state? All the dictionary definitions I have looked down boil down to if your have terroritory under government them it's a nation. How are the jews a nation differ from israel as a state? Where the jews a nation before the foundation of israel?

[Tailz]

Different nations have different things that make them nations. If nation A is connected through variable x, y, and z.... nation B may be connected through variables 1, 2, and 3. So the factors that connect Jews into nationhood (to list a few, a shared sense of history, religion philosophy/values, common languages, in some cases common ancestry, etc) aren't the same factors that unify Americans into a nation. You don't measure every nation by the same variables, necessarily. Either way, the definition is vague and clearly has a subjective element, so clearly there will be those out there who seek to exploit these shortcomings in order to advance their bullshit anti-semitic perspective. Put simply, some nations are more loosely held together than others on some variables, but possibly more tightly held via other variables. It'd be a very interesting endeavour to analyze the phenomenon of American nationality and identity. I also never implied that a nation must be entirely homogenous.

So nations may be of collective groups of non-unique peoples? Does that not counter your previous statement: Lastly, with respect to Palestinians, my honest judgement based on my current understanding of Palestinians is that they are not a unique group of people and are not a nation.

As you point out below, Jews are not a unique group of people, with Jews having come from Canada, the USA, South American countries like Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, all way through to many European countries, and even some African countries like Ethipia - your words Kraychik - yet you asign them the status to attain nationhood, yet not the Palestinians because they are not of a single unique group?

Is that not a bit of a double standard?

Clearly worlwide Jewry contains within it a lot of diversity, as we've got Jews from Canada, the USA, South American countries like Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, all way through to many European countries, and even some African countries like Ethipia. Worldwide Jewish unity is an amazing phenomenon, though, especially how Israel galvanized worldwide Jewry.

No more amazing or galvanizing than worldwide Christian or Muslim unity defined by a single uniting religious ethos (the same as Jews are).

This then leads into ideals of states defined by religious ideas, remind you of Muslim states by any chance?

But what your hinting at Kraychik, is the so called Jewish Nation – a Nation that all you need for membership is to belong to the same ethnic/religious/racial collective.

[Asad]

Lastly, with respect to Palestinians, my honest judgement based on my current understanding of Palestinians is that they are not a unique group of people and are not a nation. As far as I can tell, they belong to a broader nation of Arabic Muslims. I don't see how they are much different from other Arabic Muslims (I know there are some Christian Palestinians) in Lebanon or Syria (aside from not being colonized by the French, which I concede is a significant historical difference, although it is contemporary history), or Jordan or Egypt, or even Saudi Arabia (still many other Ara-/Muslim countries out there). That being said, I'm not opposed to them receiving statehood through a future peace agreement. We've already got so many Arab-Muslim couuntries, what difference does it make if we have another? :-\

Thats a ridiculuous, broad generalisation. Palestinians differ from their arab neighbours in many way, much like each arab country is quite different to the next. Just because their arab, it does not mean they are an identical people, with an identical culture and so on. The Palestinian have every right for their own nation, just because there are other arab countries does not diminish this right.
Based on the logic, there are already enough "Caucasian Christian" nation, and therefore, some European nations have no right to exist.

[danholo]

The Palestinians are a distinct nation, or tribe, of Arabs? I'd wager they are just one part of the Arab nation that happened to inhabit Palestine at some point. They certainly didn't originate from Palestine, nor did they speak "Palestinian" or have anything unique about their culture compared to their neighbors, mainly because, well, they come from where their neighbors are... My Grandfather is a Karelian refugee from Karelia: Finns regard them as Finnish people, part of the Karelian tribe, and certainly haven't constructed a farcical and false reality creating them into a "nation" just for political maneuvering.

I still dont understand want you mean by nation, how does it differ from state? All the dictionary definitions I have looked down boil down to if your have terroritory under government them it's a nation. How are the jews a nation differ from israel as a state? Where the jews a nation before the foundation of israel?

The Jews were a nation, by their own words, over 3000 years ago. Whoever wrote that nation equals to artificially incepted state construct that handles the bureaucracy of the well being of its registered subjects, should not be taken seriously. Nation does not equal state. I find it absurd that people adopt a certain "nationality" when they become a part of the registry.

[Zionist Nationalist]

If the "palestinians" are so unique so tell me whats the diffrance betwen the Jordanian Arabs and the "Palestinian" Arabs?. eaven their Flag is almost the same the only diffrance is that on the Jordanian Flag there is a little white star on the left side of the Flag.

[clanko]

Denial of a unique Palestinian identity is nothing short of pure racism, with a real politically-motivated punch. I am not even going to begin listing the reasons as to why it is so untrue because to do so might risk vindicating the sheer basis for such a comment.

It seems much easier to make this about Israel 'against the Arabs' because it appears to take the focus off the fact that Israel is denying rights to a particular group of people in a particular place, and it becomes a vague smokey picture where Israeli guilt is at the very least, questionable.

[pugsville]

Can someone pleas explain the difference between state and nation. People seem very certain that the Jews are a nation and Palestinian Arabs are not. If your so sure surely you can do me the kindness and explaining the difference between the two terms.

I gather in Palestinian Arabs are not seperate distinct nation them it's perfectly right to dispossess them. Groups with nation status hard particular rights and those without it do not. The New Zealand Flag and the Australian Flag are very similar , there is a lot shared culture and language, some sport (the heathens follow rugby rather than the Aussie Rules, but thats the case against Sydney, which I never liked maybe we come swap it for something) so, are they seperate Nations?

[kraychik]

As you point out below, Jews are not a unique group of people, with Jews having come from Canada, the USA, South American countries like Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, all way through to many European countries, and even some African countries like Ethipia - your words Kraychik - yet you asign them the status to attain nationhood, yet not the Palestinians because they are not of a single unique group?

Is that not a bit of a double standard?

Hang on a moment, take a moment to think about your saying. Variation between Jews from different background doesn't override the commonalities. You're saying "Jews are not a unique group of people"... of course we are. Variation between members belonging to a group isn't the same thing as stating that members of the group aren't unique. Remember, different nations have different things holding them together. With respect to Palestinians not being a nation (this is my opinion, although I'm open to changing it), I view them as part of a larger whole - that larger whole being Arabic Muslims. Ironically, what seems to seperate Palestinians from other Arabic Muslims is the I/P conflict (and as I've alluded to earlier, not being colonized by France like Lebanon and Syria). There is no double standard here.

No more amazing or galvanizing than worldwide Christian or Muslim unity defined by a single uniting religious ethos (the same as Jews are).

This then leads into ideals of states defined by religious ideas, remind you of Muslim states by any chance?

But what your hinting at Kraychik, is the so called Jewish Nation – a Nation that all you need for membership is to belong to the same ethnic/religious/racial collective.

Actually, the story of Jewish unity against all odds towards the development of Israel is an amazing story. It is awe-inspiring. Pioneers leaving Europe and fleeing anti-semitism to build a new home from nothing, and look at what a success Israel is today economically, socially (education, research), etc. There are very few examples of a state climbing so high so fast (when was it that Japan had several years of double-digit GDP growth... anyone remember?). There's something special about worldwide Jewish unity in the context of Israel, it's like the ultimate grassroots story. You're also starting to make ridiculous comparisons.... Israel's policies reminding me of Muslim states? Please. Do I even need to address that? Israel couldn't be MORE different from its Arab neighbors, everything is superior in Israel when compared to its neighbors. Stop pretending like maintaining the Jewish identity of Israel necessarily means that all non-Jews in Israel live a hellish life. I've said it earlier, minor infringements on minority rights are sometimes necessary to achieve greater goals. In Canada, as a practical example, we've got special language laws in Quebec that are different from the rest of Canada's provinces. There language laws have survived challenges against them rooted in our charter of freedoms (CCRF) - their objective being to promote the survival of the French language, and integral part of Quebec culture. So what if non-francophones are inconvenienced? If they don't like it, they're welcome to leave. I'd argue that the Quebec language laws are more of an infringement on non-Francophones in Quebec than any pro-Jewish law in Israel is an infringement on non-Jews in Israel. I'm also unsure why you prefix the Jewish nation with "so called"... are you unsure of the Jewish people's nationhood? Is the concept of a nation to ambiguous for your ultra-reasoned brain to handle? Are you trying to imply that because the Jewish nation doesn't include all the people in the world, that somehow it is discriminatory? Your last phrase... what are you driving at?


pugsville - I'll elaborate on the difference between a nation and a state. I've already explained that a nation is a group of people united through one or more factors, such as ancestry, language(s), religion, food, whatever. A state is an institution with physical boundaries, typically with some sort of internal mechanism for operations - i.e. political and/or economic and/or cultural, whatever. America is a state. Iran is a state. It's a simple difference really, a nation refers to a group of people(s) and a state is the territory that's occupied. Not being a nation DOES NOT imply that a people do not have rights. What I'm saying is that I'm unconvinced that Palestinians are a nation that is distinct from their neighboring Arabic Muslim neighbors. I look at them as part of a greater collective. Contrary to clanko's absurd comments, this is in no way racist. Clearly they are a distinct people, but they aren't distinct from Jordanians or Syrians or Lebanese... not distinct enough to constitute a unique nation. So what? All people deserve rights and freedoms, and they still belong to a nation. I'm also not opposed to recognizing them as a nation for the purpose of adding credence to their desires for their own state. Again, we've already got so many Arab-Muslim states in the Middle East, what difference would one more make?

An interesting note is how reluctant clanko was in answering my question of him - are the Jewish people a nation? After pursuing him for a few posts, he finally answered, ambiguously though, that the Jewish people are *not* a nation. Yet look at how quickly he jumps down my throat when I question Palestinian nationhood! Clearly, clanko is anti-semitic. This is now without question.

asad - I do not see how my questioning of Palestinian nationhood is ridiculous. Here is an interesting contrast to consider (between Jews and Muslims, generally speaking), make of it what you will - the Jewish nation comprises of Jews from all sorts of backgrounds. The Jewish diaspora is, largely, the result of our expulsion and/or fleeing from persecution from so many places and so many times in our long history. As a result, Jews ended up in South America, North America, all over Europe, and even some in Africa and Asia. Jews were speaking all sorts of languages and eating all kinds of foods and subscribing to all sorts of political ideologies. But Jews were always united through a shared sense of history and the Torah. Worldwide Jewry belongs to this nation, and their place is guaranteed if they want to come to Israel and make it their home. French Jews didn't fight for a part of France to their own little "French Israel", and Russian Jews didn't fight to make their shtetls a "Russian Israel". Worldwide Jews, on the whole, identify themselves as part of a greater collective of Jews regardless of their country of origin. But when we analyze the Arab/Muslim world, we see a much different picture. All these Arab-Muslim countries fighting for their own independence, even fighting each other! This is an interesting contrast between the Jewish concept of nationhood and the Arab/Muslim concept of nationhood. Palestinians are so distinct from their Jordanian, Syrian, and Lebanese neighbors that they need their own state, apparently! Jews are just happy to have a state, regardless of where we're from. Bottom line, Jews are much more inclusive than Muslims with respect to our broader definition for nationhood. Muslims are different, and even fight amongst each other for territories. Look at Iran and Iraq, fighting each other. Look at the internal conflicts in Afghanistan. look at Chechnya's terrorism against Russia. Look at Chinese Mulims causing problems today. Pakistan and India. Clearly this is connected to the sheer volume of worldwide Muslims, as it's obviously more difficult to maintain unity with such a massive group of people. Still, I think Jewish unity is special and inspiring, regardless of how often it's portrayed by anti-semites as some sort of evil back-door rich-only Protocol of Zion banking media conspiracy. Again, make of that what you will.

And here we are, in 2009, with a bunch of anti-semites questioning our cohesiveness.... "oh, you're not unified enough to be a nation" or "you're all so different now". Some things never change. Clearly the Jewish people were united enough to work towards the establishment of Israel, eh? This was done almost exclusively diplomatically as well. How many other nations in history lobbied the powers that be of their era to have a state issued to them through legislation and not through war? I can't think of any others. And again, Arab/Muslim anti-semitic belligerence has lead us to where we are today.

clanko wrote:

Denial of a unique Palestinian identity is nothing short of pure racism, with a real politically-motivated punch. I am not even going to begin listing the reasons as to why it is so untrue because to do so might risk vindicating the sheer basis for such a comment.

Again, look at what certainty you have when describing the Palestinian people as a nation. How principled of you! And then take a look at the resistance you had when facing the very same question of the Jewish people. Unreal.

EDITED.

[Tailz]

If the "palestinians" are so unique so tell me whats the diffrance betwen the Jordanian Arabs and the "Palestinian" Arabs?. eaven their Flag is almost the same the only diffrance is that on the Jordanian Flag there is a little white star on the left side of the Flag.

You’re making determinations about a vast number of people, by what is painted on a flag?!

Should we assume the favourite colour of all Israeli’s is blue, because there is blue on the Israeli flag?

Hang on a moment, take a moment to think about your saying. Variation between Jews from different background doesn't override the commonalities. You're saying "Jews are not a unique group of people"... of course we are. Variation between members belonging to a group isn't the same thing as stating that members of the group aren't unique. Remember, different nations have different things holding them together. With respect to Palestinians not being a nation (this is my opinion, although I'm open to changing it), I view them as part of a larger whole - that larger whole being Arabic Muslims.

You’re the one making the accusations Kraychik, I’ve just been picking apart your argument by using your own argument and applying it equally. You make the association that Palestinians are not a unique group of people, and imply they should be denied various political benefits because they are not unique – personally I don’t care if Palestinians or Jews are carbon copies from the same cookie cutter, or as diverse as the colours in the rainbow.

Both Jews and Palestinians have elements that make them both unique and of a diverse background – so why should we limit ether because of that? Yet you imply that because you perceive that Palestinians are not unique, they should be denied the benefits and chances your more than willing to grant Jews – so you apply a higher standard and more benefits to Jews than to Palestinians – that is a double standard, and it is also racism because the factor that determines your granting of benefits is a demarcation based on a race/culture/religion standard.

Ironically, what seems to seperate Palestinians from other Arabic Muslims is the I/P conflict (and as I've alluded to earlier, not being colonized by France like Lebanon and Syria). There is no double standard here.

Yes indeed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does separate Palestinians from other Arabic peoples of the region, because they happened to live in Palestine when this fiasco took shape. Had they lived elsewhere, they would not have been effected because they would not have been exposed to the events – such as the conquest of Palestine by Zionist forces.

Actually, the story of Jewish unity against all odds towards the development of Israel is an amazing story. It is awe-inspiring. Pioneers leaving Europe and fleeing anti-semitism to build a new home from nothing, and look at what a success Israel is today economically, socially (education, research), etc. There are very few examples of a state climbing so high so fast (when was it that Japan had several years of double-digit GDP growth... anyone remember?). There's something special about worldwide Jewish unity in the context of Israel, it's like the ultimate grassroots story.

No different than when God Squad fled religious persecution to found a colony in the New World – and hey presto, America was born!

The story of early Zionism is an interesting one (But it sounds to me, you have been feed a healthy dose of the romantic version of the early Zionist beginning - really it was far more gritty and contraversial), and as I have written before, was based on a number of concepts I cannot fault, but the execution of the dream leaves little to be desired. Like the Pioneers who founded America, they too thought they were taking over a vacant land, building something from nothing, they too climbed the heights of industrial, social, and economic success – with a grassroots story of the All American dream where everyone is equal – well, except for the Slaves, Blacks, and Indians – but it was the thought that counts.

You're also starting to make ridiculous comparisons.... Israel's policies reminding me of Muslim states? Please. Do I even need to address that? Israel couldn't be MORE different from its Arab neighbors, everything is superior in Israel when compared to its neighbors. Stop pretending like maintaining the Jewish identity of Israel necessarily means that all non-Jews in Israel live a hellish life.

By defining the state as a Jewish State, it has created a double standard between Jews and Non-Jews. Already there have been protests against Arabs living in Jewish areas, Jews generalising that all Arabs are dirty, Jewish landlords have been lobbied to not sell or rent land to Arabs, the JNF had to recently be ordered by the Israeli courts to sell JNF lands to all Israelis (not Jews alone), with the disparity between municipal spending on Jewish councils and Arabs councils even making it into the Israeli press. There has even been a controversial plan to have members of the state sware loyalty to Israel as a Zionist Jewish state or lose citizenship - Heck even government ministers have considered plans to remove large bodies of citizens from the state in order to maintain a Jewish majority – that alone is discrimination against the states citizens on racial grounds because they don’t fit the states chosen profile! Certainly the Laws of Israel dictate that all Israeli’s are equal, but in practice not every is seen as equal, and it is because the state is given this Jewish definition. Mind you I am not going to say that without that predefinition, things will be better, but it does not help the situation ether. The unfortunate reality of Israel, is that its land mass is the home of a number of different ethnic/racial/cultural groups.

I've said it earlier, minor infringements on minority rights are sometimes necessary to achieve greater goals.

Of course those who don’t have to suffer the minor infringements; are not going to complain about the benefits.

In Canada, as a practical example, we've got special language laws in Quebec that are different from the rest of Canada's provinces. There language laws have survived challenges against them rooted in our charter of freedoms (CCRF) - their objective being to promote the survival of the French language, and integral part of Quebec culture. So what if non-francophones are inconvenienced? If they don't like it, they're welcome to leave. I'd argue that the Quebec language laws are more of an infringement on non-Francophones in Quebec than any pro-Jewish law in Israel is an infringement on non-Jews in Israel.

You give an example of a parallel cultural experience, or tolerance for maintaining a cultural historical heritage. Plus it is aimed at maintaining the existing culture – I see no problem with that, we have much the same here with Aboriginal culture. It is not a case of one over-riding cultural identity, but an understanding that the area contains a number of cultures – while Israel maintains one single overriding identity.

I'm also unsure why you prefix the Jewish nation with "so called"... are you unsure of the Jewish people's nationhood? Is the concept of a nation to ambiguous for your ultra-reasoned brain to handle? Are you trying to imply that because the Jewish nation doesn't include all the people in the world, that somehow it is discriminatory?

To consider nationalism granted by race or culture, is to consider I am granted privileges over those who do not fit the same profile – to me that is discrimination. I may have a particular ancestry or cultural heritage, but I don’t believe it grants me any special boon that makes me of a greater value or higher status than another person.

Which is the delineation between Jew and Gentile, Muslim and unbeliever, Christian and Pagan, between Nationalists, that one is better than the other.

Your last phrase... what are you driving at?

The undercurrent ideals of racism. If I started going on about the White Nation, I’m quite certain I’d be hounded down the street as some Aryan Nation racist, so why is it considered appropriate for other collective groups of people to rabbit on about such notions of brotherhood united with Nationalism?

[kraychik]

You’re the one making the accusations Kraychik, I’ve just been picking apart your argument by using your own argument and applying it equally. You make the association that Palestinians are not a unique group of people, and imply they should be denied various political benefits because they are not unique – personally I don’t care if Palestinians or Jews are carbon copies from the same cookie cutter, or as diverse as the colours in the rainbow.

Look, don't suggest that my opinion that the Palestinians aren't a nation distinct from their Arab-Muslim neighbors is implying that Palestinians need to be denied any rights or freedoms. Unless of course you're suggesting that Palestinians should somehow be admitted into Israel and become citizens, which is obviously out of the question. I also reject that the legitimacy of a Palestinian claim to a state is necessarily contingent on its nationhood. I've already said it several times in several forums, adding another Arab-Muslim state to the long list of Arab-Muslims states doesn't make much of a difference as far as I'm concerned.

Both Jews and Palestinians have elements that make them both unique and of a diverse background – so why should we limit ether because of that? Yet you imply that because you perceive that Palestinians are not unique, they should be denied the benefits and chances your more than willing to grant Jews – so you apply a higher standard and more benefits to Jews than to Palestinians – that is a double standard, and it is also racism because the factor that determines your granting of benefits is a demarcation based on a race/culture/religion standard.

I'm totally lost here. Who is limiting Palestinians, here? After Arab-Muslim rejection of the UN partition plan (as well as anti-semitic terrorism that they executed against the early Jewish Zionists into Palestine in the late 19th century), the potential for a Palestinian state was thrown into limbo. I am also not applying a double standard towards my views of the Jewish people constituting a nation and the Palestinians not constituting a nation. If anything, I am being much more strict with the Jewish side here, given the fact that the Jewish community is much more diverse than the Palestinian community (this is without question). The criteria for the Jewish nation is much broader in scope... we've got Jews from all over the world with all sorts of backgrounds: ethnic/language/racial/political/whatever. Clearly the same cannot be said for Palestinians. Palestinians are a very narrow nation, if we define them as such, considering that they are virtually alike to their Arab-Muslim neighbors. So again, we're being very lax with the term "nation" if we're willing to extend it towards the Palestinians. There's nothing racist about analyzing the variables that define a nation and concluding that the Jewish people are a nation and that the Palestinians are not. It would be silly if I said Arabic Muslims are not a nation, but I'm looking at a very narrowly defined group of Arabic Muslims, who I think belong to a greater collective: Arabic Muslims as a whole. Or, at the very least, they are Jordanian/Lebanese/Egyptian/Syrian. Pick one or pick them all.

Yes indeed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does separate Palestinians from other Arabic peoples of the region, because they happened to live in Palestine when this fiasco took shape. Had they lived elsewhere, they would not have been effected because they would not have been exposed to the events – such as the conquest of Palestine by Zionist forces.

Conquest? Get real. It was a legitimate political movement to establish Israel through diplomacy (primarily). It wasn't conquered, unless you're describing Israel's self-defense during its war for independence as a conquest. Not quite the most appropriate term.

No different than when God Squad fled religious persecution to found a colony in the New World – and hey presto, America was born!

Ridiculous. The Zionist story is so different. I won't even address that seriously.

The story of early Zionism is an interesting one (But it sounds to me, you have been feed a healthy dose of the romantic version of the early Zionist beginning - really it was far more gritty and contraversial), and as I have written before, was based on a number of concepts I cannot fault, but the execution of the dream leaves little to be desired. Like the Pioneers who founded America, they too thought they were taking over a vacant land, building something from nothing, they too climbed the heights of industrial, social, and economic success – with a grassroots story of the All American dream where everyone is equal – well, except for the Slaves, Blacks, and Indians – but it was the thought that counts.

It's an amazing story. It may be controversial for anti-semites or Israel-haters, but it isn't for me. In a crude way, if you wanna make an omelette you gotta crack some eggs. Many Palestinians were dispossessed. It sucks, but it's done.

By defining the state as a Jewish State, it has created a double standard between Jews and Non-Jews. Already there have been protests against Arabs living in Jewish areas, Jews generalising that all Arabs are dirty, Jewish landlords have been lobbied to not sell or rent land to Arabs, the JNF had to recently be ordered by the Israeli courts to sell JNF lands to all Israelis (not Jews alone), with the disparity between municipal spending on Jewish councils and Arabs councils even making it into the Israeli press. There has even been a controversial plan to have members of the state sware loyalty to Israel as a Zionist Jewish state or lose citizenship - Heck even government ministers have considered plans to remove large bodies of citizens from the state in order to maintain a Jewish majority – that alone is discrimination against the states citizens on racial grounds because they don’t fit the states chosen profile! Certainly the Laws of Israel dictate that all Israeli’s are equal, but in practice not every is seen as equal, and it is because the state is given this Jewish definition. Mind you I am not going to say that without that predefinition, things will be better, but it does not help the situation ether. The unfortunate reality of Israel, is that its land mass is the home of a number of different ethnic/racial/cultural groups.

More accurately, Israel is the homeland of the Jews (kudos to Nets!). Labelling it as the Jewish state misrepresents the ~20% of Israelis that aren't Jewish. The cultural tensions that you describe (although only describing them as they apply to, and reflect negatively on, Jewish Israelis...) are unfortunate, and nobody can deny them. But these internal tensions are a tangent, as we're trying to talk about the I/P conflict here, and not so much internal problem Israel has between its Jewish and Arab populations. Perhaps Israel should do what Arab-Muslim nations did, and expel the Arab populations? On the whole, non-Jewish Israelis live a good quality life in the global context, and especially in the context of the Middle East. If we want to be honest about things in a general sense, life in Israel is good, although it isn't without its problems. But what country can claim that it doesn't have problems? Either way, like I've already said, the internal cultural conflicts within Israel between its Jewish and Arab populations is a discussion for another thread.

Of course those who don’t have to suffer the minor infringements; are not going to complain about the benefits.

So what? Life isn't always fair and perfect. Sometimes ultra-rationalistic egalitarianism has its shortcomings.

You give an example of a parallel cultural experience, or tolerance for maintaining a cultural historical heritage. Plus it is aimed at maintaining the existing culture – I see no problem with that, we have much the same here with Aboriginal culture. It is not a case of one over-riding cultural identity, but an understanding that the area contains a number of cultures – while Israel maintains one single overriding identity.

In Quebec, French language and cultural absolutely overrides English language and culture. And this is entrenched into law. It *IS* discriminatory. It is reasonable, however, as without these laws the Quebec culture would have a much harder time preserving itself against the forces of assimilation. The French language laws of Quebec (and as they connect to the greater issue of Quebec's role in Canada, it's potential sovereignty, etc) are one of Canada's greatest controversies. In Israel there are laws with a similar intent, for example Jewish immigration laws. At face value, they are discriminatory. But they are necessary in order for Israel to maintain its Jewish identity. I mean this in all seriousness, if an Israeli, Jewish or otherwise, feels that they simply cannot tolerate the few laws in Israel which favor Jews (or as you would describe as discrminating against non-Jews), then they are free to leave. Or, they can organize politically. Whatever. I am entirely comfortable with minor infringements on non-Jews for the greater good of preserving the Jewish identity of Israel.

To consider nationalism granted by race or culture, is to consider I am granted privileges over those who do not fit the same profile – to me that is discrimination. I may have a particular ancestry or cultural heritage, but I don’t believe it grants me any special boon that makes me of a greater value or higher status than another person.

Which is the delineation between Jew and Gentile, Muslim and unbeliever, Christian and Pagan, between Nationalists, that one is better than the other.

Again, a little bit of discrimination is sometimes necessary. It's not as if non-Jews are barred from political organization (there are limits to this, however), 99.9% of jobs, of any other manner of basic freedoms. Jews from abroad get an immigration-free card, many Jewish holidays are national holidays, the majority of the country is Jewish, and certain high-level security positions are indirectly reserved for Jews as they require great military experience. So what? It's a lot worse to be the wrong kind of Muslim in Iraq. Not every country in 2009 is ready to be like Canada. Also, nationalism does NOT necessarily imply that one group is better than another. Of course nationalism can easily flow over into prejudice, but it is absolutely not a rule of nature. Nationalism, at its core, is about being distinct. And distinction is absolutely NOT the same as being better or more privileged. You are just so super-principled that you can't accept any advantage that one group may have over another within a country, eh? How impressive. :-\

"Why is this university program admitting 55% of males as its students? That is so unbelievably un-FAIR to women! I call discrmination! If it ain't 50/50 it's discrimination and sexist!"

Get real.

Lastly - How can you seriously be comparing the concept of "white brotherhood" to the Zionist movement for a Jewish state? Something ambiguous and based on the color of one's skin is somehow akin to Jewish unity? Why do you insist on always making absurd comparisons between concepts that cannot be compared? It's as if you're so desperate to disagree that you'll grab at straws of bullshit and hope nobody will notice.

[clanko]

why is it considered appropriate for other collective groups of people to rabbit on about such notions of brotherhood united with Nationalism?

...because it is not a humanist brand of 'brotherhood' but one centered on the certain 'nation' and its quest for a state. The discrimination, chauvinism, racism and xenophoebia just comes part in parcel with that, all the while under the guise of protecting against such backward concepts.

[kraychik]

clanko: Hang on a moment, you're not being accurate. Nationalism doesn't necessarily seek to insulate its members from terrible non-members of the nation. Viewing oneself as different/distinct, and needing special efforts to preserve this distinction in the face of external pressures does NOT necessarily suggest that the outside forces are seen as "backward".

In other words, if I take efforts to preserve a part of my heritage, whether it be language or religion or what have you, it is unfair for you to describe the motivation behind these efforts of mine as xenophobic/prejudice/chauvinistic/*insert adjective suggesting some form of discrimination here*.

Again, what you and tailz label as discriminatory (i.e. the get-citizenship-in-Israel-for-free-if-you're-Jewish thing), I see as a reasonable infringement on the rights or freedoms of the non-Jews in israel towards the greater purpose of maintaining Israel's Jewish identity. Those Israelis who aren't cool with this law or others are welcome to coordinate politically (good luck!) or leave (also good luck!). The whole ulta-fair-ultra-equal ideology is a nice fantasy, but that same attitude would lead to the demise of Israel as a Jewish state over time. Why can you not concede that this is an unacceptable consequence? Israel and worldwide Jewry must make efforts towards preserving Jewish identity in the face of the complete assimilation into non-Jewish culture. Today that manifests itself in various ways, i.e. the JNF, Jewish charities aimed at educating Jews about their heritage/culture/religion, participation in Jewish events, Jewish immigration laws in Israel, Lieberman's proposal to have Israeli citizenship being contingent on a loyalty oath, etc. Some of these protections manifest themselves through grassroots efforts, and others through political actions. You and tailz seem opposed to every single effort that might be described as disriminatory. You reject every inch of a measure that seeks to preserve Jewish identity that may infringe on a non-Jewish minority in any way.


EDIT - clanko: Btw, you still haven't addressed me calling you out on the great disparity between your ambivalence towards the Jewish people a state (your answer to the question: "are the Jewish people a nation?" was a long, drawn out "no") and your swift and resounding proclamation that the Palestinians are indeed a nation. The disconnect between your perspective on Jewish nationhood and Palestinian nationhood couldn't be greater. I believe this moment exposed how ridiculous your core beliefs are surrounding this issue. You may dress up your arguments in liberalistic bullshit, but it is easy for me to see through. I had this impression of you within the first few posts of yours that I ever read. Subsequent posts of yours simply reinforce my initial impression. I'll say it again, how can you expect me to have a serious conversation with you when you reject basic fundamentals of this entire issue? If you cannot acknowledge Jewish nationhood, then there really is no point in my engaging you on the minutae of the I/P issue... since you cannot even accept the basic fundamental truths at the core of the issue, one of which being that the Jewish people are a nation... and, by extension, require statehood. I imagine that Palestinian leadership disputes these fundamentals, as well. Probably much of the Arab/Muslim world disputes these fundamentals. And therein lies a simple crucial cause (not the only cause) of this entire conflict.

[Tailz]

Today that manifests itself in various ways, i.e. the JNF, Jewish charities aimed at educating Jews about their heritage/culture/religion, participation in Jewish events, Jewish immigration laws in Israel, Lieberman's proposal to have Israeli citizenship being contingent on a loyalty oath, etc. Some of these protections manifest themselves through grassroots efforts, and others through political actions. You and tailz seem opposed to every single effort that might be described as disriminatory. You reject every inch of a measure that seeks to preserve Jewish identity that may infringe on a non-Jewish minority in any way.

Those elements also preserve a political demographic - they seek to facilitate a political movements agenda. The JNF did this by acquiring land (by legal sale and land assigned to the JNF after being annexed or reposed by the state) and only selling it to Jews instead of to members of the Israeli state (as it has now been orders to do). Jewish immigration laws are in place to facilitate a Jewish demographic by facilitating the inward flow of foreign Jews. While Lieberman demands an oath of loyality to a state that only acknowledges a Jewish heritage (to the denial of the fact that a other ethnic groups lived there too) and facilitates an occupation and settlement construction that disposes other Palestinians of their homes in favour of settler Jews there instead.

I reject all of these as much as I reject the 1940’s measures to preserve Aryan identity! The only difference this time around, is that the Jews are on the benefiting side, instead of the side that suffered from the discrimination.

You and tailz seem opposed to every single effort that might be described as disriminatory.

I am perplexed why you don't ether, considering the amount of discrimination Jews have had to put up with in the past! To now discriminate against others, considering Jews know what its like to be discriminated against?!

Why support that which you obviously don't like being done to yourself??

You reject every inch of a measure that seeks to preserve Jewish identity that may infringe on a non-Jewish minority in any way.

I will happily promote programs to foster Jewish culture, language, etc. But I’ll drop like a sack of poo any program that does so at the expense of others. Which is why I fully support the right of Jews to live in Israel, even in the West Bank or Gaza, but not at the expense of other people – which is what Israeli settlers do, they create settlements that push out those people who already live there – thus why I don’t support Israeli settlers.

[Asad]

If the "palestinians" are so unique so tell me whats the diffrance betwen the Jordanian Arabs and the "Palestinian" Arabs?. eaven their Flag is almost the same the only diffrance is that on the Jordanian Flag there is a little white star on the left side of the Flag.

Oh, ok. I never knew that flags were of such importance in settling such issues. Based on this new information, I have concluded that since the flags of Romania and Chad are identical, that must mean Romanians and Chadians are the same people? The greedy Romanians/Chadians are taking up space on two continents! Finally, we have uncovered their evil plot, thanks to your enlightenment Zionist Nationalist.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Ok leave the Flags alone but tell me whats the diffrance betwen the "Palestinians" and the "Jordanians"