Israel's unreasonable demand

[Violet_Crumble]

Asking Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state is like urging the IRA to see Northern Ireland as a Protestant entity

Omar Rahman
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 22 September 2010 10.59 BST

"The Palestinians must recognise Israel as a Jewish state." This is the mantra of the Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has been promoting this controversial idea as a condition of any peace deal.


But is such recognition valid, necessary, or even appropriate? This question will certainly remain at the heart of negotiations with an Israeli leadership that views such recognition as imperative. Although this is not the first time Israel has sought some form of validation, it varies from the past in stark and troubling ways.


In 1993 Israel's prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, called on the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, Yasser Arafat, to recognise Israel as a prerequisite for signing the Oslo agreement and commencing negotiations between the two peoples.


Arafat delivered this recognition in an open letter, which Rabin accepted as sufficient – and reciprocated in kind with recognition of the PLO. It was a watershed moment in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the beginning of diplomacy between the two sides.


Recognising Israel's right to exist in peace and security was an existential question, and a necessary preamble to real and sustained peace between Israel and its neighbours. In so doing, the Palestinians had accepted the partition of their historic land and the two-state solution.


Recognising Israel as a "Jewish" state, however, is a question of national character, and is not relevant to the Palestinians living as a foreign nation outside Israel. This is a domestic issue and it is up to the citizens of every country to decide the identity and character of their own state.


Is the international community obliged to determine if Congo wishes to be called the Democratic Republic or Iran the Islamic Republic? No, this is something chosen – in the case of a democracy – by the citizens who live there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/22/israel-jewish-state-palestinians

[Tripmann]

1. Good article, and spot on.

Recognising Israel as a jewish state is just another red herring roadblock on the road to peace. Demanding people, who have no say over the type of state israel is, recognise israel as a jewish state is pointless and even a little bit perverse.

[oberliner]

2. UN General Assembly Resolution 181

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE

The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.

The armed forces of the mandatory Power shall be progressively withdrawn from Palestine, the withdrawal to be completed as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.
The mandatory Power shall advise the Commission, as far in advance as possible, of its intention to terminate the mandate and to evacuate each area. The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.

Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.

The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period.

Declaration of Israel's Independence 1948

ACCORDINGLY, WE, the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world, met together in solemn assembly today, the day of the termination of the British mandate for Palestine, by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish and of the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations,

HEREBY PROCLAIM the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called ISRAEL.

[Tripmann]

3. I didn't realise the palestinians were members of the united nations in 1948.

Can you tell us why it is necessary for the PA to recognise israel as a jewish state?

[oberliner]

4. Neither Palestinians nor Israelis were members of the United Nations in 1948

It isn't necessary for the PA to recognize Israel as a Jewish state if they don't wish to.

The question is - what does the PA leadership want and how are the best able to achieve those goals?

I don't see how it is in the best interests of either side, Palestinian or Israeli, for these talks to break down.

Both sides are going to need to make some compromises - recognizing Israel as the Jewish state seems a pretty small one.

If Netanyahu and co. are just throwing that in to create an excuse to blame the Palestinians for the breakdown of the talks - then I would urge the Palestinian side to call the bluff.

That way, the international community can focus more on Netanyahu's probably refusal to extend the settlement construction moratorium as the primary cause of the (seemingly inevitable) breakdown in talks.

[Tripmann]

5. Exactly, so why quote the resolution? Especially as israel shows total disrespect for the UN

[oberliner]

11. Because the "Jewish State" idea has been part of UN parlance since the early days

It's not a new idea that Netanyahu is introducing, and it should not be a stumbling block in negotiations.

[Tripmann]

19. Neither side in the negotiations were around when the resolution you posted was created.

Plus, using UN parlance in defense of the country who has shown such disrespect to the UN and international law is, quite frankly, laughable.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Then what was yr point in posting it?

Also, just taking a guess here but the international community is already focused on the probable refusal to extend the settlement freeze. there's absolutely no need at all to give in to any ridiculous and/or humiliating demand nutty makes...

[oberliner]

10. That the whole "Jewish state" idea is by no means a new concept

And it's not something that should be a stumbling block for negotiations.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. So what? Does it gain value with age? I don't think it matters at all...

It most definately shouldn't be a stumbling block, so let's agree that Nutty should drop it and concentrate on doing the right thing when it comes to settlements in the West Bank...

[whosinpower]

12. I don't agree that it is a small concession

It seems a small thing.....the PA has already agreed to the existance of the state of Israel, and has agreed to Israel's need to maintain a jewish majority....

But, recognizing that Israel is a jewish state disenfranchises a sizable minority within Israel.

Abbas is actually protecting Israel's current democratic principles even as Netanyahu undermines it.

It opens a can of worms that could facilitate the displacement of many peoples on both sides of the fence/border/barrier.

[TomClash]

22. This has the international legal force of toilet paper

Only UNSEC resolutions carry the force of international law.

[azurnoir]

6. There are approximately 1,800,000 non-Jews who are citizens of Israel

what does this mean for them?

[whosinpower]

13. It means

That Netanyahu does not speak for them.

[shira]

7. Wondering who has a problem with the Palestinian homeland or Palestine = Muslim/Arab state? n/t

[proteus_lives]

9. It would be interesting to find out.

A Muslim state is of course, completely different. :eyes:

[Ken Burch]

14. Palestinian Muslims are not responsible for what "Muslim states" elsewhere

have done, and cannot be assumed to be planning to do the same things.

[shira]

15. Hamas and the PA are already doing the same things to Palestinians...

....as other totalitarian regimes have been doing in the middle east to their citizens since, well forever....

So what does the pro-Palestinian contingent plan on doing about that before the state of Palestine is declared?

[Tripmann]

21. Noun-verb-Hamas i.e. look over there. As usual

[shaayecanaan]

16. The Palestinians aren't asking Israel to recognise them as a Muslim state (nt)

[shira]

26. Compare the situations....Jews aren't allowed to live in or buy land in Palestine

...so there will be no future Jewish claims or any greater Israel empire in Palestine once a peace deal is made.

OTOH, Palestinians and those throughout the Arab/Muslim world must realize the same WRT Israel and not hold out some insane bloody hope that eventually they will take over Israel within the green line and make that yet another Arab/Muslim state. Recognizing Israel as the Jewish homeland is an admission they have no plans to do that in the future. End of conflict.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. Depends how it's interpreted.

"State with the trappings of Islam but equal treatment for all", a la e.g. the UK - mild problem.

"State which gives special priviledges to some over others based on religion or ethnicity", a la e.g. Israel - massive problem.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. It would be like asking me to recognize the United States

as a Christian nation. Not that there aren't lots of people in this country who wouldn't like to see that, and maybe have me deported for not accepting it.

[ProgressiveMajority]

18. Apples and Oranges

Even the horrible cons who argue that America is a "Christian" nation by in large mean it was founded by Christians on "Christian" ideals. And for the most part they use the nonsense term of "judeo-christian" instead of specifically Christian. People who want to actually enshrine the US as a "Christian" nation in the constitution or some other legal manner are truly on the fringe. Do these fringe wingnuts sum to "lots" of people? In a nation of 308 million people, yeah, they do. But percentage wise it's very small.

My point is, it's not really comparable to Netenyahu who specifically believes Israel should mold its immigration policy around being Jewish. That Israel should exclude non-Jews... not based on the idea that Muslims are terrorists or are violent (which is BS), but simply on the fact that they are NOT Jewish. Same deal with Bhuddists or ANY non-Jew wanting to move to Israel. Again, a lot different than the cons here who argue we shouldn't let in Muslims... they have a bigoted view of Muslims but almost entirely they're neutral towards Bhuddists, Chinese or what have you.

Israel being "Jewish" nation is closer to - but not as hard core as - Iran's being "Muslim". The weak sauce conservative declaration of America as a "Christian" nation looks a bit silly by comparison, it's a different ball of wax.

Note: I'm not arguing we should be a "Christian" nation, if anything I think we should be an atheist nation, regardless of what our Founding Fathers thought. I want freedom FROM religion.

[Shaktimaan]

24. No, it's not.

After all, Israel is a secular state.

In this context Judaism is not a religion. Well, it is, but it's not exclusively that. Judaism in this context is much closer to what you might call an ethnic nationality. Though that's not quite right either.

There are Irish people in Ireland. Italian people in Italy. A Chinese person living there might be an Italian citizen without being ethnically Italian, right? Judaism is different only in that it has a religion attached to it. But the religion doesn't define the identity. There are plenty of secular Jews out there and you don't have to be a practicing Jew to qualify for right of return.

It's not at all the same thing as Christianity.

[oberliner]

25. Can a person become Jewish without converting to the Jewish religion?

There are steps that one can take to become Irish or Italian citizens even if one was not born Irish or Italian.

In order to become Jewish, there is a most definitive religious component that is ostensibly required.

[Shaktimaan]

27. Of course not.

You're talking about the ethno-national Judaism though. According to that it's impossible for someone to become Irish if they aren't already. Someone can gain Irish nationality, just as they can become Israeli. The only difference is that it is even possible to become Jewish. There are no steps I can take to become Chinese for instance.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Judaism is NOT a nationality...

There are Irish people in Ireland. Italian people in Italy. A Chinese person living there might be an Italian citizen without being ethnically Italian, right?

Being Irish, Italian, Chinese, Australian or Israeli are nationalities. Being Jewish is not a nationality. Insisting that others recognise a state as a (insert elitist label here) state is ridiculous. For example, the state I have citizenship of is Australia. I'm an Australian citizen. If Tony Abbot had been elected and started insisting that everyone else recognise Australia as an ethnically Anglo-Saxon state, he'd be excluding a good number of Australian citizens in doing so. I'd much rather a state be a state for ALL its citizens, rather than exclude some...

[Shaktimaan]

29. Of course it is.

The nation of Israel is an ancient nation that birthed the original religion and culture of Judaism. For the past 2000 years Judaism has essentially been a nation without a state.

Being Jewish is not a nationality.

What exactly is it then?

Insisting that others recognise a state as a (insert elitist label here) state is ridiculous.

What is elitist about Judaism, or any other ethno-nationality? Chinese IS a nationality, you're right. It is also a specific ethnicity with its own food, customs and culture. Is it elitist to recognize China as the Chinese state?

The whole point of Zionism and the UN's Partition Plan was to establish a Jewish state. Not a random state that a lot of Jews happen to live in. Why is it ridiculous to recognize this reality?

For example, the state I have citizenship of is Australia. I'm an Australian citizen. If Tony Abbot had been elected and started insisting that everyone else recognise Australia as an ethnically Anglo-Saxon state, he'd be excluding a good number of Australian citizens in doing so.

Ironic considering the White Australia policy only ended in 1973. But that's besides the point. Australia is not a state that's based on any specific ethnicity so it wouldn't make any sense to attach it to one now. Many, if not most, states ARE though. And its been a recognized point of international relations that such states have a legit vested interest in the welfare of all members of said ethnicities, both inside and outside of their borders. And many states do exactly that. Germany, Japan, Greece, Italy, Portugal, China, India, Thailand... these are all examples of states based around pre-existing nations. They have their own languages, cultures and homelands. There is absolutely nothing wrong or elitist about that. The Kurds have been angling for their own state for quite awhile now. Would you really deny them that opportunity on the grounds that it's elitist?

I'd much rather a state be a state for ALL its citizens, rather than exclude some...

Sure. So would I. But the two are far from mutually exclusive. A state can be founded for a specific nationality while still admitting and treating equally members of other ones. When Palestine is established as a state they will have every right to welcome members of the Palestinian diaspora to move there. Giving those people special treatment isn't elitist or discriminatory. Palestine is under no obligation to give the same right to everyone else on the planet, but it can still treat its non-Palestinian citizens the same as all its others.

Same as Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Of course it isn't.

The nation of Israel is an ancient nation that birthed the original religion and culture of Judaism. For the past 2000 years Judaism has essentially been a nation without a state.

How come the discussion suddenly veered off from modern states and nationality to some stuff about Israel being a mega-old nation? What does that have to do with the nation-states we were discussing and nationality?

What exactly is it then? (being Jewish)

Not a nationality.


What is elitist about Judaism, or any other ethno-nationality?

What's elitist is attempting to define a state as being a state for anything other than all its citizens and in doing so trying to restrict it to being a state for a particular segment of the population. I thought I'd explained that very clearly in my prior post, so I'm not sure why you've misunderstood what I said...


The whole point of Zionism and the UN's Partition Plan was to establish a Jewish state. Not a random state that a lot of Jews happen to live in. Why is it ridiculous to recognize this reality?

I'm arguing with you about nationality, not the pros and cons of Zionism. What's ridiculous and churlish is for the Israeli govt to demand others define the state as being a Jewish state. Israel can define itself however it wants. Demanding the Palestinians do so is just plain petty...


Ironic considering the White Australia policy only ended in 1973.

What's ironic about it? And why are you talking about an immigration policy when the conversation's about how a state defines itself?


Australia is not a state that's based on any specific ethnicity so it wouldn't make any sense to attach it to one now.

Neither's Israel...

Sure. So would I. But the two are far from mutually exclusive. A state can be founded for a specific nationality while still admitting and treating equally members of other ones.

Being Jewish isn't a nationality. Being Israeli is a nationality. A Jewish friend of mine was born here just like me and the only nationality she has is Australian...

When Palestine is established as a state they will have every right to welcome members of the Palestinian diaspora to move there. Giving those people special treatment isn't elitist or discriminatory.

You consider allowing displaced people to return to Palestine to be giving them 'special treatment'? That's where their homes were before they were expelled or forced to flee when Israel was created....

[Shaktimaan]

32. I'm sorry, you are wrong.

So what is Judaism then Violet?

I find it interesting that a group of people who self-identify as a nation can be denied that identity by someone such as yourself, who has not a single alternative definition to offer. It's sort of like when my uncle Marty declares that there's no such thing as a "Palestinian."

You consider allowing displaced people to return to Palestine to be giving them 'special treatment'?

My American friend Omar is a displaced person? Why? He was born here and has American citizenship. He's also a Palestinian refugee and member of the diaspora who should have the right to emigrate to Palestine should he choose.

Or would you say that he's just American, and lost his Palestinian nationality by virtue of being born here, in America? And my Irish friend Brendan isn't really Irish either I guess. My Chinese friend Tony isn't Chinese. This goes on and on.

Christ, who is going to tell all of these people that they can't distinguish between citizenship and nationality? (Because they all do, you know.)

The kingdom of Jordan is widely acknowledged to be half Hashemite and half Palestinian. Yet they are ALL Jordanian! How is it possible for someone to be both Jordanian AND Palestinian, according to your view of how this works? Is Palestinian not a nationality either? (You and Uncle Marty... soulmates. I'm telling you.)

Still waiting for that definition of Judaism btw. (It's OK. Marty stumbles on this one when trying to defend his ideology as well.) I anxiously await your interpretation of why my culture's definition of itself is flawed.

[whosinpower]

34. Your friend Omar

Is American. If your friend Brendan was born in America - he is also american. If your friend Tony was born in America, he too is american.

Years ago, when I was just a child, I recall a conversation with several classmates. We were discussing where we came from....I remember it so clearly. One friend stated, I'm polish. Another stated I'm ukrainian. another - I'm norwegian. And we were talking about different cultures/ethnic food etc within each, and then we turned to a tiny girl sitting quietly and listening. We asked her - What about you? She stated, I'm Canadian. Oh yes, of course we replied, but where did your parents come from? She said, in a childlike innocence, "Does it matter? I was born in Canada." We were ALL born in Canada - and it was at that moment, on a cold September morning, in a prairie playground that I had my first lesson in nationality, citizenship and heritage.

You free to disagree with me but the lesson I learned that day was that nationality is determined where you were born. Citizenship can be granted based on where you were born - or earned in the case of immigration. Heritage is determined by your forefathers and mothers. Nationality and heritage are not necessarily the same. Citizenship and nationality are not the same.

Omar can go back to Palistine, not because of his nationality - but because of his heritage. Brendan is American but is free to celebrate and honour his heritage.

Another poster here discussed the definition of judaism, and his arguement was that Judiasm is not a race; its people are not bound by land and its foundation is the Torah. With or without Israel, he argued that Judaism would exist as long as the Torah was around and was/is relevant to the people who abide by it.

[shira]

35. Shakti, the Irish aren't even a people.

The Invention of the Irish People

1.

People who today regard themselves as Irish are either perpetuating a fraud or victims of it. That’s because the “Irish” are not a people and the idea that they have continuously inhabited the island of Ireland over a period going back two thousand or more years is a myth invented by the revivers of the ideology known as “Irish nationalism” in the nineteenth century.


2.

The “Irish” are, in fact, a mongrel mixture of Celtic, Norman, Viking, Huguenot and English blood. Until the third quarter of the nineteenth century most of them were quite happy with a British identity; they spoke and dreamed in English, they fought in Britain’s wars and helped administer its Empire. The idea that the “Irish” were a separate people entitled to a state of their own had certainly been around for a long time but it was pretty marginal phenomenon in day to day life. Then something sinister started to happen. A group of artists and intellectuals took it into their heads that the Irish were indeed a separate people with their own culture and identity and set about convincing ordinary people of this.

cont'd...
http://blog.z-word.com/2010/09/the-invention-of-the-irish-people/

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

48. I believe it was meant to be a parody

It seems to be a send up of Shlomo Sand's claims about the Jewish people.

[Celtic Merlin]

49. Oh! Well then! If YOU believe it to be a parody, that must be the final word on it! Silly me!

How could I possibly question your OPINION on that load of shit?

The fact that it was even repeated is offensive.

You aren't Irish, are you?

[oberliner]

50. Not sure what you mean

I'm just saying, I think it is meant to be a spoof to make a rhetorical point.

Since it lists "Shlomo Sand" as one of the tags, I think the author is trying to make the point that it would be just as ridiculous to say there is no such thing as the Irish people as it is to say there is no such thing as the Jewish people (referencing Shlomo Sand's book "The Invention of the Jewish people").

[Shaktimaan]

33. Oh, I see the problem!

You don't actually know what a nation is! Silly duck. Here, I'll help you out.

Nation definition:
A distinct group or race of people that share history, traditions and culture.

Farley properly distinguishes a nation from a state, referring to a nation as:

"... typically ethnic groups with a common language and a common sense of comunity....

"Nationhood is a demographic and psychological phenomenon. Statehood is a formal-legal phenomenon."

Although a nation can form a distinct society, a nation is not an actor in international law or international politics; that is reserved for states.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/N/Nation.aspx

Good definition. Let's see what wikipedia says about this.

A nation is a group of people who share culture, ethnic origin and language, often possessing or seeking its own independent government.<1> The development and conceptualization of a nation is closely related to the development of modern industrial states and nationalist movements in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,<2> although nationalists would trace nations into the past along uninterrupted lines of historical narrative. Though the idea of nationality and race are often connected, the two are separate concepts, race dealing more with genotypic and phenotypic similarity and clustering, and nationality with the sense of belonging to a culture.

A nation is different from a country in that a country is the land that belongs to a nation, and from a state in that a state is the government of the nation and country.

Benedict Anderson argued that nations were "imagined communities" because "the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion", and traced their origins back to vernacular print journalism, which by its very nature was limited with linguistic zones and addressed a common audience.<3> Although "nation" is also commonly used in informal discourse as a synonym for state or country, a nation is not identical to a state. Countries where the social concept of "nation" coincides with the political concept of "state" are called nation states.

Well, that must be an illuminating distinction for you. I think you were getting confused because the term "nationality" is used to describe both systems. Sometimes words that look and sound the same can mean different things though.

You see, someone can be both a member of a specific state while also identifying with a separate nationality. So you see I can be both a member of the Jewish nation and a citizen of the nation-state America.

A nation-state, incidentally, where people typically learn these definitions in grammar school.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. No, you don't...

See, I do know what these following terms mean: nation, nationality, citizenship and nation-state. The discussion was about a modern nation-state and examples were given of other nation-states, eg citizens of Australia are Australians, Canada is Canadians and Israel is Israeli, not Jewish as you insist. Then you brought into the discussion an ancient nation and seem to believe it was something along the lines of a modern nation-state. It wasn't. There were many kingdoms around in biblical times - it doesn't give anyone now any different nationality than what they've already got. I'm still not sure why you suddenly brought another countries immigration policy into a discussion about nationality but would still like to know what you find ironic about the White Australia Policy.

A few things I'm going to comment on from yr other post:

1. You didn't answer the question I asked about you finding Australia's White Australia Policy ironic. So, what do you find ironic about it? And you didn't explain why you were talking about an immigration policy when the conversation's about how a state defines itself.

2. I don't have to define Judaism in order to know what it isn't. It's not a nationality. And seeing as how I'm not denying Jews exist, how's it like some uncle of yrs saying Palestinians don't exist? And why on earth would you say him and me are soulmates? Apart from being quite nasty and uncalled for, that's so clearly not true...

3. Yr friend Omar is a Palestinian refugee and the descendant of Palestinians expelled or forced to flee by Israel. You said that the Palestinian diaspora would be given 'special treatment' if allowed to return to Palestine. I'm saying it's not special treatment at all to allow Palestinian refugees to return.

4. I never went to a grammar school, so unfortunately I can only go on what I learnt at uni in pol-sci when it comes to definitions. Guess it just mustn't compare to that massive knowledge-bank that an American grammar school provides its students ;)

5. I figure this is worth repeating as it seems to get lost in the ether other times I've said it. Israel has the same right as any other country (unlike some folk I don't see Israel as being unique or different than other countries) to define itself, but it's really ridiculous and childish to demand that the people it occupies define it to Israel's satisfaction.

[oberliner]

37. Wikipedia says that Jews are a nation

It is the first sentence in the entry.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. They are not a nationality!

But I welcome you to give me a link to any list of world nationalities that include Jewish. The nationality of citizens of Israel is Israeli, not Jewish...

[oberliner]

39. Have you ever heard of Judah Magnes?

He has some interesting writing regarding this topic.

He wrote extensively about the idea that being Jewish is a nationality (before the establishment of Israel) and why the idea of a nation is not synonymous with a the idea of a political state.

In his writing, he argued that the Jewish people, even without a territorial center, constituted a nationality.

Among their national characteristics, Magnes argued, was a consciousness of a common history, a struggle against a common enemy (anti-semitism), and a specific Jewish culture that had developed outside the world of a synagogue or other religious institution. The expression of Jewish life which was expressed in many various organized structures and forms around the world illustrated the common nationhood of the Jewish people.

Again, this was not necessarily a view that was by any means universally accepted, even among Jewish people; however, I think it is fair to say that there has been a good deal written making the case for the existence of a Jewish nationality that is at least worthy of some consideration.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. No, can't say I have...

The difference between what he argues for and what is being argued for in this thread is that he argues that the idea of a nation isn't synonymous with a state while the argument in this thread is that Jewish nationality is synonymous with the state of Israel...

He seems to be describing what most people now would define as an ethnic group rather than a nationality as we know them...

[oberliner]

41. I do find it to be an interesting question

I think the term "nation" can and has been used in different ways by different people.

For instance, here in the US, people will refer to hard-core fans of one particular baseball team as "Red Sox Nation" - the implication being that though these folks are scattered geographically, they have some kind of shared culture.

While that example probably seems pretty silly, I do think that more intellectual folks have argued that the term nation has perhaps been misappropriated or misapplied over the years to the point that the meaning of the term is not entirely clear.

I would also point out that the notion of a Jewish nation, or a Jewish nationality has existed since well before the establishment of Israel. One can find many books, for example, written in the 19th century that reference the existence of a Jewish nation.

[whosinpower]

43. Does all this talk of nationhood mean

That Israel is not a nation? This is where the conversation seems to be evolving.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. It is, though in this thread I can spot where the term started being used differently to in the OP..

The OP was talking about modern nation-states and about Israel specifically. Another poster used the term 'nation' differently to what was being talked about in the OP and started talking about a Jewish nation (I'm thinking it's something along the lines of the nations of indigenous Americans) from biblical times. I understand the vaguer application of the term 'nation', but what I don't agree with is how the term 'nationality' is interspersed with it as though they're both the same. My understanding's always been that a nationality is in basic terms what country a person is a citizen of.

I'm not debating that the notion of a Jewish state isn't anything new. I firmly believe Israel can define itself however it likes, just like other countries can, but where I object is Israel only starting to demand over the past few years that the Palestinians define it as a Jewish state.

[Shaktimaan]

44. No, not synonymous.

The discussion was about a modern nation-state and examples were given of other nation-states, eg citizens of Australia are Australians, Canada is Canadians and Israel is Israeli, not Jewish as you insist.

I did NOT say that citizens of Israel are necessarily Jewish. I said that the Jews are a nation of people and that Israel is the Jewish state. I think it's obvious that the Jewish state can have non-Jewish citizens, just as every other state based around an existing nation of people have minorities as well.

The nationality of citizens of Israel is Israeli, not Jewish...

Sure. That does not mean it isn't the Jewish state. There is the modern nation-state of Israel whose citizens are Israeli. And then there is the ancient nation of Jewish people, for which the modern state of Israel was created. I really don't see why you don't get this. Not all citizens of Italy are of Italian descent. Yet the state of Italy clearly exists as the homeland of the Italian nation.

As far as Jews not comprising a nation, you are just flat out completely wrong. First of all, Judaism meets every criteria in the definition of "nation" as I've already shown you. Second, the main benchmark for whether or not a people are a nation is if they define themselves as such. The point with the Palestinians is that if a group chooses to define themselves as a nation then no one can really argue otherwise.

And seeing as how I'm not denying Jews exist, how's it like some uncle of yrs saying Palestinians don't exist?

Um... Marty knows that Palestinians exist. They are not unicorns. It's pretty obvious they exist. He denies their status as a nation of people distinct from generic "Arabs."

You said that the Palestinian diaspora would be given 'special treatment' if allowed to return to Palestine. I'm saying it's not special treatment at all to allow Palestinian refugees to return.

So you understand then that Omar is a Palestinian-American, right? That he holds the nationality and citizenship of one state while still being a member of another nation of people, in effect holding 2 distinct nationalities with slightly different meanings.

I figure this is worth repeating as it seems to get lost in the ether other times I've said it. Israel has the same right as any other country (unlike some folk I don't see Israel as being unique or different than other countries) to define itself, but it's really ridiculous and childish to demand that the people it occupies define it to Israel's satisfaction.

Really? Makes perfect sense to me. A large part of the conflict has been about the Arab refusal to accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state. It's not a random occupation, it's the result of chronic war. A war that the Palestinians began and maintained primarily out of that refusal to recognize Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Are you going to answer the questions I ask you or not?

Great, now we're in agreement that being Jewish is not a nationality, can you go back to my previous post and answer the questions I asked you? Also, an apology for calling me a soulmate of someone who declares there's no such thing as a Palestinian wouldn't go astray. That was nasty and uncalled for...

[lumpy]

23. And Yitzack Rabin was assassinated by right wing Israelis

for his dedicated efforts in bringing Israelis and Palistinians to the peace table.

[shira]

31. Israel's demand is only unreasonable to rejectionists...

...who cannot and will not admit to the reality of Israel being a Jewish state permanently.

They do not want the conflict to conclude with an end to all future Arab territorial claims to Israeli land. The "peace process" to them is a two-stage process in which Israel is eventually destroyed after Palestine is established in the W.Bank and Gaza. Their dream is that the results of the 1948 war are reversed and that Israel is never recognized as a legitimate and equal neighbor in that region.

So even after a 2-state deal goes through, the war goes on against Israel.

:eyes: