Terr: are you maintaining that the BBC and Haaretz have mistranslated that judicial opinion?
Again, your point is wrong, as I explained already. The court’s decision was that there is no Israeli “leom”. “Leom” is ethnicity. Not nationality. It’s a problem translating it from Hebrew to English and back.
See Haaretz’s article. See the difference between the title and the content?
My point is that there is no exact equivalent to “leom” in English. See Supreme Court Rejects Citizens' Request to Change Nationality From 'Jewish' to 'Israeli' - Haaretz Com - Haaretz.com - title says “nationality”. Content says “ethnic registration”.
“Nationality” in English has two meanings:
-
the status of belonging to a particular nation
-
an ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations
There is no “Israeli” nationality in the (2) sense. There is Israeli citizenship, so there is Israeli nationality in (1) sense.
I think you have it backwards, no?
I understand the difference in Hebrew. But my point remains: No other democratic state defines nationality in that sense.
No, I have it forwards.
And again, it is not “nationality” that is defined. It is “ethnicity”. You’re stuck on the English word, but that English word is not what the Supreme Court was using.
If you really want an indepth analysis of the decision, here it is.
I’m not stuck on the word, I’m stuck on the concept. Are you saying the appellants in these cases don’t understand the word* leom*?
WHOOOOOOOOSH!
I was born in the USA. Does that make me “ethnically” American? Or is my ethnicity defined by the half-dozen ethnicities of my recent ancestors, like a natural US citizen whose parents were from Mexico might consider himself Mexican-American? We may be talking past each other because we are operating under differing definitions of the same word.
Along those lines, in this discussion a “national” is a citizen of a nation, like ANY person born in Jerusalem is considered by the rest of the world to be an Israeli national, or simply an Israeli. If a Muslim or Christian born in Jerusalem is not considered legally as an unhyphenated Israeli, just a plain ol’ Israeli citizen or national, that is, to use a technical term from the social sciences, as racist as fuck.
They are simple people, almost children. They are prone to emotionalism like all creatures who have not benefited from civilization. They should thank us for giving them the opportunity to work for us. Not work with us or live with us–that would be crazy talk. :eek: But they should be satisfied with their lot as three-fifths of a human being, as G-d intended.
Since when is “French” an ethnicity?
Alsatians, Normans, Parisians, North Africans, Savoyards, and Corsicans may all be French nationals, but they have distinct ethnicities, no?
I am saying that appellants in these cases wanted the state to recognize “Israeli” ethnicity. The Supreme Court said there is no such thing.
That’s stupid. USA is not an ethnic state. You do realize that the rest of the world is not like the USA, right?
I would think so, but that’s why I think there is a disconnect in terminology, or a complete cultural difference that we are normally unaware of because Terr writes in such good English. He’s living in the US these days, right? Past sundown over most of the country, so we may have to wait twenty-four hours before he can get back to us. Or not; I don’t know specifics about his practices.
ETA: I guess that answers that.
Then what the hell is my ethnicity? I’m half German/Frisian/Jewish (they all blended generations ago), a quarter Irish, and an eighth each of Norwegian and Bohemian, er, Czech. I grew up eating food with German/Bohunk/Irish flavor (ie: none), but long ago, after much consideration, realized that culturally I was Suburban–set me down in any suburb (with a car, of course) and I can find a mall or a McDonald’s in fifteen minutes.
We try to not be an ethnic nation, propping up the belief that America is a “melting pot.” It’s not, since subcultures want to retain what they believe to be their ancestral identities, but those identities weaken into parody with each generation. (see: St Patrick’s Day)
But ethnicity is culturally-derived, which is why America is a melting pot. Ethnicity is behavioral, not genetic, so Americans are as ethnic as anybody because over the past few centuries we have developed distinctive mores, folkways, behaviors, and language that instantly announce us as Americans whenever we meet people from other cultures. A waiter in Paris or Tel Aviv doesn’t know or care if the guy at Table 6 considers himself an Italian-American or a Texan; he just knows the guy isn’t a Brit of some sort and will probably tip better.
It’s the same with Israelis. Take an Jewish Israeli and a Palestinian Israeli, dress them in blue jeans and a T-shirt, and remove any specific hair coverings and what-not and you have two guys the rest of us can’t necessarily pin down to be from one group or another. They even sound similar because they speak similar languages from the same area, and often speak each other’s language. They watch some of the same TV shows, eat a lot of the same food, even listen to the same music. Their cultures are melding, despite the meddling of the old farts in both groups. The old farts, and I suspect you are one of them, are fighting a losing battle. The trend is toward a universal culture, like it or not, and Israel and the US can be on the forefront of ensuring that the trend goes to the light, not the dark. One way is to eliminate the official differentiation between Jews and Arabs. It’s as racist as America’s Jim Crow laws and has no place in a modern society.
That’s what your ethnicity is.
And that’s great, and US is a great country. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
As I said, USA is not an ethnic state. But there are a lot of ethnic states. France - the French state. Ireland - the Irish state. Germany - the German state. If you don’t deny those ethnicities their existing states, but have the opinion that Israel should not be a Jewish state - that’s antisemitic, IMO. That is what the discussion was about.
It was founded only a few decades ago, don’t you think that’s a bit different?
It was founded at least 3,000 years ago. It was restored fairly recently. So was Poland - does that make Poland less of an ethnic state for Poles?
It wasn’t restored. Another nation with the same name was put in its place after it being in shifting hands for thousands of years.
This is a Ship of Theseus where it burned to the waterline in antiquity, and thousands of years later, some vaguely genetically descended folk bought a new ship with the same name. It ain’t the same ship.
Same with Poland. Another nation was put in place, after 120+ years. And? Does that reduce Poland’s legitimate identity as an ethnic Polish state?
I’m no expert on Polish history, so help me out, did the Polish people stay there? Were they just ruled from the outside, like the Mongols ruled China?
I’m mobile, or I’d look it up myself. This is an honest question, but it seems like:
- 120 years is a lot less time than a couple thousand.
- Did Poland’s character change much during that century? When it was chopped up, it was still full of mostly ethnic Poles? I seem to recall that 30% of what is now Israel was Jewish after the war. Was what is now Poland, only 30% Polish?
It really seems like this isn’t the same.
Yes. And there was a Jewish presence in the area, continuous, for three thousand years. From before Arabs even existed, and from about 1500 years before Islam.
Ah so it is length of time, not the principle of it, is it? How exactly is the length of time after which the country cannot be reconstituted as a legitimate ethnic country anymore determined? And how long does it have to exist to become a legitimate ethnic country? And be careful with that question, since Germany as a country is what - 150 years old or so.
About half in 1717 - I can’t find sources but can’t see it going above that during the non-existence of Poland until 1918.
The areas that were supposed to be partitioned into a Jewish state in 1948 were majority Jewish population. After Israel was attacked by every one of its neighbors, and survived, the borders changed.
But again, that’s just niggling. The principle is the same. Details aren’t, but there are never two cases where all the details are the same.
Then how does a German-Frisian-Jewish-Irish-Norwegian-Bohemian (did I get them all?) person behave? My Irish ancestors were from County Cork. Does that mean I should behave differently from a German-Frisian-Jewish-Irish-Norwegian-Bohemian person whose Irish ancestors came from County Mayo? Should I exclude that person or even make war on him because of that difference?
What you want Israel to be is a plot of land that is exclusively Jewish, and everybody else should leave and be happy with it. That’s racist, Terr, and if it’s anti-Semitic to find that racist, then I guess I’m your boy. But it is the sort of tribalism that invites, no, DEMANDS comparison with Nazi Germany, an “ethnically Aryan” nation, the others be damned. It’s been tried, and that’s why when people ask my ethnicity (though that happens rarely in this nation of mutts) I usually go with Irish.
What you are suggesting is that nations split up by some imagined, as it is after a while, tribal affiliation. Germany, for instance, would split into the roughly 125 kingdoms, principalities, duchies, city-states, bishoprics, and other ways land can be split up as it was before the 19th century. (I have the complete list somewhere; the total was down to “only” 39 when the German Confederation was created in 1815). Taken to its logical conclusion, Israel should it be split up by the original Twelve Tribes. Is that what you really want?
I am an American leftist and I believe that such attitudes are evil because they lead to wars and crimes against innocent civilians. It inevitably results in the us vs them situation that Israel is suffering through. Intelligent, moral people work against these things, not for them. As we said in the old days, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, and you are solidly on the side of the problem.