Where are my mod points when I need them?

+1 on parent, please.

Shachar

There are three terms involved here. There is citizenship, nationality and religion. Since most nation states are called after their nationality, the citizenship and nation usually share a name. There are exception. In Greece, for example, all three share a name (The Greek in Greece are Greek citizens, and are Greek orthodox). Israel does the somewhat unorthodox thing of sharing a name, not between the nationality and the citizenship, but between the nationality and the religion. Other than that, and people's insistence that this is, somehow, fundamentally wrong, there is nothing special about it.

Assuming I understood your statement correctly, I can repeat the above statement, changing the location to:

Then you go on to show ignorance of how the government in Israel is built by saying:

No, the government in Greek represents all of its citizens, regardless of their nationality. This does not make Greece any less the nation state of the Greek people, just like the fact that the government in Israel does represent all of its citizens (so many people make that mistake that wikipedia actually has a list of Arab members of Knesset).

There is no contradiction here. "Self governance" simply doesn't mean what you think it means.

Shachar

That statement is plainly, simply and otherwise wrong. Moving into Greece and getting a Greek citizenship does not make me Greek. There is a nation of Greek people, and I do not become a part of that nation by merely moving in there.

If you do not find this argument compelling enough to research the facts, let's try this story: I was last in Cyprus, the Greek part, of course, not the Turkish part, four years ago. I met a very nice guy, owner of a Chocolate shop, who was British, called John (or Jon, I'm never sure). He married a local Greek and moved in a decade before.

This is a true story, every word of it. I can give you driving instructions to the shop, if you like, and you can ask John yourself. There is even a small chance he'll remember me. I dare you to parse it using your interpretation of what "Greek", "British" and "Turkish" mean, though. Despite the fact I'm sure you understood exactly what each and every sentence means, if those words mean what you claim they mean, then this story is just gibberish.

Shachar

Why wouldn't I? If the Palestinians are after self governance, then surely getting one, even if on only part of the land, be considered a step in the right direction. Same goes for the international community. I will remind you that directing military attacks at civilian targets, such as what Hamas did (and does) from Gaza, is a war crime. It is also a casus belli according to any reasonable standard. Yet, when Israel did go to war over it, after waiting much longer than it had to for other, less extreme measures, to work, the international response (which is what you claimed worked for Britain when it "did the right thing") was an outright condemning.

So I brought this example to counter your point that the international criticism is an indication that Israel is doing everything wrong. Israel gets criticized no matter what it is doing, or at least it feels this way.

Just like before, I still don't understand whether you expect Israel to give full citizen rights to the people who live over the green line, or whether this is directed at the people who are currently Israeli citizens but not Jewish. If the later, then please explain how is Israel not meeting your standard for whatever it is you think the term should mean.

Great question! What's your answer, please?

Shachar

Shouldn't dirty talk be done in private?

Shachar

There are more important aspects to a chip that is supposed to be used in an aircraft than processing speed. Radiation resistance, temperature sensitivity, having a frame that can withstand 9G over time and twice that at emergencies, etc. count for more than having more processing power, even if the result is that you are using a less powerful chip.

The reason the 386 took so long to be replaced wasn't because of some slow working committee. It is because the economical pressures at ground levels are different, causing chip makers to produce chips that are indeed faster, but less suited to the operating conditions inside a fighter aircraft.

I didn't know they actually found an alternative. Maybe they didn't, and are just so swell stocked up on 386s that they feel there is no need to pay the cost to Intel of keeping the old production line open.

Shachar

Had you actually listened, instead of just claiming to listen, you'd see that I wasn't trying to. I do my best to have facts based opinions. This particular question is currently fashionable because it features in the presidential campaign, which I'm not following. As such, I believe that if I voice an opinion, it will be as based as ignorance as your voiced opinions in this thread are. I'm trying to keep both my reputation and self esteem at higher levels.

It turned out there was no need. The obligatory role of name calling was filled by you, and a lovely performance, I might add.

Shachar

First, is this a trivia question, or is this an attempt to answer my question? If the former, I'll gladly answer. If the later, then it is irrelevant. If you are trying to claim that Israel can be (future) legitimate, just not where it is, then you need to account all existing past into this statement.

As for the actual question: that really depends on who you ask, how you define "homes", and whether you think the displacement of Jews from their homes in the Arab states counters that in some way. All of those questions are under dispute, and almost everyone I've seen bring it up tends to adopt the Palestinian position on it without questioning it.

Shachar

I see. Since this discussion started elsewhere, why don't we agree to disagree on what Israel is and isn't. It took me a while to see that you are not interested in the thread original direction (the legitimacy or lack there of of Israel), and since I am not interested in what you advocate your country do, I think this is a good place to call it quits. I get the impression you are not listening to anything I say anyways, and I'm fairly sure you have the same impression of me.

Have a great rest of the weekend, and enjoy your moral superiority.

Shachar

Ad hominem attack aside, how is this worse than what the US did with its Japanese citizens during WW2? Or how anyone Muslim or perceived as Muslim was treated after 9/11? Do you honestly believe that people ignore group association merely because you think they should, or that I am a bigot merely for pointing this out? (Obviously, yes to the second one, but I still have a glimmer of hope to have a constructive conversation here).

I see you're having trouble staying on topic. The reference given was that "Jewish" referred to nation, not religion.

To the point, however, that is the only way you can form a foundation for a pluralistic state. A democratic country is a group of people with enough mutual interest to give up a little personal interests in favor of the collective, or it simply doesn't work. That's why the vast majority of democratic countries in the world are nation states. That's why some countries that did not start as nation state turn into ones over time, like the US did. That's why countries which are not nation states treat minorities with less tolerance, such as the anti-muslims laws in France. It's also why bi-national states have a hard time sticking it together (see Canada for a good case, and Boznia-Herzegovina for a bad one). That's why the only Arab democracy, Lebanon, is constantly either in civil war or on the brink of one.

A state that has a clear national association can afford to be pluralistic. Israel defines the Arab language as an official state language along Hebrew, and has explicit setting for days off on Muslim holidays, not in spite of what its declaration of independence says, but because of it.

Shachar