12 million Jews in the world

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'm just going with what nation was originally described as (where it comes from, etc.).

There has never been an agreed definition. Countries and people have gone to war over disagreements about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Perhaps, but I'm talking about the first poly sci definitions. There was a reason it was called 'nation' after the French word for 'to be born'

[Natan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm just going with was nation was originally described as (where it comes from, etc.). SO I don't consider the United States or Canada, etc., as a 'nation'.

It's not clear to me what you're saying here.

I'm not fond of that terminology.

I'm not either; why are you so insistent on how it is used? Would you be happier if I called Jews a people instead of a nation?

And Natan, one thing (because we don't seem to have much common ground in this debate), the wars in Yugoslavia had a nationalist component (Serbs against Croats) and religious component (Orthadox vs. Muslims).

I would argue that separating them does not make sense in this context. Very few people on any side were motivated by religion. This was genuine nationalism, but the nations were only really distinguishable by religion.

It wasn't just nationalism, but also religious differences and a purifying of the national-religious bond.

I don't think the national-religious bond was ever broken in that part of the world.

After all, before Hitler, Jews were a part of the German 'nation'.

Secular Jews were.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Secular Jews were.

Kinda putting a hole in the "All Jews are one nation" thing, doesn't it?

Would you be happier if I called Jews a people instead of a nation?

Yes

I would argue that separating them does not make sense in this context. Very few people on any side were motivated by religion. This was genuine nationalism, but the nations were only really distinguishable by religion.

Religion was used. The people with different religion had a different cultural experience it was argued. Not that it mattered, it was just a pretext for killing people of different religions, still part of the Croat or Serb nation.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Perhaps, but I'm talking about the first poly sci definitions. There was a reason it was called 'nation' after the French word for 'to be born'

I know about political science definitions - I'm a Government honours graduate you ninny

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh... so that explains it .

[Natan]

Kinda putting a hole in the "All Jews are one nation" thing, doesn't it?

When did I say that "all Jews are one nation?" Not all of anything are one nation. Some Germans in terms of race are Russian or American in language and culture, and certainly in terms of loyalties - I think it would be truly silly to call Eisenhower and Nimitz members of the German nation.

Yes

Well, okay, if it makes you happy. But in Hebrew, we're still both an ÚÌ and a ‚ÂÈ. To be specific, Ú̆҂Âω and ‚ÂȆ˜„Â.

Religion was used. The people with different religion had a different cultural experience it was argued. Not that it mattered, it was just a pretext for killing people of different religions

You seem to be arguing that Milosevic, Tudjman, etc. were really motivated by religious fervor and just used Nationalism as a cover. I think it's clear that Yugoslav Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims were really separate nations (if you prefer, ethnic groups) with separate histories despite their shared language, customs, race, and early history.

still part of the Croat or Serb nation.

Huh?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, Natan, The Muslims were a part of the Serb or Croat nations (depending on what their genetic background was) or the Albanian nation under Tito. It all broke down after he died and Milosevic and Tudjman started charging religion into the mix.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, Natan, The Muslims were a part of the Serb or Croat nations (depending on what their genetic background was) or the Albanian nation under Tito.

What you seem to be saying is that since nation comes from the French word for birth, it must apply only to physical birth and therefore to race. I disagree - we definitely speak of nations being born and of people having their origins (i.e., being figuratively "born") in nations, as in "a son of [insert ethnic group or country];" the use of birth here is figurative, as in Renaissance.

It all broke down after he died and Milosevic and Tudjman started charging religion into the mix.

I must disagree, because the conflict was not about religion, it was about ethnicity/nationality.

[Imran Siddiqui]

...Wrapped around religion. Milosevic used the Orthodox Church very well. His belief that the Muslims weren't true Serbs, like Hitler said Jews weren't true Germans.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
...Wrapped around religion. Milosevic used the Orthodox Church very well.

And so did Stalin, but that doesn't mean that his war with Hitler was between Eastern Orthodoxy and western Christianity.

His belief that the Muslims weren't true Serbs, like Hitler said Jews weren't true Germans.

Right, but AFAIK the Muslims didn't consider themselves true Serbs either and didn't want to be - ditto the Croats. Is not a religious conflict one about religious issues? It would be absurd to argue that Croatia declared independence to avoid the imposition of Orthodox icons on them, or that Milosevic and Arkan's Tigers were motivated by a desire to make Bosnians accept the salvation of Jesus.

[Berzerker]

Natan -

Berzerker: By that logic, the creation of the US was theft; in fact, the creation of most modern states was theft.

If you and your neighbor create a "state" and then claim either my land as part of your state or claim "jurisdiction" over my existence and my land, that is theft. Even when Indians were allowed to keep their land - and lets remember this is a big country and Indians only occupied a very small percentage - they were still subject, to a lesser degree than other citizens, to the new government's jurisdiction, a taking of sovereignty. If I was "in charge" back then, I would not have allowed these takings. Europeans could have moved in and occupied unclaimed lands or bought lands from the rightful owners. Any "state" created through voluntary associations would include only those peoples who agreed. I know this would make it harder to form a state, but it would also make it harder to "assimilate" groups who were not keen on the idea and in need of worthwhile concessions before ceding any sovereignty...

The land confiscations from Israeli-Arabs can and should be separated from the creation of the state of Israel

Not if the creation of the state resulted in the taking of other people's lands.

Also, I can't recall if Britain even supporting resolution 181; they simply announced they were withdrawing (as they had from other colonial possesions); certainly British troops were stationed in Egypt throughout the war.

Britain had veto power over UN decisions and the US would have backed them.

And to say that the Arab legion was "not that active" is a mischaracterization of what Chegitz said; since they enabled Jordan to hold more land in Cisjordan than any other Arab state when the dust settled in February, 1949.

Maybe I mis-read his posts, but I got the impression the Arab legion held outposts that were unsuccessfully attacked by Jews, not that they went in to conquer Israel. Holding those outposts may have enabled the Jordanians a buffer, but that wouldn't mean the Arab legion was an active participant in a war to rid the ME of Jews.

[David Floyd]

The area I'm refering to is the parts of Germany that were handed over to Poland by the USSR. Millions of Germans were expelled and Poles moved in from the part of of Poland that became Lithuania, Byelorussia, and Ukraine.

And you don't see a problem with this?

Since the whole area would have been under Soviet occupation for fifty years the only terrorism there would have been CIA terrorism, as in the rest of Eastern Europe.

And of course living under Soviet occupation was such a better alternative to the West, wasn't it?

Yes, Poles living there would have to move away, but they could move into the homes of the Jews that had been expropriated by the Poles.

What if they didn't want to? You can't just go around arbitrarily taking land to make up for past wrongs, which weren't even violations of the law.

Of course, it would have been rather empty since Jews in the West wouldn't want to move to a place under Soviet occupation,

No one really wanted to live under Soviet occupation, not even the Russians, at least not under Stalin

[Eli]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Cuz yer a Ruski, ain't ya?

If you say that again, I will be forced to kill you.
Inter-marriage was almost not existant.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Eli
Inter-marriage was almost not existant.

Right and that's why all those Russian Jews I know look like Russians and not like Palestinians.