12 million Jews in the world

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by 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.

But there is basis for both claims. The difference is that it's not a viable justification for going around murdering people.

Take for example the fact that these days many muslems and western countries see themseles as more part of the ummah and go "serve" in afghanistan, chechnia and the middle east, giving up their cosy houses in the west.

That's way over religion and goes into the field of culture and nation. There is an Islamic nation. It's just that not everyone who is Islamic is a participant.

And if your defenition doesn't allow religious groups to be called nations, it's time to update it!

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, Siro, there IS no Islamic nation. There is no Ummah. Just like there IS no Jewish nation. There are a bunch of Jews that share similar ethnic backgrounds. However, a Jew from Ethiopia and a Jew that just converted in the US have NO common nationhood, and the religion doesn't count. Now, if you are simply talking about those born into Judaism for centuries upon centuries (ie, Hebrew origins), then I can see it. But most people refer to the mythical 'Jewish nation' as including converts who have no ethnic (or really even cultural for that matter) ties to other Jews.

Just like a Muslim in Iraq and a Muslim in Pakistan who go and fight for Osama have no common 'nation' links, just religious links. Yet there is no way you can get me to call them of the same nation. They are simply waaaay too different.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, Siro, there IS no Islamic nation. There is no Ummah. Just like there IS no Jewish nation. There are a bunch of Jews that share similar ethnic backgrounds. However, a Jew from Ethiopia and a Jew that just converted in the US have NO common nationhood, and the religion doesn't count. Now, if you are simply talking about those born into Judaism for centuries upon centuries (ie, Hebrew origins), then I can see it. But most people refer to the mythical 'Jewish nation' as including converts who have no ethnic (or really even cultural for that matter) ties to other Jews.

Obviously, there will be a few people who we define as Jewish who don't know that much about what it means to be such. That will happen with any nation though; a German from Romania or Russia might speak worse German then say, myself or Sirotnikov, and might have little in common with those in Germany, but still be a German.

Just like a Muslim in Iraq and a Muslim in Pakistan who go and fight for Osama have no common 'nation' links, just religious links. Yet there is no way you can get me to call them of the same nation. They are simply waaaay too different.

I think that's open to a measure of debate, albeit, less so than whether Jews are an ethnicity. If the Muslim from Pakistan speaks Arabic and truly behaves simply as a Muslim and not a Pakistani, and the Iraqi does the same, their claim to be part of a common nation might not be so laughable.

Chegitz:

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

Funny, the Russian Jews I know look like Palestinians, and the Palestinians/Arabs I know look like Russian Jews. Most Jews could pass for Palestinians if you dressed 'em up and taught them Arabic; and many (I don't have a big enough sample size to say for sure how many) Palestinians could pass for Ashkenazi Jews if you did the reverse.

Berzerker:

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.

Your problem here seems to be with states in general, not Israel.

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

Definitely false on the first count since resolution 181 was a General Assembly resolution, not a Security Council one, and probably wrong on the second too, since Truman had domestic and personal reasons for supporting Israel, and besides, the US would stare Britain down a decade later on the Suez, suggesting to me that we were not cowed by British desires.

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.

The main thing they achieved was to hold onto the West Bank. They also tried, however, to close the road to Jerusalem, to cut off and destroy the 100,000 or so Jews there. What they would have done with the troops had they succeeded in taking Jerusalem cannot be known to 100% certaintity, but their destruction of Holy Sites and ethnic cleansing in the territories they did take suggests that ridding the ME of Jews was a goal.

[Ramo]

Am I the only person confused by the assertion that an ethnicity and/or religion can be a nation?

Is "nation" intended to mean "nationality?"

If so, I disagree. The only criterion to determine if an ethnic/religious group is a nationality is if for all people, there exists a state such that belonging to it is logically equivalent to belonging to that group.

Obviously, this is not the case particularly for ethnicities such as Jews and Bengalis, where English makes a distinction between ethnicity and nationality.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Right and that's why all those Russian Jews I know look like Russians and not like Palestinians.

Seriously, Eli. While there is undeniable evidence that there is at least some common genetic inheritance between most of the Jews in this world, the Jews of each region tend to have manifested phenotypes which have a lot more in common with their neighbours than they do with their co-religionists half a world away. This is almost certainly caused in part by genetic mixing.

Even if there were no intermarriages whatsoever, I'll ask you to remember that as a rule of thumb 10% of all children born are not actually the children of the supposed father. Maybe gentiles simply got in through the back door...

I'm sure you can find what were originally Semitic genes spread through Eastern Europe.

[Berzerker]

Natan -

Your problem here seems to be with states in general, not Israel.

You ignored the rest of my comments about "states". I did not express opposition to states, only opposition to the formation of states that result in the taking of property belonging to people not voluntarily ceding sovereignty to a state created by others. Yes, I don't believe "states" are more valid than individuals when the states are infringing upon the rights of those individuals.

Definitely false on the first count since resolution 181 was a General Assembly resolution, not a Security Council one

As the colonial power in charge of that area, and as a member of the security council, Britain had veto power. But according to chegitz, the British wanted the UN to take charge. If Britain did not want that and instead wanted to side with the Arabs in opposition to Israel, they would have done so.

and probably wrong on the second too, since Truman had domestic and personal reasons for supporting Israel, and besides, the US would stare Britain down a decade later on the Suez, suggesting to me that we were not cowed by British desires.

"Stared" Britain down? America was not so pro-Israel to stick it's neck out angering both the British and the Arabs in control of the oil.

The main thing they achieved was to hold onto the West Bank. They also tried, however, to close the road to Jerusalem, to cut off and destroy the 100,000 or so Jews there.

Were they attacking Jerusalem or the Jordanians? Not allowing foreign troops to march through your jurisdiction to alleviate preesure from someone else is not the same as trying to rid the ME of Jews.

What they would have done with the troops had they succeeded in taking Jerusalem cannot be known to 100% certaintity, but their destruction of Holy Sites and ethnic cleansing in the territories they did take suggests that ridding the ME of Jews was a goal.

Then maybe I did mis-read chegitz posts, I got the impression the Arab legion was more concerned with holding onto the lands within their jurisdiction than conquering Israel.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ramo
Am I the only person confused by the assertion that an ethnicity and/or religion can be a nation?

Is "nation" intended to mean "nationality?"

If so, I disagree. The only criterion to determine if an ethnic/religious group is a nationality is if for all people, there exists a state such that belonging to it is logically equivalent to belonging to that group.

Obviously, this is not the case particularly for ethnicities such as Jews and Bengalis, where English makes a distinction between ethnicity and nationality.

I don't seem to understand you that well, but correct me if I'm wrong,

are you saying there are no catalonyans or basques because they have no existing state?

[Ramo]

Baque and Catalonian are ethnicities, not nationalities. Their nationality is generally Spanish.

Just like Natan's or my nationality is American.

[Ozymandias]

Oy, part of me can't believe I'm participating in this ...

1. Nation / culture / religion / civilization ... The founding of the modern "Jewish State" was a land grab, hardly unique (he wrote with wry and severe sarcasm) in the history of the world; the impetus -- a place where Jews (however defined) couldn't be subject to pogroms etc. -- perfectly reasonable. A war was fought; the Arab Palestinians lost. Morality of conquest aside, any realistic basis for discourse on political geography begins there. And, technically, as the Israeli state is ruling a subject people, I am happy to point out, with no small degree of irony, that this qualifies modern Israel as an empire.

2. The essayist Thomas Friedman (author of "From Beirut To Jerusalem") succinctly sums up the essential dilemma of modern Israel: Israel can only be TWO of (1) a Jewish Israel (2) a Greater Israel (3) a democratic Israel. (That is, without resorting to an "ethnic cleansing" of Arabs.) Viewing Israeli factionalism and policy through this paradigm explains a lot of what would otherwise be pure (as opposed to political) insanity.

3. Israelis themselves are split about the definition of "a Jew". MANY secular Israelis consider their living in Israel a complete qualification for the distinction (while enjoying "white steak" -- pork -- on the Sabbath) whereas the Orthodox etc. of course disagree. For immigration purposes, the definition is exceedingly broad; AFAIK, the ONLY Jew ever denied the Law Of Return was the infamous American gangster Meyer Lansky. The heart of Israeli secularism is Tel Aviv; for the very religious, of course Jerusalem. These two groups are often intensely divided over Sabbath observance; military service; details of the welfare state; murdering Prime Ministers; etc. One wonders how that internecine struggle, with divides both of viewpoint and geography, might evolve without a shared enemy -- an Israeli civil war scenario, anyone?

4. As Civilization is essentially about cultures -- i.e., deeply held and shared beliefs, and by no means necessarily religious! (presumably, a "historical" Russian Civ "progresses" from Polytheism to Monotheism to Communism) -- there certainly is a continuity of belief and tradition from Abraham on. However, given the scope of Civilization, it really is the two heresies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which would seem to warrant attention within the game, if one is to take religion into account (that wonderful, all-embracing "Monotheism" -- not evening mentioning Ba'hai and the many divergent sects of both Christianity and Islam over which oceans of blood have been and are still shed). And inserting an Israeli Civ between Egypt and Babylon and hoping for simple survival -- let alone survival into the 20th century, in game turns, would be miraculous.

I close with a second quote on top of my usual tag-line -- Grace Slick summing up much of 6,000 years of human history in a couplet:

"In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our rise \
In loyalty to our kind, we cannot tolerate their obstruction ..."

Leaves very little room for "objective" moralizing, hm?

Now, might we turn this thread towards Israel-as-a-Civ-within-the-game, if it can be done and, if so, how so ... ?

Peace to all,

Oz

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ramo
Basque and Catalonian are ethnicities, not nationalities. Their nationality is generally Spanish.

Im' sure they would disagree, given they are eager to have thier own states and hate to be considered Spanish.

[Eli]

Basque and Catalonian are ethnicities, not nationalities. Their nationality is generally Spanish.

And what about the Palestinians?
They cannot even be called an ethnic group, since they are Arabs, Arabs, Arabs, whether they like it or not.

[Sirotnikov]

And, technically, as the Israeli state is ruling a subject people, I am happy to point out, with no small degree of irony, that this qualifies modern Israel as an empire.

Never thought of us as such.

Anyway, Israel has no ambitions to rule the palestinians.

True, if they one day went away and we could keep the territory would be very sweet, for some, but that won't happen.

So the question is - how will the arabs get the lands back.

Israel is prepared to give it back in exchange for signing about a peace deal promising the end of the conflict.

It's clear to Israel, that Arafat doesn't plan to end the conflict, but simply wants to get the land. That's what makes him irrelevant to Israel.

the essential dilemma of modern Israel: Israel can only be TWO of (1) a Jewish Israel (2) a Greater Israel (3) a democratic Israel. (That is, without resorting to an "ethnic cleansing" of Arabs.) Viewing Israeli factionalism and policy through this paradigm explains a lot of what would otherwise be pure (as opposed to political) insanity.

Israel is indeed struggling with the lot of ideas. However for the forseeable future Israel strives to remain Jewish, and Democratic.

3. Israelis themselves are split about the definition of "a Jew". [...]One wonders how that internecine struggle, with divides both of viewpoint and geography, might evolve without a shared enemy -- an Israeli civil war scenario, anyone?

All you gotta do is look in previous history.

Like a saying from the bible goes, "there's no news under the sun".

Remember one Israeli Kingdom? Remember why they've split?

[q]4. As Civilization is essentially about cultures -- i.e., deeply held and shared beliefs, and by no means necessarily religious! [...] And inserting an Israeli Civ between Egypt and Babylon and hoping for simple survival -- let alone survival into the 20th century, in game turns, would be miraculous.

Indeed. And we were indeed sacked, many times by many different civs.

I close with a second quote on top of my usual tag-line -- Grace Slick summing up much of 6,000 years of human history in a couplet:

"In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our rise \
In loyalty to our kind, we cannot tolerate their obstruction ..."

Leaves very little room for "objective" moralizing, hm?

Now, might we turn this thread towards Israel-as-a-Civ-within-the-game, if it can be done and, if so, how so ... ?

Interesting .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Baque and Catalonian are ethnicities, not nationalities. Their nationality is generally Spanish.

Actually Ramo, major disagreement here. Basques are definetly a seperate nation from Spanish. I don't know enough about Catalonians to make a similar claim on their account.

[Ramo]

Im' sure they would disagree, given they are eager to have thier own states and hate to be considered Spanish.

I don't wanted to be controlled by the tyrants in Washington (or Austin, for that matter). Does that make me no longer an American?

And what about the Palestinians?

They have no nation, ergo they're not a nationality.

They cannot even be called an ethnic group, since they are Arabs, Arabs, Arabs, whether they like it or not.

I suppose you've run a genetic comparison showing them as similar to Yemenese as each other.

Actually Ramo, major disagreement here. Basques are definetly a seperate nation from Spanish. I don't know enough about Catalonians to make a similar claim on their account.

Neither peoples have autonomy, so they aren't nationalities.

[Sirotnikov]

Catalonians are a nationality and want to be sovereign just as the basques. Infact I admire them more since they don't use terror, but rather have a beautiful culture to back it up.

The sad part is that world networks don't cover nationalities who don't do terror

And then you wonder where do they get the ideas?