
As I said, I do not want to convice anyone, so, why should my opinions
convince anyone?
I do not believe that my opinions are refuted by facts.



Maybe youy view of a dictionary is the problem here. One thing is the
accepted meaning of a word by a dictionary, and sometimes a completely
different thing is what that word came to mean after a long time.



OK. Tell me how many people in Zionist movements define a Jew in a 
different way, and how many are who define Jew based on a religious way.


You need to start reading before answering. 
My point was that because some movement claims to be nationalistic, it 
does not mean that I consider it to be nationalistic. I did not comapre
Israel to the IRA. I think that you are starting to put words on my 
mouth and that is wrong.



I never said that Zionism is monolithic. If you are going to attribute
me things, present the quotes where I said that.


That is your problem. I could certainly interpret this like you are 
running out of arguments. First, you put words in my mouth, now, you
say you do ot believe me.



Why don't you try reading for a change? Did I say that the Law of Return
demand a person to be religious? Now, how does the Law of Return define 
who is a Jew and who is not? I said that it uses a religious standard:
If your mother is a Jew, you are a Jew, if your mother is not Jewish,
neither you are.
Do not twist my words, please.



I am not talking about the debate. I am talking about how things are right
now. When the debate is over, I'll see what happens.
Right now, things are like they are.
Let me ask you one thing. I understand that Israel differenciates between
Citizenship and Nationality. Suppose M(ale) and F(emale) have a child in
Israel. Which nationality will the child's ID show, according to each one
of the following cases:

a) F and M are both Jewish.
b) F is Jewsh and M is not.
c) F is Muslim and M is jewish.
d) F is Christian and M is Jewish.
e) F and M are both non-Jewish.




It called history. At some point it was OK. Now, I believe, it is not. 


                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^

Interesting. How do you know? Had I ever talked to you about this and 
forgotten about that?



Which definition are you now talking here about? 
I do not know why you are so touchy. I never said that you did not support
Palestinian self-determination. I just gave an example of hypocrisy. I never
said that someone in this net is guilty of it. It was just an example. Nothing
more, nothing less than that. Why did you have to clarify what you think?


Here you have several problems.
First, you should know that words have more meanings than those given in
the dictionary.
Second, it may come to be a shock for you to know that there are more
words than those in the dictionary.
Third, we can exchange ideas if you want, but you come out with this nonsense
about being believable = using the definitions given in a dictionary.
It seems that you cannot answer to the ideas given by others without insulting
others. Sad.


If you did not put words in my mouth, it might be that you might
start reading what I had actually said. So far, you come over and over
twisting what I said or presenting things I never said as if I had said
them. In this way, you are answering to yourself. That is why you do not
find it believable. Maybe, if you start reading what I had actually said,
and not what you added, you might change your mind.


First, there is nothing resembling a fact in what you added to what I said,
as if I had said it. 
Seconf, anyone else is supposed to mean "than I do"?

