I'm not totally sure how Islam is going to play itself out when it comes to the "latter days" although the Arab countries are going to go up against Israel and they do represent their religion Islam.  I pulled out this quote:

This is true.  This is going to happen.  Somehow a peace treaty will be confirmed and the Jews will be duped. I'm just wondering how this will exactly play out.  Maybe the rebuilding of the temple will come into play?   The world will finally believe we are going to have peace at last.  It's a trick and will last only a short time.  You have to know this Leauki.  The only one who can broker Peace is the Messiah.  Look at Zechariah 12-14 very carefully.  We are instructed to pray for the peace of Jerusalem from way back.  We must continue to do this. 

Actually they were both Gentile and Jewish Christians.  After the death of Christ it was the Jews who were coming into the faith as the Apostles were going into the synagogues.  That was the normal place to speak.  A Jewish Apostle speaking to the Jews during their assembly times.  Many listened to the OT scriptures and shown how Christ was the Messiah that had come as prophesied.   Then in the house of Cornelius, a centurion, the first Gentile convert was brought into the faith.  (Acts 10).  After that, droves of Gentiles came to the faith just as droves of Jewish families came before them. 

The persecution of the Christians (Jew and Gentile)  by Nero was intense starting before the fall of Jerusalem (70AD) and continued to the 4th century where Constantine declared Christianity a state religion (start of the RCC).  By then there were more Gentiles than there were Jews coming to the faith. 

But yes, Rome was out for the Christians right up until the 4th century when they figured out they couldn't beat them so why not join them and a business was born. 

Today what we are seeing is both anti-Semitism and persecution of Christians all over the world.  It has deeply rooted spiritual implications.  What we are seeing is only the fruit.  The deep roots are hidden and where all the work is being carefully planned and executed underground.   It's going to get much worse.  We've only seen the tip of the iceburg.  Wait and see.  I don't believe it's very far off. 

 

 

I quote, then:

 3. pl. peo·ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life.

Clearly they're not excluding, so "geeks" are people and "spanish" are people, but you can still be a "spanish geek". So I ask again, more clearly: what conditions are necessary and sufficient to qualify as a "Jew"? I was only aware of the racial (which you argue doesn't exist, I'm no anthropologist so dunno) and religious ones (which you argue isn't valid), so I'm all ears.

And I must note that, in the same page you linked near the bottom, there is a definition for using "people" reffering to race or ethnic background.

My reading of MLK's quote is that he meant he wanted people to be judged as individuals and not what their "group" had done, which would run counter to your idea of praising the achievements of the jewish people (rather than separate individuals who just happened to be jewish, as I argue). Regardless, it's something up to personal interpretation and, in any case, depends on my question posted above.

As I mentioned above, I'm not an anthropologist so I don't know whether you're right or wrong, but Wikipedia does mention the "Jewish ethnicity", which is what I was thinking of when talking about "race" (ie, people associated through common heritage).

Poetic flavour makes for informal definitions, and informal definitions lead to semantical arguments. The use of the term "people" in plural is one such word, being able to categorize different groups of (singular) people by differing criteria in a non-exclusive way (as noted above), which is why I chose to ignore it in favor of the more formal definitions I knew.

Yeah, I forgot about *those*, but my beef with nationalistic US-born idiots is a matter for another time. And yes, there *is* in my opinion something very much wrong in singing the praises of a group of people where only a minority of the individuals comprising it is directly responsible for the achievements being praised. I don't praise the British Army for fighting against the Nazis, for instance, I praise the British soldiers who fought in World War 2, modern-day British soldiers didn't do a thing back then, so they don't deserve any praise for it.

We hold different definitions of "country", then. Mine is legal, and the country of Israel didn't legally exist until 1948. Jews existed before then, of course, but tying both definitions together would mean there could be no such thing as a "jewish french" or "non-jewish israeli" which holds problems of its own.

I know, but my point was: *you*, the individual, lived through that but not the Spanish Inquisition, *they* the individuals lived through the Spanish Inquisition but not the events you described. Why put them all together? why not recognize the merits of *individuals* instead of seeing people as, well, "people" in the plural, whatever your definition of that is?

I am sorry, but if you don't understand what a "people" or a "nation" are, it will be very difficult to talk to you.

You are thinking in terms of race, and I don't understand that view. I am thinking in terms of nations and you don't know what a nation is.

 

Again, the country if Israel did legally exist from 1300 BCE until the Assyrian invasion and then again as a client kingdom of first the Persian and then the Greek/Roman Empire.

Then came nearly 2000 years of foreign rule until World War 1 when Israel became a British territory which became independent in 1948.

 

I think you have problems not only with the concept of a nation but also with the difference between a country and a nation.

There are Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis. Specifically there are Israeli citizens of Jewish nationality, Arab nationality, Armenian nationality, Druze (another Arab) nationality, and Circassian nationality.

Similarly that are Russian citizens of Russian nationality, of Jewish nationality, of Karelian nationality, of German nationality and so on. The nationality is specified in the passport.

In Turkey, per its constitution, you have Turkish citizens of Turkish nationality, Greek nationality, Armenian nationality, and Jewish nationality. The Kurds are not recognised as a nation in Turkey.

In Iraq you have Arab nationals, Kurdish nationals, Assyrian nationals, and Turkmen nationals, all recognised by Iraqi citizenship law.

In Morocco there are Arabs, Jews, and Imazighen (Berbers), three different nationalities.

In Germany most German citizens are of German nationality but there are also Sinti and Roma and Sorbs, Danes, and Frisians. Each have their own language and culture and are recognised as nations sharing German citizenship in Germany. (Jews are not recognised as a nation in Germany.)

In the United States there are US citizens of American nationality (your average American), non-citizens of American nationality (for example inhabitants of American Samoa or their descendants), and American citizens who are not American nationals but belong to a recognised Indian tribe.

Israel, the Jewish nation state, is as tied to Jewish nationality as Germany, the German nation-state, is to the German nationality. Although both countries have citizens of other nationalities.

1. Not all individuals of German nationality are German citizens. (For example there are individuals of German nationality who live in Russia. They could immigrate to Germany and get German citizenship on account of their German nationality.)

2. Not all German citizens are of German nationality. (For example the Sorbs, a slavic people, are German citizens but of Sorbian nationality. Please don't confuse them with Serbs or Serbia.)

1. Not all individuals of Jewish nationality are Israeli citizens. (For example American Jews or European Jews might not have Israeli citizenship. But they could immigrate to Israel and get Israeli citizenship on account of their Jewish nationality.)

2. Not all Israeli citizens are of Jewish nationality. (For example the Negev and Galil Bedouins are of Arab nationality but became Israeli citizens in 1952 (technically in 1948 but because of war and discriminatory practices it took years to get the ID cards and passports printed).

None of this has anything to do with race. If a man from Africa (who is black) becomes a German citizen he will also acquire German nationality and the result will be a black man of German nationality. An Ethiopian Jew is black but of Jewish nationality. A Negev Bedouin is white but not of Jewish nationality. (Although some Bedouins are Jewish but that's another subject.) An Ethiopian non-Jew is black but not of Jewish nationality (but belongs to one of the many Semitic and Cushitic peoples who live in Ethiopia).

 

MLK's point was not that you shouldn't recognise the achievements of a nation or group but that such achievements have nothing to do with their skin colour.

 

Those events are not unrelated and it makes no sense to see them in isolation.

I can learn from the experiences of my ancestors and because I did I knew how to handle these situations. I can celebrate the fact that they survived as I hope that later generations will celebrate the fact that I survived.

Heck, Americans celebrate Thanks-Giving. Is that not a national holiday that celebrates the (perceived) achievements of your nation? What about Independence Day? Are you George Washington? Probably not. But can you celebrate his victory because it is also yours? I would say so. What about Labour day? Celebrate the achievements of the American labour movement? Why not?

Every nation has its national holidays that remind individuals of the achievements of the nation. I don't get why this is wrong when Jews do it. Or do you think it is wrong to celebrate Independence Day?

 

Wrong, I'm thinking of the definition you gave. "People" as in plural is simply a term used to denote a group of persons characterized by one or more common attributes. I am simply asking you to tell me *which* attributes are necessary and sufficient to determine whether somebody is jewish or not. Handwaving the whole issue with a "you should know already" is simply useless.

Nothing is unrelated, yet we try to see and judge events in isolation all the time in an attempt to be more impartial as no single human can hold the entirety of humanity's circumstances throughout the ages in his head. You'd say that the jewish-ness or lackthereof of those involved was the most relevant factor, I'd say it was the geopolitical situation of the time and as such would be best to relate them to other contemporary events rather than tying two events separated by hundreds of years between them.

No, every *country* has its national holidays that remind individuals of the achievements of their *predecessors*, I don't celebrate the day "we" won "our" freedom, I celebrate the fact that I'm free because others fought and died for it and I'm grateful to them for doing so. There are many subtle differences between both, but very important ones as well.

And BTW, while I'm American by virtue of having been born on the American continent, I have never been to the United States, have nothing to do with it or its people, and as such have no reason to celebrate either Thanksgiving or George Washington's military victories. Also, as far as I know the US' Thanksgiving day celebrates the day the native American tribes gave the English colonizers food to help them survive through the winter and, as such, can hardly be considered an "achievement".

 

You seemed to have an issue with the concept of a nation as such.

I didn't know you wanted to know specifically about Jewish legal clarifications of nationality.

Jewish is anyone who has a Jewish mother or has converted to the Jewish religion.

Does that answer the question?

 

I didn't mean you specifically. I chose the US as an example because I figured you would at least know the country.

If anything else is unclear about the meanings of nation or nationality, return here and ask.

 

DraekAlmasy....No matter what, we Jews are a people, a Nation. We are not a "race". How can a belief system turn such divergent physical types into a race? There is only one "race": The human race. I view efforts to subdivide it by appearance to be farcical, intellectually corrupt, and futile.

I too am offended by the effort to do so, and suspect the motives of such efforts.

Oh yes, and I had the honor of serving in the I.D.F., and am a duel citizen of the U.S. and Israel. I am no less proud of my family members who founded this country (USA) than those who settled Israel.

did not the JEWS kill jesus? isreal was destroyed once (then refounded by the british in what was british territory if i remember rightly) and its people dispersed. the Inquisiton was more focused on persecuting people who were false converts to christianity. not to mention 90% of spanish nobles were of jewish decent Queen Isabella expelled the jews from Spain it was the moriscos (muslims in spain) who were persecuted with more passion.

Besides religion is a private matter and should stay that way. Since no one really cares and, most of the time, seems to incite others.

Everyone knows that Hilter was an idiot. he couldnt paint he couldnt lead an army. the only thing he could do was brain wash people into following his own twisted ideas. Which were often based on the fact that a large proportion of rich and powerful people (before and after) the first world war were jewish and didnt fight.

The romans viewed Early chrisitans as a threat, hell anyone would with the sudden apparance of rabid people from the middle east yabbering on about a new god (as in new to the romans) and threatening to mess everything up.

The arabs were never the greatest at modern style warfare. Even the ottermans (sp?) stagnated because of Janissaries fear of modern warfare (guns and stuff) and they were one of the most powerful empires around even up to the 17th century or so. "Disipline makes small numbers strong and large numbers tremble" Not sure who that was but it was either Nappy or Freddy the great. Oh and american Military equipment > Soviet stuff with those odds i would have back Isreal over teh arabic nations. (wasnt it only egypt that had, relatively, modern air power?)

No. "The Jews" did not kill Jesus. The Roman government and the Roman-approved Jewish leadership executed Jesus for crimes against Roman and Jewish law.

It was the Romans killing a Jew, not vice versa.




Twice.

Israel was destroyed twice.

It was once refounded by the Persians and once by the Zionists (or the British, if you will). However, it was Caliph Umar and then Saladdin who originally called on the Jews to return home.




That is probably true. The Inquisition had no authority over non-coverted Jews and Muslims.




I never heard that before. I very much doubt it.




I don't know who was persecuted more. But it was the Ottoman Empire who sent ships to collect the Jews and bring them home.




Ok.




Didn't fight?




Yes.




Actually, it was the Turks who first used guns against the Byzantinian empire.




That is all fine and good but Israel didn't have American military equipment. Before the 1960s, Israel's weapons came from Chechoslovakia. America was neutral and the Jordanian army was equipped by the British and led by British officers.

Egypt had modern air power later, when the Russians started helping them. Israel had American support since the late 1960s.

I saw the title for the post and being interested in the subject I started to read it. I can and do identify by what is being said in the letter. I was even feeling proud as I read on. I am a non-Israeli Jew living in Montreal, of Ashkinazi descent. My fathers parents fled to Russia when the party started. I am not a practicing Jew. Why do I feel proud? I can't explain why other to say it's ingrain. I think most people who are of Jewish descent feel a connection, for these very reasons.  Yes I do include myself when it says "We". We all seem to have a "connection". Is it that the Jewish people have been persecuted for over 500 years? Who knows. I certainlt don't. 

The discussion that's going on here has been going on for 5000 years and had been the source of conflict for as long. To compare a letter from one person stating his pride to an Aryan statement is strecthing things to the limit, I find, no? I am disheartened that it turned into a racisl discussion at some point but not surprised at all. It is the present worls viewpoint

Personally I thank you for the post because it remininds me of why I love being a Jew.

Welcome, Skyzyk!