

So far, you have presented your opinions as opposed to mine. I would
hardly take them as facts.



I could give you hundreds of words in my mother tongue (Spanish), that
are comonly use and you will never find in a dictionary. Even more, I
could show you a lot of meanings that words in Spanish have different
from those in the dictionary.


And guess why. Isn't it curious that we do not know how many people define 
in how many different ways the term Jew, which is the basis of the movement 
itself?
So, the evidence shows that up to now, Jew, when considered in terms of Israel,
the Law of Return and Jewish Nationality is defined in terms of religion and
not of cultural identity, even if 80% of those defined as Jews in Isreal
are not religious.



That IS a problem. I am saying that I do not support Zionism as it is
now. I believe that among the people in the Soviet Communist Party some
might even had been inspired by noble ideals. Does that change the
final results of what happened in the USSR?
In the same way, even if the Zionist movement is not homogeneous, it
does not matter. What matters is the result.


I never said it directly nor indirectly. I am not talking about individuals
who defined themselves as zionists here. I am sure most of them are good,
honest and caring people. I am talking about the results of the Zionist
Movement. I am talking about a Movement whose actions resulted in a
Law of Return with a religious definition of Jew, a country that defines
nationality based on religion. I am talking about something I consider
a form of racism such as differenciation based on religious belief. 
After all, if Arabs in Israel cannot serve in the Army is becasue they 
were not born in the "right" religion.


I had never heard the definition: Only those who are religious are defined as Jews.
I had always seen the definition: A person is a Jew is his/her mother is/was
a Jew, and if such person does not convert, although I had seen people
argue about the last part.


So, there is no difference between citizenship and nationality in Israel?
Or what do you mean by "Actually, it doesn't"?


So, it follows a religious definition and not a cultural one. That is what
I call a form of racism.


You do not need to assume the representation of "everybody else" to 
make your points. You should assume that you are just talking for yourself.
About the other stuff, I still believe that the example was a valid one.
It would be a hypocrisy to say that one supports nationalism for all and
then support Zionism and then disregard the Palestinian's right.


It was an example. You are trying to justify something nobody has 
talked about.



Reference.


yes, but not all of them. A language is something that evolves all the time.


Not really. I posted in another post the definition of Zionism. And, in
this post you have showed for me what I was telling you from the 
begining. Zionism is a form of racism, even if most zionists are not
racist in their individual and private lifes. A movement that ask
for a State and National rights for a people, and then in practice,
that people are defined according to religion is, for me, racist-like.


You did it. Next time be more careful.


Do you know the difference between opinion and fact?
