Avi K:
Superb nitpicking. You even managed to repeat your nitpicking, in extended form, on the other similar thread. In fact, this may be a perfect way to illustrate the disingenuous behaviour I railed against before.
In attempting to define a State, I merely picked out components of the State, which, as Wikipedia has so helpfully said, part of the state. I never insinuated that a state is nothing more than it’s Government, and I resent the implication that I have. My original statement was that,
To refer to the State of Israel is to speak of the government, bureaucracy, administration and all the other components that constitute the State.
That isn’t a far cry from Wikipedia definition, as an ‘organised political community’, as I simply mentioned Government et al as components of a State. Furthermore, after the first time you bought up this distinction, I said, and I quote,
You seem to make a distinction between the aspects of the State I picked out, and the State as a whole, even though this makes no material difference to my point, as far as rebuttals are concerned.
So I simply acknowledged the distinction, and moved on the central issue, which the State’s supposed adherence to halacha. I also requested a Yes/No answer, which you have as of yet failed to provide, although you have improved slightly on your previous indirectness. But you still decided to focus on the definition of the State, despite that not being the central issue at all, which is whether that State has kedusha or is simply a secular entity, which due to it’s behaviour and ideals it clearly is. But you seem bent on infuriatingly focusing on the utterly pointless minutiae, and I’m all but fed up addressing those. Answers on a postcard please.