Middle East discussion

[Traitorfish]

OK, so why do all those Arab states exist? Aren't they inherently racist?

Firstly, it's not self-evident what "Arab" actually means. An Arab, especially in this political sense, may simply be a person who speaks Arabic, and not even necessarily as a mother or home language, much as the Republican tradition defines a Frenchman simply as anyone who speaks French. (We've already established that it's possible for a person to be both an Arab and a Jew.) For the concept of an "Arab state" to be equivalent to "Jewish state", it would be necessary for "Arab" to be defined in narrowly ethnic, religious or otherwise exclusive terms, which isn't a given.

Secondly, it's debatable whether there are any "Arab states" left. Arab-majority states, sure, but that's hardly the same. At this point, Egypt is Egyptian, Algerian is Algerian, Kuwait is Kuwaiti, and so on. Even Syria, the last nominally pan-Arabist regime, organises itself with a greater eye to local ethnic and sectarian divisions than any sort of Arab unity, as currents events make tragically clear. Nasser is very dead, which seems to render the whole question moot.

What about the African countries? Surely those are racist, too?

"African" isn't an ethnicity.

(edit: Mild ninaj'ing of Dachs on the first pargraph.)

 

[Dachs]

Firstly, it's not self-evident what "Arab" actually means, or that in the broad sense used it here it has any narrow ethnic delineation. An Arab may simply be a person who speaks Arabic, and not even necessarily as a mother or home language, much as the Republican tradition defines a Frenchman simply as anyone who speaks French.

And much as turning peasants into Frenchmen meant (imperfectly) attempting to homogenize their regional dialects and separate languages - there's a nonnegligible community of Occitan-speakers left even a hundred-odd years after the Third Republic's homogenization efforts - turning Middle Easterners into Arabs would involve major changes to their own dialects. MSA and classical Arabic are different beasts, Najdi and 'Iraqi and Hassaniya etc. are barely intelligible with each other...

 

[Lord Baal]

Jordan works with Israel because it expects that Israel isn't going away anytime soon. It's not "friendly" under any definition of the word.

"When events disagree with me, I alter the facts to suit my perceptions."

The Jews are a nation like the French and Japanese are a nation. Why is it that they shouldn't have a state? Would you think it acceptable for half the population of France to be German, or half the population of Japan to be Chinese?

Because national self-determination is a crock, that's why.

No, not Arab culture (though the whole nationalism thing was kinda shaken after 67). But look at the Middle East right now- Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf Sheikhdoms are all doing well while dictators are getting overthrown and slaughtered. Nation-states on the Westphalian model don't really exist in the Middle East. Being a royal leader gives you some sort of legitimacy.

You don't actually know what a Westphalian state is. Nor a nation-state, since they aren't the same thing.

I don't know the details of what would happen, but look at how Kuwait expelled Palestinians. Where did they go?

I'm beginning to suspect you're secretly a neo-Nazi, deliberately attempting to sabotage people's opinions of Israel.

So I made my assumption.

Well yeah, that, too. You're beginning to show sing of humility. But those were pretty strong words... so maybe self-contempt?

That was implied.

Hopefully you'll cherry-pick some awfully professional write-ups.

You know, I was going to continue debating with you, but these comments show that I'm just wasting my time. And as a single dad, I certainly have much better uses for it. Thanks for the link, I'll look at it when I get time.

I'm a Palestinian Jew, by the way.

Firstly, it's not self-evident what "Arab" actually means. An Arab, especially in this political sense, may simply be a person who speaks Arabic, and not even necessarily as a mother or home language, much as the Republican tradition defines a Frenchman simply as anyone who speaks French. (We've already established that it's possible for a person to be both an Arab and a Jew.) For the concept of an "Arab state" to be equivalent to "Jewish state", it would be necessary for "Arab" to be defined in narrowly ethnic, religious or otherwise exclusive terms, which isn't a given.

Secondly, it's debatable whether there are any "Arab states" left. Arab-majority states, sure, but that's hardly the same. At this point, Egypt is Egyptian, Algerian is Algerian, Kuwait is Kuwaiti, and so on. Even Syria, the last nominally pan-Arabist regime, organises itself with a greater eye to local ethnic and sectarian divisions than any sort of Arab unity, as currents events make tragically clear. Nasser is very dead, which seems to render the whole question moot.

We have zombie Lenin, why not zombie Nasser?

"African" isn't an ethnicity.

(edit: Mild ninaj'ing of Dachs on the first pargraph.)

That's right. Not even close.

And much as turning peasants into Frenchmen meant (imperfectly) attempting to homogenize their regional dialects and separate languages - there's a nonnegligible community of Occitan-speakers left even a hundred-odd years after the Third Republic's homogenization efforts - turning Middle Easterners into Arabs would involve major changes to their own dialects. MSA and classical Arabic are different beasts, Najdi and 'Iraqi and Hassaniya etc. are barely intelligible with each other...

I once knew a girl who spoke Provencal. Despite being "French" and considering herself French and her homeland to be France, she spoke the language only with some difficulty.

 

[Mouthwash]

Firstly, it's not self-evident what "Arab" actually means. An Arab, especially in this political sense, may simply be a person who speaks Arabic, and not even necessarily as a mother or home language, much as the Republican tradition defines a Frenchman simply as anyone who speaks French. (We've already established that it's possible for a person to be both an Arab and a Jew.) For the concept of an "Arab state" to be equivalent to "Jewish state", it would be necessary for "Arab" to be defined in narrowly ethnic, religious or otherwise exclusive terms, which isn't a given.

Secondly, it's debatable whether there are any "Arab states" left. Arab-majority states, sure, but that's hardly the same. At this point, Egypt is Egyptian, Algerian is Algerian, Kuwait is Kuwaiti, and so on. Even Syria, the last nominally pan-Arabist regime, organises itself with a greater eye to local ethnic and sectarian divisions than any sort of Arab unity, as currents events make tragically clear. Nasser is very dead, which seems to render the whole question moot.

Hmm, right, so if you want it narrowed down, how about the Iranian state or the Finnish state? Also, notice how all of your arguments semantically disprove my statements without arguing against my point. This is something you should remember.

"African" isn't an ethnicity.

Neither is "Jew." See, I can do this too!

I'm a Palestinian Jew, by the way.

Would you also happen to be named Gilad Atzmon?

Moderator Action: Thinly veiled suggestion that Lord Baal is anti-Semitic, take 3 days.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ParkCungHee]

Neither is "Jew." See, I can do this too!

If Jews are not an ethnicity, then what is the problem with an Israel with a Jewish minority?

 

[Mouthwash]

If Jews are not an ethnicity, then what is the problem with an Israel with a Jewish minority?

Because.

 

[sophie]

Because.

Wait, I'm confused. What's the difference between an ethnicity and a nation, other than your arbitrary distinction for this circumstance?

 

[Mouthwash]

Wait, I'm confused. What's the difference between an ethnicity and a nation, other than your arbitrary distinction for this circumstance?

Ethnicity: Biological characteristics of a people.

Nation: A socially constructed group based off of similar culture, language, or ethnicity.

 

[sophie]

Ethnicity: Biological characteristics of a people.

No. Phenotypes are biological (physical) characteristics of people. Ethnicity is a socially constructed identity or community formed around a shared (or perceived-shared) history, language, or culture, (or geography).

An ethnicity can be self-applied or it can be ascribed to you by others. One can carry multiple levels of ethnicity.

For example I can be American (a larger national ethnicity), but I can also identify myself as a Californian, or even Northern Californian.

Ethnicity is also completely mutable. One major argument about the collapse of the late Roman Empire has to do with the idea that the nobility in the farther-flung reaches of the Empire (particularly the Gallic nobility in and around the Rhine border reaches) no longer felt the Roman ethnicity to be a particularly useful one to carry and shed it in favor of "barbarian" customs and language.

To me a nation is just an ethnicity with less nebulous borders, but I'll leave that to the political scientists.

 

[Tee Kay]

Hmm, right, so if you want it narrowed down, how about the Iranian state or the Finnish state?

Neither currently exists. The Islamic Republic of Iran describes itself as an Islamic state (in a narrow ideological sense), not Iranian. It is inclusive of not only ethnic Persians but also Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Luris, and others as long as they subscribe (or at least don't challenge) the state ideology. Same goes for Armenian Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians. The official language is Persian, true, but Persian is just one of many Iranian languages. And Iran does not claim exclusivity as the "homeland" of the Iranian people. For one, Afghanistan and Tajikistan both speak Iranian languages.

Finland is not and does not define itself as a Finnish State, regardless of how badly the True Finns want it to be. It's a secular democracy where Finnish happens to be one of two official languages, and where the majority of the population speaks Finnish as their mother tongue.

Very few countries today define themselves as an ethnic- or ethnoreligion- based nation-state. Certainly almost no modern Western democracy. At least none that I am aware of.

Ethnicity: Biological characteristics of a people.

The rest of the world does not share your definition.

"Ethnicity or ethnic group is a socially defined category based on common cultural heritage, shared ancestry, history, homeland, language or dialect, and possibly other aspects such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc." - Wikipedia

 

[sophie]

"Ethnicity or ethnic group is a socially defined category based on common cultural heritage, shared ancestry, history, homeland, language or dialect, and possibly other aspects such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc." - Wikipedia

Wow. My definition was pretty damn true-to-textbook.

Thanks, Guy Halsall!

 

[Mouthwash]

Neither currently exists. The Islamic Republic of Iran describes itself as an Islamic state (in a narrow ideological sense), not Iranian. It is inclusive of not only ethnic Persians but also Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Luris, and others as long as they subscribe (or at least don't challenge) the state ideology. Same goes for Armenian Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians. The official language is Persian, true, but Persian is just one of many Iranian languages. And Iran does not claim exclusivity as the "homeland" of the Iranian people. For one, Afghanistan and Tajikistan both speak Iranian languages.

Finland is not and does not define itself as a Finnish State, regardless of how badly the True Finns want it to be. It's a secular democracy where Finnish happens to be one of two official languages, and where the majority of the population speaks Finnish as their mother tongue.

Very few countries today define themselves as an ethnic- or ethnoreligion- based nation-state. Certainly almost no modern Western democracy. At least none that I am aware of.

Israel was defined from the beginning as a "Jewish, democratic state." And yes, Israel is a secular democracy which was founded by vehemently anti-racist secular socialists such as Einstein. My point was that "Jewish state" is a superficial term; it might be the Jewish homeland, but it went to great lengths from the beginning to ensure equality for the Palestinian population (recall that Israel's second official language is Arabic). I was suggesting that Israel is a Jewish state only in the sense that Poland is a Polish state- by national identity rather than ethnic characteristics.

 

[Tahuti]

Israel was defined from the beginning as a "Jewish, democratic state." And yes, Israel is a secular democracy which was founded by vehemently anti-racist secular socialists such as Einstein. My point was that "Jewish state" is a superficial term; it might be the Jewish homeland, but it went to great lengths from the beginning to ensure equality for the Palestinian population (recall that Israel's second official language is Arabic). I was suggesting that Israel is a Jewish state only in the sense that Poland is a Polish state- by national identity rather than ethnic characteristics.

Why not let Israel pass a law that would declare all people who hold Israeli citizenship, regardless of parentage, ethnically Jews? Most Palestinians are probably descendants from the Biblical Israelites anyway, so they would count.

 

[Mouthwash]

Why not let Israel pass a law that would declare all people who hold Israeli citizenship, regardless of parentage, ethnically Jews? Most Palestinians are probably descendants from the Biblical Israelites anyway, so they would count.

No, because Jews are an ethnoreligious group, and Tunisians aren't Carthaginians the last time I checked.

That would seem like a good solution if we could assimilate them into a Hebrew culture, but that's not looking really... possible, right now.

 

[Traitorfish]

Hmm, right, so if you want it narrowed down, how about the Iranian state or the Finnish state?

Both of those states are explicitly mutli-ethnic. (edit: Whoops, Tailless already covered this.)

Also, notice how all of your arguments semantically disprove my statements without arguing against my point. This is something you should remember.

Well, what is your point? That if Jewish statehood is objectionable, then any ethnic statehood is objectionable? I agree! All I ask is a bit of clarity as to what constitutes an ethnic state.

Neither is "Jew." See, I can do this too!

Africa is a continent inhabited by over a billion people speaking thousands of languages and practising dozens of religious traditions over an area three times the size of Europe. What, in that, do you imagine to constitute a shared African ethnicity?

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, what is your point? That if Jewish statehood is objectionable, then any ethnic statehood is objectionable? I agree! All I ask is a bit of clarity as to what constitutes an ethnic state.

Uh, most nationstates would fall under my definition.

Africa is a continent inhabited by over a billion people speaking thousands of languages and practising dozens of religious traditions over an area three times the size of Europe. What, in that, do you imagine to constitute a shared African ethnicity?

That's not what I meant, but forget it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Uh, most nationstates would fall under my definition.

I don't agree. Most states are in practice and in law multi-ethnic, even if a particular ethnicity or ethnicities may be dominant. Certainly, a majority of people live in such states, which is also an important consideration. Ethnic statehood is the exception, not the rule.

 

[Lord Baal]

Would you also happen to be named Gilad Atzmon?

"You disagree with Israeli policies, therefore you must be an anti-Semite! If you are Jewish, then you must be a 'self-hating Jew!'"

 

[Mouthwash]

I don't agree. Most states are in practice and in law multi-ethnic, even if a particular ethnicity or ethnicities may be dominant. Certainly, a majority of people live in such states, which is also an important consideration. Ethnic statehood is the exception, not the rule.

That's right. Israel isn't different.

"You disagree with Israeli policies, therefore you must be an anti-Semite! If you are Jewish, then you must be a 'self-hating Jew!'"

No, I was referring to the way Gilad Atzmon refers to himself as a "Hebrew-speaking Palestinian."

Moderator Action: If that's what you were meaning to refer to, then you did so in an unacceptably provocative way.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Traitorfish]

That's right. Israel isn't different.

Then Israel is not a "Jewish state". But, as you yourself have insisted at some length, it is. So that doesn't square.