The real apartheid state.

[Tahuti]

Anyone who has studied how markets work or how crowdsourcing works of course understands the intrinsic value of having diversity in a social unit. And I don't mean studied like studied, but studied like, read a short article explaining the idea.

Diversity of political opinions has a tendency not to end well though.

 

[useless]

So mouthwash, list us examples of when Ethnic cleansing was and has ever been justified.

Also the fact that you seem to believe that it is EVER justified is incredibly disgusting.

 

[Tee Kay]

Diversity of political opinions has a tendency not to end well though.

Especially diversity of political opinions. It means people actually have to compromise and work together to find solutions rather than be tempted to impose their opinion on others by force or divide into two or three warring camps.

 

[timtofly]

So for about 70 years, the so called inequality of certain marriages where there was compromise and it was working out just fine. It was wrong to force people to change, since the compromise was working out just fine?

 

[Mouthwash]

I can think of several arguments against ethnic cleansing. Let me concentrate on one aspect of it, though.

Just who is doing the ethnic cleansing? And for whose benefit?

Why does it have to be a particular group? I'm talking about ethnic cleansing in principle. If it was Muslims doing it to Jews, then the same standards apply.

So to argue against ethnic cleansing one has to first accept the parameters chosen by this Morris fellow. Otherwise you have literally been unable to hear them.

We're both talking about the Nakba, and related instances.

Isn't this self-evident in the existence of historical cosmopolitan empires and the current existence of large ethnically diverse multicultural democracies, such as the United States and Canada (which, for whatever their many faults, inconsistencies, hypocrisies, etc., cannot be described in any way as monoethnic)?

I've literally spent the thread refuting this argument. My point was that Arab and Jewish identities cannot be reconciled in the same way that the Welsh and English could. I gave examples of those that theoretically could be. The Samaritans.

Like, yeah, a lot of countries are ethnically homogeneous or wish they were, but not all, and the ones that aren't aren't necessarily worse for it. The counterexample is itself an argument against ethnic cleansing, without going into the moral aspect.

It's completely empirical. What if a multi-ethnic country isn't feasible? I hardly see Afghanistan becoming a success story.

Meanwhile, from the response at the top of the link:

Sounds familiar.

How would politics work? Israel isn't going to function as a Lebanon, and it seems pretty difficult to imagine that each religious group wouldn't gravitate towards their own.

You're right in principle, though. I've heard of Bloods and Crips living in the same apartment buildings in NYC.

Anyone who has studied how markets work or how crowdsourcing works of course understands the intrinsic value of having diversity in a social unit. And I don't mean studied like studied, but studied like, read a short article explaining the idea.

I think Israel already has more diversity than almost any Western country.

So mouthwash, list us examples of when Ethnic cleansing was and has ever been justified.

I haven't read enough history. I only know about the Nakba with any detail.

Also the fact that you seem to believe that it is EVER justified is incredibly disgusting.

k

 

[Symphony D.]

I've literally spent the thread refuting this argument. My point was that Arab and Jewish identities cannot be reconciled in the same way that the Welsh and English could. I gave examples. The Samaritans.

Except they both are, in the examples I cited. There are Jews and Arabs living in close proximity in America who do not routinely shoot rockets at or bomb one another. You could argue that rest of the population serves as a buffer, sure, but the fact is that states exist without uniform ethnic national identities that incorporate ethnicities that are very proud of said ethnicity.

There is nothing particularly unique about Jews and Arabs (or Pakistanis and Hindus, or Tibetans and Chinese, or whatever) that make them spontaneously mutually annihilate in the fashion of a matter-antimatter reaction. Nor is there anything in their ethnic character that prevents them from being subordinated to higher-level national identities (the widespread settlement of Jews and the failure of pan-Arabism versus Arab nationalism are proof enough of this). You have essentially stated these things to be so (in that same post as the three quotes) but have done basically nothing to prove such incompatibilities, particularly in light of the obvious extant counterexamples.

 

[timtofly]

AFAIK in the US, they do not train their 3 year olds to throw stones at other people.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So you condemn many of the Israelis teaching their children to do this, as well as the Palestinians?

The only significant difference being that the Palestinian can rarely be found inside tanks and armored vehicles, while trying to run over the children harmlessly throwing stones at them. Instead, their victims are women, children, and even female US aid workers who are not wearing helmets or body armor.

 

[JollyRoger]

We also don't send tanks after 3 year olds.

 

[Tee Kay]

So for about 70 years, the so called inequality of certain marriages where there was compromise and it was working out just fine. It was wrong to force people to change, since the compromise was working out just fine?

Obvious troll/derail. Reported.

I've literally spent the thread refuting this argument. My point was that Arab and Jewish identities cannot be reconciled in the same way that the Welsh and English could.

This book I'm reading has a kid in there whose father is Arab Muslim and mother is a German Orthodox Jew.

 

[JollyRoger]

Plus, the Muslim God impregnated a Jewish girl to get us to Christianity.

 

[timtofly]

So you condemn many of the Israelis teaching their children to do this, as well as the Palestinians?

The only significant difference being that the Palestinian can rarely be found inside tanks and armored vehicles, while trying to run over the children harmlessly throwing stones at them. Instead, their victims are women, children, and even female US aid workers who are not wearing helmets or body armor.

We also don't send tanks after 3 year olds.

Obvious troll/derail. Reported.

So take my insightful thoughts and use them against me.

Some people have learned to overlook their differences and have learned to exist in peace. Other have not faired so well.

 

[Mouthwash]

Except they both are, in the examples I cited. There are Jews and Arabs living in close proximity in America who do not routinely shoot rockets at or bomb one another. You could argue that rest of the population serves as a buffer, sure, but the fact is that states exist without uniform ethnic national identities that incorporate ethnicities that are very proud of said ethnicity.

They both live in a society which for hundreds of years fostered democratic institutions and a highly individualistic society, as well as currently being the wealthiest state on Earth. They have no motive to kill each other that I can think of. No land disputes, no religious tension (in the US religion is hardly a way of life), no scarce resources, etc. Yet both groups are still among the most politicized in the country and both tirelessly lobby for their own factions.

There is nothing particularly unique about Jews and Arabs (or Pakistanis and Hindus, or Tibetans and Chinese, or whatever) that make them spontaneously mutually annihilate in the fashion of a matter-antimatter reaction. Nor is there anything in their ethnic character that prevents them from being subordinated to higher-level national identities (the widespread settlement of Jews and the failure of pan-Arabism versus Arab nationalism are proof enough of this). You have essentially stated these things to be so (in that same post as the three quotes) but have done basically nothing to prove such incompatibilities, particularly in light of the obvious extant counterexamples.

I don't view them as compatible. It's quite intuitive for me, because I'm an ardent Zionist and have met plenty of Muslims, but I think it's pretty much impossible to create a totally secular kind of nationalism in Israel. Judaism and Islam are not like Christianity at all. Religious Jews and Muslims both have huge families and live in their own communities, and this inevitably creates, fosters, and maintains religion as the primary ideology in the Middle East. There's also the fact that such civic ideologies (based around workable institutions and governments) take time to develop. The Arab world today is a bit like 600 AD Europe.

This book I'm reading has a kid in there whose father is Arab Muslim and mother is a German Orthodox Jew.

Point being?

 

[Tee Kay]

I would think the Arab world today is a bit like the Arab world today.

 

[Masada]

The Arab world today is a bit like 600 AD Europe.

The Jewish state is like Nazi Germany in 1939.

 

[Borachio]

In some respects it is. In others, it's remarkably dissimilar. Especially with regard to the treatment of Jews.

(Never let it be said that I let an opportunity to state the obvious go by.)

 

[Ajidica]

The Arab world today is a bit like 600 AD Europe.

So in 200 years and three days we can expect someone to be crowned by the Pope as Holy Roman Emperor?
Cool. THE CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE WILL RISE AGAIN.

In all seriousness, I can think of no meaningful ways the Arab world today is like Medieval Europe on any level besides "people live there and problems exist". Which, if we accept that definition, Medieval Europe is like Europe today.

 

[dutchfire]

THE CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE WILL RISE AGAIN.

That's what Hitler said.

 

[dutchfire]

The Arab world today is a bit like 600 AD Europe.

But 1200 AD Arab world was ahead of 1200 AD Europe.

 

[Tahuti]

Especially diversity of political opinions. It means people actually have to compromise and work together to find solutions rather than be tempted to impose their opinion on others by force or divide into two or three warring camps.

Yet in the end, people prefer conflict over compromise. This thread definitely proves it.