Four decades ago, “Entrance forbidden to dogs and Arabs” was a common sight in Germany. Xenophobia was sublimated from Jews onto Arabs. Every nation has a right to live as it wishes, including the right to live without strangers. Had the Germans evicted Jews in 1939 to Switzerland or even to Palestine, that won’t be a crime comparable to Holocaust. Even the impractical UN law differentiates between genocide and ethnic cleansing, the last being a much lesser crime of forcible resettlement. Xenophobia is a powerful evolutionary feature which stabilizes societies. Racism is often rooted in the very real considerations: Jews have a good reason to resist Arabs in Israel, the people whose malicious intent was demonstrated on myriad occasions.
Racism is insulting. No one likes being despised. The objects of racism can question whether the core population has more rights than they have. But our lives are full of minute insults and injustices. Some are born rich, other – poor; some – smart, other – silly; some – beautiful, other – ugly. The world doesn’t offer absolute justice, but rather statistical: a person deficient in some respects sometimes excel in other respects; sort of the blonde correlation between nice look and nice brains. The same statistical approach applies to racism. Should the entire world turn on the Arabs, as it turns on Jews, that would be absolutely unjust and worth fighting against. But here we’re talking of a country which took 0.01% of Islamic lands exercising anti-Arab racism. What if one in a ten thousand clubs in Germany exclude Arabs? That’s surely not a meaningful offense. There are clubs for women, not for men; for 30-year-plus, not for teens. Such establishments are technically illegally exclusivist (sexist, for example), but only substantial crimes are punished. In practical terms, women clubs do not substantially violate male rights because males can enjoy other clubs. The similar logic applies to Israeli Arabs. Islam bans Jews from the entire Saudi Arabia and practically excluded Jews from most Arab countries. Almost the entire Middle East is a Muslim-only club.
Jews are entitled to the club of our own.
Uh…Obadiah, you are confused. Don't confuse people being disgusted over a group of people to Xenophobia.
In addition, what "race" is Arab?
Oh…Arab are considered WHITE. Arab is an ethnicity, not a race.
That is what bigots do, report false facts.
Anyone who thinks Arabs are white, must've never seen one in his life.
That's what imbeciles do - back their personal views with made up facts.
"Caucasian race, sometimes called the Caucasoid race, is defined by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English as "relating to a broad division of humankind covering peoples from Europe, Western Asia, parts of the Indian Subcontinent and parts of North Africa" or "white-skinned; of European origin" or "relating to the region of the Caucasus in SE Europe".
You bigots lose again.
So you [MODERATED] are actually [MODERATED] enough to think that if we use the word 'ethnicity' instead of the word 'race', it changes anything?
And you actually bother to fight over which word gets chosen.
For that matter, Arabs are now 'cheese', and Hebrews are no longer 'people', they are 'airplanes'.
Israel belongs to the airplanes, and due to that, all the cheese must be expelled from it.
[MODERATED]
Trent — Who, exactly, considers Arabs "White"? The Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English says: "Arab • noun 1 a member of a Semitic people inhabiting much of the Middle East and North Africa. 2 a breed of horse originating in Arabia." Don't see anything about them being Caucasian. They are not Black Africans, but neither are the Chinese, and no one calls the Chinese "White". Ask an Arab if he is of the same race as the Swedes or the Indian Brahmins or (Allah forbid) the English. It is always amusing, in a disgusting, potty-humor sort of way, when anti-Semites scream "bigotry" when Jews want to protect their homeland.
The 2nd definition could explain the mystery here, Jo:
They are a breed of horses.
Joseph:
Arab is a ethnicity. The definition I put on here does include "Western Asia."
The area that Arabs are in is in the southern part of West Asia.
I repeat — Ask an Arab if he is the same race as a Brit.
It depends on their level of their education and/or knowledge.
Also, if you look at the scientific consensuses of what a Caucasian is, you will see that the Jewish people are NOT included.
It kinda makes you wonder is all this Torah, Bible and Qur'an stuff is true since Ishmael was suppose to be spun off from a Isreaelite father. Thus would make up a similar is not same race of people.
Trent — Cool, I have had no good jujuitsu practice since Ray took the vegan stuff to the Forum: You are exactly correct — the scientific (and Jewish, I dare say) concensus is that Jews are not Caucasions; neither are the Arabs. If you ask an Arab, of any education level, he will tell you that he is more closely related to the Jews than to the Caucasions. It is a family squabble over religion and which brother gets the bedroom with the stereo. No bigotry involved
.
Excuse me, Joseph, but it is much more than a fight over some worthless old stereo.
It is a fight over the 7.1 surround sound system.
(No hidden message here. Just fooling around.)
Trent - I'm not sure if you feel that it is bigotry to classify Arabs as non-white, but I can tell you that in the Arab American community, many of us feel the exact opposite. I am an Egyptian/Syrian-American and if we met, you would NOT consider me to be white. I don't think your comments are racist, but I do think that the classification itself stops the reporting of hate crimes that are happening everyday as it is technically classified as white on white crime
While hate crimes against Jewish people are based on their religion and those against gay people are based on their sexual orientation; crimes against Arabs are usually RACIALLY motivated. 72% of Arab-Americans (including myself) are Christian! Do you think that means that I am less likely to deal with prejudice and discrimination? People see the dark skin, facial features and black hair and make their judgment based on that alone. If that isn't racism, I don't know what is…
Sorry, but Arabs are Arab, NOT white. Please remember, the single most important thing in racial classification is how people are treated in social terms in their everyday lives.
Going beyong the historically myopic statments about "malicious intent", the core argument that a crime is worth punishing only when its magnitude is large enough is logically flawed: either it's a crime, and by definition has a punishement that should be administered. Either it's not. Is it fine to kill 3 people, or 4? 5 maybe? Moreover, it's not true that "Such establishments are technically illegally exclusivist": it is a subject of legal debate whether one is excluded when one has many other options. (Note that practical issues of law enforcement resource dedication are not applicable here). Palestinians, in this case, don't have other _acceptable_ options: they've lived on the land, they wanna keep living on it.
Why don't you chastise Jordan for killing 6,000 of your Palestinians in a matter of days? You remember Sabra and Shatilla where Jews beat their breast over the Muslims killed by Christians, but do you know of Tel al Zaatar where ten times more Palestinians were killed by their fellow Arabs? And probably you haven't heard of Syrian battles with the PLO in the late 1970s, leaving thousands of Palestinian casualties. So look for the log in your own eye.
I'm not sure who Danny is replying to ("why don't you"…etc), nor how his comment is related to the blog's topic. Anyhoo, I do know of the Jordanian killings, Tel al Zaatar and the Syrian perpetrated battles - know them very well actually, so Danny - you don't have a monopoly on history. I happen to think that the PLO and co shouldnt' have tried to take over Jordan or Lebanon, and don't think that the "road to Jerusalem passes by Beirut". But two wrongs don't make one right - so there you go.
When a judge says to defendant, Take a chip out of your teeth,
the defendant replies, Take a board from between your eyes.
So here you go about two wrongs.
Ah, so the dispute is about who bears more responsibility for the Palestinians' situation: Syria/Jordan/Lebanese Phalangists, or Israel? And can any of them chastize the others for what they've done? My answer to the last is "No - not in any self-righteous manner", though a fact is a fact and anyone can point it out. The first question is over-simplifying though: Israel killed Palestinians in one situation (and still is); Syria in another; Jordan in a 3d; Phalangists in a 4th. The trial for the 'chip in the teeth' is different from the trial for the 'board in the eyes'. Israel can not say to Syria "you've killed many Palestinians - so that absolves us from any responsibility". As we agree, 2 wrongs don't make one right. That would be like Nazi Germany going "the catholic church had the inquisition, so our conscience is clear".
As a side note: what you say may be relevant if retributions are disbursed - who should pay how much (The calculus of death and injury is gory, but doable). But I bet you that Israel will come out a 'loser' in that - the damage perpetrated by Israel directly and indirectly on the Palestinian people far outweighs what the others have done.
No, not really. I just offered you an illustration of your hypocrisy.
We have no responsibility for the "Palestinians" who used every occasion to murder Jews. Yes, we expelled them to clear the land for ourselves, as the Bible tells us to do. Our only responsibility is to Jews, none at all to Arabs.
'hypocrisy' in this case would be to point out your crimes, and DENY/GLOSS OVER mine (if I were a Syrian/Jordanian general, Phalangist). Again, the trials are _separate_. Sadly, I don't expect someone who believes in 'divine right' to follow logic where it leads. Samson blinded, indeed…(Ironically, you still feel compelled to justify yourself ("who used every occasion […]")). Peace, and out.
You're right, divine rights are beyond logic. But also see how every other nation conquered a land for itself with no regard to anyone's rights: Europeans in North America, Bedouin in Jordan, whatever.
I don't really try to justify myself, just pointed to certain prejudices in your argument - which is logical, but moot, since this is how the history operates, with blood and not rights.