HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » Israel/Palestine (Group) » This message was self-del...

Mon Oct 14, 2013, 02:42 PM

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (polly7) on Sun Sep 7, 2014, 08:21 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

42 replies, 1913 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply This message was self-deleted by its author (Original post)
polly7 Oct 2013 OP
Jefferson23 Oct 2013 #1
R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #2
azurnoir Oct 2013 #3
pelsar Oct 2013 #4
azurnoir Oct 2013 #5
oberliner Oct 2013 #6
azurnoir Oct 2013 #7
oberliner Oct 2013 #23
pelsar Oct 2013 #9
Scootaloo Oct 2013 #8
pelsar Oct 2013 #10
Scootaloo Oct 2013 #11
shira Oct 2013 #12
azurnoir Oct 2013 #14
shira Oct 2013 #16
azurnoir Oct 2013 #17
King_David Oct 2013 #20
azurnoir Oct 2013 #21
King_David Oct 2013 #40
azurnoir Oct 2013 #41
azurnoir Oct 2013 #22
Scootaloo Oct 2013 #24
pelsar Oct 2013 #28
Scootaloo Oct 2013 #31
pelsar Oct 2013 #32
Scootaloo Oct 2013 #37
pelsar Oct 2013 #13
azurnoir Oct 2013 #15
pelsar Oct 2013 #18
azurnoir Oct 2013 #19
pelsar Oct 2013 #26
azurnoir Oct 2013 #34
pelsar Oct 2013 #35
azurnoir Oct 2013 #36
Scootaloo Oct 2013 #25
pelsar Oct 2013 #27
Scootaloo Oct 2013 #30
pelsar Oct 2013 #33
Scootaloo Oct 2013 #39
pelsar Oct 2013 #42
azurnoir Oct 2013 #38
Miranda4peace Oct 2013 #29

Response to polly7 (Original post)

Mon Oct 14, 2013, 02:54 PM

1. Bibi made a fool out of himself at the UN. K&R n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Original post)

Mon Oct 14, 2013, 11:38 PM

2. Strange...

Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of demonstrations , when the world’s attention was focused on what was happening in that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the Territories.


It's very strange that Bibi would want to use the same tactic against the present inhabitants of the region that were used on his own people for hundreds of years.

The more one wants to crush their supposed enemies the more in likeness the come to resembles them.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Original post)

Tue Oct 15, 2013, 12:14 AM

3. In his current role as PM Netanyahu is

expelling Palestinians and Israeli Arabs from their homes on both sides of the Green Line both in villages in thee Negev and places such as Khirbet al-Makhul in the West Bank

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 15, 2013, 05:42 AM

4. so your for apartheid....

many of those "villages' are just a bunch of cinderblock homes built on state land (within the green line)....without any permission. There is no running water, no sewers, no electricity, no real roads or organized streets..

and as far as i understand, you believe that these people who moved in to these places (post 48) should be allowed to stay because of their genetics.

we've been before, but i do believe we found that apartheid that everyone is looking for...as you've made it clear, you believe in special exclusive laws for a very specific group otherwise known as the Southern Bedouin and just them, no other ethnic group gets those laws in israel.


can you confirm...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 15, 2013, 06:55 AM

5. do you understand what apatrtheid means? here is more from the OP for those not unerstaning



According to the website of the Or Movement, a government-linked organization overseeing Jewish settlement in the Negev, residents of the unrecognized villages will be moved to towns constructed “to concentrate the Bedouin population.” In turn, small Jews-only communities will be constructed on the remnants of the evicted Bedouin communities. They will be guaranteed handsome benefits from the Israeli government and lavish funding from private pro-Israel donors like the billionaire cosmetics fortune heir Ron Lauder. “The United States had its Manifest Destiny in the West,” Lauder has declared. “For Israel, that land is the Negev.”



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 15, 2013, 07:24 AM

6. a former social system in South Africa

a former social system in South Africa in which black people and people from other racial groups did not have the same political and economic rights as white people and were forced to live separately from white people

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apartheid

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 15, 2013, 07:30 AM

7. seems you left out a good eal of your own link

apart·heid
noun \ə-ˈpär-ˌtāt, -ˌtīt\

: a former social system in South Africa in which black people and people from other racial groups did not have the same political and economic rights as white people and were forced to live separately from white people
Full Definition of APARTHEID
1
: racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa
2
: separation, segregation <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>


See apartheid defined for English-language learners »
See apartheid defined for kids »
Origin of APARTHEID
Afrikaans, from apart apart + -heid -hood
First Known Use: 1947


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apartheid

it's okay I do understand

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #7)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 07:17 AM

23. Thanks

I think that will be helpful for people who are not capable of clicking links or reading dictionaries.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 15, 2013, 08:02 AM

9. i understand that apartheid is a very fluid concept

unless of course you want to disagree with the NAACP on their version against New Haven?

do you disagree with them?

and you didnt answer my question, i know you dont like it, and your probably not going to answer it, but do you believe that southern Bedouin should be able to build a house on state land, unlike all of the other ethnic groups in israel?
____

you like the simple events where you can blame israelis for being "bad", and you will never ever ever ever answer a question that shows a moral contradiction.

i just enjoy watching you avoid the questions while you stay in your simple world of "israelis -bad" no matter what the events

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 15, 2013, 07:32 AM

8. Even for you, that was a sad attempt at an argument

Go back, desposit another quarter into the hasbara dispenser, and try that shit again.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 15, 2013, 08:04 AM

10. you too? dont like have one of your "holy writs" challenged?

whats wrong?...i finally found a part of israels society where you believe only one ethnic group in israel gets special rights and the others don't.

care to explain why just them and not the druze?

your challenge, should you decide to accept it, is to validate one ethnic groups rights to have rights that no other group, jewish and non jewish, in israel gets, and then explain how its not "aparthied" or racism.

Since zionism is deemed racist here, and is subject to discussion, i dont see why the "progressive" base belief which is racist should get a "pass"

lets see if you can defend one of your "holy foundations" .......

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 15, 2013, 07:39 PM

11. Defending the who do what, now?

No, no. I'm mocking you for your absurdly shitty misrepresentation of what apartheid means. For god's sakes man, look it up before you use it!

Why is it whenever one of you guys gets an independent idea, instead of just copy-pasting something from Harry's Place or Israeally cool, you sound like you've been smoking bath salts? It's very disjointed. After you look up the words you want to use, stew them for a bit. Let a nice brothy melange develop, all the flavors of those ideas coming together in a thick, chunky chowder of well-written prose.

I'm kinda hungry, if you can't tell.

when you rush to smash your newfound ideas into other people's monitors via the internet, all that really happens is that you look manic, rushed, and more than a little imbicilic. been there, done that

Slow down, gather your thoughts - this may take longer for some people than others, so don't get discouraged - piece it all together in a rough draft, edit, smooth, blend, add, you know, build your damn argument. This isn't a game of Hungry Hungry Hippoes, fast reflexes and the ability to smash buttons isn't going to get a "win" for you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 15, 2013, 10:41 PM

12. Do you agree with the NAACP about apartheid in New Haven, CT?

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/upload/2013/03/NAACP_UrbanApartheid_print_final.pdf

Or is the NAACP misrepresenting what apartheid means?

If we know that New Haven practices apartheid, then we'll know whether there's apartheid virtually everywhere else in the world.

Got it?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #12)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 01:35 AM

14. oh keep hammering that literary title to defend actual legal apartheid in Israel

Orwell must be smiling

However here is what the title says

Apartheid is any policy or practice of
separating or segregating groups. It was
an official policy formerly practiced in South
Africa against non-whites. Nelson Mandela
led a broad-based effort to eventually end
the practice of apartheid in 1990s.


the so called apartheid in their report is not the result of actual laws but a more defacto form in short they use the term apartheid for shock value, but it's nice to see the NAACP trying to keep themselves somehow relevant these days, as they have long been considered out of touch with the Black community at large

here but one example

http://madamenoire.com/103212/our-naacp-problem/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 06:16 AM

16. Oh, you say it's defacto apartheid in New Haven, CT? Well ,that's still apartheid....

What's funny is that you also once claimed there's no apartheid in Lebanon vs. Palestinian refugees and their thousands of offspring (who should be citizens) because they're not...get this....citizens there.

Well, Palestinians in the W.Bank aren't citizens either, so how is it apartheid there?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #16)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 06:56 AM

17. so simple, and BTW there is a difference between legal or figurative use of the term apartheid

the West Bank is not Israel unlike Lebanon which is well Lebanon, the Palestinians in the West Bank are being ruled by foreign invaders, the West Bank is not sovereign Israeli territory or any part of Israel and in fact the West Bank has been recognized as Palestine by the UNGA, the Palestinians in Lebanon are non citizen refugees living in a sovereign country, the Palestinians in the West Bank are refugee or not being ruled over by a foreign military invader, that applies different laws to the Palestinian population than they do their civilian population whom are colonizing the West Bank something that is against international law

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 07:07 AM

20. "actual legal apartheid in Israel"

Ha ha that's funny ... Spread the word ... I read about that from some real nasty bigoted people and groups in the USA with nasty prejudice but never from anyone in the Democratic Party in the USA ( except for a few marginal people who claim to support my party posting here on DU )

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 07:11 AM

21. it case you can not understand here is a glaring example

in the West Bank the "settlers" Israeli citizens are allowed to openly carry M-16 rifles, Palestinians have been shot for having a sling shot, are regularly arrested for having a stone, and any fire arm is forbidden, hope that helps you understand

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 07:30 PM

40. Labeling of the Jewish State as an apartheid state is not legitimate criticism of Israel

The only ones partaking in such extremist rhetoric are the extreme right wing anti Semites such as David Duke et al and extreme left wing anti-Semites too and definitely not anyone in our party we support in the USA - and I'm talking about official policies of the Democratic Party of the USA and not those who just claim to support it such as a few DU members do.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #40)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 11:52 PM

41. The chart below came from an Israeli source sorry if you can't accept that

and if you wish to call Israeli Jews anti-Semites be my guest as far as the Democratic Party goes it's a very big tent and as Democrats we do not require lock step

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 07:17 AM

22. Here's visual that also illistrates another facet of apartheid in the West Bank

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #12)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 08:08 AM

24. No, the NAACP isn't. Pelsar is, and his argument has nothing in common with the NAACP's.

However the NAACP is using a fairly narrow scope. Which is fitting, as they're looking at a single issue under the larger umbrella of apartheid systems. The term has a legal definition, defined by the ICC, which is broader than the NAACP's use - but still not so broad as to include Pelsar's attempt.

According to Pelsar, the fact that Innu people are allowed to hunt seals out of season in Canada would be apartheid. According to Pelsar, the fact that the Masaai are allowed to live within the Serengeti natural preserve would be Apartheid. According to Pelsar, the very existence of the NAACP would be apartheid ("why isn't there a National Association for the Advancement of White People?!")

Pelsar's definitions are bad. Even if they weren't, his argument is amazingly weak. Your attempt to bolster it is kind of sad. Might I suggest sitting down to read that PDF you linked to?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #24)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 08:41 AM

28. actually your wrong again..........

As it has been explained to me over and over here.....limiting one specific groups rights is defined as apartheid.....it maybe 'defacto" and not in law or it may be some "hint" of it, but its all apartheid and if israel is so guilty of it so is Canada, the States and everybody else.

is the definition your using?

committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

well that certainly puts Canada right smack in the middle and the US...both countries keep their minorities down:
the French in Canada? they want their own country, the blacks in the States? the indians...wow i could go on and on about how those countries keep their minorities from getting "to uppity"


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 11:22 AM

31. So you want to argue that the bedouin are dominating and oppressing the Jews in Israel?

Am I reading you correctly, there?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 11:54 AM

32. no...i'm just questioning

why you apparently believe that only the S.Bedouins get to ignore the laws of the state of israel, while the Druze, the christians, the N. Bedoiuin, the Arabs and the Jews..dont

simple question isn't it

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #32)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 04:27 PM

37. Well then why are you calling it apartheid?

Last edited Wed Oct 16, 2013, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Because when you try that argument, that's exactly what you're claiming, that the Bedouin are dominating Israel and oppressing the others who live there.

It's a rhetorical question, you're calling it apartheid because, since you didn't know what the fuck apartheid meant until just now, you thought it was just a "bad word" you could throw against critics of Israel as a "gotcha!" argument. Must sting that this attempt just made you look pretty ignorant.

Should the southern Bedouin get to ignore the laws of the state of Israel? I like how broadly you state that. As if the Bedouin are just trying to live under mass anarchy, ignore everything, all the time! utter lawlessness! Of course, that's hardly the case at all, is it? We're just talking about a law regarding use of state land. Not "The laws of the state of Israel" but rather, an Israeli law. I'm sure you understand the difference.

Should the Bedouin get to ignore this particular law? Well, at the moment, were they to follow the law, it would essentially mean the abandonment of their culture, which is defined by a seminomadic, pastoral way of life. If a law exists that essentially tells an entire culture to drop dead, that's a bad law that should not be followed. So I can't blame them for not doing so. That said, I do understand Israel's concerns about both the preservation of natural areas, and worries over some of the places the Bedouin move into - military ranges and landfills are a bad place for anyone, right?

The solution, I think, is for Israel to work with the Bedouin community to figure out a way to preserve their way of life and nomadic traditions, while still protecting both natural reserves and the well-being of these people. That is, make allowances within the law for this indigenous, nomadic community's use of the land, with some checks and strictures for the preservation of the land and safety of everyone involved.

This is how civilized nations (and even a few "uncivilized" nations) handle their nomadic cultures. If cruel, repressive, authoritarian China permits nomadic use of state lands and internal tribal sovereignty for its dozen-odd nomadic ethnic groups - even within such tight-fisted areas as Tibet and Xinjiang - then surely Israel can figure it out as well, right?

Or perhaps, you'll argue that China's off its rocker and should have continued its relocation programs from the 1970's.

Point is, I think the human interest - that is, the preservation of a distinct culture and way of life - is worth more than blind adherence to the exact letter of the law for the sheer sake of following the law.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 12:28 AM

13. its very simple....

should the Bedouin in the south have the right to make a house, a village, anywhere they feel like it on state land in the negev, without going through the legal hoops that the rest of us have to go through to build a house.


and Aparthied? i've come across many different definitions here and elsewhere, perhaps your mocking the NAACP for their version, maybe you believe that they too can't build an argument...and why would that be?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 01:37 AM

15. so the Bedouin just showed up one day recently ? Can you give us a date when that happened?

and did you miss the part about Bedouin being removed to make way for Jews only housing, guess so huh, or is that somehow okay with you?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 06:57 AM

18. thats not what i asked now is it?

try to answer....and then tell me if the Druze can also get that right to build anywhere they feel like it, How about the N.Bedioun, they've been around as long as those in the south....how about jews who can trace back their lineage a few hundred years...should they too have the right to build a house anywhere?

or do you restrict your "super rights" just to a single sub ethnic group?

i know you dont want to answer, but try......

__________________

jew only housing? its illegal in israel

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #18)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 07:01 AM

19. by going on about Bedouin "getting to build anywhere they wish"

you imply they just show up and set up shop so to speak so tell us exactly when did they do that and under what variety of circumstances

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 08:23 AM

26. yes more or less

the kids grew up...left their parents home an decided to make their house on state land somewhere....there are illegal settlements all over the negev, sometimes one house sometimes tens....this has been going on pre and post state of israel.

perhaps the state of israel should have bulldozed them as soon as they were built, but they didn't...and the new "houses" are still going up and are still illegal.

you have something in you mind that would excuse the S.Bedouin from following the law? And this exscuse would it be good for a jew from Beersheva, assuming that the jew is not a new immigrant but perhaps one with roots for a few hundred years.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 02:49 PM

34. The Bedouin of the village Umm Al-Hiran mentioned in the OP were expelled an sent to that spot by

the Israeli government 60+ years ago because the Israeli government wanted the land they were living on then


Last month, I visited along with a group of other +972 bloggers the village of Umm al-Hiran, in the northeastern part of the Negev, a few kilometers south of the Green Line. Residents were anxiously waiting a decision regarding the fate of their village, which was up for destruction by state authorities.

Umm Al-Hiran is one of roughly 40 unrecognized Bedouin villages, some of them predating the state itself. Those villages are deprived of basic government services, like running water and electricity; they are not entitled to zoning plans, such that every house built in these villages is at risk of demolition.

As it happens, Umm al-Hiram stands on the site of one of 10 new Jewish settlements the Prime Minister’s Office seeks to build in the area. In 2010, a state zoning committee recommended recognizing Umm al-Hiran, but Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office overruled that decision. The new settlement, called Hiran, will offer housing subsidies for national-religious families.

The Bedouin in this village have an especially strong case, since they were sent there by the state of Israel itself. Following the 1948 war, members of the Abu Al-Qian tribe were evicted from their lands in the western Negev (currently the site of Kibbutz Shoval). After settling in a temporary site, they were sent in the mid-50s by the military governor – who was put in charge of the Palestinian population after the war – to the Yatir area, where they currently live.


http://972mag.com/bedouin-village-in-negev-to-be-destroyed-jewish-settlement-to-be-built-on-site/56875/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #34)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 03:41 PM

35. what happened?

i was just asking the general question of the hundreds of "villages" and individual homes that are spread throughout the negev, not the specific case..

i understand you sure dont want to answer....but it sure would be interesting if you could attempt to.......

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #35)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 03:47 PM

36. you posit that these are squatters that just showed up I just showed how very untrue that is ETA

apparently you feel it's okay for the Israeli government to move Bedouin around at it;s whim to make way for housing for the majority population of Israel, the Bedouin did not just show up, they were forced there by the same government that is now attempting to expel them -again

To add insult to injury according to both the OP and the snip I posted the Bedouin will not even be eligible to purchase or lease the housing that is being proposed for the site they have called home for 60 years this is because they are the wrong ethnic/religious group

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 08:16 AM

25. Azurnoir made a point below that's worth repeating

The Bedouin in the Naqab were there long before state land in the Naqab. Correct? They - or at the very least, a culture nearly identical to theirs, withe people very closely related to them - have been living there since the dawn of pastoralism. They predate monotheism, all the kingdoms and empires that have come and gone, and I somehow doubt that Israel is the first nation that has tried to squash them out of their territory.

You're basically that white guy who bitches and moans that Indians can build a casino and don't pay taxes on tobacco.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 08:26 AM

27. so now you get asked...

how about the Druze?...why dont they get special rights? how about the Christians....they too have been there before the state...
well, explain to me how you decide which ethnic groups gets to ignore state laws.

well.....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #27)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 11:19 AM

30. I was unaware that Christianity was an ethnicity

Please. Illuminate this concept for me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #30)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 02:05 PM

33. thats because your ethno centric

you believe that your definitions of words are the only ones.

go to Lebanon and tell the Christians that they are not a specific ethnic group...go tell that to the Christians of Bethlehem

unless of course in your world view, those "local brown people" can't possible understand their own identity

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #33)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 04:52 PM

39. Well, here's the problem with this perspective...

An "ethnic Christian" of Lebanon can become an "ethnic Shia" of Lebanon after about two months of study, conference, and consultation with an Imam to recite the shahada.

Much as with politics, religion is an idea. People are not born with these ideas, and people can change their minds. So while the Christians of Lebanon are indeed a distinct community within lebanon, with their own culture and identity, it is not an ethnicity for the purposes of most applications of the term.

Now, when we're talking about religions that are closed to outsiders - that is, not accepting of converts, and only rarely marrying out, such as the Druze, Yazidi, and for much of history, Jews, then we come to a term called "ethnoreligious." That is, an ethnic group defined by a shared connection with (though not necessarily individual adherence to) the religion in question.

It's kind of a complicated topic, and yes, there are different "rules" depending on the groups in question. And there are national laws that pretty much pass over the sociology of it all to declare a particular group an ethnic group, as well. So yeah. Complex topic that probably deserves more than DU's I/P forum can deliver.

Now, to the best of my knowledge, the Druze are not, by culture, a nomadic group, are they? As it arose in 11th-century Cairo, it doesn't strike me as holding pastoralism as a credo. Could be wrong, of course - with all those secret religious texts and all, right?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #39)

Thu Oct 17, 2013, 12:07 AM

42. thats a first...

Last edited Thu Oct 17, 2013, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

It's kind of a complicated topic, and yes, there are different "rules" depending on the groups in question
......Complex topic that probably deserves more than DU's I/P forum can deliver.


the Druze are not, by culture, a nomadic group
no they aren't, but they still are flouting the laws of the state of israel in building in some places whole neighborhoods that are illegal......

and weren't the N.Bediouin once a nomadic group?

and the S. Bedoiuin are no longer a nomadic group.....they're pretty stationary with their homes these days
______________________________________

welcome to the real world of the I/P conflict, so now that actually written out that the lines between religion/ ethnicity are rather messy out here, Im still waiting to here which of those various groups get to flout israeli building law.

Just a note, I'm not talking about 'justice" or the humane, or the better route, or serving select communities, just the concept that some certain groups based on their ethnicity get special treatment and dont have to adhere to the laws of the state, while others do.


_______
just a side note:
it is not an ethnicity for the purposes of most applications of the term.
i assume you didnt miss the civil war in Lebanon that lasted over 10 years based on that very "ethnicity"... I would say killing people based on that, probably beats all other "applications of the term"

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #30)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 04:31 PM

38. Interesting your exchange here and one I had with another poster last week

as to whether or not the new Miss Israel was African or not made me think of a new term 'ethnic gerrymandering'

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Original post)

Wed Oct 16, 2013, 09:22 AM

29. This will continue as long as the hawks recieve funding.

Vote for legislators that will remove any and all funding, apply sanctions for humans rights abuses, and cut off imports from any territory deemed "controversial".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink