There are no arab states that are truly multi-cultural and democratic, that support women's rights, and gay rights (there are almost no jews left in most arab countries, not to speak of other ethnic minorities). Israel is the only truly multicultural, democratic and supports women's and gay rights. Not perfectly, they are certainly not treating arabs as well as jews, but some of that is because some arabs want to murder jews (and now some right wing settler jews want to murder arabs). So you can't have a truly multi-cultural state with people who want to murder and oppress anyone who is not like them. Islam has a problem with multi-culturalism (and so does fringe right wing judaism). Not all muslims (Sufis are an exception) but most. If a soup of people of all kinds was what was needed to form a state, then the same argument can be used for organic molecules in a multi-cellular organism. Why have organelles, cells and organs? Separating like with like allows for specialization and reduces conflict. If different ethnic groups WANT to coexist in a geographic area, sure, why not. But if their cultures are very different, it will lead to unnecessary conflict. The relevant question is at what scale should the separation occur? Family, neighborhood, village, tribe, municipality, state, or federation of states? Each group must feel like they have enough freedom to actualize their cultural values without interference from other cultures. Perhaps a state is needed for that, or maybe a municipality would be sufficient, it's an empirical, not a theoretical question now.
And the other way to reduce conflict is to figure out how the different ethnic groups can synergize with each other, something capitalism works against, making us all dependent on distant markets instead of our neighbors and family members.
Hey - I don’t understand what you mean when you say that privileging some people over others isn’t only inevitable but desirable. Can you give me an example from social life and not from biology? (And specifically, privileging people when it comes to democratic states, where we speak about everyone have equal rights.) Thanks.
The "replt" and "edit" buttons are not working for me, so I will just reply at the top level of this thread and quote you:
"Hey - I don’t understand what you mean when you say that privileging some people over others isn’t only inevitable but desirable. Can you give me an example from social life and not from biology? (And specifically, privileging people when it comes to democratic states, where we speak about everyone have equal rights.) Thanks."
Sure. The US and most european democratic states were founded by people who valued free trade, enlightenment values and certain Christian values and privileged others who thought similarly. Israel was founded by people who valued socialism, englightenment values and certain Jewish values and privileged people who thought similarly. Japan was founded (after WWII) by people who value Japanese culture and privileged Japanese people. This is the easy to conceive part. The hard part for liberals in western democracies is to conceive that some people really don't believe in enlightenment values and think that it is OK to murder infidels, or that it's OK to blow oneself and the infidels up because 72 virgins await in heaven for the martyrs. They really believe this. And so do you believe it's OK for them to be an equal citizen in your western democracy? Wouldn't it be better if they just had their own state where they can continue believing these things? Or at least their own villages?
"Hey Luval - I don't doubt there are worse human rights abuses in other countries, but I can't see how that relates to the article. If Arab Muslims are second class citizen in parts of Israel today (or in Israeli-controlled territories), than that will simply create conditions of unrest and potential violence. It won't matter to those Arab Muslims that other Arab Muslims in other countries are oppressing Jews. That won't calm their frustration with their own plight."
Nothing will calm their frustration except a deprogramming from radical Islam. And the Israelis can't treat them like first class citizens because they want to murder Jews. This is complicated because not all of them do, and the ones that don't pay the price for the ones that do. Also the ones that start out not wanting to murder Jews might end up that way because of being oppressed (and radical Islam). I agree that it won't matter to the arabs in Israel that other arab countries are oppressing arabs too. The point I was making (which you didn't get) is that radical Islam is the main cause of the murderousness of arabs (it also happens independently of Israel), and most Israelis treat them differently because of that, not because they are "oppressors". Only a small minority of right winger Israelis are into supremacy and oppression. Does that make sense?
"multiculturalism is inevitable" Yes, but so is the privileging of some people over others. Not only is it inevitable but it is desirable, so that every group can get something done. If a cell didn't privilege its own contents over other cells, it couldn't do anything and would get taken over by pathogens, and similarly with organs and organisms, and higher order groups of humans. The important thing is that at every level, certain synergies are also possible with parts that are different, and that is why the Israeli constitution allows for freedoms that are also present in the american constitution (but not in most or all arab states). Those freedoms do not extend to people who want to murder you, and ARE murdering you.
"But you say there are fringe right-wing Jews who want to murder Arabs, so why shouldn't all Jews be suppressed using that logic? There will always be some people who want to murder other people based on cultural differences. You have to go after those specific people - treat them like any gang or terrorist group - and not just suppress other people who share the same religion as them.)"
Absolutely, and murderous right wing settlers have been punished in the past, though not as much as they should be according to the law. Israel is currently hostage to a right wing murderous government. The founders would be aghast at what has happened there. The majority of Israelis oppose the current government and are trying to get rid of it, but as you know, once a narcissistic dictator comes into power, western democracies have trouble getting rid of him.
There are no arab states that are truly multi-cultural and democratic, that support women's rights, and gay rights (there are almost no jews left in most arab countries, not to speak of other ethnic minorities). Israel is the only truly multicultural, democratic and supports women's and gay rights. Not perfectly, they are certainly not treating arabs as well as jews, but some of that is because some arabs want to murder jews (and now some right wing settler jews want to murder arabs). So you can't have a truly multi-cultural state with people who want to murder and oppress anyone who is not like them. Islam has a problem with multi-culturalism (and so does fringe right wing judaism). Not all muslims (Sufis are an exception) but most. If a soup of people of all kinds was what was needed to form a state, then the same argument can be used for organic molecules in a multi-cellular organism. Why have organelles, cells and organs? Separating like with like allows for specialization and reduces conflict. If different ethnic groups WANT to coexist in a geographic area, sure, why not. But if their cultures are very different, it will lead to unnecessary conflict. The relevant question is at what scale should the separation occur? Family, neighborhood, village, tribe, municipality, state, or federation of states? Each group must feel like they have enough freedom to actualize their cultural values without interference from other cultures. Perhaps a state is needed for that, or maybe a municipality would be sufficient, it's an empirical, not a theoretical question now.
And the other way to reduce conflict is to figure out how the different ethnic groups can synergize with each other, something capitalism works against, making us all dependent on distant markets instead of our neighbors and family members.
Hey - I don’t understand what you mean when you say that privileging some people over others isn’t only inevitable but desirable. Can you give me an example from social life and not from biology? (And specifically, privileging people when it comes to democratic states, where we speak about everyone have equal rights.) Thanks.
The "replt" and "edit" buttons are not working for me, so I will just reply at the top level of this thread and quote you:
"Hey - I don’t understand what you mean when you say that privileging some people over others isn’t only inevitable but desirable. Can you give me an example from social life and not from biology? (And specifically, privileging people when it comes to democratic states, where we speak about everyone have equal rights.) Thanks."
Sure. The US and most european democratic states were founded by people who valued free trade, enlightenment values and certain Christian values and privileged others who thought similarly. Israel was founded by people who valued socialism, englightenment values and certain Jewish values and privileged people who thought similarly. Japan was founded (after WWII) by people who value Japanese culture and privileged Japanese people. This is the easy to conceive part. The hard part for liberals in western democracies is to conceive that some people really don't believe in enlightenment values and think that it is OK to murder infidels, or that it's OK to blow oneself and the infidels up because 72 virgins await in heaven for the martyrs. They really believe this. And so do you believe it's OK for them to be an equal citizen in your western democracy? Wouldn't it be better if they just had their own state where they can continue believing these things? Or at least their own villages?
"Hey Luval - I don't doubt there are worse human rights abuses in other countries, but I can't see how that relates to the article. If Arab Muslims are second class citizen in parts of Israel today (or in Israeli-controlled territories), than that will simply create conditions of unrest and potential violence. It won't matter to those Arab Muslims that other Arab Muslims in other countries are oppressing Jews. That won't calm their frustration with their own plight."
Nothing will calm their frustration except a deprogramming from radical Islam. And the Israelis can't treat them like first class citizens because they want to murder Jews. This is complicated because not all of them do, and the ones that don't pay the price for the ones that do. Also the ones that start out not wanting to murder Jews might end up that way because of being oppressed (and radical Islam). I agree that it won't matter to the arabs in Israel that other arab countries are oppressing arabs too. The point I was making (which you didn't get) is that radical Islam is the main cause of the murderousness of arabs (it also happens independently of Israel), and most Israelis treat them differently because of that, not because they are "oppressors". Only a small minority of right winger Israelis are into supremacy and oppression. Does that make sense?
"multiculturalism is inevitable" Yes, but so is the privileging of some people over others. Not only is it inevitable but it is desirable, so that every group can get something done. If a cell didn't privilege its own contents over other cells, it couldn't do anything and would get taken over by pathogens, and similarly with organs and organisms, and higher order groups of humans. The important thing is that at every level, certain synergies are also possible with parts that are different, and that is why the Israeli constitution allows for freedoms that are also present in the american constitution (but not in most or all arab states). Those freedoms do not extend to people who want to murder you, and ARE murdering you.
"But you say there are fringe right-wing Jews who want to murder Arabs, so why shouldn't all Jews be suppressed using that logic? There will always be some people who want to murder other people based on cultural differences. You have to go after those specific people - treat them like any gang or terrorist group - and not just suppress other people who share the same religion as them.)"
Absolutely, and murderous right wing settlers have been punished in the past, though not as much as they should be according to the law. Israel is currently hostage to a right wing murderous government. The founders would be aghast at what has happened there. The majority of Israelis oppose the current government and are trying to get rid of it, but as you know, once a narcissistic dictator comes into power, western democracies have trouble getting rid of him.