Its a nice dream
I do not believe any western country would agree to live in such a one state. Look at Europe, all teh issues they are having with their moslem/arab populations. Arabs have a very diffrent lifestyle that clashes with that of the West. There is no arab state that has real human rights, why would anyone want to leave a state taht is free for one taht is not. Even a simple cartoon of Mohamad caused riots around teh world could you imagine wnat kind of life that would be for a westerner?
I have lived in Europe off and on for several decades. The problems with immigrants in Europe are self-induced and self-imagined. I live in a city in Canada with a proportionately large number of Muslims--many from countries you would in all likelihood consider incompatible with the West. I teach their children when they reach the university. There are no problems in my city, and no talk of integration. Do you not realize that the kinds of "difference" you impute to Arabs were the very same kinds of things that were being said about Jews between 1880-1920? We know where that led.
Other than an attempt to get an emotional response out of me I do not see any comparison between Jews 1880-1920 to moslems in Europe today. Jews were begging to integrate into society, Moslems refuse to... Maybe there is an angle I am missing. Please elaborate. Talk about the riots Jews started and talk of forcing their countries they live in into following religious war. Talk about the threats Jews made on free speech when it offended their religion.
Honestly, what are you talking about?
Once again why would any westerner want to live in an majority Arab country look at them. Their people lack basic human rights? Why would a one state solution work?
The angle you are missing, Jeff, is a knowledge of history, which is never as simple as the broad sweeping generalizations you make.
For example: most Muslims in the Netherlands are integrated, at least according to the North American understanding of the term. If you read the stats you will know the following:
a. they are rapidly gaining ground in the educational sector, particularly the girls
b. they are increasingly marrying Muslims also born in the Netherlands
c. they speak and write the language, despite political point-making to the contrary
d. with each successive generation, the number of children decreases and income increases
e. they are increasingly visible in the political structures and parties of the country.
f. most Muslims in the Netherlands do not go to the mosque regularly, and a goodly number are secular
I think that is pretty impressive, given that many of the first-generation immigrants were chosen precisely because of their lack of education, and were brought over a village at a time. So no, I think in the Dutch case, very good acculturation has occurred.
On to point 2: "Jews were begging to integrate into society".
Actually, depending upon which area we are talking about, they were not. Thus, in Germany between the 1720s and 1740s, the self-ruling Jewish communities were dissolved, and officially, Jews were now considered part of greater society, although their civil status and their citizenship were undetermined. (That is actually what the "Jewish Question" was about. You'll be happy to know that Jews were perceived as outsiders, actually, as Palestinians by Kant, Herder, and other Romantic philosophers). Citizenship was gradually obtained in different jurisdiction, with the last holdout being Prussia, where Jews did not get citizenship until 1871. And Yiddish was outlawed as a language of official communication--from the 1720s on all official records of Jewish businesses and all bureaucratic correspondence had to be conducted in German. Hence, the death of Western Yiddish. Does that scenario sound like "dying to integrate" to you? Even after the huge wave of intermarriage, doubtless in an effort to escape pariah status, we see that even converted Jews are not socially accepted--Deborah Herzfeld has shown that converts to Christianity still socialized predominantly in Jewish circles. So much for the lustre of integration. (Stats Canada has revealed, by the way, that even today, Jews tend be one of the least integrated groups in terms of their sense of community and their physical location--we tend to live in pockets close to each other. In that respect, we are very much like many other ethnocultural communities.)
During World War I, General Ludendorff offered the Jews of the Russian empire German citizenship if they entered the war on the German side. He had posters printed in Yiddish announcing that Eastern European Jews were Volksdeutsche (ethnic Germans). The leading rabbis of Russia decided it was preferable for the communities to support the tsar, because they believed that anti-Semitism would be more useful in assuring the coherence of the community than the greater freedom represented by Germany, where they believed Jewish identity was being diminished.
I'm telling you these stories as a caveat--it is very hard to generalize, because integration, or the lack thereof , affects people different, depending upon their social standing and their networks in life. There were plenty of Jews who were not integrated, and who showed no great desired to integrate. Thus, the largest Jewish community in Germany was in Berlin. It consisted mainly of Jews who were fleeing the pogroms and had never made it to Hamburg and the ships to the new world. These Jews arrived mostly in the 1880s and 1890s and they and their children had no access to citizenship. They continued to speak Yiddish and wore traditional clothing and were resented by "integrated" German Jews, who saw them as a lightning rod for the anti-Semitism which was becoming fashionable at the German court.
Last point: who decides what "integrated" means. How many German Jews, brought up by Christian nursemaids, savouring Black Forest ham and the joys of Christmas, ignorant of even the simplest Jewish rituals, nonetheless went to their deaths in Auschwitz and elsewhere because they had become "dis-integrated" under a new regime. "Integration" is a term that conceals power relationships. Power is fluid, not solid. It is subject to flux. In such a context, integration is never assured.
You said a lot, I am not sure how this is relevant to anything before. In short, Jews wanted "in general" to integrate and Arabs "in general do" not, so what?
The original point was that no westerner would want to live in an Arab country or a country with a majority/large minotity of Arabs. Look at the rights and freedoms given to Arabs in teh mideast only the Arabs in teh Jewish country have real human and civil rights. No one would want to give that up. Why do you think no Israeli Arab would never want to be part of a PA state.
It is relevant to prove that your assertion was wrong.
And your assertion in this posting is wrong, too. There are plenty of westerners living in Muslim countries.
Such facts just don't fit into how you see the world, that's all.
My assertion is "There is no arab state that has real human rights, why would anyone want to leave a state taht is free for one taht is not".
Israelis both Jews and Arabs are proud that they have rights, they would not be willing to give it up to another totalitaran Arab governement.
Please expalin to me why these statements are flawed.
These are facts - whether they fit into your world or not that is a dfffrent question.
Neri - you are right but these are in response to very aggresive comments:
"Such fact just don't fit into how you see the world, that's all."
"The angle you are missing, Jeff, is a knowledge of history..."
I respect other opinions but there is a limit to how long before one responds to personal attacks. I understand that my point of view is not the gneral consensus, therefore I will atke more heat than others. But sometimes it gets quite personal and hard not to reply accordingly.
Your assertion was --and I am quoting you--"The original point was that no westerner would want to live in an Arab country or a country with a majority/large minotity of Arabs.."