Do you believe that Israel has the right to exist?

[Chinese-Dragon]

I am not so sure whether this would have worked in reality.

Iraq does not even speak it's own language and therefore there would have been nothing unique about being an Iraqi. A sunni-Arab Iraqi will always feel more kinship with a Sunni Arab Syrian than with either a Sunni Kurdish Iraqi or a Shia Arab Iraqi.

If you look at the states that have held together throughout history, you see the one common glue is a common religious,language and cultural identity. Think England, France and China.

Most Arab countries are destined to eventually disintegrate and the only question is when it will happen.

Agreed.

My personal opinion is that when a country is in the "developing" stage, it benefits them to have a dominant ethnic/cultural majority. Since developing countries all too often fall into tribalism and infighting between different groups.

All Western countries had a dominant ethnic/cultural majority during their developing stage, so too did East Asian nations.

After they reach "developed" status, then it's easier for them to be united by a "national identity", for example how Americans of various ethnic/cultural backgrounds can be united under a single national identity, without falling into tribalism over ethnic/cultural divisions. Though it should be noted that they still do have a dominant ethnic/cultural majority even now.

That's why it is of utmost importance to reach developed status. That is our primary goal right now.

Middle Eastern nations that were drawn up during the age of colonialism should heed the same advice, develop as fast as possible.

 

[Aepsilons]

I am not so sure whether this would have worked in reality.

Iraq does not even speak it's own language and therefore there would have been nothing unique about being an Iraqi. A sunni-Arab Iraqi will always feel more kinship with a Sunni Arab Syrian than with either a Sunni Kurdish Iraqi or a Shia Arab Iraqi.

If you look at the states that have held together throughout history, you see the one common glue is a common religious,language and cultural identity. Think England, France and China.

Most Arab countries are destined to eventually disintegrate and the only question is when it will happen.

Good point. I can see your point of how religion may play a dividing factor. There are examples of this such as what has happened in Sudan and its eventual division into a Muslim dominated Northern Sudan and a Christian dominated Southern Sudan.

But there are examples of nations that have a large variety in religious base. Let's take for example Nigeria. 51% of the nation is Muslim, and 49% are Christian. Despite this diversity, we don't see a civil war in Nigeria, on the contrary, we see a rapidly developing nation in Africa. It is the largest economy in Africa, above Egypt and South Africa. It is a major oil exporter and a growing population standing over 140 million.There are over 250 ethnic groups and thousands of tribes in Nigeria -- it is an example of heterogeneity. Yet it has succeeded.

I think there are factors that play a key role in the stability of a nation. It is education, and the reduction of extremist forces/detractors. For an example, the Nigerian terror group known as Boko Haram -- is an example of radicalism in Nigeria. It is being eradicated by the Nigerian Armed Forces at the mandate of the Government.

If Nigeria can accomplish this -- I don't see why Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq or Syria cannot. The factor here, is the control of sectarian violence, eradication of extremist elements, and critical to this is education. The triumph of civilization over...Barbarism.

 

[UKBengali]

Agreed.

My personal opinion is that when a country is in the "developing" stage, it benefits them to have a dominant ethnic/cultural majority. Since developing countries all too often fall into tribalism and infighting between different groups.

All Western countries had a dominant ethnic/cultural majority during their developing stage, so too did East Asian nations.

After they reach "developed" status, then it's easier for them to be united by a "national identity", for example how Americans of various ethnic/cultural backgrounds can be united under a single national identity, without falling into tribalism over ethnic/cultural divisions. Though it should be noted that they still do have a dominant ethnic/cultural majority even now.

That's why it is of utmost importance to reach developed status. That is our primary goal right now.

Middle Eastern nations that were drawn up during the age of colonialism should heed the same advice, develop as fast as possible.

Funny thing is that single unitary Arab state would have worked as it would have had an overwhelmingly dominant sunni Arab majority with minorities that would have been well protected by the power of the central state.

Alas, the colonial powers did not want that to happen for their own selfish interests.

 

[VCheng]

Good point. I can see your point of how religion may play a dividing factor. There are examples of this such as what has happened in Sudan and its eventual division into a Muslim dominated Northern Sudan and a Christian dominated Southern Sudan.

But there are examples of nations that have a large variety in religious base. Let's take for example Nigeria. 51% of the nation is Muslim, and 49% are Christian. Despite this diversity, we don't see a civil war in Nigeria, on the contrary, we see a rapidly developing nation in Africa. It is the largest economy in Africa, above Egypt and South Africa. It is a major oil exporter and a growing population standing over 140 million.There are over 250 ethnic groups and thousands of tribes in Nigeria -- it is an example of heterogeneity. Yet it has succeeded.

I think there are factors that play a key role in the stability of a nation. It is education, and the reduction of extremist forces/detractors. For an example, the Nigerial terror group known as Boko Haram -- is an example of radicalism in Nigeria. It is being eradicated by the Nigerian Armed Forces at the mandate of the Government.

If Nigeria can accomplish this -- I don't see why Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq or Syria cannot. The factor here, is the control of sectarian violence, eradication of extremist elements, and critical to this is education. The triumph of civilization over...Barbarism.

So how do you explain Boko Haram in northern Nigeria then?

 

[UKBengali]

Good point. I can see your point of how religion may play a dividing factor. There are examples of this such as what has happened in Sudan and its eventual division into a Muslim dominated Northern Sudan and a Christian dominated Southern Sudan.

But there are examples of nations that have a large variety in religious base. Let's take for example Nigeria. 51% of the nation is Muslim, and 49% are Christian. Despite this diversity, we don't see a civil war in Nigeria, on the contrary, we see a rapidly developing nation in Africa. It is the largest economy in Africa, above Egypt and South Africa. It is a major oil exporter and a growing population standing over 140 million.

I think there are factors that play a key role in the stability of a nation. It is education, and the reduction of extremist forces/detractors. For an example, the Nigerial terror group known as Boko Haram -- is an example of radicalism in Nigeria. It is being eradicated by the Nigerian Armed Forces at the mandate of the Government.

If Nigeria can accomplish this -- I don't see why Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq or Syria cannot. The factor here, is the control of sectarian violence, eradication of extremist elements, and critical to this is education. The triumph of civilization over...Barbarism.

Outsiders have very little interest in interfering in Nigeria unlike the Middle-East. The sectarian tensions in the Middle-east are being stoked by outside interference.

Even then Nigeria is still extremely poor for a oil-rich country(as poor as BD will many more decades of independence and vast oil wealth) and it remains to be seen if it can hold together in the long run.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Good point. I can see your point of how religion may play a dividing factor. There are examples of this such as what has happened in Sudan and its eventual division into a Muslim dominated Northern Sudan and a Christian dominated Southern Sudan.

But there are examples of nations that have a large variety in religious base. Let's take for example Nigeria. 51% of the nation is Muslim, and 49% are Christian. Despite this diversity, we don't see a civil war in Nigeria, on the contrary, we see a rapidly developing nation in Africa. It is the largest economy in Africa, above Egypt and South Africa. It is a major oil exporter and a growing population standing over 140 million.There are over 250 ethnic groups and thousands of tribes in Nigeria -- it is an example of heterogeneity. Yet it has succeeded.

I think there are factors that play a key role in the stability of a nation. It is education, and the reduction of extremist forces/detractors. For an example, the Nigerial terror group known as Boko Haram -- is an example of radicalism in Nigeria. It is being eradicated by the Nigerian Armed Forces at the mandate of the Government.

If Nigeria can accomplish this -- I don't see why Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq or Syria cannot. The factor here, is the control of sectarian violence, eradication of extremist elements, and critical to this is education. The triumph of civilization over...Barbarism.

Nigeria is going to be a tough one. Boko Haram is just a symptom, the same problem that Sudan faced, of having a country with two diametrically opposing demographic groups, that are already in conflict with each other.

Can Nigeria beat it? I hope so, especially since they are set to be the leading African economy, if they can surpass South Africa. But the Nigerian Army does not seem to be doing so well.

The triumph of civilization over...Barbarism.

And that is the difference between a developed country, and a developing country.

And why every developing country should make it their number one goal to become a developed country.

 

[Eagle_Kashmir]

Might is Right! No one can take the right of existence from Israel.

 

[Aepsilons]

So how do you explain Boko Haram in northern Nigeria then?

Nigeria is by definition, a modern nation state, and as a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious nation state -- is plagued with ethnocentrism and religious bigotry -- unfortunately. The north of Nigeria is populated by mostly Sunni Muslims and by the Hausa ethnic group. The central part of Nigeria is populated by the Yoruba ethnic group, and the southern part of Nigeria is dominated by the Igbo ethnic group.

The Igbos are predominantly Christian, the Yoruba are mix of either Muslim (Sunni) or Christian, and the Hausa are predominantly Muslim.

During the late 1990s, the progenitor of Boko Haram was started by Mohammad Yusuf, who touted Salafist Jihadism. He and his group were funded and supported by Al Qaeda -- and inspired to wage salafist jihadism towards the Christian communities in Hausa territory. During this time, there was a migration and movement of Igbos and Yorubas into northern Nigeria. The muslim communities in Hausa welcomed their arrival because the Igbos are the most educated in Nigeria, implementing with them western educated thought and with them businesses. Boko Haram sprouted as a fringe group, albeit a violent one, that saw the rise of Christian communities there as a threat. Thus they engaged in violent attacks on Christian schools, Christian churches -- in the vilest of manners.

Boko Haram is labeled as a terrorist organization and the Government of Nigeria should be applauded for its position. It has engaged in a war to suppress extremist forces in the north.

 

[Aepsilons]

And that is the difference between a developed country, and a developing country.
And why every developing country should make it their number one goal to become a developed country.

Absolutely agree with you. As a nation progresses from developing status to developed status -- stability will be realized.

And to refer back to what you and @LeveragedBuyout had pointed out in previous pages in this thread -- there will be increased emphasis on 'National Identity' instead of 'Ethnic Identity'.

Let's hope for this!

 

[500]

Do you believe that Israel has the right to exist? Let's discuss the view points.

Israel has right to exist. And I can even show u this right:

 

[IR1907]

Israel has right to exist. And I can even show u this right:

Thousands of years from now on you will be remembered as monsters in history books.

 

[RFS_Br]

There's no such thing as a country's right to exist. Individuals have the right to exist - countries do not. They can be dismembered, merge with other countries, and so forth, and none of this is against international law.

But even if there was such a right, I'd say that Israel specifically has no right to enjoy it.

 

[dexter]

Yes it has the right to exist just take israel to America then we will see your opinion about their existence

 

[Pakistani shaheens]

All Jews should be deported to their country USA.

 

[Desert Fox]

No, not saying it's good. I'm saying realists need to deal with the facts as they are, not as they wish the situation were. The Germans were expelled from the Sudetenland when Czechoslovakia was created. The Germans had settled in the Sudetenland and lived there for approximately a thousand years, but they were cleansed from the area after WWII, and they're not coming back. It's accepted that they aren't coming back to the Sudetenland, as unjust as it may appear. That's because it's impractical to change the facts on the ground, short of war.

If you choose war, prepare to suffer the consequences of loss. Germany lost a lot of territory after it lost the war. Had Hitler won, history would have told a different story, but he lost. That's fact, that's reality.

Israel exists today. Too many cry about what the area looked like under Ottoman rule (not Arab rule, Ottoman rule), but it would benefit them to look at the world today and see what can be done to benefit the Arabs that aspire to be Palestinians. Of course, they should not be surprised if they choose war, and lose, that they will lose more territory. That's why war isn't the answer, but since I'm not an Arab, I can't choose for them. They can fight, and lose more and more, as they have been losing more and more since 1948. Or they can try something new, and most likely gain.

Ethnic cleansing is evil. I don't believe ethnic cleansing is just, and it should not be employed. Ethnic cleansing is a monstrous act. But the so-called "resistance" and "intifada" is a form of total war, and total war can have ugly outcomes for the loser. If you don't know what total war is, please look into it. The reliance on pure guerrilla and irregular tactics could have (and has had) devastating consequences for the Arabs, and will continue to have such consequences as long as such tactics are employed. That said, I am not convinced that Israel will ever resort to ethnic cleaning, given that it has had that opportunity in almost every single decade since its creation, and never chosen that option.

Here's a counter-proposal: focus on building up the economy, and show the world, and indeed, Israel, that it can only benefit Israel to leave. Stationing troops, fighting wars, enforcing blockades--it's an expensive business, and a drain on the economy. Trade and peace contribute to economic growth. If I were Israeli, I know what I would choose. But I would only be able to choose trade and peace if such an option were available.

You make some valid points however you have to look at the situation from the point of view of the Palestinians. I'm sure they didn't just wake up one day and decide they wanted to attack the israelis, neither do they possess such capabilities. You can't just expect them to submit to the very occupational force which has cornered them into a small strip of land, restricts their movement, controls their food and water supply (cutting them off whenever it pleases), and treats them like inmates of a concentration camp. Eventually the Palestinians will snap under all of this pressure and restriction of their freedom as any other group of people would, including Jews.

However, i do agree that the victors write history, hiding their own misdeeds while exaggerating or even inventing the misdeeds of the defeated. The Arab world itself is to blame for their failure in remaining impotent in the face of the Zionist occupation. The 400 million Arabs with all their wealth, influence, and expensive military hardware can't assist their own brethren in Gaza but on the contrary condemn them.

@Hazzy997