Ethnocentrism in foreign news coverage

[mōdgethanc]

It most often does, but so can ethnic nationalism. There's more than one kind of Kurds, Tamils and Arabs, but that doesn't matter to the irredentists.

[linguoboy]

It most often does, but so can ethnic nationalism. There's more than one kind of Kurds, Tamils and Arabs, but that doesn't matter to the irredentists.

In particular the modern notion of a single "Kurdish" identity regardless of religious distinctions (or even linguistic ones in the case of the Zaza) is hardly older than most Middle Eastern polities.

[Set]

In particular the modern notion of a single "Kurdish" identity regardless of religious distinctions (or even linguistic ones in the case of the Zaza) is hardly older than most Middle Eastern polities.

Kurdish identity as we know it now is one of the younger ones, but ethnic identity pre-dates the European liberal idea of nationalism. And nationalities didn't just suddenly appear, they evolved (or rather were moulded) from existing notions of us and them. Just because groups didn't try to seek their own states doesn't mean they didn't have some identity, most likely based on family/tribal ties, geographical boundaries and simply how far you can go before people don't understand you any more. The modern Kurdish national identity is a reaction to the state-national identities of the Turks, Persians and (to a lesser extent) the Arabs who surrounded them, but this doesn't mean their national identity is invented. Now it's like a solidarity group between parts of a continuum (not just linguistic or historical, but also tribal) even if there are those who believe it to be based it on nation-state ideals.

I'm not saying that the modern national state identities are naturally occurring, but I do believe they are based on ethnic identities which were not necessarily created, although along quite differently lines from how we would now measure it. I probably was unclear when I said national identities and should have said ethnic identities or something else, so my bad.

[linguoboy]

I'm not saying that the modern national state identities are naturally occurring, but I do believe they are based on ethnic identities which were not necessarily created, although along quite differently lines from how we would now measure it. I probably was unclear when I said national identities and should have said ethnic identities or something else, so my bad.

If they weren't created or constructed, where did they come from? As you say, there are various "naturally occurring" criteria for in-group identification--extended families/tribes, speech communities, sects, etc. But privileging certain of these criteria above others is always the result of deliberate negotiation, whether the agents acknowledge that's what's involved or not. I don't see how it could be otherwise.

[Set]

Well you can define it like that, but a group identity "constructed" by the people who identify with it is miles away from a state identity constructed by a small group with the intention of forming a unified, legal country.

And I don't see how you can it's "always the result of deliberate negotiation", but to be honest this is all getting pretty ungrounded and abstract so I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.

[Babelfish]

Well, this has gone quite far while I was absent...

Why is it that the Palestinians always have their identity challenged when you Israelis never do? Your country's borders are the result of colonialism too, you know. Until 60 years ago, there was no such thing as an Israeli. So at the very least, the Palestinians are at least as old of a nation as you are, and therefore have as much of a right to self-determination as you do. I support Israel's right to exist, but I can't get around what a glaring double standard there is here.

Edit since I was ninja'd by linguoboy: The creation of Israel is what created, or at least solidified, the identity of the Palestinians as a nation.

I started writing that your question above is kinda funny, because I always find it to be the exact opposite - Israel's right to exist challenged (or rather, outright denied) by many countries and individuals, including occasionally here on Unilang. Then I realized you weren't talking about Israel's right to exist but rather about Israeli identity. My answer to that is that my national identity is Jewish rather than Israeli, and I'm not surprised no one denies the Jewish identity of people... BTW, I haven't seen the Palestinian identity nor their right for statehood denied any often recently, except by parts of the Israeli and possibly US right-wing. Personally, I don't deny them; I argue about the reasoning for it if I want to contest other rights the Palestinians and their supporters claim.
As for the double standard claim, I'd like to remind that the Jewish leadership decided to accept the UN partition resolution in 1947, while the Arabs rejected it wholesale and opened war, with the express intention of driving the Jews away. Now they (and at least partially, you) complain that they suffered that fate and demand compensation in the right to return... IMO, that's plain hypocrisy.
(I think the same regarding the demand of Israel to "return" to Arabs every piece of land occupied in the 1967 war which the Arabs brought upon themselves as well)
Also, by your own words, this defeat is what created or at least solidified Palestinian nationality, meaning that Israel at the time hardly "took over Palestine and drove the Palestinians out" but rather took over an almost insignificant part of the Arab World (Arab states gained independence from European mandates at about the same time as Israel, India, Pakistan etc).

There are people who have seen their homes destroyed, both Arabs and Jews (though mostly Arabs)

Not quite true, actually. After Israel was established, Arab states deported hundreds of thousands of Jews and confiscated their property (the estimates I remember are roughly 800,000 Jews and 600,000-something Palestinians). This is probably little-known because Israel generally received and integrated the deported Jews "quietly", rather than shove them into refugee camps without citizenship and wail... Not that I think they'd have liked to return to the Arab countries that forced them out.

[Babelfish]

Yes, you're right. To me, Palestinians don't look really willing to reach a peace agreement with Israel. In my opinion the reality is that if the West Bank is handed over them, they'll see that just as the first step before taking back the whole land. I might be mistaken, I hope so, but personally that's what I sense... And I don't see any reason why Israel shouldn't expect a new wave of terrorism from there; and that time, the consequences would be much worse than with Gaza.

That's why I personally think a peaceful solution is almost impossible.

Based on what evidence? The Palestinians have offered solutions quite a few times and it's always been Israel that has broken the various agreements (either directly or through collective punishment for the actions of a small militant group which is against the Geneva convention). The Palestinians offered to make small land swaps which would leave Israel much better off as long as they moved the IDF an illegal settlers out of the West Bank and offered to formally recognise Israel and not seek to get back all of the land which was illegally taken by Israel from them over the years. Israel rejected it. So I don't know where you got your opinion from.

The very example he made, maybe? The Gaza Strip was taken over by Hamas, which openly aims at the destruction of Israel and objects to any peaceful solution. Same for South Lebanon which was taken over by Hizballah. Anyway, for all I know, it was Israel which proposed solutions again and again which the Palestinians rejected, and certainly never agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state which would mean giving up on the "right of return" pretext for wiping Israel off by other means...

[mōdgethanc]

I started writing that your question above is kinda funny, because I always find it to be the exact opposite - Israel's right to exist challenged (or rather, outright denied) by many countries and individuals, including occasionally here on Unilang. Then I realized you weren't talking about Israel's right to exist but rather about Israeli identity. My answer to that is that my national identity is Jewish rather than Israeli, and I'm not surprised no one denies the Jewish identity of people... BTW, I haven't seen the Palestinian identity nor their right for statehood denied any often recently, except by parts of the Israeli and possibly US right-wing. Personally, I don't deny them; I argue about the reasoning for it if I want to contest other rights the Palestinians and their supporters claim.

You're right to say that Israel's right to exist is often questioned, but not by Western countries. Whether there is an Israeli identity that is separate from Jews as a whole is debatable. I personally don't care: those five million Israelis aren't going anywhere no matter what you call them.

As for the double standard claim, I'd like to remind that the Jewish leadership decided to accept the UN partition resolution in 1947, while the Arabs rejected it wholesale and opened war, with the express intention of driving the Jews away. Now they (and at least partially, you) complain that they suffered that fate and demand compensation in the right to return... IMO, that's plain hypocrisy.

I'm complaining about the fate of the Palestinian refugees who are not responsible for what the other Arab countries did. I don't think that the Arabs were right to reject the plan. What I think is hypocrisy, though, is that Israel was created as a homeland for a people who had been living in exile for thousands of years, yet it ended up exiling another group of people and taking their homeland from them.

(I think the same regarding the demand of Israel to "return" to Arabs every piece of land occupied in the 1967 war which the Arabs brought upon themselves as well)

The Palestinians didn't bring the war upon themselves, did they? Why should they have to suffer because of it, then? You can't just say "the Arabs" and lump them in with the countries that attacked Israel, which was not justified and should have never happened.

Also, by your own words, this defeat is what created or at least solidified Palestinian nationality, meaning that Israel at the time hardly "took over Palestine and drove the Palestinians out" but rather took over an almost insignificant part of the Arab World (Arab states gained independence from European mandates at about the same time as Israel, India, Pakistan etc).

Uh, no, that's not what i meant at all. There were Jewish paramilitary groups that actively engaged in ethnic cleansing. This is a historical fact. Israel didn't provoke the war, but it did expel many of the Palestinians who left. Some left voluntarily, though.

Not quite true, actually. After Israel was established, Arab states deported hundreds of thousands of Jews and confiscated their property (the estimates I remember are roughly 800,000 Jews and 600,000-something Palestinians). This is probably little-known because Israel generally received and integrated the deported Jews "quietly", rather than shove them into refugee camps without citizenship and wail... Not that I think they'd have liked to return to the Arab countries that forced them out.

This is a perfect example of the English idiom "two wrongs don't make a right". Just because the Arab states deported all their Jews doesn't mean that Israel never deported any Arabs, because it did. It's intellectually dishonest to deny this unpleasant part of your country's history.

The very example he made, maybe? The Gaza Strip was taken over by Hamas, which openly aims at the destruction of Israel and objects to any peaceful solution. Same for South Lebanon which was taken over by Hizballah. Anyway, for all I know, it was Israel which proposed solutions again and again which the Palestinians rejected, and certainly never agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state which would mean giving up on the "right of return" pretext for wiping Israel off by other means...

You are correct to say that Hamas and Hezbollah don't really want peace but I think it's in bad faith to assume the right of return is about destroying Israel rather than a simple desire for people to return to their homeland. All of the solutions Israel proposed denied the Palestinians this right, and that's why they were rejected. It's not as simple as a magnanimous Israel offering them everything and them being irrational and stubborn and refusing to take it. If they were Jewish refugees from the war who wanted to return to their homes and rejected a peace plan because they were denied that right, you probably wouldn't be saying that.

[Babelfish]

Whether there is an Israeli identity that is separate from Jews as a whole is debatable.

I don't see how, as obviously there are Jews who aren't Israelis, and there are also non-Jews who identify themselves as Israelis, but we'll leave it at that.

I personally don't care: those five million Israelis aren't going anywhere no matter what you call them.

I'm glad we can agree about that, this is my attitude towards the Palestinians too, regardless of what I may think of their nationality.

The Palestinians didn't bring the war upon themselves, did they?

Er, actually they did (well, their leadership, anyway, of course), and surrounding Arab countries joined them on that.

This is a perfect example of the English idiom "two wrongs don't make a right". Just because the Arab states deported all their Jews doesn't mean that Israel never deported any Arabs, because it did. It's intellectually dishonest to deny this unpleasant part of your country's history.

... I didn't write that with the intention to deny or justify what Israel did, it was a response to your comment that most people who lost their homes were Arabs, and only to that.

You are correct to say that Hamas and Hezbollah don't really want peace but I think it's in bad faith to assume the right of return is about destroying Israel rather than a simple desire for people to return to their homeland.

No, that's just a side-effect of all Palestinian refugees (and their children and grandchildren for all eternity or so) returning into Israel... Sorry, but we've kinda run out of good faith given the insistence on this demand which obviously cannot be satisfied, let alone that it is supported by the same countries and organizations which previously tried to destroy Israel by an armed invasion and openly threatened "to throw all Jews to the sea".

If they were Jewish refugees from the war who wanted to return to their homes and rejected a peace plan because they were denied that right, you probably wouldn't be saying that.

Perhaps not, although if the Jews were the ones to insist on "all or nothing" and bring about the war in the first place, I wouldn't really feel comfortable with it - I won't claim to be objective but I try to avoid being blatantly hypocritical.

[mōdgethanc]

I'm glad we can agree about that, this is my attitude towards the Palestinians too, regardless of what I may think of their nationality.

What do you mean? The ones in Israel?

Er, actually they did (well, their leadership, anyway, of course), and surrounding Arab countries joined them on that.

Yeah, their leaders did. I was talking about the people as a whole.

I didn't write that with the intention to deny or justify what Israel did, it was a response to your comment that most people who lost their homes were Arabs, and only to that.

As far as I know, the vast majority of people displaced by this conflict have been Arabs. Settlers being forced to leave the West Bank or whatever doesn't compare to that.

No, that's just a side-effect of all Palestinian refugees (and their children and grandchildren for all eternity or so) returning into Israel... Sorry, but we've kinda run out of good faith given the insistence on this demand which obviously cannot be satisfied, let alone that it is supported by the same countries and organizations which previously tried to destroy Israel by an armed invasion and openly threatened "to throw all Jews to the sea".

I think it's clear that is a bad idea and also they don't all want to do that, especially nowadays.

[Lazar Taxon]

As far as I know, the vast majority of people displaced by this conflict have been Arabs. Settlers being forced to leave the West Bank or whatever doesn't compare to that.

He wasn't talking about West Bank settlers, he was talking about the 700,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries. They were roughly equal in number to the Palestinian expellees.

[mōdgethanc]

While I didn't know the number was quite that high, a) the other Arab countries are responsible for that, not Palestine b) at least those Jewish refugees had somewhere to go and c) as I've said, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Sol Invictus]

Regarding the main topic: I just found this map service that shows geographic origin of stories in Latvian online media for last three years: http://neogeo.lv/ekartes/notikumu_arhivs.html