@Drachen_Jager

I think the point that eric was trying to make is this:

There is something intrinsically wrong in having religion be the thing that is commented on AT ALL when it comes to Arabic people.

I did it myself in my description of the vid -- masked by the generic word "culture."

We don't do that native Americans -- sort out where they fall on a religious spectrum. We don't do that to generic white people. But when it comes to Arabs, the first thing we do is sort out in our minds -- moderate? fundamentalist? do we even consider they could be atheist?

It is a fact that this young woman is NOT a fundamentalist of ANY religion, nor is her encouraging father.

What is sad is that we sort by religion first. And I did it myself.

I think @eric3579 is correct -- we need to push back against instantly falling into any stereotypical thinking, and let people be people just in themselves.

We're human, though. We are going to fall into stereotypes. The trick is to not stay there.

Congratulations! Your comment on Street Musician inspires Dancer, encouraged by Arab father has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'violin, dance, arab, father pride' to 'violin, dance, arab, father pride, Yann Tiersen' - edited by blutruth

Nice, but I don't understand the description.
It seems to assume that people think Arabs don't dance, or don't allow their daughters to dance, or never take pride in their children's skills? Really? Not me. No surprise here except the fact that she had such a nice clean space to dance in in a public square.

488 lawsuits?!? NO. Try more like 3500....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/


It's hilarious that his legal argument is that anyone of Latino descent, Muslim, Arab descent, Jewish descent, or really anyone not a WASP logically and properly hate him because of his stances so much that they'll commit felonies against him with no thought to their own career. Doesn't that mean he's clearly admitting that if he was president he would have the least effective presidency ever simply from all the frivolous lawsuits, attacks, and roadblocks to "progress" he'll have to defend against daily? Not what we need in today's climate, where a politician that can actually get things done is needed badly....although considering what he wants to do, it would be the only good thing about his presidency, that it failed to further his agenda.

I think we can agree that in the early ages of Islam it was very promising. Math, medicine, etc, all came from there.
That doesnt change how its interpreted today, and they even say themselves publicly that the Hadithes are more important than the Koran, because they show Muslims how to live Islam, yet they dont live after the things you mentioned for example. And honestly, I find the Hadithes much worse than the Koran, but both together make it very logical how Muslims act.
I never understood it before. For example I tried to make friends with a lot of them, even my dentist was one, but I never got really close to them. They never let me. Until I realized how disrespectful and insulting they talk about me and other "unbelievers", after I learned some Turkish and Arab words. And even still then for a long time after I thought "Its just these guys", but more and more experience with others, analyzing how they treat not only me, but all these "unbelievers" and ultimately the study of those writings was like a revelation. I was shocked, to put it mildly. It all fits together. Everything.

I guess using Arabic numerals is cultural appropriation? Or when doctors use Latin to name a disease that's cultural appropriation too?

The whiskey is also Indian, The taco is Mexican, the Twinkie is gay, There's an Arab looking falaffel in there, the baby carrots are children, The Bagel had a new york accent, and if there isn't Canadian maple syrup or back bacon in there, i'll be shocked.

But yes, please, lets focus on the Irish potato.

I don't have a problem with many of these like Alec Guiness and Anthony Quinn in Lawrence of Arabia and after all they did have Omar Sharif. How many big name arab or more specifically bedouin actors were available at that time. And you can't expect a big blockbuster movie to go after no names

On the other hand some of these were cringe worthy and downright offensive ... Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's being a prime example.

Sure make excused for this trash.

There might be 10% that are doing the horrible trash.. But there are at 70% more who let it slide in the name of ALLAH.


They all go to go. World ban for 100 years and let them sort out their mussed up thinking religion of peace.

Force them back to the Arab countries and let them live in their own system.

Excellent propaganda. 40 seconds of radical muslim horror - in German, Belgian, French, Swedish cities possibly near you, a real present day danger which we need to do something about .

And then they start using the words refugee and Arab.

Of the current wave of people uncontrollably and iresponsibly invited by Angela Merkel and company to Germany estimates are (because real official numbers apparently will not be available before mid 2016) about 40% are refugees from war zones, mostly Syria, families, many educated people, several irrelevant religions (including a few flavors of muslim) some Arabs. We can keep these and try to help them. Educational videos and money will keep them warm and fed, Afghan families will eventually learn to use flushing toilets. They will find jobs and start kebab joints and go to school. Refugees.

Which leaves 60% of north african, balkan, middle eastern immigrants, overwhelmingly men 18-25, muslim, many illiterate (some Arab but that is irrelevant). Who join the masses of crazy radical muslims already living here in Europe previously. Not refugees. Not running away from something but running to the social systems and muslim ghettos of western Europe. Not easily separable from the above mentioned refugees. Protected by the insane political correctness of German and Swedish and Belgian politicians. Educational videos will entertain them and keep them warm. No amount of welfare will ever be enough for them. Very few will get an education and jobs, lots of trouble ahead. How do we get rid of these people now? Radical muslim immigrants.

Meanwhile we also have lots of regular immigrants in Europe, like Ukrainians, Russians, varieties of asians, and generally from all over the world as the trend is that jobs are available in parts of Europe and overall its a nice safe place to live in.

Problem is if we dont get rid of the stupid radical muslims its not going to stay that way, as jews and now women have found out in some large European cities. Hopefully the refugees can stay, but our inability to react in the face of danger at least according to previously agreed measures (Schengen border protection) will make it difficult for us to help real refugees in the face of public opinion damaged by these idiots (radical muslims and politically correct politicians).

1)As if they DID know what the future would hold when they left? EDIT: Those things you mention had not happened when the Jewish people invaded Palestine in the 30's, and NO ONE KNEW what was coming 10 years later.
2)Yes. The European Jews invaded FIRST. Before that, the Arabs and Jews lived peacefully in the region from all history I can find. There was no 'civil war', it was a war against invaders coming from all over Europe in an effort to 'create' a nation.
3)The Jewish population was not growing in relation to the Arab population, so it was still <8% when the European Jewish invasion began, an invasion of foreigners, not a native population boom which the Arabs had. Duh.
4)'standing army' is hardly a measure of applicable force. If it were, we would be Iraqis today. They had far more men in their army when we walked over them with advanced technology, exactly like the Jews did. I've been over that. We (the US) supplied them advanced weapons making enlisted numbers meaningless...
...also, you ignore that ALL 'Israeli' are in the army, 100%. The 'standing army' number is only the professional soldiers, not the entire force by far.
...AND....The Jews didn't need to mount any defense if they had not invaded.
5)What should they have done? Much better minds than mine have failed on a solution that pleases everyone, but stealing another people's property using deadly force, and then subjugating the survivors for decades to the stone age in concentration camps is absolutely NOT the right answer.
That said....If they were truly 'refugees', they should go to refugee camps (as should the Syrians, I don't get why they are spreading all over Europe, but I digress) until they can either be assimilated in other cultures or return home. Period.

Once again...things being bad at home does not give one the right to just move in on someone else's land and push them off. That's what Israel is, a land theft by overwhelming force, and an expansion of that theft continuing to this day. EDIT: It's akin to me stating 'my brother abuses me at home, so I'm moving into your house and you're moving out, and my buddy's with big guns gave me some to force that to happen.' Is that OK? If so, what's your address?

6)Have you seen the stuff right wingers used to wright about Jews...how about the KKK? How about Palin and her cohorts? If some idiot spouting hatred is a reason to run, the entire planet would be on the run all the time.
Would you support blacks invading any European countries they choose because they are treated poorly here in the US? With money and arms? Displacing the current residents and subjugating any that stay as sub human non citizens? I doubt it. EDIT: Would you also make the argument then that it's OK because the invaders are a smaller military than the country they invade, even though they have far better weapons and more of them? What's the difference?

@newtboy
If it was about safety, they would have illegally immigrated to the multiple neighboring countries

Right, as if you don't know how well fleeing from Germany to neighbours like Poland or France or Italy would have worked out for them... Seriously?

If the Syrians all went to Belgium, installed their own laws and government supplanting the local Belgians', made the Belgians non-citizens, took their lands and properties, pushed them into one small corner ghetto, then complained about how bad the Belgians are...

Are you suggesting that Jews did all this prior to the outbreak of civil war in Palestine? That doesn't reflect reality in any way shape or form.

it was close to 5% before the invasion.

When do you count Jewish immigration to Palestine as becoming an invasion? Palestine was already 8% Jewish by demographics in 1890. That's enough time for almost a 3rd generation to be born by 1940. Slowest, invasion, ever.

The leap was from 1930-1940, with an additional 450k Jewish Palestinians. In that same time the Arab population grew by 420k, so I guess they were both invading???

The alliance of Arab nations that fought them was much SMALLER militarily, you know this.

Right, Israel's initial standing army was 10k, matching Egypt's 10k. But Egypt wasn't the only one in the alliance of course, Jordan had that many as well. Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the remaining alliance members represented another 10k together too. Sure, in hindsight we know they don't jointly commit their entire forces to the task an outnumber the Jewish military 3 to 1. I'm not quite sure how the Jewish people planning a defense were supposed to anticipate that and 'hold back' accordingly.

Honestly, I just can not comprehend what you expect Jewish people fleeing Europe to have done instead. Fleeing to other parts of Europe still left them in Nazi controlled territory and on a train back to Poland. Standing to fight in other European countries meant getting shot at, defeated, and then on a train to Poland. Crossing the ocean was a far sight harder than going to the middle east. Of all the middle east countries, Palestine was the most promising so I find it hard to fault the folks leaving Europe and setting up shop there. Once arrived there, I again find it hard to condemn them for demanding fair treatment and being willing to fight for it.

I said those illegally invading in the 30's had little to flee (unless you are saying they had a time machine and KNEW what was coming).

Mein Kampf was first published in 1925, it had sold nearly a quarter million copies by 1933 when Hitler took power. How could they ever have seen anything bad coming their way I wonder...

Um...no
The Jews that invaded Palestine were illegitimate because they were illegal immigrants invading what was essentially a British 'colony'.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the USA didn't take as many as we might have. Those are two separate wrongs.
Palestine was not invaded because it was 'safer'..it was invaded because they wanted to own it. If it was about safety, they would have illegally immigrated to the multiple neighboring countries, not one single place all the way across Europe....kind of like the Syrian refugees are doing. If the Syrians all went to Belgium, installed their own laws and government supplanting the local Belgians', made the Belgians non-citizens, took their lands and properties, pushed them into one small corner ghetto, then complained about how bad the Belgians are...we would laugh at their faces as we blasted the shit out of them...why did we support Jews doing the EXACT same thing without a gun forcing (edit: most of) them out of their homes like the Syrians had?
Palestine did NOT have a SIZEABLE Jewish population, it was close to 5% before the invasion. It also wasn't closer by far than any other country in Europe. It only made perfect sense because their religious leaders told them to go there and 'take back their ancestral homeland'.

I never said those in the 40's were not that desperate, nor did I ever suggest we 'change history'. You need a reading comprehension refresher. I said those illegally invading in the 30's had little to flee (unless you are saying they had a time machine and KNEW what was coming). I also say those in the 40's after the war and all those coming after that had NOTHING to flee.

The difference being that the Arabs had been there for centuries, living peacefully with a small Jewish population as part of their 'country', yes, peacefully. It wasn't until the Brits ignored their own immigration laws and allowed the Jews to invade by the thousands that conflict broke out. Today, non Jews are not full citizens in the land that the Palestinians lived on for eons, and what's left of the native Palestinians are held in a concentration camp.

If things being bad where you live is a legitimate reason to take another country, all of Africa should be taking Europe today, along with much of Asia. In fact, we may as well forget countries if that's the metric, all countries treat some group poorly.

The invaders gained more land than they had at the outset (they had NONE at the outset, they lived in what had been British ruled Palestine, and was now reverting to Palestinian rule...) but the Jews wanted their own Jewish country and stole it from the people who had never had an army, using American weapons purchased mainly with American money (or given to them for free) while the Palestinians were barely supported by their neighbors, who had never been their allies. It was not "civil war' it was an invasion. Those fighting came from elsewhere to steal the land, it was not just the native Jews fighting, it was mostly invading Jews.

Yes, of course they refused. If Mexico took Texas, then the UN said "OK, it's yours, just don't take New Mexico", yet the Mexicans were already settling in New Mexico with their army protecting the settlements, I really don't think the US would accept the UN plan either. It was ridiculous and a plan based on stealing from Peter to pay Paul back for somethin Ringo stole. WTF?!?

Yes, that counts as 'stealing land' using overwhelming force, then fighting over it, then stealing MORE land, then subjugating and dehumanizing the locals, then stealing MORE land, and more land, and more land, and whining and crying that they're the victims.

The alliance of Arab nations that fought them was much SMALLER militarily, you know this.
When a 'smaller' invading force uses it's international contacts to become a violent racist bully, uses it's overwhelming force to steal land for decades, pushing the locals into the sea or concentration camps, kills tens of thousands and imprisons millions in horrendous conditions for decades and claims they want peace, yes, they need to return all the land they gained with their evil behavior or expect the leftovers of their genocide to strike back until one side is wiped out.

They were not a nation when they did this. They were an invading horde of Europeans trying to create a religious nation on someone else's land.

Sorry, but I still can't understand. We obviously don't get to wish away history and just declare America and everybody else should've allowed more Jewish immigration and thus the Jew's that fled to Palestine were illegitimate. If we are wishing, we might as well go all out for an alternate history where Hitler and the Nazi's respected human rights and strove for peace.

Fact is that millions of Jews were trying to flee persecution in Europe(and not just the Nazi's, they were just the worst of the bunch). Fact is that the nations of the world, just like today and always, didn't want to take in nearly that many refugees. They allowed in the smartest and the richest, and that was about the line that was drawn. Truly, I can not blame the still million plus Jews with nowhere to legally escape to choosing illegal immigration to locations deemed safer for them and their families. With Palestine already having a sizable Jewish population and being closer than many other places, it made perfect sense for them to flee there. I really can't see any rational objection to this you've raised save for declaring their situation NOT that desperate or that magically we should've changed history and had everyone else act better, which plainly wasn't something the European Jews could rely upon.

As to theft of land, prior to the total outbreak of civil war in Palestine, it cut both ways. You again seem to refuse to acknowledge this. It was not just the Jews unfairly and violently dealing with the Arab Palestinians, but it was equally Arab Palestinians doing the EXACT same to the Jewish Palestinians. With the British pulling out, both parties were grabbing for land and power. You talk as though the Arab Palestinians were standing there holding out roses and snacks for the Jewish Palestinians only to find themselves shot down for the favour.

After the break out of civil war the Jewish Palestinians and refugees absolutely gained more land than they had at the outset. That is hardly the only time in history that a civil war worked out that way though. More over, when Israel accepted the UN 2 state solution, it was the Arabs that refused, allied with the surrounding Arab state to grossly outnumber the fledgling Jewish state and swore to drive the Jews into the sea. The exact quote is from Azzam Pasha, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, who declared "We will sweep them into the sea". When that war ended, Israel was even larger than when the war started. If that counts as 'stealing' land I think your a little too lose with your definitions. When a much larger alliance of nations tries to destroy a smaller one, is it really expected that the smaller nation return all land it gained as a manner of good behaviour?