Gee, you mean that all those in the U.S. now who have come from different places and the rest of the American citizens whose ancestors also came from other countries are no longer to consider themselves as Italian Americans, Chinese Americans, etc. because they have adopted the English languyage of their choice.
Well notice that you put "American" at the end of each of those. First generation immigrants will usually identify very strongly with their homelands, but second and third generation may do so much less, if at all. Of course some have great pride in their family's history and that is where the cultural common roots aspect of ethnicity comes into play as I mentioned previously, but for many they would consider themselves American first.
It's interesting that you would bring up the US, because we are actually pretty unique in this social sense. We really are the exception to the general rule (and maybe Canada too). Our ability to be extremely diverse yet all still be American and considered to be in the same social class is one reason why our country is so amazing and one of the big reasons why I am so proud to be an American. Most of the world historically and even currently isn't set up that way socially. We truly did "bring forth a new nation". So pointing to the US as an example of traditional social constructions doesn't really work well.
And being what is going on in Egypt right now, I doubt the Christian Copts here consider themselves as Arabs since it is the Arab Muslims who are saying the Copts are the outsiders and shouldn't be in Egypt.
The existence of Sectarianism doesn't negate ethnic association (though it can over time and the example of Arab Jews is a good one there). It might reinforce their common history and Coptic tradition, but at this point they share a huge common history with Arab Muslims As well as a common language as well.
My Christian Arab friends would be quite offended at the idea that they weren't Arab because they were Christian. Such a notion dismisses large and significant portions of Arab history. Iraq for example used to be predominately Arab Nestorian Christian, and Arab Jewish. Arab Muslims came in third place in terms of religious affiliation for some time.
Also Arab is a pretty fluid term, One can be Arab and still be Egyptian, one can be Arab and still be Palestinian, one can be Arab and still be Bedouin, or Jewish (less so now), or Nubian, or even Kurdish (also less so now) and Somali.
Take one of the best known "Arab" Muslims of all time to us in the west as an example: Saladin, the taker of Jerusalem. He was Kurdish. His family became Arab through Arabization. He was a Kurdish Arab.
I am not, nor am I Muslim.
Having an opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn't make on an Arab or Muslim.
Are you an Arab since you're talking about the issue? Seems a bit silly to assume such a thing.
Have you made any comments, Osimir, since you have many forums here to do so, on what is happening in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Mali, etc.
Yes. In fact my specialty is Sub-Saharan Africa.
What is to important to you about Israel when so much is happening (and many atrocities occurring) in other parts of the world?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a huge geo-political issue and a very long running run. Anyone interested in international affairs has come into contact with it, I'm no exception. My interest in it is based in the humanitarian and legal issues surrounding it. It is also interesting in terms of its history, its political and economic impacts regionally and globally and its role in terrorism and subsequently in counter terrorism efforts.
I think a better question is why would someone who is interested in global issues not be interested in the Israeli-Palestinian issue?
