Reply #31: I need sources to show the Zionists never intended totalitarian rule subjugating the non-Jews? [View All]

[shira]

Seriously?

As to the non-Jewish indigenous inhabitants, there was and still exists no precedent WRT a referendum on whether they were okay with what their representatives - like the Ottomans - agreed to. The fact is, all other mideast states were politically carved out of the former Ottoman empire and given over to totalitarian dictatorial rule that TRULY dominated and subjugated every other indigenous population - even the Palestinians of Jordan - and still does to this day. For example, Syria was given to Alawite rule while Jordan was given to the Hashemites. I don't see you calling for a referendum there - WHY? They're ruled by minorities and totally disenfranchised, as the Arab "Spring" proves.

You have failed to explain why Balfour gave no protection to Arab political rights.

What are you talking about? The declaration states "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." That seems like protection of Arab political rights to me. In fact, the Zionists did more than any other post-Ottoman rulers to ensure the rights of Arabs in the mideast.

You have failed to explain why pelsar should support my claim that Zionists were bent on domination.

You mean when the choice is between both Jews and Arabs living under totalitarian rule or living in a liberal democracy? If moderate Palestinian leadership chose to work with the Jews, as the Ottomans and King Faisal had wished, why would there ever be a "battle" over domination via democracy or totalitarianism? Think about it. If moderate Palestinian leadership prevailed and chose to work with Zionists in a democracy, this is all a completely different story - right? What would you complain about?

I don't believe Pelsar and I disagree. Due to the Mufti, the only choice was for Jews to fight for liberal democracy. Before the Mufti, there shouldn't have been any fight whatsoever, as you've admitted yourself that Palestinians would have probably agreed to join in a representative, secular, liberal democracy. I don't have any reason to believe that if THAT's what they wished, they would have voted to deliberately keep Jewish immigration down. Why would liberals/progressives do that? The Ottomans and Faisal didn't have a problem with a majority Jewish state, so why would reasonable Palestinians have a problem with this? You're pretending they held views like the Mufti before he took over. I'm not.

Let me try one more time to get you to support your belief.....The following is an extract from a paper by one of the leading 1923 Zionist intellectuals, Jabotinsky:

" There is only one thing the Zionists want, and it is that one thing that the Arabs do not want, for that is the way by which the Jews would gradually become the majority, and then a Jewish Government would follow automatically, and the future of the Arab minority would depend on the goodwill of the Jews; and a minority status is not a good thing, as the Jews themselves are never tired of pointing out. So there is no "misunderstanding"......The Zionists want only one thing, Jewish immigration; and this Jewish immigration is what the Arabs do not want."

So? Once again, participation in a liberal, secular democracy is not domination by any definition. Why don't you give me a good reason as to why Palestinians were always against representing themselves, participating in a genuine democracy, all having equal rights and civil liberties? Why do you think it was better for them to choose ultra-conservative, 3rd world rightwing Arab totalitarian rule over that? What would have made the Mufti a better choice to dominate them than actually participating in a liberal, representative democracy?

You're essentially being a megaphone for ultra-conservative, 3rd world rightwing totalitarian rule - speaking on behalf of Hamas or the Mufti - making their case for them. We should "understand" and "accept" that what the indigenous non-Jewish population of Palestine really wanted - even before the Mufti violently took over and eliminated all secular, liberal Arab opposition - that Palestinians generally preferred Mufti rule to liberal democracy. That's what you want me to empathize with, right?

I want to know what you think Israel should do NOW that would ensure peace between all parties in the mideast? As though the Jews can come to terms with all major factions of the mideast when THEY can't even get along with each other (like the MB vs. the nationalists or Baathists). What do you think Israel could REALLY do to right all wrongs but still exist as a Jewish state? Otherwise, what's the point of this conversation, to show that Israel should just commit national suicide in order to make amends?