Reply #111: Yes, you are wrong as the facts and numbers show...

[shira]

1. By 1948, Palestinians still outnumbered Jews by 2:1 so becoming a majority wasn't happening anytime soon. Jews weren't being forced to come to Israel and Arabs weren't being kicked out or prevented from becoming citizens there.

2. As to dispossession claims, this happened to only 1% of the Arab population and by the end of the Mandate period, Arabs owned more than twice the land they owned before Jews started immigrating in big numbers. It's not that dispossession didn't happen, but you and your anti-Zionist sources made a mountain out of a molehill and completely misrepresented the situation. There was no significant threat of Arab dispossession.

3. Arabs weren't disenfranchised at all, as they had a chance to be represented in government and they rejected it. That's not the fault of Zionists, as Arabs chose fascism over democracy. The 2 choices at the time were being part of a real democracy or submitting to totalitarian fascism. There is no question as to which system was and still is better for Jews and Arabs. Don't pretend that Zionists prevented Arabs from being part of the government, working to ensure Arab rights. You keep saying that unlimited Jewish immigration was the #1 issue keeping Arabs truly disenfranchised, but had Arabs wished to join the government, they could have ensured that Jews only become majority in certain areas of Palestine, while all of Palestine remained majority Arab (through open Arab immigration from surrounding states). That was the 1947 partition plan in a nutshell.

4. The above are facts, not Zionist opinion and propaganda - as opposed to the nonsense you presented from demonstrably dishonest, anti-Zionist propaganda sites, like Zionism is colonialism, evil, racist, it disenfranchised and dispossessed a significant percentage of the Palestinian population...:eyes:

5. I don't agree that a majority of the population should have a say on anti-semitic, anti-liberal policy. With your logic, a majority of the population could decide women are 2nd class citizens and have few rights, Jews have even fewer, and gays should be hanged or shot on sight. Going with the majority in those cases is immoral, disgusting, and unjust. This position of yours is indefensible.

6. You wrote: So?.......You don't seem to understand that the Palestinians were never offered the chance to chose.....If democracy means anything it is the power to chose who your rulers are without some Zionist or Brit telling you what is best for you...... What would Palestinians have chosen? Fascism over democracy? What other real choice did they have? What kind of democratic decision is it to choose fascism, intolerance, hatred, illiberal policy....? Look around Israel and all you see is failed states, totalitarianism. Argue all you wish that Arabs have the right to choose fascism if that's what they want by majority, but there's no way to justify that to Arabs and others who'd suffer under such discrimination. At least by participating in government, Arabs had a real chance to actually become the rulers democratically. Your position is indefensible.

7. Zionists never became a majority until the wars of 1948, so you can't say they deprived Palestinians of self-determination. Each time Arab leadership rejected a 2-state deal, from the Peel Commission to Olmert's 2008 offer, it was they who deprived Palestinians of self-determination. Of course, Palestinian life under totalitarian fascist Arab control really isn't self-determination, now is it? But this is what you're apparently for. If not, what liberal alternative would you say you'd be for WRT Palestinians of the Mandate period? As I wrote previously, had Arabs participated in the government, they could have easily BECOME the leadership (not rulers, as that's not democracy but totalitarianism).

8. I still don't see how you can claim Zionism, generally speaking, was in reality a Colonialist (or evil, racist) movement given the facts in #1-3 above. Then again, it seems you've changed your opinion, now claiming only some Zionists were this way. That's like claiming the Liberal movement is bad because of the actions or beliefs of a few Liberals. Totally absurd. No movement should be judged on the beliefs or actions of a few participants. But that's what you base your beliefs on.

9. You said Palestinians were defenseless and innocent WRT the Zionist 'threat'. Who were these defenseless, innocent Palestinians if not the Mufti and his following? Eliminate all those people and who's left but Palestinians at the mercy of the Mufti and his fascist rule?

10. Your answer to my question WRT how Jews would react to Palestinian nationalism within Israel is a red herring and completely disingenuous. Defending against terror organizations dedicated to the Nazi agenda WRT Jews is nothing like what Palestinians were facing during the Mandate period WRT Jewish refugees. That's a repulsive comparison.

======

I've already answered some of your 15 questions before, but I'll take the first 3...

1. Zionist immigration resulted in several revolts, six major wars, thousands killed and you call that a win-win?.......
2. Congress's actions probably condemned hundreds of thousands of Jews to Hitler's death camps......How many Jews did Al-Hussayni kill?.....
3. You are very good at making statements without support....Now justify the morality of your sovereignty excuse......?

1. Zionist immigration didn't result in those wars and thousands killed. THAT is the result of wars against the Jews and you're defending the Mufti and those like him by denying that. It was the Mufti and those like him in latter wars vs. Israel who were and still are vicious anti-semites who need NO reasons whatsoever to explain their actions. Take away those types and who is left among the Arabs, except for victims suffering under such fascist rule - who'd choose to go to war against the Jews? Who are they, Kayecy? At best, those Arabs who bought into the Mufti's antisemitic propaganda were misled into going to war vs. the Jews, right? They certainly didn't do it for the right reasons, now did they?

2. I don't see how Congress's actions condemned more Jews to death than Al Hussayni's. Al Hussayni could have allowed just as many Jews into Israel as the USA. But worse, he actively participated in the direct murder of tens of thousands of Jews. It appears you are absolutely defending Al Hussayni and claiming what he did is not as bad as anyone else at the time. That's outrageous!

3. There's nothing more moral than a Nationalist movement for a historically persecuted people that also takes into consideration the rights of others and attempts to make what could be a sticky situation into a win-win for all concerned. Emir Faisal and the Arab Mayor of Haifa realized this, as well as all decent and moral civilized people of the time.

======

You have yet to respond to this question...

If you were in charge instead of Al Hussayni would you have strongly "resisted" all the colonialist Zionists coming in to rob, dispossess, and disenfranchise the indigenous population? Or would you have insisted that hundreds of thousands of MORE Jews come to Palestine to be saved from antisemitic Europe? You have a choice now, either to save hundreds of thousands of innocents from Nazi fascism or assign them to their deaths by turning these "colonialist robbers" away. For the record, what would you have done? I await your response.

I'm still waiting for a thorough, honest reply that one.

:)