Surplus Jews

[Shaktimaan]

178. This does not have to be complicated.

Can we agree now that the Zionist leadership did declare they intended to continue moving into Palestine until they were in the majority, declare independence and and rule over the existing residents as a sovereign power?

Nope, certainly not. Here's the problem. You keep insisting that the Zionist leadership declared that their plan was to immigrate en masse until they were a majority, then declare independence, then rule over the non-Jews as they liked, yet you have thus far never cited any quote that actually says such a thing. Which is why you are relegated to making arguments such as this: but nowhere does it state or imply that the objective of Zionism is other than to create a state in Palestine with a Jewish majority. Unfortunately, there is a world of difference between making a declaration that outlines a specific plan of actions vs. failing to refute that same, extremely specific plan. I have never, personally gone on the record to articulate my disapproval of the French politician Le Pen's policies. However, that fact is not evidence that I support him.

So, here's how it will have to work. I am fully willing to admit when I am incorrect about any of these facts we're discussing. If you can show me that the Zionist leadership really did openly declare their plans to follow the strategy you outlined in these posts, then I will obviously agree with you. Just remember, you consistently referred to this as the plan that the Zionists "made clear" they were following. Giving me fragments of many different speeches, divorced from any related context, while requiring that certain unstated implications should be inferred from some tertiary text is not going to cut the mustard.

So these quotes that you offered before... some are diary entries or personal correspondence. Others reference the First Aliyah, when Palestine was under Ottoman rule and 15+ years before Herzl would even organize the First Zionist Congress in Basel or write his pamphlet supporting Zionism. We're not discussing the proto-Zionists but the post-Hertzl ones. Some of the quotes are not from Zionist leaders but are just the opinion of current authors like Avi Shlaim. But at least he is a historian of sorts. One of those quotes is from a hugely biased book on the "history" of the region written by a psychologist living in NYC from material sourced out of Noam Chomsky and Avi Shlaim's books.

Nor do these Ben-Gurion quotes say what you quote above. So finding that for me is going to be pretty critical.

Where is the logic in doing that?....What happened later is immaterial to the morality of the decision the early Zionists took.

The logic in what? Sharing the land? Is it not obvious? Bear in mind we are discussing the turn of the century and very early 20th. At that point there was absolutely no Palestinian national movement. There was the beginnings of the pan-Arab nationalist movement and the existing belief that the Arab inhabitants of Palestine were basically Syrian in nationality.

Yes, well they would wouldn’t they?....Do you really think these gentlemen would miss an opportunity to pacify the gullible Palestinian Arabs?

Because you have been insisting that they have been making their intentions "very clear" and there could be no doubt as to their intentions because they kept declaring them publicly.

-----

You have still not yet explained why Jewish immigration was immoral. Or what gave the Palestinians the right to essentially rule over the entire region without the benefit of a government or any laws or policies other than the killing of non-Arabs. What gives them the right to say who can or can not buy a swamp that they have absolutely no claim over or anything to do with?

The Arabs had never yet had sovereignty over this land nor ever ruled it in any fashion. What suddenly gives them the right to a guaranteed Arab government. You seem to think that its immoral for the Jews to try and immigrate and alter the political demographics. Can you say why?

The Arabs sought a political system run by Arabs and their pursuit of this goal is something you seem OK with, even when it entailed crimes against humanity, oppression and apartheid. Yet when the Jews work towards this same goal just without the war crimes, apartheid, etc., you deem it unethical. Can you explain why?

-----

I still want you to explain exactly why I am not allowed to defend my inevitable eviction and the shuttering of my business by capping domes in Brooklyn now, but the Palestinians could end their perceived fear of disenfranchisement by killing whatever Jews they wanted to. You said something about the Jews speaking a different language?

Please don't forget to touch on why the UDHR doesn't disallow essentially every single action that the Palestinians ever took from 1920 straight on through last Sunday.