Voting Does Not Make a Democracy -- Gov't by Sharia Law Can Never Be a Democracy -- Worse than Most Dictatorships

Submitted by Sofa Sogood (United States), Jan 17, 2008 at 21:54

"Can anyone name a country in Middle East which US supports and it is not dictatorial regime."

My question is: Can anyone name a country in the Middle East which is not a dictatorial regime? Theocracy - Dictatorship -- same, same. Islamist Theocracy worse.

(In Pakistan, the US will support whoever it is believed will protect the Atomic weapons from falling into the hands of Radical Islamists or Radical Islamist Terrorists. The US is very unsure of him, but supports Musharraf because there is no choice.)

No government based on Sharia Law is a democracy -- even if people vote for it. Majority rule does not equal democracy -- Majority rule often is nothing more than mob rule. Democracy is based on democratic principles -- and then only after that, majority rule. There can be no democracy which is a Theocracy. It's a contradiction. So, the United States has only the choice between two devils -- and dictatorships are not necessarily worse than theocracies -- with their totalitarian rule, religious police, cutting off hands and feet, honor killings, and dhimmi laws, etc. etc.

Israel is not a Theocracy. It was founded to establish a home for people of Jewish origins as a place of self-rule and shelter from 2000 years of, most often, violent discrimination. While there is respect for the religion within the laws, the laws of Israel are not based on the Jewish religion -- they are based on democratic ideals. It is, though, a Jewish State for Jewish people -- just as democratic Japan is a Japanese State for Japanese people.

The Israel-Palestine conflict IS a century old. The Zionist movement began in the mid-1800's, when the Ottoman Empire granted permission for European Jews to join Jews who had always lived in the region (who, incidentally had almost always maintained a majority in Jerusalem) to purchase land (mostly sand) for agricultural development and to reside there. Even in those early days, Arabs from time to time, raided their settlements and killed them.

Conflicts escalated after the end of WW1 (1918) and the demise of the Ottoman Empire when there were massive population displacements all over the world. As part of world-wide re-settlement arrangements, Jews were granted a place for a Homeland by the Leage of Nations (which was later supplanted by the United Nations). No one knew that there would be a Holocaust which would displace many more people. Although, at that time, the population of the area was relatively small, and the numbers of Jews re-settling there was small, the Mufti of Jerusalem objected to any Jews having any self-determinative rule and aroused the Arabs to intensified violence against them. (Check out Mufti-Nazi connections -- way prior to l947.) There were many raids and pogroms murdering the Jews in that period. Jews living on Kibbutzim (communal farms) were raided and murdered. Jews who had lived in Hebron for thousands of years were driven out in 1929 by the violence, for instance.

The real, real trouble started in 1922, when the British decided to divide the Palestinian Mandate (look up British Mandate and how Mandates were formed after WW1). The lands which are now both Israel and Jordan were all one "Palestine -- or British Mandate." This entire area was to be a Homeland for the Jews. NOT that only Jews could live there. The original idea was that where Jews were or became a majority, there would be Jewish self-rule, and where Arabs were or became a majority, there would be Arab self-rule. No one would be required to move from where they were living.

There was so much uninhabited land -- desert mostly -- and not that many people involved, both Arabs and Jews. But the British, because of political rivalries with the French, decided that 70% of that Mandate be given to Prince Abdullah as (Trans) Jordan. No Jew was allowed to live there -- that rule is in Jordan's original foundation documents -- and still exists to this day.

The remaining 30% was to be "Partitioned" and divided between the Jews and the Arabs -- The Jewish portion only where Jews were already a majority or where the land was uninhabited and desert-like. The Arabs were to be given a much better portion (most of the arrable land), but the Jews accepted it and the Arabs didn't. They didn't want any Jews having any self-rule on what was not anybody's country other than a Turkish "villayet" but which, nevertheless, they themselves considered "Arab/Moslem" land.

In 1948 when the Jews proclaimed a State, it was on the tiny area allotted to them in the "Partition." The Arabs rejected that, rejected the Partition arrangement, and 5 nations made war on little Israel, claiming they would "drive the Jews into the Sea." The US DID NOT help the Jews in that War. The British aided the Arabs. Nobody thought they would, but the outnumbered Jews won, which was a great humiliation to the Arabs.

The fact that the US didn't take in Jewish refugees from Europe was shameful, but not by any chance the cause of the continuing conflict. That particular responsibility can be placed firmly in the laps of the Arab Nations and Europeans who have kept the Palestinians impoverished, enraged and armed -- (not allowing them citizenship in the very Arab countries in which they now and for 60 years have lived!) solely for the purpose of perpetuating a conflict which could have been resolved many years ago -- for their own selfish and inexcusably vile reasons.

(Keep in mind, after WW1 and WW2, just some of the shifts of population and many millions of refugees, i.e. -- Cyprus and Turkey, India and Pakistan, Germany and Poland.)

Also to note, prior to 1922, there was a signed agreement between the British and Prince Faisal (perhaps the most popular Arab leader), that he would be the leader of "Syria," in Damascus, the ancient seat of the Caliphate. This would have given Faisal great prestige, dignity and power to influence the other Arab nations. Part of this agreement was Faisal's support and approval of a Homeland and self-rule for the Jews in the area of the Palestine Mandate (including what is now both Israel and Jordan). Then the British re-negged on their agreement with Faisal, gave "Syria" to the French, divided the Mandate into what is now Jordan, planned to Partitian what is now Israel, and seated Abdullah as their puppet leader in Jordan. Thus began a great Arab uprising.

Who knows if there would have been peace now if only the British and French had kept their word to Prince Faisal.

I have one more point to make. It's about the difference between the Arab/Muslim mind and the Western, including the Israeli. When Arabs make a war and win land, it's theirs. When Arabs make a war and lose land, they cry to the world that "It's not fair," "make them give it back!" It's baby talk to me. Suicide missions are more baby talk -- spite.

In 1947-8, the Jews who had always been a majority in Jerusalem, were killed and the rest expelled. Jerusalem was supposed to have been an "International" enclave, not Jewish nor Arab. But the Jordanians took it and annexed it. The Jews were very sad that they could no longer worship at the Western Wall. The expelled ones missed their home. They didn't cry "not fair!" "give it back!"

They didn't constantly send "Katushya" bombs and shell the citizens in their beds, they didn't deliberately aim at and bomb schools, they didn't send in suicide missions. They didn't sneak in in the middle of the night and slit the throats of babies in front of their mothers. But they accepted the loss, and turned their faces to making a nation and prospering. They built schools, universities, educated their children, built laboratories and contributed to science, cultivated land for food and exports, and concentrated on prospering and creating a good and decent life for their citizens.

The Arab Nations, instead of concentrating on themselves, put their money and all their thoughts on destroying tiny Israel in their midst and again made war on them in 1967. Again they lost -- and lost more.

Don't you ever ask yourself why the Palestinians, while as part of Jordan, or from 1967 to 1987 (first Intifada year) when they had, while under Israeli rule, the highest standard of living of all Arabs in any country, and after Oslo when they were given considerable self-rule (no checkpoints, no walls) and so so much money to develop themselves, didn't do (and were discouraged by their leaders and Arab nations, from doing) the same thing? They could have used all that money to do the same as the Jews.

Everyone in the world was willing to help them. But instead they chose to just keep themselves steeped in hatred and desire to destroy Israel, twist the minds of their children, haggle over 5% land here and there and a few Jews who want to live in their midst, use the money to buy guns, and murder, murder, murder -- Had they chosen the other way, by now there'd be schools, science labs -- maybe they'd make contributions to the worlds of medicine, etc., businesses would be flourishing, prosperity, respect! Why not fight in a better way -- that's the way to "really show them Jews" by prospering and succeeding!

If the Palestinians get their way and the Palestinian flag waves over all of Israel -- and Israel is destroyed -- do you know what the Palestinians will have? Nothing. It will look like Gaza today. And, because there will be no Jews there for the world to hate or bicker over -- the world will completely lose interest in them -- like Darfur or Rawanda. So will the Arab nations ignore them. No one will care.

But then, my useless thoughts and words only point out the difference in mind set.

After the Western World succumbs to Arabic Sharia Law (because we are confused about the difference between what is purely religion which we protect -- and a religio-political movement -- and because of all those petrodollars) and is plunged into the Dark Ages once again for 500 or 1000 years or so, perhaps there will be a new awakening to rational thought once again. Maybe not. Who knows?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".