what if...
1 what if the jordanian kingdom had been a democracy- in the year 1967.
the representatives in the "senate/parliament" strongly desire to be re-elected each time and want to please the people and get MANY MANY many voters to support-- by "making the many voters happy."
that year- when the leaders of egypt and syria wanted war on israel- the parliament would want the support of many voters and not send the citizens to war against israel because israel was not a threat to jordan at that time.
contributing to the tragedy- only one person had the authority to decide- jordan's king and he sent his people to war.
the same idea/concept could be said regarding the leader of egypt- but he sent his tanks to the border, then, and chased the UN peace-keepers away so he could attack israel, however a parliament would have voted to "keep the UN troops as a separator" and therefore no threat from israel- so no war.
**instead the king of egypt chased the UN troops away. the start of the war called "6 day war" and 1967 war- was when egyptian troops chased away the UN troops.
2
the non-democracy of egypt
the start of the war called "6 day war" and 1967 war- was when egyptian troops chased away the UN troops. sometimes people claim that the 1967 war started when israeli planes bombed egyptian airfields- when in fact BEFORE before that event, Egypt chased away the UN peacekeeping troops which had kept the egyptian arabs away from the israelis.
first the egyptians removed the separator and AFTER that when israel was in danger israel weakened its attacker.
there is no surprise that the 1967 war is the one people WANT to emphasize- not the other wars such as 1973 because 1967 is the one that changed the land division. also people happily ignore the jordanian treaty with israel after 1973 and the syrian cease-fire agreement with a map, in 1973.
3
**arabs in PA
what about the leader of the Palestinian Authority? he has been the leader- like a king for a decade while democracies have swapped presidents several times.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20033995
that website also mentions the so-called "tough stance" of right wing governments in israel- to distract the reader from the FACTS- ignoring the numerous compromises offered by israeli prime minister Olmert in the year 2007 and other compromises- even the right wing "offered to compromise"- several times- the opposite of tough- offering several compromises- which abbas stubbornly ignored-
INSTEAD OF CALLING ABBAS STUBBORN
what can you expect from BBC?
not anything that would make the jew look good.
anyway...
INSTEAD OF NOTING that the governments of israel were swapped while abbas ruled like a monarch- meaning with no motivation to end the suffering of the citizens he led... with no "danger" of losing his status in the next election of 2009-
the bbc website, despite favoring the arabs- concedes that abbas term to rule ended-
ENDED in 2009
"when his four-year term ended in January 2009"
yet he continued to claim leadership and not "make the voters happy- in order to get re-elected"- consider-- was he elected "president for life"--?? his term ended. yet he claims leadership- that is not president nor democracy- that is the precise flaw of monarchy. and using fear as is common in muslim countries adds tyranny.
while we hear from numerous organizations "give money to the arabs called palestinians because they are suffering"- their leader has plenty of SPARE CASH--- for "non-essentials"- while the citizens "struggle to eat"...
building a palace for millions- estimates eight-million pounds- [pound is the money in UK each "pound" worth more than a dollar]
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/601521/Palestine-build-8million-presidential-palace
what if abbas- who by the way was part of the PLO which has been recognized as a terrorist organization-
what if abbas would "put effort" to please the people and make the citizens happy? without a democracy there is no such motivation.
without political options to compete with abbas such as political parties- there is no motivation.
4
**what if...
what if PA-Palistinian authority was a democracy--
the tragedy is- it is not a democracy.
the arabs in PA- probably many of them do not want violence- yet they are not represented by a senate/parliament of democracy.
the one "king" who has ruled for many "US election cycles" named mahmoud abbas- has never been motivated to "find favor in the citizens eyes=make them happier" or even to end their admittedly numerous sufferings- and instead has ruled VERY long- relative to democracies- like a "monarchy" as explained, and this arab leader has resisted compromise [with israel etc.] numerous times since the year 2006 and most significantly the compromise of 2007.
5
and one more detail about democracies-
if a senator does something to help 3 tycoons- he has essentially earned "precisely three" votes which is...
not enough! if he prefers the few tycoons to the masses, then he will not get the thousands of votes needed- in other words the re-election compels the representatives to do things that "make thousands happy" in order to get thousands of votes.
a senator needs many votes
hence the desire for re-election will tilt the representative to what the masses want to make them happy and not ignore what is good for the thousands.
6
if not for democracy-
consider the last hundred years- since before world war I in 1914 there has not been even one war between two democracies.
the many wars have been between "monarchies" a word with the idea of mono- one leader commanding wars against each other or against democracies.
BOTTOM LINE
so do you really want to support the so-called "palestinian" cause when they are not a democracy MEANING IN THIS CONTEXT THAT the arab leader has denied representation- i do not mean the jew is hurting them but instead- the one of their own race.
only hatred to the jew would tip a person in favor of a "tyranny" who never faces re-election and never has motivation to make the voters happy... but since he is the enemy of the jew- people make an exception- he is the friend of the jew-haters because as the saying goes, "the enemy of our enemy... " etc.
similarly, although there is a difference between someone born in the territory of israel in contrast to that same persons child born outside of the border- yet hatred of the jew tilts people to ignore this distinction and say as the UN refugee committee- say that is only "relevant" in other conflicts but when the conflict involves jews--
THAT IS DIFFERENT--??
even the child which was "born in a different country" and should be a citizen of the place born- is denied citizenship by the arab country it was born in... and considered a "refugee" when it serves to make the jew look bad.
what is the most important issue in the arab-israeli conflict?
abbas has no motivation to "earn" re-election.
that is what magnifies the tragedy and that is what needs to be "corrected" first priority.
