'Jordan is Palestine,' MK Eldad declares at embassy

[shira]

A handful of Israelis marked Jordanian Independence Day on Tuesday by trying to present the Jordanian Embassy in Ramat Gan with a petition to make the country the official homeland of the Palestinian people.

The initiator of the petition, MK Arye Eldad (National Union), said it asks “that King Abdullah declare Jordan as the national homeland of the Palestinian people. His father (King Hussein) said ‘Jordan is Palestine, Palestine is Jordan.’ Unfortunately Abdullah doesn’t want to follow in his father’s footsteps on this.

<snip>

Eighty percent of the Jordanian people are Palestinians, and it is built on 65% of the Jewish homeland allocated in the Balfour Declaration and given to us at the San Remo Conference . Once the Palestinians lose their orphan status as a people without a state, their international demands will become much weaker,” Eldad said.

<snip>

The Palestinians who remain in the West Bank would be citizens of the Palestinian state and “can live wherever they like in the West Bank and vote for the Palestinian parliament in Amman,” he said. “This is the real two-state vision.”

more...
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=221999

[shira]

1. Shocking Interview that brings Clarity to an insane situation – A Voice of Reason from an Arab Dissi

Shocking Interview that brings Clarity to an insane situation – A Voice of Reason from an Arab Dissident

The following is an interview with Mudar Zahran, a Palestinian Jordanian and former political insider who fled Jordan and currently resides in England. In an open and honest manner, Mudar briefly discusses the current unrest in Jordan, the various players in Jordan and their links to Islamic groups, his vision of a Palestinian state in Jordan as opposed to the two-state solution, his attempts at effecting change and the subsequent threats against him.


<snip>


"Were the Hashemites not ruling the eastern part of Palestine then the Palestinians already would have had a country for sixty years and nobody would have pressured Israel to give away its land. Yet this is not the case and the Hashemites are ruling the place and constantly telling the Palestinians they are merely refugees.

However, the world will only change its views on the location of the future Palestinian state if it wakes up to the problem of Jordanian apartheid. This is something my colleagues and I are constantly trying to do. As much as we can we’re telling the world that the Palestinian majority in Jordan is oppressed and discriminated against. Yet I am stunned by how little interest the world, the International Criminal Court, the US and other Western governments show in our rights. I believe they are more interested in bashing the “evil Jews” in Israel rather than securing our rights. Anti-Semitism has surely made a well-groomed comeback.

Jordan is a vicious apartheid state; how come there is no Jordanian Apartheid week in the UK or the US?"


more...
http://israelseen.com/2011/05/06/shocking-interview-that-brings-clarity-to-an-insane-situation-a-voice-of-reason-from-an-arab-dissident/

[Pab Sungenis]

2. But if the Palestinians get their homeland

then the anti-Jewish hordes will lose their best argument.

[JDPriestly]

3. So true. Historically, Jordan was intended as the homeland of the

Palestinians.

[shaayecanaan]

5. So I take it you are opposed to the two-state solution?

No surprise in that, or the fact that you seem to be supporting the views of National Union.

No doubt you will follow up with some self-serving nonsense claiming that the National Union are in fact a left wing party.

[shira]

8. I take it you're for the continued disenfranchisement of 80% of Jordan's Palestinian population?

I think the first article shows an interesting alternative 2 state solution, if/when Palestinians self-rule. I'm shocked they make up 80% of the population. I never knew the percentage was that high.

The second article is interesting too, and written by a liberal Jordanian Palestinian. Of course to you he's rightwing while Hamas/Hezbollah are the true leftists because al-Manar says so and they're cool and stuff.

[Ken Burch]

21. The question of ending the oppression of Palestinians in Jordan

is entirely separate from the question of the Occupation.

It can never be moral to call for West Bank Palestinians to accept having to move to Jordan or live in statelessness. They could never recover from the dislocation.

[shira]

25. Should Jordan be a Palestinian state since 80% of its citizens are Palestinian? Yes or No? n/t

[Ken Burch]

34. Jordan should be governed by the majority of the people who live there

It isn't a substitute for giving the Palestinian population of the West Bank self-determination, and it wouldn't justify making those Palestinians accept IDF troops in their midsts as a permanent fact of life(in fact, it would pretty much make it impossible for Israel to justify having troops in the Jordan Valley at all.

I feel like you're trying to trick me into accepting the "Jordan is Palestine" canard. And it simply isn't that simple.

[shira]

43. Not saying Jordan is Palestine but with a Palestinian majority ruling, it would become...

...at the very least "a" Palestinian state, and along with Gaza and the W.Bank (minus the settlements) the 3 combined could form a united Palestine. That gives more than 80% of the original Palestine Mandate the Palestinian homeland.

Think that's fair?

[Shaktimaan]

58. I disagree entirely.

The question of ending the oppression of Palestinians in Jordan is entirely separate from the question of the Occupation.

The two are very much intertwined, as is true of all the local arab states. After all, were it not for the oppression of palestinians in these states following the war of independence there would never have been the kind of refugee issues (or strife) that we have today. The oppression of palestinians in Jordan has been central to the history of the conflict.

And its future as well. The occupation can only end with a peace agreement after all. And any peace agreement is ultimately going to have to be a regional solution, not merely something decided between the israelis and palestinians.

It can never be moral to call for West Bank Palestinians to accept having to move to Jordan or live in statelessness. They could never recover from the dislocation.

That's quite an assumption. The funny thing about morality is that it is never absolute. Nor is it always the most important thing. Your second point would be a lot more salient, if it were truly accurate. Plenty of groups recover from far more severe relocations with positive results. Israel itself is an obvious example.

A case could really have been made for requiring jordan to accept the west bank palestinians you know... after all, they were recently citizens of the state. Jordan really should have given them the option of relocating immediately after the six day war.

At this point it obviously doesn't make any sense. The expectation for some time has been to create a palestinian state and we have traveled far enough down that road to make other options inconceivable. But that doesn't mean the ethics of any such decision are more absolute than anything else in the world. People still discuss a single state as a viable solution, which in my opinion is far less ethical of a choice than almost any jordan based idea.

[shaayecanaan]

89. What makes you think that the Palestinians want to relocate? -nt

[Shaktimaan]

121. nothing, why? np

[Shaktimaan]

59. double post. sorry. np

[Shaktimaan]

60. double post. sorry. np

[shaayecanaan]

37. Its not that high...

if you include Iraqi refugees as non-Palestinian residents of Jordan, then Palestinians amount to about 55% to 60% of the total Jordanian population.

Most population estimates exclude the 1 million Iraqi refugees, but personally I can't see how you can count the Palestinian refugees on one side but not the Iraqi refugees on the other.

[oberliner]

39. That is preposterous

There is no way that Palestinians make up such a large percentage of the total Jordanian population. Where are you getting these numbers from?

All the UNRWA estimates I've seen have indicated that there are close to two million Palestinian refugees living in Jordan. The population of Jordan is well over six million.

How does that add up to Palestinians being 55 to 60 percent of the total Jordanian population?

[shaayecanaan]

55. Its not just the refugees...

its the total amount of Jordanians of Palestinian descent.

Taken that way there is a slight majority of "West Bankers" vis-a-vis "East Bankers".

[oberliner]

64. Gotcha

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

[Ken Burch]

20. The West Bank has NEVER been Israel.

Never was. Not moral to try to make it be.

Until last week you were backing a two-state solution, shira. Why have you now joined the extreme racist right?

[shira]

26. According to the League of Nations in the 1920's all land west of the Jordan was the Jewish homeland

Only Israel can agree in negotiations to hand it over.

I'm still for 2 states. That hasn't changed.

[azurnoir]

36. Lol yes the Israeli right is pumping the long defunct and discredited League of Nations these days

seems though I remember someone here putting out feelers for that one last fall,
but you see unfortunately Israel agreed to the UN partition which most would say over rides the disbanded and discredited League of Nations

[shira]

44. All LoN rulings like the Mandate ruling was adopted by the UN.

And since the Palestinians rejected the UN partition, the original LoN ruling still stands.

Otherwise, if the UN partition plan were in effect today, Israel would have to cede significantly more land than beyond the 1949 armistice lines and Jerusalem would end up internationalized.

So you're wrong.

[bemildred]

45. Termination of the Mandate

The Yalta Conference mentioned that mandates should be placed under United Nations trusteeship. The Jewish Agency knew the United Nations Charter would say something on those subjects. The Agency wrote a memo to the San Francisco Conference requesting a safeguarding clause that said no trusteeship agreement could alter the Jewish right to nationhood secured by the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate. The conference implicitly rejected that suggestion by stipulating in article 80 of the Charter that a trusteeship agreement could in fact alter a mandate.<105> The negotiating history of Article 80 of the UN Charter recorded in the Foreign Relations of the United States, indicates that it was developed as a "status quo" agreement with respect to the Palestine mandate. It was included at the insistence of the Arab League, who were afraid the 1939 White Paper policy would be relaxed.<106>

When the UK announced plans for Transjordanian independence, the final Assembly of the League of Nations and the General Assembly both adopted resolutions which indicated support for the proposal. However, the Jewish Agency and many legal scholars raised objections. Duncan Hall said that each mandate was in the nature of a treaty, and that being treaties, the mandates could not be amended unilaterally.<107> John Marlowe noted that despite Transjordan's theoretical independence as conferred by the 1946 Treaty, the Arab Legion continued to be used, under nominal Transjordanian but actual British command, for police duties and for frontier control in Palestine.<108> The Jewish Agency spokesmen said that Transjordan was an integral part of Palestine, and that according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, the Jewish people had a secured interest in its territory.<109>

The Anglo-American treaty, also known as the Palestine Mandate Convention, permitted the US to delay any unilateral British action to terminate the mandate. The earlier proclamation of the independence of Syria and Lebanon had said "the independence and sovereignty of Syria and Lebanon will not affect the juridical situation as it results from the Mandate Act. Indeed, this situation could be changed only with the agreement of the Council of the League of Nations, with the consent of the Government of the United States, a signatory of the Franco-American Convention of 4 April 1924".<110>

The U.S. adopted the policy that formal termination of the mandate with respect to Transjordan would follow the earlier precedent established by the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon. That meant termination would generally be recognised upon the admission of Transjordan into the United Nations as a fully independent country.<111> Members of the U.S. Congress introduced resolutions demanding that the U.S. Representative to the United Nations be instructed to seek postponement of any international determination of the status of Transjordan until the future status of Palestine as a whole was determined. The U.S. State Department also received a long detailed legal argument from Rabbis Wise and Silver objecting to the independence of Transjordan.<112>

In 1946 Transjordan applied for membership in the United Nations. The President of the Security Council, speaking in his capacity as the representative of Poland, said that Transjordan was part of a joint Mandate. He denied that the Mandate had been legally terminated and asserted the rights and obligations of the United Nations. He mentioned that US Secretary of State Byrnes had spoken out against premature recognition of Transjordan, and he added that the application should not be considered until the question of Palestine as a whole was addressed.<113> Transjordan's application for UN membership was not approved. At the 1947 Pentagon Conference, the USA advised the UK it was withholding recognition of Transjordan pending a decision on the Palestine question by the United Nations.<114>

During the General Assembly deliberations on Palestine, there were suggestions that it would be desirable to incorporate part of Transjordan's territory into the proposed Jewish state. A few days before 29 November 1947 decision on partition, U.S. Secretary of State Marshall noted frequent references had been made by the Ad Hoc Committee regarding the desirability of the Jewish State having both the Negev and an "outlet to the Red Sea and the Port of Aqaba."<115> According to John Snetsinger, Chaim Weizmann visited President Truman on 19 November 1947 and said it was imperative that the Negev and Port of Aqaba be under Jewish control and that they be included in the Jewish state.<116> Truman telephoned the US delegation to the UN and told them he supported Weizmann's position.<117>

The British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948,<118> However, early in 1948, the United Kingdom announced its firm intention to end its mandate in Palestine on May 14. In response, President Harry S. Truman made a statement on March 25 proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition, stating that "unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means... unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result."<119>

The Jewish Leadership led by future Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared independence on the afternoon of Friday, May 14, 1948 (5 Iyar 5708 (Hebrew calendar date), with the declaration to become effective from the end of the Mandate at midnight of that day.<120><121> The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation, and was quickly recognised by the Soviet Union, the United States, and many other countries, but not by the surrounding Arab states. Over the next few days, approximately 700 Lebanese, 1,876 Syrian, 4,000 Iraqi, 2,800 Egyptian troops invaded Palestine.<122> Around 4,500 Transjordanian troops, commanded by 38 British officers who had resigned their commissions in the British army only weeks earlier (commanded by General Glubb), invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs (in response to the Haganah's Operation Kilshon<123>), as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. On the date of British withdrawal, the Jewish provisional government declared the formation of the State of Israel. The partition plan required that the proposed states grant full civil rights to all people within their borders, regardless of race, religion or gender. Although Israel acknowledged that obligation, legal scholars, including Prof. James Crawford and Prof. William Thomas Mallison, have noted that Israel did not comply with the prescribed conditions for protection of minorities.<124><125>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine#Termination_of_the_Mandate

[shira]

49. There's nothing here disputing what I previously wrote. n/t

[bemildred]

54. United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a resolution adopted on 29 November 1947 by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Its title was United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) Future Government of Palestine.

The resolution noted Britain's planned termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and recommended the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area being under special international protection, administered by the United Nations. The resolution included a highly detailed description of the recommended boundaries for each proposed state.<1> The resolution also contained a plan for an economic union between the proposed states, and a plan for the protection of religious and minority rights. The resolution sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims to the Mandate territory of two competing nationalist movements, Zionism (Jewish nationalism) and Arab nationalism, as well as to resolve the plight of Jews displaced as a result of the Holocaust. The resolution called for the withdrawal of British forces and termination of the Mandate by 1 August 1948, and establishment of the new independent states by 1 October 1948.

A transitional period under United Nations auspices was to begin with the adoption of the resolution, and lasting until the establishment of the two states. However, war broke out and the partition plan was never implemented by the Security Council. On March 5, 1948, the United Nations Security Council reached an impasse when it refused to pass a resolution which would have accepted the partition plan as a basis for Security Council action. The United States subsequently recommended a temporary UN trusteeship for Palestine "without prejudice to the character of the eventual political settlement", and the Security Council voted to send the matter back to the General Assembly for further deliberation. The General Assembly decided to appoint a Mediator, and relieved the Palestine Commission from any further exercise of responsibility under resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947.

The proposed plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency.<2><3> However, the plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community (the Palestine Arab Higher Committee etc.),<2><4> who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League. In a communication to the United Nations Palestine Commission dated 19 January 1948, the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine stated that it was "determined persist in rejection partition and in refusal recognize UNO resolution this respect and anything deriving therefrom".<5> Two minor exceptions to this rejectionist line were the National Liberation League in Palestine, an Arab-Palestinian Communist faction which supported the Partition Plan (since it followed all Soviet policies), and Emir Abdullah of Transjordan, who in strictly private discussions was in favor of the partition plan - under the assumption that the Arab state under the plan would be annexed to Transjordan - yet never publicly accepted the plan (he later suggested that Transjordan should annex the whole mandate territory and establish a Jewish autonomous entity, to be eventually aligned with the rest of the Arab countries).<6>

The passing of the UN resolution marked the start of the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine.<7>

Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not acceptable to both sides. In September 1947, before any plan for a smooth transition of power had been formed, the British government unilaterally announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end on 14 May 1948.<8>

During their withdrawal, the British refused to hand over territory or authority to any successor. On 14 May 1948, the day that Britain had announced it would end the Mandate and the day when the last high commissioner left the territory, the Jewish community in Palestine published a Declaration of Independence which announced the creation of the State of Israel. The Declaration did not define what the borders of the new state were. On the following day, 15 May, most of the remaining British troops departed. Also on 15 May, five Arab armies crossed the borders of what had formerly been Mandate Palestine. This event marked the beginning of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

more

[azurnoir]

46. but Israel accepted it and has been trying to get out of that all along

and no I am not wrong Israel also accepted the 1949 armistice no one saving a few hard right wingers supporting the Greater Israel plan has taken the League of Nations seriously in at least a couple of generations

[shira]

48. The Palestinians rejected the Partition Plan and no one claims any of it is valid anymore...

The armistice lines are just that - lines - not borders.

You're wrong, but do continue to reject facts.

[azurnoir]

51. yes I frequently reject YOUR so called facts and will continue to do so n/t

[azurnoir]

35. A "dissi" how cute

and a dissi that seems to promote the dream of Black September or a well worded variation on it no less wow what's not here for Hard Right Israeli nationalists to luv

[Monk06]

4. Sure would solve the whole damn problem in one go. It also has historical and existing precedent nt

[bemildred]

6. Ignorant babble:

"The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and The British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923.<1> The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.<1> The mandate formalised British rule in the Southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948. With the League of Nations' consent on 16 September 1922, the UK divided the Mandate territory into two administrative areas, Palestine, under direct British rule, and autonomous Transjordan, under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Kingdom of Hejaz in present-day Saudi Arabia, in accordance with the McMahon Correspondence of 1915.<1> Following the 1922 Transjordan memorandum, the area east of the Jordan river became exempt from the Mandate provisions concerning the Jewish National Home.<1><2>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine

[oberliner]

7. Nothing in the Wikipedia entry you provided contradicts anything in the OP

It seems that the MK chose his words carefully enough, referencing the Balfour Declaration and San Remo conference, both of which pre-date the Transjordan memorandum. Prior to 1922, both territories constituted parts of the same mandate.

[bemildred]

9. It certainly contradicts the idea that Jordan and Palestine are the same.

It would be equivalent to saying, in the French case, that Syria and Lebanon are the same, an idea popular in Syrian government circles, but not widely accepted elsewhere.

Jordan and Palestine clearly are not the same and never were the same. The Wiki quote also contradicts the notion the the Palestinians were ever intended to be re-settled East of the Jordan. Whether you choose to construe the MKs words so as to make out that he is not a fool or a liar is up to you.

[shira]

10. It does nothing of the sort. What you quoted just limits the Jewish homeland to west of the Jordan.

Jordan is part of the original Palestine Mandate every bit as much as Gaza, Israel, and the W.Bank.

[bemildred]

11. One of the things that is most worrisome about Israeli politics is the looney solipsist way

people just make things up and confuse wishes and desires with facts. The "Palestine Mandate" is not "Palestine" any more than the "Louisiana Purchase" is "Louisiana". This is all an attempt to construct some fig-leaf of a legal pretext for expelling "undesirables" to the East so as not to have to make any "painful concessions".

[shira]

12. The Palestinians making up 80% of Jordan's population are just as Palestinian as Gazans or W.Bankers

And what's interesting about the OP is the call for no one to be expelled. In the event Palestinians have self-rule in Jordan, Palestinians in the W.Bank (as well as Gaza) can stay and vote in Jordan's elections as equal (dual) citizens.

[bemildred]

13. It will require more than this sort of shallow playing with words to resolve the problem, Maam. nt

[Mosby]

29. tell that to the palestinians

Who want to play games and go to th un ga for recognition and ignore 242/338.

[bemildred]

38. Yeah, heaven forfend anybody should play any games. nt

[Mosby]

62. Well it would be nice if both sides would quit with the stupid shit and get serious.

[shira]

63. I don't believe an Israel with a majority Meretz/Labor coalition could make peace with the PA....

...and they'd be every bit as viciously demonized internationally by Israel haters as a Likud/Beitenu/Kadima coalition.

So it's not about both sides being serious.

Israel's tried everything AFAIC and none of it has worked to bring about peace. Peace isn't happening in our generation. An end to occupation and settlements, for the most part, can happen. Peace, no. Those who call for an end to occupation/settlements should be honest enough to admit that won't bring peace but at best something like a cold war / war of attrition, with Israel reacting to cross-border attacks from the WB as they occasionally do now with Gaza/Lebanon.

It is and always has been a religious conflict that is impossible to resolve. The best Israel can hope for is to end the Gaza blockade, leave as much as the WB as possible (minus some settlements and areas needed for security), and hope for as much quiet as we see between Israel/Gaza and Israel/Lebanon right now. The conflict will continue.

I'm hopeful that a genuinely peaceful, 2 state solution materializes soon, but I give it a 0.00000000000001% chance of actually happening.

[Mosby]

78. I mostly agree with your analysis

but I think the GOI could be doing a much better job getting out their message and putting a plan/process out there for consideration.

[shira]

82. I agree - just put out a standing offer along the lines of the Clinton Initiative or Olmert's offer

Explain how that's about the best they can offer, take it or leave it, if Palestinians truly want their own homeland and peace.

Put the pressure back on the PA to explain why neither offer is good enough.

[Ken Burch]

23. Why should they have to vote in Jordan's elections rather than Israel's?

It's meaningless to say they can vote in Jordanian elections but NOT the elections that actually effect anything that happens where THEY live.

They would be voting in one country's elections and be powerless in their own homes under this proposal. They would STILL be at the mercy of the IDF. How could you think Palestinians in the West Bank would EVER accept this?

It's a perpetuation of the disgusting idea that Palestinians in the Territories are the ONLY people in the world who should never be allowed to govern themselves(as they would not be allowed to be if they were only voting in Jordanian elections.)

This proposal would do nothing to stop Hamas, either, shira.

It would only make Hamas grow. Neither of us wants that.

I can't believe you don't understand how demagogic it is for you to even try to revive the "Jordan is Palestine" canard.

[shira]

28. Maybe they could still vote for their local leadership.

I think it's a pipe dream that will never happen.

I'm still for 2 states but what would change in YOUR view if Palestinians assumed control of Jordan and had self-rule there? How does that change the conflict in your opinion?

[Ken Burch]

31. Again, I can compare it to the Northern Ireland situation

After 1922, there was a more-or-less independent 26-county Irish entity(called the Irish Free State until 1922, and forced for many years to accept insulting conditions such as the requirement that the Irish parliament, the Dail, was required to swear an oath of allegiance to the British Crown)and a six county "Northern Ireland" in which the Catholic/nationalist minority was brutally repressed by the Protestant Unionist majority-a situation that made it inevitable that the Irish Republican Army would live on and that both communities in the North would use horrific violence against each other.

The fact that there might be a government in Jordan that was Palestinian-controlled would not change the fact that the Palestinians in the West Bank are living in a basically unjust situation. They need to be given control of their own destiny without having to leave their homeland.

And since the West Bank Palestinians would still feel(and be)oppressed, the rage that fuels support for groups like Hamas, and those even worse than Hamas, would never abate, but only grow, especially since it's still likely that IDF troops would be all around and that there would continue to be restrictions of the daily lives of Palestinians in the West Bank, since the proposal would mean that the West Bank would be annexed(and then, god help us all, there'd be even more lost of Palestinian land to Israelis).

Yes, Palestinians should be freed from having to live under the Hashemite kingdom, but no, that DOESN'T mean Palestinians shouldn't get the right to self-determination in their ancestral home.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians requires that all grievances be addressed and resolved. It means that all injustices need to be acknowledged AND rectified(on both sides, of course). That can't happen if Israel ends up annexing the West Bank.

The "Jordan Is Palestine" canard is nothing but a recipe for keeping the war going forever. This may be in the interest of the Israeli political leadership(since they only matter in global politics if they can argue that Israel's survival is in question and that they are in a war)but it isn't in the interest of the Israeli people.

[shaayecanaan]

57. I think Israel would then be in immense trouble...

the only reason Israel has had a relatively quiet occupation in the West Bank is because of Jordan, which is nearly as concerted in its attempts to combat Palestinian militants as Israel is.

If the Palestinians successfully took over Jordan (and I don't think that there are many prospects of that just yet) there could be a major change on that front.

[shira]

61. I agree...

If Abdullah II is overthrown, what follows him is most likely worse WRT Israel's interests.

How would you view a Palestinian takeover of Jordan? Would you count that as a Palestinian state? Would you be in favor of a Jordan/W.Bank/Gaza united Palestine?

[shaayecanaan]

87. The proportion of Palestinians in Jordan is nothing like 80%

its a majority but nowhere near that sort of number.

I would favour Jordan becoming a democratic republic, and its future being determined by its own people, both East Bankers and West Bankers. Of course, being a staunch liberal yourself (ha ha!) you would no doubt favour the same thing.

[shira]

88. If the majority is Palestinian, then it would be a Palestinian state...

....under either a Palestinian dictatorship or a Palestinian controlled representative democracy.

"I would favour Jordan becoming a democratic republic, and its future being determined by its own people, both East Bankers and West Bankers. Of course, being a staunch liberal yourself (ha ha!) you would no doubt favour the same thing."

Me too, but I favor a genuinely liberal democracy - not a democracy that puts the MB or other nutter totalitarians in power for life (like Hamas in Gaza, Iran). How about yourself?

[shaayecanaan]

90. That would mean that America is a Protestant state...

seeing as the majority of Americans are Protestants.

I would prefer to see Jordan as a republic of all its citizens equally, which after all is supposed to be what a republic is all about.

'Me too, but I favor a genuinely liberal democracy - not a democracy that puts the MB or other nutter totalitarians in power for life'

Well, a democracy is just that - the people decide. So if the people of Israel want a former terrorist to represent them again just like Yitzhak Shamir (whom you conceded was a terrorist) then that is a decision for them, just as it is a decision for Israelis or Egyptians whether they want theocratic parties like Shas or the Muslim Brotherhood to represent them.

[shira]

91. Democracy is more than that....

More like checks and balances, separate judicial vs. legislative vs. executive, freedom of speech, press, equal rights for women, gays......

The MB and other theocrats refuse to operate within those parameters.

[shaayecanaan]

107. Absolutely...

I think separation of powers is very important.

Hopefully Egypt will finally have an independent judiciary under the new political order.

[shira]

114. How about the other features of a liberal democracy? Just as important or not? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

14. This view is the mirror-image of the 'One State Solution' idea

The Palestinians and Jordanians (despite ethnic similarity) are not going to live happily in one state under present circumstances, any more than the Palestinians and Israelis.

The only possible realistic solution is two states.

[whosinpower]

15. no real surprise

I read a couple of days ago that the Shomron Council sent a letter to the UN suggesting something very very very similiar..... that Jordon IS Palistine - and those who want their own state should move there.

Someone stated that this was just a very small minority......and yet here we are.

It clarifies the settler expansion.

[shira]

16. It's still a very small minority. No one's calling for Abdullah II from Jordan to step aside

...and allow Palestinian self-rule. I'm certain Israel (and most Israelis) are against that, as the situation lends itself to the MB (Hamas) eventually taking over and making the situation worse.

I just think it's an interesting idea, that's all - not that I support it.

It's also interesting to see how the so-called pro-Palestinians here react to 80% of Jordan's population (Palestinians) being disenfranchised. You know what I believe; most pro-Palestinians are nothing of the sort as they're anti-Israel haters. Hate is the glue that binds Hamas, the PLO, theocrats, Baathists, Hezbollah, etc... and their "progressive" western supporters. A bunch of sad, sick souls....

[Ken Burch]

22. None of us favor Palestinians in Jordan being disenfranchised and you know it.

But it's simply wrong to argue that Palestinians in the West Bank should have to choose between moving to Jordan or havingt their homeland annexed by Israel.

"Jordan is Palestine" is an idea that no Palestinian will ever accept. It's demagogic to even try to revive this old idea. Even Ariel Sharon gave up on it decades ago.

Please don't do this, shira.

[shira]

30. "Jordan is Palestine" is definitely an idea most Palestinians in Jordan would accept, right?

If that happens and Israel annexes 10-20% of the settlement areas in response, giving the rest of the WB to Jordan after Palestinians assume autonomy there, then that would make for nearly 80% of the original Palestine Mandate coming under Palestinian rule (most of the WB, all Gaza, all Jordan).

Do you think in that scenario there should be 3 separate Palestinian states (WB, Gaza, Jordan) or one big Palestine?

Do you think if Israel did that in response to a Palestinian takeover of Jordan that would be fair?

Just curious...

[whosinpower]

40. I am not so sure

As the settler movement continues to be a force to be reckoned with in very real terms - and they want all of Judea and Samaria - aka - the West Bank.

The rhetoric goes something like this - is the Government of Israel going to deny the rights of jewish settlers to live and build anywhere they want to? Will the government FORCE them to leave? It has, in the past, and has not been met with quiet acquiescence.

I also think all ideas should be put out in the open to be debated - this one included. That does not mean that I agree with it, because I do not. But I would rather it out in the open and rejected for sound reasons rather than background noise.

You bring up an interesting point, and that is that IF Jordon becomes Palistine, this may lead to Hamas eventually taking over. Taken at its conclusion then, you would deny the palistinians any chance anywhere, even if NOT in the West Bank, to form its own independant state. And yet, Israel abhors the idea of taking on these citizens as their own.....so what are they, being the palistinians to do? They should give up their dreams of an independant democratic state, in favour of a Jordanian monarchist dictatorship? Really?

[shira]

42. 2 points...

1. You mentioned the settlers, however more than 2/3 of them are not religious/crazy types who want the entire West Bank.

2. If Jordan becomes Palestine, Israel can't and won't do anything about it - just as Israel can't and won't do anything about Egypt falling into the hands of the MB - and just as Israel can't/won't do anything as Lebanon becomes more of a Hezbollah state. Israel can be concerned about these situations but they can't/won't do anything about them unless attacked.

[whosinpower]

47. Trying to divest yourself

Of your own point?

No one's calling for Abdullah II from Jordan to step aside
...and allow Palestinian self-rule. I'm certain Israel (and most Israelis) are against that, as the situation lends itself to the MB (Hamas) eventually taking over and making the situation worse.

Please clarify, because now it would appear that you are walking back from that statement. And from my read, it would appear that you are suggesting palistinian self rule equates to Hamas taking over and therefore an arguement against a democratic palistinian state and favours a monarchist dictatorship for their leadership in Jordan.

I did indeed mention the settlers. If the majority of Israeli's are against them.....then why is there such support for their endeavours?

[shira]

50. Huh?

Whatever Israel wishes to happen WRT Jordan and whatever happens are 2 different things. You implied that Israel would somehow deny Palestinian statehood in all forms, including Jordan, and I wrote back that Israel cannot stop that even if they wanted to. In the event the Arab Spring comes to Jordan and Palestinians assume rule there, I'm certain Israel would call for the continuation of peace and try to remain on good terms with Jordan. Not that Abdullah II is a such a swell guy, but chances are slim to none something better than Abdullah II would result after his overthrow.

As to the settlements, realize there have been no new ones built since Oslo, something Israel decided on its own outside the Oslo parameters. Once Israel thought the Palestinians would negotiate in good faith for their own state, they decided not to build anymore new settlements. You think the more radical settlers translate such an action into support for their endeavors?

[LeftishBrit]

17. I would also add...

that Eldad is VERY far-right; his party, National Union, is explicitly to the right of the Likud.

[shaayecanaan]

27. They are more or less the remnants of the Kahanist movement...

since it was banned as a terrorist group following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

I'd feign shock or outrage but to be quite honest the rhetoric from some quarters on this discussion board has been reminiscent of the National Union for a long time now.

[Never Stop Dancin]

18. I haven't seen

anything about this on DebkaFILE yet. I'll reserve judgment on whether it's real.

[Ken Burch]

19. It's simply wrong to try to revive the "Jordan is Palestine" canard.

No one in the whole world believes that, and even in Israel only a tiny handful of extreme rightists want to make Palestinians settle for that.

You can't seriously be endorsing what this idiot is calling for.

[shira]

24. With the "Arab Spring" going on, it's at least a possibility...

Are you actually against Jordan's 80% Palestinian population assuming control and, in effect, making Jordan into a Palestinian homeland? Look around the region - maybe it can happen - right? What are your thoughts on Jordan becoming Palestine via the Arab Spring? What if they granted citizenship to all Palestinians worldwide and invited them to vote in elections? Would you be for that?

Moreoever, what do you make of Mudar Zahran, the Jordanian Palestinian interviewed in post #1 above? Does he appear liberal/progressive to you or rightwing and demagogic? Just curious.

[Ken Burch]

32. I'm not sure what to make of Mr. Zahran.

I don't know, at this point, who he speaks for and where he fits in in the Palestinian political culture.

And of course I'm not against Palestinians in Jordan getting freedom. No "pro-Palestinian" poster here is, and it's disturbing that you keep implying that any of us would be.

What we are against is the notion that "Jordan is Palestine" somehow ends the need for a Palestinian state.

Practical question. You appear to assume that, if your scenario played out, Hamas and the other crazies would suddenly become irrelevant. Why, might I ask, would you think that? If, as you insist, such groups are driven solely by antisemitism, wouldn't they keep on going anyway as long as Israel continued to exist?

[shira]

33. I'm not saying Hamas becomes irrelevant if Jordan is controlled by Palestinians...

It's a complex scenario in which the possibility exists that Jordan becomes the Palestinian homeland along with all Gaza and most of the W.Bank (perhaps the exception being the major settlement areas making up 10% of it now). Who knows how that could play out. Maybe 3 different Palestinian rulers in each of the 3 Palestinian homelands? Or one united leadership, who knows? I'm not calling for Israel to annex the W.Bank.

I would think if that scenario played out, the world would consider the conflict over as Palestinians would finally have their homeland on at least 75% of the original Palestine under Ottoman/British rule.

Would you consider it over?

[Recursion]

72. Why don't the Israelis go to Jordan and make it a Jewish homeland? (nt)

[shira]

81. They have zero connection with that land, unlike Israel. n/t

[Recursion]

92. OK, now, apply that same logic to Palestinians

You can make the correct argument with Israelis, why not with Palestinians?

[shira]

99. You don't believe Palestinians have any connection to Jordan? Are you serious? n/t

[Recursion]

109. Sure, a lot of them are refugees there. It's the same relation New Orleans has with Houston (nt)

[shira]

112. When TransJordan was created in 1921, the vast majority of its population were ___________?

That's 80% of the original Palestine Mandate, BTW.

You believe the people east of the Jordan River after 1921 were no longer Palestinians once TransJordan was created?

[Recursion]

115. Not living where they are now (nt)

[Recursion]

119. And, more seriously, the correct answer is "Bedouins"

And there weren't very many of them. That truly was a "land without a people", and maybe the Israelis should have gone there.

[azurnoir]

41. This thread does if nothing else clarify a couple of things I have recently seen posted here

the first being the claim that Jordan is not a legitimate country

and the second is that the treaty between Israel and Jordan is little more than 'words on paper'

keep in mind these 2 items were posted by ProIsrael posters

[shira]

52. Here's what this thread tells me...

If in the future Palestinians assume control of Jordan, in effect making it the Palestinian homeland along with most of the W.Bank and all Gaza, it doesn't appear the anti-Israel crowd would be all too happy about that. What do you think of a Palestine consisting of all Jordan, 90% of the W.Bank excluding the settlement blocs, and all Gaza? If that happened would you consider the conflict over and be happy for the Palestinians having over 80% of the original Palestine Mandate?

Or would you be unhappy that Israel would get 10% of the major settlement blocs and the conflict should therefore continue until that becomes part of Palestine too?

====

Do you think Jordan is a legit country with the minority Hashemites in command of it?

How do you get "that the treaty between Israel and Jordan is little more than 'words on paper'"?

====

What do these things tell you exactly? Can you be clear?

[azurnoir]

53. a future attempt at delegitimizing Jordan as country?

the give away to this is the claim that 80% of Jordanians are Palestinians because the same hard right crew that is promoting this will also tell us that there is no Palestine hence no Palestinians just a bunch of assorted Arabs that almost all emigrated to the Jewish homelands after 1922 even though there is no reliable evidence for this claim which would have us believe that prior to that time the Palestine mandate was inhabited only by Jews and with perhaps a couple of Arabs scattered here and there

[tootrueleft]

65. Bingo. I was just thinking the same before I got to your post.

Monday..."Theres no such thing as palestine"

Tuesday..."Jordan is palestine"

Wednesday..."There was no need for a flotilla because Israel let enough through"

Thursday..."Theres another flotilla happening?...Now that the rafah crossing is open, theres no need for a flotilla"

Both sides of their mouths all time. Bullshit doublespeak the likes of which Jon Stewart would be proud to air.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tootrueleft]

70. And who exactly is an israel hater round here?

[shira]

71. I didn't expect an answer to my questions. Usual BS... n/t

[tootrueleft]

74. Just like the one I asked you last week that sent you running with your tail between your legs?

So, whos the israel haters?

[shira]

76. And you still haven't answered....

Israel haters are those who tend to be megaphones of ultra-far right, antisemitic, theocratic, illiberal regimes and militias calling for Israel's utter destruction.

[tootrueleft]

77. Israel haters....LOL You make accusations you don't have the guts to back up.

[shira]

79. Well if you don't fit the description, you're not an Israel hater - right?

It's against forum rules to personally attack others here.

And you still haven't answered me. Heck, you didn't answer me here either...
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=351752&mesg_id=351778

BTW, which question did I not answer from you?

[tootrueleft]

83. I'm most certainly not an israel hater. Thats why I'm not afraid to speak in her best interests.

A friend who excuses your unacceptable bahavior is no friend at all. And this friend says to Israel "Isn't it enough to be given your own country at the expense of so many? You have the weapons, you have the worlds only superpower at your back. Give these people the humanity and future that was tried to be taken from you."

But thats not enough, is it?

[shira]

86. So if you're also a friend of the Palestinians, what do you say to them in their best interests?

n/t

[tootrueleft]

96. Try answering some questions yourself before you demand it of others.

[shira]

97. What question(s) do you have for me and I'll gladly answer you.

Will you answer my questions afterwards?

[tootrueleft]

101. Who are the israel haters round here you refer to?

I'll answer any question I feel relevant to the OP, but will not tolerate infantile attempts to lead.

[shira]

103. Do you realize personal attacks here violate DU civility rules?

You're asking me to violate forum rules.

And I didn't expect you to answer much of anything. The pro-Palestinian contingent tends to hide/obscure their views as much as possible.

[tootrueleft]

104. So its OK to mouth off accusations once you don't point a finger. Seems pretty cowardly to me.

It's ok to attack fellow DUers once you don't make it officially 'personal' by naming them?

Tut tut.

[shira]

105. Let me know when you're up for a real discussion/debate where you actually answer questions. n/t

[tootrueleft]

122. Yet you refuse to answer questions yourself. Can't say I blame you given the positions you're taking

on a liberal board.

[shira]

123. I don't mind answering anything within forum rules...

But I've found that opposing viewpoints here on I/P generally tend to mimic extreme, far rightwing 3rd world ultra-conservative, theocratic, fascist, antisemitic ideology.

Basically mouthpieces for Hamas, the PLO, Hezbollah, etc. The activism of some people here is based on their ideology.

That doesn't belong on a liberal board, don't you agree?

=======

I wonder what you believe to be liberal WRT the I/P conflict...

[tootrueleft]

124. Rules like "Do not publicly accuse anyone of anti-Semitism, racism, or any bigoted bias"?

[azurnoir]

73. answers albeit your first question based on a false premise

1. Do you believe if the majority Palestinian population takes over Jordan that it should be a Palestinian state?

Jordan has a population of approximately 6,200,000 of which approximately 2,700,000 are of Palestinian origin the answer to your first question is no Jordan is the country of Jordanians not Palestinians

2. Do you still believe there's a need for a flotilla?

yes because at present Rafah is open only for limited numbers of Palestinian people to pass through not commerce, so yes there is still a need for for flotilla

[shira]

80. I wonder where those numbers come from...

Here's Al Jazeera saying more than half are Palestinians...

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/2010/07/2010748131864654.html

There are no precise statistics but it is true that at least half of Jordan's population of about 6.2 million people are of Palestinian origin

Look also at the quotes in #75 below and tell me what you think.

Lastly, what would Gazans get from a flotilla that they can't get otherwise?

[azurnoir]

84. first the complete statement from your al jazeera link that you paraphrase

The argument that the majority of Jordanians are of Palestinian origin and that Jordan is therefore already the de facto homeland of the Palestinians is hypocritical and erroneous.

There are no precise statistics but it is true that at least half of Jordan's population of about 6.2 million people are of Palestinian origin. But that is a result of Israeli expansionism and a deliberate policy of emptying Palestinian lands of Palestinians.

my numbers came from here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people

This page was last modified on 1 June 2011 at 16:42.

as to the flotilla that would depend entirely on what the flotilla brings but more building materials, clean water, medicines, and fuel are needed in Gaza for starters

[shira]

100. So do you believe if the majority of Jordan is Palestinian, they're disenfranchised?

The flotilla doesn't need to bring anything to Gaza that they don't already get from Israel, the tunnels, and now with Egypt open.

Not even building materials.

They're building yet another mall with the building materials you say they don't have.....
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=221934

Are they building that with popsicle sticks, string and glue?

[Recursion]

117. What will you say when a majority of people between the Jordan and the Med are Arab?

It's going to happen before too long. Even the IDF can't kill all of them.

[jimmie]

56. I think that was tried...

oh yes , I remember now..... it was called BLACK SEPTEMBER when for some reason hussein blew away thousands of palestinians and the world so outraged they did nothing.

yup, jordian is a palestinian state.

[Recursion]

66. I declare Shira's backyard the Palestinian homeland

Problem solved.

:eyes:

You cannot erase Palestine from history, though the constant attempts to do so are kind of amusing.

[shira]

68. Do you believe...

...that if the majority Palestinian population takes control of Jordan, it should become at least a major part of the Palestinian state?

[Recursion]

69. No, it's already a Hashemite Bedouin state

And the Palestinians living there want to be back in Palestine.

And you're skipping over the point of my absurd comparison, that European colonialists need to stop telling Arabs what to do with their own damn land.

[shira]

75. Fascinating. It's only Hashemite b/c European colonialists installed them as rulers

...and disenfranchised the majority Palestinian population.

You support that?

Worse, you believe all Palestinians in Jordan originate from west of the Jordan River?


====

Some quotes for you to chew on:

"Palestine and Transjordan are one." King Abdullah, Arab League meeting in Cairo, 12 April 1948

We are the government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of Palestine." Prime Minister of Jordan, Hazza' al-Majali, 23 August 1959

"Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is one people and one land, with one history and one and the same fate." Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2 February 1970

"Jordan is not just another Arab state with regard to Palestine, but rather, Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan in terms of territory, national identity, sufferings, hopes and aspirations." Jordanian Minister of Agriculture, 24 September 1980

"The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan." King Hussein 1981

[azurnoir]

85. well it seems those quote became obsolete on July 31, 1988

when Jordan ceded the West Bank to the PLO, you know what is generally touted only as Jordan stripping citizenship from Palestinians

[Recursion]

93. +1

Yes, exactly

[shira]

102. So Jordan = Palestine and Palestine = Jordan was acceptable until 1988? n/t

[Recursion]

118. No! Why is that so hard to understand?

It wasn't acceptable to the Palestinians then or now. Whether they are represented in Jordan's (monarchic) government is an orthogonal question.

[Recursion]

94. Why are we still talking about this? I already declared your backyard their homeland

Why aren't you letting them all move in now?

[shira]

98. Typical deflection/evasion. n/t

[Recursion]

108. It's not evasion at all; it's a direct example of how absurd this is

You can't make up for wiping Palestine off the map by wiping Jordan off the map.

[shira]

110. LOL....now Palestine was wiped off the map? Unreal.

There could have been a Palestine multiple times from the 1937 Peel Plan right up to Olmert's offer in 2008.

The powers that be aren't interested unless Israel gets wiped off the map.

[Recursion]

111. Of course it was. Stop trying to be cute. (nt)

[shira]

113. Was 80% of it wiped off the map when TransJordan was formed by colonial powers in 1921? n/t

[Recursion]

116. Pretending a people does not exist is bad for the soul

I hope you can get over this some day.

[Ignis]

95. And if a single Palestinian lives there, he's 80% of the population.

Don't you dare dispute my math, or thou shalt be labelled an "Israel hater."

[Never Stop Dancin]

106. Give it up

Israel ain't goin anywhere. Mkay.

[Ignis]

120. Ooh, a tough guy! You sure showed that straw man who's boss.

:dunce: