The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Jordan: Abbas offers Abdullah the Kiss of Death > Comments

Jordan: Abbas offers Abdullah the Kiss of Death : Comments

By David Singer, published 13/7/2011

Jordan’s King Abdullah is clearly worried about the future direction of his country - if developments over recent weeks are any indication.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. All
To Yuyutsu:

Jordan may not be interested in returning to the West Bank (although certain indications are that it is ready to step in as I pointed out in my article). If you are right then a little bit of pressure - like that placed on Israel from time to time by the international community can - and will - achieve wonders in getting a change of heart. Jordan is the key to resolving sovereignty with Israel in the West Bank.

Why allocate sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza? Because the lack of certainty as to who is the sovereign ruler is causing grave security and humanitarian concerns for Israel, the West Bank and Gaza and the people who live there - both Jews and Arabs. It is also in the national interest of both Jordan and Egypt that sovereignty is established in the West Bank and Gaza and those who exercise sovereign control are fully accountable for everything that happens in their boundaries.

Yes - Israel left Gaza without anyone's permission and look what has happened since - a total shambles. Do you think a similar outcome in the West Bank would not happen?

Are you really that naive?
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 17 July 2011 8:15:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Avw,

I have a Christian fundamentalist for a father-in-law. He has the good grace to acknowledge his unwavering support for the actions of Israel is a weakness conferred by his faith.

As a consequence I do not take him to task as I would a person whom I felt had little reason to accept uncritically the propaganda that comes from the Israeli government. Less as a desire not to waste my time but rather as a concession to his faith. I am prepared to make the same concessions to the Jewish people I know who are supportive of the current regime and are feeling defensive about its actions..

Your claim I do not like Jews has us heading toward evoking Godwin's rule. It is unjustified, baseless, incorrect and offensive.

I no longer cut David Singer any slack as he is determined to disappear a people. His articles have offended many and border on being hateful.

Further I did not assume you were a Zionist only asked if you were Jewish and if you were not then how did you reach the view that you now hold.

As to your second paragraph it is now as qualified as it should be and acceptable as a position to argue from. If David Singer was as circumspect then we might accept his articles worthy of serious discussion. In my opinion he isn't and they generally aren't.

And I agree “there have been so many different variations to the borders of Palestine throughout history that picking any particular map from history and pointing to it as the true borders is just silly”. The most we can do is look at a map of what the British regarded as constituting Palestine at the time of the Balfour Declaration (1917), The closest we have is the map of the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) which I posted earlier not what was arbitrarily staked out as the spoils of war at San Remo (1920).

Note there were no Arab countries in the League of Nations when the vote was taken on the mandates.
Posted by csteele, Sunday, 17 July 2011 8:22:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To csteele

Like ArthurS you parrot the well trodden PLO propaganda line.

Here are a few choice examples from your post:

1. "First the reader must appreciate where the author is coming from. He is a determined purveyor of the myth that Palestine as the rest of the world knows it doesn't exist literally or historically,"

Rubbish. Palestine was the territory assigned to Great Britain by the League of Nations under the Mandate for Palestine. It comprised what is today called Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan.

2. Raising the Sykes-Picot Agreement is a classic piece of disinformation as Avw has pointed out in his earlier posts.

3. "TransJordan on the other hand was recognised as a state by the League of Nations in 1922, a quarter of a century before Israel."

Nonsense. Transjordan only became independent in 1946 two years before Israel.

4."Over 55% of the land of Palestine was given to 30% of the population for a Jewish state. Of the main area left to the Palestinians, the West Bank, over half is now controlled by settlements and the IDF."

Pity you forgot to tell OLO readers that:
(i) Of the 55% offered to the Jews - about 80% comprised the arid Negev desert whilst the mainly fertile areas were offered for an Arab state.
(ii) The Arabs rejected the proposal and sought in 1948 and 1967 to grab the lot and so far have ended up with nothing.
(iii) The Arabs could have had between 1948-1967 what they now say they will accept in 2011 and did nothing about it during that period.
(iv) The Arabs in 2001 and 2008 were offered more than 90% of what they now say they will accept but rejected both offers.

5. "Just for the record the rest of the world thinks stopping settlement construction is a reasonable precondition for the Palestinians."

Neither Oslo nor the Roadmap impose any such precondition. These currently are the only diplomatic and negotiating games in town. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is not going to happen.
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 17 July 2011 8:49:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Avw

Thank you for correcting csteele and pointing out his factual errors.

Permit me however to comment on this following sentence in your post:

"The British were given the Mandate, free to create state boundaries as they saw fit. It was not until several months after the Commission of the Mandate to Britain by the League of Nations that the British decided to divided their Mandate into a separate area east of the Jordan river, handing it over to the Hashemites."

This is not strictly accurate.

Article 5 of the Mandate stipulated:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."

Britain did not - and could not - divide the Mandate into a separate area east of the Jordan River because of Article 5.

However pursuant to article 25 of the Mandate Britain got the League of Nations to assent to the provisions of the Mandate relating to the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine not being applicable in Transjordan. Jews lost the right to establish their home in 78% of Palestine which became a Jew free and Arabs only zone.

Britain did all it could thereafter to create a separate Hashemite administration in Jew-free Transjordan but did not grant it independence until 1946 - after the demise of the League of Nations but before the creation of the United Nations. This amounted to smart British fancy footwork of dubious legal validity that no one has challenged - except the PLO which does not accept the validity of the Mandate or anything that happened after it.

For the PLO and its current Chairman - Mahmoud Abbas - Jordan still remains the major part of Palestine to be liberated.
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 17 July 2011 9:20:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Csteele:

Your earlier comment stated unequivocally

“if you are Jewish then of course … I’m possibly wasting my time”.

You did not make any distinction between a fundamentalist Jew, left-wing, or any other type. Based on this comment you did not appear to like any Jews, whatever their political persuasion is. I’m glad that you have now qualified your comment.

You also stated that I was using a distasteful tactic often used by modern Zionists, so I felt it was prudent to inform you that I was not one.

Regarding the Mandate area:

“The most we can do is look at a map of what the British regarded as constituting Palestine at the time of the Balfour Declaration”

Are you serious? Do you honestly believe the British (or the French) acted out of any sense of justice or morality, or anything other than self-interests? Do you really consider their secret partition of the Ottoman Empire as more significant than the League of Nations Mandate? I’m sorry, but this does not make any sense to me.

“As to your second paragraph it is now as qualified as it should be and acceptable as a position to argue from “

My very first post to you included the statement

“… the British Mandate of Palestine originally included the area of modern Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan”

All my posts since then, including the second paragraph you are referring to, were just re-iterating the same 'qualified' statement. It now appears you agree with me. I’m not really sure what was the basis for your earlier objection, but it’s good to see that we are now in agreement on this issue.

“Note there were no Arab countries in the League of Nations when the vote was taken on the mandates”

There were no Jewish countries in the League of Nations either.
Posted by Avw, Monday, 18 July 2011 12:21:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steele,

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/me_jordan0814_07_03.asp

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4088927,00.html

Several others, all to the effect that Jordan's King Abdullah II will not vote for Palestinian Statehood. After all, why on earth would he? His Kingdom has had nothing but grief from "Palestinian's" since the time of the Mufti, which has included several attempted coups and assassinations. Living with a State that is a failure from the day of its inception (note the "Palestinian's" still state that they cannot control their own population) and will remain so. The sooner Jordan regains control of the West Bank and imposes its will upon these loons the better.

Also, if you wish to discuss the Balfour declaration, deal with why it was written. It offered a reward for the support by the Jews of the British armies in WWI. The Arabs (and the Hashemites ain't Arabs) were offered nothing because they did not assist anyone except themselves. They had no national identity, Palestine was simply the name given to that part of the Empire, they were simply unlucky enough to live there. If they declare statehood, they'll be ignored by one neighbour, the other doesn't appear inclined to do so.

However, the very next time that they as a State, decide to attack Israel (or Jordan), the outcome is likely to be harsh indeed.
Posted by Custard, Tuesday, 19 July 2011 4:44:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy