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 > The origins and history of Jordan > Comments

The origins and history of Jordan : Comments

By David Singer, published 2/6/2009

There have been countless statements made by Arab leaders attesting to the fact that Jordan forms part of Palestine.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Whilst this article correctly states that Jordan is a creation so to is modern Israel. If we accept that the starting point of modern Israel and Jordon where the 1948 accords then peace can only come to the middle east if Israel withdraws to within the 1948 boundaries.
It is in my opinion the desire for a Greater Israel that the Zionists are after, albeit denied. To support my opinion you only need to look at the area to which Israel now claims. To now propose that Jordan expand it's borders is a folly.
Posted by beefyboy, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 10:23:07 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
Whilst I agree that it is probably a good idea to merge Palestine with Jordan, I am a bit confused, when early in your piece you suggest that King Abdullah should go, but near the end you suggest that the Hashemites have been doing a good job. Would it not be better to just keep the present government of Jordan in place, at least for a while as things get sorted out. Later on, it might then be up to the expanded country of Jordan/Palestine to work out for itself what would be the most favoured form of government.
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 10:34:14 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
David Singer,

What a brilliant idea, another Bantustan for the dispossessed Palestinians.I think it's about time philosophers recognised a new category of argument, "Zionist sophistry."
Posted by mac, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 10:41:25 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
If Jordan were to accept responsibility for the West Bank, the Israelis would expect them to contain Hamas and stop attacks on Israel. When this proved difficult, Jordan would be punished. Perhaps this is why King Abdullah dislikes this proposal.
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 12:21:44 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
This is another Israeli classic. On the one hand they are hysterical about the 'existential' threat to Israel while on the other hand they propose Palestine be 'wiped off the map'. They do this with a straight face and then blame the Jordanians for not being complicit.

What gall. How could a people lose their moral compass so badly?
Posted by dane, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 12:53:06 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
# beefyboy

Jordan expanded its borders between 1948-1967 to include all of the West Bank. I am suggesting Jordan return to that position in relation to the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank. Two states - Jordan and Israel - in former Palestine accords with historic,geographic and demographic realities. Three states don't.

#VK3AUU

I have not suggested that King Abdullah should go. That is what some of his fellow Arabs have suggested. The Hashemites have proved themselves astute and realistic politicians and rulers in 77% of Palestine since they first arrived there in the 1920's.

#mac

Who suggested dispossession or bantustans? Under my proposal not one single arab will neeed to leave his current house in the West Bank. They will all become Jordanian citizens and the borders of Jordan will be extended to incorporate the areas in which they presently reside giving them complete freedom of movement within the expanded borders of Jordan.

#benk

Jordan is presently containing Hamas within its existing borders. It will have no problems containing Hamas in the West Bank - as it did with the PLO in September 1970. Certainly Israel would be ready to assist. Both countries have mutual security interests. King Abdullah would obviously prefer to not get involved. But the failure of all attempts to create a new state between Israel and Jordan over the last 15 years leaves Jordan's return to the West Bank the only practical solution to ending the claims by the Jews and the Arabs to the territory once called Palestine. Both peoples will end up with less than many of their fellow brethren want. So be it. Its time to get on with life and bury the old grievances. Arabs with a state in about 80% of former Palestine. Jews with a state in about 20% of former Palestine. Everyone keeps on living where he is. Seems like a fair outcome to me.
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 1:43:41 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
It matters not one jot what you think mate the decision will be made by the people that live there. To unilaterally decide that Jordan will become Palestine without taking into account the wants and views of the people who live there at the moment is just the height of imperialistic arrogance and bound to be rejected.
Another tactic from the "there were no palestinians" brigade with their eletist, inhuman attitudes towards their neighbors.

Why shouldnt the palestinians that fled or were pushed from their homes in current day israel be allowed to return or be compensated. If someone leaves their home, for whatever reason, it is unconscionable for another to come along and declare it his property because it is currently uninhabited by its owner/s. That is theft. Hardly fair by anyones definition mate.

What about the settlements? Do they get removed? Given to israel? Become palestinians? What about Jerusalem? I note you phrased yourself real well there didnt you.
"Jordan expanded its borders between 1948-1967 to include ALL of the West Bank. I am suggesting Jordan return to that position in relation to the HEAVILY POPULATED ARAB areas of the West Bank." What a weasel.
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 3:40:50 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
David,

What happens to the Israeli "settlements" on the West Bank in your idea for a greater Jordan? I'll bet not one settler has to leave either, it's still a Bantustan.
Posted by mac, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 4:34:18 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
David

I was about to put up the exact same question as mac's. Where do the Jewish settlements stand in all of this? Some other questions arise:

How would the physical border go? What would the physical map look like?

What makes you think that Jewish Israelis would accept a pepper grinder scattering of Jewish settlements on the West Bank within a Jordanian landscape?

Just because the Arabs of the West Bank would have Jordanian citizenship and the Gazans Egyptian citizenship, how does this eliminate the 100s of checkpoints and Jews-only roads - if at all?

Who would own the resources of the physical landforms on which the Palestinians are living - Jordan, Egypt and/or Israel?

Who would control the airspace and waterways?
Posted by SJF, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 4:53:04 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
SJF. Shifting Jewish settlers out of their homes in Palestine would be fairer than the shifting of Arabs from their homes by the Zionists when they occupied Palestine as the Arabs were there legally, while the Jewish settlements are illegal.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 7:23:02 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
# dane

Palestine has already been wiped off the map and replaced by Jordan and Israel with sovereignty in only Gaza and the West Bank - 6% of former Palestine - remaining unallocated between Jews and Arabs.

# mikk

I agree that the people will make the decisions. Problem is the Arabs have been making a series of bad choices since 1937. They look set to continue that practice. That is their choice. It won't result in peace - merely prolong the conflict.

Certainly compensation should be negotiated but this is a two way street. Jews driven out of or forced to leave Arab countries need to be compensated as well.

The settlements will stay where they are and be incorporated in the expanded boundaries of Israel.

Jerusalem has already been resolved within the existing peace treaty between Israel and Jordan.

# mac

There will be one large undivided territory in the West Bank that will become part of Jordan.

# SJF

There will be no pepper grinder scattering of Jewish settlements within a Jordanian landscape. West Bank Jews will reside within the expanded borders of Israel. West Bank Arabs will reside within the expanded borders of Jordan. To the extent this might not be possible those located on the "wrong side" of the new border could be offered the option of staying where they live or offered compensation if they choose to move. I don't think the number affected would be very large. Both Jordan and Israel would be sovereign in the areas of the West Bank allocated to them in the negotiations.

# VK3AUU

Jews lived in the West Bank and Gaza before they were driven out of there in the 1948 War. The idea that the West Bank is Arab land is a furphy. It is territory to which both Jews and Arabs lay claim. Jews lived legally in the West Bank before 1948 pursuant to the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine. Their right to return and settle there after 1967 was preserved by Article 80 of the UN Charter.
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 10:54:01 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
that Jordan as a nation was “a contrivance arbitrarily devised by a few strokes of the pen”.

that Israel as a nation was “a contrivance arbitrarily devised by a few strokes of the pen”.

What is your point?
Why not one land for one people after all three are Canaanites
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 9:04:55 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
Kenny,

Yes,I don't see the point either.
It appears that only one of the 3 Canaanite peoples have all the rights to the land.

David,

the statement "there will be one large undivided territory in the West Bank that will be part of Jordan" is a smokescreen,the Zionist is in the detail. Where are those 'settlers' going,they will not have to move will they? You're drawing lines on a map with the cavalier attitude of a 19th century British imperialist.
Posted by mac, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 3:36:10 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
# Kenny

Jordan was created by Britain in 77% of Palestine - an area within which the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home was designated under the terms of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

Israel was created after six Arab armies invaded Western Palestine in 1948 in an attempt to wipe out its Jewish residents.

There appears to me to be a great deal of difference in the circumstances surrounding the creation of Jordan and Israel.

Jews and Arabs Canaanites? The Arabs didn't come to the area until the 7th century AD. Your suggestion that the Jews of the Bible or the Moslems of the Koran are in any way related to or descendants of the idol worshipping Canaanites is ludicrous. Have you seen a Canaanite lately?

# mac

The Arabs have already got all the rights to 77% of Palestine in the area of former Palestine that is today called Jordan.

I am not drawing lines on a map. They will be drawn by Israeli and Jordanian negotiators when the day inevitably comes for those face to face negotiations to occur between the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine. My confidence in this occuring is based on the fact that no other peaceful solution is possible. The only alternative is another war which surely not even you would want to see.
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 4 June 2009 1:03:36 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
There can be no union of Jordan with "Palestine" because there is no such place as "Palestine". Remember, the Egyptians and Jordan illegally gobbled it up in 1948.
Posted by Jock Walker, Sunday, 7 June 2009 7:43:02 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
# Jock Walker

I am suggesting a union of Jordan with a substantial part of the West Bank (about 90%). The West Bank is one of the few areas on this planet where no one has gained internationally recognized sovereignty - it is "no man's land" at the present time and sovereignty to it is being claimed by both Arabs and Jews.

The last Arab country to occupy the West Bank was Jordan between 1948-1967. It attempted to annex the West Bank but its action was only recognized by Great Britain and Pakistan.

In view of the stalemate in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority after 16 years of trying, it is now time to bring Jordan back into the picture to negotiate with Israel the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank between these two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine.

This is the only realistic and feasible two state solution - A Jewish State -Israel - sovereign in about 20% of the Mandate territory and an Arab State - Jordan- sovereign in about 80% of the Mandate territory.

This can be achieved by the simple expedient of redrawing the boundary between these two existing states in direct face to face negotiations between them. Issues such as water, refugees and Jerusalem have already been covered in the peace agreement Jordan and Israel signed in 1994.

This is a clearly defined path that neither the Road Map, the Arab League Peace Plan or anything uttered by President Obama last week comes even close to matching.

The sooner Jordan and Israel get these negotiations under way the sooner some end will be in prospect to a conflict which has plagued Jews and Arabs for the last 120 years.
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 9 June 2009 8:36:28 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
So what about the Arabs in Jerusalem? Do they get to stay there as Israelis and as part of their 'new' sovereign territory?

And don't 'Palestinians' want that to be a fairly central part of their 'new' state?

Or did I miss something there?
Posted by The Blue Cross, Tuesday, 9 June 2009 1:20:53 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
In his article fromt he January 2009 David Singer is reveiling his ProIsraeli sentiment Hi is advocating ocupation and ethnics clensing and you canot do anything after that..But we did not give to Germany all teritories they hed ocupayed...why to reworde Israel for 60 yr of ethnic clensing..David is probabli payed by Jewish lobby
Posted by NADIA1, Tuesday, 9 June 2009 4:52:30 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
# The Blue Cross

I am glad you are showing some interest in negotiations taking place between Jordan and Israel. Your queries will no doubt be dealt with in those negotiations when those two sovereign states sit down to try and achieve a resolution.

16 years of fruitless negotiations involving the Palestinian Authority have gone nowhere and will go nowhere because of the intransigence of the Authority in retaining the same unchanged negotiating stance for the last 42 years.

Sure this state of affairs can be allowed to fester and continue but to what end and to what purpose?

Jordan remains the key to resolving the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank between Jews and Arabs.

#NADIA1

It was the Jews that finally were ethnically cleansed from the West Bank - every single Jew living there - in 1948.

I am not advocating the ethnic cleansing of one single Arab from the West Bank. Each Arab resident will be entitled to live in his own home in the West Bank where he presently resides if that is what he wants to do.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 recognises that the Arabs will not be rewarded with the return of the whole of the West Bank.

Trouble is the Arabs are not prepared to accept this decision of the international community. Come to think of it they have never accepted any decision of the international community on Palestine since 1920. This is their perfect entitlement but it has certainly not served the best interests of the Arab population of former Palestine as the last 99 years of strife and suffering have proved.

You seem to be advocating the continuance of this rejectionist stance. That is a real pity.
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 9 June 2009 6:07:50 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
Why the author does not refer to the relevant UN resolutions on the partition of the Palestine territories and the subsequent developments?

Thanks for your attention.
Ozonder-istanbul
Posted by ozonder, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 6:59:13 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
#Ozonder

The only relevant UN Resolutions that have any binding effect are those passed by the Security Council.

The two binding Security Council resolutions are 242 and 338.

These two resolutions have not been acted on by the Arab League which still calls for the return of 100% of the West Bank and Gaza to Arab control. This is contrary to both of these resolutions which make it clear that Israel will not be required to return to the armistice lines that existed prior to the Six Day War in 1967 but only to secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

Israel is waiting for some Arab interlocutor to come and negotiate on the terms of Resolution 242. The Palestinian Authority has shown it is incapable of negotiating such an arrangement. Jordan (and possibly Egypt) have the authority and status to so negotiate because they both have signed peace agreements with Israel and were the last Arab States to occupy the West Bank and Gaza between 1948-1967.

It takes two to tango. Israel (17% of former Palestine)is on the dance floor ready to go but without a partner. The sooner Jordan (77% of former Palestine)agrees to become involved in the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza(6% of former Palestine)the sooner some hope of peace might become possible.
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:39:46 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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