The Forum > Article Comments > West Bank and Jerusalem Generate Jitters For Jordan > Comments
West Bank and Jerusalem Generate Jitters For Jordan : Comments
By David Singer, published 21/4/2010King Abdullah understands that any such solutions must involve Jordan and that Jordan cannot sit on the sidelines any longer.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 21 April 2010 9:14:21 AM
| |
#Kenny
1. The 1947 UN borders were never agreed to by the Arabs and were violated by six Arab armies in their bid to destroy the newly declared State of Israel on 15 May 1948. Israel will therefore never withdraw to these "Auschwitz lines". Would you? 2. The armistice lines set at the end of the 1948 hostilities - which extended beyond the 1947 borders - were never accepted by the Arabs as final borders which resulted in the Six Day War in 1967. 3. Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw to the 1948 armistice lines and recognizes the right for Israel to have secure and recognized boundaries. 17 years of negotiations since 1993 have failed to achieve any breakthrough in determining those boundaries. Until there is a breakthrough Israel will be staying where it is. The history of the conflict makes this decision perfectly justifiable - especially in the light of what happened after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005.. What the Arabs demand now was available to them at any time between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived in the area (West Bank and Gaza)- yet they were quite satisfied to become Jordanian citizens and unite the West Bank with Transjordan into one State. Perhaps it is time for you to ask the Arab states why the result of the missed opportunities over the last 63 years should not be compensated for by those Arab States - particularly Jordan. Jordan could end the conflict by once again re-entering the West Bank and uniting the Arab populated areas on both sides of the Jordan River - without one Arab having to leave his home or business. Drawing a new boundary between Israel and Jordan would transform the lives of the West Bank Arab population and allow the resettlement of the 1948 refugees and their descendants living in Syria and Lebanon. There would be no state between Jordan and Israel - but then the Arabs rejected that notion in 1937, 1947 and 1948-1967. Maybe they have to just accept the consequences of their past rejection in 2010. Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 21 April 2010 12:53:53 PM
| |
Greater Israel,what greater Israel Mr Singer Palestine was there before Israel lesser or Greater,most of this rubbish comes from the Bible a book written by a bunch of people who made it up as they went along.
But I see your backing the Murderous Settlers now,but then since you back the theft of land the concentration camp that the Palestinians a forced to live in where the IDF and the Settlers kill a few 1000 every now and then to keep them in line. How the hell you have the hide to come on here and push the Settler and Israeli Government propaganda, when you know your telling porkies and that Israel is turning into the equivalent of Iran in Western eyes over its unjust and indecent occupation,you lot learned very well of the Germans about brutality and glossing over of what they/ your Govt does /did. You really should find another record to play your getting boring and tiresome Posted by John Ryan, Wednesday, 21 April 2010 1:08:58 PM
| |
David,
I give you that you are persistent, even if your assumption are some what historically ...well shall we say biased....and the implicit assumptions are conveniently legalistic and devoid of reality. In short your argument is as irrelevant to day on the ground as Israel's claim to the land.i.e. Our god promised it to us. *Israel is a reality, so is the Palestinian claim to the land and people*. you want to split with Jordan. To legitimise a hypercritical, morally moribund, colonial hegemony, unreasonably disproportionate displays of violence and bullying. While showing the internal moral/political ineptitude of Israel. Hiding behind the skirts of the USA international protection. How short/selective is Israel's collective Memory? It is now imposing similar repression and you are expressing the same arguments that were level against the Jews in their Diaspora. Israeli didn't exist the Jews were just another separatist religious cultural grouping, who aspired for a religious home land. I ask you give the real history, why is Israel now denying the Palestinian the same human right it claimed for it's self? The realities on the ground are far more complex that your chauvinistic mental meanderings. Don't give up your day job. A wannabe plunderer is the same by any excuse. Take you war somewhere else. Undoubtedly you will see me as anti Semitic (more pathetic denial)...I respect *both sides* right to exist and am not impressed or swayed by your puerile justification. Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 21 April 2010 6:10:06 PM
| |
Here is a link to a transcript of the Abdullah's interview with WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304017404575165993793337612.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories I leave it it readers to decide whether Abdullah's actual words support the case Singer is trying to make. Posted by stevenlmeyer, Wednesday, 21 April 2010 7:52:20 PM
| |
Steven,
I was aware of that interview and of course Jordan wants the land back. BUT Jordanians don't want the the people. The prejudices are palpable (so I'm told). And yes there are issues of support for Various groups and national pride etc. There has been too much water under the bridge. One needs to look at what is there today WHAT DO THE PALESTINIANS WANT? All the they don't have a separate language etc as is nonsense likewise that they didn't try to be seen as 'Palestinians' prior to 1949. As I have said to David both here and prior to this article, his view highly selective and is seen through Jewish eyes for Jewish ends. The point of my florid language was to make that point, as it is seen by others, other than avid supporters of Israel and its "law unto it's self" mentality. The best thing that can be said for Singers argument is that it is irrelevant and simplistic.He is trying to create the most favourable situation for Israel both territorially and morally. Sorry, it doesn't wash. In truth the situation is complex and the Palestinians are a pawn/ victims on several counts. To deny them a state after all this is to tell them they have suffered for nothing. NB I bear neither side any particular angst save the fact that it isn't Australia's war and I resent ANY side in ANY war trying to manipulate us to "their side". Posted by examinator, Thursday, 22 April 2010 10:17:47 AM
|
Can you tell us why isn't solution to this problem starting with Israel moving back within the borders set in 1947?