Csteele:

The Sykes–Picot agreement was a secret agreement between France and Britain dividing spheres of influence in areas of the former Ottoman Empire. It had no international recognition, and indeed caused great embarrassment to the British once it was exposed. It is different to the eventual mandate system that was decided on by the League of Nations - under the Sykes–Picot agreement a large part of the area west of the Jordan river was supposed to be under international, rather than British, control.

Following World War I, no distinction was made in the San-Remo conference of 1920 or the Treaty of Sèvres between the areas east or west of the Jordan river. In the 1922 confirmation of the Mandate by the League of Nations again nothing was said about separating the areas east and west of the Jordan river. 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.

So you see, the British Mandate of Palestine originally included the area of modern Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan. I urge you to look this up before stating the contrary

"Its (Jordan) population is overwhelmingly comprised of Arabs (or their descendants) who fled the invasion of Palestine by six Arab armies (including Jordan) in 1948."

The myth that Palestinians fled the invasion of Palestine by Arab armies has been well and truly exploded by the renowned Jewish historian Prof Ilan Pappe using archival evidence. His book "The ethnic cleansing of Palestine" details how around a million people were expelled from their homes at gunpoint, civilians massacred, and hundreds of Palestinian villages destroyed. This was one of the largest forced migrations in modern history, and a clear example of ethnic cleansing.

Read the book if you havent already David and stop perpetuating this discredited myth.

Oh dear Avw,

It is hard to fathom there are others around who believe this stuff.

If you are Jewish then of course I must cut you some slack and acknowledge I'm possibly wasting my time, if not then how have you come by this viewpoint?

I have been through much of this with Mr Singer before, it is revisionist clap trap.

Earlier in the thread you asked for maps but then dismiss the Sykes–Picot agreement map without answering why Palestine was sectioned off at all.

Here is another from the Treaty of Serves. Sure it did include a little of the land East of the Jordan River but nothing like the eventual British Mandate.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Ottoman_Empire_by_Treaty_of_Sevres.png

It just goes to show how arbitrary these lines were and subject to change based on the Mandating groups negotiations with each other and what served the victor's interests.

They bear little relation to what has happened on the ground but should not be used to excuse Israel's violent and continuing dispossession of the Palestinian people in the West Bank.

Csteele:

“If you are Jewish then of course I must cut you some slack and acknowledge I'm possibly wasting my time”

Ethnic origin has nothing to do with holding an opinion as to how the partition of the British Mandate came about. It is disappointing to see that race-based prejudice such as yours is still so rife in on-line discussions, so often shaping one’s view instead of reason. It might surprise you to find that there are plenty of Jews who support your viewpoint, as there are plenty of non-Jews who support the exact opposite.

I fail to see the reason for the map you included or how it proves or disproves any of the issues either of us raised. I agree with you that the lines drawn were arbitrary, there is no argument about that, and this is exactly my point: the original British Mandate, as set up by the League of Nations, did not distinguish between areas east and west of the Jordan River – the entire area was defined as the British Mandate of Palestine. The distinction, ie the decision to create a new independent area to the east, was made later by the British, according to their interests at the time.

Dear Avw,

I would request you don't try and turn what is a cultural and political issue into one of race. It is a tactic and often a refuge of modern Zionists that is distasteful and whose inappropriate use has debased it's currency.

It is a fair enough assumption if a person has, in the words of William Hall whom I quoted earlier "strong material, and a very strong political interest in the future of the country" that they are, on the balance of probabilities either Jewish or a fundamentalist Christian. You appeared to be too sensible to be the latter whom I would also cut some slack.

To your second paragraph, you had objected to Arthur.S' challenge to David Singer's line "Jordan comprises 78 per cent of former Palestine, while Israel comprises 17 per cent. The remaining 5 per cent comprises the West Bank and Gaza." 

You at least on this thread have made the distinction that we are talking about the 'Mandate of Palestine'. David's sentence does not do so. You have also acknowledged the lines were arbitrary, or 'made up' by the mandating powers.

Those lines do not make Jordan Palestine no matter how much Mr Singer would wish it. He is trying to impose a 'reality' that is different to the one held by the rest of the world. 

He has that privilege of course, even more so because of his heritage, but it doesn't mean he is right nor that his arguments should go unchallenged. If you want to support them you should expect the same.

Csteele:

I am not the one who brought race into the argument – your earlier comment was a clear indication that you do not like Jews, or at the very least think it’s a waste of time talking to them.
Contrary to your assumption, I am not a Zionist. I do not have much patience for religion of any kind. I do not make the assumption that you hold your view just because you belong to one ethnic group or another. To the best of my knowledge I have never read any articles from Mr Singer. I have no idea whether he is Jewish, Buddhist or atheist, and I find it completely irrelevant to this discussion.

As for the partition of the Mandate: 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 significant recent development in the area was the fall of the Ottoman Empire and granting the Mandate of Palestine to Britain. The Mandate included the areas east and west of the river. From here it’s quite simple: the British promised land within the Mandate to both Arabs (McMahon letters) and Jews (Balfour declaration). They fulfilled their promise to the Arabs within months of getting the Mandate, giving them roughly 80% of the Mandate area. Within the remaining 20%, the Jews were eventually allocated slightly over half of the territory. So overall, the Jews were granted somewhere around 15% of the total area of the original Mandate of Palestine.