Who has the "right" to live in Israel, and why?

[Eva Luna]

Let's make this as open-ended as possible, shall we? Is there any argument to one people's right to reside in the land that is now known as Israel (or Palestine, for that matter...heck, for the sake of not getting tripped up in PC terminology, let's just call it "that general neck of the woods) that, in the end, doesn't boil down to "we were here first," or "God said it was ours, and you can't have it," or some variation thereof?

Personally, just so y'all know where I stand, I don't believe that any one people or group of peoples has any inherent right to reside anywhere in particular by mere virtue of who their ancestors happen to have been. If that were so, my native country (the U.S.) and my ancestral homeland (That General Neck of the Woods) would both be very different places, I think the human race as a whole is a bunch of mutts, and if you go back far enough, everyone is related somehow to everyone else. Maybe it's 6,000 Degrees of Separation rather than Six, but in any case, nothing that should make people blow each other up.

I'd love to collect opinions, though, so have at it!

[Duck Duck Goose]

How about, "The people who can make the most money off the place get to keep it"?

which means Disney and McDonalds get to split it

[epolo]

Without going into the details of That Neck of The Woods...

On what principle could the "right" to a piece of land be predicated?

You've specifically excluded divine right. Okay.

You've specifically excluded the right of first claim.
This seems a little odd, considering that we use it every day. Everybody knows that you don't cut to the head of the line, because those other people were there first. But, okay.

What else is there?

Might makes right? The land belongs to whomever can take it and defend it against all comers.

Right of posession? Whoever has it now has the right to it until such time as it is voluntarily ceded.

Right of highest and best use? Whoever can get the most out of the land ought to have it.

Right of greatest need? Whoever most needs the land ought to have it.

Right of special need? Whoever most needs this particular land, as opposed to any old land, ought to have it.

These are just what I could come up with off the top of my head. Would any of these be sufficient to establish a right to a piece of land?

If we don't recognize land ownership (or are we really talking about sovreignty?) as a right, what is it? Is it a privilege? Granted by whom? Is it an illusion? Are we just borrowing it from our children?

[smiling bandit]

And then comes the clincher - the Palestinians lived on the land, but by and lage didn't own, I think, bewfore the 50's. Then the Israelis boiught it. So who would then have the right to it?

[Eva Luna]

I guess this thread is largely born out of frustration with the whole situation in "That Neck of the Woods."

I guess I just have a big problem with the concept that one ethnic/religious group should have either a God- or a State-given right to a hunk of territory, based on considerations of ethnicity rather than one of the aforementioned more specific bases for land ownership, and that the determination, leading to other important life determinations like citizenship, military service, freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc. should subsequently be made on logical bases which in effect stem from the one about the right to the land, which is basically, at the moment, either a function of "God said it was ours," or "we were here first."

I didn't mean to exclude entirely the right of first claim; my point was that there seems to be so much conflicting and inconclusove evidence on that point, and besides, if Judaism was around long, long before Islam (which I don't believe anyone is disputing, BTW), weren't essentially all Muslims in the area basically originally descended from Jewish stock at some point in the not-so-distant past? Does this clarify anything?

My point: one world, one Neck of the Woods, one people. Not that religious distinctions should be meaningless in all contexts, but they shouldn't affect citizenship and residence rights.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why or why not?

[msmith537]

Physically occupying a piece of land and having an ability to defend and govern it esentially makes you a state. Historic references have little or no bearing since every nation on Earth was at some point part of another nation. Should the US give Texas back to Mexico? Do Turkey and Itally have claim to the old Ottoman and Roman Empires? No. Maybe it was a mistake to create Israel after WWII, but thats a moot point now. The fact of the matter is that the Isarelis are there now, they have the means to defend themselves, and they aren't going anywhere.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians aren't going anywhere either.

Both peoples better figure out a realistic way to live together (ie the Palestinians are NOT going to get all of Israel back) otherwise the Palestinians are going to keep suicide bombing the Israelis until they find themselves ground to hamburger under the treads of a Merkava tank.

[Sofa King]

There is only one simple answer: right of conquest. The Palestinians and their Arab neighbors were offered a compromise, they chose to eschew that offer, and were roundly and totally defeated by the Israelis in 1948. I have never heard anyone assert a viable Palestinian claim to the land they were unceremoniously kicked out of in 1948 as a result of their failed war of aggression.

Until comparatively recently, right of conquest was virtually uncontestable in international law, except by revolution or counter-conquest, both of which the Arabs have attempted--and failed--to do.

However, several U.N. resolutions have degraded the right of conquest enough to give the Palestinians a fairly decent claim to the land outside of the pre-1967 borders of Israel. Two of the most important resolutions were Resolutions 446 and 465, which can be found here and here. In true chickenshit UN fashion, those resolutions were passed in 1979 and 1980, twelve or more years after Israel took over the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

[epolo]

Originally posted by Eva Luna
I guess this thread is largely born out of frustration with the whole situation in "That Neck of the Woods."

Understandable frustration.

I guess I just have a big problem with the concept that one ethnic/religious group should have either a God- or a State-given right to a hunk of territory, based on considerations of ethnicity rather than one of the aforementioned more specific bases for land ownership...

[W]eren't essentially all Muslims in the area basically originally descended from Jewish stock at some point in the not-so-distant past?

My point: one world, one Neck of the Woods, one people. Not that religious distinctions should be meaningless in all contexts, but they shouldn't affect citizenship and residence rights.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why or why not?

Before I get around to agreeing or not, let me ask a further question of clarification.

It sounds to me like the problem you're having here is not really about the origin of the claim (G-d, history, ability to defend, etc.).

It sounds like it is about the way the collective right is preferentially extended to specific groups based on religion and ethnicity.

Is this correct?

[Eva Luna]

Originally posted by epolo


Understandable frustration.



Before I get around to agreeing or not, let me ask a further question of clarification.

It sounds to me like the problem you're having here is not really about the origin of the claim (G-d, history, ability to defend, etc.).

It sounds like it is about the way the collective right is preferentially extended to specific groups based on religion and ethnicity.

Is this correct?

More or less. Personally, I'm a rule-o'-law kind of chick. In my own private ideal universe, Palestinian and Jewish claims to property and/or citizenship rights would be decided on an individual basis, without regard to religion (or even degree of religious observance; for example, I also have a problem with Israel's refusal to consider non-Orthodox conversions to Judaism as acceptable for purposes of immigrating to Israel under the Law of Return) or ethnicity.

In practice, however, I can't conceive of a feasible way to do this; how do you document your claim to land which you say has belong to your ancestors for millenia? Archaeology is far from being an exact science, and the usual modern Western method of documenting a chain of land ownership through various pieces of paper obviously won't cut the mustard here. And when you get into the business of whether you should retain legal title to your land (which probably never had a clear legal ttile to begin with, nt he modern Western sense) if you flee under duress or perceived duress from an opposing miltary force, things get even murkier.

What I object to, then, is using ethnicity on a blanket basis to decide matters of property rights and citizenship. To me, it's like performing brain surgery with a sledgehammer; the result isn't going to make anyone happy. What should your ethnic background or religious beliefs have to do with your ability to own stuff?

And just what the heck is "ethnicity" anyway in the That Neck of the Woods context? Islam has only existed for centuries, and Judaism for a few thousand years, so I find it hard to believe that Jews and Muslims (or Jews and Arabs, however you want to slice it) are really separate peoples in a more cosmic sense anyway. All ancetors of all Jews and all Muslims were something else besides Jews and Muslims, in the not-too-distant past.

Does that clarify anything for you? I fear not...but please, do carry on.

[Eva Luna]

Plus I really do want to know if I've somehow missed out on some grand theory about some group or another's right to reside in/control That Neck of the Woods that doesn't boil down either to "God said it was ours, and you can't have it" or "we were here first."

[Boo Boo Foo]

Great thread people. Being a middle aged Australian guy, I tend to look upon these matters with great interest but also, thankfully, with a degree of distance-induced safety too.

There are some parallels here as well. The High Court here in Australia has ruled that the indiginous peoples (known as Aborigines) have freehold title to land which they can show they have lived on more or less continuously since European settlement, and that the Government has permanent lease on those lands which have since been colonised by Europeans.

My point here is this, even in a peaceful stable democratic country like Australia - a country which has stridently attempted to apply the finest principles of Canon Law and a sense of fairness to such matters, the results are still very very shaky on certain occasions - due simply to that age old conundrum - conflicting interests.

Thankfully, the indiginous folk of Australia have rather graciously accepted that European settlement has arrived and that it isn't going to go away - accordingly, in the interests of peace, all parties agree nowadays to to conduct themselves with honour and respect when trying to put new legislation into place.

Conversely, in regards to "That Neck of the Woods" (a lovely euphemism if ever I heard one) the single greatest issue I perceive as an objective outsider on the other side of the world is this - the deeply ingrained and seemingly insurmountable problems attached to tribalism.

Most socialogists will tell you that rampant tribalism (as averse to a mild version where we just follow the local football team), but really rampant tribalism is NOT a good thing - it perpetuates the cycle of recrimination etc etc.

I reckon the smartest thing the Israelis could do would be to somehow change the country's name back to Palestine. I mean, what's in a name? But boy, it sure would go a long way to watering down the gulf between the warring tribes I rather think. The goal is to narrow the divide between the sense of 'us' and 'them' it sems to me.

[Edlyn]

Joseph Farrah (an Arab Christian) has written a number of articles about the Middle East conflict which sparked my recall of events over the years. I have found it to be informative and quite a good read.

I suggest looking over the following articles for a clearer and sharper look back on previous events. Myths of the Middle East , More myths of the Middle East , and What is a Palestinian? . Farah will be honored on June 23rd with the 'Courage and Truth in Journalism' award from Americans for a Safe Israel for his Mideast reporting.

[istara]

Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo
I reckon the smartest thing the Israelis could do would be to somehow change the country's name back to Palestine. I mean, what's in a name? But boy, it sure would go a long way to watering down the gulf between the warring tribes I rather think. The goal is to narrow the divide between the sense of 'us' and 'them' it sems to me.

Australia is different in as far as there was *continuous* occuption by the Aborigines. When I lived there and read up on various bit of Aboriginal history and culture (because by god it was hard finding stuff that wasn't blatant propaganda or blatant ignorance, from both sides) it looked like they really did have quite clear tribal demarcations of the different parts of Australia. They had complicated "marriage" systems geared towards avoiding inbreeding, and so on. Had they been treated peaceably from the start, it would have been much more clear who owned what. Now, it's too late to ever know.

But as much as - through today's perspective - non-aboriginal Australian settlement of Australia was illegal and invasive - it's there now, and there to stay. Likewise Israel. It's ridiculous for Arabs to imagine Israel is going to pack up and go home. However artificially they may have "recreated" something that existed thousands of years ago, however legitimately or illegitimately, fairly or unfairly, it's there to stay. What we do need to do is make sure that the creation of a nation NEVER happens again in such a way (the international community should have learnt the lessons from the subcontinent partitioning, but it obviously failed to).

But it's equally unfair and irrelevant to bitch on about the "legitimacy" or not of Palestine. Those people are there, many were there before (or how could Israeli settlers have bought land from them?) they self-determine as a nation, as did Israel - so fuck the international community "allowing" them to be a nation, they are one, however straggled, divided, oppressed, messed up.

I don't believe that Israel and Palestine will EVER exist as a single united state. I don't believe they will probably ever co-exist completely peacefully. I fear there will always be separist movements, "terrorist" mutterings, that will at least wane considerably if not disappear altogether over future, peaceful generations.

But what both Israel and Palestine need is the ability to become independent, separate, governable countries. Take a look at a map of the west bank. Realistically speaking - legally built or not - those settlements will have to be "sacrificed" to make Palestine governable and give it some geographical coherence. IM-personal-O those settlements were long-term an ENORMOUS mistake, set to create still far more pain and suffering on both sides than they have already. You can't have a country that looks like a bit of lace with holes punched out of it.

As for who in future will have the right to settle there? Well, once both countries are properly divided and delineated, up and running with government infrastructure in place, they'll be able to make their own immigration rules, like all our countries do. And if they want to give the right of residence only to certain ethnic or religious groups, then that's up to them.

[WV_Woman]

The Jews have the right to the land.

[Mythos45]

Originally posted by WV_Woman
The Jews have the right to the land.

And why is that?

[boyohboy17]

I'm only going to focus on more recent history. Forget the "God gave it to me" and "I was there 4 billion years ago" claims.

Let's start at 1917 and the Balfour Declaration. TGNOTW ("That General Neck of the Woods") was part of the British Empire. Balfour stated that a Jewish homeland should be created in TGNOTW. (For the full text see The Balfour Declaration). The British then issued a series of White Papers that stated that Jews should not be allowed in Israel.

World War II
Holocaust anyone?
Anyways, after World War II, Great Britain finally just gave up. It basically said to the United Nations, "Here. Do whatever you want to this region." So, in its infinite wisdom, the UN took a pencil and a map and cut Jordan, the West Bank, and the Gaza strip out of the original mandate, and created the state of Israel out of the rest.

War for Independence - 1948
Now, the West Bank and the Gaza strip were supposed to become Arab states. What happened? Jordan and Egypt took them over. Then the Arab countries launched an attack on Israel. Israel won.

6 Day War
1967 - Israel intercepted messages between Syria, Jordan, and Egypt that told of a planned attack. Israel launched a pre-emptive attack and conquered:

• The West Bank
• The Golan Heights
• The Gaza Strip
• The Sinai Penninsula

Enough with the history. Who deserves the land?
Israel has beaten back attack after attack of Arab invaders. Israel should never return the Golan Heights to Syria--they could mortar half of Israel from that position. If you recall the Camp David Accords, Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt. Israel is now on peaceful terms with both Egypt and Jordan.

What about the Palestinians?
A German shepherd is bounding towards you, barking and baring its teeth. In your hands, you have a club. The dogs owner shouts at you, "It's ok! Just put the club down and he won't hurt you!" What do you do?

Now, there's a group of people in your country who hate you and have tried to push you "into the sea" on many occasions. The UN says, "It's ok! Just give them most of your land and an able military and they won't hurt you!" What do you do?

Let's look at what some other Arabs have done. Iraq crushed the Kurds. The world didn't raise an eyebrow. Jordan has kept Palastinian "refugees" in camps instead of integrating them into society. Now, these are not the people that ran away from Israel (note: they ran away because the Arab countries told them to leave), these are their great-great-great-grandchildren. Six generations of Palastinians have been kept enslaved in camps. Why? Because Jordan doesn't want them. If Jordan can do this, why can't Israel?

So, let's ask ourselves a couple of questions.
What do the Israelis want?
Israelis want peace. They have tried to create peace plan after peace plan. The war is hurting their economy and killing their children.

What do the Palestinians want?
I have no idea. But I do know that it's not peace. Palestinians live in wretched conditions forced on them by their leaders. What to they do? Do they say, "look at how miserable we are. Let's improve our conditions!" No!!! They say, "look at Israel. It's actually trying to solve its problems. DEATH TO THE JEWS!!!"

The Palestinians have been given the chance to greatly improve their lives. Israel has handed them opportunity after opportunity on silver platters. Instead of solving their problems, Palestinians have attached themselves parasitically to Israel, killing innocent civilians. Do you give candy to a two year old throwing a tantrum?

Also, have you ever heard of a peace plan created by Palestinians?

Israel has payed for its land in money, work, and blood. None of it should be given to Arabs until they show that they deserve it.

Thank you to anyone who read to this point!

[Efrem]

Me thinks you are about to get a well needed visit from Collounsbury

[Eva Luna]

I'd actually welcome a visit from Collounsbury, as he seems to be far better informed than some of the morons who post here on That-Neck-of-the-Woods-related topics. I can take all kinds of opinions that disagree with mine, but not when the posters are just foaming at the virtual mouth.

Collounsbury, where are you? Are you holding out on us because you don't think there are arguments that don't boil down to the 2 basic ones I've mentioned? I bathed this morning, I swear, so it's perfectly safe to visit!

Same goes for the rest of you guys; dive right in, by all means!

[Efrem]

I'd actually welcome a visit from Collounsbury, as he seems to be far better informed than some of the morons who post here on That-Neck-of-the-Woods-related topics. I can take all kinds of opinions that disagree with mine, but not when the posters are just foaming at the virtual mouth.

To be truthful I wasn't referring to your post (although it doesn't matter who posts it seems that Collounsbury can rip through us all), but that of boyohboy17.

[Philosophocles]

Those who value the human rights of others have a right to live wherever they can procure housing.

Those who subscribe to ideologies of religious fundamentalism and/or ethnic nationalism of any sort have the right to live in a hell of their own choosing, perpetually enslaved to fear.

[Brutus]

Since there already is a 'Palestinian' state (Jordan), I really don't see what the problem is. Israelis can live in Israel, and Palestinian in Palestine. (Call it Jordan, Trans-Jordan, whatever. It was once part of the same 'Palestinian Mandate'.)

Maybe the problem is that Egypt and Jordan (don't forget, Jordan was once 'Palestine') had control of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, respectively, from 1948-1967, and never re-established a 'Palestine'. Gee whiz, why no outrage over that?

And wherever the residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip choose to live, the Palestinian Authority, formerly known as the PLO, should have no part of governing them. The PLO was established in 1964, 3 years before the occupation of the West Bank/Gaza Strip. Obviously, their goals are the elimination of Israel, not the removal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by Brutus
Since there already is a 'Palestinian' state (Jordan), I really don't see what the problem is. Israelis can live in Israel, and Palestinian in Palestine. (Call it Jordan, Trans-Jordan, whatever. It was once part of the same 'Palestinian Mandate'.)

Nope. TransJordan was never part of the Palestinian Mandate area. Like Iraq, it was an autonomous subject state of the British Empire, established in the wake of WW I under the control of the Hashemite dynasty of the Hijaz and peopled almost entirely by Bedouin Arabs loyal to said dynasty, that migrated into the region in the same period. It is in fact the last survivor of those Hashemite states, the others having fallen ( internal revolution in Iraq, external conquest by the Ibn Saud family in the case of the Hijaz ).

It gained its Palestinian majority as a consequence of conquering the West Bank in 1948. Although that territory was lost again in 1967, the demographic shift in Jordan was permanent. Palestinians have been a majority of Jordan's population ever since. However, except in that respct, it is not a 'Palestinian state'. The monarch of Jordan's authority traditionally rests on the Bedouin and Bedouin-descended minority hat have a traditional loyalty to the Hashemite house, not on the Palestinians. Consequently it is somewhat less responsive to them. This has been changing slowly over the decades through sheer necessity, but it would still be a stretch to call it a Palestinian state in the sense that Palestinian nationalists think of.

Maybe the problem is that Egypt and Jordan (don't forget, Jordan was once 'Palestine') had control of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, respectively, from 1948-1967, and never re-established a 'Palestine'. Gee whiz, why no outrage over that?

I think they should of. *shrug* But the world was a different place then and the fact of the matter is that Egypt and Jordan didn't give a shit about the Palestinians. They were just pawns to be played. That, however, is on the conscience of the governments of Egypt and Jordan at the time, not the Palestinians themselves.

And wherever the residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip choose to live, the Palestinian Authority, formerly known as the PLO, should have no part of governing them. The PLO was established in 1964, 3 years before the occupation of the West Bank/Gaza Strip. Obviously, their goals are the elimination of Israel, not the removal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories.

In a perfect world, I'd absolutely agree. The PA has shown themselves to be the worst of "governments" and really they barely merit the title at all. But it is a fact that at least some elements of the PA will have to involved because that is about the only place you'll find any Palestinian moderates of any stature. Just another reason why this is a miserable situation.

Eva Luna: Collounsbury is traveling last I heard, so may be temporarily out of touch with the board.

However just for myself, I'll say that I tend to avoid questions like yours these days because the answers so often turn into...hmmm..."impassioned" discussions which aren't always terribly productive and result in a lot of polarization and demonizing of the opposing side ( I'm speaking about the debaters here, not necessarily the combatants ). I find it tedious and stressful - Nothing I hate worse than feeling like I've been pigeon-holed . I have a feeling that some may be a little worn out on the topic these days .

My own opinion, boiled down to its essence, is that both sides are there now, so it really doesn't matter. Bandying about who deserves it most doesn't really solve any problems.

However if you do a search, I'm sure you can find at least a dozen lengthy threads that go into detail on the history of the whole mess and include contributions from knowledgeable posters from all ends of the political spectrum.

Though if you have a specific history question, maybe I could take a whack at it. Which I'm sure wil prompt someone else with a dissenting view to do the same .

- Tamerlane

[Eva Luna]

Originally posted by efrem
To be truthful I wasn't referring to your post (although it doesn't matter who posts it seems that Collounsbury can rip through us all), but that of boyohboy17.

I actually did realize that; I just happened to a) think the same, but lack the words and detail to effectively debunk; and b) therefore hope for a post from someone better informed than I.

[Eva Luna]

Originally posted by Tamerlane



Eva Luna: Collounsbury is traveling last I heard, so may be temporarily out of touch with the board.

However just for myself, I'll say that I tend to avoid questions like yours these days because the answers so often turn into...hmmm..."impassioned" discussions which aren't always terribly productive and result in a lot of polarization and demonizing of the opposing side ( I'm speaking about the debaters here, not necessarily the combatants ). I find it tedious and stressful - Nothing I hate worse than feeling like I've been pigeon-holed . I have a feeling that some may be a little worn out on the topic these days .

My own opinion, boiled down to its essence, is that both sides are there now, so it really doesn't matter. Bandying about who deserves it most doesn't really solve any problems.

However if you do a search, I'm sure you can find at least a dozen lengthy threads that go into detail on the history of the whole mess and include contributions from knowledgeable posters from all ends of the political spectrum.

Though if you have a specific history question, maybe I could take a whack at it. Which I'm sure wil prompt someone else with a dissenting view to do the same .

- Tamerlane

Wasn't necessarily looking for an answer to a specific history question; that's rather easier to find and/or narrow down. This was just a bit of thinking "out loud" on the subject of self-identification, ethnicity, nationalism, religion, violence, political power, and the various ways in which they overlap. I did a master's thesis on a similar subject, but involving the North Caucasus/Russian situation; was just interested in hearing everyone's thoughts about another mess which alternately fascinates and frustrates the hell out of me, but about which I don't know nearly as much.

Anyway, carry on...and I do think it's valid and productive to explore the concept of who "belongs" in TGNOTW, because how else will the mess ever be reolved?

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by Eva Luna


Anyway, carry on...and I do think it's valid and productive to explore the concept of who "belongs" in TGNOTW, because how else will the mess ever be resolved?

Well it's certainly valid and I suppose it is productive ( and certainly interesting ) as an intellectual exercise. I just don't agree that it holds any practical solutions. First of all because I don't think there is an unambiguous answer that will be accepted by a majority and second of all because even if there were, any given side wouldn't respond to them. Nobody is going to say - "Okay, you're right, your claim to the Holy Land is better than ours, we'll just pack up and leave now."

The only practical way to look at the situation now, IMHO, is to say that both sides are there and that being an objective fact, you might as well regard both sides as deserving to be there and try to work out a compromise from that point. Because regardless of legal, moral, and historical claims, neither side is going anywhere barring mass ethnic cleansing.

This was just a bit of thinking "out loud" on the subject of self-identification, ethnicity, nationalism, religion, violence, political power, and the various ways in which they overlap.

Like I said, all pretty interesting and perfectly valid. I have no problem with your thread at all. But your topic is so broad I have no idea where to start .

I will say that like yourself, I tend to dismiss ancient historic claims of prior residence and/or divine claims, as being poor arguments. But that's just me and you will certainly find plenty of folks who will disagree with that around here.

- Tamerlane

[Brutus]

Originally posted by Tamerlane

Nope. TransJordan was never part of the Palestinian Mandate area...

I see your 'nope' and raise you a 'Nah-uh!

Rather then type out the timeline, here you go.

OK, I lied. Quick summary (where Jordan is concerned):

1916: Sykes-Picot Agreement divies up former Ottoman Turkish holdings in the mideast. Brits get what is now Israel and Jordan.

1922: British subdivide further, creating 'Trans-Jordan'.

1946: Trans-Jordan becomes 'Jordan', and a homeland for Arab citizens of the former British Mandate is created.


I can give you many more examples of the same, but since all are Israeli websites, I'll leave it up to you to prove me wrong

[Tamerlane]

Brutus: Well, I'll give you a qualified nod, insomuch as your are correct as the territory of Transjordan was referred to as part of the Palestinian Mandate from 1918-1922 . However the fact remains that the Transjordan was not part of some geographic and culturally contiguous territory with what became the Mandate of Palestine after 1922. Historically it hasn't been - the eastern border of the cultural area of "Palestine" generally has been the Jordan valley. There were not, for example, considered a single territory by the Ottomans. Which was a large reason ( buying off the Hashemites being the other one ) it was separated out. As this map ( hopefully from a pro-Jewish site ) of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 shows, they were considered distinct from one another:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/sykesmap1.html

As I've pointed out the population of "Transjordan" were not the same as that of "Palestine proper". They were rather culturally ( I'm guessing dialectically as well, though I won't swear to that ) distinct, despite them all being Arabs ( i.e. speakers of Arabic ). And to the best of my understanding, Jordan did not achieve its independance in 1946 on the premise that they would be "the homeland for Arab citizens of the former British Mandate."

- Tamerlane

[Brutus]

. Touche' !!! Point taken.



That map is interesting. Take this scenario...

We invade Iraq. We then 'give' southern Iraq back to its original Hashemite rulers? Nice way to ensure a stable government (King Abdullah II seems like a reasonable chap) Northern Iraq goes to a Kurdish homeland, which could make Iran and Turkey happy.

Eh, it COULD work...

[Boo Boo Foo]

Brutus, my good man, indeed it could work. But what a perilous road to walk down.

As an Aussie all these miles away, I have the following observation - one which is borne out of detachment. Namely, I ask this question. If the US were to proceed with such action, how many peoples in That Neck of The Woods and surrounding region will be thinking the following - "What right does a country on another continent separated by the Atlantic Ocean AND the Mediterranean Sea have to impose it's vision of what is 'right and proper' on us and our region?"

My point is this - I'm an ally of the U.S. and damn proud of it. As a friend, I agree with every observation and analysis of Iraq, and the asshole who rules it.

I can't help but think though that even if Iraq was to start dropping bubonic plague into it's own water supplies, no one in that region is going to condone American military action. It's as though that part of the woods would rather consign themselves to fate worse than death than allow any further American 'tinkering'.

[Truth Seeker]

Originally posted by Brutus
Northern Iraq goes to a Kurdish homeland, which could make Iran and Turkey happy.

Eh, it COULD work...

Actually, no, it couldn't work precisely because Turkey (and to a lesser extent, Iran) would be anything but happy. An independent Kurdish homeland in Northern Iraq would probably spark a full-scale war in the region as Kurdish minorities sought to create a "Greater Kurdistan."

[Brutus]

Boo Boo Foo,

If American foreign policy was dictated by the various regimes in the Middle East, we would have invaded Israel long ago

An entire new topic, but to sum it up, I believe that an 'regime change', be it a convential military operation or some sneaky CIA affair, is inevitable.

I only suggested the 'Jordan' idea because I think (maybe), the Iraqi's would be happier. Like I said, King Abdullah II seems to be the diametric opposite of S.Hussien. And frankly, I don't know if a democracy would be feasible 'overnight' in Iraq, post-Saddam.

My aunt and uncle are in Melbourne, and I am heading there in September. I expect everyone to act like the Crocodile Hunter, with kangaroo's everywhere, or I will be sorely dissappointed

Truth Seeker

Again, my reasoning with a Kurdish state is that said state would 'siphon off' kurds from Turkey and Iran. At least they could no longer use 'we don't have yet another -stan of our own!' as an excuse. But I see your point. Sort of a 'Greater Albania' situation

[johncole]

Originally posted by boyohboy17
Jordan has kept Palastinian "refugees" in camps instead of integrating them into society

....from personal experience

In 1978 I was in Jordan on business for a few days, based in Amman. It was a good trip for me but bad for the company - I got to see Jerash and Petra, none of the prospects could afford the product, and with the students facing down the military I could not get to the University.

To get around in Amman I had hired a taxi for the day, and the driver (who spoke excellent English) spent much of the day talking about his family. He was proud of them, and for good reason.

In 1967 his folks (I got the impression of a large extended family) had land and a business on the West Bank. They lost everything and crossed the river with the clothes on their backs and little else, and were accomodated by the Jordanian government in a refugee camp. That camp had been there since 1948.

In order to secure an income, his father and brothers got jobs as taxi-drivers. They now owned the company. They no longer lived in a camp.


.....and now for the opinion

It seems to me that in large measure the refugees (yes, they are refugees) are still in the camps not because they are restrained, but because they don't want to be integrated. They have the memories of their old lands and homes (even those born in the camps) and they want to go back on their own terms.

I feel this to be an unrealistic ambition.

The opportunities to leave the camps and build new lives, in Jordan or elsewhere, are there. All that is required is the will. If financial assistance is the stumbling block then this could (and should) be provided by international and Arab agencies.

Other communities in similar circumstances have achieved exactly that. After WWII there were large numbers of Poles and European Jews in The UK. After they were expelled from Kenya many East African Asians came to the UK. With few exceptions they are now integrated and productive members of society.

I suspect the same applies in the US, and in many other nations.

[Eva Luna]

Darnit, here I was hoping that I could somehow challenge everyone to think outside the box, and avoid being tied down in the historical specifics and concrete (and sometimes only tangentially related) hypotheticals that are so frequently the doom of otherwise productive discussions on TGNOTW.

Anyone care to pontificate on what should give a person the right to reside in and/or control any particular chunk of territory, and TGNOTW in particular? To borrow some phrases from epolo, most of you seem to have stuck to Might makes right, Right of posession, and/or Right of highest and best use.

This "who SHOULD have the right to be here" decision is something that the U.S. has laid out pretty thoroughly; either you are born here and thereby have citizenship rights, or you immigrated here legally (or legally and have since legalized through one of a variety of methods) and have behaved yourself for a predetermined period, and met other specificaly laid-out requirements for naturalization.

So who belongs in TGNOTW? If it weren't so largely a function of ethnicity and/or conversion according to Orthodox Jewish standards (and I have a big philosophical problem, I confess, with those who believe right of abode in TGNOTW should depend on religion or ethnicity, rather than an individual's particular circumstances), of what should it be a function in a just world? Who should get to make the determination?

[Eva Luna]

Oops; make that (or ILlegally and have since legalized)...

[Boo Boo Foo]

Eva Luna? I tried my friend. I gave a parallel regarding European colonisation of a continent formerly ONLY inhabited by Aborigines as a means of looking at a similar kind of issue and how it's being handled. Hope it helped (in some capacity!)

[Eva Luna]

I know; that's why I said "most" people who responded. It was indeed a valiant effort; unfortunately, I think that when one delves into specific fact patterns, one is more likely to get tangled up in the specifics.

Besides, in the Australian case it's pretty clear who was there first, and who colonized whom; in the TGNOTW case, I think there's been a lot more back-and-forth in terms of population mixing, conversions, military conquest, etc. That's why I was hoping for some abstract thinking.

Anyone ever read Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities"? It's all about the self-identification of various subgroups of the human race. Has some intersting stuff in it; I highly recommend it.