So what you are saying is my cite is wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time, and I don’t pretend to be an expert on the region.
I did find this map here. If you look at the one marked 1920-1922, it SEEMS to indicate that ‘Palestine’ encompassed present day Israel as well as quite a bit of Jordan. Here is another map where Palestine is marked as ‘Palestinia’…and again, it seems to indicate that it encompassed significant territory east of the Jordan. Looking at another map of Palestine as it was under the rule of the Turks seems to indicate that it also encompassed territory east of the Jordan river also (though this is more confusing to me as its part of something called ‘The Vilayet of Syria’…whatever the hell THAT was). I’m unsure exactly what Palestine WAS wrt the Ottoman empire…but whatever the hell it was, it seemed to stretch into present day Jordan historically.
Well, I didn’t really say that…I said Jordan was the major part of the British Manderate of Palestine. I didn’t mean that it WAS all of Palestine…or that all of modern day Jordan was part of the Mandate. If I gave that impression, I appologize. It seemed to me (and still does to an extent) that ‘Palestine’ was made up of modern day Israel AND large parts of Jordan…the greater parts (territory wise) being in Jordan.
At this point though I’ll defer to your expertese on this. As I said, I’m just an interested person…no expert by any stretch. Hell, probably not even a well INFORMED amature about this stuff, come to that.
[QUOTE=xtismeOf course, I’m not all fired up about this Palestinian homeland in any case. I think it should be annexed by Jordan and have done with this whole stinking mess. I realize though that this is going to be a fairly unpopular stance around here though…[/QUOTE]
I could get behind it. A Jordan-including-the-West-Bank-and-Gaza would really make a lot more sense than an independent Palestinian state; there would be no need to build a functioning state from the ground up – the state already exists, and is the closest thing to a real functioning democracy in the Arab world. It would merely need to be expanded, and representatives from the Palestinians lands admitted to Parliament.
The problem is, the Jordanian government doesn’t want it, and has long since renounced all claim to the Occupied Territories. They’ve got enough troubles.
Make the dividing line the Jordan river and give the people a choice…you can stay in Israel or move to Jordan…but you must accept citizenship in one or the other of those countries. Israel’s concession is citizenship for any arabs who while to stay (and I suppose allowing any currently in Jordan with claims to land to come back, gain citizenship and make their claim). Jordan’s is to take on the bulk of the Palestinians (who I assume will mostly go to Jordan if given this choice) and encorporate them into the nation.
As for Gaza, I think that this should go back to Israel, or perhaps to Egypt I suppose. I don’t think Gaza is a major tactical concern…while the West Bank (and the Heights) ARE…for Israel. The Jordan seems a natural boundary to me though…and a reasonable compromise if we are just going to say there will BE no Palestinian soveriegn state.
Yeah, I know…NO ONE will go for any of this (including you I’m sure, since I’m setting the boundary on the Jordan ). IMHO thats part of the problem…Jordan and the rest have washed their hands of this (leaving Israel and the ‘Palestinians’ holding the bag)…while milking it for all the propaganda they can (and probably coverty supporting the Palestinians to keep the whole mess on a low simmer). The world seems to expect Israel to make any concessions or to fix any problems…while several nations get to skate out of the whole mess, despite being part of the original problem.
(Tamerlane will probably now come back to tear this all down of course :))
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Make the dividing line the Jordan river and give the people a choice…you can stay in Israel or move to Jordan…but you must accept citizenship in one or the other of those countries. Israel’s concession is citizenship for any arabs who while to stay (and I suppose allowing any currently in Jordan with claims to land to come back, gain citizenship and make their claim). Jordan’s is to take on the bulk of the Palestinians (who I assume will mostly go to Jordan if given this choice) and encorporate them into the nation.
[quote]
Which, once again, would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. [yawn] And I think you’re wrong – most Palestinians in the Occupied Territories would rather become Israelis (with a view to eventually capturing control of the Knessit) than pack up and move east.
Why? Neither Israel nor Egypt has any historical claim to the Gaza Strip, nor any practical use for it except for military-strategic purposes.
Zero tolerance, I think. Seems to me they’re just fed up after the recent developments with Hamas, and now have sympathy for the electorate that has empowered them than ever before, if possible. They’ll get what they want, or else, and screw whoever’s in the way.
Hey, its called negotiations and concessions ya know? I DID say that it would never fly though.
I don’t know if Palestinians would rather be Israeli’s or Jordanians. What do you base your statement on?
Well, neither does Jordan have any claim to it BG. I suppose they could mud wrestle for it (hopefully picking three nicely rounded women to do the honors… ). My guess though is that Egypt has the best claim…but that Israel might was well have it. Its only a strip of desert after all…not really vital or important ground to anyone.
If this is war as Hamas insists, wouldn’t “taken prisoner of war” be a more fitting description that “arrested”. Prisoners of war are normally freed when the war is over. I guess that would be when Hamas acknowledges Israel’s right to exist.
The 18 year old Israeli boy who was abducted while hitchhiking has also been murdered by the terrorists.
How stupid can they be? Making that claim is insanity. Either they didn’t fire a chemical weapon, in which case they look foolish for claiming they did, or they did fire one, in which case they’re giving Israel every excuse it needs to flatten them. Something tells me the Israeli people have zero tolerance for chemical weapons being used against them.
So any handicapping how this will play out from here? Either in the short or medium term.
Thinking about it, btw, my own analysis of why Olmert reacted like this now to this is that it is based on the fact that it was an attack into Israel proper through a tunnel, something that the fence system would not protect from. His disengagement model relies on unilateral seperation if need be, and he is demonstrating that any incursion into Israel will be reacted to with disproportionate force holding the Palestinian administration responsible for policing their own. Short term it doesn’t accomplish much but it establishes clear ground rules for the future.
Bingo. Everybody goes on about the Arab Street, but they forget that it’s the Israeli Street - Israeli voters - who have the final word when it comes to anything involving Israel. Olmert wants to withdraw from the the West Bank (or at least most of it). He was elected on that platform. Gaza was supposed to be the test case - if withdrawing from Gaza made things safer for Israel, the Israeli public would accept further withdrawal.
As of now, things haven’t been getting better. Quite the opposite. And so long as Gaza remains dangerous, Israel isn’t going anywhere. Thus, Gaza has to be neutralized, at just about any cost.
Possibly because your thought process is “Palestianan civilians endangered == horror of horrors!” but “Israeli civilians endangered == meh” ?
I missed the part where everybody, who is oh-so-worried about all the poor Palestinian civilians (none of whom have been killed yet in this latest round!), gave a rat’s ass about our civilians in, say, Sderot who have been under constant rocket attacks for the past few months. If you didn’t care then, then, in all honestly, I don’t give a flying f*** what you have to say now!
Not saying it’s a good or moral idea to start wantonly blowing up Palestinian civilians. And in fact so far this isn’t happening. Just wondering why it was OK as long as the only civilians anybody was trying to blow up on a routine, purposeful basis were Israeli ones… :rolleyes:
Dunno. Does neutralizing terrorists’ infrastructure give you chills? Neutralizing a clear and present threat? Neutralizing the threat of murderers who deliberately target civilians?
Or as Noone asks, has it also been giving you chills that the terrorists in Gaza have been trying to ‘neutralize’ innocent civilians?
Wouldn’t be the first time, and I don’t pretend to be an expert on the region.
). IMHO thats part of the problem…Jordan and the rest have washed their hands of this (leaving Israel and the ‘Palestinians’ holding the bag)…while milking it for all the propaganda they can (and probably coverty supporting the Palestinians to keep the whole mess on a low simmer). The world seems to expect Israel to make any concessions or to fix any problems…while several nations get to skate out of the whole mess, despite being part of the original problem.
). My guess though is that Egypt has the best claim…but that Israel might was well have it. Its only a strip of desert after all…not really vital or important ground to anyone.