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.
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.
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.
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 :D.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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:
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.”
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.
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’.
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.”
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
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.
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? 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!)
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.
) of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 shows, they were considered distinct from one another: