Skip to content or view screen version

A real Palestinian state?

John J | 19.01.2004 10:59

On the 31st July 1988 Jordan revoked the Jordanian citizenship of all the Arabs
living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. As a Palestinian state, Jordan-Palestine will return this citizenship.

A 2 state solution? Ok., fine. Two states, one Israeli and the other palestinian, already exist side by side - on opposite sides of the Jordan River. The country of Jordan is a Palestinian state in every respect: more then 80% of the population is Palestinian, and its 90,000sq. km of territory are part of the original Palestine mandate, which the British partitioned back in the 1920s between Jews and Arabs.

There's no logic or justice in further partition of the 28,000 sq. kms remaining in Israel's hands to create a second Palestinian state, west of Jordan, at the expense of the small territory in which the Jewish people is trying to maintain its state in the midst of a hostile, Muslim Middle East.

Superficially, the internal Israeli debate is between those who agree to creating a Palestinian state west of the Jordan and those who oppose the idea. But the fact is that even the Israeli left doesn't agree to a real Palestinian state, armed and sovereign, a few minutes distance from Israel's main population centers. The most that even the most generous of Israeli leftist are willing to give the Palestinians - and the most that G.W. Bush's America is also willing to give - is nothing but a pseudo-state: two non-contiguous pieces of land, one in the Gaza Strip on the west of Israel and the other in Judea and Samaria in the east, in which a Palestinian entity would exist under constant outside supervision, without the right to sign international agreements and without any army of its own.

Why would the Palestinians agree to such a "state"? Why would they agree to end their 120-year war against Zionism in return for such a farce? Why should they give up their most sacred principle, the "right of return" of refugees from 1948 to their former homes within the Green Line? And where, in the proposed "state", would they be able to rehabilitate the 3 million members of their people who have been rotting for 55 years in refugee camps?

The answer to these question is the practical reason for the struggle of the Israeli right against the Oslo Accords, for its opposition to the Clinton guidelines, and for its current protests against Bush's "road map": The Palestinians, in fact, won't be satisfied with an insulting farce, won't give up on the "right of return", and won't stop the terror attacks after the creation of a pseudo-state that leaves the refugees in camps. And if their leaders accepted the Oslo, Clinton and Bush plans, they did so only as part of the PLO's phased strategy, which combines diplomatic tactics and armed struggle, and only in order to receive, as a first phase, international recognition of some sort of Palestinian sovereignty, fictitious as it might be, west of the Jordan.

The internal Israeli debate is really about how intelligent the Palestinians are and how serious they are. America apparently shares the left's evaluation that the Palestinians are stupid and primitive enough to be calmed by the Western illusion of national self-determination. The right, on the other hand, believes that Palestinians aren't only very smart, but also very Arab. While the West gives great importance to national self-determination, for Palestinians, is only a means toward liberating all the land that belongs to them according to the Koran, and so the "road map" to creating a Palestinian pseudo-state west of the Jordan can't lead to peace, but only to an escalation of terror until the final goal is achieved.

We don't need the United States to invent a destructive, illusory "vision" of a Palestinian state next to Israel. A real Palestinian state already exists next to Israel, on the east bank of the Jordan, and we definitely do need the help of the United States in order to institutionalize the connection of Palestinians living west of the Jordan to their state, whose capital is Amman. We definitely do need massive American involvement to settle the problem of the 1948 refugees, by creating an international program to rehabilitate them and to dismantle the shameful camps that Arab leaders would like to preserve as hothouses for terror and hatred. And there's no doubt we need the determination of the American victor in Iraq to make clear to the Palestinians that terror won't pay.

George W. Bush can make a difference or he can join the list of his predecessors who looked for the lost coin under the lamppost and didn't understand that it was waiting for them to find in another spot entirely.

THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN IS IN FACT A PALESTINIAN STATE:
After Jordan’s invasion of Israel in 1948, it unilaterally annexed Judea and
Samaria and granted citizenship to all its population, both residents and
refugees. It enacted a number of major constitutional amendments expressing
Palestinian-Jordanian unity.

For many years, the PLO competed with Jordan over who represents the
Palestinian Arabs. Only after Israel’s weak response to the first “intifada” in 1987,
and the subsequent strenghtening of the PLO, which resulted in Israel viewing
the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian Arabs, did Jordan withdraw from
its connection with the “West Bank.”

The new reality in the Middle East provides a historic opportunity to rectify
that error and once again establish Jordan as the Palestinian nation-state
- the exclusive representative of the Palestinian Arabs.

FROM REFUGEES TO CITIZENS ONCE AGAIN:
On the 31st July 1988 Jordan revoked the Jordanian citizenship of all the Arabs
living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

As a Palestinian state, Jordan-Palestine will return this citizenship.

Even if they choose to continue to live in Israel, these citizens will enjoy national
and political rights in the Palestinian state, whose capital is Amman.

NOTE: In February 2003 twenty two Palestinian unions in Judea, Samaria and
Gaza appealed secretly to King Abdallah for his economic intervention in these areas
– despite their knowledge of Arafat’s strong objection to such machinations. This act
testifies to the fact that the current mood would support the renewed link with Jordan
and the dissolution of the Palestinian Authority.

John J

Comments

Hide the following 10 comments

this is not logical

19.01.2004 13:49

Even if we accept this "Jordan is a palestinian state" thesis, so what ?
It is not for Israel to decide whether palestinians should divide the territory to which they are entitled into one state or two, or with what names, or with what relationship between the two.

Except the US, the world now seems to be in agreement that Israel should return all territory outside the 47 ceasefire line to the sovereign control of the palestinians. Sovereign means they do as they like within their borders.

The endless claim that Israel is threatened with military atteck and annihilation is utterly laughable. Israel has a huge superiority of US-supplied conventional weapons. But even more important, it has over 200 nuclear warheads, more than Britain. Missiles to deliver them, even as far as european cities (London). Three nuclear capable submarines. All uninspected, unadmitted, uncontrolled.

Anyone who launched a proper military attack on Israel would face total devastation. Even us.

Yes, even Israel is vulnerable to individuals who atack with their own soft flesh as weapon, but that goes for all who propagate repression and injustice.

arthur


You're not looking ahead, Arthur

19.01.2004 14:51

That's where your illogic comes in. Why you can't understand why things are "stuck" where they are.

Now let's take your premise of what the Israelis should do -- and which would relieve THEM of responsibility for the fate of the Palestinians. See, I might agree with that, agree that the Israelis should dismantle the "settlements", evacuate the "settler" population, Pull back behind the "Green Line" (the Old City/Jerusalem which they lost in '48 and regained in '67 may be a problem), allow the Palestinians to form their state -- and then wait to see what happens next.

It's that NEXT which you aren't thinking about and which perhaps explains why things are "stuck". It is VERY questionable whether this leads to peace for the Palestinians. Do you doubt that SOME (a substantial minority at least) of the Palestinains would continue their attacks upon Israel? But now it's a very different situation, isn't it. The Palesitinians are a STATE with all that implies. So one of two things happens. Isreal tolerates these attacks while the Palestinians fight a civil war among themsleves ala Ireland in the '20s (for the same reason) because that's the only way a state can not be at war with a neighboring state if its people are attacking that neighbor -- OR the Palestinians allow this to be considered "war" (no civil war) and of course would be crushed and we are right back where we are now. Since civil war, brother killing brother is about the worst thing imaginable, the latter alternative seems preferable --- so we are "stuck" (they have little incentive to take a "journey" leading to where they are right now).

Now THIS problem isn't the responsibility of the Israelis who cannot be blamed for politics INTERNAL to the Palestinian community. We can rail at the Israelis for oppressing the Palestinians but not because the Paelstinians cannot refrain from attacking the Israleis even when the Israelis are leaving them alone.

Mike
mail e-mail: stepbystepfarm mtdata.com


Palestine

19.01.2004 15:29

Mike,

"attacking the Israleis even when the Israelis are leaving them alone."

Since the creation of "israel" on Palestinian land the israelis have never left them alone, not even for a single day.

Are you not aware of the zionist agenda for the ethnic cleansing of the remaining Palestinians to Jordan? Sharon is just waiting for the right time to implement it, perhaps when the US attacks Syria.

And why are you so sure that Palestinians will have a civil war as the alternative? Do you know something that everyone else from Palestine doesn't?


dony


Erm....

19.01.2004 15:49

When exactly has this hypothetical Israel leaving them alone happened to find out?

Or are you advocating a George Bush style pre-emptive killing of the Palestinians just in case one or two of them feel like attacking Israel, IF Israel ever leaves them alone?

Afinkawan


I'm sorry, Mike....

19.01.2004 16:20

I don't accept that the outcome you suggest is even likely, or your conclusions from it valid.

Withdrawal to the green line would cut off 90% of the suicide bomber supply. It would dwindle on for a few years with people who still needed to avenge their murdered loved-ones, but after that only a fanatical rump would continue. It would soon be well below the IRA situation at its worst, and we never put tanks or F11s into Eire, or even dropped one-ton bombs into residential neighbourhoods at midnight, or missiles into crowded markets, or bulldozed a single suspect's home.

I don't believe for a moment that a palestinian govt would opt for actual war against Israel. Why not ? Read my original comment.

Why not address my point re undeclared nuclear weapons - chemical too - and maybe even biological ?

Who exactly is threatening whom? And whose taxpayers are footing the bill?

arthur


Right-on Arthur!

19.01.2004 19:16

Mike said:
>"Do you doubt that SOME (a substantial minority at least) of the Palestinains would continue their attacks upon Israel? But now it's a very different situation, isn't it. The Palesitinians are a STATE with all that implies. So one of two things happens. Isreal tolerates these attacks while the Palestinians fight a civil war among themsleves ala Ireland in the '20s (for the same reason) because that's the only way a state can not be at war with a neighboring state if its people are attacking that neighbor -- OR the Palestinians allow this to be considered "war" (no civil war) and of course would be crushed and we are right back where we are now. Since civil war, brother killing brother is about the worst thing imaginable, the latter alternative seems preferable --- so we are "stuck" (they have little incentive to take a "journey" leading to where they are right now)."
>>> What utter nonsense!!! Whatever suprious argument you attempt to put together here to justify Israel not withdrawing from the atleast some of the occupied territories, you fail abysmally!
Right-on Arthur!

Waltzing Matilda


Truly remarkable

20.01.2004 14:20

How so many interpreted what I said as indicating that I didn't think the Israelis should withdraw (and immediately). That it was intended as an excuse for the Israelis not to withdraw. Not so. I think the Israelis SHOULD immediately dismantle the settlements, evacuate the settlers, pull back the "Green Line", and await developments. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU????

I was raising the question --- does this lead to a good or bad outcome for the Palestinians? Do they get peace? Not COULD they get peace. This is apparently a concern of yours but not necessarily of mine. There is a DIFFERENCE between caring for what happens to the Palestinians as a result of unjustified actions of the Israelis (Israeli moral responsibility) and what happens to the Palestinians whether it is the fault of the Israelis or themsleves.

I have a funny feeling that you think you can demand MORE of the Israelis that they "withdraw and leave the Palestinians alone". See, I agree with you THAT much. But some of you are expressing OTHER "responsibilities" which I might not agree with.....

Do the Israelis have to keep the Palestinians from starving? (Do they have to provide jobs inside the Green Line? Do they have to make it an OPEN border between the two states? Any more responsibility to do that than any other country? MY country doesn't have an open border so that anybody who wants to come work here can do so -- and until I change THAT, how could I insist the Israelis do?)

Do the Israelis HAVE to refrain from considering attacks by the Palestinians which the Palestinian state does not attempt to put down as "war"? As somebody commented, they COULD do so, let the attacks peter out over time -- though I think 5 years optimistic and in your own experience with Ireland it was over 50. They COULD show restraint, it would be NICE of them to be concerned about the fate of the Palestinians in a hopeless war. But we're talking about moral OBLIGATION, not "niceness". This sort of thing is a "causus belli" traditionally considered legitimate. Do you consider yourselves immoral because you made war on a weaker country that chose to attack you (remember '82)? --- please, I am NOT saying that I might not have thought better of you had you showed restaint -- but I don't think you were being "evil" by kicking the shit out of the Argentines either. That was your choice to make -- THEY gave you a perfectly good excuse however unwise that might have been on their part.

When I say "stuck" I am talking about the emotional inertia affecting BOTH sides here. I am saying that the Palestinians have perhaps just as much cause to be leery of things getting even worse. You are acting as if the only problem is getting the Israelis to withdraw and stop oppressing the Palestinians -- forgetting that we ALSO need to get the Palestinians to accept that as a solution. You act as if it would be the hard part to pressure the Israelis into accepting any one of these "solutions" which has been proposed -- the "Road Map", "Geneva", whatever. WHY? Do you have any reason to believe it would be easier to get Palestinian agreement? What is your understanding of the internal politics within the Palestinian community which leads you to believe that?

Treat this as a serious exercise for a moment (even though it isn't YOUR lives at stake. Try to come up with some plan which you consider fair to both sides -- with the restriction that you cannot impose any preconditions you have not accepted for yourself.
>

Mike
mail e-mail: stepbystepfarm mtdata.com


states and peoples

21.01.2004 17:23

Isn't saying 'the Palestinians don't need a country, they're Arabs so they could all happily move to Jordan' rather like saying 'the British don't need a country, they're Europeans so they could all happily move to France'?

concerned


Or maybe...

21.01.2004 20:25

"the Palestinians don't need a country, they're Arabs so they could all happily move to Jordan"

Maybe he was really saying they could all happily move in with Jordan:

 http://www.tiscali.co.uk/lifestyle/galleries/worst_celebs/images/large/jordan_pink_bra.jpg

But that doesn't make any sense.

Len


mike - thats grand..

22.01.2004 03:13

We're agreed. Back to green line, all settlers withdrawn.
Jerusalem a problem, through being significant to three world religions. Maybe UN involvement, international city, protecting rights of all.

Also agreed, Israel has no further responsibility to palestinians once they withdraw. They can close the green line border to palestinians except for compassionate visits to relatives, which they can control as they feel necessary.
In practice I think Israel would choose to still allow substantial palestinian access to work, simply because they need them - maybe after a cooling-off period.

Yes, palestine would be (is after all the infrastructure demolition) in a frightful mess economically.

I suggest the huge US aid to Israel (was it $11b in grants loans and guarantees last year) should be split equally between Palestine and Israel next year, and then tapered down as they get onto their feet.

US taxpayers money enabled the destruction of the occupied territories - it should support the rebuilding.

The right of return should be bought out from a fund created by the whole international community. Israel can't afford it - alone I believe they are virtually bankrupt.

The biggest other bone of contention - water resources (currently monopolised by the Israelis) should be internationally contolled to stop the palestinians strangling the Israelis back.

Sadly you and I are both waffling - I fear the Israelis are working steadily and consistently to a long term plan which sees the palestinians caged around in closed separate ghettos, fobbed off with a mere travesty of statehood.

arthur