With a new U.S. president, new ideas are emerging on how to resolve the Israel-Palestine debacle. One of the most promising comes from the Jordanian Opposition Council who favor a new Palestinian state — in Jordan.
By Ted Belman
The GOP unanimously approved a pro-Israel platform at their convention in July 2016 which stipulated:
“The U.S. seeks to assist in the establishment of comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, to be negotiated among those living in the region,”
David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt, representing Donald Trump, participated in the drafting and were in complete agreement with the final text.
Gone was any reference to the Palestinian people or to a two-state solution. In addition, the platform included the words “We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier.” If not an “occupier,” then presumably Israel is a sovereign.
Accordingly, the search is on for an alternate solution. Such a solution could take inspiration from the short-lived Feisal/Weizmann Agreement of 1919. The essence of this agreement was that Palestine as it then was, was to be divided into two states, one for the Arabs and one for the Jews. Chaim Weizmann on behalf of the Jews agreed to help develop the Arab state and Emir Feisal agreed to welcome Jewish settlement in the Jewish state and favored friendly cooperative relations.
Although the British didn’t breathe life into this agreement, they did separate Trans-Jordan from Palestine in 1922 with the Jordan River being the boundary between them. Trans-Jordan (Jordan) thus got 78% of the lands promised to the Jews. The remaining 22% consisting of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean was to be the Jewish state. This was enshrined in the Palestine Mandate signed by the League of Nations in 1922.
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
With respect to the Arabs living in Jewish Palestine, the Congressional Record contained the following:
“(2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.
(3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.”
The US was not a member of the League of Nations at this time. In order to be able to protect American interests in Palestine, she entered into the 1924 Anglo-American Convention in which the U.S. bound itself to the terms of the Mandate. This of course meant the recognition of Jewish right to close settlement of Palestine and that all of Palestine was to be the Jewish homeland.
Since then, there were a number of unsuccessful attempts, contrary to the terms of the Mandate, to further divide Jewish Palestine into two states. UN General Assembly Resolution 181, passed in 1947, recommended partition, but was rejected by the Arabs. The Jews on the other hand took advantage of it and declared their independence in 1948. Israel owes its independence to that declaration and not to Resolution 181, which was only a recommendation, precipitating the move.
Nothing has happened of any legal consequence since, to cancel the right of the Jews to settle and be sovereign over all the land to the Jordan River.
To date Israel has been reluctant to claim sovereignty over these lands as the Arabs living there would then demand citizenship resulting in a binational state. This is unacceptable to most Israelis. They also reject the two-state solution.
So what is the alternative?
Consider for a moment, that if Jordan agrees to grant citizenship to all Palestinians, as their law currently provides, and invites the return of all of them to live and work in Jordan, the conflict would soon be ended. While King Abdullah isn’t about to do so, the Jordan Opposition Coalition (JOC) would. This coalition represents all opposition groups in Jordan that back a secular state. The JOC since its creation six years ago has supported good relations with Israel. It does not include groups that support terrorism. This alliance has agreed to work together in order to form the government of Jordan should King Abdullah abdicate. Although at least 75% of Jordanians are Palestinians, the King has disenfranchised them to a great extent in favor of the ethnic Hashemites and Bedouins.
The JOC has produced a detailed plan, Operation “Jordan in Palestine,” which clearly identifies their goals and the operational steps needed to implement their plan. Copies are available upon request.
All that is necessary for this to come to pass is for the U.S. to instruct the king, who currently spends most of his time outside Jordan, to not return home. Then it would arrange for the Jordanian army, which it controls, to support the next popular Palestinian uprising, and to designate who among them would form the interim government.
The JOC, puts it this way:
This plan seeks to execute a feasible two-state solution where Jordan is the natural homeland for all Palestinians, and Israel becomes sovereign over all soil west to the River Jordan. This could only happen if the corrupt, terror-supporting and double-speaking Hashemite royal family leaves Jordan. The Palestinians often revolt against the regime but the king’s police force puts them down. The American media ignore this solution to the unrest in Jordan.
What is needed is for the U.S. to influence the Jordanian army and security agency to stand with the revolution the next time it breaks out. The security agencies and army are already securing the country without any influence from the king who is mostly abroad. Under these conditions, the king would not return. Once that happens an interim government of secular Palestinians who want peace with Israel could be appointed.
Once the interim government is installed, it will strengthen the economy by stopping theft of government money and ending corruption. It will fully enfranchise the Palestinians. All Palestinians around the world would be welcomed to return to Jordan pursuant the current Jordanian citizenship act, which already recognizes all Palestinians as citizens of Jordan. Many Palestinians will emigrate to Jordan in part because many have family members and friends living in Jordan. Work opportunities as well as a rewarding benefits/welfare system will be made available to them by the new interim government as further inducement.
Israel, with many international partners, including the U.S., could finance the building of a new Jordanian city of 1 million people. This would greatly stimulate the Jordanian economy and would provide work for the returning Palestinians. The new homes could be made available to the returnees and locals at subsidized prices further incentivizing people to return. The ending of King Abdullah’s discrimination against Palestinians living in Jordan, would also contribute to making Jordan a desired immigration destination.
Michael Ross, a Republican, wrote after the election of Donald Trump, “Trump Must Speak to Mudar Zahran“ because Zahran offers the alternate solution that Pres Trump is looking for.
As part of this solution, all Palestinian refugees enrolled with UN Relief And Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East could be repatriated to Jordan and given citizenship. Thus UNRWA could be wound up and the current UNRWA funding could be transferred to Jordan to assist in the resettlement.
According to Moshe Feiglin, the head of the Zehut Party in Israel, the Oslo Accords have cost Israel over 1 trillion shekels since they were signed. In addition, Israel has borne the cost of three military campaigns in Gaza. Finally, Israel supplies to the Palestinians their energy, water and sewage treatment for free or at greatly subsidized prices.
Last summer, Feiglin proposed a Solution in which Israel extends Israeli law from the Mediterranean to the Jordan:
We will give the Arab population in those territories three options: The first is voluntary emigration with the aid of a generous emigration grant. The second is permanent residency, similar to the “Green Card” status in the US – not like what is currently the practice in East Jerusalem. This status will be offered to those Arabs who publicly declare their loyalty to the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish Nation. We will safeguard their human rights and will not do anything like we did to ourselves in Gush Katif. The third option will be reserved for relatively few Arabs, and only in accordance with Israeli interests. Those who tie their fate to the fate of the Jewish Nation, like the Druze, can enter a long-term process of attaining citizenship.
Martin Sherman has published a similar plan which he calls the “Humanitarian Solution” as opposed to a strictly political solution. He summarized all his writings in support of such a plan and published them here.
With an estimated $300,000 per family grant, both he and Feiglin have estimated that incentivized compensated emigration will cost Israel over $200 billion USD but both argue it is feasible and worth doing.
The repatriation of Palestinians to Jordan, as proposed by JOC, would greatly facilitate the Palestinian emigration and greatly reduce the grants needed to incentivize it. UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority would both be wound up.
1.75 million Palestinians live in Judea and Samaria (West Bank). The 800,000 Arabs in Hebron, Nablus, Ramallah, and Bethlehem could remain there as Jorandian citizens. Ramallah is only 42 miles from Amman, the capital of Jordan. A new highway could be built connecting all these cities to Amman. The rest would have to be transferred to Jordan.
The 1.8 million Palestinians living in Gaza, of which 1.3 million are registered as refugees, would be incentivized to emigrate to Jordan. After enough leave, Israel could extend its sovereignty to Gaza thereby ending that perennial problem.
Considering the subsidies that the West provides to UNRWA, Gaza and the PA, this would be a bargain. Given that JOC has tied its fate to Israel, Israel would be happy to contribute to such a solution as the present conflict costs her hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
It really is that simple. There is much more that can be said in support of it.
Prof. Hillel Frisch, a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and Yitzhak Sokoloff, a fellow of the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies at Bar-Ilan University recently wrote Trump and the Jordanian Option.
The inauguration of an American administration uncommitted to the principle of an independent Palestinian state provides Israel with the opportunity to advocate a long-term strategic vision of building up a prosperous Jordan that could provide an alternative to the model of a two-state solution based on the Palestinian Authority.
They are wrong to suggest that this can be done with King Abdullah. I believe, as does the JOC, that the king is part of the problem and must be replaced by Palestinians.
Gideon Saar, a touted future Prime Minister of Israel, in his recent article, Goodbye Two-State Solution, wrote:
A Jordanian-Palestinian federative solution would offer the Palestinians space in addition to their autonomy. We could also consider adopting a joint Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian economic framework. And there are many other ideas that could be constructed as a result of quiet, serious work with the backing of a supportive US administration.
He is right but the ultimate alternate solution is the one put forward by the JOC.
If anyone wants more information or can help this solution get traction, please write me (tbelman3@gmail.com).
Addendum
David Singer suggested drawing a new border in the Israel Jordan peace agreement. I suggest it should be here.
Shiloh and Beit El must remain in Israel yet they lie east of the new road. In some place the new road can be moved a little to the west if there are significant Arab populations to be included. And look at Ariel. It too must be kept on the Israeli side. A very crooked road. That’s why I came to the conclusion that maybe its better to move them all out.
On second thought I have an alternate suggestion:
Rather than draw a new border, transfer the 1.7 million Arabs in J&S and perhaps 100,000 from Jerusalem to Jordan
But leave the Arabs in Gaza. Israel should put Jordan in power there even if she has to defeat Hamas to do so.
Thus only 1.8 million Arabs from J&S and east Jerusalem would have to move.
One more thing. We could build a highway from Gaza to Jordan . This highway could be open to Egyptian traffic and thus Egypt would finally have a land bridge to Jordan which they want. Jordan would thus gain a port on the Mediterranean.
Israel has historical and moral rights to Judea/Samaria. Modern Legal Rights in part stem from the San Remo treaty and the Palestinian Manadate.
If one wishes to learn about the legality of Israeli settlements in Judea/ Samaria click on the following: http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/03/the-legal-case-for-israels-settlements/
@ david singer:
https://unitedwithisrael.org/analysis-setting-the-record-straight-on-israels-rights-in-judea-and-samaria-under-international-law/
@ david singer:
I have not worked on it. The present border I drew just west of the Arab cities would necessitate 800,000 Palestinians from J&S to be transferred to Jordan of course with compensation.Although I didn’t show it on the map, we could retain the Jordan Valley except for Jericho.
So in my scenario we are also transferring 1.7 million Gazans to Jordan. In total 2.5 to Jordan with 800,000 to remain. With those numbers we may as well transfer them all.
But if Gaza can be conquered by Israel, she can install Jordan in power there and that means that 1.7 Gazans don’t have to be transferred. Thus only 1.7 from J&S would have to move.
One more thing. We could build a highway from Gaza to Jordan just south of the border between Israel and Eqypt. This highway would thus be in Eqypt and Egypt would also benefit from it and finally have a land bridge to Jordan which they want. And Jordan would have a port on the Mediterranean.
So I prefer this to keeping the Arab cities where they are but part of Jordan.
@ Ted Belman:
Ted
I am a little confused by your response and seek the following clarifications:
1. Let’s talk about Judea and Samaria first.
2. You state:
“The present border I drew just west of the Arab cities would necessitate 800,000 Palestinians from J&S to be transferred to Jordan of course with compensation.”
I take this to mean that your new border would see 800000 Arabs in J and S living on the Israel side of that new border and that you want those 800000 Arabs transferred to the Jordan side of the new border with compensation.
Please confirm this is correct.
If correct – how many Jews would remain on the Jordan side of the new border?
3. If my conclusions in 2 are correct – then the new border you have prepared (Draft 1) needs to be redrawn so as to include as few Arabs as possible on the Israel side and as few Jews as possible on the Jordan side.(“the identified affected populations”) whilst also accommodating Israel’s security concerns.
The new border need not be a straight line. It can twist and turn around towns and villages as do so many international borders around the world.
When you have prepared the new border (Draft 2) we can then discuss what is to happen to the identified affected populations.
Perhaps everyone else contributing to this discussion could also come up with their own versions of how the new international border would look – providing us all with their proposed maps their estimates of the identified affected populations.
Let us then agree on the best map and then go on to discuss how to deal with the identified affected populations.
This seems to me a far more worthwhile exercise of ourcollective time than engaging in lengthy comments that really end up going nowhere in trying to resolve a conflict that has now been ongoing for 100 years.
I have not followed the discussion in the last 50 comments or more. I intend to read them all and follow the debate.
I do want to say one thing now. I prefaced the post on Trump not wanting to criticise Israel.
I prefer Jordan as a partner to talks instead of the PA because they have so much land and we are so short of it. If Abdullah is willing to take the Palestinians in, in exchange for money, let’s talk. If not Trump should pressure him to do so. He should be given the choice to do so or to abdicate. One option is to have his Palestinian wife replace him as the monarch.
He can always be replaced by the JOC. And I believe that with US and Israel support we can keep him in power just as we kept Abbas in power.
Ted
How are you going with preparing draft 2 of the proposed new international border between Israel and Jordan?
@ Sebastien Zorn:
I am your humble acolyte.
@ david singer:
Correct me if I am wrong but it appears pride of authorship has gotten laser focused on this Jordanian option.
Israel (Moshe Dayan) made a huge mistake in getting Jordan involved in the running the Muslim institutions on the Temple Mount. This is a major problem. Israel does not need to get the Jordanians involved in Judea/Samaria. If they want to take those with Jordanian citizenship into Jordan fine. Anything west of the Jordan River we have the right to apply Israeli Civil Law if we so deem in our best interests.
If we mix the Jordanians into our affairs it will completely backfire and make a complicated situation even worse. They have enough trouble trying to keep Jordan from exploding and unable to do anything more.
You have a bad idea! It is will not help.
You state:
“Anything west of the Jordan River we have the right to apply Israeli Civil Law if we so deem in our best interests.”
What “right” are you referring to?
@ bernard ross:
You omit to mention that Israel and the PLO were the only parties to the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap.
Jordan – occupying 78% of the territory designated in the Mandate and having occupied another 4% between 1948 to 1967 – was conveniently left out of solving a problem it had materially helped to create.
Now is the time for Jordan to come to the party.
@ honeybee:
Good girl.
david singer Said:
No one placed that responsibility on Israel. Israel took it in war
and the world wants them to give it up. You appear completely ignorant of pertinent facts and history which might explain absurd statements such as this one.
david singer Said:
No need for a 3rd Arab state on the mandate territory of the Jewish homeland, they were NOT trying to “establish a second Arab state” just trying to establish non belligerence with neighbors which they have accomplished with some success with Egypt and Jordan.
david singer Said:
ragtag compared to the army of Egypt, Jordan and Hezbullah; I refer to the PA who would become as hamastan if given the same or more sovereignty. Also, Hamastan is only limited in threat by the exercise of limiting their sovereignty. If they were a fully free recognized state they would not be limited in threat.
david singer Said:
Absurd rubbish as already explained,there is no upside to Jordan being legally able to maintain troops and weaponry west of the river with new land and borders and there is no reason for you to seek such a dangerous scenario which increases military threat to Israe!. You have stated no factual based argument for adding a new threat which Israel drove out in war.
david singer Said:
The constitution of Jordan is irrelevant AND the west bank was neither part of the original Brit fraudulent creation NOR was their occupancy recognized by any nation other than Pakistan and the swindling trustee perfidious Albion
Try to internalize the fact that Jordan and Israel negotiated and agreed their borders over 20 years ago PLUS giving the PA an uncontrolled physical link to Jordan has been tried and failed with Gaza, a huuuuge mistake which completely relies now on the leader of any day in Egypt, a huge mistake.
Bernard
The Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty states:
“3.1 The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
3.2 The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.”
The status of those territories still remains undetermined. My suggestion is that Israel and Jordan determine such status within the framework of their existing signed peace treaty by redrawing the international boundary between their respective States in direct negotiations.
If Jordan rejects that invitation or such negotiations end up going nowhere like those with the PLO over the last 23 years – then it will fall to Israel to unilaterally determine that status.
Bear Klein Said:
I don’t wish to grammar maven, as are some on this blog, but please re-read the above sentence.
Bear Klein Said:
Mr. Zorn Esq., greatest expertise is in advanced B.S..
@ david singer:
+1, David Singer!
Um, Netanyahu will NEVER let anything like this happen, Ted. He remains 100% invested in the TSS. He is a “man out of time”. Unless Israel elects new leadership that will take full advantage of a 4 or 8 year window that Trump’s presidency has opened, the can will continue to be kicked down the road by the TSS crowd.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Straw Man good observation.
Or dazzle em with your bullshit when you got nothing else going.
Jordan just released the murder of 7 Israeli girls from prison.
@ yamit82:
@ david singer:
The solution to the conflict seems self-evident: when two people contest the land, split it to satisfy both.
Historically, such approach never worked. Nations split the contested territories based on the balance of power rather than equitably. Settled disputes keep boiling and erupt once the balance of power changes: the dominant power weakens or the determination to challenge it grows.
If Arabs accepted the 1948 refugees, why won’t they accept the 2017 refugees? If they accepted that 2/3 of Palestinian population was expelled in 1948, why won’t they accept that a 100% of the Palestinian population will be expelled in 2017? If Arabs accepted a Jewish state in the Palestinian land in the 1967 borders why won’t they accept it including Judea and Samaria? If, on other hand, Arabs in their hearts did not accept Israel or the 1948 displacement of Palestinians, why appease them? Cleanse more land for the Jewish state. Arabs won’t hate us more after we drive them to Jordan.
There was no peace in 1966; why would the peace ensue after Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders? Palestinians are much more nationalist and militant than before. The border is not a problem. The problem is a Jewish state in Muslim lands; that’s an insult for Arabs. Jewish residents of Israeli towns resist the Arabs moving into their neighborhoods; how much more the xenophobic Arabs resist Jewish invasion into their lands?
There was a peace process between America and Germany, after the WWI; it resulted in WWII. Only the unconditional surrender in WWII when the Allies redrew German borders at will and transferred ethnic Germans out of France, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, created sustainable peace. Peace process with militant terrorists is self-delusion. Whatever treaty Abbas signs, Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, PIJ, PRC, PFLP, and similar outfits won’t adhere to it. Fatah doesn’t fight Israel now – the militant groups do. What would change if Israel formally abandons Judea and Samaria? They will still fight the Zionist state. In fact, they will be emboldened by the apparent success of driving out a strong enemy, just like the victories in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Gaza encouraged Muslims worldwide. Unilateral withdrawal is more of a goodwill gesture than peace settlement, but Arabs shower Israel with rockets after she gave them Gaza. Goodwill, especially forced goodwill, is never reciprocated.
Nationalist disputes are central to collective mentality, and their participants aren’t afraid to die and eager to kill. They want to achieve their goals rather than attain safety. Arab governments support Palestinian Terrorists as a viable alternative to an all-out war with Israel.
An annihilated enemy is the only good peace partner.
bernard ross Said:
The solution to the conflict seems self-evident: when two people contest the land, split it to satisfy both.
Historically, such approach never worked. Nations split the contested territories based on the balance of power rather than equitably. Settled disputes keep boiling and erupt once the balance of power changes: the dominant power weakens or the determination to challenge it grows.
If Arabs accepted the 1948 refugees, why won’t they accept the 2017 refugees? If they accepted that 2/3 of Palestinian population was expelled in 1948, why won’t they accept that a 100% of the Palestinian population will be expelled in 2017? If Arabs accepted a Jewish state in the Palestinian land in the 1967 borders why won’t they accept it including Judea and Samaria? If, on other hand, Arabs in their hearts did not accept Israel or the 1948 displacement of Palestinians, why appease them? Cleanse more land for the Jewish state. Arabs won’t hate us more after we drive them to Jordan.
There was no peace in 1966; why would the peace ensue after Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders? Palestinians are much more nationalist and militant than before. The border is not a problem. The problem is a Jewish state in Muslim lands; that’s an insult for Arabs. Jewish residents of Israeli towns resist the Arabs moving into their neighborhoods; how much more the xenophobic Arabs resist Jewish invasion into their lands?
There was a peace process between America and Germany, after the WWI; it resulted in WWII. Only the unconditional surrender in WWII when the Allies redrew German borders at will and transferred ethnic Germans out of France, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, created sustainable peace. Peace process with militant terrorists is self-delusion. Whatever treaty Abbas signs, Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, PIJ, PRC, PFLP, and similar outfits won’t adhere to it. Fatah doesn’t fight Israel now – the militant groups do. What would change if Israel formally abandons Judea and Samaria? They will still fight the Zionist state. In fact, they will be emboldened by the apparent success of driving out a strong enemy, just like the victories in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Gaza encouraged Muslims worldwide. Unilateral withdrawal is more of a goodwill gesture than peace settlement, but Arabs shower Israel with rockets after she gave them Gaza. Goodwill, especially forced goodwill, is never reciprocated.
Nationalist disputes are central to collective mentality, and their participants aren’t afraid to die and eager to kill. They want to achieve their goals rather than attain safety. Arab governments support Palestinian Terrorists as a viable alternative to an all-out war with Israel.
An annihilated enemy is the only good peace partner.
David Singer Said:
The competing claims for YS are between the PA and Israel, Jordan is not part of your “claim”. Israel and Jordan already have a treaty with agreed boundary at the river,,…… you are evading the question with your vague reply. Jordan seeks no renegotiation of the border so why do you want to give Jordan what they never asked for? They have not asked to be part of any negotiation over land which they dont claim,land which they don’t want and land which they handed over to Israel.,…. so why are you seeking to negotiate with Jordan? The problem and negotiation is with the PA, You are bringing in an uneccessary element and have not given a reason for your odd proposal to give land to Jordan that they don’t want for no reason offered. The article proposed Jordan as Palestine and the pals moving there,
Your comment on Jordan crossing the river was also an evasion but you probably evaded it because you saw it was ludicrous to give Jordan a legal right to move its army, missiles and weapons to Jerusalem. Today Jordan has no legal right to cross that river but under your plan they can legally move their army to the new border which you want to give them.
Its best to solve the problem without making new problems already solved. Creating a situation where a national army can move in, rather than a ragtag militia as now obtains, would be a new unnecessary threat. It would be better to keep the PA which is controllable rather than add a new potential future threat.
All proposals should pass the test of “things change and can become their opposite”. Keep Jordan across the river, deal with the current divided pals without bringing in Egypt or Jordan. Sharon created a major threat in abandoning control over the Egypt Gaza border.
Bernard
Problem with your analysis is that Israel has been negotiating with the PLO for 23 years and got nowhere in trying to establish a second Arab State – in additon to Jordan – in the area covered by the 1922 Mandate for Palestine.
What you describe as a “ragtag militia” has the capacity to turn into Hamastan the Second which is in no one’s interest.
Sure Jordan has tried to keep away from resolving a problem it helped create by entering the Six Day War in 1967. But it requires international pressure to make sure it now shares the responsibilty for resolving the problem of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria following the collapse of Israel-PLO negotiations.
Placing that responsibility solely on Israel has been a fundamental misjudgement and miscalculation by the international community that clearly has failed.
Jordan must be involved in resolving sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.
Article 1 of the Jordanian Constitution states:
“The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an independent sovereign Arab State. It is indivisible and inalienable and no part of it may be ceded.”
Yes it is still on the statute books.
That is another reason that Israel should conduct direct negotiations with Jordan.
Two people “liked” the comment I wrote on an article about Lieberman’s proposal for land swaps at Jewish Press. I re-read it, and I like my comment, as well.
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Liberman-Population-swaps-should-be-part-of-Israeli-Palestinian-peace-deal-467592?spot_im_comment_id=sp_jpost_467592_c_ZjJ4z9&spot_im_highlight_immediate=true
And if they ever invade Israel, again, That goes for Jordan and Egypt as well. And anybody else. Any nation who invades or attempts to invade, destroy or conquer Israel and loses, deserves to be occupied forever. Military Occupation is the most ubiquitous, the longest lasting and the most stable form of government in history. It’s democracy that’s the fluke. The Arabs occupied the entire Middle East and turned the indigenous peoples into persecuted minorities over time. No reason not to return the favor.
@ David Singer:
Near past mistakes are not a rational for giving up land. Gaza has proven what a disaster it is to give up land.
My guess is you do not live in Israel nor ever have? Correct me if I am wrong. Giving up our land to potential enemies and letting them use to as a place to destroy you is basically suicidal.
I understand you are well meaning but you do not answer security questions nor modify or eliminate the threat to Israel with you proposal, in fact you make things worse. Right now almost every single night we capture terrorists in Area A/B. We then obtain info from these terrorists where others are. Then we go out and capture some more. This has helped prevent the vast majority of terror attacks and break up terror cells. Israel can not give up security for paper arrangements with any Arabs. I know people want to solve the conflict but it is not simple nor will it be quick.
Israel had a five year intifada when we could not go into the PA prior to its start and the Pals blew up buses and cafes. People were very scared. What you propose would expose Israel to this type of crisis again and perhaps much worse. That is why understanding basics about security in Israel is needed before one can intelligently talk about conflict solutions.
Israel has a peace treaty with Jordan. It states the border is the Jordan River, the middle of the Dead Sea and South to Eilat. That border will do just fine. They were forced to that border. So you wanted to know borders that is the border.
comment in moderation
@ David Singer:
Easy in the interim period I have Israel’s eastern border the Jordan River Nothing absolutely nothing West of the river and that would be an interim border until circumstances allow us to move our borders East of the Jordan.
In return for acknowledging her defeat in the century-old struggle for the Jewish state, Israel will get nothing. Zero. Nil. Absolutely. No population exchange: Israel will swallow her tremendous Arab population, which already makes 34% in 0-9 age group. Hamas will continue in the Palestinian territories. Fatah will continue its terrorist activity against Israel – oy, Fatah will renounce terrorism on paper and verily promise to end it. Iran will not accept Israel in whatever borders larger than a cemetery. Syria will not dismantle its hundreds of missiles. Saudi Arabia will not cut down $100 billion+ worth of advanced weapons it purchased from the US in the recent years. Egypt will continue receiving American aid and spending it on the cutting-edge weapons only directed against Israel.
Israel is ready for “sweeping concessions” while Arabs offer none. Israel seeks peace while Arabs don’t. Israel hinges on the 0.1% of the Middle East’s territory while her enemies ready themselves on the 99.9% of the land.
If Jewish political rulers survive, the Jewish state won’t.
Voltaire, a wise anti-Semite who remarked correctly that should the Jews get their own state, they would sell it.
yamit82 Said:
Israeli High Court Justices:
As Mao Zedong remarked, a proposition could be true and false at the same time: true for some, false for another. Why would we want arbitrators who find the Jewish propositions false?
bernard ross Said:
Arafat, that evil pile of drek, for once in his crawly life, did a good deed, although unwittingly.. He refused. !
P.S. Something went wrong with the post above, I had no intention of including as “highlighted” the whole comment, but actually, reading it again, and Bernard Ross’s comments does my heart good.
It looks as if two posts became intertwined. I obviously pressed the wrong keys or something, because the site has been working excellently.
@ David Singer:
xx
I made the same comments on Ted’s map, above, and said that there be no conceding any land to Arabs etc. and suggested a remedy, the age old one, the only one which will work with Arabs. Yamit2 echoed the same thing. Perhaps you did not bother reading it……None of us has any right in this world to concede to any other entity a scrap of this Land, which is deeded to the Jewish People, as long as there are any on this earth.
This of course is bombast, but true nevertheless. Why be rushed into a ridiculous philanthropic gesture. Remember the Pesach Hagada says we should regard ourselves every year as being as Hebrews coming out from Egypt to Freedom.
We’ve arrived after indescribable suffering, but still not free, because of all these silly propositions being concocted over and over and over again. The Arabs have been too inculcated with slaughter, for 3-4 generations, and this added on to their age-old naturally inherited Jew hate, makes rapprochement impossible. So we waste our time building castles in the air….
Give it up and stop beimg a genius and be a common-sense person.
Mudar’s plan. as I said above. is far better for Israel than Ted’s.@ bernard ross:
xxx
I have NEVER believed for one second that the people, when they realised what the Barak give-away really meant, would have not risen up and absolutely refused to allow it to happen. There could have been Civil War, which, thanks to Arafat, that scum, for once did a good deed and refused.bernard ross Said:
@ David Singer:
xx
I made the same comments on Ted’s map, above, and said that there be no conceding any land to Arabs etc. and suggested a remedy, the age old one, the only one which will work with Arabs. Yamit2 echoed the same thing. Perhaps you did not bother reading it……None of us has any right in this world to concede to any other entity a scrap of this Land, which is deeded to the Jewish People, as long as there are any on this earth.
This of course is bombast, but true nevertheless. Why be rushed into a ridiculous philanthropic gesture. Remember the Pesach Hagada says we should regard ourselves every year as being as Hebrews coming out from Egypt to Freedom.
We’ve arrived after indescribable suffering, but still not free, because of all these silly propositions being concocted over and over and over again. The Arabs have been too inculcated with slaughter, for 3-4 generations, and this added on to their age-old naturally inherited Jew hate, makes rapprochement impossible. So we waste our time building castles in the air….
Give it up and stop beimg a genius and be a common-sense person.
Mudar’s plan. as I said above. is far better for Israel than Ted’s. With a little tweaking of course, but we are in the position of being able to insist….
@ honeybee:
Except for Helen of Troy who goes to war over women???
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Right, drawing borders west of river makes no sense, like Gaza and Lebanon it will lower security by limiting access plus it is the Jewish homeland, the Arab homeland is in Arabia. Temporary residence and limited autonomy, its not about them, its about the Jews. They had their chance and could not get along so they must suffer any damage caused by their MO.
David Singer Said:
Why do you want to give land under Israeli control to Jordan, there are no negotiations with them re the border so why do you seek a new border with Jordan?
Why would you want the Jordan army crossing the river under any circumstances?
To try to negotiate an end to the two competing Arab and Jewish claims to Judea and Samaria.
Whether the Jordanian army can cross the Jordan River will be for Israel and Jordan to determine.
@ yamit82:
Sounds great! I wouldn’t mind it being even bigger. Any excuse will do. Jewish Power equals Jewish Survival. Period. Israel should grow at the expense of her enemies the way the U.S. did from 13 little colonies to most of N. America. And out with the “natives”, in with the Jews. Yeah! If only. Sigh. We’ll be lucky to hold onto our pants.
The only solution involving Jordan is where west bank pals leave or are driven out to Jordan,whether through deposing, war or invitation. Right now the pals already have 2 states: a defacto state in Gaza and Jordan. They can go to either or remain as temp residents subject to their non anti semitic behavior, but no state sovereignty in the west bank. Gaza is big enough for all of them with less pop. density than Monaco or Hong Kong. Personally I would not give them Gaza on the Med.
Gaza should be retaken as payment for Jews driven from Arab countries.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Biblical map one of several versions mine is Max!!! The speculative map above is mostly based on the commentaries of Rashi and Malbim about the boundaries of the future described in the Book of Ezekiel, chapters 47-48. The details of the future map of the Land of Israel are mentioned only cryptically in the Tanach and various Talmudic sources. All of Egygy west of the Nile includes Sinai all of Lebanon most of what today is Syria and all Iraq west of the Euphrates includes all of northern Saudi Arabia.
@ bernard ross:
Well said. What’s the rush? Other than the Bedouin multiplying in the Negev, time is on Israel’s side. Israel is not the one that needs peace. Israelis need sovereignty. Or status quo. Concessions? What for? The Sunni Arab states that are quietly beginning to rely on Israel are not doing so for any reason other than momentary self-interest. It has absolutely zero to do with Israel’s borders or what Israel does within those borders. Aside from the fact that no one has the right to give away any part of the inalienable birth right of the entire Jewish Nation, past, present and future. Who makes concessions from a position of strength? Idiocy. Territory once ceded can’t be recovered, at least as things stand. The idea that there is anything inherently unsustainable in a military occupation or a quasi-occupation is silly. Most of history and the longest lasting regimes have been that way. It’s democracy that’s a fluke. The U.S. is the only democratic republic in the world that’s had an unbroken Constitution lasting over a hundred years. We don’t have to give away any advantage. Nor should we. And this situation puts Jews at a disadvantage. Why should Jews in Area C not have the benefits of Civil rule and be able to build and go where they want? Why should Jews not be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount. The Arabs have to go in the long run, in the short, they should be put on notice to behave themselves, or else.
Fiddling with borders will not stop terrorism. I posted a link to a site, in an earlier comment to another post, that had a chart that went from 1948 to the late 1990s which showed that there were the fewest terror attacks during the wars in ’67, ’73, and ’82. There is a clear choice. Our soldiers fight, conquer and dominate the enemy beyond the country’s borders, or the enemy attacks civilians within. Peace is not an option. There is no diplomatic solution (where have I heard that, is that a quote from something?). I liked your next comment, as well, but I replied to this one because it got stuck in moderation and I had to unstick it.
@ David Singer:
Why seek to cede any area to Jordan, why invite a nation with an army, missiles and weapons west of the river and right to Jerusalem? Why allow that incursion to anyone? The pals are controllable with no army or heavy weapons and the Egypt Gaza border demonstrates that Israel must always be between the PA and Jordan. Look at how Jordan uses the treaty to prevent Jews from the Mount. Duh??????
@ David Singer:
Failed prophetic movements increase their proselytizing efforts to substitute social proof for truth. Once a path is chosen, people tend to keep to it despite all contradictory evidence. After the initial reason for taking that path falls into disrepute, people invent new reasons: the peace process evolved as a means to attain security, but evolved into a quest for justness because the security objective proved unattainable. When it became evidently unjust as Jews lost their holy sites, it became a matter of reaching a consensus with the international community.
When people cannot evaluate the truth, they look for social proof instead of objective truth. The number of adherents to a particular idea and intensity of their beliefs is mistaken for proof. Israel’s population cannot evaluate the intricacies of the peace process, and so the population looks to the peace zealots for a social example. The mass political suicide of an Israeli society that follows the peaceniks is not unlike the Holocaust or Jonestown, where masses walked to their deaths because imitation was their only behavioral benchmark.
Jews are framed as enemies of peace because Arabs are unflinching. When the Arabs refuse to yield and Jews yield consistently, foreigners take Jewish procrastination in yielding as malicious. The enemy of peace is someone who can yield but does not. Arabs cannot be expected to yield, thus the Jews became an obstacle to peace.
The Arab refusal to yield is recognized as sensible: they are fighting for nationalist goals. Jews, on the contrary, speak in terms of security. Foreigners rightly assume that the current confrontation offers Israel no security, and imposing some restrictions on the Palestinian state answers Israeli security needs. Instead of trying to appear nice, Israel must up the stakes and refuse to cooperate. At that point, the West would either blame the Arabs for not yielding to the mad Jews, or forget the issue as it ignores scores of unsolvable conflicts around the world.
@ bernard ross:
Well said. What’s the rush? Other than the Bedouin multiplying in the Negev, time is on Israel’s side. Israel is not the one that needs peace. Israelis need sovereignty. Or status quo. Concessions? What for? The Sunni Arab states that are quietly beginning to rely on Israel are not doing so for any reason other than momentary self-interest. It has absolutely zero to do with Israel’s borders or what Israel does within those borders.
yamit82 Said:
You need to re-study your American History. Land is and always will be the subject of more wars then women.
David Singer Said:
A totally illogical statement as everything that followed demonstrated that nothing should be ceded as things changed to make that clear:
Barack withdrawal brought existential danger to Israel,
Sharon’s Gaza withdrawal the same,
ditto Olmert..
they even considered giving the Golan….. insane.
BTW, it was not Israel who would have ceded but one idiot, one dead blackmailed corrupt leader and one blackmailed jailed corrupt leader all 3 of whom could have caused the destruction of Israel.
@ yamit82:
Bad with maps. Does that map include the Sinai Penninsula and Southern Lebanon, i.e., all the territory that Israel captured and relinquished (not sure how far Israel got in ’56)?
Bear Klein Said:
Absolutely, 100% correct. Neither to PA nr Jordan.Especially Jordan. If the gov of Jordan were to change to a hostile gov,which the anti semitic population makes the most likely result, instead of being back at the river they would be legally right back at Jerusalem.
Even if it did not change Israel would no longer be legally able to enter the PA, which appears to be regularly necessary, without Jordan’s permission. Today Israel can enter anytime and even under an autonomy not connected to Jordan this entry would not force Jordan into war.
The whole idea that one can dump the problem, and responsibity, on others is absurd. It is best to allow no Arab gov legally nearer than they now are. Even Egypt is unstable as Morsi became hostile and threatened ending the treaty.
Allow no state sovereignty west of river, Gaza was already a huge error as it could çonfederate with a future MB Egypt allowing Egypt forces into Gaza. It matters not who today’s ruler is as tomorrow all is likely to change. The populations of all neighbors are Jew haters… duh???
@ yamit82:
Your comment on Ted’s map is well made.
That is why I have asked him to come up with an improved map showing the new international border between Jordan and Israel.
Indeed why don’t you or anyone else have a go?
@ David Singer:
Same defeatist and pygmies wanted to cede the Golan to Syria then as well…. in lieu of what has transpired since in Syria do you believe it was sound intelligent thinking? If your answer is no then think; you are doing the same thing here…… If you are successful which you won’t, it will lead to a disaster for us. I ask again what’s in it for us???? We are living in the ME not the Middle West!!!
Ted Belman says: David Singer suggested drawing a new border in the Israel Jordan peace agreement. I suggest it should be here. https://i2.wp.com/www.israpundit.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/new-border1.png
No vision here and it will be self defeating.
My vision is a Jewish vision See Here: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the Egyptian River as far as the great river, the Euphrates.”
Bereshit (Genesis) 15:18
@ Bear Klein:
Of course and pls have someone explain by what right do the so called Palestinians have a right to a state?
Belman ,- Singer and others keep mistaking formal signed agreement for a positive outcome and Western concepts of “Peace” Thousands of articles and comments where they correctly wrote insightful arguments revealing the nature of the enemy and Islam then they turn around and wish to hand them partially of what they want???? In a zero sum game they win we lose. We gain nothing if such agreement can be attained and have a lot to lose and in the end it will hasten not only war between Israel and Palis but to the whole region and possibly beyond.
What’s the rush and or pressure to give away our heartland now especially now???? How absurd it is to imagine a lion that enters a camp of gazelles to teach them manners, self-defense, or agriculture. No, lions are satisfied with the immediate goal of satiation—if at the gazelle’s expense. The peace process is similar. Israel has tried rejecting the Palestinians’ demands, acceding to them, and every option in between. Nothing has worked—because policies never work. The Middle East’s ecosystem is a textbook example of a complex adaptive system. Any policy would be wrong here. Who could honestly have predicted that Arafat would refuse the statehood Barak gave him on silver plate? Who knew Nasser’s mind in 1967, when he wanted to attack Israel? Do we know whether Iran develops nuclear weapons or merely defends its right to conduct nuclear enrichment? There are myriad inherently unknown variables in the peace process equation. If Israeli Arabs are loyal, that calls for one solution; if they are not, the solution must be entirely different. If Palestinian Arabs want to live in peace with Israel, that’s one situation; if Palis refugees would never accept a Jewish state, that’s a totally different situation. Would Egypt pursue a hostile peace with Israel, or would its Muslim radicals come to power and opt for war?
Mid-term economic planning proved a communist failure, but democratic states plan something incredibly more complex than economy—human societies. The peace process will invariably fail. The only solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict is to stop seeking a solution. Jews settled in the Middle East’s equivalent of inner-city slums. Former residents can be sent to jails (or refugee camps) but they will keep coming back. If Jews lack the resolve for the biblically mandated solution, the only alternative is enduring a smoldering conflict for centuries. That’s completely acceptable.
Many more Israelis are killed in car accidents than in terrorist attacks.
@ Ted Belman:
Ted
Concentrate on the West Bank Arabs at this point of time.
How is the second draft of the new border between Israel and Jordan progressing?
@ Bear Klein:
Israel was prepared to cede its claims to more than 90% of Judea and Samaria in 2000/1 and 2008 which disproves your claim that nothing should be ceded.
Given the changed security circumstances since those two offers were rejected – the area to be ceded in any negotiations with Jordan could be reasonably be expected to be less this time round.
Attorney General to oppose Regulation Law in Supreme Court
Mandelblit expected to attend petition hearing, argue against regulation law, and present position contrary to that of government.
BB conveniently was delayed in Britain so he never voted but if he does not fire Mandelblit it means he is against the Law and should be deposed /impeached as PM. Otherwise the Knesset is a sham with no legal standing in Israel and we have surrendered to the dictatorship of unpatriotic Judges and executive but worst of all to foreigners who want us destroyed.