...I think I see a solution to the Israel-Arab conflict.
Jordan shall declare itself to be the Palestinian state. Israel will negotiate the borders in the WB with it. New border -- Israel gets the larger settlements, the cities; Palestine -- or Jordan -- the rest.
The refugees become Palestinian citizens, of course; can live anyhere in the new Palestine. Other issues, such as compensation to the refugees -- actually their descendants -- can be settled.
(If there was any justice in the world, by the Arab states who deliberately kept them in camps as a pawn against Israel for SIXTY YEARS, but probably, knowing the Arab world's history of treatment of their "Palestinian brothers" -- the only thing they're willing to do for them is kill Jews in their name -- by the west. Still, money was spent in far worse ways -- supporting Arafat, say.)
ADVANTAGES:
1). For truth:
Jordan IS the Palestinian state in all but name. It's population is 80% or so Palestinian. The population in the west bank, at least, is exactly the same -- often also from the same clans and families -- as that of Jordan. Not surprising: until 1920, "Trans-Jordan" was part of Palestine.
2). For solving the conflict in principle:
a). Once we see this obvious fact, then it is easy to see that what we have here is not a conflict between Israel and the entire Arab world, where Israel is alway at a disadvantage and therefore must never give up anything; but neither is it a conflict between Israel and the "stateless" Palestinians who therefore must destroy Israel to free themselves. It is rather a conflict between two countries -- Israel and Palestine -- over SOME, indeed a small, part of the territory.
b). Unlike the two terrorist gangs (PLO and Hamas) who rule the Palestinian areas now, which are clearly only interested in a Palestinian state as part of the "stage plan" for Israel's destruction (see their charters, TV, educations of the young, claims of their "moderate" leaders, etc.) , this Jordan/Palestine's constitution, as well as history, education, etc. shows it is not really interested in Israel's destruction. The all-important element of being able to trust them -- for good reason, an element completely missing from the PA, let alone Hamas -- exists here. So the Israelies would be far more likely to agree to a solution.
c). What's more, the Israelis would wake up to the fact that they HAVE a peace agreement with the Palestinian state, Jordan, since the mid-1990s, which was (on the whole) carefully kept -- not PERFECTLY kept, but certainly it wasn't a deliberate fraud, part of the "staged plan" for Israel's destruction, like the Olso "peace" agreements. So there IS "something to talk about", after all, after the intrasergence and genocidal intentions of the PA have seemingly ruined any chance for peace.
3). For the Israelies:
Obvious, I think.
4). For the Palestinians:
a). You wanted a contingent, viable state? You got it -- or more precisely, you simply officially recognize that you ALREADY HAVE IT. Three times as large as Israel, or so. INCLUDING the west-of-the-Jordan Palestinian areas, or at least most of them.
b). Refugee problem (actually, "Arab world's plan to destroy Israel demographically while caring not one white for their Palestinian 'brothers'" problem, but I digress) solved, and NOT by resettling the Palestinians as barely-tolerated minorities in other Arab and Muslim states, but in their own country, which is already 80% or so Palestinian.
5). For the present Jordanians:
a). 80% are Palestinian anyway. For them it's merely a name change that recognizes the obvious. Certainly not one that will hurt them.
b). The Hashemite minority might worry. But they are not, after all, any safer now from possible violence from the Palestinian majority than they would be if Jordan becomes officially the Palestinian state. Their safety depends on the good relations between them and the Palestinian majority, not on a Palestinian looking at the name "Jordan" in the map and saying "oh yeah, I forgot I'm really Jordanian". And besides, who says you can't be a Palestinian citizen and a Hashemite?
c). The ruling Hashemite kings and leaders are the most difficult issue. Hussein and Abdullah are certainly no Zionists, but have on the whole behaved well and shown repeatedly they have no interest in taking over Israel. Will they be thrown to the wolves? Absolutely not: Let Abdullah declare himself, with popular support, king of Palestine!. Just change the name, keep the (more-or-less constitutional) monarchy.
Would this be supported? Considering the fact that the Palestinians either are or were (until 1967 and later) Jordanian citizens -- that is, again, citizens of the de facto state of Palestine, named "transjordan" by the British -- this is no change than what is actually the case. If the 80% of the Jordanians who are Palestinians never, in the last 90-or-so years, felt a particular urge to "liberate" transjordan -- eastern Palestine, that is -- from the "foreign Hahemite occupation", why should a mere name change make them want to do it now?
There have been many cases in History of kings -- including very popular ones -- who ruled over other nations than their own. Quite a few crowned heads of England, for instance -- including the current family -- were (originally) not English, and indeed could hardly speak English! And they were still loved. Britian fought two world wars with Germany when their kings were ethnically German -- and nobody seems to have bothered by the fact that they are ruled by such "traitors".
5). For justice:
a). No population transfer -- except for the expect return, of their free will, of the Palestinians to this new (or rather, quite old) Palestine. Nobody is expelled from their home for "peace" -- neither Arab nor Jew. Nobody's city is destroyed.
b). No more occupation -- Palestinians are Palestinian citizens of a Palestinian state ruled by Palestinians (the Jordanian, that is, Palestinian, government). Jews are ruled by the Israeli government. This is equally true whether they're east of the Jordan or west of it.
c). Israel does not have to give up all the territories. It is an extremely dangerous precedent if a nation who attacked another with intent to destroy it -- as Jordan, that is, Palestine, did in 1948 and (though under Egyptian pressume) in 1967 -- must, "for justice", get all of it back. Even the UN recognized this in its famous resolution that the solution should involved Israel seceding territories -- and not the territories (a deliberate, and very important, omission), allowing it to keep what it truly needs to prevent having indefensible borders or the expulsion of its population for "peace".
To sum up:
I know, I know, I'm friggin' nuts. Peace that does NOT mean absolute surrender to the demands of whatever gang of lying terroristic kelptocrats has currently wrestled control of the west bank? (The only ones, as I see it, who will truly be hurt by such a solution)? I'm dreaming.
Jordan shall declare itself to be the Palestinian state. Israel will negotiate the borders in the WB with it. New border -- Israel gets the larger settlements, the cities; Palestine -- or Jordan -- the rest.
The refugees become Palestinian citizens, of course; can live anyhere in the new Palestine. Other issues, such as compensation to the refugees -- actually their descendants -- can be settled.
(If there was any justice in the world, by the Arab states who deliberately kept them in camps as a pawn against Israel for SIXTY YEARS, but probably, knowing the Arab world's history of treatment of their "Palestinian brothers" -- the only thing they're willing to do for them is kill Jews in their name -- by the west. Still, money was spent in far worse ways -- supporting Arafat, say.)
ADVANTAGES:
1). For truth:
Jordan IS the Palestinian state in all but name. It's population is 80% or so Palestinian. The population in the west bank, at least, is exactly the same -- often also from the same clans and families -- as that of Jordan. Not surprising: until 1920, "Trans-Jordan" was part of Palestine.
2). For solving the conflict in principle:
a). Once we see this obvious fact, then it is easy to see that what we have here is not a conflict between Israel and the entire Arab world, where Israel is alway at a disadvantage and therefore must never give up anything; but neither is it a conflict between Israel and the "stateless" Palestinians who therefore must destroy Israel to free themselves. It is rather a conflict between two countries -- Israel and Palestine -- over SOME, indeed a small, part of the territory.
b). Unlike the two terrorist gangs (PLO and Hamas) who rule the Palestinian areas now, which are clearly only interested in a Palestinian state as part of the "stage plan" for Israel's destruction (see their charters, TV, educations of the young, claims of their "moderate" leaders, etc.) , this Jordan/Palestine's constitution, as well as history, education, etc. shows it is not really interested in Israel's destruction. The all-important element of being able to trust them -- for good reason, an element completely missing from the PA, let alone Hamas -- exists here. So the Israelies would be far more likely to agree to a solution.
c). What's more, the Israelis would wake up to the fact that they HAVE a peace agreement with the Palestinian state, Jordan, since the mid-1990s, which was (on the whole) carefully kept -- not PERFECTLY kept, but certainly it wasn't a deliberate fraud, part of the "staged plan" for Israel's destruction, like the Olso "peace" agreements. So there IS "something to talk about", after all, after the intrasergence and genocidal intentions of the PA have seemingly ruined any chance for peace.
3). For the Israelies:
Obvious, I think.
4). For the Palestinians:
a). You wanted a contingent, viable state? You got it -- or more precisely, you simply officially recognize that you ALREADY HAVE IT. Three times as large as Israel, or so. INCLUDING the west-of-the-Jordan Palestinian areas, or at least most of them.
b). Refugee problem (actually, "Arab world's plan to destroy Israel demographically while caring not one white for their Palestinian 'brothers'" problem, but I digress) solved, and NOT by resettling the Palestinians as barely-tolerated minorities in other Arab and Muslim states, but in their own country, which is already 80% or so Palestinian.
5). For the present Jordanians:
a). 80% are Palestinian anyway. For them it's merely a name change that recognizes the obvious. Certainly not one that will hurt them.
b). The Hashemite minority might worry. But they are not, after all, any safer now from possible violence from the Palestinian majority than they would be if Jordan becomes officially the Palestinian state. Their safety depends on the good relations between them and the Palestinian majority, not on a Palestinian looking at the name "Jordan" in the map and saying "oh yeah, I forgot I'm really Jordanian". And besides, who says you can't be a Palestinian citizen and a Hashemite?
c). The ruling Hashemite kings and leaders are the most difficult issue. Hussein and Abdullah are certainly no Zionists, but have on the whole behaved well and shown repeatedly they have no interest in taking over Israel. Will they be thrown to the wolves? Absolutely not: Let Abdullah declare himself, with popular support, king of Palestine!. Just change the name, keep the (more-or-less constitutional) monarchy.
Would this be supported? Considering the fact that the Palestinians either are or were (until 1967 and later) Jordanian citizens -- that is, again, citizens of the de facto state of Palestine, named "transjordan" by the British -- this is no change than what is actually the case. If the 80% of the Jordanians who are Palestinians never, in the last 90-or-so years, felt a particular urge to "liberate" transjordan -- eastern Palestine, that is -- from the "foreign Hahemite occupation", why should a mere name change make them want to do it now?
There have been many cases in History of kings -- including very popular ones -- who ruled over other nations than their own. Quite a few crowned heads of England, for instance -- including the current family -- were (originally) not English, and indeed could hardly speak English! And they were still loved. Britian fought two world wars with Germany when their kings were ethnically German -- and nobody seems to have bothered by the fact that they are ruled by such "traitors".
5). For justice:
a). No population transfer -- except for the expect return, of their free will, of the Palestinians to this new (or rather, quite old) Palestine. Nobody is expelled from their home for "peace" -- neither Arab nor Jew. Nobody's city is destroyed.
b). No more occupation -- Palestinians are Palestinian citizens of a Palestinian state ruled by Palestinians (the Jordanian, that is, Palestinian, government). Jews are ruled by the Israeli government. This is equally true whether they're east of the Jordan or west of it.
c). Israel does not have to give up all the territories. It is an extremely dangerous precedent if a nation who attacked another with intent to destroy it -- as Jordan, that is, Palestine, did in 1948 and (though under Egyptian pressume) in 1967 -- must, "for justice", get all of it back. Even the UN recognized this in its famous resolution that the solution should involved Israel seceding territories -- and not the territories (a deliberate, and very important, omission), allowing it to keep what it truly needs to prevent having indefensible borders or the expulsion of its population for "peace".
To sum up:
I know, I know, I'm friggin' nuts. Peace that does NOT mean absolute surrender to the demands of whatever gang of lying terroristic kelptocrats has currently wrestled control of the west bank? (The only ones, as I see it, who will truly be hurt by such a solution)? I'm dreaming.
Last edited:
