Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Dill]

(12-28-2023, 03:05 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: King Abdullah I of Jordan (Transjordan at that time) was the ring leader and definitely coveted the West Bank of the proposed Palestinian territory (BTW, Abdullah actually supported the partition plan seeing it as a means to acquire that area). As far as King Farouk of Egypt, he definitely had other issues going on at that time: internal and external. But he also wanted to annex all of southern Palestine (BTW - It was reported in Intelligence and National Security magazine in 2019 (Vol. 34, Issue 6) that there was also a cabal of British MI6 officer in Cairo were pushing Farouk to participate in the war without London's knowledge or permission). Nuri al-Said of Iraq had very minor ambitions. He merely wanted to conquer all of the Fertile Crescent and saw this as a good starting point. Syria and Lebanon coveted northern areas of Palestine.
Outside of their populations sympathizing with the Palestinians and putting some pressure on their governments, the involvement of each of country had nothing directly to do with the Palestinians despite what they told the Palestinian representatives and the media. And they certainly did not want a Palestinian state to develop. It was all territorial ambitions. And because they each had their own ambitions, they did not trust each other and they did not co-operate despite being in the same alliance (i.e. alliance in name only).

By the way, you know the only country in the region who wanted the Palestinians to develop their own state? Israel.

B-zona, this is in response to the second part of your first post. I could develop it further, but I want to get on to your second one.

I agree with all of the above. Abdullah was working with the Jewish Agency to divide Palestine, carving out the West Bank and East Jerusalem for itself--though its protection of these areas is basically what prevented the IDF from taking over the complete mandate. 

Wait! I don't quite agree with the bolded. The JA accepted partition, sure, but they did not want Palestinians to develop their own state--at least if we go by their internal debates and the personal writings of their leaders. "Greater Israel" was always their goal. (Just to avoid the impression that Zionism was monolithic, though, I want to add that there were many Jews who wanted the Mandate to be a "national home" for Jews, but disagreed that it should take the form of an ethnic state. Albert Einstein would be a well known example of that trend. There were also members of the JA and Hagenah who did not agree with Ben-Gurion's "cleansing" goals.) 

(12-28-2023, 03:05 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Your addressing individual ownership of land in the area. And nuder that caveat, your comments are correct. And, personally, I am glad the people in the regions have carried those individual ownership rights and legal traditions over despite the ongoing turmoil of the times.
But I am discussing sovereign national ownership, as in national area boundaries. The area where the government can officially exert its influence and conduct its business. This is also what the U.N. Resolution concerns. When the Israeli state was formed, as I understand, individual land rights within the "Jewish state" were recognized, so long as the owners elected citizenship. Some Palestinians did. Most Palestinians did not. Still, is that a worse offer than the Palestinians received from the Egyptians and Jordanians when they ceded southern Palestine and the West Bank areas? In those cases, Egypt and Jordan did recognize individual land ownership rights. The same with the Palestinians who left the "Jewish state" area between 1947 to 1949 (the people who Israeli citizenship was offered, but they chose to leave). They were not offered citizenship in the most of the countries they went to. This i why those people are known are as the Palestinian refugees and 5.6 million of them currently live in 68 camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip and have been receiving aid from the United Nations for 74 years.
(Correction: Jordan did begin allowing the 2 million refugees within their border to seek citizenship during the past 20 years or so, after about 55 years of limbo status.)

In my previous post, I discussed the limits placed on Palestinian "choice" within the Jewish state. The hundreds of thousands driven from their home with terror were in no position to "elect" anything. Those ALLOWED to remain (the Israeli's choice) and have become citizens of Israel cannot have full equality in an ethnic state. 

And I forgot to add something in my previous post: despite the demand of both the UN and US to allow re-patriation of Palestinians that fled, Israel would not allow any Palestinian "right of return," nor would it allow Arabs remaining in Israel to buy land of Arabs who had fled. 

That is important, because it helps explain why Arab countries are reluctant to offer Palestinians citizenship. They see that as ratifying the original dispossession. E.g., that's why Egypt is so leery of accepting Gaza residents in the current conflict--the fear is they will not be allowed to return.  

The Palestinians living in the West Bank area and East Jerusalem, as well as refugees within Jordan, were given Jordanian citizenship in 1950. Half the population of today's Jordan are originally Palestinian, most from that first wave of refugees from the '48 war. The Palestinians in the camps in Jordan today are refugees from the '67 war. No country has absorbed more Palestinians than Jordan. Syria also absorbed a number. But they still view the original dispossession as a wrong that needs to be righted and support the Palestinian right of return.