What Would Happen if Israel Cedes Territory to Jordan?

[Shusha]

"Illegal settlements" in territory that does NOT belong to Israel impedes the whole peace process...

Only if you believe that Palestine must be Judenrein. Do you believe that? Do you believe that Israel should be emptied of all Arab Muslim Palestinians?

And, at best, ALL of Palestine west of the river belongs to Israel and at worst, the territory and its boundaries are DISPUTED. There is no land which is definitively and exclusively an Arab Muslim Palestine.

 

[Coyote]

The Gaza experience would not have happened if Israel hadn't built settlements on occupied territory. That's part of the problem that can't be ignored - they build settlements on Occupied Territory and impedes efforts towards peace.

Blaming Israel for Gaza now, Coyote? Again, "settlement" or, more properly, "places where Jews live" are not an impediment to peace.

When, exactly, should Jewish people not have been allowed to purchase land and build in Gaza? In antiquity? In 1930 when a Jewish man bought land there? In 1946? In 1970?

How is it not problematic for you to exclude people from living in a place because of their ethnicity?

I strongly disagree. If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no. However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories. The only one to blame for the anguish of the forceable removal of the "settlers" is the Israeli government itself who should not have allowed it. When you look at the list of settlements removed from Gaza, all but one were built in the mid-70's and later. Many were former military outposts handed over to civilians. Were they purchased or, like many military property - simply confiscated? The only one that seems different is
Kfar Darom built from land purchased in the 1930's, and I think those residents should have been allowed to stay.

It is not problematic for me because of the way you are choosing to frame it. Once the status of the territories is legally settled - then it's a different situation and international law is not violated.

There have been many many new Israeli Jewish settlements. How many new Arab settlements in Israel?

 

[Coyote]

"Illegal settlements" in territory that does NOT belong to Israel impedes the whole peace process...

Only if you believe that Palestine must be Judenrein. Do you believe that? Do you believe that Israel should be emptied of all Arab Muslim Palestinians?

And, at best, ALL of Palestine west of the river belongs to Israel and at worst, the territory and its boundaries are DISPUTED. There is no land which is definitively and exclusively an Arab Muslim Palestine.

By international law, and in the eyes of the international community - it is considered occupied territory. Israeli politicians are practicing their own brand of historical revisionism by attempting to label it "disputed". They seem to be the only ones.

 

[Shusha]

I strongly disagree. If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no. However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories.

There is no legal instrument granting that particular territory as an independent sovereign nation of Gaza or Palestine or as excluding it from the sovereign nation which did legally come about -- which is Israel. Therefore, the term "occupied territory" is entirely fictional.

While I fully understand the way the transfer of population clause is misused to demonize Israel, which is not actually TRANSFERRING its population -- this is entirely different than the concept which is actually at play here. Which is -- Jewish people are not permitted, according to the international community, to purchase land in areas where the final disposition of the territory has not been determined. That is morally wrong.

Further, it is morally wrong to demand that all those who do purchase land in those territories be removed as either a pre-condition to negotiation or as a result of negotiation. The premise is that a future Palestine must not contain Jews. And that the borders have ALREADY been determined.

 

[Coyote]

I strongly disagree. If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no. However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories.

There is no legal instrument granting that particular territory as an independent sovereign nation of Gaza or Palestine or as excluding it from the sovereign nation which did legally come about -- which is Israel. Therefore, the term "occupied territory" is entirely fictional.

Then you need to find some way to convince the international community, Israeli High Court, and the UN that this is fictional and they're all dunces (or are you going to accuse them of being racist?).

While I fully understand the way the transfer of population clause is misused to demonize Israel, which is not actually TRANSFERRING its population -- this is entirely different than the concept which is actually at play here. Which is -- Jewish people are not permitted, according to the international community, to purchase land in areas where the final disposition of the territory has not been determined. That is morally wrong.

It's not demonizing. It's holding Israel to the same standards as any other country when it comes to occupied territory.

Further, it is morally wrong to demand that all those who do purchase land in those territories be removed as either a pre-condition to negotiation or as a result of negotiation. The premise is that a future Palestine must not contain Jews. And that the borders have ALREADY been determined.

Really now? The Israeli government should not have allowed them to settle in occupied territory. That's what this is about. It's not about "Judenrein" - it's about accepted international law when it comes to occupations. Israel seems to be the only one claiming that they are somehow "special" when it comes to the application of these laws.

 

[Indeependent]

I strongly disagree. If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no. However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories.

There is no legal instrument granting that particular territory as an independent sovereign nation of Gaza or Palestine or as excluding it from the sovereign nation which did legally come about -- which is Israel. Therefore, the term "occupied territory" is entirely fictional.

Then you need to find some way to convince the international community, Israeli High Court, and the UN that this is fictional and they're all dunces (or are you going to accuse them of being racist?).

While I fully understand the way the transfer of population clause is misused to demonize Israel, which is not actually TRANSFERRING its population -- this is entirely different than the concept which is actually at play here. Which is -- Jewish people are not permitted, according to the international community, to purchase land in areas where the final disposition of the territory has not been determined. That is morally wrong.

It's not demonizing. It's holding Israel to the same standards as any other country when it comes to occupied territory.

Further, it is morally wrong to demand that all those who do purchase land in those territories be removed as either a pre-condition to negotiation or as a result of negotiation. The premise is that a future Palestine must not contain Jews. And that the borders have ALREADY been determined.

Really now? The Israeli government should not have allowed them to settle in occupied territory. That's what this is about. It's not about "Judenrein" - it's about accepted international law when it comes to occupations. Israel seems to be the only one claiming that they are somehow "special" when it comes to the application of these laws.

If it's not anti-Semitism, why aren't you starting threads about all the crap taking place in the rest of the Middle East.
No, my dear, it IS anti-Semitism.

 

[Coyote]

I strongly disagree. If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no. However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories.

There is no legal instrument granting that particular territory as an independent sovereign nation of Gaza or Palestine or as excluding it from the sovereign nation which did legally come about -- which is Israel. Therefore, the term "occupied territory" is entirely fictional.

Then you need to find some way to convince the international community, Israeli High Court, and the UN that this is fictional and they're all dunces (or are you going to accuse them of being racist?).

While I fully understand the way the transfer of population clause is misused to demonize Israel, which is not actually TRANSFERRING its population -- this is entirely different than the concept which is actually at play here. Which is -- Jewish people are not permitted, according to the international community, to purchase land in areas where the final disposition of the territory has not been determined. That is morally wrong.

It's not demonizing. It's holding Israel to the same standards as any other country when it comes to occupied territory.

Further, it is morally wrong to demand that all those who do purchase land in those territories be removed as either a pre-condition to negotiation or as a result of negotiation. The premise is that a future Palestine must not contain Jews. And that the borders have ALREADY been determined.

Really now? The Israeli government should not have allowed them to settle in occupied territory. That's what this is about. It's not about "Judenrein" - it's about accepted international law when it comes to occupations. Israel seems to be the only one claiming that they are somehow "special" when it comes to the application of these laws.

If it's not anti-Semitism, why aren't you starting threads about all the crap taking place in the rest of the Middle East.
No, my dear, it IS anti-Semitism.

Why aren't you?

 

[Indeependent]

I strongly disagree. If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no. However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories.

There is no legal instrument granting that particular territory as an independent sovereign nation of Gaza or Palestine or as excluding it from the sovereign nation which did legally come about -- which is Israel. Therefore, the term "occupied territory" is entirely fictional.

Then you need to find some way to convince the international community, Israeli High Court, and the UN that this is fictional and they're all dunces (or are you going to accuse them of being racist?).

While I fully understand the way the transfer of population clause is misused to demonize Israel, which is not actually TRANSFERRING its population -- this is entirely different than the concept which is actually at play here. Which is -- Jewish people are not permitted, according to the international community, to purchase land in areas where the final disposition of the territory has not been determined. That is morally wrong.

It's not demonizing. It's holding Israel to the same standards as any other country when it comes to occupied territory.

Further, it is morally wrong to demand that all those who do purchase land in those territories be removed as either a pre-condition to negotiation or as a result of negotiation. The premise is that a future Palestine must not contain Jews. And that the borders have ALREADY been determined.

Really now? The Israeli government should not have allowed them to settle in occupied territory. That's what this is about. It's not about "Judenrein" - it's about accepted international law when it comes to occupations. Israel seems to be the only one claiming that they are somehow "special" when it comes to the application of these laws.

If it's not anti-Semitism, why aren't you starting threads about all the crap taking place in the rest of the Middle East.
No, my dear, it IS anti-Semitism.

Why aren't you?

Because I'm spending all my time defending the only CIVILIZED nation of the Middle East...Israel.
Now why aren't you?

 

[flacaltenn]

West Bank was LARGELY in jewish EXCLUDED area.. That's why it came under Jordanian "protection" in the 1st place.

What do you base this belief on?

THEY are the entity entrusted with "mentoring and developing" Palestinian self-rule..

I agree with this. They were.

By the time a hot war broke out -- the Brits were off powdering their wigs and didn't care about the Mandate anymore. That would be the significant maps produced by the 1949 Armistice lines. Essentially it took a war to sort out that "jewish exclusion zone" --- And "transjordan" got a bit larger..

You are smart enough to know that the 1949 Armistice lines did not create borders or a "Jewish exclusion zone".

Really? The maps I see that were agreed to absorbed the West Bank into transJordan. Designated as "arab land".
If this is not the basis for Jordan ANNEXING that land -- what was???

 

[flacaltenn]

This whole issue of where did the ARAB "palestinian mandate" disappear to -- is really a cruel hoax of the Britons.
There was never a follow thru on any of the important mandates -- like nurturing a Palestinian state into existence.

Instead -- war broke out and Jordan was consolidated into a Kingdom with limited allegiance to "palestinians". And from there -- it was all decided by the recognized nation states in the region. Jordan OWES the palestinians some attention. And actually -- so does Egypt/Syria for that matter.

And AS PREDICTED -- the Palestinians themselves --- never got their act together. NOW 60 years later -- life moves on. No recognized peace delegation -- no due process. Some collection of interested parties STILL must come forward and do the heavy lifting for the Palestinians.

Which means -- BOTH sides are right here. Not ALL "palestinians" are gonna remain on the land because MANY are not gonna abide by a peace process. And many Israelis settling on West Bank land are not gonna be comfortable with the process either. There's a necessary people sorting required to create a viable sanctuary for Palestinians. I believe Jordan is WELL qualified to play a leading role in that process BECAUSE of the ugly history they had with the PLO and Black September..




.

 

[Coyote]

I strongly disagree. If you are asking me if I blame Israel for Gaza's inability to work towards statehood after they withdrew - then no. However - the status of Gaza at the time was as "Occupied Territory" and it is against the law for an occupying power to transfer it's own civilian population to occupied territories.

There is no legal instrument granting that particular territory as an independent sovereign nation of Gaza or Palestine or as excluding it from the sovereign nation which did legally come about -- which is Israel. Therefore, the term "occupied territory" is entirely fictional.

Then you need to find some way to convince the international community, Israeli High Court, and the UN that this is fictional and they're all dunces (or are you going to accuse them of being racist?).

While I fully understand the way the transfer of population clause is misused to demonize Israel, which is not actually TRANSFERRING its population -- this is entirely different than the concept which is actually at play here. Which is -- Jewish people are not permitted, according to the international community, to purchase land in areas where the final disposition of the territory has not been determined. That is morally wrong.

It's not demonizing. It's holding Israel to the same standards as any other country when it comes to occupied territory.

Further, it is morally wrong to demand that all those who do purchase land in those territories be removed as either a pre-condition to negotiation or as a result of negotiation. The premise is that a future Palestine must not contain Jews. And that the borders have ALREADY been determined.

Really now? The Israeli government should not have allowed them to settle in occupied territory. That's what this is about. It's not about "Judenrein" - it's about accepted international law when it comes to occupations. Israel seems to be the only one claiming that they are somehow "special" when it comes to the application of these laws.

If it's not anti-Semitism, why aren't you starting threads about all the crap taking place in the rest of the Middle East.
No, my dear, it IS anti-Semitism.

Why aren't you?

Because I'm spending all my time defending the only CIVILIZED nation of the Middle East...Israel.
Now why aren't you?

I'll defend them when I feel they're right.