Would you build a wall?

[aris2chat]

Uh, yes, this is exactly what happened in 1948. And Transjordan is NOT Palestine...

There was never an attempt to uproot and move-beyond-reach the Muslim-Arab population of the lands currently comprising Rump Palestine.

...So let me ask you, how are you going to get them there... the Palestinians that is?...

Once military resistance is smashed into the ground and the civilian population has surrendered?

Who knows? Mere logistics. Some combination of self-powered, Israeli-supplied and UN-supplied transport scheme, quite probably.

A far better question would be to ask about Wergeld, compensation-for-land, funds for moving, and some sort of funding or collaborative effort for start-up money, once refugees have arrived in their new host countries.

...And have you run this by the recipient governments?

Nope. Think we'll be able to find any Muslim country willing to take 'em in? I mean, after all, they DO have reptutations as cutthroats and mad-dogs.

We might have to bribe some of those countries to take-in their fair share - those who won't do it out of Muslim Solidarity and Fellowship, anyway. But where there's a will, there's a way, and, somewhere, a deep pocket.

And, if the cost of that relocation is huge, the long-term cost for NOT doing something along those lines is vastly higher.

Ultimately, it will make sense, both politically and economically.

The Palestinians are merely the catspaw in the middle, and always have been. Time for a mercy-shot to the head of Rump Palestine, and care for its people, as they are moved far out of harms' way, and a measure of peace settles upon the region once again.

jordan population is more than half palestinian.

 

[Kondor3]

Uh, yes, this is exactly what happened in 1948. And Transjordan is NOT Palestine...

There was never an attempt to uproot and move-beyond-reach the Muslim-Arab population of the lands currently comprising Rump Palestine.


Once military resistance is smashed into the ground and the civilian population has surrendered?

Who knows? Mere logistics. Some combination of self-powered, Israeli-supplied and UN-supplied transport scheme, quite probably.

A far better question would be to ask about Wergeld, compensation-for-land, funds for moving, and some sort of funding or collaborative effort for start-up money, once refugees have arrived in their new host countries.

...And have you run this by the recipient governments?

Nope. Think we'll be able to find any Muslim country willing to take 'em in? I mean, after all, they DO have reptutations as cutthroats and mad-dogs.

We might have to bribe some of those countries to take-in their fair share - those who won't do it out of Muslim Solidarity and Fellowship, anyway. But where there's a will, there's a way, and, somewhere, a deep pocket.

And, if the cost of that relocation is huge, the long-term cost for NOT doing something along those lines is vastly higher.

Ultimately, it will make sense, both politically and economically.

The Palestinians are merely the catspaw in the middle, and always have been. Time for a mercy-shot to the head of Rump Palestine, and care for its people, as they are moved far out of harms' way, and a measure of peace settles upon the region once again.

jordan population is more than half palestinian.

True.

But the job was never completed.

Part of Rump Palestine was left under Muslim-Arab control.

Palestinians continue to occupy that land.

Once that changes, everything else falls into place.

 

[amity1844]

The Israelis I know dismiss you as lunatic fringe JDL, so I'm not too worried.

But I AM surprised you would even think this plan was feasible.

 

[Kondor3]

The Israelis I know dismiss you as lunatic fringe JDL, so I'm not too worried. But I AM surprised you would even think this plan was feasible.

Please continue to think in those terms.

 

[amity1844]

jordan population is more than half palestinian.

True and to their credit. Jordan is the only country that has given refugees citizenship. Even Queen ???? (forgot her name) is Palestinian.

But it was underpopulated to begin with and the Palestinians had more resources, education, training, etc. So they were the one country that could benefit from doing so.

 

[amity1844]

Uh, yes, this is exactly what happened in 1948. And Transjordan is NOT Palestine...

There was never an attempt to uproot and move-beyond-reach the Muslim-Arab population of the lands currently comprising Rump Palestine

Once military resistance is smashed into the ground and the civilian population has surrendered?

Who knows? Mere logistics. Some combination of self-powered, Israeli-supplied and UN-supplied transport scheme, quite probably.

A far better question would be to ask about Wergeld, compensation-for-land, funds for moving, and some sort of funding or collaborative effort for start-up money, once refugees have arrived in their new host countries.

Okay, so tell me about wergeld.

...And have you run this by the recipient governments?

Nope. Think we'll be able to find any Muslim country willing to take 'em in? I mean, after all, they DO have reptutations as cutthroats and mad-dogs.

Yes, but it is merely a Zionist-engineered reputation, as you are now implicitly admitting.

We might have to bribe some of those countries to take-in their fair share - those who won't do it out of Muslim Solidarity and Fellowship, anyway. But where there's a will, there's a way, and, somewhere, a deep pocket.

And, if the cost of that relocation is huge, the long-term cost for NOT doing something along those lines is vastly higher.

Ultimately, it will make sense, both politically and economically.

The Palestinians are merely the catspaw in the middle, and always have been.

True.

Time for a mercy-shot to the head of Rump Palestine, and care for its people, as they are moved far out of harms' way, and a measure of peace settles upon the region once again.

Sounds like genocide to me.

(I hope everyone is FULLY getting this.)

 

[Kondor3]

Uh, yes, this is exactly what happened in 1948. And Transjordan is NOT Palestine...

There was never an attempt to uproot and move-beyond-reach the Muslim-Arab population of the lands currently comprising Rump Palestine

Once military resistance is smashed into the ground and the civilian population has surrendered?

Who knows? Mere logistics. Some combination of self-powered, Israeli-supplied and UN-supplied transport scheme, quite probably.

A far better question would be to ask about Wergeld, compensation-for-land, funds for moving, and some sort of funding or collaborative effort for start-up money, once refugees have arrived in their new host countries.

Okay, so tell me about wergeld.


Yes, but it is merely a Zionist-engineered reputation, as you are now implicitly admitting.

We might have to bribe some of those countries to take-in their fair share - those who won't do it out of Muslim Solidarity and Fellowship, anyway. But where there's a will, there's a way, and, somewhere, a deep pocket.

And, if the cost of that relocation is huge, the long-term cost for NOT doing something along those lines is vastly higher.

Ultimately, it will make sense, both politically and economically.

The Palestinians are merely the catspaw in the middle, and always have been.

True.

Time for a mercy-shot to the head of Rump Palestine, and care for its people, as they are moved far out of harms' way, and a measure of peace settles upon the region once again.

Sounds like genocide to me.

(I hope everyone is FULLY getting this.)

Nope.

Then again, everything sounds like genocide to you, when it involves kicking Palestinian ass.

The above is no more than a call for the dissolution of the useless Rump Palestinian state.

And the relocation of its people elsewhere, as the last thing left to try ( "...and care for its People..." ).

If it was a call for genocide, it would have been a call for the slaughtering of every Palestinian man, woman and child.

Big difference.

Spin it any-which-way you like.

I'll still be there, to illustrate just how wrong and fraudulent you are.

You are, almost, the LAST person around here, to be trusted with condemnations of colleagues.

Hell, you can't even substantiate your own wild-and-hairy claims most of the time, and lack the intellectual courage to admit when you're wrong, never mind being trusted with condemnations.

 

[amity1844]

Well, I think we already have the Warsaw Ghetto, so yes, I think it is genocide.

Look at your own statement:

And the relocation of its people elsewhere, as the last thing left to try

... and what then if the attempt fails?

 

[Kondor3]

Well, I think we already have the Warsaw Ghetto, so yes, I think it is genocide.

Look at your own statement:

And the relocation of its people elsewhere, as the last thing left to try

... and what then if the attempt fails?

If the Israelis ever decide upon such an approach, then it stands to reason that no relocation would be attempted until all military resistance has been smashed and the civilian population has unconditionally surrendered.

In such a case, overwhelming military force would be brought to bear, to beat the enemy into submission in fairly short order, and that largely from a distance, utilizing technology, without risking large numbers of ground troops.

 

[amity1844]

I see, so sound bombs and what-such?

 

[Kondor3]

I see, so sound bombs and what-such?

Nahhhhhh... just lots and lots of precision-guided munitions... and rolling barrages and carpet-bombing of various areas, once the civilian population has been given enough warning to get the hell out.

A hybrid 'rolling barrage' across the width of Gaza and working its way southwards sounds about right.

Oh, and... daisy-cutters on top of Hamas command centers whenever they slither out of the towns and villages... those would be of great value in cooking-down Hamas pond-scum... cleanly, too... no muss, no fuss, no nasty aftertaste.

 

[RoccoR]

[MENTION=49350]amity1844[/MENTION], et al,

This question periodically surfaces from time to time, relative to the status of Transjordan.

uh, yes, this is exactly what happened in 1948. And transjordan is not palestine.

So let me ask you, how are you going to get them there ... The palestinians that is?

And have you run this by the recipient governments?

(COMMENT)

Transjordan was a component part of the Mandate of Palestine. "Between 1928 and 1946, a series of Anglo-Transjordanian treaties led to almost full independence for Transjordan." - AND - "On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British Mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan."
(See The Making of Transjordan - History - The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) "On May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah King, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan."

Generally speaking (with a leway of 2 months), when one speaks of the (Emirate of) Transjordan, one is speaking to the Mandate Period under the Mandate of Palestine. When one speaks of (The Hashemite Kingdom) Jordan, one is speaking of the post-War era nation; after the Mandate.

This was somewhat muddled when on May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. However, this was territory still under Mandate.

Tenth Meeting.
Held on Friday, July 5th, 1929, at 4 p.m.​

§1003. Palestine and Trans-jordan: Agreement between great Britain and the Amir of Trans-jordan : Attitude of the Commission.

M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun:

"There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25."​

SOURCE: 07/19/1929 c.305.m.105 mandate for palestine - league of nations 15th session - permanent mandates commission

Similarly, there has been confusion with the West Bank history. From 11 April, 1950, until 31 July, 1988, the West Bank was annexed and sovereign territory of The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; by vote in the Jordanian Parliament --- in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. (Palestinian right to self-determination.) So, when someone addresses the "occupied Palestine territory" (oPt), they are generally speaking of a time after 1 August 1988; and 18 days later, HAMAS established the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (18 August 1988) in which it declared Jihad. Prior to August 1988, it was "occupied Jordanian territory;" Israel did not originally occupy Palestinian Territory, it occupied Jordanian Territory.

(ONE MORE POINT)

For all the help The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan gave to the Palestinians, how did the Palestinians respond?

The partnership with the Palestinians desired by King Hussein fell apart in September, 1970. The pervasive and chaotic presence of armed Palestinian fedayeen groups who expected immunity from Jordan’s laws was leading to a state of virtual anarchy throughout the Kingdom. Moderate Palestinian leaders were unable to reign in extremist elements, who ambushed the king’s motorcade twice and perpetrated a series of spectacular hijackings. Forced to respond decisively in order to preserve his country from anarchy, King Hussein ordered the army into action.

The situation prompted different reactions throughout the Arab world. While most leaders privately expressed sympathy with the position of King Hussein, many took a public stance in favor of the fedayeen in order to embellish their credentials as “Arab nationalists.” The conflict reached a crisis point in September when some 200 Syrian tanks, camouflaged rather unconvincingly as Palestinian Liberation Army tanks, crossed into Jordan. The Syrians were bereft of air cover, however, and Jordanian aircraft forced a Syrian retreat within three days. In a brief yet intense campaign ending in July 1971, the Jordanian army put an end to the chaotic actions of these Palestinians guerrillas in Amman.

SOURCE: History Site, Government of Jordan

(QUESTION)

How much can you really trust Palestinians?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[amity1844]

Forget it. Rocco.

No one who is not from there should be forced to live there. People from Nablus have right to live in Nablus, etc.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Similarly, there has been confusion with the West Bank history. From 11 April, 1950, until 31 July, 1988, the West Bank was annexed and sovereign territory of The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan;

Indeed, there is much confusion. My understanding is different than yours.

Jordan may have considered the West Bank to be theirs because a pre 1948 war agreement promised that Jordan would get three million dollars a year for five years and the West Bank if it would not attack Israel.

According to the 1949 armistice agreements, that land was not ceded to Jordan but was set up as an occupation of Palestinian land.

Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank in 1950. Nobody recognized this annex except for Britain (who was probably in on that pre war promise) and Pakistan. (????) Jordan went so far as to hand pick some Palestinian "leaders" to approve of this annex.

There were a couple of problems with this. (1) It is illegal to annex occupied land. (2) In 1948 the All Palestine Government in Gaza had already declare the state of Palestine in all of Palestine.

Some sources say that Jordan gave that land (or lost it) to Israel. Others say it was given to the PLO. The land was not Jordan's so it doesn't matter. It is still occupied Palestinian land.

 

[RoccoR]

[MENTION=49350]amity1844[/MENTION]; et al,

The World Bank provides data for Palestine from 1990 to 2011. The average life expectancy for Palestine during that period was 70.77 years with a minumum of 68.05 years in 1990 and a maximum of 72.83 years in 2011.

Let's carry your supposition to a conclusion.

Forget it. Rocco.

No one who is not from there should be forced to live there. People from Nablus have right to live in Nablus, etc.

(COMMENT)

Maybe. It is very questionable as to whether or not displaced or refugee Palestinians that pose a threat to the internal security of Israel, actually still has that right --- or have they forfeited such a right by their past history of behavior as hostile combatants. But be that argue, as it may, I have a question.

According to CERI:

Persons who meet UNRWA’s Palestine Refugee criteria

These are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict. Palestine Refugees, and descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, are eligible to register for UNRWA services. The Agency accepts new applications from persons who wish to be registered as Palestine Refugees. Once they are registered with UNRWA, persons in this category are referred to as Registered Refugees or as Registered Palestine Refugees.​

SOURCE: CERI Manual UNRWA Files

• How many refugees actually lived there that are still alive?
• And how many will be alive by the time the Arab Palestinians reach a peace accord?

Your supposition is that "People from Nablus have right to live in Nablus, etc."

• But what if they never lived in Nablus, etc?

15 May 1948 was some approximately 66 years ago. In another decade, there probably will not be very many left that actually lived in the region. What is the conflict about? Is it about burial plots. Most of the descendants never lived there.

Also remember that the criteria is that they lost "both home and means of livelihood." I hope you are not telling me that all those descendants have no means of livelihood.

And where does it say that descendants, who have never lived their, have the "right of return?" I don't recall reading that in any resolution. Help me out here (teach me).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

[MENTION=49350]amity1844[/MENTION]; et al,

The World Bank provides data for Palestine from 1990 to 2011. The average life expectancy for Palestine during that period was 70.77 years with a minumum of 68.05 years in 1990 and a maximum of 72.83 years in 2011.

Let's carry your supposition to a conclusion.

Forget it. Rocco.

No one who is not from there should be forced to live there. People from Nablus have right to live in Nablus, etc.

(COMMENT)

Maybe. It is very questionable as to whether or not displaced or refugee Palestinians that pose a threat to the internal security of Israel, actually still has that right --- or have they forfeited such a right by their past history of behavior as hostile combatants. But be that argue, as it may, I have a question.

According to CERI:

Persons who meet UNRWA’s Palestine Refugee criteria

These are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict. Palestine Refugees, and descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, are eligible to register for UNRWA services. The Agency accepts new applications from persons who wish to be registered as Palestine Refugees. Once they are registered with UNRWA, persons in this category are referred to as Registered Refugees or as Registered Palestine Refugees.​

SOURCE: CERI Manual UNRWA Files

• How many refugees actually lived there that are still alive?
• And how many will be alive by the time the Arab Palestinians reach a peace accord?

Your supposition is that "People from Nablus have right to live in Nablus, etc."

• But what if they never lived in Nablus, etc?

15 May 1948 was some approximately 66 years ago. In another decade, there probably will not be very many left that actually lived in the region. What is the conflict about? Is it about burial plots. Most of the descendants never lived there.

Also remember that the criteria is that they lost "both home and means of livelihood." I hope you are not telling me that all those descendants have no means of livelihood.

And where does it say that descendants, who have never lived their, have the "right of return?" I don't recall reading that in any resolution. Help me out here (teach me).

Most Respectfully,
R

Nationality, citizenship, and property are all inherited.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Wow, this is questionable.

[MENTION=49350]amity1844[/MENTION]; et al,

The World Bank provides data for Palestine from 1990 to 2011. The average life expectancy for Palestine during that period was 70.77 years with a minumum of 68.05 years in 1990 and a maximum of 72.83 years in 2011.

Let's carry your supposition to a conclusion.

Forget it. Rocco.

No one who is not from there should be forced to live there. People from Nablus have right to live in Nablus, etc.

(COMMENT)

Maybe. It is very questionable as to whether or not displaced or refugee Palestinians that pose a threat to the internal security of Israel, actually still has that right --- or have they forfeited such a right by their past history of behavior as hostile combatants. But be that argue, as it may, I have a question.

According to CERI:

Persons who meet UNRWA’s Palestine Refugee criteria

These are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict. Palestine Refugees, and descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, are eligible to register for UNRWA services. The Agency accepts new applications from persons who wish to be registered as Palestine Refugees. Once they are registered with UNRWA, persons in this category are referred to as Registered Refugees or as Registered Palestine Refugees.​

SOURCE: CERI Manual UNRWA Files

• How many refugees actually lived there that are still alive?
• And how many will be alive by the time the Arab Palestinians reach a peace accord?

Your supposition is that "People from Nablus have right to live in Nablus, etc."

• But what if they never lived in Nablus, etc?

15 May 1948 was some approximately 66 years ago. In another decade, there probably will not be very many left that actually lived in the region. What is the conflict about? Is it about burial plots. Most of the descendants never lived there.

Also remember that the criteria is that they lost "both home and means of livelihood." I hope you are not telling me that all those descendants have no means of livelihood.

And where does it say that descendants, who have never lived their, have the "right of return?" I don't recall reading that in any resolution. Help me out here (teach me).

Most Respectfully,
R

Nationality, citizenship, and property are all inherited.

(COMMENT)

I will grant you that you have a case over property, divided among the descendants under customary law.

But, you are wrong about nationality and citizenship. That varies. There are specific laws; Israeli nationality law determines which person can be granted citizenship of Israel.

There may be as many as 60,000 refugees remaining that have a possible citizenship claim. AND, not all of them were land owners. But the descendants, born outside Israel --- are another matter entirely.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[amity1844]

Maybe. It is very questionable as to whether or not displaced or refugee Palestinians that pose a threat to the internal security of Israel, actually still has that right --- or have they forfeited such a right by their past history of behavior as hostile combatants. But be that argue, as it may, I have a question.

No, it is NOT questionable, it is totally beyond question. The Palestinians have forfeited NO rights by resisting illegal occupation.

 

[amity1844]

Maybe. It is very questionable as to whether or not displaced or refugee Palestinians that pose a threat to the internal security of Israel, actually still has that right --- or have they forfeited such a right by their past history of behavior as hostile combatants. But be that argue, as it may, I have a question.

No, it is NOT questionable, it is totally beyond question. The Palestinians have forfeited NO rights by resisting illegal occupation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Wow, this is questionable.

[MENTION=49350]amity1844[/MENTION]; et al,

The World Bank provides data for Palestine from 1990 to 2011. The average life expectancy for Palestine during that period was 70.77 years with a minumum of 68.05 years in 1990 and a maximum of 72.83 years in 2011.

Let's carry your supposition to a conclusion.


(COMMENT)

Maybe. It is very questionable as to whether or not displaced or refugee Palestinians that pose a threat to the internal security of Israel, actually still has that right --- or have they forfeited such a right by their past history of behavior as hostile combatants. But be that argue, as it may, I have a question.

According to CERI:

• How many refugees actually lived there that are still alive?
• And how many will be alive by the time the Arab Palestinians reach a peace accord?

Your supposition is that "People from Nablus have right to live in Nablus, etc."

• But what if they never lived in Nablus, etc?

15 May 1948 was some approximately 66 years ago. In another decade, there probably will not be very many left that actually lived in the region. What is the conflict about? Is it about burial plots. Most of the descendants never lived there.

Also remember that the criteria is that they lost "both home and means of livelihood." I hope you are not telling me that all those descendants have no means of livelihood.

And where does it say that descendants, who have never lived their, have the "right of return?" I don't recall reading that in any resolution. Help me out here (teach me).

Most Respectfully,
R

Nationality, citizenship, and property are all inherited.

(COMMENT)

I will grant you that you have a case over property, divided among the descendants under customary law.

But, you are wrong about nationality and citizenship. That varies. There are specific laws; Israeli nationality law determines which person can be granted citizenship of Israel.

There may be as many as 60,000 refugees remaining that have a possible citizenship claim. AND, not all of them were land owners. But the descendants, born outside Israel --- are another matter entirely.

Most Respectfully,
R

There are a couple of ways to look at that.

According to international law, citizenship follows sovereignty. All of the citizens in a country automatically get citizenship in the successor state if sovereignty changes. This is how Turkish citizens automatically became Palestinian citizens in 1924. If Israel is, in fact, a legitimate country then all of the Palestinian citizens who normally lived in the territory that became Israel automatically became Israeli citizens. Israel has nothing to say about that. Physical presence in the new state is irrelevant. Citizenship not presence is the deciding factor.

If Israel is an occupation of Palestine, (my belief) then it is still Palestine and the Palestinians are still the citizens of their country. Again, Israel has nothing to say about that.

Israel can decide the status of immigrants but that is not the case with refugees.