The latest New York Review of Books publishes a review by Tom Segev, a columnist for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, in which Segev suggests that the West Bank should become part of Jordan so that the oppressed Palestinians at last obtain rights in a viable state. (Sorry I can’t excerpt; my copy’s back home.)
I found Segev’s argument unsettling/intriguing; I know little about Palestinian attitudes, and Segev lives in Israel, after all, and is a noted New Historian. You’d think he knows; and maybe that would solve the problem.
Well it’s 12:30 a.m. in Jerusalem and I just got back to my hotel after visiting a family that was evicted from a house in Sheikh Jarrah.
I sat by the fire with Nasser Ghawe in the little tent he lives in. Across the road was his house, with Israeli flags all over it. Ghawe is a very moderate man. He told me he is for the two-state solution, with a Palestinian state on less than the ’67 lines, with East Jerusalem as the capital. I told him Segev’s argument. He shook his head and said:
"When we got to the airport at Reagan [on a visit to American congressmen last fall that apparently achieved nothing], we were a small delegation, they asked my friend for his passport. It is Palestinian. The police looked it up in his book. He could not find the state of Palestine. He asked my friend, ‘Excuse me, where are you from?’ ‘I am from Palestine.’ ‘I can’t find in my book, I need to register. Maybe you are Jordanian?’ He said, ‘No, I’m Palestinian.’ The police, again he said, ‘But I cannot find the Palestinian state. Maybe you are from Israel?’ He said, ‘No, the Israelis occupied my territory.’ The police said, ‘Well just tell me which is your favorite for me to register in the file, Israel, or unknown. My friend said, ‘Unknown.’"
Ghawe went on, "A state means limits [borders], rights, dignity, flags, passport."
I said, "But what if you could have all that, as part of the state of Jordan?"
"I’m not Jordanian. I’m Palestinian."
"How many Palestinians feel that way?"
"100 percent feel the same way."
Ghawe’s strong sense of national identity reminded me that Shlomo Sand has said that Zionism helped to create two peoples, the Israeli people and the Palestinian people. There may have been a time when I would accept New York being part of Canada, but that time is now past.
Maybe the New York Review of Books should stop trying to explain the situation to American readers by hiring Israelis.
It’s a review of Avi Shlaim’s latest book. Segev seems to be falling back into Zionism, after a promising beginning to his career – unlike Shlaim. But one Israeli historian reviewing another doesn’t seem improper, although the perspective from a Palestinian historian would likely be far more interesting.
“s a review of Avi Shlaim’s latest book. Segev seems to be falling back into Zionism, ”
I have to read the review.
Anyway, I’ve wondered a little about Segev ever since I heard him a year or two ago distancing himself from Finkelstein on “Democracy Now”. He sounded very much like a man craving mainstream respectability and so he didn’t want Finkelsteinian cooties all over him.
His book on the Mandate period was good, though I think it left out some of the Zionist terrorism in the 30′s (unless I’m remembering incorrectly). On the plus side, he does include the famous piece by Ahad Ha’am (sp?) complaining about the racist attitudes of Zionists back in 1891. He also gives a thorough description of the Arab riots/pogroms in the 20′s. Overall, I thought the book was fair, in part because none of the major players came out looking good.
“Ghawe’s strong sense of national identity reminded me that Shlomo Sand has said that Zionism helped to create two peoples, the Israeli people and the Palestinian people.”
Israel did not create the Palestinians, it just made the world aware of the original indigenous inhabitants when Israel decided to ethnically cleanse them (not withstanding Darwish’s poetic reference). It also tells the story of the gross ignorance of other countries in the world specifically in America, which in many ways by its views is the laughing stock of the world community.
As far as Segev is concerned (mentioned above in reference to the Democracy Now encounter with Finkelstein) Segev’s attitude with Finkelstein is a lot less telling that his attempt to skew history. Specifically in reference to the “danger” the encounter with Egypt and Nasser, trying to reduce the uninformed fearful views of the Israelis with the sure victory that Israeli leadership was amply aware of to garner sympathy, the second “Holocuast” blah blah – along with the “accidental and unplanned” taking of the West Bank, etc. Segev is a historical hack, and he has continued this mixed salad (truth and lies) in his writing about Palestinians devolving to Jordanians in his recent work, trying to turn a classic Zionist retort into a reality.
For now get a load of the act on Democracy Now with Finkelstein and Segev, specifically on how he tries to twist the truth in regard to the Yom Kippur War (fool me once it is my fault, fool me twice…). Go about 10 minutes into the interview forward to get the meat of the exchange. -
FINKELSTEIN VS. SEGEV
You will also note the equivocation of Segev in regard to Israeli attacks on Gaza, that they are not “terrorist acts.” His demand that you will have to go by a case by case basis with him, but not so with the Palestinians. Segev has his head up the collective Zionist ass, and he can remove it just far enough to take an occasional breath or two before he reinserts it again.
i’d rub norm’s cooties all over me any day. sign me up.
Yes! He’s definitely a hottie!
I thought I was the only one!
We know enough not to read the NYRB to learn about what’s been happening in the Middle East–we learned as M & W did; we turn to the London RB–sample, concerning the Gaza Seige by Israel that began in early November over a year ago:
link to lrb.co.uk
Roy makes an intriguing point, that one of Israel’s goals in beseiging Gaza “is to foist Gaza onto Egypt. That is why the Israelis tolerate the hundreds of tunnels between Gaza and Egypt around which an informal but increasingly regulated commercial sector has begun to form.”
Seen in this light, Egypt’s iron wall actually does make sense as a “security” matter, as a defense against a “Gaza threat” engineered by Israel, rather than collaboration with Israel against the Gazans. If this is correct, then the US engineers could be said to be working for Eygpt against Israel.
I’m not sure I buy it, but I certainly am intrigued!
Actually, potsherd, the US is playing both sides of the street, when you think about it. Because Israel is paying us for arms, whereas Egypt is paying us for barriers and surveillance equipment.
Out of our tax money, given over as foreign aid. Basically, US foreign policy has become one big money laundering scheme.
Indeed so.
But it’s very telling that when real profit is involved, and the vital interests of the military-industrial complex, somehow Israeli concerns don’t get such a friendly hearing.
link to haaretz.com
Of course, it’s all to “deter Iran” so Israel can’t complain, can they?
Like I said, the United States is playing all sides. I’d say we’d even go so far as to sell weapons to Saddam Hussein… but after all we did.
And Iran too. Iran-Contra? And Burma, Georgia, and Sri Lanka. Pakistan? What is it, like a billion are year at present, just for them?
We don’t even really make cars and appliance anymore. After jobs, the biggest US export is death by war.
When it appears that US is playing both sides its not because we are actually trying to play both sides as part of a policy but because there are two competing groups of people trying to enforce their vision of Middle East foreign policy in the Presidents ear.
These factions are the Neocon/Zionist Lobby and the Realists in the State Department.
The Neocons believe that the United States should just support Israel 100% and just screw everyone else.
The Realists believe that we need to focus our attention on getting the Arabs to mobilize against Iran and pay less attention to Israel as Israel is actually a hindrance to American foreign policy in the region.
Sometimes the two policies overlap, but often times they clash, and this is why it sometimes appears that the United States is playing both sides.
Chaos is right; here’s an interesting transcript discussing, inter alia, the supreme
economic importance of Israel’s arms industry and its interrelationship with
the US arms industry and the gift that keeps on giving to this war partnership–US tax dollars–it also provides some insight into how the 1967 war was an offensive war initiated by Israel, with a partial green light from the US government:
link to booknotes.org
One big money laundering scheme, oh yeah.
The next cycle of this scheme generally involves some Muslim leader labeled
as (the latest, the new) Hitler.
Well, before 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan, the Golan Heights were part of Syria, and Gaza was part of Egypt, right? So in the sense of lines on a map, what we now think of as Palestinians were citizens of three different Arab countries. Of course, all these political entities were the creation of the Western empires and didn’t necessary have any relationship to what the indigenous peoples of those areas thought of as their own ethnic or national identities. If today they think of themselves as Palestinians, I wonder if they felt that way fifty years ago, or if it is indeed the result of 40+ years of Israeli occupation?
Having grown up in Jerusalem before and after 1967 I can assure you that for most Palestinians under Jordanian rule especially in the West Bank, the feeling was that we were Palestinians not Jordanians. I clearly remember demonstrations in Jerusalem (prior to 1967 Israeli occupation) where Palestinian flags were raised as an affirmation of Palestinian identity.
And while it was never as oppressive or dehumanizing as Israeli occupation, Jordanian occupation wasn’t altogether magnanimous either, was it? There’s a reason the Palestinian Liberation Organization predates the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
I think Jordan’s changed, Jordan’s improved but that’s not the point — the point is Palestine has been stolen from the Palestinians and the crime that began in 1948 has continued to this day.
You are right Jordanian rule was not “magnanimous” as you say. Soldiers from the Bedouin tribes loyal to the Hashemite kingdom were deployed during the demonstrations in Jerusalem and the West Bank. During one of those demonstration those soldiers were shooting live bullets at demonstrators. I clearly remember at least two demonstrators were killed very close to our house in Jerusalem.
Yes, the PLO was established in 1964. The annexation of the West Bank to Jordan was the result of collusion and conspiracy between king Abdullah of Jordan and the Zionists. Avi Shlaim writes about this in his book “Collusion across the Jordan” (I think that is the title–it’s been a long time since I read it).
The theft of Palestine started before 1948 actually. It started with the Mandate system– a euphemism for colonialism–which implemented the Balfour declaration whereby Palestine was given to the Zionists by the colonial power.
So in the sense of lines on a map, what we now think of as Palestinians were citizens of three different Arab countries.
not really and lines on maps don’t have senses. palestine is palestine, one can carve any which way and keep taking chunks off. but its still palestine and palestinians are not the same as syrians, egyptians or jordanian.
The annexation of the West Bank to Jordan was the result of collusion and conspiracy between king Abdullah of Jordan and the Zionists.
yep
Actually only Palestinians in Jordan were given Jordanian citizenship. Palestinians in Gaza which prior to 1967 was administered by Egypt, did not receive Egyptian citizenship. Some Palestinian refugees in Lebanon were given citizenship, but for the most part and especially those who lived/live in refugee camps were not granted citizenship. The same in Syria.
I’ve met students from the West Bank that traveled under Jordanian passports.
That’s what I have just said you dumb ass. The West Bank was annexed to Jordan and Palestinians there were in Jordan and hence had Jordanian citizenship.
only Palestinians in Jordan were given Jordanian citizenship.
i have a friend whose mother had jordaian citizenship (she died last year) but she self still identified as palestinian. my friend is american now but grew up in jordan but still self identifies as palestinian. her brother lives in beirut, he’s a little bit famous and has lebanese citizenship but he still self identifies as palestinian. thats all i know.
My sincere apologies I should not have used “dumb ass” that is not OK by my standards of discourse.
But it was honest, Aref, and that’s one quality you will always exceed him in.
Current residents of the West Bank traveling under Jordanian passport.
Stop the “dumb ass” trip.
You remind of a knee-jerker. “Anything that a Zionist says is to be rejected”, even if you adopt the same logic later.
And, you call yourself a humanist, and advocate for an integrationist solution (single-state).
Good you realize it. Try to figure out what makes you angry instead next time.
But onviously Richard is quite familiar with the “classic Zionist retort”/b>. to quote VR, or one of the main suggestions or goal to solve “the Palestinian Question”.
I think he responded to your post with his little anecdote to suggest that the more educated among Palestinians–”students”–would probably agree with Zionists on the issue, and choose Jordan over living under occupation. Or as he indirectly suggests already have.
There is a variation on the topic. It means all Palestinians should move to Jordan and leave Israel/especially Judea & Samaria. When I heard it the first time, it went something like this: Palestine, there never was something like Palestine, but there is a country of the Palestinians, it’s called Jordan.
Wonderful perspective Phil, thank you.
Yeah, I’m a real nasty guy, Witty, opposing segregation and apartheid like I do.
Did you even bother to look at this article here on Mondoweiss, Witty?
link to mondoweiss.net
Like I said. Dumb ass.
Too bad. I liked it. It summed up my feelings.
The Golan Heights are not part of Palestine. they are Syrian territory. Again we have to remember that the borders between the different countries in this part of the world were the making of colonialist powers, namely France and Britain.
Well, before 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan, the Golan Heights were part of Syria, and Gaza was part of Egypt, right? So in the sense of lines on a map, what we now think of as Palestinians were citizens of three different Arab countries.
Which year or decade are you referring to when you say “Well, before 1967″?
Before 1967:
before 1920, the whole region was Syria, under Ottoman rule.
1920: Britain and France divide Syria into statelets: Syria and the mandates of Palestine and Lebanon.
again…
1948: Israel takes Palestine and drives Palestinian refugees to Gaza, the West Bank (which is annexed by Jordan in 1949, though the annexation isn’t internationally recognised) and Lebanon.
So…” what we now think of as Palestinians were citizens of three different Arab countries ” ?
Gaza came under Egyptian military rule after the 1948 Israel/Arab war and Egypt proclaimed Gaza held in trust for the Palestinians. Gaza may have been under Egyptian military rule and later, Egyptian administrative rule, but wasn’t annexed by Egypt. Palestinian refugees in Gaza were never given Egyptian citizenship.
Palestinian refugees have never been allowed to become citizens of Lebanon.
Palestinian refugees were given Jordanian citizenship, when Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1949, but Jordan disengaged from the West Bank in 1988…
Amman
July 31, 1988
again…
So, Craig…. what are you trying to say? There is no Palestine and there are no Palestinians?
Sorry, something has happened with one of the formatting tags (shows in the source file but not here) and has formatted the whole thing. Possible to fix or delete?
I know a little about Jordan, having lived there for a time, and conducted my own business there for 20 years.
The “Arabs” are no different in their foreigner discrimination than anyone else.
“Real Jordanians” consider themselves very different from “Palestinians”, and actively discriminate against them. I personally witnessed at least two such cases.
Palestinians speak an Arabic dialect that is instantly recognisable. It’s like a Yellow Star.
The expulsion of Palestinians to Jordan and Egypt would be as great a crime as the original Nakba, but will probably be ignored by the world, as that was.
Anyone who thinks Palestinians could be happily absorbed into Jordan should go google “Black September.” Palestinians also remember that it was Jordan’s King Hussein who collaborated with Israel to keep a Palestinian state from coming into being in 1948, the WB being instead annexed by Jordan.
It really is disappointing to see Segev singing the right-wing Zionist “Jordan is Palestine” song.
Correction – King Abdullah I, not Hussein.
Believe it or not Pakistan played a big role in Black September.
I believe Musharaf had a pretty active role in it too, as a young soldier. As far as I remember reading, he seemed quite proud of it too.
See, this is the problem with so-called “progressive” Zionists. Even they don’t treat the Palestinians with human decency. If they aren’t on Israel’s leash than they need to be on Jordan’s leash.
It’s an insult. It really is.
Progressive Zionist, socialist Zionist, humanist Zionist all those are simple oxymorons. Zionism is based on the principle of separation and of exclusivity of privilege according to ethnicity.
I find myself so very insulted that Zionists pretend to be socialists. That’s a goddamn insult to Jewish Socialist who stayed in their homeland — the United States, specifically, at least the ones I know specifically — and were actual socialists.
Instead the Zionists went off to Israel, created a nightmare apartheid state and then turned around and backed American conservatism that ultimately sabotaged American socialism.
I like that very much. Can I quote you on it? Its going on my facebook status.
Saleema, I am not sure if your post was addressed to me or not. If it is the answer is yes you can quote me.
Aref,
Thanks. I knew you would consent so I already posted it to my facebook status.
they are in desperado mode. the howls and shrieks of alternate solutions. falling like dominoes to the zionist ultimo fantasy.
Segev is looking for alternatives.
Compared to a bi-national state within Israel, he reasons that a bi-national state where there is significant intermarriage and many elements of cultural similarity and although there is historical conflict, is looks reconcilable now.
The two-state solution is the next feasible one, that does incorp0rate distinct Palestinian identity into the solution.
The single state solution is the next – either Israeli dominated, Palestinian dominated, bi-national or integrated. Lots of problems with each iteration.
IF the two-state is dead, which I don’t believe, maybe Segev does, then Jordanian citizenship might be the next best. That is what Bennie Morris wrote 4 years ago, and got creamed for saying so.
I don’t think Jordan wants the Palestinians and the Palestinians probably don’t want Jordan. There was some unpleasantness in 1970. I could be wrong, in which case, yeah, letting Jordan absorb the West Bank (and Gaza?) makes sense if both sides want it. Color me skeptical.
What liberal Zionists want should be completely irrelevant here.
There has also been recent history which is much much more cooperative. West Bank Palestinians have been allowed to travel internationally under Jordanian passports, and that has been appreciated by Palestinians and accepted by Jordan, including the responsibilities normally offered to citizens of access to embassies and services while overseas.
What Zionists liberal or not is irrelevant. This goes to the heart of the problem really, nobody bothered to listen to the Palestinians. This continues to this day. Why is it that everybody has the fucking right to self-determination except for the Palestinians? Everybody has an idea about what the Palestinians should or should not do but nobody ever bothered to ask us what we want. Why? Because we are uncivilized bunch of people and have no clue as to what is good for us while everyone else does?
I wish there was a freaking edit button.
The first sentence above should read What Zionists, liberal or not, WANT is irrelevant.
;)
i know, i blwe(sic) it upthread myself.
you got your point across exactly. eventually they will have a rude awakening, the tipping pt has arrived.
It has already been aptly demonstrated on this board that Zionism and democracy are mutually compatible. The Zionists will always sacrifice democracy (among other things, like human rights, international laws, social justice, regular decency…) if that’s the price for keeping a grip on their judenreich.
He’s not “looking for alternatives”. He’s tossing around a red herring. The “Jordanian option”, huh? So Jordan gets all the things that Israel does not want to give a Palestinian state, right? Like…
… 1967 borders (or something very close to these) including East Jerusalem?
… meaning removal of most settlements or their inhabitants’ placement under Jordanian rule?
… full sovereignty over this territory? Including, naturally, control over airspace and natural resources, such as water?
… also including the right to station troops on the West Bank?
… full control, of course, of the Jordan valley?
Are you serious? Instead of granting all of this to a small, militarily unthreatening (due to the economic circumstances, not because of Netanyahu’s intentionally demeaning “demilitarization”, which is another red herring), democratic Palestinian state, Israel will grant all of this to a large, militarily powerful, not-exactly-democratic Jordanian state?
If you really believe this, I have a friend from Nigeria who has an interesting business proposal for you.
Daniel Pipes, everyone’s favorite kosher goose-stepper, argued along the same lines. (link to danielpipes.org
Apparently some of his right-wing claqueurs couldn’t believe their eyes and sent back questions in their astonishment. So Mr. Pipes, not before gaining entry into the news (and Wikipedia) as a “three-stater”, cleared things up:
My idea concerns the Israeli government not ruling the Palestinian population; it says nothing about control of territory.
And there you have it. The “Jordanian option” is not a genuine idea for a confederate state. It’s a thinly veiled pretext for dispossession, control and expulsion.
In this context it is also obvious that Jordan is preferred precisely because it is less than democratic and less than friendly to the Palestinians:
My idea in the above column is that Jordan – the Hashemites in particular – rule the Palestinians, not the reverse.
Drop the “Palestinian problem” into Jordan’s lap, keep the territory (perhaps granting Jordan “conditional sovereignty” over some built-up areas where removal of the Palestinians is unfeasible.)
One thing is to expose the jordanian scenario, another is to put yourself in the shoes of the parties involved. I think it’s attractive to the US, Europe, Israel, and Jordan can be convinced. As for the Palestinians well, make the alternatives worse. The Palestinian police (american trained) were already Jordanian I thought.
Are you kidding? I outlined the problems of this “solution” above. How on Earth would you make Jordan agree to this? Do you think they are too stupid to realize that this “solution” is merely designed to burden them with a population of Palestinians, impoverished by decade-long Israeli policies, embittered about the denial of their own national identity, and penned up in ghettos without any real possibility of development, over which Jordan will have – at best – some semi-sovereignty? Do you really think Jordan will just be begging to step into Israel’s shoes as far as the problems of occupation and colonization are concerned, while leaving Israel with all the perks?
Furthermore, any “making the alternative worse” for the Palestinians – read more impoverishment, more settlements, less Palestinian territory – automatically has the effect of making this already undesirable concept even more undesirable for Jordan.
All that’s not even taking into account the massive backlash from the Arab world Jordan would get for such a capitulation.
Just believe me: It ain’t happening. In 1967, Jordan might have agreed to something like this. 42 years later, the same Israeli “realities on the ground” that make a Palestinian state difficult make the “Jordanian option” impossible.
It’s all a red herring. An “offer”, which incidentally official Israel has not made and will not make, not designed to be accepted, and indeed laced with so much poison that it cannot be accepted, by Jordan.
i suppose I’m not kidding. You’re right that it shouldn’t be called ‘the jordanian option’ though. Maybe “Jordanian enhanced independent Palestian” :)
I find it a little strange that the only thing you agreed with – the only thing you even responded to – was something that wasn’t in my post at all. Were you thinking of a different post?
In any case: The fact that the “three-state solution” is gaining favor among greedy colonialists like Pipes and somewhat more sophisticated colonialists like Segev* may actually be a good sign. That’s because it shows that the idea of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, which is in turn, gaining favor in the US administration is deemed as a serious enough threat to launch some countermeasures. Maybe Obama is not winking back anymore after all.
* If you think this is too harsh, read the quoted article. Tramples right over the right of Palestinians to rule themselves, and names as the only concrete advantage of the Jordanian option that Israel could ostensibly keep more settlements.
Koshiro, there are two angles: what the big players are thinking, and what it means to the palestinians. If I put myself in the shoes of the US , bringing in the Jordanians can help make a Palestinian state more viable, or give it more the semblance of viability. There can be many variants, but as a prototype idea I would think of masquerading a Jordan-supported Bantustan option as an independent Palestinian state.
I entered a few keywords and got two very recent links to things that I think aren’t likely to happen if Jordan would categorically refuse to take any responsibility for the WestBank: electricity and policing
link to maannews.net
link to palestine-pmc.com
Egypt accepted to build an energy plant to provide Gaza with electricity btw. Barak was involved in that. It’s not clear to me what the position of Jordan is, but if they see possibilities there they’ll surely not let on, because it’s hard to sell.
While in principle I don’t have major objections to Palestine being part of Jordan(but I didn’t think about this much)
I expect the Palestinians would be getting screwed again(or did you think I didn’t?) and Israel would be getting off cheap. So it’s best to be prepared for people trying to sell the idea in new ways – with Israel doing ‘unprecedented’ concessions with very real dismantling of peripheral settlements. But certainly keeping what matters most – Jerusalem, maybe the water. Hell they probably would offer as an ultimate sacrifice a part of Israel proper, the little triangle.
Craig, I refer you to my previous comment. Palestinians inhabited their own land since whenever, more than half of which was taken over by Ashkenazi colonists (Central European Jews, of uncertain ancestry), in 1948.
They certainly thought of themselves as “Palestinians” (though they were not yet named as such), and spoke like them, for a lot longer than 50 years ago.
Read Khalidi on the development of Palestinian consciousness.
The threads that I read was that Palestinians thought of themselves as living in their home region (which spread widely, including east of the Jordan into then Trans-Jordan and Jordan). The Jordan is a small river. You can walk across it. The river is a unifier more than a dividing geographic feature, ecologically and socially, not unlike the Rio Grande.
Yeah right Witty, just like the Rio Grande alright…lol I would appreciate it if you stop misquoting Khalidi, it is very irritating. There are some that are familiar with his works, and they do not reflect your posts. Even with the critical analysis in the recently published work The Iron Cage (which contains a good portion of his work on Palestinian identity in whole and part), which takes to task the corruption of Palestinian leadership, they do not reflect what you post
Really now? The leading proponent of patently falsified Zionist Jewish mythology is going to presume to decide what constitutes “Palestinian?” I’m pretty sure the Mizrahi and Sephardi can speak volumes on the idea of Ashkenazi “unity” with their fellows.
Crap, I broke my New Year’s resolution. Sorry, old habits are hard to kick, and Witty attacking Palestinian identity when he’s the biggest phony as they come is really offensive.
Whats the difference between a Mizrahi Jew and a Sephardic Jew Chaos?
I’m not an expert, but from what I understand, Mizrahi Jews come from Mesopotamian countries (Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc.) whereas Sephardic Jews were those in Spain and Northern Africa.
Playing dumb looks good on you, Yonira. It’s probably the one thing you are really good at. No wonder you do it so frequently.
This is not a new idea but one very old and discredited idea. Palestine will not become part of Jordan for the simple reason that neither Jordan nor the Palestinians would accept it. I have been hearing Israelis claim since 1975 that the solution to their ‘Arab’ problem is to give them Jordan so they will leave Israel alone. Pure wishful thinking.
I think it is a sign of sheer desperation that Segev would bring this up now. It is simply an excuse to avoid the real issue; namely Israel is going to have to deal this issue with some real compromises that will include giving the Palestinians their state in the West Bank with its capitol in Jerusalem as well as acknowledging the plight of the refugees, from Israel proper, accepting responsibility for the Nakba and offering them some real compensation. This compensation could involve right of return or some significant reparations. This is something that is not up to us to decide but will have to be the result of negotiations between the Zionist and the dispossessed Palestinians. Then Israel will have to allow complete civil rights for the 20% of her citizens of Palestinian origins. None of this will be easy for the Israelis. No wonder Segev entertains the fantasy sending the Palestinians to Jordan as solution.
Just to be contrary, the notion of Jordan annexing the WB does have some advantages over other proposals. For one, it would get rid of the notion that the Palestinian state would be disarmed, vulnerable to every whim of the IDF. Jordan is well armed and capable of defending its borders.
Well there is an assumption here that arms would be allowed in the West Bank. If we go by the peace treaty with Egypt where the Sinai was returned to Egypt, Egypt cannot send its troops into the Sinai without the approval of Israel. Only a limited number of troops and weapons are allowed–some sovereignty!!! it is very unlikely that there would be any military presence other than a police force.
I suspect you are correct syvanen, however I want you are others to note something else. Just like the domestic variety of Zionist (USA) likes to nestle inside what one would term the “progressive” camp (as well as the neocon) except being PEP, so they like to produce at first what seems laudable “new historians” that eventually mutate. It is the same game, if they can muddy the waters of the true new historians with some subtle (or not so subtle, depends on your gullibility) implant they believe they can dilute the impact of damning history. Hope springs eternal in the damned ideology.
I believe that this idea is being revived mainly because the reality on the ground has rendered the formation of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state impossible due to the expansion of the settlements cutting deep into the West Bank fragmenting the area making it to look more like “Swiss Cheese”. The alternative to this reality is the integration of Palestinians and Israelis into one Secular Democratic–binational or not–country. Of course for Zionists, conservative, nationalist, progressive or liberal, that is not an acceptable solution because it means the end of the Zionist project which is based on the idea of separatness. The OSS means that they as well as Palestinians abandon the exclusive claim to the land. It means the dismantlement of the system of privileges established where ethnicity is the overriding factor and not simple citizenship.
I believe that the idea of bringing in Jordan to take over responsibility for the remnants of the West Bank becomes attractive. However, that does not solve the problem. What to do with Gaza? Egypt certainly does not want to get involved in the administration of Gaza for very obvious reasons. Hamas, is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. Opening the borders and integrating the Gaza population into Egypt would result providing more support to the Muslim Brotherhood, a very undesirable thing as far as the Egyptian regime is concerned.
Well Gaza could become a “state” — a ghetto is more appropriate– surrounded and controlled by Israel and Egypt.
This may be the thinking of Segev and others like him who characterize themselves as humanist, liberal or progressive Zionists. This “solution” sounds attractive because it relieves Israel from all responsibility toward the territories, it gets to keep the settlements and control of the aquifers under the West Bank. The problem is that no Palestinian would accept such a solution. Again as I said no body bothers listening to what the Palestinians want but everybody has an opinion about what the Palestinians should do or what the solution should look like. Pathetic.
Gaza may have to be evacuated. Israel’s use of chemical and radioactive weapons has rendered it uninhabitable.
link to weekly.ahram.org.eg
I’ve heard about this too. If that’s what’s happened, then you better believe the United Nations is going to put those Israeli bastards on trial for genocide.
I hope you’re not holding your breath.
The rest of the world isn’t as fucked up as the United States, potsherd.
Finally Firedoglake post something about the gathering other than my endless connections to this site and the primitive post that a few of us have been putting up at Seminal, . Finally.
Still Jane Hamsher, Marcy Wheeler the big hitters will not touch this issue
Better something than nothing at all. Now if only Rachel would cover it. Sure wish Jane would bring up this lack of coverage on RAchel’s when she visits the show
Will not be holding by breath
Gaza March Blocked But Message Delivered
link to firedoglake.com
Besides Mondoweiss…Counterpunch seems to have had the most posted about the Gaza Freedom March over the last week or so. Crooks and Liars might be the most negligent
link to firedoglake.com
There may have been a time when I would accept New York being part of Canada, but that time is now past.
This is an insightful comment, Phil.
Phil is a relatively recent resident. What would the Mohicans, Cayuga or Abenaki say?
“Today they [Israelis] seem tired of front-page news; most of them no longer believe in politics or in peace. The opening in August of Israel’s first Gap store as well as concerts by Madonna and Leonard Cohen have attracted far more people than any political rally could.
Fatigue and skepticism toward all proposals for settlement with the Palestinians have moved Israel to the right, bringing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to power. He fulfills what seems to be most people’s strongest wish at the moment: to be left alone.”
What utter bullshit Segev, they want to continue their atrocities with impunity which you are so willing to give them. And you still insist on bringing out that tired old horse (even in this review…) about the Holocaust scares of the people which were not shared by an informed leadership during the Yom Kippur war, how predictably quaint. You are a “new historian” …lol
My feeling that the scenario where a less than independently viable remainder of the westbank is annexed to Jordan is becoming increasingly likely. And the mirror scenario for Gaza. And I don’t like it. Very ugly pragmatism but the salesmen can make a good case for it – since it does improve the situation and it provides a kind of solution. Benny Morris made a similar appeal. I suspect this is being actively pursued.
As for Segev, he’s done good things. Not the type who will be critical of Israel in front of outsiders though.
“since it does improve the situation and it provides a kind of solution” So did the Warsaw Ghetto, but no one will claim it to be superior to the situation today, when holocaust survivors prefer Germany to Israel. To anyone who thinks a one state solution is not tenable, I say, ask the holocaust survivor who moved to Berlin. If she can live with the Germans, I’m sure the Palestinians can live with their occupiers. Note that the position which needs change is not that of the victim, but that of the oppressor. As long as there is Zionism, Palestinians will die.
link to ynet.co.il
I am somewhat in favour of Jordan ‘taking over’ the West Bank. The facts are these:
Jordan has a population of 6 million, half of whom are Palestinians, ie 3 million, more than are left in the West Bank (not counting Gaza).
The West Bank has 2.4 million Palestinians. so between them, they could have a permanent majority over the 3 million Jordanian native East Bankers (ex Bedouins).
link to en.wikipedia.org
Then the Palestinians could join a viable state, and let the Israelis keep the margins.
That would make a big, tough, pro-US state bang next to Israel. But it would also greatly undermine little abdullah’s kingship.
Wonder why they haven’t done it?
Black September: link to en.wikipedia.org
which was a quarrel between Palestinians and the 3 million Jordanian native East Bankers (ex Bedouins).
For the Gazans? Give them the option between Egyptian or Jordanian citizenship (currently, they have none). Open a totally secure road to the West Bank (not an Israeli-controlled one)
Olmert’s map link to flickr.com
shows what might end up as part of Jordan (not the best bits)
It doesn’t matter a damn what the new entity is called; Palestine or whatever. After all, America is named after a Portuguese adventurer, and Britain after a tribe that expired 1000 years before it was named.
We are all too fixated (and so are Abbas and Hamas) on creating yet another fragmented ‘nation’.
Let the Israelis exist as a boil on the side of the Middle East; the anti-toxins will soon begin to work.
Tom Segev “idea” may be new to some eyes – but as a student of Middle East history from objective sources – the idea is as old as “Muslims have 50 countries – why cannot they accept one Jewish country?”
The notorious Balfour Declaration authored by a Zionist Jew British secretary of state – gave 56% of Palestinian land to its 13% Jewish population while 87% of Muslim and Christian population was left with 44% of Palestine as an independent country – which in reality was never allowed to materialized. It was further divided among Israel, Trans-Jordan and Egypt. Historically, the East Bank (Jordan) is also a Palestinian land awarded to Heshmite traitors by Britian for helping it to destry Ottomon empire.
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Though I sometimes suspect myself of holding beliefs that might imply a form of anti-Semitism I really dislike the use of ‘Jew’ as an adjective. It rings with racial contempt, which cannot be good.
Arthur Balfour was descended on his father’s side from the Earls of Lauderdale and on his mother’s from the Marquesses of Salisbury, both Protestant families of centuries old status. The aristocracy of my beloved country has many interesting qualities but being Jewish is not one of them.
I agree that Balfour was influenced by highly debatable Zionist views of history – ‘ we had Jerusalem when London was but a marsh’ – and was dishonest about the Zionist bias of his rotten Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration itself is worth reading
“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
No mention of partitioning. That was done by the UN
Pingback: Abdullah: Ending the Palestinian grievance solves the Iran threat