Powered by WebAds

Sunday, July 01, 2007

The 'Palestinian' state does not want the 'Palestinians'

I'll bet a lot of you will be surprised to hear me refer to a 'Palestinian' state already in existence. There is one. It goes by the gaudy title of the 'Kingdom of Jordan.' Yes, the Kingdom of Jordan is more than 70% 'Palestinian.' The problem is that the royal family is not 'Palestinian.' The royal family are distant cousins of the Saudi royal family. Here's how that happened:
Historically, Abdullah is incorrect to the point of absurdity.

The Emirate of Transjordan was an autonomous political division of the British Mandate of Palestine, created as an administrative entity in April 1921 before the Mandate came into effect. It was geographically equivalent to today's Kingdom of Jordan, and remained under the nominal auspices of the League of Nations, until its independence in 1946.

Initially, both the territory to the East and the West of the Jordan river were the British Mandate of Palestine. "Transjordan" was a word coined as a reference to the part of Palestine "across the Jordan", i.e. on the far (eastern) side of the Jordan River. On the western side of the Jordan River was the remaining 21% of the Palestine Mandate, Palestine which contained many places of historical and religious significance to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

In other words, 'Jordan' is 79% of the Palestine Mandate. Not only is it 'Palestine' - it is the vast majority of the area covered by the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

The Mandate for Palestine, while specifying actions in support of Jewish immigration and political status, stated that in the territory to the east of the Jordan River, Britain could 'postpone or withhold' those articles of the Mandate concerning a 'Jewish National Home'.... In September 1922, the British government presented a memorandum to the League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement, and this memorandum was approved by the League on 11 September. From that point onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan....

...

The Hashemite Emir Abdullah, [Abdullah's great-grandfather, who was assasinated by 'Palestinians' in 1951 at the Dome of the Rock. Incredibly, Wikipedia omits this. CiJ] elder son of Britain's wartime Arab ally Sharif Hussein of Mecca [the Saudi royal family. CiJ], was placed on the throne of Transjordan [by the British. CiJ].... In March 1946, under the Treaty of London, Transjordan became a kingdom and on May 25, 1946, the parliament of Transjordan proclaimed the emir king, and formally changed the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. In December 1948, Abdullah took the title King of Jordan, and he officially changed the country's name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in April 1949.

Two thirds of Jordan's population is described as 'descendants of 'Palestinian refugees.''

In other words, the cousin of the Saudi Arabian rulers, whose 'Kingdom' was a creation of colonialism so that his great-grandfather would not fight with his great great uncle, is now denying that two thirds of his population is entitled to call his country their home.

And did I mention that Jews were expelled from Jordan in 1923 and denied citizenship since?

This morning, the rump king Abdullah - the great grandson of the original - announced that his 'country' doesn't want to form a 'confederation' with the 'Palestinians.'
Jordan's King Abdullah II flatly rejected a confederation with the Palestinians on Sunday, calling any such proposal at the current time a "conspiracy" against his kingdom and the Palestinians, a local newspaper reported.

Despite government assertions to the contrary, speculation has mounted in recent weeks that Jordan may want to assume a protectorate role in the West Bank by forming a confederation with the Palestinians.

In newspaper remarks published Sunday, Abdullah said he was "fed up talking about this issue."

"We reject the formula of confederation and federation and we believe that proposing this issue at this specific period is a conspiracy against both Palestine and Jordan," Abdullah told the independent Al-Ghad newspaper.

This key US ally fears that any confederation before a final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict could give credence to Israeli hard-liners, who have urged making Jordan a home for the West Bank's Arabs.
The truth is that if there was ever a true democratic vote in Jordan - even without Judea and Samaria - Abdullah and the royal family would be voted out of office. That's why Abdullah rejects any kind of confederation.

He also has some choice words for Israel, with which his father signed a treaty in 1994:
The king harshly rebuked Israel in the interview, underlining his frustration with its peace policies.

Despite cordial relations with his neighbor under a 1994 peace treaty, Abdullah described Israel as a "solid enemy" of the Palestinians, saying the Jewish state "will not achieve the security it desires, unless Palestinian political rights are addressed."
Even if Abdullah has to make sure himself that Israel never achieves the security it desires.... How come his family never worried about 'Palestinian political rights' when it ruled Judea and Samaria? Hmm....

1 Comments:

At 10:02 PM, Blogger Delta Vines said...

It amazes me that Jordan is not "coerced" into relinquishing some of it's land as the new "Palestinian state". Then again, if it did, there would not be a PR reason to attack Israel with bombs. Oh yeah, there's always the media war that keeps going and going against Israel as well. Sometimes, I think the world has gone crazy when I see how poorly Israel is treated.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Google