Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East
Thread gallery
10
SummerFeverVenice · 20/05/2024 19:47

onegrumpyoldwoman · 17/05/2024 20:51

That is incorrect.

In accordance with the United Nations Partition Plan (1947), both the Arabs and the Jews were offered some land, and the possibility of having their own state. The Arab League was opposed to any partition whatsoever, wanting to keep all the land for themselves, and especially opposed to the establishment of Israel. Israel accepted the UN offer, and the Arabs (who have since 1964 re-branded and re-marketed themselves as Palestinian) declined, deciding instead to persuade their co-religionists (Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Transjordan, Syria and Yemen) to join them in attacking Israel, whose sovereignty they refused to acknowledge.

From the very first day they tried to eradicate Israel.

Israel became an independent state on 14 May 1948 and the very next day, on 15 May 1948, Israel was attacked, by 8 different armies.
Had they won there would not be the current situation of stateless Palestinians. It is more likely that Jordan would have annexed most of the region, rather than setting up another Arab country.
But they lost, losing in battle, even the territory offered to them by the UN, which they had previously declined.
Tragically, the Palestinians themselves are the authors of their own loss, their self-assured hubris, leading to nemesis, which ultimately resulted in self-inflicted retributive justice. This loss is known in Arabic as al-Nakba (The Catastrophe), although more accurately it should be called The Debacle.

As a result of this war, Israel kept the original territory offered to them by the UN Partition plan, plus gained 60% of the territory allotted to the Arabs, (let me repeat: which they had rejected),
Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip and Jordan annexed (illegally) the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
To clarify, in 1947 most of the land set aside by the UN Partition Plan for an Arab State in the West Bank and East Jerusalem became occupied territory, but occupied by Jordan, not by Israel.
^^
That seems simple enough.

Your version of history did not happen.

  1. The “Arab League” did not include the Palestinians or Palestine, and so were not offered any land at all, nor did they “want it all for themselves”. The Arab league were Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Yemen. The Arab league objected to the UN partition being decided without any Palestinian leader being part of the negotiations. They objected to the exclusion of Palestinians.

  2. The British accepted the partition on behalf of the Palestinians. Many Palestinian groups objected ofc. No Palestinian leader was consulted. Palestinians had no say.

  3. The US accepted the partition on behalf of the US Zionists who wished to found Israel. Many Jewish groups already in Palestine also objected.

  4. The Nakba started in 1947 as various Jewish militias started to seize land from Palestinians paying little attention to the UN partition boundaries. There were splinter terrorist groups on each side as well doing bombings and murders.

  5. The Arab league looked on with concern and only after over 250,000 Palestinian refugees had entered the neighbouring countries did they invade as peace keepers. You can read their UN cable listing their reasons. Their troops stayed within the UN partition borders and did not invade into the territory that was formally announced in 1948 as Israel. So no, they did not attack Israel at all. Isrsel’s proto-IDF, the Haganah and other armed militias didn’t stick to the UN partition borders which is why by the end of the war, i
    Israel had seized far more land than the UN partition had given them.

  6. Egypt and Jordan successfully defended and occupied Gaza and West Bank while lobbying the UN to recognise a Palestinian state per their partition. Predictably, the US and U.K. vetoed every such motion as the US still does today. This lasted until Israel attacked in the 1967 six day war and took Gaza and West Bank from them. Jordan never annexed the West Bank and Egypt never annexed the Gaza Strip. Both areas never legally or formally or even locally were viewed as part of Egypt or Jordan.

When you say “they had rejected” - no one in the Palestinian mandate Arab or Jewish was part of the UN partition negotiations. No one there agreed with the partition. They all refused the legitimacy of the UN partition.

The Arab league were offered NO LAND. They are foreign countries. They only intervened when the Nakba was at its peak and even when they did, they respected the UN partition even though they had disagreed with the way in which it had been decided. They disagreed with the US and U.K. drawing lines on the map and then using the UN to implement it. The saying “a land with no people for a people with no land” is how they viewed it. No local leader, Jewish or Arab, was included in the decision.

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 00:37

SummerFeverVenice · 20/05/2024 19:47

Your version of history did not happen.

  1. The “Arab League” did not include the Palestinians or Palestine, and so were not offered any land at all, nor did they “want it all for themselves”. The Arab league were Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Yemen. The Arab league objected to the UN partition being decided without any Palestinian leader being part of the negotiations. They objected to the exclusion of Palestinians.

  2. The British accepted the partition on behalf of the Palestinians. Many Palestinian groups objected ofc. No Palestinian leader was consulted. Palestinians had no say.

  3. The US accepted the partition on behalf of the US Zionists who wished to found Israel. Many Jewish groups already in Palestine also objected.

  4. The Nakba started in 1947 as various Jewish militias started to seize land from Palestinians paying little attention to the UN partition boundaries. There were splinter terrorist groups on each side as well doing bombings and murders.

  5. The Arab league looked on with concern and only after over 250,000 Palestinian refugees had entered the neighbouring countries did they invade as peace keepers. You can read their UN cable listing their reasons. Their troops stayed within the UN partition borders and did not invade into the territory that was formally announced in 1948 as Israel. So no, they did not attack Israel at all. Isrsel’s proto-IDF, the Haganah and other armed militias didn’t stick to the UN partition borders which is why by the end of the war, i
    Israel had seized far more land than the UN partition had given them.

  6. Egypt and Jordan successfully defended and occupied Gaza and West Bank while lobbying the UN to recognise a Palestinian state per their partition. Predictably, the US and U.K. vetoed every such motion as the US still does today. This lasted until Israel attacked in the 1967 six day war and took Gaza and West Bank from them. Jordan never annexed the West Bank and Egypt never annexed the Gaza Strip. Both areas never legally or formally or even locally were viewed as part of Egypt or Jordan.

When you say “they had rejected” - no one in the Palestinian mandate Arab or Jewish was part of the UN partition negotiations. No one there agreed with the partition. They all refused the legitimacy of the UN partition.

The Arab league were offered NO LAND. They are foreign countries. They only intervened when the Nakba was at its peak and even when they did, they respected the UN partition even though they had disagreed with the way in which it had been decided. They disagreed with the US and U.K. drawing lines on the map and then using the UN to implement it. The saying “a land with no people for a people with no land” is how they viewed it. No local leader, Jewish or Arab, was included in the decision.

I really haven't got the time or inclination to unpick all that strange story.

Jordan never annexed the West Bank and Egypt never annexed the Gaza Strip. Both areas never legally or formally or even locally were viewed as part of Egypt or Jordan.

No-one said Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip.

So Wikipedia is wrong about the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank?? You'd better let them know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank

Jordanian annexation of the West Bank - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank

SummerFeverVenice · 21/05/2024 08:10

@onegrumpyoldwoman

The Wikipedia page you linked- did you even read it?

It says that the annexation wasn’t an full annexation because Jordan wasn’t adding West Bank to itself to be part of Jordan but holding the land in trust for a future Palestinian State: “A month afterwards [after the announcement of annexation], the Arab League, having received assurances from Jordan, resolved to treat the annexed area as being held in trust until the Palestine question was resolved.” The US and U.K. accepted Jordan’s control of West Bank as well on these terms- that it was a temporary control of the land, not an addition of it to Jordan.

Your link also confirms that the Arab League did not attack Israel like you said:
”Following the End of the British Mandate for Palestine and Israel's declaration of independence on 14 May 1948, the Arab Legion, under the leadership of Sir John Bagot Glubb, known as Glubb Pasha, was ordered to enter Mandatory Palestine and secure the UN-designated Arab area.”

The only parts of the “Arab designated area” by the UN partition for a Palestine that ended up being fully annexed were the ones taken by Israel:
”The remainder of the area designated as part of an Arab state under the UN Partition Plan was partly occupied by Egypt (Gaza Strip), partly occupied and annexed by Israel (West Negev, West Galilee, Jaffa).”

I am sure there is more.

SummerFeverVenice · 21/05/2024 08:11

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 00:45

Talk about missing the forest for the trees and not reading what you link!

SummerFeverVenice · 21/05/2024 08:17

As a reminder, because you didn’t know who the Arab League was by writing them up as some Palestinian League wanting “all the land for themselves” (too funny), Jordan was a member of the Arab League. So all along they never fully annexed West Bank. They announced it because a contingent of Palestinians asked for it, then one month later they decided not to go through with it.

Annexation following a war of land acquisition is what Putin did to the Crimea, what the English did to Wales, Scotland and Ireland, what the US did to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California.

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 11:06

SummerFeverVenice · 21/05/2024 08:17

As a reminder, because you didn’t know who the Arab League was by writing them up as some Palestinian League wanting “all the land for themselves” (too funny), Jordan was a member of the Arab League. So all along they never fully annexed West Bank. They announced it because a contingent of Palestinians asked for it, then one month later they decided not to go through with it.

Annexation following a war of land acquisition is what Putin did to the Crimea, what the English did to Wales, Scotland and Ireland, what the US did to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California.

Did you read this bit?

"When Jordan transferred its full citizenship rights to the residents of the West Bank, the annexation more than tripled the population of Jordan, going from 400,000 to 1,300,000.
The naturalized Palestinians enjoyed equal opportunities in all sectors of the state without discrimination, and they were given half of the seats of the Jordanian parliament."

So they became Jordanians.

Annexation refers to the act of taking possession of a piece of land or a country,
"After Israel occupied the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day War, the Palestinians there remained Jordanian citizens until Jordan renounced claims to and severed administrative ties with the territory in 1988."

Annexation refers to the act of taking possession of a piece of land or a country, usually by force or without permission. For example, when one country incorporates new territory into its domain, that process is considered annexation.

Others agree it was "Annexation"

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/10/palestine-jordan-will-not-reannex-the-west-bank/

Why Jordan Will Not Reannex the West Bank

An FP essay provoked a strong response because it brought international attention to a controversial issue that has historically only been debated internally.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/10/palestine-jordan-will-not-reannex-the-west-bank

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 11:10

@SummerFeverVenice England never "annexed" Scotland.

The Union came about when the two countries united due to James V1 of Scotand becoming James 1 England

SummerFeverVenice · 21/05/2024 11:22

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 11:06

Did you read this bit?

"When Jordan transferred its full citizenship rights to the residents of the West Bank, the annexation more than tripled the population of Jordan, going from 400,000 to 1,300,000.
The naturalized Palestinians enjoyed equal opportunities in all sectors of the state without discrimination, and they were given half of the seats of the Jordanian parliament."

So they became Jordanians.

Annexation refers to the act of taking possession of a piece of land or a country,
"After Israel occupied the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day War, the Palestinians there remained Jordanian citizens until Jordan renounced claims to and severed administrative ties with the territory in 1988."

Annexation refers to the act of taking possession of a piece of land or a country, usually by force or without permission. For example, when one country incorporates new territory into its domain, that process is considered annexation.

Others agree it was "Annexation"

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/10/palestine-jordan-will-not-reannex-the-west-bank/

“Annexation refers to the act of taking possession of a piece of land or a country, usually by force or without permission. For example, when one country incorporates new territory into its domain, that process is considered annexation.”

Yes this is correct, but Jordan did not incorporate the West Bank into its domain, it did not possess the West Bank.

Apart from 1 month where it merely announced an intention to annex and then changed its mind, Jordan occupied and held the West Bank in trust for the future Palestinian state. A trustee is not an owner of whatever is held in trust. Therefore, West Bank was never possessed by Jordan and thus never annexed.

Annexation doesn’t necessarily mean equal rights for the population in the territory.

So the fact that Jordan gave the Palestinians equal rights isn’t proof of annexation.

What Jordan did with West Bank is most similar to the trustee position the British had over Palestine from 1918-1948. An occupying power holding territory in trust can give the population equal rights or not. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/creation-of-palestinian-citizenship-under-international-mandate-1918-1925/

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 11:28

Yes this is correct, but Jordan did not incorporate the West Bank into its domain, it did not possess the West Bank.I think you'll find they did ;
On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. On April 24, 1950, the Jordan House of Deputies and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted the following resolution annexing the West Bank and Jerusalem:
"Approval is granted to complete unity between the two banks of the Jordan, the Eastern and Western, and their amalgamation in one single state: The Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan, under the crown of his Hashemite Majesty King Abdullah ben el-Husein the exalted."

According to the Kingdom of Jordan’s website, the objective was “to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.”
Abdullah had long coveted all of Palestine as part of his desire to rule over Greater Syria and, his successor believed Israel was part of that vision

SummerFeverVenice · 21/05/2024 11:28

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 11:10

@SummerFeverVenice England never "annexed" Scotland.

The Union came about when the two countries united due to James V1 of Scotand becoming James 1 England

lol, go a bit further back to the conquest of Scotland by Edward I in 1296. For twenty five years the kingdom of Scotland was conquered and then annexed by England.

Scotland was not an independent kingdom again until 1329 after the Scottish wars for independence succeeded.

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 11:32

SummerFeverVenice · 21/05/2024 11:28

lol, go a bit further back to the conquest of Scotland by Edward I in 1296. For twenty five years the kingdom of Scotland was conquered and then annexed by England.

Scotland was not an independent kingdom again until 1329 after the Scottish wars for independence succeeded.

Not according to the Treaty of Northampton
the Treaty of Northampton in April, 1328, states, “… the King of England declared for himself and his heirs that the kingdom of Scotland shall remain for ever to the great prince, Lord Robert by the grace of God illustrious King of Scotland, and that Scotland shall be separated from the kingdom of England, and from all claims of subjection or vassalage.”

SummerFeverVenice · 21/05/2024 11:35

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 11:28

Yes this is correct, but Jordan did not incorporate the West Bank into its domain, it did not possess the West Bank.I think you'll find they did ;
On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. On April 24, 1950, the Jordan House of Deputies and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted the following resolution annexing the West Bank and Jerusalem:
"Approval is granted to complete unity between the two banks of the Jordan, the Eastern and Western, and their amalgamation in one single state: The Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan, under the crown of his Hashemite Majesty King Abdullah ben el-Husein the exalted."

According to the Kingdom of Jordan’s website, the objective was “to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.”
Abdullah had long coveted all of Palestine as part of his desire to rule over Greater Syria and, his successor believed Israel was part of that vision

I suppose it depends on whether you believe Jordan (and the rest of the Arab League) was lying about holding the Palestinian designated lands in trust or not. Egypt treated Gazans not as nicely as Jordan treated the West Bank.

I don’t agree holding land in trust is annexation, it’s not part of the definition, and if it were as you allege, then it would mean Britain ‘annexed’ Palestine for thirty years when it did the exact same role as Jordan.

Fast forward to today, and Israel has taken by force 100% of the land, in violation and defiance of the UN partition and subsequent UN resolutions, with increasingly smaller bits not yet annexed but under military occupation. Israel is staunchly against any Palestinian state.

SummerFeverVenice · 21/05/2024 11:37

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 11:32

Not according to the Treaty of Northampton
the Treaty of Northampton in April, 1328, states, “… the King of England declared for himself and his heirs that the kingdom of Scotland shall remain for ever to the great prince, Lord Robert by the grace of God illustrious King of Scotland, and that Scotland shall be separated from the kingdom of England, and from all claims of subjection or vassalage.”

Yeah, the Pope had to recognise kingdoms then too, and that didn’t happen until 1329. Really, you’d think you would know this.
Thank you for agreeing that England did annex Scotland (for a bit)

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 11:49

@SummerFeverVenice Really, you’d think you would know this.

What's that supposed to mean? Anything?

Or is it just a snipey comment because you're losing the debate through lack of in depth knowledge?

Thank you for agreeing that England did annex Scotland (for a bit)

I didn't (LOL)

SummerFeverVenice · 21/05/2024 12:20

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 11:49

@SummerFeverVenice Really, you’d think you would know this.

What's that supposed to mean? Anything?

Or is it just a snipey comment because you're losing the debate through lack of in depth knowledge?

Thank you for agreeing that England did annex Scotland (for a bit)

I didn't (LOL)

You’re quite right. You have shown a lot of ‘in depth’ knowledge, writing about the Arab League as if it were just the name for all Arabs in Palestine by using Arab League/Palestinians interchangeably when they were not party to any of the UN negotiations at all. Writing that the Arab League/Palestinians were offered the land and rejected it, that they attacked Israel thereby causing the Nakba to happen over a year after the Nakba actually started.

You write that Jordan annexed West Bank from 1949-1967 (18 years) but don’t see how that biased perspective conflicts with the British in Palestine from 1918-1948 (30 years) doing the exact same role of trustee holding land in trust, but not being considered to have annexed Palestine.

You nitpick my list of examples to claim England never annexed Scotland. I point out that they did (for longer than Jordan supposedly annexed West Bank) and then you quibble over the end date being 1328 instead of 1329 because you thought a treaty ending a war for independence marked the legal formation of an independent kingdom of Scotland. Your ‘in depth’ knowledge didn’t include the fact that back then a Catholic kingdom and monarch was not legitimate in existence until the Pope formally recognised it. The Pope did for Catholic kingdoms what the UN does today for states- they don’t exist until formally recognised.

Abhannmor · 21/05/2024 12:30

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 00:37

I really haven't got the time or inclination to unpick all that strange story.

Jordan never annexed the West Bank and Egypt never annexed the Gaza Strip. Both areas never legally or formally or even locally were viewed as part of Egypt or Jordan.

No-one said Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip.

So Wikipedia is wrong about the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank?? You'd better let them know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank

Wikipedia is wrong about si many things. It is edited by armies of trolls now. Consider its deranged biography of Graham Linehan. I stopped sending my small contributions a couple of years ago.

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 12:58

@SummerFeverVenice
The Arab League was formed in Cairo on 22 March 1945 with six members: Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan (renamed Jordan after independence in 1946), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Yemen joined on 5 May 1945.
Since its formation the Arab League has promoted the Palestinian Arab cause in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, including by imposing the Arab League boycott of Israel.

The Arab League opposed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947. On 15 May 1948, the then seven Arab League members coordinated an invasion of what was by then the former British Mandate, marking the start of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

To rewind a bit - At the Conference of San Remo, (April 19–26, 1920), international meeting convened at San Remo, on the Italian Riviera, to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, one of the defeated Central Powers in World War I; it was attended by the prime ministers of Great Britain, France, and Italy, and representatives of Japan, Greece, and Belgium.

The conference approved the final framework of a peace treaty with Turkey which was later signed at Sèvres, on Aug. 10, 1920. The Treaty of Sèvres abolished the Ottoman Empire, obliged Turkey to renounce all rights over Arab Asia and North Africa, and provided for an independent Armenia, for an autonomous Kurdistan, and for a Greek presence in eastern Thrace and on the Anatolian west coast, as well as Greek control over the Aegean islands commanding the Dardanelles.
Rejected by the new Turkish nationalist regime, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced in 1923 by the Treaty of Lausanne, which voided previous Allied demands for Kurdish autonomy and Armenian independence but did otherwise recognize Turkey’s current boundaries.

During the Conference of San Remo, two “A” mandates were created out of the old Ottoman province of Syria: the northern half (Syria and Lebanon) was mandated to France, the southern half (Palestine) to Great Britain.

The province of Mesopotamia (Iraq) was also mandated to Great Britain. Under the terms of an “A” mandate the individual countries were deemed independent but subject to a mandatory power until they reached political maturity.

The "mandate system" was created in the aftermath of World War I to resolve the question of jurisdiction over the colonial territories detached from Germany and the Ottoman Empire.
Article 119 of the Versailles required Germany to renounce sovereignty over former colonies and Article 22 converted the territories into League of Nations mandates under the control of Allied states.

Mandatory Palestine was designated as a Class A Mandate, based on its social, political, and economic development. This classification was reserved for post-war mandates with the highest capacity for self-governance. All Class A mandates other than mandatory Palestine had gained independence by 1946.

stormy4319trevor · 21/05/2024 13:38

Abhannmor · 21/05/2024 12:30

Wikipedia is wrong about si many things. It is edited by armies of trolls now. Consider its deranged biography of Graham Linehan. I stopped sending my small contributions a couple of years ago.

Quite right. One should never rely on Wikipedia as a source for information.

AppleStrudel23 · 21/05/2024 13:44

NorthStarRising · 14/11/2023 13:26

An independent Palestinian state could be established, with the goodwill of other Muslim states, using the West Bank and incorporating a section of Jordan. That way the state would be whole, instead of split between two locations with a hostile nation in between.
But Jordan would have to be willing to share with the Palestinians. Which should have happened when the West Bank was under Jordan’s control.

’In 1947 the UN General Assembly recommended that the area that became the West Bank become part of a future Arab state, but this proposal was opposed by the Arab states at the time. In 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank and annexed it in 1950.’ Wikipedia

Hostile nation in between? How many peace deals did Palestinians and the Arab nations turn down? Who said the three no's? When Israel was declared a country and its own state what happened within the first 24 hours? Why would Israel give Palestinians the West Bank and Gaza if they wanted them gone? Why do Palestinians in Israel have the same rights as everyone else but the same can't be said for Israelis and Jews in other Arabs countries and states?

I'm just curious to see your mental gymnastics for those points!

Hoppinggreen · 21/05/2024 13:48

HaveALaff · 14/11/2023 15:55

Ofcourse Israel will get away with it. They have been getting away with it for years. The world will apologies when it is too late. Let us be on the right side of history.

Because any objections are "anti semitic"

onegrumpyoldwoman · 21/05/2024 21:33

Another link (not from Wikipedia)

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4660583-united-nations-palestine-statehood-gaza-big-mistake/

stormy4319trevor · 21/05/2024 22:47

@onegrumpyoldwoman Good. Wikipedia, while a lovely idea, is not without bias and has no guarantee of accuracy. You may want to evaluate periodicals and magazines also for political leanings and journalistic standards. I've no comment on the points you are making, simply agree with others that Wikipedia is not a valid source, as many first year undergrads are dismayed to learn!

Swipe left for the next trending thread