Wasn’t Jordan the Palestinian Arab state?

[ConscientiousObserver]

TBH I don’t think the history of this conflict is very relevant today, as very few affected people are still alive from that era (and the people alive today and feeling the consequences of past decisions are the ones who matter) although the cumulative effect of a people deliberately designated as refugees for generations and the hatred that has fostered has attributed to what is happening today.

Many people say that the war didn’t start on Oct 7th. or even in 1948, as the Palestinians had their lands stolen and this why this conflict has raged on culminating in the present situation, and is also even used as an excuse for Oct 7th.

Leaving aside the fact that ‘Palestinians’ before 1948 referred to Arabs, Christian and Jews, and Palestinian Arabs were identified as and referred to themselves as Arabs as an ethnicity and national identity, didn’t 73% the British Mandate for Palestine, called Ottoman Syria under the ruling Ottoman Empire, or Syria Palestina, include present day Jordan, named Trans Jordan by the British, and wasn’t that created as an Arab State?

Therefore the Arabs got an Arab State covering three quarters of the British Mandate of Palestine which under the Balfour Declaration and San Remo conference was actually originally earmarked as a Jewish homeland.

Why is that not mentioned in discussion about the history of the conflict?

Why did the Arabs of the time need another Arab State when they already had 22 surrounding Arab States?

Interested after the government’s announcement that we will recognise the State of Palestine when we already recognised a Palestinian Arab State in Jordan 104 years ago.

Would a State of Palestine include Jews so will they be able to live there too with equal rights and protections in the same way Palestinian Arabs and Christians live in Israel? Is this what the UK government mean they will be recognising?

Just thinking out loud.

They lived peacefully together in Palestine before the experiment that is Israel was created.

Non Jews in Israel are not treated the same.

1. Legal Status

• Arab citizens of Israel (about 20% of the population) are citizens and have the right to vote, access healthcare, and education. However, they often face systemic inequality and discrimination in:
• Housing – Limited access to land and building permits.
• Funding – Arab towns and schools receive less government funding.
• Employment – Disparities in job opportunities, particularly in public service and high-tech sectors.
• Palestinians in East Jerusalem have a different status:
• Most are not Israeli citizens but "permanent residents."
• They can live and work in Israel and get social benefits, but they cannot vote in national elections.
• Their residency can be revoked if they move outside Jerusalem or can't prove their "center of life" is in the city.
• Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens and live under military occupation or blockade. Their movement, access to resources, and legal rights are heavily restricted compared to Jewish settlers living nearby.

2. National Identity and the Nation-State Law In 2018, Israel passed the Nation-State Law, which:

• Declares that only Jews have the right to national self-determination in Israel.
• Downgrades Arabic from an official language to a “special status” language.
• Encourages Jewish settlement as a national value.

Critics say this law marginalizes non-Jewish citizens and entrenches a second-class status for Arabs. 3. Social and Cultural Treatment

• Social discrimination is reported in housing, education, policing, and public life.
• Intermarriage is extremely rare and discouraged.
• Arab citizens often report feeling like "outsiders" or “second-class citizens.”

4. Religious Minorities

• Christians and Druze fare better in some respects and may serve in the army (Druze men are conscripted like Jews).
• However, they still face barriers and social exclusion.

Sorry, what a bizarre post.

One one hand you claim Jews were living peacefully before israel was created, then follow up to make an argument that non Jews are now not treated the same.

This a a complete inversion of reality.

The only time Jews and non Jews have ever lived equally together is now, in israel.

Prior to the British Mandate anyone who wasn't a Muslim was a dhimmi in the ottoman empire. Legally subordinate under law.

In modern Israel under law every citizen is equal.

You have totally ignored the basis of my post@Joiu so not sure why you answered.

There are no Jewish citizens in Jordan btw.

Should I be shocked no one seems to want to discuss my OP?

All those who insist Israel is an apartheid State, and stole other people’s lands which is their reason this conflict didn’t start on Oct 7th?

Nothing in this post (the one you’re replying to) is anything but manipulation of facts to suit an anti Israel agenda. Don’t even bother trying to correct it, nothing helps. It’s horrifying the shit people write and think about Israel and the Jews, particularly as hundreds of thousands of Jews were ethnically cleansed from MENA and slaughtered in Europe. Appalling and horrifying. The actual truth is still the truth no matter what these people try to claim otherwise. It’s literally denying lived experiences.

There are no Jewish citizens in Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc etc and now everyone seems to think creating a State which won’t allow Jewish citizenship is a good idea. I can’t actually believe it.

Not that you’ll care, but I actually lived in Israel for some time, married to an Arab and you are talking absolute and utter crap. How dare you lie about something you know nothing about simply because you don’t want Israel to exist.

I think the basis of your thread is absolutely disgusting and objectionable.

Shall we set up the UK as the Sikh homeland as there are so many other European countries, the people that have lived upon thie land in the Uk for hundreds of years should surely be able to fit within the other 'European' states.

You can't just carve up territory and give away or steal people's land that they have lived on for hundreds and hundreds of years.

If as you are saying Jews and Arabs are treated equally in Israel. How about one state, across the whole territory that was previously the British Mandate of Palestine, it can be called Israel, which respects the land ownership of all people and honours the international legal right of return for all refugees of that land since 1948 and where all peoples are full citizens and treated equally. Fully democratic for all. But it must respect the legally enshrined right of return for all refugees from that territory since 1948. How about that?

What an interesting suggestion. Though if you're going to repatriate generations of Palestinians surely the equivalent would be giving Sikhs the right to return to their ancestral lands in what is now Pakistan, though there are a lot of Sikhs in the diaspora it might change the demographic uncomfortably, and all those I know have very good lives and wouldn't want the upheaval.
Do you generally favour a 'send them all home' narrative? That could be geopolitically challenging.

Oh and yes, apparently the Kingdom of Jordan in Palestine dates back to a couple of years before Israel's declaration as a state but didn't seem so contentious for some reason.

Mmm.

From what I can gather it was all one big area in the ottoman empire, then The British Mandate for Palestine was established in 1920, and it originally included all of modern-day Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan, then in 1921, Britain split off everything east of the Jordan River into a separate administrative area called Transjordan.

And everyone was fine with that because it was designated "Arab"?

And basically the leader was a dude shipped in from Saudi Arabia so not remotely from the area and he was basically made emir, then king and everyone was fine with that because he was Arab?

And a couple of million people not native to the area emigrated there since but everyone was fine with that because they were Arab?

And they illegally annexed the West Bank for 20 years and nobody complained because... they were Arab?

It's definitely not a religious war though.

To clarify my point it is a voluntary right of return no sending people home at all just only if they want to which is their right.

The United Nations has repeatedly affirmed the Palestinian right of return to their homes and properties in what is now Israel, particularly through UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and subsequent resolutions. This right is considered an inalienable human right and is a central point of contention in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. While Israel has not recognized this right, the UN and various human rights organizations maintain that Palestinians who were displaced should be allowed to return or receive compensation for their lost property.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:
UN resolution 194
Passed in 1948, it states that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so, and that those who choose not to return should receive compensation for their lost property.

Redolution 3236
Reaffirmed the right of return and the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence, and sovereignty.

International Recognition:
Organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch also recognize the right of return for Palestinians who were displaced from their homes during the 1948 war and their descendants who have maintained links with the area.

Point of Contention:
Despite the UN's stance, Israel has consistently rejected the idea of a general right of return for Palestinian refugees, citing concerns about demographic changes and the state's Jewish identity.

Ongoing Displacement:
The issue of Palestinian refugees and their right of return remains a major obstacle in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with hundreds of thousands of Palestinians still living in refugee camps or seeking refuge in other countries.

The OP said that she didn't think that the history of this conflict was that relevant so lets forget about the nonsense of ancestral lands as that sounds like a geopolitical nightmare. Lets keep the premise - surely if Palestinian lands are up for grabs because there is enough arab states why cant we give UK to a Sikh homeland - there are plenty of european states for the current occupants of the UK (The country which arguably caused much of the problem in the first place) OR is that whole idea a ridiculous disgraceful excuse to take the land of the Palestinian people and any application elsewhere shows how racist the whole idea is.

"Palestinian Arab" ... as in "related to or pertaining to the area historically referred to as 'Palestine' (including by pre-1948 zionists)".

There, you've answered your own question!

And, yes, expecting to "move" entire populations for your own ambitions is, in the very best case scenario, very 19th century colonial thinking.

Don't bother trying to unpick this; I will hide this dehumanising thread now!

I would like to refer you to the International Court of Justice, advisory opinion dated 19 July 2024 in which a multi-national panel of senior judges ruled that Israel’s occupation is illegal and the country practices apartheid on the basis of ethnicity against Palestinians not just in the Occupied Palestinian Territories but also within Israel.
https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204176

There is no higher court in the world than the ICJ for matters pertaining to international law and rights.

Doesn’t that mean that Jordan is also illegally occupying Palestinian land and practices apartheid against Jewish people?

What is disgusting and objectionable about discussing the other Palestinian Arab State declared before Israel became a State in which there is not one single Palestinian Jewish citizen?

Very interested in your answer.

Neither Jordan or Egypt want present-day Palestinians which ironic as they were both colonial powers.

From a geopolitical viewpoint, it would be less destabilising for both peoples if the Palestinians and the Israelis each had one continuous block of land. The only way I can see this happening would be a genuine Palestinian leader with the mandate to negotiate of behalf of Gaza and the West Bank. Not forced displacement, but an international agreement with compensation or land swaps. Even then, you would have people on both sides who would not want to move and they need to be accommodated as full citizens of either state.

It could be done. However, I'm pessimistic about the chances of a just two-state solution happening in the near future. Its such a fucking shame. Gaza could be a Mediterranean jewel with its advantages and it's people's education.

Wouldn’t a one state solution have naturally been the case if the Arab armies hadn’t started a war against Israel in 1948 and Jordan and Egypt hadn’t then illegally occupied the West Bank and Gaza until the 1967 war with the Palestinian cause being started by the Egyptian, Yasser Arafat, in 1964?

The Arab Palestinians didn’t declare a State in any of the 27% remaining of the British Mandate in 1948 so by default it would have been all Israel who did, as they would have been able to claim sovereignty of the rest of the stateless land.

The Arab population in Israel now are the descendants of those which didn’t leave in 1948 aren’t they?

Israel would have been Israel ‘from the river to the sea’ with a Jewish and Arab population (with the Arabs having an arguably better position than they have had in Gaza and the West Bank) in 27% of the land in the Palestine region, most of which was desert and swampland, and Trans Jordan would have been Jordan with an Arab population in 73% of the land in the region of Palestine (but Israel is the apartheid state, go figure).

Brings it into a bit more perspective with the argument that Israel started all this and it started before Oct 7th and 1948.

Happy to be corrected if I’ve misunderstood the history.

Sadly for the Palestinians, I don’t think a one state solution will ever be workable now, after Oct 7th, and also obviously because they have been radicalised by the Palestinian cause to believe all the land is theirs and Israel doesn’t exist.

Honestly im so angry about your disgusting viewpoint that im shaking with rage and i cant participate in engaing with such awful views. Your post questioned 'Why did the Arabs of the time need another Arab State when they already had 22 surrounding Arab States?' So the people living for hundreds and hundreds of years in that land should just move off and join another state which is also Arab? And you are asking what is disgusting about that? Implicit in this is lets give Israel the rest of the land and stop grumbling, people are so mean because they wont let Jewish people have one state in this land.
Your question is like asking why do Jews want another state when there is already the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia?

How about we stop taking peoples land away and occupying them illegally for decades?

Thousands of children are being starved, innocent people killed and shot queuing for aid.

Its disgusting to kill innocent children for their land. Its their land. They shouldn't need to leave so people who havent lived there for hundreds and hundreds of years can take it.

Israel gets to keep the land it was given in 1948 and need to stop illegally occupying other peoples land. October 7th was awful buts not pretend that Israel wasn't killing the same amount of innocent Palestinian civilians every year before October 7th.
The world is seeing the disgusting genocide that israel is committing and they are not going to let Israel continue to occupy land that it has no right to.

If a single state with equal rights for all within the whole land including the right of return for refugees is not possible then there will be two states. Its completely disgusting to say that palestine already has a state called Jordan. Its as completely incorrect, racist and objectionnable as saying Israel doenst need to exist because there is the jewish autonoumius oblast in Russia and thet can all move there. It ignores international law and land rights.

You do realise that before 1919, the region of Palestine was not an Arab State or a Palestinian State?

Why did the Arabs believe that all of it was ‘their’ land and all the land should be all Arab States?

Who said anything about them moving off and joining an Arab state?

They could have stayed like the descendants of the current Arab Israelis did.

I agree it is disgusting that innocent children were killed for their land as they were on Oct 7th in Israel. Also taken hostage and murdered in captivity.

Israel is currently at war with a terrorist government who uses their children as human sacrifices and pawns for propaganda. Palestinian children are not being killed for land.

Why are you shaking with rage at discussion about the history of the region.

Are you one those people who claim the war didn’t start on Oct 7th or in 1948?

The idea that Palestinians must return to the exact patch of land their ancestors lived on, no matter how many generations have passed or how close they live to it now, is treated as a moral imperative by many.

Ignoring the fact that a whole bunch of Palestians had probably very recently moved to "Palestine" (based on census) it’s an obsession that defies how the rest of the world functions.

Most people today don’t live where their grandparents did. Migration is a universal human experience.

My own family spans multiple countries: my parents grew up in entirely different regions, and I live 4000 miles from where my Mum raised. I don't claim a "right of return" to their childhood homes. Very few do.

Yet somehow, Palestinians living within a short commute of their grandfather’s village are told they must cling to that identity, and are encouraged to stay in limbo for generations.

What really matters is that people have a home, and if they prefer to be in the general area of what they consider their homeland that should be adequate for anybody.

Around 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries after 1948. These communities had existed for centuries, but when they were forced out, they rebuilt.

No one insists they return to Baghdad or Tripoli. No UN agency exists solely to preserve their refugee status. In fact, no other group on Earth has a refugee definition that passes down to descendants, except Palestinians, under UNRWA’s unique rules.

I talked to a Jewish person some time ago who told me about their parents life in Iraq. They'd never been themselves because Jews were expelled. But they're not a refugee! They live in Sidcup and have a nice family now. Life moves on for pity's sake!

This isn’t really about “return.” It’s about politics. Arab states refused to integrate Palestinians or let them move on, in order to weaponise their grievance. They could have spent 80 years building an awesome state that was good friends with the Jewish state next door but instead they have held Palestinians in eternal war and conflict!

Western activists, detached from regional realities, echo the narrative of return as if it were sacred truth. But it’s not. It’s an artificial construct that keeps people angry and stateless on purpose. I seriously doubt most of these activists could tell you the address where their grandmother lived a hundred years ago!

Even geographically, the claim is absurd. Many so-called refugees live a few miles from the towns they say they must reclaim. In any other context, that would be called relocation, not exile. The entire state of Israel is roughly the size of Wales. The distance many Palestinians would need to move to return is less than most people commute to work each day.

The truth is that the world has moved on from historical displacement. Germans, Indians, Cypriots, Jews, all endured forced migration and rebuilt. Only one group is told to stay stuck in the past when there's sensible solutions that have always been available.

It's time to move on now! There are kids being born into perpetual hell and conflict and I think it's time it stopped.

So some people who are Jewish, with zero family ties to the area, have a right to move to Israel because it is their ancestral homeland from 3000 years ago but Palestinian families still with the keys to their own houses that they were displaced from 80 years ago should just 'move on'?

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are still living in refugee camps in countries like Lebanon without work permits or equal rights.

Are you against the Law of Return by which Israel grants every Jew the right to live and have citizenship in Israel?

How was Israel created? By UN resolution. How can some UN resolutions be honoured but others like the UN resolution for right of return can just be ignored?

What are you even talking about? What is your point?

Arab is just like European. The vast majority of countries existing today didn't exist before 1940. Doesnt mean that Palestinians can just be lumped together with other 'Arabs'.

Israel doesnt get to occupy the Palestinian land for perpetuity. Israel should either stick to their borders from 1948 or 1967 and stop occupying Gaza and the West Bank or let there be one state with everyone with equal rights including the right of return for the refugees from 1948 and beyond. What other alternatives are there?

Talking about Jordan as an alternative to a Palestinian State?

Why shouldnt people without family ties emigrate?

The King of Jordan has no family ties to Jordan.

Probably 20% of Britain has no family ties to Britain.

Keys to their own houses! Honestly what is this dramatic nonsense. The 800k displaced Jews don't come out with that. Why should there be a different standard? Or what about their keys from 3000 years ago? This line of argument is absurd.

There is no such thing as right of return. It's a completely invented thing the UN applied only to Palestinians.

The fact is that millions upon millions of people have been displaced, exiled, relocated or otherwise moved in less than happy circumstances in the last century.

I lost my house two years ago because I nearly died from covid. I had to move almost 300 miles to a place I could afford. Shit happens and you get on with living.

You are just completely hypocritical then.

Why can't Palestinian refugees return if other people can just emigrate? Why should there be a different standard? What possible reason can you give to support Jewish people whose ancestors have never set foot in Israel from becoming citizens immediately when palestinian refugees are not allowed to return? Make it make sense!?

Im not against immigration, im against the double standards of saying any jewish person can immediately be a citizen of Israel but Palestinian refugees cant return.

And its not dramatic nonsense, many palestinians still hold the keys to the house they fled or were stolen from them.

And i would support the right of Jewish refugees from Arab states to return if they wanted to.