Transfer of the Arabs of Judea and Shomron-historical reciprocity

If the Arabs expelled the Jews from Arab countries and by Jordanian Law ALL residents of the previous Jordanian occupied West Bank were made citizens of Jordan. Why should Israel not expell them to Jordan?

This is a very sensitive and complex area, often raised in arguments against Palestinian claims, particularly concerning historical reciprocity and the concept of "transfer" (expulsion). Let's break down the different legal, historical, and ethical dimensions of the question.

1. The Jewish Exodus from Arab Countries:

It is a well-documented historical fact that, following the establishment of Israel in 1948, and often in response to the Arab-Israeli conflict, approximately 850,000 Jews were expelled, fled, or were forced to leave Arab and Muslim-majority countries across the Middle East and North Africa. This was often accompanied by confiscation of property, discrimination, and violence. Most of these Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel. This historical event is often referred to as the "Jewish Nakba" by some, drawing a parallel to the Palestinian narrative of "displacement".

2. Jordanian Citizenship for West Bank Residents (1948-1988):

After Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950 (an annexation largely unrecognized internationally), it extended Jordanian citizenship to the Palestinian residents of the West Bank. This continued until Jordan officially relinquished its claims to the West Bank in 1988, in favor of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.

3. Why Israel Should Not Expel Palestinians to Jordan (from an international law and ethical perspective):

Despite the historical grievances and the points you raise, the overwhelming consensus of international law and most of the international community would strongly condemn and oppose any forced expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan, for several key reasons:

• Prohibition of Forced Displacement/Ethnic Cleansing:

  • International Humanitarian Law (IHL): The Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs belligerent occupation, explicitly prohibits the individual or mass forcible transfers or deportations of protected persons from occupied territory. This is considered a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime.
  • Customary International Law: The prohibition of forced displacement and ethnic cleansing is considered a fundamental principle of customary international law, binding on all states.
  • Rome Statute: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court lists "deportation or forcible transfer of population" as a crime against humanity and a war crime.

• Right to Self-Determination: Palestinians are recognized under international law as a people with the right to self-determination. Forcibly expelling them from their homes and land would directly violate this fundamental right.

• "Terra Nullius" is Rejected: As discussed previously, the West Bank is not terra nullius. It is inhabited territory with a distinct population.

• No Reciprocity in Law: While the historical injustices faced by Jewish communities in Arab countries are undeniable, international law does not operate on a principle of "reciprocal injustice." One wrong (the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries) does not legally justify another wrong (the expulsion of Palestinians). Each action is judged on its own merits under international legal frameworks.

• Humanitarian Catastrophe: Such an act would constitute a massive humanitarian catastrophe, creating millions of new refugees and destabilizing the entire region, leading to widespread international condemnation and potentially severe consequences for Israel.

• Jordan's Position: Jordan has repeatedly stated that it will not accept the mass transfer of Palestinians and views such a move as a threat to its own stability. Jordan already hosts a large Palestinian population, many of whom are citizens, but it distinguishes between its citizens and the residents of the West Bank.

4. The "Transfer" Concept within Israeli Discourse:

While not mainstream government policy, the idea of "transferring" Palestinians (often implicitly to Jordan) has existed as a fringe idea within some segments of Israeli political thought, particularly on the far-right. This concept is overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream Israeli politics and by the international community due to the reasons outlined above.

In summary:

The historical facts you raise (expulsion of Jews from Arab countries and Jordanian citizenship for West Bank residents) are important for understanding the complex historical context and the deep sense of grievance felt by many Israelis. 

However, under current international law and widely accepted ethical norms, these facts do not provide a legal or moral justification for Israel to forcibly expel Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan. Such an act would be considered a grave violation of international law, a war crime, and would lead to unprecedented humanitarian and geopolitical consequences.

Why should Israel give in to the demands of the Palestinians?

 As the Palestinians refused the partition and have attacked Israel many times why should Israel give in to the demands of the Palestinians?

Key historical points that are indeed central to the Israeli perspective and objections to Palestinian demands: the Palestinian refusal of the 1947 UN Partition Plan and the history of Arab aggression against Israel. 

These are crucial elements in understanding why many Israelis feel that concessions are unwarranted or even dangerous.

From Israel's perspective, the narrative often emphasizes:

• Rejection of the Partition Plan: The 1947 UN Partition Plan offered a two-state solution, with both an Arab and a Jewish state. Israel accepted it, but the Arab leadership and surrounding Arab states rejected it, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. From this viewpoint, the Palestinians (and the Arab world) missed an opportunity for statehood and initiated a conflict aimed at preventing the existence of a Jewish state.
• Wars of Aggression: Israel views subsequent wars (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973) as instances of Arab aggression aimed at its destruction. In 1967, Israel gained control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in what it sees as a defensive war.
• Security Concerns: Given the history of attacks, including terrorism and rocket fire, Israel prioritizes its security. Conceding territory, especially strategic high ground in the West Bank, is seen by many as a direct threat to Israeli security. They argue that a Palestinian state, if not adequately demilitarized and secured, could become a base for further attacks.
• Unreliability of Palestinian Leadership: Some Israelis view Palestinian leadership as unwilling or unable to genuinely commit to peace, citing continued incitement, rejection of past peace proposals, and the internal divisions between factions like Fatah and Hamas.
• Historical and Religious Connection to the Land: For many Israelis, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) are the historical heartland of the Jewish people, with deep religious and historical significance. Giving up these areas is seen as relinquishing an integral part of their heritage.

Why, despite these points, arguments are still made for Israel to make concessions:

While the points outlined above are valid and deeply held by many Israelis, proponents of concessions argue that they are necessary for different reasons, focusing on the future rather than solely on past grievances:

1. Ending the Occupation and Preserving Democracy: As mentioned, maintaining control over a large Palestinian population without granting them full rights threatens Israel's identity as a democratic state with a Jewish majority. A two-state solution, achieved through territorial concessions, is seen as the only way to resolve this demographic dilemma and preserve Israeli democracy.
2. Long-Term Security: While seemingly counterintuitive, many argue that continued occupation is itself a source of instability and insecurity. The ongoing resentment, frustration, and lack of a political horizon among Palestinians fuel extremism and violence. A negotiated peace, leading to a viable Palestinian state, is seen by many security experts as the best long-term security guarantee for Israel, even if it involves difficult concessions.
3. International Legitimacy and Standing: The international community overwhelmingly views the West Bank as occupied territory and settlements as illegal. Continued control without a clear path to statehood for Palestinians leads to international isolation, diplomatic pressure, and legal challenges (e.g., at the International Criminal Court). Concessions would bring Israel closer to international norms and improve its global standing.
4. Moral and Ethical Considerations: Many within Israel and abroad argue that continued occupation and the associated limitations on Palestinian life raise significant moral and ethical questions. Concessions could be seen as upholding universal human rights and principles of justice.
5. Avoiding a One-State Reality: If a two-state solution becomes impossible due to continued settlement expansion or other factors, the only alternative is a de facto one-state reality. This could either lead to a loss of Israel's Jewish character (if Palestinians are granted full rights) or an apartheid-like system (if they are not), both of which are seen as detrimental to Israel's future.
6. Potential for Regional Peace and Prosperity: A resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often seen as a key to unlocking broader regional peace and economic cooperation between Israel and other Arab nations, even those that have signed normalization agreements.

In conclusion, the debate over Israeli concessions is not about ignoring past Palestinian actions or denying Israel's legitimate security concerns. Instead, it's about whether those past actions and current fears should dictate the entire future of the region, or if a different approach, involving difficult compromises, might ultimately serve Israel's long-term interests (security, democracy, international standing) more effectively.

Palestian Refusal to Peace

Why have the "Arabs of the mandated Areas" "Palestinians" consistently refused to accept the territory they occupy as a finality and declare their state?

The reasons why "Arabs of the mandated Areas"  have consistently refused to accept various territorial proposals and declare a state on the territory they currently occupy are deeply rooted in their "false" historical narrative, national aspirations, and a series of perceived injustices. 

Here's a breakdown of the key factors:

1. Historical Grievances and the "Nakba" (Catastrophe):

"Loss of Land" in 1948:

"Arabs of the mandated Areas" view the 1948 war (which they call the Nakba) as a catastrophic event that led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Arab residents and the loss of much of "their" ancestral land. 

They contend that the establishment of Israel came at their expense and that the UN Partition Plan, which allocated a portion of land to a Jewish state despite Arabs being the majority population and "owning" most of the land, was inherently unjust.

Refugee Issue: The "right of return" for those Arab refugees "displaced" in 1948 and subsequent conflicts is a central and non-negotiable demand for most Palestinians.

Accepting a state solely on the "West Bank" and Gaza without addressing the refugee issue would be seen as abandoning a core component of their national identity and rights.

2. The Scope of Proposed Territories and Borders:

1967 Borders: Palestinians insist on a state based on the 1967 borders (pre-Six-Day War "cease-fire" lines), with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is the internationally recognized basis for a two-state solution.

Israeli "Settlements": The continuous expansion of Israeli settlements in the "West Bank" and East Jerusalem since 1967 is a major obstacle to the "Palestinians", who view these settlements as illegal under international law and as actively eroding the contiguity and viability of a future Palestinian state. They argue that accepting a state with the current settlement blocs would mean accepting a significantly diminished and fragmented territory.

Land Swaps: While land swaps are often part of peace proposals, Palestinians have often found the proposed swaps to be insufficient in quality or quantity to compensate for the land taken by settlements, or that they further compromise the contiguity of their state.

Jerusalem: The status of Jerusalem is a highly emotional and religious issue for both sides. Palestinians demand East Jerusalem as the capital of their state, given its historical and religious significance. Israeli claims over all of Jerusalem are seen as a direct violation of Palestinian rights and aspirations.

3. Sovereignty and Viability of a Future State:

Lack of Full Sovereignty: 

Peace proposals, particularly those offered by Israel, have often included limitations on the sovereignty of a future Palestinian state, especially regarding security, airspace, and borders. Palestinians argue that these limitations would render their state a "Bantustan" or a non-viable entity, not a truly independent nation.

Economic Viability: 

The fragmentation of the West Bank due to settlements, checkpoints, and restrictions on movement, along with the isolation of Gaza, raises serious concerns about the economic viability of a future Palestinian state.

Security Concerns: While Israel insists on security arrangements, Palestinians often view these as disproportionate and infringing on their sovereignty.

4. Leadership and Internal Divisions:

Lack of a United Front: 

Palestinian leadership has historically been fragmented, with different factions holding varying degrees of willingness to compromise. The division between Fatah (governing the West Bank) and Hamas (governing Gaza) further complicates any unified approach to peace negotiations.

Fear of Being Perceived as "Sell-Outs": Palestinian leaders face immense pressure from their population and other factions not to concede on core demands. 

Accepting a deal perceived as less than optimal could lead to accusations of betrayal and destabilize their leadership.

Lack of Trust:

Decades of conflict, failed agreements, and continued occupation have fostered deep mistrust between the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships, making it difficult to reach and implement comprehensive agreements.

5. International Law and Principles:

Right to Self-Determination: 

Palestinians consistently emphasize their internationally recognized right to self-determination in the entire territory occupied in 1967. They believe that accepting less would be a betrayal of this fundamental right.

Illegality of Occupation and Settlements: The international community largely views the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal and the settlements as a violation of international law. Palestinians use this legal framework to justify their demands and reject proposals that do not fully address these issues.

In essence, for many Palestinians, accepting a state on fragmented territory with limited sovereignty, without addressing the refugee issue, and without East Jerusalem as its capital, would be seen as legitimizing the consequences of their historical dispossession and sacrificing their core national aspirations for a truly independent and viable state.