Do you agree with Geert Wilders' views?
Wed, 06/23/2010 - 12:33
Why is it that Jordan, who lost the West Bank in 1967, do not want it back?
Wed, 06/23/2010 - 17:05
@BD they don't want it because it can remain a festering sore with which to attack Israel.
they don't want it because the Palestinians would destabilise the Hashemite monarchy and send them back to Saudi Arabia
Palestinians have had their citizenship revoked.
The two state solution is actually a 3 state solution with the intent of leading to a 2 state solution both Palestinian
Wed, 06/23/2010 - 19:05
I have been trying to explain this view for years.
Now we have an internationally recognized politician able to command world media coverage arguing the case, should move the whole debate on.
Jordan is Palestine.
And Gaza can go back to Egyptian control - problem solved - simples!!
Wed, 06/23/2010 - 20:23
this is ridicuolous
the jordanians are not palestinian, and jordan no more wants to absorb the west bank palestinians than israel does, for much the same reason
from the jerusalem post website (02/01/2010) …
Nearly half the kingdom's 6 million people are of Palestinian origin and Jordan fears that if Palestinians become the majority, it will disrupt the delicate demographic balance.
(similarly, the lebanese fear that granting citizienship to their palestinian refugees would disturb the christian/moslem balance)
geert wilders knows that his suggestion is totally unrealistic: he is just trying to stir up trouble
Thu, 06/24/2010 - 07:45
Just go back to the original partition plan
West of the Jordan for the Jews
East of the Jordan for the Arabs
Geographically, Demographicaly and Historically it makes perfect sense.
Just becasuse the "British" dreamt up "Jordan" and created a Kingdom in what was know as Trans-Jordan, does not make it sacrosanct.
With Geert Wilders on the case now this subject will get debated - it is no longer the elephant in the corner.
jose (not verified)
Fri, 06/25/2010 - 05:15
Since Jordan was part of Palestine Mandate before 1920 and 'palestinians' had no existence at this time, the whole population of the time was what we would call 'palestinian' today. It is extremely unlikely that today's Jordan population would be less than a majority. Estimates are 70% 'palestinians'. A very clear majority.
Not to be confused with the descendants of the original refugees that King Hussein feared would become a 'foreign' majority. It is a fallacy to treat Jordanians as specifically different from the rest of 'palestinians' since the country did not even exist 90 years ago and immigration did not change much of the demographic data.
Now, while what Geert Wilders says is NOT unrealistic, it is just useless. Pointing out there is already one 'palestinian' state is enough, whatever its name is. The fact is the language, the culture are the same in Jordan and West Bank/Gaza territories.
So Geert Wilders should start speaking about the three-states solution ! Or four, maybe.
Fri, 06/25/2010 - 05:37
While Geert Wilders obviously likes to stir up trouble, that does not invalidate at all the implicit argument that Jordan is a 'palestinian' state (see: Poisoning the well fallacy).
If Geert Wilders is a trouble maker, he is an obviously intelligent one, and as you said, his opinion might be seriously considered but not on this renaming suggestion though.
Fri, 06/25/2010 - 07:24
before 1948, jordan was almost entirely a bedouin and (non-arab) circassian country
the bedouin are regarded by israel as distinct from (other) arabs … they fought on the israeli side in the 1948 war, and they serve in the israell army now
there is no way israel would support a palestinian takeover of the bedouin homeland
the circassians are not arabs at all
see the official jordanian website for details … http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/people.html and http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/people1.html …
whether the palestinians have an origin distinct from the egyptians or syrians is an interesting question, but the distinction between the palestinians and the jordanians is very clear
Sat, 06/26/2010 - 20:19
Relying on official Jordanian information is dangerous, especially since the power is in the hands of the minority.
Bedouin population is estimated to 776,000.
About the ridiculous claim of Jordan being a circassian majority, see here:
Ethnic groups: Arab: 98%, Circassians: 1%, Armenians: 1%.
I wonder what kind of genocide of difference in birth rates can reduce a majority to 1% in only 62 years, but I am surely impressed!
Sat, 06/26/2010 - 21:31
jose's figure of only 776,000 bedouin in jordan is ridiculously low … i prefer the jordanian government's figures to jose's (especially since no working source is provided! )
jordan is primarily the bedouin homeland, and neither israel nor the west is going to support any change in that.
(and nobody has suggested that there was ever a circassian majority in jordan)
Sun, 06/27/2010 - 16:25
for the estimation of the Bedouin population in Jordan. Of course, this contradicts the Jordanian propaganda since the king himself is from the Bedouin clear minority.
lists the various population groups in Jordan
Arabs ('palestinian') are an estimated 3,092,000.
Arabs ('jordanian', indistinguishable from 'palestinians') are estimated 1,119,000.
Arabs ('iraqis', indistinguishable from 'palestinians') are an estimated 898,000).
That's a lot more than Bedouins and make a large majority of the population.
You don't need to be so aggressive, gold: try to make your point with some objectivity.
Sun, 06/27/2010 - 17:20
disputing official census figures with an uncheckable unknown source is ridiculous …
i prefer the jordanian government census figures to those of a christian evangelist group which does not publish its methodology or sources
the joshua project is that part of the us centre for world mission (a christian evangelist group) which assembles statistics of "unreached" non-christians
it gives no clear information as to where its numbers come from, but it seems to be primarily from a christian publishing organisation, operation world
the particular figures you quote clearly come from somewhere else, and there is no way of checking them (i suspect that they have only counted nomadic bedouin, and that the palestinians are largely refugees)
(and what was "aggressive" about my last post?? )
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 07:00
I wonder if you would say the same for the propaganda of every other dictators. Since the "official census" does not account for the known numbers of 'palestinians' of various origins, while the Joshua project does. Other references in the Encyclopedia Britannica (surely a biased source compared to the 'official census'):
The overwhelming majority of the people are Arabs, principally Jordanians and Palestinians; there is also a significant minority of Bedouin
So please, stop your aggressive bickering.
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 09:40
your britannica article confirms two things i've said above … jordan had a primarily bedouin population before 1948, and "the distinction between the palestinians and the jordanians is very clear"
so yes, i'm happy with your britannica article, at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/306128/Jordan (click "ethnic groups")
let's finish the sentence which your quotation interrupted …
The overwhelming majority of the people are Arabs, principally Jordanians and Palestinians; there is also a significant minority of Bedouin, who were by far the largest indigenous group before the influx of Palestinians following the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948–49 and 1967. Jordanians of Bedouin heritage remain committed to the Hāshimite regime, which has ruled the country since 1923, despite having become a minority there. Although the Palestinian population is often critical of the monarchy, Jordan is the only Arab country to grant wide-scale citizenship to Palestinian refugees. Other minorities include a number of Iraqis who fled to Jordan as a result of the Persian Gulf War and Iraq War. There are also smaller Circassian (known locally as Cherkess or Jarkas) and Armenian communities. A small number of Turkmen (who speak either an ancient form of the Turkmen language or the Azeri language) also reside in Jordan.
The indigenous Arabs, whether Muslim or Christian, used to trace their ancestry from the northern Arabian Qaysī (Maʿddī, Nizārī, ʿAdnānī, or Ismāʿīlī) tribes or from the southern Arabian Yamanī (Banū Kalb or Qaḥṭānī) groups. Only a few tribes and towns have continued to observe this Qaysī-Yamanī division—a pre-Islamic split that was once an important, although broad, source of social identity as well as a point of social friction and conflict.
jordan is a bedouin homeland, and there is no way the israelis would support a palestinian takeover of the country … geert wilders's suggestion (which, let's remember, is what this blog is about) is totally unrealistic
btw, also according to britannica, jordan is a constitutional monarchy (with two legislative houses, one elected, and one appointed, much like the uk) … in other words, the king has little power and is certainly not a "dictator"
and, again, what was "aggressive" about my last two posts??
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 18:00
Well that is really far-fetched. First the Britannica says nothing of "before 1948", second discriminate "jordanians" and "palestinian refugees". Since there was no Jordan in 1920 and no frontier to prevent movements between East and West of Jordan river, it can be safely assumed there is no difference between "palestinians" and "jordanians".
So Britannica does not state, contrary to you, that Jordan was created as a "Bedouin homeland" and states clearly that the vast majority is today (and was probably in 1920) "palestinians".
Your aggressive bickering is not necessary.
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 18:13
And of course, the Jordan regime, while less dictatorial, is nevertheless a theocracy, where the king approves and dismisses judges, can suspend the Parliament (happened between 2001 and 2003) and pass 'temporary' laws that reduced the power of the Parliament. Senators are also appointed by the king... A dictator in tuxedo, but still a dictator.
So a category which would include UK and Jordan is, to say the least, very wide!
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 21:50
jose: Well that is really far-fetched. First the Britannica says nothing of "before 1948",
yes britannica does … in the bold letters already quoted (the end of the sentence which you cut short), it says …
before the influx of Palestinians following the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948–49 and 1967
… which of course is the same as "before 1948" (isn't it? )
jose: second discriminate "jordanians" and "palestinian refugees"
hmm … i've no idea what you mean by this
jose: So Britannica … states clearly that the vast majority is today (and was probably in 1920) "palestinians".
no, britannica clearly makes a distinction between jordanians and palestinians … in the part of the sentence which you did quote …
The overwhelming majority of the people are Arabs, principally Jordanians and Palestinians
… or are you relying on some other words from britannica? … if so, please quote them, since you haven't done so yet
jose: Britannica does not state, contrary to you, that Jordan was created as a "Bedouin homeland"
that's right, britannica doesn't state that jordan was created as such, and i never said that britannica did state that, nor did i state it myself … though i did state in my second and third posts, well before anyone mentioned britannica, that jordan is the bedouin homeland, and i repeated it in my fourth post without in anyway suggesting that britannica stated it
you seem to have completely lost track of who is saying what … to recap …
in my first post, i quoted the jersualem post as saying "Nearly half the kingdom's 6 million people are of Palestinian origin …" (ie now, 2010), and in my second post i contrasted that with the position before 1948, to make the point that the bedouin homeland is becoming increasing palestinian, and is not far off having a palestinian majority
jose: … is nevertheless a theocracy, where the king …
do you understand the word "theocracy"??
Tue, 06/29/2010 - 03:31
No it is not the same as "before 1948", it is the same as "before the influx", that is just before. It does not tell of 1920 for example, at the time of the creation of Jordan.
Therefore, there is no data at all on this period, but as there was no 'palestinian' at the time, it is tantamount to saying that nearly all the people living in the area (ie named "Palestine") were 'palestinian' (ie Arabs from various areas and living there).
You forget, in your aggressive bickering the the 'palestinian' people is a recent creation, then you proceed to 'prove' there were not a 'palestinian' majority in 1948. I guess you could also support the view there was 0% 'palestinians' in Jordan, Judea Samaria and Gaza. But that would be the same ludicrous statement.
Second, you forget that there are today less than 1M Bedouins, certainly much less in 1920. Since nearly all the rest would be named 'palestinians', should one make that anachronism, that was a minority.
Then, you proceed to show something that nobody can deny (ie that 'palestinians' are a majority today). The word 'palestinians' is there limited to the descendants of those who became refugees, who are indistinguishable from the majority of those who were in the Transjordan area in 1920, ie an Arab mix of Egyptians, Syrians/Lebanese in all their diversity.
By swallowing the myth of the 'palestinian' people as specific, the anachronism of their existence prior to the 1960s, and restricting them to the non-Jordan part of the Palestine Mandate, you make three major errors (that Britannica doesn't do).
Repeating your oxymoron of "bedouin homeland" won't impress me more than your factual errors.
Your aggressive bickering is useless. Try it on steveabbott or tomeisner2, who might appreciate it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.