From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: OCCUPIED(?) LANDS!
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 05:42:16 GMT

In article 17182@bony1.bony.com, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.075512.2458@newshost.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>In article 6697@bony1.bony.com, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>
>>>Jordan is several times larger than Israel, is it not?  Wouldn't 20% of 
>>>Jordan be a land mass equivalent in area to 40% or more of Israel?  So,
>>>doesn't Jordan indeed have at least as much old Palestinean land (according 
>>>to your definitions) as Israel?

I just noticed that you were actually supporting me.  If your numbers 
are correct Jordan contains 40/140 of Palestine (about 29%) and 
Israel 71%.  

>>I based the 1/3 to 1/2 estimate on a close inspection of a map 
>>and stand by it.  
>
>I looked it up, too.  Jordan sure looks several times larger than
>Israel to me.  

Of course it is.  

>(Are you granting the West Bank to Israel in a fit 
>of largesse?)  Thus, Jordan still controls a major part of Palestine
>by any definition.

You are arguing around in circles.  Since only a small part of Jordan
can reasonably be argued to be part of Palestine, the total size of
Jordan is completely irrelevant.

>>Also, I was not talking about "Palestinean
>>land, by [my] own definitions" since I clearly stated that there 
>>was no firm definition of the term "Palestine" until the 1920's.  
>>Before 1920 there were those that held the term to include a 
>>strip on the east of the Jordan River, and those that held it 
>>didn't.  After about 1923 there was a formal definition available, 
>>courtesy of the League of Nations: it ended at the Jordan River.
>
>Unofrtunately for the Palestineans and the Jordanians, those 
>Palestinean Arabs who came from the East Bank STILL see themselves
>as Palestineans.  The UN canignore this for now, but it will come
>back to haunt them later.
>
>>>>In any case, I dispute the validity of your purpose.  There is 
>>>>no necessary formal relationship between what place was called 
>>>>"Palestine" by colonial map-makers and the people who choose to
>>>>call themselves "Palestinians" today.
>>>
>>>There is no formal relationship between what place was called 
>>>"Israel" and the people who choose to call themselves "Israelis"
>>>today.  Of course, this removes much of the problem that the 
>>>White House has with "settlements".  These are, by your argument,
>>>no more than places in Israel where Israelis live.
>>
>>You are supporting my argument; thank you.
>
>Not at all; I am showing that people may define themselves without regard
>to colonial map-makers.  This is as true for Palestinean Jews in what is
>now called Israel as it is for Palestinean Arabs in what is now called Jordan.

That IS my argument.  Again, thanks for supporting me.

>>>>Just as you would never
>>>>accept them telling you what a "Jew" is, I don't believe either
>>>>you or I have the right to tell "Palestinians" who "Palestinians"
>>>>are.  They have the right to define their own group, and the area
>>>>
>>>Would this courtesy be extended to Israel, too?
>>
>>Sure, why not?   Unfortunately, there is no law of nature which
>>forbids two (or more) groups of people from reasonably claiming a 
>>fundamental connection to the same place at the same time.
>
>This is precisely the problem in Jordan that you are trying to avoid.
>Redefining "Palestine" as being entirely inside Israel will not 
>solve the problems for the vast majority of Palestineans under
>what would have to be called Jordanian occupation.  King Abdullah
>would have lived much longer had this problem not already existed.
>
>>>The problem is that the modern definition of Palestine (i.e. in the last
>>>2 decades) has been co-incident with the definition of Israel.  There is 
>>
>>Well, the meaning of "Palestine" in modern serious historical
>>literature (including that studying the pre-British era) is
>>almost always the region known as British mandatory Palestine
>>during the period 1923-1948.  That region stopped at the Jordan. 
>>I think that the "problem" you refer to is not a problem at
>>all; geographers can argue with each other over "Where is
>>Palestine" all year long without any impact on important
>>modern political questions.  The real problem is people like
>>you who want to avoid realities by hiding behind historical
>>irrelevancies. 
>
>When the great majority of Jordanians identify as Palestineans,
>you are the one who is avoiding realities by hiding behind 
>historical irrelevancies!

If you discount those Jordanians whose origins are west of the 
Jordan, I simply do not believe you.  Prove it.

>>>The solution of partitioning Palestine, however you wish to define it,
>>>has been rejected by Palestinean Arabs and their non-Palestinean Arab 
>>>brothers while being embraced by Palestinean Jews and the rest of the 
>>>world.  
>>
>>You mean, like this? -
>>
>> "I don't regard a state in part of Palestine as the final aim 
>> of Zionism, but as a means toward that aim."
>>
>> "the borders [of the Jewish state] will not be fixed for eternity."
>>
>> "[A Jewish state in part of Palestine is] not the end, but only 
>> the beginning.  [Its establishment will give a] powerful boost to 
>> our historic efforts to redeem the country in its entirety."
>>
>> "[Our aim is the] gathering in of the exiles in all of Palestine.
>> [And so] from the moment the state is established, it must calculate
>> its actions with an eye towards this distant goal."
>>
>>David Ben-Gurion.  Full references in MEQ #17.
>
>Your full references probably include a date, something like half 
>a century ago, right?  Are any people in power in Israel speaking 
>like this today? 

No, but many believe BG's dream was achieved in 1967 and have no
intention of undoing it.  That includes you, I think.

>                  How about people in power in Arab states?
>That Israel has accepted the partition plan and the Arabs have 
>rejected it is a matter of record.  My claim still stands.

You must be talking about a partition plan that I never heard of.

>>>The current claim, that "Palestine" is somewhere inside Israel, is
>>>part of an ongoing effort to dismantle Israel, a goal that the PLO 
>>>does not deny in private or in public (check out their covenant).
>>
>>There are people with that goal, but they don't include me.  I don't 
>>support people with goals like those of BG (quoted above), either.
>
>But you ARE denying that Palestineans have very large and valid claims
>to territory East of the Jordan river, aren't you?

You are yet to give any evidence whatever that a significant 
percentage of "Palestinians" (as defined by themselves, not by you)
have origins east of the Jordan.  If you can show that is true
them I will agree that they have valid land claims there.  Until
you can show it, I will continue not believing it.

>>>If they choose to reclaim land, Jordan is the logical place to pursue
>>>this, seeing as it is so heavily Palestinean already in population (much 
>>>moreso than Israel even after inclusion of Palestinean Arabs into Israel),
>>
>>That is because Israel put them there.  
>
>This, Brendan, is a propagandistic lie.

Are you calling Yitzak Rabin a liar?

>>Anyway, why should a former
>>resident of Ramle pursue a land claim in Jordan?
>
>Why should a million former residents of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, 
>Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco pursue a land claim
>in Israel?  Because the Arabs, jointly and collectively, forced them to 
>do this.  The various refugee problems in the Arab world are almost
>entirely Arab inventions.  Don't go blaming Israel for this.  You're 
>starting to sound like some of the more esperienced Arab propagandists, now.

You couldn't answer my question, so you made up some of your own
to answer.  Good debating technique, Jake.

>>>and covers large parts of old Palestine (which should by rights be put 
>>>into the pie that could be split up among the Palestinean Jews and Arabs).
>>
>>Why?  I see no logic at all in this arguement.
>
>Split Palestine into Arab and Jewish sections.  Distribute.
>Split the Jewish section into Arab and Jewish section.  Distribute.
>
>Does this look more logical to you?

No, it looks like the tired old Jabotinsky-ite version of 
Palestinian history that serious historians giggle at.

>>Clearly, you cannot accept that Jordan is controlling large parts of 
>Palestinean territory.  It's not surprising that you can't accept that
>Jordan should be included in any eventual land settlement.

I've stated very clearly before that I think a future Palestinian
state should include some of the east bank as well as WB+Gaza.
What I deny is your pathetic attempts to rewrite history for the
political purpose of excluding WB+Gaza.

>Jake Livni

Brendan.



Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:11001 talk.politics.soviet:3473 soc.culture.greek:3380