From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: WILL THIS CLEAR IT UP, BRENDAN?
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 08:44:16 GMT

In article 16025@usenet.ins.cwru.edu, bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu 
     (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>   Since my explanation of a statment made about Palestine has been
>ignored by you, I put your name on this post, in the hope that you
>might actually read it.

Sorry, I missed it.

>   I was in error when I claimed that Palestine did not include any
>part of Israel.  It was not as big an error as the one you continue
>to make when you claim that no part of Jordan was ever Palestine. 

I don't make this claim.  Here are two extracts from recent posts 
of mine:

>>Before the 1923 mandate, "Palestine" was
>>not a precisely defined term.  However, the most common meaning for (say)
>>the period 1850-1920 was all of Israel+WB+Gaza except south Negev, with
>>the optional addition of a bit of southern Lebanon and a thin strip of
>>Jordan.  That's a fact.

>>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. 

There is no evidence that the framers of the Balfour Declaration 
(1917) intended Transjordan to be included in Jewish National Home, 
and some evidence that they intended it to be NOT included.  
(See the definitive work on the subject by Stein.)

For the period 1918-1922, the British government held a de facto
mandate (miltary occupation approved by the "major powers" Britain,
France, US and Italy) on an area reaching from the sea to east of 
the Jordan with no defined eastern boundary.  During that time the
British administration filed annual "Reports on the administration
of Palestine".  The reports themselves use the term Trans-Jordan
for the portion east of the river, and there is no reason here to
infer that Britain regarded the whole area to be "Palestine".  In
fact, in the book "Palestine Papers" by Doreen Ingrams you can see
plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Also during the period 1919-1922, negotiations were underway 
regarding the details of the League of Nations mandate.  The 
eastern borders were filled in (but not completely) and it was 
agreed that the region to the east of the Jordan River would be 
given special treatment.  In 1922 the League approved the exclusion 
of Transjordan from all clauses mentioning a Jewish Homeland. 
(Any book that claims this was a unilateral action of Britain, 
should be thrown in the bin.)  The mandate came into effect in
1923 and from then on the annual reports say "Palestine and
Transjordan" quite consistently.

>It
>is regarded by most non-Israel-hating historians that what we regard
>today as Jordan contains land that was once Palestine.  

Change the last four words to "that was once commonly regarded to 
be part of Palestine" and I can agree.  The point is that the 
term "Palestine" had no formal definition.

>This part of
>Jordan that was Palestine covers an area that is larger than ALL of
>Israel.

No, this is completely false.

>   Another manner in which you toss aside historical fact is that 
>the Palestinians had an opportunity to have their own state in the
>region.  And they turned it down!  The United Nations Partition Plan
>of 1947, the plan that created the State of Israel, also partitioned
>land that was to have been a Palestinian state.  The area that was
>to be under Arab sovereignty covered an area far more vast than the
>territories that are currently in dispute.  In 1948, when the United
>Nations voted on the plan that would have given the world two brand
>new nations, the Arabs rejected the plan, and instead cose to attack
>the new Jewish State.  Now that the Jews have developed the region,
>the Arab world has changed its mind!

Not quite.  In 1946-7 the Palestinian Arabs (a word too general actually,
as very little hard data is available on what the average Palestinian
thought) took the attitude that the implementation of the UN partition 
scheme was tantamount to a declaration of war.  They proposed instead
a secular state in all of Palestine which would have (in theory; be
as sceptical as you like) given full rights to any Jews currently 
resident in Palestine.  In hindsight, of course, this was the worst
choice they could have made.  They preferred to pin their hopes on the 
military removal of Israel, but failed dismally.  Amongst the reasons 
they failed were the very perfunctory efforts made by the Arab states 
who were theoretically assisting them, and the attitude of the nominal 
commander Abdullah of Jordan, who secretly ordered his troops (the Arab 
Legion, the only highly proficient force on the Arab side) to refrain 
from attacking the area nominated by the UN for the Jewish State.  He
did this in accordance with agreements he had (or believed he had)
with the Jewish Agency.  This is the real reason Palestinians hated 
him--it had hardly anything to do with Jordan being Palestine.

>   Those like you, who posture before the world as being 'concerned'
>for the welfare of the Palestinians, do these people more harm than
>good.  
>   For one thing, you completely disregard the fact that Palestinians
>are treated like dirt in most other Arab countries.  They are, more
>often than not, treated far worse in the Arab countries than they are
>in Israel.  

In an earlier posting, I said
>>The Palestinians have been treated like shit by almost everyone;
I think that is a reasonable summary.  If you wish to push this line
further, you might like to find a posting of mine where I defended
any Arab state on anything; offhand, I can't think of one.

>            Why do you think they cheered when Kuwait was attacked?
>When the "haves" in the Arab world are more interested in purchasing
>F-16's and Rolls Royces than helping their Arab brothers, how much
>good do you think you do the Palestinians when you ignore this fact?
>Perhaps if you were not so blinded by your hatred of the State of
>Israel, you might be able to see more of the historical and cultural
>realities that have turned these people into the political pawns
>they are.  And then you might appear to be more pro-Palestinian, and
>less anti-Israel.  The facts clearly show that they are NOT always 
>the same.  

See the previous paragraph.

>           And since the MAJORITY of those living in "Jordan" have
>been calling themselves 'Palestinian' for years, your 'knowledge'
>is again flawed by your hatred of Israel.

My understanding is that the majority of Jordanian residents who
regard themselves as "Palestinian" have roots on the west side
of the Jordan river.  The only evidence to the contrary I've ever
seen has been mere assertions like yours here.

>   You could do much more good for these people if you learned a
>little bit more about the middle east, and if you allowed yourself
>to be driven by a concern for the Palestinians more than you are
>driven by a hatred of Israel.
>
>P.S.  Before you waste everyone's time nitpicking again, the UN
>vote took place on November 29, 1947, and not 1948.  1948 was the
>year that Israel declared its Independence.
>   Also, I recommend highly a book called "A Peace to End All Peace",
>by David Fromkin.  It explains the fall of the Ottoman Empire and 
>the creation of the modern Middle East.  It was a New York Times
>Books Review 'Editor's Choice', and has received many rave reviews.
>I am sure that because the book was written by a Jew that you might
>have reservations about reading it, but it is factual, and very well
>written.

I'll check it out.  By the way, at least 2/3 of the books and 
journal articles I quote on tpm are written by Jews.  Of the 17 
books on the middle east that I currently have out on loan, 12 
were written by people with Jewish names (the only indicator
I have in most cases), 3 were written by non-Jews, and 2 I can't 
classify (are Bailey and Ingrams Jewish names?).  It seems that
your suggestion of prejudice is a little off, eh?

Brendan.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast