Although this argument establishes the superiority of Israeli claims verses Jordan, you most probably are asking about the Arab populations that were under former Jordanian control. First, as we all agree, they were and are not indigenous as compared to the original Jewish populous. Moreover, due to the unique nature of our historical paradigm, including but not limited to the Balfour Declaration, Jewish presence, and historical ties, all of the above arguments are applicable with even greater force to the question of Jerusalem. Itzhak, if you desire further specific technical clarification I will be glad to respond. Your arguments are cogent, however I have to disagree with your conclusions, both on factual grounds, and on questions of international law.
National survival is a peremptory norm of international behavior.
They fled as refugees from the war-torn country with the intention of returning when the fighting ceased. Thereafter they were pawns in the hands of their host countries. Moreover, please take note that the ICJ is authorized by its enabling statute, to exercise general principles of equity. Theoretically this means that actions taken, in pari delicto, bars a party from asserting a claim that has been abrogated as the result of intentionally culpable conduct. Rather, a question of anti-Jewish falsification of history to serve political ends.