Jordan and Palestine

The “Jordan is Palestine”  option is a tempting alternative, as recently expressed by MK Aryeh Eldad.  While Hamas-led Gaza adds complexities to any option,  interest in “Jordan is Palestine” has been stimulated by the recent Arab uprisings and tensions, which have certainly not bypassed Jordan.   Pipes and Garfinkle some time ago expressed here their concerns that such a move would be unsuccessful, destabilising and dangerous to Israel.  However others promoting the idea include Geert Wilders, also on video here.  A few other related comments are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here

Amman where Abbas and many other Palestinians have citizenship, and Queen Rania is Palestinian, also has the Queen Alia International Airport. 

Rather than “Jordan is Palestine”,  a more successful outcome may come from a “Jordan and Palestine” federation that respects the fact that while there is a majority of Palestinians in Jordan, they have a different life experience from those of the West Bank, and that Jordan has a different population composition.  It would take away the necessity for the West Bank Palestinian portion to be a fully independent entity from Jordan, which it is unlikely to be.  It also lends itself to the possibility of more creative Jewish and Palestinian coexistence and separation in the West Bank, and ongoing Hashemite leadership in Jordan and Palestinian leadership in the West Bank, while bringing to mind the nomenclature of  Bosnia and Herzegovina

Either way, Jordan is an important player in the mix whose role has been underplayed.

Pin It

One thought on “Jordan and Palestine

  1. As you have a link here to Geert Wilders, who supports Israel and opposes Islamism, there is a good blog I just found, called ‘Defend Geert Wilders’ which ran for two years. He writes:

    “The last time that I checked, a religion, be it Islam, or Christianity, or Hinduism, or whathaveyou, was not able to set the tone for what discourse is and is not acceptable. If religion is setting the pace now, in Holland, then that is not acceptable.

    At this point, I am not even sure if this is merely about the conflict between religion, speech, and politics in Holland’s court system. I think it is about that very court system itself, the chaos that it is currently throwing itself into, and the direction that it will choose to take in the future. I suspect that in time, Geert Wilders will be merely a footnote in Dutch history. The direction that Holland’s court system will take in the years to come will have much more impact than simply one man and one party ( the PVV ).

    I am not particularly supportive of Geert Wilders himself. I don’t like his stances on all issues – indeed, even most of them. I don’t like his style of rhetoric. I don’t like the way that he ignores the distinction between Islam and Islamism, between the politics and the religion. He is helping to bring Holland into a much-needed debate, but that does not make him right in everything that he says. We should not be too quick to make a hero out of Geert Wilders just yet.”

    What he says about Holland is just as applicable to New Holland, ie Australia. Anyone who knows what happened to Pastor Daniel … who was taken to a tribunal for daring to quote from and criticise the intolerance of the Koran knows that criticising Islam is a dangerous thing to do, even in Australia. He told people that someone at Sydney University (or U NSW) was nearly finished a doctorate on Jihad when her professor was changed, and the new one said she had no right to do a doctoral thesis on that subject. She left the university without her PhD. This is Australia, everyone. This is Wahabi funding, y’all.