Replies

The finer point you make is of course that Israel has a right to exist. Saying otherwise is tantamount to anti-Semitism since they of course exist and the last 80 years of international decision making has been in their legal favor in regards to Nationhood.... But also it must be noted that there are a group of people who refer to themselves as Palestinians who are in limbo. Jordan doesn't want them and neither does Israel... It is also true that Palestinians have a right to their own state. And if Jordan isn't going to cede that they are under their jurisdiction and protect their rights, then who is and where are they going to reside?

Simply as a point of legal rectitude, Arab Palestine -- Jordan -- should grant citizenship to any and all Arab Palestinians for the asking. It's Jordan's 1921 raison d'etre, after all; just isn't kosher to shut the Palestinians out.

Okay, that point made, let's consider the next question... what about the West Bank palestinians who don't want to move to Jordan (assuming Jordan opened the gates to any who did)?

I do not necessarily agree that the Palestinians have a "right" to "their own state", even granting the following:

That Israel has been brutal to the Palestinians is an understatement as would be the same statement in reverse.

I don't think that this is entirely fair; we should at least modify our consideration by asking, "How 'brutal' would the Israeli administration be if a large number (majority?) of the Palestinians weren't calling for the liquidation of the Israeli State and Race?" Israeli brutality hasn't happened in a vacuum; if the Palestinians' kindergartens weren't teaching innocent children that Allah lusts for the flesh of Jews medium-rare, and the Israelis were still treating the Palies as they are, that would be truly heinous. As it is, the Palies' bloodlust makes it an ethical mess.

But let's go deeper, and look at your criteria for Statehood:

A will to govern themselves and territory.

Not good enough. In fact, not even good enough if the Israeli administration is "brutal".

Oppressive Governance is a necessary pre-condition for a Right of Revolution (i.e., tyrannical governments, not just ones, should be overthrown or seceded from), but it is not a sufficient condition. You must also be offering the people a better alternative. To illustrate my point: the record of History should prefer the Czar to the Communists. The Czar killed his thousands, but the Communists killed their millions. Therefore, the Communists were not in the Right in fomenting Revolution; though the Czar was oppressive, they sought (and did succeed) to bring about something far worse. Unlike the American Revolutionists, who were Freedom Fighters who sought to exchange Monarchy for Republic, the Russian Communist Revolutionists sought to exchange Murder on a comparatively small scale for murder on a grand scale. They were, therefore, not Freedom Fighters, but insurrectionist terrorists (who unfortunately won).

So you must have a proximate cause (oppression)...AND a better alternative...
...For your Right of Revolution to be Just.

First of all PAL :) I didn't claim that the Palestinians deserved a state because Israel had been brutal and I, like you believe that to be an irrelevant fact regarding their ability to direct their own destiny. (If that's even possible).

If I gave that impression I apologize. But as far as I can tell the Palestinians are "ruled" for lack of a better word by the Palestinian Authority not Jordan and thus already have their own government if it could be called that.

Who are they going to revolt against?

Arab Palestine, separated and closed to Jewish settlement

There is not now and never was an Arab Palestine.

Jewish Palestine

is an oxymoron just like a Christian Jew.

I'm sorry, but this article is fatally flawed though well intended.