Former Jordanian Crown Prince Hassan Bin Talal: The West Bank Is Part Of Jordan
In a meeting with Palestinian citizens in Jordan, Prince Hassan bin Talal, Jordanian crown prince between 1965 and 1999, made an unusual statement, saying that the territories of the West Bank are actually part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. He added that the two state solution is irrelevant in the current stage.
The Jordanian website Almustaqbal-a.com reported that the speech by the Jordanian prince took place at an October 9 meeting with Palestinians from Nablus, members of the Ebal charity organization. The meeting was organized by Jordanian Senate President Taher Al-Masri, who is himself a Palestinian from Nablus. During his speech, Prince Hassan said that he intends to visit other organizations in Jordan that represent West Bank residents.
The report stated that “Prince Hassan stressed that the West Bank is part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which included both banks of the [Jordan] River” and added that Hassan “did not personally oppose the two state solution, but that this solution is irrelevant at the current stage.”[2] He later added that even if the two state solution does not materialize, there are other options. According to Hassan, “both sides, Arab and Israeli, no longer speak of a political solution to the Palestinian problem.” He implied that even the Oslo Accords had met their end, and said that Arab losses from the Accords are estimated at $12 billion. The report added: “The attendees understood that Prince [Hassan] is working to reunite both banks of the [Jordan] River, and commended him for it.”
Prince Hassan later added: “The unity that existed between the west and east banks for 17 years… was arguably one of the best attempts at unity that ever occurred in the Arab [world]… I hope that I do not live to see the day when Jordan, or the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, relinquishes the land occupied in 1967 by the IDF, since it would bring us all to witness the humiliating end… These lands, which were occupied as part of the 1967 lands, including East Jerusalem, were promised to us, and nowadays we speak of them as Area C…”
Prince Hassan tried to clarify his statements and said that in terms of sovereignty and law, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan in 1948, and that everyone, including the Palestinians, agrees that Jordanian law is the basis for the demand to reclaim them from Israel. However, he added, Jordan ceased negotiating for these lands with Israel following a request by the Palestinian Authority. Hassan said: “If, God forbid, we were to recognize the Jordan River as a border with Israel, then every element hostile to Jordan – and there are many – could claim that Jordan has failed in its demand [to restore] Arab rights.”
In an attempt to further emphasize Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank, Prince Hassan said that Ahmad Al-Shukeiri, who founded the PLO in Jerusalem in 1964, was actually “a guest of King Hussein in Jerusalem.” According to Hassan, “it must be clear that Jordanian legal and sovereign responsibility [over Jerusalem] was [decided] by our grandfathers when they fought atop Jerusalem’s walls.”
Prince Hassan stressed that Jordan should be a top priority for Palestine, and Palestine a top priority for Jordan.[3]
[2] It should be mentioned that other Jordanian websites that reported on Prince Hassan’s speech claimed that he had said: “I personally oppose the two state solution.” However, in a video of Hassan’s speech, he clearly expresses “disagreement with the elimination or disappearance of the two state solution.”
Oops! Another contender to govern Judea and Samaria! So the Arab Palestinians of Jordan are disenfranchised and now the Jordanian royal family want to hold sway over more Arab Palestiians!
Another Godless Muslim speaks his evil–its not the west bank–but rather it is Judea and Samaria–and it belongs to Israel!
BinTalal–is a grotesque fat ass whore!
@ Sharon Klaff:
I’m sure let’s make a deal BB, will be receptive, if the PRICE IS RIGHT. He has always wanted to be in real-estate.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/160802#.UHn90aAY0fs
This is interesting. Needless to say Israel should not give away all of Judea and Samaria
but some sort of settlement may be possible. It is much better to negotiate with Jordan than
with the Palestinians. It also would separate the West Bank from Gaza and perhaps Egypt would
take Gaza as part of the deal. It also puts Bibi in the position of deciding now whether or not
he wants Judea and Samaria as part of Israel.
@ Jonathan Usher:
It’s not up to BB, he is not King, Ethnarch or dictator and besides now he is a Lame Duck caretaker PM till the elections in Jan. He or specifically the Likud may not be the ones forming the next government. I would never vote for a Likud headed by BB.
“but some sort of settlement may be possible”
Can’t see it myself. Who knows whether the King of Jordan will even be in power next week or next month? Whats happening in Egypt and Syria now shows that peace for Israel is as elusive as Blowin in the wind by Bob Dylan.
Israel only gets peace by a strong IDF.
Israel only gets peace by populating with Jews Shomron and Yehuda followed by annexation; and by retaking the Sinai peninsula followed by annexation; then by extending Jewish national power deep enough into whatever remains of Syria as a result of the present civil war, for purposes of building and maintaining a land connection to Kurdistan, which is likely to be a strong military ally of Israel as it too grows in strength. Kurds are Sun’a Muslims, but are not neither Arabs, Turks or Iranians.
That, plus doubling of the Jewish population of Israel every 35-36 years, and continuing to build upon the country’s science-based industries, of which there is nothing like that in the rest of the Middle East.
In short, Israel can have peace only when Israel is powerful enough to be simultaneously triumphant over all the Muslim states in the Middle East, and especially the Arab states in the region.
There is no substitute for power. There never has been. And there never shall be.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
@ Jonathan Usher: You got it all wrong Jonathan. “he” does not have any say about Eretz Israel. Only if “he” commits more high treason to get a Nobel and “he” may be willing to do another attempt to “disengagement”, he could try. About 16 of those that did are accounted for.
Hassan’s remarks are indeed remarkable, but how does he relate to his late brother’s formal renunciation of Jordanian claims to sovereignty over the “West Bank” in 1988?
@ yamit82:
Evidence of govt. willingness to “negotiate” the Golan is all over the internet. The Israeli government denies there were talks, but the media reported sustained attempts at “peace talks” until war broke out in Syria. The Israeli government did not succeed, but it was ready in principle to surrender the land in exchange for a “peace” agreement. There is one mitigating factor for Netanyahu, though: this was all well known and there were no significant objections from the public or the Knesset.
DECEMBER 2009:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/netanyahu-syria-drops-key-precondition-for-peace-talks-with-israel-1.2620 – If not the surrender of Golan, what else was there to talk about?
Arabs spellbound by Western values: http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/funny-arab-reaction-to-first-womens-lingerie-store-in-saudi-arabia/ – Was this photoshopped? No matter. It’s still funny.
Thank you Prince Hassan. You represent Jordan.You attacked Israel in 1948 and captured Mandate land promised to the new Israeli state.
And then again from this illegally aquired territory you invaded and attacked Israel in 1967 without any provocation and was defeated and driven out.
Winners keep all acc to Intl law.And note that Mandate law is still extant in that it has not been revoked.
You by your statement de facto confirm that there was NO Pally state prior to 1067 [ PLO founded 1964]
Thus the captured territory of 1967 known by us as Judea & Samaria belongs totally to Israel of today , never mind its past rich history of Biblical involvement.
As we say ” straight from the horses mouth”
Israel has nothing to be sahamed of by developing this region.
Prince Hassan confirms the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was founded in 1964 when (Trans)Jordan occupied and annexed the West Bank i.e. land west of the River Jordan. Thus Israel is the land they sought, and still seek, to ‘liberate’. In 1922 78% of the area of Palestine was unilaterally given to Jordan by the British who held the mandate so it is Jordan that is Arab Palestine and is the natural homeland for Palestinians.
Email received from former Deputy AG and law Professor:
Judea and Samaria needs to stay in Jewish hands and the arabs must be expelled.
here are my choices for a possible explanation
1- Hassan had another attack of dementia one day and wandered into the west bank before the family could find him
2- Abdullah wants to convince the jordanian pals that he is still on their side so that they dont join the MB
3- the family was playing a game called “lets fool the Pals to see how gullible they are” and it was Hassans turn
4- Abdullah is softening up the pals to receive back their citizenship and invite them to “return” to Jordan using a cash grant from the UAE. This being part of his plan to declare a constitutional monarchy, empower the Jordanian pals all in a bid to pre empt MB power and opposition.
5- Hassan was exceedingly annoying at home so the family left him in the west bank to spend a day with the pals as a “tough love” strategy to cool his attitude.
6- The family was playing a game one day called “lets fool the Israelis to see how gullible they are” and it was Hassans turn.
7-All of the above
8- None of the above
@ Ted Belman:
I disagree with the statement that “Jordan’s invasion gained it nothing”
What was Jordan after? They didn’t want the population and the Land came attached to those people the Heshemites didn’t particularly want.
They wanted control of the Temple mount which as a descendent of the Prophet would give Abdullah and later Hussein great status in the Muslim world. Even before the Peace treaty with Jordan, Israel afforded the Jordanian Monarchy status and a great deal of control over the Muslim sites and structures on the Temple mount. The Jordanian monarchy appointed the Wakf(Muslim Trust administering Muslim holy and religious sites) and they were answerable only to Jordanian King who paid their salaries and administrative costs, he even Gold Plated the dome of the Rock costing some 50 mil$$$.
So Israel from day one gave up sovereignty over the Temple Mount to the Muslims at the expense of the Jews, which was a continuation of the Mandates policy towards Arabs and Jews. The Temple Mount still is outside the state’s full and practical authority.
“Following the conquest of Jerusalem in 1967, the Chief Rabbinate issued an all-inclusive ban on entrance into any portion of the Haram. Moshe Dayan ordered the removal of an Israeli flag from the Dome of the Rock and later, on June 17th, authorized the Waqf religious officials to reassert their administration of the site.
Since that time, many appeals have been made to Israel’s High Court of Justice to permit Jews to pray within the confines of the Haram compound. The 1967 Law for the Protection of the Holy Places allows for free access and freedom of worship but the anomaly is that, of all the inter- and intra-religious conflicts, it is the Jews that are prevented from fulfilling a religious duty. They are banned from praying on the Temple Mount in order to ensure public order.”
Jerusalem’s Temple Mount:
A Jewish-Muslim Flashpoint
Yisrael Medad http://www.acpr.org.il/English-Nativ/06-issue/medad-6.htm
This paper was originally published as ACPR’s Policy Paper No. 111 (2000)
@ Canadian Otter:
Otter,Israelis whether they know or don’t pay almost no attention anymore to these reports because most have proven to be trial balloons in the past which came to nothing. Just like BB threatening Iran, the Palis from Hamas and Hezbollah. BB is all talk and no show, a certified liar and politically gutless. In short, a public joke.
Thanks for the infoyamit82 Said:
Despicable!
yamit82 Said:
More despicable as it continues ongoing. I cannot envision a sustainable state of Israel which forbids Jews from worshiping at the Holy places.
yamit82 Said:
Is there any other nation which allow sovereignty to foreign govts of local religious sites? It is a dangerous precedent and indicative of a poorly thought out plan for the future. There is so much past garbage that Israel needs a brand new leadership with the courage to repudiate a good deal of it.
Laura Said:
A simple yet perfect goal
@ Bernard Ross:
Our group is meeting in Jerusalem this W. and I travel some 3 hours to get there… but I have never been able to visit Temple Mount.
That and many other ruinous policies we would like support to completely reconstruct the never changing government “elites” here.
@ SHmuel HaLevi:
You can break them by having 2000, 5000, or more Jews ascending the mount spontaneously from all directions. If the Israeli Police use excessive force it will boomarang on them. If the Arabs start rioting, so can the Jews. The passivity of the Jews is what allows the Israeli government to do what they will.
Time is long past Israelis should act like the Arabs. Their methods work.
@ yamit82:
Being slightly conspiracy-minded, I have always wondered what exactly keeps good Jews from organizing AT LEAST around issues of interest to a particular group. Could there be infiltrators among them tasked with discouraging mass action, and throwing wrenches into every attempt at getting organized? ~~ Something must be done because present ways of dealing with leftist policies are not working. People who wait are just postponing negative outcomes. The more time it passes, the more entrenched a situation becomes. ~~ Studying leftist methods may give good Jews some ideas. Leftists have enormous resources at their disposal, but still, any group can accomplish a lot with basic organization and a good plan. Sudanese infiltrators who have broken the law and who have no right to stay in Israel have not been removed, while law-abiding Migron Jews got expelled. Leftist ingenuity got that done.
@ dbdent:
RIGHT ON!
@ yamit82:
We are. like I mentioned, meeting in Jerusalem, and I am also wondering about the wrench slippers being there to prevent anything likely to start biting into the unJews control from happening. This remark also agreeing with Otter.
I’ll be arriving at something like 10 am to the CBS.
I completely agree with both of you.
It’s easier to give away JEWISH land eg JUDAH, SAMERIA, GOLAN, GAZA than sell the brooklyn bridge or swamp land in florida
@ Bernard Ross:
Don’t know of any.
Almost everything the Israeli governments have done was poorly thought out for not only the future but also the present. I don’t think there is or has ever been a real plan but actions taken on an ad-hock basis.
If it were only a matter of leadership it would have already been done.
Principles precede movements; movements do not precede principles. Jews can never reach a consensus on principles so movements from below never succeed.
Comment to Bernard Ross is in moderation.
@ Canadian Otter:
African infiltrators are allowed in either because the government and the IDF are totally incompetent or that they for some unfathomable reason, are wanted in.
Few seem to ask the question that if Africans can get across our borders why no Terrorists using the same MO? How many have? Where are they today etc.?
Israels answer to all threats is to fence us in.
@ Bernard Ross:
.
Enigma of the Jews:
G-d held the mountain over the heads of the hebrews.
“And they stood under the mountain.” (Exodus 19:17) Rabbi Avdimi bar Hama bar Hasa said: This teaches that the Holy One Blessed Be He, overturned the mountain upon them like an [inverted] cask, and said to them, ‘If you accept the Torah all is well, but if not, then there will be your grave.’ An offer the Israelites could not refuse. The Torah was forced upon the Jews from above.
@ yamit82:
~~ So true. And the answer to internal conflict is REMOVE THE JEWS. ~~~ Which has been the centuries-old answer by host countries to conflict with Jews. Remove Jews by threat, expulsion or worse.
Israeli governments have followed that disgraceful and criminal removal solution in cases where Arabs and their allies (all Holocaust perpetrators or their accomplices) object to Jewish presence on Jewish land. ~~~ Jews resented in Sinai and Gaza? Remove the Jews. Jews resented in Judea and Samaria? Fence them in, and then prepare their removal from all but 1% of J/S within the fence. Jewish real estate claimed by Arabs? Remove the Jews. Arab mobs attacking Jews? Arrest and remove the Jews. Arabs frowning at Jews on Temple Mount? Remove the Jews. Arabs expanding their mushrooming illegal towns all over the land and resenting Jewish presence? Remove for all practical purposes the state’s own authority from those areas. ~~ So the policy is, whenever in conflict, whenever in doubt, remove the Jews.
For the love of me I cannot understand why Jews are not allowed to pray at their Temple.
First of all Israel should be in total charge of all of Jerusalem, the capital of the Sovereign Jewish Nation of Israel.
Israel will provide access to the various religious sites.
The present set up is outrages.
G-d did not authorize anyone other than His people to take charge of His Temple.
What is difficult to understand???
@ rongrand:
Israeli government’s attitude to Jewish sacred places is driven by clinical hatred toward religious and nationalist Jews. The Temple Mount was the central place in Jewish consciousness for two thousand years, the pinnacle of Jerusalem which we prayed to return to.
Arabs prohibited us from praying at the Western Wall. Jewish soldiers who took the Temple Mount in 1967 wept with happiness. Only to have Moshe Dayan say that he doesn’t want another Vatican – and gave the Temple Mount to Arabs.
The Israeli government’s actions are only rational if it aims at annihilating Judaism. A few years ago our government refused a request to build synagogue in the same place. Our Israeli government is not ethnic-blind, but anti-Jewish. Our Israeli government allowed Jordan virtual autonomy on the Temple Mount. The government ignored the fact that Jordan banned Jews from the Temple Mount before 1967. Now the Israeli government also bans the Jews from the Temple site – even after we have conquered and annexed the place. Hostile Israeli Arabs formally control the Temple Mount and collaborate with Israeli foreign enemies in various projects. Israel appointed Turkey as construction supervisor for the Temple Mount repairs and construction. That didn’t placate the Arabs because they dislike Turks, but gave a major boost to Turkish Islamists.
Thanks to all Israeli governments past and present and the general apathy of Israeli and world Jewry, The holy city of Judaism is earmarked to become a serpentarium of antisemitic powers.
Judaism needs to be the central part of the Israeli government.
Do the fools in government believe the return of Jews to the Holy Land was just by chance???
Do these same fools understand the victories of their defense of Israel in the various wars was with Divine Intervention.
If I was Jewish, I would be at the His Temple thanking and praising G-d.
Yamit, I am convinced you should run for public office.
The problem is:
A) Ben Gurion, agreed on principle, to the division of the area in 1947 at the UN, albeit with reservations …
B) According to the Balfour Declaration and San Remo, the civil rights – which includes voting – of the non-Jews were to be protected. Hence, annexation requires enfranchisement.
Civil rights includes voting rights.
Britain used that argument to issue the white paper of 1939 by declaring that the civil rights of the Arabs precluded a Jewish state.
C) a deal was entered into with Abdullah I of Jordan giving Jordan the West Bank. IDF General Arieh Eldad admits it right here …. (Click here) and go to 42 minutes, 25 secs.
Jordan was told by Israel to take the West Bank. Israel did not want to absorb the Arabs in 1947.
What is the result?
I myself do not agree that Jordan has a right to the area; but you cannot condemn Jordan for annexing what Ben Gurion and Golda Meir encouraged Abdullah to annex.
If Israel uses San Remo as its justification, then Israel has to enfranchise the Arabs in the area.
I am NOT averse to Israeli annexation, but the continuance of martial law would have to end.
To the extent that Israel uses San Remo as its right to the contested areas, to that extent, it is required to enfranchise the Arab. The present idea of annexing Area C and B, while leaving A to the Arabs is not going to work, nor does it agree with San Remo.
Locking Arabs in reservations may appeal to some, but it will not stand with the world. Israel will not even be able to sell it to rather pliant American politicians. The US may withhold its UN Veto.
The only solution is to buy the Arab out. I recommend South America, as no Muslim state will accept them.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Three rights were referred to : religious, civil and political. arab political rights were not guaranteed only civil and religious.
CuriousAmerican Said:
as your premise is incorrect so is your conclusion
CuriousAmerican Said:
It is curious that you have quoted a document well known to represent and illustrate the manner in which Britain breaches its agreements and commits deceit and treachery. For you the white paper is a golden calf but for Jews it represents the ongoing treacher of Britain and the gentile.
CuriousAmerican Said:
any other evidence supporting this “fact”? It is Dr. Eldad not General Eldad. It was a statement referring to an unconsummated agreement and therefore, like partition UNGA 181 utterly irrlevant even if true. Your “agreement” refers to Jrdanian recognition of the Jewish state in exchange, what is your motive, purpose and agenda for omitting this fact? Israel agreed to partition but that does not make partition relevant today. If you use Eldad as a basis are you also using his argument as a basis for annexation and resettlement of refugees?
CuriousAmerican Said:
Again, incorrect misrepresentation of San Remo leads to incorrect conclusion.
CuriousAmerican Said:
NO reservations in Israel, as that is what now obtains in the arab countries for their refugess so apparently it will stand with the world. Or are you saying that it is the Jewish involvement which will cause it not to stand with the world?. Transfer across the hostile borders and then release into the total freedom of the loving arms of their muslim brothers.
CuriousAmerican Said:
This is a great idea as long as you are using arab or international money. If you are referring to the jews paying out I would just call it another swindle and con along the lines of a long past of swindling and conning Jews. I suggest you spend your energy peddling the financing to the arab and international forums as it is they who are the cause and should pay the damages.
CuriousAmerican Said:
their acceptance is unnecessary if Israel deposits them across the borders of lebanon, gaza or syria and if treaties fail then also Egypt and Jordan. After being deposited it will be the concern of the arab nations. If they do not accept them they may have to abdicate to their rule.
reply to curious in moderation
@ Bernard Ross:
From April 19, 1920 to April 26, 1920, an international conference was held at San Remo, Italy to implement the terms of the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919 which was the first of five peace treaties that formally terminated the hostilities then known as the “Great War” (World War I), including those provisions of the Treaty (namely, Articles 1 – 26 thereof, denominated as the Covenant of the League of Nations) which declared the creation of a League of Nations (predecessor to the United Nations) and which authorized the establishment of a system of international mandates for the governance of the World’s remaining non-sovereign territories and their respective populations.
The legal basis for the mandatory system was the international community’s declaration that providing for the “well-being and development” of the World’s non-sovereign populations constituted “a sacred trust of civilisation” (Covenant of League of Nations, Article 22, Paragraph 1), and that the League of Nations’ “best method” of effecting this global task was to create a “tutelage” relationship between certain “advanced nations” and “such peoples” whereby the former would serve “as Mandatories on behalf of the League” (Covenant of League of Nations, Article 22, Paragraph 2). In legal terminology, each mandate constituted a separate Trust, of which the League of Nations was the Settlor, the appointed Mandatory was the Trustee, the resident population (or chosen subset thereof) was the Beneficiary, and the administered territory was the Corpus. Under Trust law, the Trustee is obligated to administer the Trust Corpus on behalf of and for the sole benefit of the Trust Beneficiary in compliance with the Trust’s governing instrument; and when the Trust terminates, the Trust Beneficiary thereby becomes the legal owner of the Trust Corpus. Applied to the mandatory system, this means that, when a mandate terminated, the resident population (or chosen subset thereof) thereby became sovereign over the administered territory thereof.
The self-evident purpose of the mandatory system was to return those non-sovereign territories formerly occupied by the Ottoman Empire and its wartime allies to their respective indigenous populations, including the Jewish people.
See Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (of the Treaty of Versailles)
The Mandate for Palestine (i.e., the Trust) was created for the explicit purpose of reestablishing the Jewish national homeland in the biblical Land of Israel (notwithstanding the fact that the borders of Mandatory Palestine and the borders of the biblical Land of Israel were, in some places, not identical). The Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine (i.e., the Trust’s governing instrument) states as its goal “… the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country …” (Mandate for Palestine, Preamble, Paragraph 2); and the Preamble thereof further declares that “… recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” (Mandate for Palestine, Preamble, Paragraph 3). The League of Nations thereby acknowledged that, although having been widely dispersed amongst the nations of the World during the past several millennia, the Jewish people were nonetheless recognized by the international community as being the lawful indigenous inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine.
In agreeing to its appointment as Mandatory Trustee of this Trust, Great Britain undertook to administer Mandatory Palestine and to govern its resident population in conformity with the provisions of the Trust’s governing instrument and subject to the supervision and control of the Council of the League of Nations (see Mandate for Palestine, Preamble, Paragraphs 6 & 7; and Articles 1, 14, 24, 25, 27 & 28).
@ CuriousAmerican:
Yes, but it does not include POLITICAL rights.
Lloyd-George & Balfour were both crystal clear that while there was no wish to impose Jewish sovereignty over the (then) existing Arab majority
— that their intention was to permit (and encourage) — thru immigration — the DEVELOPMENT of a Jewish majority, and that once THAT had been accomplished, the Jewish state would be declared.
The MacDonald White Paper of 1939 was a clear-cut & brazen BETRAYAL of that intention — and Lloyd-George said so at the time. (Balfour would have — he’d have been OUTRAGED — but he had died 9 yrs earlier.)
Enfranchisement would exist only within the context of a Jewish State — constitutionally Jewish. That would promptly make enfranchisement unacceptable to some Arabs.
Those who were not deterred by the constitutionality factor would not necessarily have to be given citizenship promptly or all at one time. For example, they might be offered the option to be placed on a citizenship track: that would eventually culminate in citizenship (in a Jewish state) some 12-15 years down the road. And inevitably they’d have to be observed in the meantime . . . .
No doubt some would resent the scrutiny; all the same, it would be unavoidable. Every state has the right to determine its own means of offering & granting citizenship, and to take whatever measures are necessary to insure the security of its citizenry.
Martial law is not based on ethnicity, but security. People who behave themselves in a civilized manner don’t need martial law.
What’s more, the terror groups would have to disband & disarm — or die.
The justice system would have to be seriously overhauled. Capital Punishment would have to be instituted for capital crimes. (I would add solitary confinement for all serious crimes of a non-capital nature.)
The Arab educational system — with its filling of kids’ heads with the vilest, toxic, hateful garbage — would have to go. Arab kids would have to be absorbed into the broader educational system of the country.
Anybody who didn’t like any of this stuff would, of course, be free to go some place more congenial to their way of thinking. Israel isn’t the former East Germany.
Come on, Curio, that’s no more of a ‘solution’ than Bernard‘s fantasy of just dropping them off over the borders
— (and from a certain point of view, may be even more insulting).
It is interesting how people often cross the line between hope and hallucination. The Hashemites are having a very tough time keeping their control over Jordan, let alone taking over land West to the river. In addition, the Palestinians will never accept the Hashemite occupation again. I will give you the flip side of this: Israel is welcome to come and occupy all of Jordan as long as we get rid of the Hashemite.
Mudar Zahran
@ Mudar Zahran: Dear Mr. Zahran, do you spend any time in Jordan building a constituency? Have you got any reaction from the man on the street in Jordan? What is the evidence that Jordan will be the only Arab spring which does not result in MB control or major influence?
@ Mudar Zahran:
Would you be so kind as to DEFINE the word, “occupy,” as you use it here?