Jordan will not obtain sovereignty over any land west of the Jordan R.

By Ted Belman

David Singer’s latest article, Jordan-“West Bank’ reconciliation is in the air”, includes the following:

“Jordan’s retirement from the West Bank moved Abu Iyad – PLO-leader Yassar Arafat’s deputy – to declare on 15 December 1989:

“I say that on the day immediately following the establishment of the Palestinian State, we will begin unity with Abu Iyad, 1989: You cannot make a distinction between a Jordanian and a Palestinian.

“We will begin unity with Jordan. I am not concerned what kind of unity this may be, because we are one people and have the same history. You cannot make a distinction between a Jordanian and a Palestinian. It is true that we encourage unity between Arab peoples, but the relation between Jordan and Palestine in particular is clearly distinctive; all those who tried in the past and are still trying to create divisions between the Jordanian and Palestinian people have failed. We indeed constitute one people… when the Palestinian state and unity is established … The Jordanian will be a Palestinian and the Palestinian a Jordanian”

“Reunification never required the creation of a second Palestinian Arab State in the ‘West Bank’ – in addition to Jordan.”

Mudar Zahran says the same thing. Jordanians are Palestinians because TransJordan was always part of the Mandate for Palestine.

No land west of the Jordan River will be ceded by Israel to Jordan. We are adament on this. Jordan will administer the Arab cities in Judea and Samaria in cooperation with Israel.

October 3, 2018 | 52 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 52 Comments

  1. @ EDDIE DEE:

    EDDIE- I posted info for TED’s attention, about half way up this page, gave what I believe pertinent info about Art.25. Ted is up to his eyes, busy every moment, so I got no answer. Maybe he saw no merit in it. If you scroll back you’ll see it.

    It was briefly an answer to the claim by the article writer that there was still land to be “allocated” in Judea & Samaria, possibly to Jordan. My aim was to point out that the Palestine” that Churchill was using in his White Paper was that of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1920 San Remo Conference and the 1920 Treaty of Sevres. Not the truncated 1921 Palestine, so it was just a specious political piece of jobbery to ease a temporary pressure from the Jaffa Arab riots.

  2. @ Bear Klein:

    Bear we’ve been through all this before several times, and I ask you; regardless of how many duties the Arabs will be required to agree to and “perform”, do you really think that they will carry out most or any of them, especially informing against friends or family members, . There likely isn’t a single Arab family which doesn’t have at least one or more terrorist affiliated member. ..Of course there would be penalties when caught but they don’t care about that. They have 72 virgins dangling in front of them all the time. Nothing you can do about that.

    And this ” required to demonstrate LOYALTY”…you still don’t accept that this means nothing. You have an Arab Supreme Court Justice who refuses to sing Hatikva or stand up. You really DO know as well as I, that you can vet an Arab upside down, inside out, endways, sideways, and it only means that he “may” be O.K. but with no guarantee that some day, he will not fly off the handle and take a knife or gun and go out to “kill a Jew”. Just like so many thousands have. They are poisoned from birth.

    Perhaps in another hundred years, under watchful Israeli eyes, the fever may have been drained, but…the fanaticism that the Koran, inculcates will be always there to break out at any time. You’ve had so many examples of this, and yet you still bring out the same A, B, C’s of Arab do’s and don’t’s.

  3. Hopefully in due course Israels’s friends in the Trump Administration will educate him that an “Ultimate Deal is not Possible” That Israel needs to take eliminate the terrorists Hamas, PLO, Islamic Jihad etc. Just like the USA did not negotiate with Al Quida or ISIS it just attacks were it finds. Trump should back Israel on this. Until the terrorists are reduced to rubble no peace or stability is possible for Israel.

    As long as Israeli fields near Gaza are burning and soliders are having to repel bombs. As long terrorists are killing Jews in Judea/Samaria and the IDF is not set loose to destroy the terrorists no peace is possible.

    Michael Oren
    ? @DrMichaelOren

    This is the evil we face. The Palestinian terrorist who murdered 28-year-old Israeli mother Kim Levengrund first handcuffed her then shot her. He also killed Ziv Hajbi, father of three. This is not about the absence of peace but the presence of hate.

  4. @ david singer:
    Trump’s Deal of the Century SEPT 24/18

    A Gaza deal is no longer a pre-condition. This deal will only fly with Mudar leading Jordan. It will be done by the end of the year.

    Mudar will change the cirriculum and text books to something approved by Israel. The new cirriculum and text books will be used throughtout Israel and gaza and the enclave’s

  5. I think you all need to calm down and tell me what you think will be or should be in the Trump peace plan. I believe Trump’s plan will call for the creation of a Jordan enclave in Judea and Samaria to be determined in negotiations between Israel and Jordan with the remainder to be annexed by Israel.

    Ted – you lead off… What do you think Trump will propose?

  6. Edgar G. Said:

    I was not aware that the League of Nations ordered that land in YESHA should be allocated to Jordan,

    The only thing that I know of that separated TransJordan from Israel was Para 25 which limited the zionest clauses to the land west of the river. I have never heard of the use of the word allocated in the Mandate.

  7. david singer Said:

    the 4 month period refers to the release of his plan

    Clearly he said otherwise. ““I want a plan that’s solid, understood by both sides, really semi-agreed by both sides before we present. I would say two-three-four months.””

    You continue to ignore this.

    You also bypass the idea that the king can agree to negotiate and can demand what we consider non-starter.

  8. @ david singer:
    Neither a Trump or Singers plan is solving the conflict. The problem is that the Arabs still hold belief that they can destroy Israel and get rid of the Jews.

    Victory is the correct concept. In order to achieve actual victory one must destroy PA/PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc and supporting terrorists.

    1. Apply Israeli Civil Law to all of Area C, including the Jewish Towns and Jordan Valley.

    State that Israel reserves the right to apply Israeli Civil Law to anywhere else in Judea/Samaria.

    2. Build in all of Judea and.Samaria. Focus on E1, the Jordan Valley, Gush Etzion to start.

    3. After destroying the terrorist groups. Take over and administer the Arab PA Cities and surrounding villages. Any villages or cities that turn violent will be closed off and workers will not be allowed to exit to work in Israel.

    4. Form an NGO to buy Palestinian Properties in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Judea/Samaria starting with Area C in villages next to Jewish Towns. Resell these properties to Jews and recycle the money to buy more Arab owned properties.

    5. Form a different NGO to help Arabs quickly move to other countries. Provide financial incentives to help them go. Make sure they receive their funds when it is confirmed they are leaving.

    6. Residency for Arabs in new areas where Israeli Civil Law is applied shall only be possible after a vetting process which determines they are not a security risk.

    They will need to demonstrate loyalty to the Jewish Democratic State of Israel.
    This will require learning Hebrew; your children will be required to provide civil national service at age 18 to 20.

    Arab residents will be required to inform on anyone planning terrorist acts including family members. This will be a condition of residency!

  9. @ Bear Klein:
    The only concept I am stuck on is that the only way to end the 100 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs is for Israel and Jordan – the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine – to negotiate the allocation of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria between their two existing states.

    That Trump’s peace plan could be possibly proposing such a solution by calling for the creation of a Jordanian enclave in Judea and Samaria – could be a real circuit-breaker.

    Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel’s security is his vital and foremost concern.

    A demilitarized Jordanian enclave encircled by Israel offers the best hope this can be achieved and would resolve territorial claims by Jews and Arabs in Judea and Samaria.

    Israel I imagine would want to control all access and ingress between Jordan and Judea and Samaria through one crossing point – probably the Allenby bridge.

    Under such a solution – no one – Jew or Arab would have to move from his present home.

    All the signs seem to me to indicate Trump is heading in this direction.

    If you don’t agree – then what do you predict Trump will propose? He believes he can do the “ultimate deal”. He is not going to produce a plan that is dead in the water before anyone sits down to negotiate its final terms.

    You can denigrate the Israel-Jordan peace treaty but it has lasted 24 years and withstood some very tense situations that could have seen it torn up. The idea of two states already at peace with each other renegotiating their international border must surely attract Trump as the way to go.

    Any alternative Trump plan could be far worse and stand less chance of success.

    Trump wants a triumph – not a flop.

  10. @ Bear Klein:

    That seems to cover everything we’ve been discussing. The one thing I’m doubtful of is that the Oslo Agreement could override the many internationally, irrevocable, recognised and clearly stated declarations which date back to 1917. It was meant to last for 5 years, contingent on certain reciprocal actions to be carried out by the P.A,, which have been totally ignored by them since day 1 which by itself should make the Accord null,

    So with the 5 year implementation date expired nearly 20 years already, and the fact that the Arabs have totally ignored their documented promises, how could Oslo still be in force, even if, at the time, it was a valid agreement….??

  11. @ david singer:
    What you fail to understand that bringing a Jordan back into Judea/Samaria is dangerous for Israel. It matters not to me how many times you write it or when you first wrote it or when you wrote it last.

    Peace with Jordan is not a peace like Australia and New Zealand. It is a peace to stop war. It is dangerous for Israelis to travel in Jordan. We do not play soccer games versus each other nor do we have regular friendly exchanges .

    So basically they are a neighbor in which the population hates us. What you propose is that Jordan would be in a position to endanger Israelis again by bringing them into Judea/Samaria. The King is NO friend of Israel.

    Israel made a huge mistake by letting them have their religious organization (Waqf) run the Temple Mount. Israeli Jews are humiliated almost every time they visit the Mount. Having Jordanians in Judea/Samaria would compound an already bad situation. It could easily lead to a major war.

    As I have written the past you mean well but you are simply on stuck on concept that you have no comprehension of the dangers it would bring to Israel. Palestinians can go to Jordan but we do not want Jordanians in Judea/Samaria or elsewhere in Israel.

  12. @ Edgar G.: This sums up the Israeli position.
    If the PA dissolves Israel can assert its rights to some or all of the land of Judea/Samaria or if the Oslo Accords are rescinded.

    The Legal Basis of Israel’s Rights in the Disputed Territories
    Amb. Alan Baker

    1. Upon Israel’s taking control of the area in 1967, the 1907 Hague Rules on Land Warfare and the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) were not considered applicable to the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) territory, as the Kingdom of Jordan, prior to 1967, was never the prior legal sovereign, and in any event has since renounced any claim to sovereign rights via a vis the territory.

    2. Israel, as administering power pending a negotiated final determination as to the fate of the territory, nevertheless chose to implement the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva convention and other norms of international humanitarian law in order to ensure the basic day-to-day rights of the local population as well as Israel’s own rights to protect its forces and to utilize those parts of land that were not under local private ownership.

    3. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibiting the mass transfer of population into occupied territory as practiced by Germany during the second world war, was neither relevant nor was ever intended to apply to Israelis choosing to reside in Judea and Samaria.

    4. Accordingly, claims by the UN, European capitals, organizations and individuals that Israeli settlement activity is in violation of international law therefore have no legal basis whatsoever.

    5. Similarly, the oft-used term “occupied Palestinian territories” is totally inaccurate and false. The territories are neither occupied nor Palestinian. No legal instrument has ever determined that the Palestinians have sovereignty or that the territories belong to them

    6. The territories of Judea and Samaria remain in dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, subject only to the outcome of permanent status negotiations between them.

    7. The legality of the presence of Israel’s communities in the area stems from the historic, indigenous and legal rights of the Jewish people to settle in the area, granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments recognized and accepted by the international community. These rights cannot be denied or placed in question.

    8. The Palestinian leadership, in the still valid 1995 Interim Agreement (Oslo 2), agreed to, and accepted Israel’s continued presence in Judea and Samaria pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations, without any restriction on either side regarding planning, zoning or construction of homes and communities. Hence, claims that Israel’s presence in the area is illegal have no basis.

    9. The Palestinian leadership undertook in the Oslo Accords, to settle all outstanding issues, including borders, settlements, security, Jerusalem and refugees, by negotiation only and not through unilateral measures. The Palestinian call for a freeze on settlement activity as a precondition for returning to negotiation is a violation of the agreements.

    10. Any attempt, through the UN or otherwise, to unilaterally change the status of the territory would violate Palestinian commitments set out in the Oslo Accords and prejudice the integrity and continued validity of the various agreements with Israel, thereby opening up the situation to possible reciprocal unilateral action by Israel

    http://jcpa.org/ten-basic-points-summarizing-israels-rights-in-judea-and-samaria/

  13. TED- Churchill’s White Paper of 1922, made only because of Arab riots, mentioned that the Home for the Jewish People did not refer to ALL Palestine. In this discussion, above, it has been used as meaning that some YESHA land is unallocated (and could yet be Arab).

    I want to particularly draw your attention to the fact that Churchill made this remark in his White Paper when under temporary duress, and that the Palestine he mentioned and actually specified in the White Paper, was positively the Palestine of The Balfour Declaration, (the San Remo Conference and Treaty of Sevres), 4 years BEFORE the detachment of the Eastern Province Of Palestine, to be handed to Abdullah..

    In 1923 Lord Grey, the Foreign Secretary speaking in the House of Lords, said that he had “serious doubts as to the validity of Churchill White Paper interpretation of the pledges given to Sharif Hussein in 1915…..” (I think he was referring to Sykes-Picot).

    So the argument that there is yet land in YESHA which needs to be allocated and etc. is a seriously flawed assumption, The provenance goes back to 1917..

  14. @ Ted Belman:
    Ted Belman Said:

    You say what will happen if Jordan under the king refuses to negotiate. If Jordan wants the ’67 borders with swaps is that a refusal to negotiate?

    I actually said:david singer Said:

    If those negotiations fail or do not even get underway because Jordan refuses to negotiate…

    I believe that any negotiations would break down and fail if Jordan demanded the ’67 borders (actually armistice lines to be precise Ted) with swaps.

    Ted: I have not ignored what Trump said and I believe – as I have told you before – that the 4 month period refers to the release of his plan. Negotiating it out is up to Israel and Jordan – like the Bush Road Map – plan first to be followed by negotiations. Hopefully the negotiations will be faster and successfully concluded than the 12 years of wasted effort between Israel and the PLO

    Ted: we need to be really precise in the language we use and not try to misquote what the other has said. If we all speak the same language maybe something positive can emerge.

    Ted: You keep pushing Mudar and seem to be suggesting Trump somehow has Mudar in mind. You are very mistaken in my opinion. Trump only deals with reality not fiction. You need to get Mudar installed before Trump will deal with him. You have been predicting Mudar’s takeover for ages – you say it will happen by the end of the year – Is that the current Jewish year or by 1 Jauary 2019?.

  15. @ david singer:

    BEAR-Off the subject a bit maybe, but I’ve often wondered …for there to be a dispute there needs to be at least 2 opposing sides. In this particular, perhaps unique instance, there s only ONE disputing side…the Arabs/EU+ ….

    I reason that the Israelis actually have no dispute here (although for the sake of “harmony” they accept it as “disputed”) because they KNOW the Land belongs to the Jewish People. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

  16. david singer Said:

    I cannot see any peaceful resolution of the Jewish-Arab conflict unless there is agreement between Israel and Jordan – the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine – agreeing on how sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is to be divided between them.

    Hopefully you will say the same thing if Mudar is running the country..
    Where we differ is I want Mudar to run the country and you do not support the removal of the king..

    You say what will happen if Jordan under the king refuses to negotiate. If Jordan wants the ’67 borders with swaps is that a refusal to negotiate?

    You ignore that Trump said he expects semi agreement within 2, 3 or 4 months. Do you think he was anticipating that the King would be in semi agreement or that Mudar will be.?

  17. @ david singer:

    I was not making ad hominem attacks on you …except in your estimation. I often exchange this type of badinage with Australians whom I knew. . At least change that smiling picture you borrowed. If it had, say, been one like Avi Gabbay, with drooping mouth. I would never have DARED,

    Using your kind of logic, the blame lies with you, as I was misled by that picture.

    But, because you feel your amour propre is deeply affected, although it was unintentional, I sincerely apologise. Let’s leave it at that.

    And.. now knowing, I will make sure NOT to respond to any of your articles, no matter how incorrect and oblivious to fact they seem.

    Oh, by the way…Please don’t respond, as you’ve threatened. I get the message already.

  18. @ Bear Klein:
    This is what I wrote in January of this year:
    “Jordan-Israel negotiations might offer Jordan the opportunity to recover part of Judea and Samaria (“West Bank”) annexed by Jordan in 1950 – albeit illegally – but subsequently lost to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War (legally termed “disputed territory”).

    Should Jordan buck at entering into such negotiations – some 60% of the disputed territory – under Israel’s full administrative and security control since the 1995 Oslo Accords and containing just 5% of the West Bank’s entire Arab population (“Area C”) – could be annexed by Israel.”

  19. Ted:

    Ted Belman Said:

    Leaving aside this debate, let’s go to the bottom ;line. I prefer that Israel be sovereign. Do you prefer that Jordan be sovereign? I work for Israeli sovereignty. You work for Jordan sovereignty.

    This gratuitous assertion of my position is not appreciated and is rejected.

    I cannot see any peaceful resolution of the Jewish-Arab conflict unless there is agreement between Israel and Jordan – the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine – agreeing on how sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is to be divided between them.

    If those negotiations fail or do not even get underway because Jordan refuses to negotiate – then Israel would be entitled to act unilaterally – including the annexation of all of Judea and Samaria if it so decided – since all avenues of negotiation with an Arab interlocutor would have been exhausted.

  20. @ Edgar G.:
    I don’t intend to respond to any more of your comments until you apologise for your ad hominem attacks on myself. When you apologise for your earlier and the latest lengthy attack on myself, I will respond to your latest misguided and incorrect statements on the issue.

  21. @ david singer:
    Ted, has pointed were your claimed facts and knowledge are incorrect about Israel having the legal rights to Judea/Samaria. You are also oblivious to security realities of Israel in your writings. Then why would one in Australia have any such knowledge. Israel will in due course apply its civil law to Area C. It has not done so for international political reasons. In actuality it has slowly started to apply some civil laws to Judea/Samaria. It does NOT need to annex the land as it already has the legal rights to it whether you understand that or not.

  22. Leaving aside this debate, let’s go to the bottom ;line. I prefer that Israel be sovereign. Do you prefer that Jordan be sovereign? I work for Israeli sovereignty. You work for Jordan sovereignty.

  23. david singer Said:

    Judea and Samaria are disputed territory where sovereignty needs to be allocated between Israel and Jordan

    Yes, Israel has often said that the lands are “disputed”. That doesn’t make them so. Yes the Arabs claim them but have no right to them Israel as a right to them and the Arabs only claim them. Israel has supported the peace process saying that the lands are disputed. That is not an admission of rights.

    You say that sovereignty needs to be “allocated”. Why allocated? why not agreed upon?

    david singer Said:

    Ted – why hasn’t Israel accepted Kontorovitch’s advice and annexed all or any part of Judea and Samaria – especially Area C ?

    Absent having attempted negotiations with Jordan – it would be politically a most unwise decision to take.

    Israel has refrained from exercising her right to the land ever since the 6 day war because she didn’t want to contend with the massive Arab population there. But that is taking a practical view rather than a legal view.david singer Said:

    If Jordan refuses to negotiate with Israel under Trump’s upcoming proposals – then as I have stated on many occasions – Israel would be perfectly entitled to act unilaterally.

    What gives us the right? Why have we refrained from acting uniulaterally because of the many times the PA refused to negotiate. Jordan has no right to negotiate. And if the PA or Jordan agrees to negotiate but are not flexible enough, then what.?
    david singer Said:

    The PLO have hung themselves. Is Jordan prepared to follow suit?

    They have given every indication that they are. Look at the King’s speech at the UN. He has maintained that position forever.. He does so because he believes it would be suicide for his monarchy to bring more palestinians in. He argues Jordan is not Palestine.

  24. @ david singer:

    I presume that the Art 25 you maunder about was the one that Britain pushed through by virtue of it being the major power of the 51 States. This was a patently dishonest British move contrary to the original meaning of the Balfour Declaration, ensconced in every agreement thereafter. Also of the San Remo Conference, the “Declaration of Independence of the Jewish Nation”..and the decision that both Palestine West, and the Trans-Jordan Province of Palestine (East) comprised the land for the Jewish People….

    And your rather specious assertion that Churchill’s White Paper of 1922 did not
    “articulate”..(which after all only means to speak clearly) that “in Palestine” did not mean “in all Palestine”….

    You neglect, (paraphrasng something like the Kavanaugh Hearing) to give “equal understanding”, that it ALSO does NOT specifically assert that it DOES mean “not in all Palestine”. So this reliance on the Churchill half sentence really means…It really could just as easily mean “IN ALL Palestine”……Therefore your position, is merely an opinion..

    Well…I have a contrary opinon which is entitled to equal rights.

    Your unexpected strong objection to my mild bon mots belies the picture of your cheerful and broadly smiling countenance, as portrayed in Arutz 7 when you send in an Op. Ed. Why…you look like a guy who could easily take a little humour-and give it too..

    But you’re not, as seems now obvious. You are testy, and grouchy to object to a “Down Under” joke, when you must have heard hundreds in your time. In fact an apology would hardly palliate your seething resentment. I didn’t ask you to live there and you should be prepared to put up with little jabs of humour about it, or was that always missing from your makeup. You take yourself far too seriously, and can get your point over just as well or better without resentment at what was meant to include you..

    I’m Irish and on these pages and only recently I received a string of comments; from a few pints of Guinness, to kissing the Blarney stone, and more. I’ve heard it all ;thousands of times, but was I offended like you…? NO. I just engaged in repartee, showing I was joining in, and amplified the effects of the original jab somewhat whereby we both enjoyed it.

    Do likewise and you’ll bea happier person….I guarantee it….!!

  25. @ Ted Belman:
    I may be “old school” but I stand by my position. Judea and Samaria are disputed territory where sovereignty needs to be allocated between Israel and Jordan – the two successor States to the Mandate.

    Ted – why hasn’t Israel accepted Kontorovitch’s advice and annexed all or any part of Judea and Samaria – especially Area C ?

    Absent having attempted negotiations with Jordan – it would be politically a most unwise decision to take.

    If Jordan refuses to negotiate with Israel under Trump’s upcoming proposals – then as I have stated on many occasions – Israel would be perfectly entitled to act unilaterally. I believe that course of action would be supported by Trump.

    The PLO have hung themselves. Is Jordan prepared to follow suit?

  26. Ted:@ Edgar G.:
    Edgar:

    You state:

    I was not aware that the League of Nations ordered that land in YESHA should be allocated to Jordan, which was across the natural boundary of the Rver, after it had been hurriedly and unilaterally “created” by Churchill. …….I’ve never seen a single mention of it in the thousands of pages I’ve read about the subject all these many years…

    The League of Nations Mandate provided in Article 25 that the provisions of the Mandate calling for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine did not apply in the Mandated territory beyond the Jordan River.

    Churchill also articulated in his 1922 White Paper that the words “in Palestine” did not mean “all of Palestine”

    Whether the Mandate’s designation of Transjordan as Arab-only was the end of the story so far as the Arabs gaining additional territory in the remainder of Palestine including Judea and Samaria was concerned – has never been accepted by the Arabs and the UN – nor in my opinion will it be accepted by Trump. Even the Peel Commission did not agree.

    That is why negotiations between Israel and Jordan are required to try and end the conflict over territory still under neither’s internationally recognized sovereignty.

    That is where I think Trump is heading. He meant what he said after agreeing to move the Embassy to Jerusalem:
    “And you know what? In the negotiation, Israel will have to pay a higher price, because they won a very big thing.” The Palestinians “will get something very good, because it’s their turn next. Let’s see what happens.”

    Making fun of my Down Under residency and your personal facetious remarks under the cover of anonymity only indicates your willingness to attack the messenger and ignore the message. It is disrespectful and uncivil. An apology is requested.

  27. david singer Said:

    Judea and Samaria is not Israeli land. It is about 4% of the territory comprised in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine where sovereignty still remains unallocated between Jordan and Israel 96 years later.

    Sorry David but you are wrong. By saying it is “unallocated” you are very old school. Whether or not it was allocated or not is irrelevant.

    Eugene Kontorovich explains

    Professor Eugene Kontorovich is the head of the international law department of the Kohelet Policy Forum and a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affair. He answers the question, “how can the legal position of Judea and Samaria [West Bank] be defined?”, in Israeli rule in the West Bank is legal under International Law .

    “The question that should be asked is: What were the borders of Israel when it was first established? What defines this is the borders at the moment of independence. Israel was created, like most countries, after a successful war where no one came to its aid. In international law, there is a clear rule regarding the establishment of new countries: the country’s borders are determined in accordance with the borders of the previous political entity in that area. So, what was here before? The British Mandate. And what were the borders of the British Mandate? From the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.”

    Thus, he argued, Israel liberated its own territory in 1967. Therefor the Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) does not apply and the settlements are legal. And if the FGC doesn’t apply then Israel has the right to expel Arabs from these territories just as the victors expelled Germans from the land they conquered.

    This is a quote from my article International Law and the State of Israel..

    I think the use of the term allocated referred to Res 181 in which certain lands were allocated to the Jews and the rest allocated to the Arabs. But that was a recomendation only. Israel is a state because she declared hereself to be one on more lands than were allocated to her. And according to Kontorovich her boundaries are the Jordan River.

    Plus we conquered it in ’67 in a defensive war and still possess it notwithstanding Res 242.

  28. @ david singer:

    I was not aware that the League of Nations ordered that land in YESHA should be allocated to Jordan, which was across the natural boundary of the Rver, after it had been hurriedly and unilaterally “created” by Churchill. …….I’ve never seen a single mention of it in the thousands of pages I’ve read about the subject all these many years…..

    Until NOW….!!

    Down Under must have an unbalancing effect on some of it’s inhabitants so that they think “up” is “down” and vice versa..As we can see here they sometimes miss the mark and finish up wth scrambled “eggs” instead…..

  29. @ Bear Klein:
    Judea and Samaria is not Israeli land. It is about 4% of the territory comprised in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine where sovereignty still remains unallocated between Jordan and Israel 96 years later.

    Getting your facts right might help – before you rush into print with increasingly unsubstantiated statements.

  30. can see nutunyahoo in Knesset Monday morn ‘chaverim the pundits have spoken, vote as you will or as i tell you.’

  31. @ david singer:
    Actually you were talking about giving Jordan Israeli land on a permanent basis. That makes you sound like an Jordanian advisor.

    I can hear the Arabs in a backroom now let us find a way to trick the dumb Jews into giving us their land.

    I stand by comment, until your ideas change. Seems like your ideas not Trumps.

  32. @ Bear Klein:
    Your cheap shot does you no credit.
    My article is an analysis of what Trump’s peace plan might look like when it is released in two to four months time.
    Concentrate on the message and not the messenger.

  33. @ inna1kre:

    inna1kre Said:

    “Jordan will administer the Arab cities in Judea and Samaria in cooperation with Israel.”

    Ted made that statement – not me.

    You should ask Ted to respond to your two questions.

    My article deals with the Trump peace plan possibly calling for the creation of a Jordanian enclave in Judea and Samaria – an entirely different solution to that being proposed by Ted and Mudar.

  34. @ david singer:
    “Jordan will administer the Arab cities in Judea and Samaria in cooperation with Israel.” What cooperation are you hope for? Isn’t it clear that no cooperation is possible with Muslims? Today it is in their interests, tomorrow it is not. Judea and Samaria must belong to Israel. Israel should build the towns in Jordan and transfer Arabs from Gaza and Judea and Samaria there.

  35. @ Ted Belman:
    Ted

    An “enclave” is a well understood concept in international law.
    Please refer to the following link which sets out ten such enclaves:
    https://10mosttoday.com/10-fascinating-enclaves-from-around-the-world/

    The area of the enclave will be determined in the negotiations between Israel and Jordan. It will be Jordanian sovereign territory but access and ingress will be through the sovereign territory of Israel and it will not be physically attached to Jordan.

    I do not agree that what I have proposed is similar to what you and Mudar are proposing. I believe you want the whole of Judea and Samaria to become Israeli sovereign territory. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    There are many incentives to encourage Abdullah to change his stripes including:
    1. Trump protecting the Hashemites from attempts to topple them by Mudar and others such as the PLO and Hamas
    2. Trump providing substantial funding to maintain assistance to Jordan that has already been lost as a result of the defunding of UNRWA.

    I think Trump is talking about releasing his plan within three or four months – and Jordan and Israel then subsequently commencing negotiations on that plan – the details of which have already been broadly agreed in advance before the plan is released.

    I believe the delay in issuing the plan could be due to continuing resistance by Abdullah to agree to negotiate on it with Israel. There is no use in putting out the plan if there are not two parties prepared to negotiate on it.

    The flight of the UNRWA officials from Gaza this week is not something Abdullah would like to see happening in Jordan – but it will if he does not go along with Trump’s plan.

    The choice is Abdullah’s. No negotiations – no money – lots of protests and civil unrest and no protection by Trump from Mudar, the PLO or Hamas – leaving Israel free to unilaterally take whatever decisions it deems best in Judea and Samaria in Israel’s national interest.

  36. TED- You may or may not have seen it but Jason Kushner, and Greenblatt met today with Senators Graham, Corker Lankford, Coons and a few others, and discussed their “Peace Plan. They are obviously influential and Kushner and Greenbaltt listen to them….So they should be made aware of YOUR Plan.

  37. @ Ted Belman: Ted,

    In the Israel Jordan peace there are two areas that are considered Jordanian sovereign territory but have been owned privately by Jews and subsequently have been leased to Israel ( “Naharayim/Baqoura area and Zofar area) as part of the peace treaty.

    If in the event that Area A locations are to be administered by Jordan they could be leased to Jordan and remain Israeli sovereign territory, including Israeli security control over the area. This precludes Jordan arming the area and also allows for future Israeli settlement in the area and administration if circumstances become favorable or that is needed.

    This allows for Israeli control as needed. Changing Jordanian regimes that are not friendly or functional for example. Mass exodus or emigration of Pal/Jordanians to elsewhere.

    Never EVER give up sovereignty of Israeli land or Security Control!

  38. The problem in Judea/Samaria/Gaza is too many Arabs who hate Israel and want to destroy it. To reduce this long term danger the emigration of many of these Arabs is needed.

    The destruction of the Terrorists and their infrastructure is needed.

    If you can by positive means (financial incentives) to get some of these Arabs move to Jordan or elsewhere great. Having a Jordanian entity in part of Judea/Samaria does not solve the problem. States have a legal right to arm themselves. There can be other state west of the Jordan River other than Israel or any other military west of the Jordan River other than the IDF.

    Likely temporary political changes of Arab regimes do not solve Israels problems whether well meaning or not at the start. Martin Sherman explained this well in a prior article.

  39. david singer Said:

    Israel’s security demands would best be satisfied by part of the West Bank being reunified with Jordan to create a Jordanian enclave in the West Bank – with the remainder of the West Bank being annexed by Israel.

    You didn’t define “enclave”. Nor do you say what you mean when you say “reunified”. Do you mean anything other than Area As administered by Jordan of do you envisage some kind of sovereignty?

    david singer Said:

    The enclave’s residents would acquire Jordanian citizenship. Jordanian law would apply in the enclave – which could be divided into any number of electoral divisions whose residents would choose their representatives to sit in the Jordanian Parliament.

    Pardon me. This paragraph appears to define what you mean. With all due respects its exactly what I have been proposing except, I don’t call for Jordan law to apply. I will reconsider.

    I never thought about giving them representation in the Jordan parliament. I will consider the ramifications. Its worthy of consideration.

    I have seen no indication that Jordan under the king would be amenable to such a deal but Jordan under Mudar would be. The king has rejected the Palestinians and is loath to give them citizenship. What makes you think he would change his stripes in 2, 3 or 4 months. Trump says he expects semi- agreement in that time period. Do you think he believes that the king would agree in that time frame? I don’t.

    I gave your article short shrift and shouldn’t have. I read it too quickly. I will post it today.

  40. Ted:

    You seem reluctant to print my latest article.

    Here it is:

    Jordan enclave in West Bank could be Trump’s “two-state” solution

    Creating another Palestinian Arab state – in addition to Jordan – has been seemingly consigned to the garbage bin of history following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s CNN interview on 28 September.

    President Trump had just told Netanyahu on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly:

    “I like two-state solution. I like two-state solution. That’s what I think works best. I don’t even have to speak to anybody, that’s my feeling.”

    When asked if he was prepared to commit to a two-state solution – Netanyahu told his CNN interviewer:

    “I’ve discovered that if you use labels you are not going to get very far because different people mean different things when they say “states”. So rather than talk about labels, I like to talk about substance”

    Questioned on what he would like to see – Netanyahu replied:

    “What I would like to see is that the Palestinians will have all the powers to govern themselves and not all the powers that will threaten us. What that means is that in the tiny area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – it’s all about 50 kilometres wide – that’s where the Palestinians live and the Israelis live – in that area under any peace agreement or without a peace agreement – Israel has to have the dominant power, the military power, overriding security power …”

    Netanyahu then stressed:

    “Israel has to have the overriding security, not the UN, not Canadian Mounties, not — I don’t know — Austrian or Australian forces — Israeli forces have to have the security control, otherwise, that place will be taken over by Islamist terrorists, either Daesh, ISIS or Hamas or Iran, all of the above, and that’s my condition.”

    Trump’s upcoming peace plan slated for release in 2-4 months needs to deal with Netanyahu’s concerns if it is to win Israel’s backing.

    Israel’s security demands would best be satisfied by part of the West Bank being reunified with Jordan to create a Jordanian enclave in the West Bank – with the remainder of the West Bank being annexed by Israel.

    This solution would enable Israel to:

    1. Control access and egress between the West Bank and Jordan
    2. Maintain security control for the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea
    3. Ensure the enclave be demilitarized and remain demilitarized

    The enclave’s residents would acquire Jordanian citizenship. Jordanian law would apply in the enclave – which could be divided into any number of electoral divisions whose residents would choose their representatives to sit in the Jordanian Parliament.

    The PLO has already rejected Trump’s peace plan – sight unseen – opening the door for Jordan – at peace with Israel since signing their 1994 Peace Treaty – to fill the negotiating void necessary to create this Jordanian enclave.

    Israel’s former Foreign Minister Moshe Arens presciently stated on January 11, 1989:

    “Jordan is a Palestinian state. And it is with Jordan that we must decide where the border will run…. Should the border follow the Jordan River, as it does today, or should it be west of the Jordan, as the Jordanians would like?”

    I would suggest therefore that, when it comes to talking about territory there is only one negotiating party acceptable to the government of Israel. That party is the existing Palestinian state of Jordan.”

    Creating a Jordanian enclave in the West Bank with Israel annexing the remainder could be – in Trump’s own words:

    “the ultimate deal…as a deal maker, I’d like to do…the deal that can’t be made. And do it for humanity’s sake.”

    Don’t underestimate Trump’s deal-making ability to end what he himself has called “the war that never ends”.

  41. @ Ted Belman:
    Ted, I keep hearing you say that. Can it simply be that he does not know and is being pressed for an answer, so he is stalling. Void additional information that is the most logical deduction.

  42. @ david singer:
    Putting Mudar in power is worth whatever risks it entails. You stand by the king. I stand by Mudar.
    Trump mentioned a semi agreement within 2, 3 or 4 months.. Do you have any knowledge about who will be the parties who semi-agree. You have so far not dealt with this.
    I submit that the two parties he is referring to are Bibi and Mudar.

    Time will tell.

  43. Ted

    You state:

    “No land west of the Jordan River will be ceded by Israel to Jordan. We are adament on this. Jordan will administer the Arab cities in Judea and Samaria in cooperation with Israel.”

    Your above solution is based on Abdullah being toppled and replaced by Zahran. In my view that is a recipe for total chaos in Jordan and in any event is unlikely to happen.

    I take a different view for the reasons set out in my latest article which you are at liberty to publish.