06 March 2012

On one state where there are two

This rather cryptic title was inspired by an opinion piece in the Washington Post, in which Ahmed Noor argues for a one state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I won't go into details, as Judeopundit does a wonderful job here.

There are two sentences in Noor's piece, however, that bother me even more than his "jewish privilege" cliche (so trendy in antisemitic circles):

Palestine and Israel are two parts of the same country — something those who have not been to the region may find hard to imagine. The area of Mandate Palestine — that’s Israel, the West Bank and Gaza — is about the size of New Jersey.
 Too many mistakes in just two sentences - or are those really mistakes?

The area of Mandate Palestine was never a single country forcefully divided, as the first sentence suggests.

The second sentence...oh, here's something to sink my sharp teeth in. Well, let's begin by understanding what the area of Mandate Palestine really was - before 1922, when the british cut the whole territory east of Jordan river off to make room for future Jordan. This is not as easy as it sounds. I had to google long and hard before I could find some accurate maps of the area (most look like the "Israel, West Bank and Gaza" theory), and surprisingly, despite my stubborn belief that hard work doesn't really pay off, I actually managed to find some. Here's such a map, of Mandate Palestine between 1920-1922:



Not quite the size of New Jersey, eh? So, where does this "Mandate Palestine — that’s Israel, the West Bank and Gaza" come from?

Of course, that part of Palestine east of the Jordan river is now in Jordan, just as that part of Palestine west of the Jordan river is now Israel, West Bank and Gaza. However, that Palestine east of said river seems to have mysteriously vanished from the collective memory of palestinians and their supporters. How is that possible that the jordanian Palestine ceased to be Palestine back in 1922, while the israeli territory is still very much Palestine, after more than 60 years? What's sauce for the hashemite goose...is not sauce for the jewish gander, apparently.

Now all that's left for Ahmed Noor to do is fathom why hashemite privileges trump jewish privileges in this troubled area.

10 comments:

Dick Stanley said...

I still say to give 'em Jordan. Let the pretend king go be a pretend king somewhere else.

KatieNorcross said...

I've got the best 2-state solution.  Give the Fakistinians Michigan and New Jersey.  Let them start lobbing bombs into Brooklyn and see how fast they get their asses whipped.

BHCh said...

Don't they already have Michigan?

KatieNorcross said...

 That's one.  Now for the second.

Dick Stanley said...

You mean give them Detroit. Michigan has some nice spots left. Likewise Jersey. Maybe give 'em Newark.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Yep. Newark, for what I have seen of it, could do with giving away...

yitzgood said...

Another point is that if it actually is, in the end, one, never-divided country, then Israel can hardly be an "occupier"  where the West Bank is concerned. A country can't occupy itself.

David All said...

For once, I agree with Dick, there is already a Palestinian state and it is called Jordan. Only question is how much of the West Bank should be given to Jordan. Jordan already has a Palestinian majority. As for the Hashemite King, there is plenty of precedents for a Monarch being a different nationality than their people. Look at the British Royal Family, it is more German than British in its background. There is no reason a Jordan, perhaps renamed Palestine cannot have a Hashemite Royal Family, especially if they marry some Palestinian ladies, which I believe has already happened.   

SnoopyTheGoon said...

The fact of your agreement with Dick is so heartwarming ;-)

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Maybe there is an exception clause for this rule: just for Zionists, you know...