So who exactly are the good guys in the Middle East?

[Higgly]

Dick Cheney has just finished a visit to Saudi Arbia. While he was there, CNN was interviewing the King of Jordan. A short history of the Hashemite Kingdom...

When Chaim Weitzman was trying to find a place for the Jews in the Middle East, he travelled to Aqaba and from there by camel into the desert to meet Abdullah, who was later to become the Hashemite King of Jordan. He promised Abdullah that the Arabs of Palestine would be protected and asked for his blessing for the Jews in Palestine. Abdullah agreed to this and gave him welcome. In fact, he sent guides across the desert to bring the lost European to his tents. Do not underestimate the significance. This was the most important signal a desert king could give to a Eurpoean. He would have done no less for Lawrence.

Fast forward to the eve of the Israeli war of indepence in 1948. The Zionists, and most particularly David Ben Gurion, fearing for their future, sent Golda Meir to talk to Abdullah and to ask that Abdullah not attack Israel (as defined by the UN partition boundairs). Abdullah agreed to do this.

The war started and Israel invaded territory held by Jordan and drove Palestinian refugees across the borders of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Jordan kept its promise and did not invade the territory assigned to Israel by the UN partition agreement. This isolated Jordan from the Arab League and has caused them great grief ever since.

After the war was over, there were border skirmishes. In one case, a group of Palestinian Arab terrorists, embittered by the loss of their homes, infiltrated Israel across the Jordanian border and killed a women and her two children. In response, Israel sent Ariel Sharon and a platoon of Israeli fighters to a village near where the Plaestinians had crossed. Sharon murdered the entire village.

Shortly after that, a herd of Israeli sheep wandred across the border into Jordan. Moshe Dayan advocated a mission to send Sharon back into Jordan. Fortunately, the UN found the sheep and returned them to Israel. This was referred to by the UN as the 'Bo Peep' incident, but there are probably a number of Jordanians who are still alive today because of this action by the UN.

In the end, Jordan was the first to sign a peace treaty with Israel. In spite of comments on these boards to the contrary, it has been the most willing to give a home to Palestinian refugees victimized by the birth of the state of Isarel.

Jordan is Israel's best bet as a peace partner, but it is not going to be easy. Neither for Israel, nor for Jordan.

And please, can we get that idiot Cheney out of the picture?

[Cameron]

Nice story Higgly...got an external link?

[Higgly]

Nice story Higgly...got an external link?

Thanks for asking:

Avi Shlaim; The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World; W.W. Norton.

And... New York Times Editor's Choice Best Book....

Tom Segev; One Palestine Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate; Henry Holt LLC

Finally, a guy who had the balls to live through it and bring it all home....

Robert Fisk; Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon; Thunder's Mouth Press.

Read Segev first. Then Shlaim, and finally Fisk.

[Remiel]

*blinks*

There are " Good Guys " in the Middle East?

[Higgly]

*blinks*

There are " Good Guys " in the Middle East?

Which 'these' are you referring to?

[Higgly]

Bump

[Remiel]

??

Perhaps I am missing something, but I could of sworn I said " There " not " These " ... So, what are you referring to, Higgly?

[Higgly]

??

Perhaps I am missing something, but I could of sworn I said " There " not " These " ... So, what are you referring to, Higgly?

You are right. I read you wrong. Yes I think there are good guys. I think that the Hashemite Kingdom in Jordan is a good guy. I think it has been a good guy even in the days leading up to the 1948 war. This new kingdom, and Abdullah I in particular, was ready to welcome the new nation of Israel. I think that Weitzman and Sharrett knew that and I think that Israel has lost a sense of who its friends really are.

I think the Abdullah II may be the best bridge to peace, but I think that we need to understand that there are things that are more important than military power. Why is it that we have to learn and re-learn this lesson over and over again in the Middle East? Even the Brits have never been able to figure this out.

We need to look at the foundations of our own culture and understand why it is that we place so much confidence in power, and so little in experience.

[Rue]

It is absolutely ridiculous to define "good guys" and "bad guys" in the Middle East. When studyingany history-true historians as opposed to people trying to distort history to present a bias perspective, remain neutral with such moral judgements.

The fact that Higgly started off needing to create a "good guy" already shows his historic analysis is clouded or distorted by moral judgement and a need to prove that the Kingdom of Jordan is good so when he then looks at historic facts, he distorts them to suit this thesis.

Time and time again I have taken Higgly to task for reducing the history of the Middle East into abbreviated, bias recitations of only selected events.

Once again I will present facts in an attempt to show you that that Higgly's recitation of the creation of Trans Jordan and its inter-relation to the creation of the State of Israel is misrepresented and inaccurate.

This may take some time but I will attempt in my next post to do just that and present a more accurate and balanced explanation of the historic events regarding the creation of Trans Jordan.

[Rue]

Here is how Transjordan, now Jordan was created;

After the end of world war 1, (1918) at the Paris Peace Conference Britain was entrusted by the League of Nations with the area today known as Israel and Jordan but in those days was simply referred to as Palestine. The mandate entrusted Britain to implement the Balfour Declaration of Nov. 2, 1917. This declaration pledging and I quote directly from it “establishment of a national home for the Jewish people”.

Let us be crystal clear on this point. This declaration did NOT state the homeland of the Jewish people would be in a particular area of Palestine –it did NOT define territorial restrictions on what side of the Jordan river the Jewish homeland

should be created. (East of the Jordan River is where Israel is today, West of the River is where Jordan is today).

The mandate the League of Nations entrusted Britain to carry out was and I also quote directly from the Belfour declaration; “ facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage close settlement by Jews on the land.”

Here is some more of the text; “ Her Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly

Understood that nothing shall be done which may 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.”

This is how Britain first becomes involved with the land that would become both Jordan and Israel.

In early 1919, King Faisal of Syria-Iraq, then the ONLY recognized Arab leader in the world, in fact entered into an agreement with Jewish representative Chaim Weizmann pleding to assist with the creation of the Jewish homeland as per the Balfour Declaration. This agreement defined relations between what as then starting to be referred to as “ Palestine “ and Syria-Iraq. It in fact recognized Palestine as a National Home for the Jews. King Faisal stated at that time; "We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our delegation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday to the Zionist organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper." 4

This 1919 Faisal-Weizmann treaty then formed the basis of the agreement given to the League of Nations which ratified it and the Balfour Declaration at the San Remo Conference in 1920.

This proposals covered Palestine which at that time included the land area from the Mediterranean through the entire Galilee and up to the Litany River, hundreds of miles east of the Jordan River and through all of current day Jordan, and into part of the Sinai.

So when the the League assigned Palestine Mandate administration to Britain, entrusting it to establish the National Home for the Jews it did not ever tell the British only to restrict Jewish settlement to part of this land.

Not withstanding the above the British deliberately violated their mandate in July of 1992 and arbitrarily divided Palestine into 2 administrative districts. This was never part of their mandate but they simply took the law into their own hands and acted unilaterally ignoring the League of Nations mandate. Britain then on its own with no authority under international law, in effect simply acting on their own desires, suddenly would not permit Jews to cross west of the black line they drew in Palestine.

This in fact was how Trans Jordan was created. Britain violated its mandate from the League of Nations and acting unilaterally took 78% of what was then Palestine and declared it Transjordan and installed King Abdullah.

To understand why Britain did this, one only needs to read through now released documents from noted British figures from that time.

Britain created Jordan and Iraq as puppet monarchies as pay-back for the Saudi Royal family's strong support for them against the Turks in World War One. One son would be given Iraw, the other Jordan.

King Abdulllah was one of the royal sons of the Hejaz (Saudi Arabia). The Arabians of the Hejaz would be the monarchy given Saudi Arabia yetanother British puppet monarchy. The Hejaz, had been Britain’s most loyal Arab allies when fighting the Turks during world war 1, so it was pay back time.

Inserting Abdullah in a puppet state served two purposes. It paid back the Hejaz for their loyalty and it of course enabled Britain to seize land away from Jews who it did not think would be as loyal or easily controlled.

Historic documents sent from T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) to then Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill, and in particular a letter of January 1921, that Abdullah’s brother, Emir Feisal would agree to give up any claim through his father to all of Palestine if he was given Iraw and Eastern Palestine as two Arab territories. This was also corroborated from documents later revealed from the Chief British Representative in Amman sent back to England.

An interesting twist to this story is that Palestine High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel, ( a Jew) supported Britain's decision to grab Palestine and use most of it to pay back its loyal allies.

You should also understand It wasn’t until 1946 when Transjordan had finally become a de jure Arab state.

Transjordan comprised nearly 38,000 square miles of Palestine and Israel, less than 8,000 square miles.

So when you see revisionists discussing how Jordan came about and why King Abdulla was "good" its b.s. absolute b.s. There was no good or bad people. Abdullah was part of a royal family who had fought on Britain's side and was given a country as pay back.

[Rue]

History shows that 78% of Palestine is today Jordan and in in fact it contains the majority of Palestinian Arabs.

Back in April of 1948, King Abdullah unilaterally declared that Palestine and Transjordan were one in the same

In fact King Abdullah’s claim to Jordan and Palestine being one in the same would later be rejected by his grandson King Hussein who in 1967 would have a civil war with the Palestinian population and Yasir Arafat of the PLO and expel Palestinians from Jordan.

Jordan to this day, remains an independent Arab Palestinian state where a Palestinian Arab "law of return" in fact applies.

Its laws of citizenship clearly state that all Palestinians are entitled to citizenship by right if they return to Jordan unless they are Jews.

Most people who discuss the Middle East have no idea that Jordan is in fact 78% of Palestine and is a Palestinian nation for non Jews and that in fact the argument for another Palestinian state is in fact a second Palestinian state.

[Rue]

History shows that 78% of Palestine is today Jordan and in in fact it contains the majority of Palestinian Arabs.

Back in April of 1948, King Abdullah unilaterally declared that Palestine and Transjordan were one in the same

In fact King Abdullah’s claim to Jordan and Palestine being one in the same would later be rejected by his grandson King Hussein who in 1967 would have a civil war with the Palestinian population and Yasir Arafat of the PLO and expel Palestinians from Jordan.

Jordan to this day, remains an independent Arab Palestinian state where a Palestinian Arab "law of return" in fact applies.

Its laws of citizenship clearly state that all Palestinians are entitled to citizenship by right if they return to Jordan unless they are Jews.

Most people who discuss the Middle East have no idea that Jordan is in fact 78% of Palestine and is a Palestinian nation for non Jews and that in fact the argument for another Palestinian state is in fact a second Palestinian state.

[Rue]

Now when we talk about good guys and bad guys in the Middle East it is ridiculous to state the monarchy in Jordan is good or tried to help Israel or offered it anything. That is utter b.s. and I will explain it later in pure military terms as to what happened in 1948 to 1949 to prove why such claims are b.s.

However we should not mix up what happened in the War of Independence between Israel and Jordan and what happens in Jordan in 1967 when it has a civil war and King Hussein suddenly distances himself from his country’s Palestinian identity.

Back in 1966 the PLO through one of its representatives, Ahmed Shukeiry declared that Jordan must become the Palestinian Republic.. After the PLO took over Jordan they would then take over Israel.

There was extreme turmoil in Jordan from this time as the PLO tried to take over.

One of the reasons Jordan allowed itself to be used to attack Israel in the 1967 war was to distract attention away from the internal civil war and hopefully defeat Israel and move the Palestinians into Israel. So anyone who states Jordan was Israel’s friend is distorting the true situation. Jordan and Israel had a mutual enemy, Yasir Arafat but Jordan was no friend of Israel-it needed Israel to be strong to neutralize Arafat.

Is Jordan a good guy? Of course not-if you are Palestinian.

Now understand why it is idiotic to refer to Jordan as good or bad. It is a puppet creation like many colonies created to be dominated. It was a tool the British used to help prevent Jews from immigrating to Palestine by making 78% of Palestine unavailable to Jews. Here is what else the British did;

To understand that one only needs to examine the events;

-in 1929 the British Shaw Commission found Jewish immigration of 1925-26 to "excessive" and recommended restriction of Jewish immigration and land sales.

-1930, the British publish th e Passfield White Paper stating Jewish immigration and land acquisition should be further restricted

- the British then impose the Cultivators' Ordinance in 1933 replaces earlier laws, giving free land from Western Palestine to Arab "statutory tenants" that is Arab settlers or nomadic Bedouin who had not "grossly neglecting" areas of grazing or occasional presence in direct contravention of the Belfour declaration15

-in 1934 the British Government instituted a practice of deducting their estimated numbers of illegal Jewish immigrants from Jewish immigration quotas

-interestingly n 1936, The Conference of Protestant and Catholics in America declared in a paper that and I quote; "It is the profound conviction of Christian America that [the British Government] rescind its illegal, unjust, and indefensible partition of Palestine, to restore Trans-Jordania [Jordan] to its proper place as part of Palestine territory, and throw it open to Jewish Settlement"

-in 1936 there are riots across Palestine funed by the Nazis

-in 1937 the Palestine Royal commission, recommends dividing Western Palestine a second time into two states one Jewish

- the Arabs reject this recommendation and then British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Anthony Eden, in documents now revealed states Britain will come up with another plan, "which would not give Jews any territory exclusively for their own use." He even went so far as to state; "If we must have preferences, let me murmur in your ear that I prefer Arabs to Jews."

-Eden also stated; “ I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [the Jews], will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships" 21 Adolf Hitler offered to allow the Jews to emigrate from Europe in 1938, if anyone would take them. 22

- in 1939 the British Government White Paper then invoked a policy in further direct contradiction of the Belfour declaration restricting Jewish immigration to a small limited number for five years, and then after that “ at the discretion of "Arabs of Palestine."

-In 1939 The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations protested the Britain's "White Paper" in Augustm as four out of seven members were about to strike down the White Paper as a violation of the Mandate of Palestine. WWII breaks out

-in 1940 Britain then prohibited transfer of any land in Western Palestine to Jews

-Neville Chamberlain also is revealed to have told his cabinet and I quote, "If we must offend one side, let us offend the Jews rather than the Arabs".

-in 1941 the Mufti of Jerusalem ( Yasir Arafat's 'Uncle) in fact relocated to Berlin

-in 1944, Henry Morgenthau, United States Secretary of the Treasury to President Roosevelt is quoted as saying "The British were apparently prepared to accept the probable death of thousands of Jews in enemy territory because of "the difficulties of disposing of any considerable number of Jews should they be rescued."

-history clearly shows the British used the creation of Jordan as part of its agenda to deliberately violate the Belfour declaration and prevent Jews from ever having a homeland and TransJordan was an active puppet in this effort

[Rue]

Finally it is absolutely absurd when discussing the creation of TransJordan to look at its creation as a benevolent "good thing" . If you are a Palestinian who wanted a Palestinian republic in Jordan and Israel they are seen as a bad thing. If you are a Jew wanting to form a homeland, they are seen as a bad thing because they represent 78% of land illegally taken away by the British and arbitrarily given to a Saudi monarch's son simply as pay-bacl for fighting Turkey in World War One. If you are Syria who believes they should control all of Palestine they are seen as a bad guy.

In fact Egypt and Syria so concerned with the PLO coming in to their countries and causing problems saw Jordan as big an enemy as Israel and would have loved to have toppled King Hussein.

Now to understand Jordan's role after Britain turns it into a real estate in 1946 as opposed to just a

fictitious state before then one has to properly look at what they did.

Jordan and all Arabs League nations rejected the UN partition plan which called on cerating two states, in fact a second Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state in the remaining 22% of Palestine. Of that remaining 22% of Palestine, the Jews simply declare once the British mandate expires that pursuant to the UN's declaration, it was exercising its legal right to create a state.

Unlike Higgly's selective distorted history of Jordan which completely ignores the relation the Belfour declaration would have had to certain land claims for Jews, I do not ignore such things but I do state that Israel when it declares itself a nation had already indicated it would not contest TransJordan which it could have and was even willing to divide up the remaining 22% of Palestine.

It never had a chance.

Israel was attacked from all sides including Jordan.

On the day that Israel declared its independence, the Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha of Jordan, a close ally of Britain, declared "jihad", against Israel and led the armies of the Arab League against Israel.

He stated and I quote; "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades".

Does he sound like a good guy? Does he sound like a military general a "good" country would produce?

The Mufti of Jerusalem, back from Berlin now that Hitler was dead stated,

"I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!"

Jordan along with Llebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq invaded Israel with the express purpose to destroy it. Now how can anyone who understands the history of the Middle East have the audacity to state that a country that is made up illegally of 78% of Palestine which was mandated to be part of a Jewish homeland, is "good" when it is part of an express war to massacre and wipe out Jews so they can't even live in less then 22% of what remains of Palestine. How is that "good"?

Let's not play games with history,. After the UN resolution of Nov. 29, 1947, to partition what remained of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states Jordan and the rest of these countries gambled. They took it upon themselves to roll the dice and try seize the rest of Palestine.

Palestinian Arabs were actually manipulated by the Arab League to initiate hostilities against the Jewish population.

It was early in 1948, the first attack on the Jewish village of Tirat Tzevi came about.

On May 15 1948, with the termination of the British Mandate (which they never ever attempted to pursue), the states of the Arab League (armies from Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and a token force from Saudi Arabia) invaded Israel. T

The Arab Legion overran the Etzion bloc of settlements south of Jerusalem, two Jewish settlements north of the city, as well as the Sheikh Jarrah district of the city and the Jewish quarter of the Old City; the new city of Jerusalem was now under siege. All these attacks were coming from Jordan.

On June 11, a general truce came into effect which only lasted to July 8. The rest is history. A rag tag bunch of poorly equipped Jews (4,000) held off vastly superior numbers of Arab troops. I love it when revisionists state that the Arab troops were not well armed or well trained. Their leader from Jordan was one of Britain's favourite warriors against the Turks and Britain in secret felt he would seize the rest of Palestine in days.

The Egyptians were the first to agree to discuss armistice terms and an agreement was signed at Rhodes in Feb., 1949 . Separate armistice agreements were then signed with Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria and no agreement was ever signed with Iraq or Saudi Arabia to this day.

The West Bank was simply seized by Jordan and after the armistice a demarkation line was drawn between Israel and Jordan but that was never defined as an international border and to this day an international border has never been drawn between Jordan and Israel.

Jordan took the West Bank over in 1967, and imposed a military governor only after Jordanian and Iraqi troops massed on its border and the Arab League made it clear in 1967 that Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and token representation from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Morrocco, Tunisia, Algeria, would once again try wipe Israel off the map.

Excuse me if I do not revise history and define any country as good or bad. Its an absurd way to analyze what happened.

[Rue]

"When Chaim Weitzman was trying to find a place for the Jews in the Middle East, he travelled to Aqaba and from there by camel into the desert to meet Abdullah, who was later to become the Hashemite King of Jordan. He promised Abdullah that the Arabs of Palestine would be protected and asked for his blessing for the Jews in Palestine. Abdullah agreed to this and gave him welcome. In fact, he sent guides across the desert to bring the lost European to his tents. Do not underestimate the significance. This was the most important signal a desert king could give to a Eurpoean. He would have done no less for Lawrence."

Higgly is completely and absolutely wrong. This is not the King whose treaty or agreement with Dr. Weitzman would form the basis for why the League of Nations would go on to pursue the Belfour declaration as I have explained in my other response. The above incident has no historic signifigance at all and Higgly with due respect is talking nonsense.

"Fast forward to the eve of the Israeli war of indepence in 1948. The Zionists, and most particularly David Ben Gurion, fearing for their future, sent Golda Meir to talk to Abdullah and to ask that Abdullah not attack Israel (as defined by the UN partition boundairs). Abdullah agreed to do this."

Again this is nonsense. Ben Gurion certainly met with Abdullah asking him to stay out of the war, but the "fearing for their future" is Higgly's melodramatic words and Abdullah never agreed to stay out of the war. Most of the attacks in the beginning of the war came from Jordan as I explained in my repsonses.

"The war started and Israel invaded territory held by Jordan and drove Palestinian refugees across the borders of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt."

This is absolute and utter fabricated b.s. and Higgly should be absolutely ashamed to try pretend he is discussing an historic event. The vast majority of Palestinians within what is now Israel, left long before any war broke out. They did not go across the borders of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. If that was the case where do all the displaced refugees come from!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a ridiculously dumb thing to say.

Israel also went into the West Bank but NOT Jordan but very briefly-it had very few soldiers, and most of the fighting was in Jeusalem and this is precisely why Jordan seized the West Bank with great ease.

"Jordan kept its promise and did not invade the territory assigned to Israel by the UN partition agreement. This isolated Jordan from the Arab League and has caused them great grief ever since."

This is just out and out false. This would have us believe no Jordanian troops ever fought in Jerusalem or in Israel. Bull. Bull. Bull. Israel by the way was never assigned anything by the Un partition agreement. The UN partition agreement which defined two enclaves,d id not assign them and history shows Jordanian tropps attacked Israel were part of the war, and this idea that they didn't attack Israel in what was assigned to it is nonsensical. Jordan attacked where and when it could often in areas part of the enclave defined for Israel.

"After the war was over, there were border skirmishes. In one case, a group of Palestinian Arab terrorists, embittered by the loss of their homes, infiltrated Israel across the Jordanian border and killed a women and her two children. In response, Israel sent Ariel Sharon and a platoon of Israeli fighters to a village near where the Plaestinians had crossed. Sharon murdered the entire village."

Ariel Sharon did not murder the entire village. This is absolute and utter b.s. Please go find out for yourself what really happened. There is obviously another version far different then Higgly's .

"Shortly after that, a herd of Israeli sheep wandred across the border into Jordan. Moshe Dayan advocated a mission to send Sharon back into Jordan. Fortunately, the UN found the sheep and returned them to Israel. This was referred to by the UN as the 'Bo Peep' incident, but there are probably a number of Jordanians who are still alive today because of this action by the UN."

This the kind of ridiculous intellectual dishonesty that just absolutely churns my stomach. Higgly takes an incident and then makes a completely subjective statement based on nothing more then him inventingw hat he wants-" Jordanians are still alibe today because of this action by the UN". Higgly tries to have us believe that necessarily Israel was planning to kill Palestinian civilians to get back sheep.

This is blatant speculation based on nothing more then Higgly's prejudice against Israel and so his feeling he can pass off things that never happened or would have happened as facts that were prevented.

I have taken great care to provide you another version of the simplified bunk Higgly tries to pass off.

He is going to have to do a lot better then reading selected articles off the inter-net that suit his selective needs.

His thesis on Jordan being a good guy yet again is an attempt to revise Middle East history to portray Israel as "bad" and I suppose in this case 'Jordan" as good, although he switches it to Palestinians.

"In the end, Jordan was the first to sign a peace treaty with Israel."

This is b.s. Egypt was.

"In spite of comments on these boards to the contrary, it has been the most willing to give a home to Palestinian refugees victimized by the birth of the state of Israel."

To start with it was until 1966, it then has been at war with Palestinians ever since. But as I stated it does have a law of return for Palestinians so I would agree compared to other Arab countries it did its best until the PLO turned on it. Then again it is 78% of Palestine so what else could it do. Now as for the " Palestinian refugees victimized by the birth of the state of Israel" comment-this is why I do not take Higgly seriously.

Palestinian refugees found themselves homeless not because of the birth of Israel but because of the decision of the Arab League to to atack Israel. Palestinian refugees are homeless because Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and many other arab league nations, particularly the obscene wealthy ones such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have refused to take them in. How did Israel victimize anyone?

If Higgly genuinely wanted to discuss history he would admit 78% of Palestine was taken away from Jews, and the remaining 22% came about through war that the Arab League started and forced to be created through war. The Arab League then compounded their error by expelling 900,000 Jews forcing Israel to take in 700,000 making it impossible for them to ever be able to accommodate displaced Palestinians.

"Jordan is Israel's best bet as a peace partner".

Absolutely agreed. King Hussein and his son have gone out of there way to try their best to serve as peaceful moderate helpers in the process.

It is true after 1967, Jordan has tried hard to live in peaceful co-existence with Israel but there is no point pretending before 1967 it was Israel's friend. After the Black Sabbath uprisings in the early 1970's and Britain and France tried to placate the PLO, and the KGB openly assisted Syria and the PLO in Jordan- Jordan realized it had to make peace with Israel.

King Hussein was a risk taker and a strong opponent of Muslim terrorism and fundamentalism and so is his son.

It is precisely for that reason Israel felt it could enter into an accord with the PLO at Oslo.

Jordan is a crucial player in neutralizing Hamas on the West Bank. It is crucial a Palestinian state is created on the West Bank because Jordan can not and will no longer absorb any more Palestinians after the Black Sabbatth uprisinhg.

My displeasure is aimed at all the other nonsense strewn about not the fact that King Hussein or his son are moderate peaceful people trying their best to help in the peace process. King Hussein was greatly admired by Israelis. It is also a fact that since the Black Sabbath uprising, Israeli and Jordanian intelligence no how to find each other in regards to Hamas and other terrorists. However, the average Jordanian it should not be misunderstood, does not side with Israel, and would prefer Israel given to Palestinians. One only needs to look at Jordanian television or read its papers to know that. It has a volotile population that its King must depend heavily on his army to keep an eye on. Jordan jails many political opponents.

[Rue]

From June 1949 to the end of January 1952, 57 Israeli civilians died from repeated terroist attacks from the West Bank into Israel proper. As a result then Prime Minister Ben Gurion asked Major Ariel Sharon then commander of Unit 101 a commando unit to do something to make it clear to terrorists operating in theWest Bank that Israel would fight back.

As a result in 1953 Sharon's commando unit went into Qibya Village. The attack started with an artillery barrage.

Palestinian villagers were warned to flee and did before the barrages started. Some Palestinian villagers ignored the warnings to leave and chose to stay behind and hide in their homes. In fact had the commando unit NOT warned the villagers before the attack and most evacuated or it would have been worse. Unfortunately a group stayed behind and when their homes were demolished they died probably hiding inside caught in the battle between the Israeli commandos and the terrorists.

The actual number of dead have never been verified. Some say 60 died, others say 69. The problem is the numbers are reported from the terrorists and the actual bodies were never authenticated by any neutral third party source.

The point of the matter is the death of the civilians was unfortunate and to try exploit their deaths in an attempt to try make Israel bad, Palestinians good is b.s. -t o simply select it out as an isolated attack done by Israel for no reason is b.s. Once again it was a response and part of the vicious cycle of terrorist attack followed by an IDF response.

It is unfortunate these people had to die.

For those who question should these civilians have died, of course not. However in house to house fighting and in hot pursuit of terrorists, civilians die despite warning them to get out.

To suggest this was done deliberately is b.s.

It was however like every case of civilians from either side dying, a tragic consequence of people choosing to use violence to express political will and exposing civilians to the line of fire.

[Figleaf]

Time and time again I have taken Higgly to task ...

Indeed! Ad nauseam.