The Jordanian Option

there is a rumor going on, first reported in the DebkaFile site : http://www.debka.com. which claims that Jordan will agree for taking under it's control major parts of the West Bank.
whether the rumor is true or not, it's an interesting option.
As we all know The West Bank was Jordanian before the 67 war. afterwards and until now, Jordan refused to have these lands back fearing for the stability of the kingdom. now the King Abdullah understands that Arafat is the largest danger to the stability of his kingdom, as well to Egypt and the entire region.
The Jordanian must also fear the growing influence of Iraq in the West Bank.
I think Israel has a clear Interest of making this happen:
The world will get off our backs about occupation, and somehow I can be sure that no one will claim the Jordan is the occupier now.
Jordan and Israel has both an Interest to stop palestinian militant groups of all kind, and to back off Iran and Iraq influences in these teretories.

What do you think about this option?

Sounds like a great idea, if true. Jordan has also demonstrated its ability and willingness to control freaks, albeit under the old King.

Has anyone asked Jordan about it?

A Palestinian state would just be a haven for terrorists and a base for attacks on Israel. Turning the bulk of the West Bank back to Jordan is the way to go. In the 1970s and 1980s, this was the peace proposal of Israel's Labor party and was called the Allon Plan. Palestinian nationalism has never been anything other than a pretext for terrorism against Israel.

In the 1960s, pan-Arabism was the dominent political identity in the Arab world and attacks on Israel were considered part of the "Arab-Israeli conflict." That suggests an image of little Israel with 6 million people fighting 150 million Arabs. Now it's the "Palestinian-Israeli conflict" and the Arabs are seen as the underdogs, even though nothing substantive has changed.

When Jordan ruled the West Bank, the mainstream Palestinian factions were pro-Jordanian, pro-Syrian (Fatah), and pro-Egyptian (the PLO and the Arab National Movement, now the PFLP). To the Syrians, Palestine was "Southern Syria." The Jordanians and Egyptians were pan-Arabists. Palestinian nationalism was a pretty obscure viewpoint until the Arab leaders started pumping it up after 1967.

Iraq was ruled by the same Hashemite royal family as Jordan until 1958. There is talk of putting the Hashemite pretender on the Iraqi throne after Saddam is removed. Jordan and Iraq could then recreate the "Arab Union" they had in the 1950s. Taking responsibility for the West Bank would be a small price for the Hashemites to pay in order to gain access to Iraq's oil wealth.

[takeo]

"There is talk of putting the Hashemite pretender on the Iraqi throne after Saddam is removed. "

Did anyone ask the iraqi's?

anyway, it's a good idea, than Jordan will make palestine independant within months and there will be a Palestinian state after all.

Who asked the Palestinian Arabs whether they they wanted Arafat? He was chosen as their representative by the Arab League at a summit in Rabat in 1974. Arabs on the West Bank weren't consulted until the 1996 election, by which time it was understood that Arafat's gunmen would blow away anyone who posed a serious threat.

Faisal I became the first Hashemite king of Iraq in 1921 after a referendum in which he received 96 percent of the vote.

Jordan is the Arab world's model state. Those who want to live to as law abiding civilians will prefer to King Abdullah to Arafat. The others can have their 72 virgins.

Originally posted by kauffner
Jordan is the Arab world's model state.

Jordan gives jail term to former MP
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...2-095758-8974r

Originally posted by takeo
anyway, it's a good idea, than Jordan will make palestine independant within months and there will be a Palestinian state after all.

Funny they didn't do it between 1948 and 1967...

[Mediocrates]

In 1951 the Jordanian King, the Great Grandfather of the current king was assassinated at the al Aqsa mosque by a Palestinian. This lead in part to a deep founded distrust between Hussein and the Palestinians even though he allowed them to fight the IDF as war by by proxy. In September 1970 the PLO attempted to overthrow Hussein and in the Jordanian civil war were pushed back over the Jordan river by tanks and artillery of the Jordanian army. Which is where Jordanians like the armed contingent of the PLO - over THERE.

Simultaneously the Syrians sent an armed column of 250 tanks into Jordan to force the issue. Hussein panicked and called up Nixon asking for help. Nixon begged a favor of the IDF (or strong armed them) who promptly attacked the Syrian mobile armour and thereby kept Hussein on the throne.

I doubt the PLO would accept Jordanian rule any more than they would accept Israeli rule.

[takeo]

one thing is for sure: millions more of Palestinians in Jordan would be a serious tread to the king, he would get rid of the WB as soon as possible.
Also 2002 isn't the 50's or 60's, nowadays Palestinians after years of occupation would no longer accept foreign occupation, nor would the Arab world or the UN. By the way Jordan relinquished the WB to the palestinians for some reasons...

"Faisal I became the first Hashemite king of Iraq in 1921 after a referendum in which he received 96 percent of the vote. "

Gee, I guess that election was really democratic and free
(by the way in 1921 Iraq was still colonised by the english)

[Mediocrates]

"Also 2002 isn't the 50's or 60's, nowadays Palestinians after years of occupation would no longer accept foreign occupation, nor would the Arab world or the UN"

That is of course, true. It is equally true though that neighbor states would put enormous pressure on Palistan to accept their refugees as well. Since 2/3rds of all Palestinians in the world live under Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Egyptian enforced dominion, in camps those countries are waiting for an excuse to expel them into another country. Those neighbor states are not as bold as the Kuwaitis who simply kicked out all their Palestinians workers under the banner of rebuilding the country in 1990-1, so they have had to put up the appearance of care while fomenting revolt and developing the photogenic poster child projects of refugee-ism against the west and Israel. But as soon as there is an out, they're out.

takeo: Do you think you are clairvoyent? You know what the Arabs will accept, what the Palestinians will accept, and what the U.N. will accept. You don't give any basis for your conclusions, you just seem to take it as a given that the international community channels through you. Is it not an amazing coincidence that the only solution these groups will "accept" is a Palestinian state, which also happens to be your pet hobby horse? Perhaps these people are currently opposed, but it is possible that they will change their minds. After American troops liberate Baghdad, the Middle East is going to be a very different place -- no more bounties for suicide terrorists, for one thing. More to the point, none of the groups you mention are in a position to be accepting or rejecting.

[takeo]

Yes, they are in such a position, the US may be a superpower but doesn't have absolute power in the region.
And Bush today said in Germany he will not invade Iraq (you call it "liberation", but than of course king Leopold of Belgium called the colonisation of congo liberation as well...) . An attempt on Iraq (taht has never attacked the US) would even enhance instability and hate against the US and therefor terrorism.
The UN and the Arab world for many years are emphazizing the right of the Palestinians to have an own state, it is very unlikely they would change soon. Also mediocrates is right that a solution for the refugees has to found at the same time as the establishment of a Palestinian state.

takeo: Bush said only, "I have no war plans on my desk." I guess he keeps them on his shelf. He has said that before, anyway.

Iraq is almost certainly the source of the anthrax in those letters sent last year -- I'd say that's an attack. If Saddam isn't punished, I guarentee he'll attack again. He attacked the USS Stark in 1987. The U.S. didn't react, Saddam decided we were wimps, and the invasion of Kuwait was the result. Ordinary Iraqis seem to hate Saddam even more than Afghans hated the Taliban.

Arabs can keep emphasizing Palestinian statehood all they like, but that doesn't mean they'll get it.

[takeo]

kauffner you're really a die-hard imperialist...

"Iraq is almost certainly the source of the anthrax in those letters sent last year -- I'd say that's an attack."

Wrong, those anthrax was prooved to come from American laboratoria. My guess is that the CIA or FBI produced those anthrax-letters as an excuse to bring iraq in the war on terrorism(iraq did not attack us-targets, so there had to be found a link to dispose Saddam).
"If Saddam isn't punished, I guarentee he'll attack again. He attacked the USS Stark in 1987. The U.S. didn't react, Saddam decided we were wimps, and the invasion of Kuwait was the result. "

in 1987 iraq was the ally of the US against Iran. Iraq was very much punished for invading Kouweit, much more than israel will ever be punished for occupying the WB, the golan heights and gaza, even years after kouweit was returned iraq is still being punished and the US and GB, against the whole world, seem to be keen on keeping the embargo and starving the iraqi people, they know iraq hasn't any more nuclear or chemical weapons but they want saddam out. (two un-directors of food for oil-programm quited for that reason, they explicitly said so)

"Ordinary Iraqis seem to hate Saddam even more than Afghans hated the Taliban. "

that's not true, most Iraqi people, both in private and in public and in the foreign, support Saddam against the US, they don't blame saddam for their poverty but the US. I think with the currrent intifadeh (which is daily on the news in iraq) this anti-US sentiments are even stronger than two years ago. The US made saddam from a puppet dictator to an all-Arab hero, not only in Iraq but in the whole Arab world.

"Arabs can keep emphasizing Palestinian statehood all they like, but that doesn't mean they'll get it."

Well Israel will not get peace as long as there is no palestinian state, even sharon knows that.