If one recalls correctly- Transjordan was formed 1921 from the British Palestine Mandate. Any verbal agreements in 1924 between Transjordan and British Palestine Mandate Arabs are thus woven from very faulty memories if not outright prevarications. How many Christian sites are there in Jordan today? Isn't it this very same Abu Mazen from PLO who was in Jordan's Dawson Fields with the simultaneous blasts of 3 airplanes and who tried to oust King Abdullah's father ?

It does not matter if Moslem countries do not recognize the State of Israel. It is still a state under international law. It does not matter if Israel refuses to recognize Palestine. It is still a state under international law and, as such, free to make agreements with other states, like Jordan. We need to negotiate sooner than later; Palestine's position is getting stronger with each passing day....

keep your eyes shut; you wouldn’t like the reality you would see if you would ever open them.

Although I think it ludicrous for the Jordanians to guarantee holy places, considering what they did in 1948, it is a matter of history and archeology that the Jews did not build the pyramids. The Jews built tombs for Egyptian royalty before pyramids came into fashion. However, if the Jews had built the pyramids, why is it right to defend arab claim to a platform surrounded by walls built by Jews (from Herod on), and not right to defend Jews claims for what the Jews built?

The beloved rulers might as well sign a declaration that they will protect Jewish holy places in Syria.

If your news is so good how about some examples?

Quiet will be established if there is prosperity despite bitter differences.TheFascisti ought be isolated leaving the grumbling moderates.

Jordan cannot hand over their role as custodian to the PLO. Just like Jordan cannot hand over Judea and Samaria (after losing it in a war) to the PLO, Jordan cannot hand anything over in Jerusalem to the PLO-PA. It's time Israel religious affairs ministry takes over holy sites in our capital.

You seriously think "Palestine" is a state under international law? Go all the way back to the Balfour Declaration and read forward. You obviously know as much about international law as you do about history.

there is no state called palestine. the non-state actor that refers to itself as palestine does not have the capacity to make treaties with other states. jordan cannot violate its treaty obligations with Israel, such obligations being binding under international law.

who gives you all two this right to sign this agreement.....as christians we dont agree

Huh? You babble nonsense. I'm an Israeli Christian. Never in my life was I in any way "oppressed" by Jewish Israelis, or forced to support Judaism. We lived in mutual respect and tolerance. And I, for one, have been grateful to Israelis for maintaining order and security at our holy sites - something nonexistent before 1967.

I agree with the comments here. This is rich and a hypocracy considering the fact that when the Jordanians ruled the old city from 1948-1967 no Jew was allowed to get to the western wall and pray and the synagogues were destroyed or turned into stables.

You DON’T think that the State of Palestine exists under international law? 1. International law is a product of actual state practices and inter-state agreements. (N.B. International law is not the product of personal opinions or individual legal arguments crafted to support desired positions, e.g., Stone, Rostow). 2. The international community has, by word and deed, unanimously and consistently rejected Israel’s claims to territory occupied in 1967, which territory was previously allocated by the UN to the Palestinian-Arabs 3. Palestine declared itself a State in 1988; this declaration was promptly recognized by the UNGA with only two dissenting votes –Israel and the U.S. 4. In 2012 Palestine was formally recognized as a state by the U.N. More than 95% of UN member states, including members of the EU, directly or indirectly supported this international recognition of the State of Palestine. 5. Some two thirds of the world’s countries have established diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine. 6. Palestine has the right to bring an action against Israel before the International Criminal Court –a right which, under international law, is only available to states. Given these easily verifiable facts, your comment is rather confusing. How can YOU seriously doubt that Palestine is a state under international law?! Your historical reference is equally confusing since the Balfour Declaration is irrelevant to the current status of the State of Palestine. The Balfour Declaration as incorporated in the subsequent San Remo Agreement and Mandate charged Britain with protecting the rights of both Arab and Jewish residents of Palestine (from which, TransJordan consisting of all of the land to the East of the Jordan was immediately excluded, with the approval of the League of Nations.) Britain recommended partitioning the mandate territory between the Jewish-Palestinians and Arab-Palestinians populations as the best way to protect their respective civil rights. The UN, as successor to the League of Nations and therefore ultimately responsible for the disposition of the mandate territory, accepted this recommendation. The refusal of Palestine to accept UN resolution 181 before 1988 left the territory in the hands of the UN. The UN, on behalf of Arab-Palestinians, has consistently protested Israeli ‘s annexation and settlement policies. With it’s recognition of the State of Palestine the UN has unequivocally reasserted Palestinian-Arab rights to what Israel calls “disputed” territory. Again, all freely available verifiable facts stated without spin or bias. So, again, what’s your problem?

If some nations choose to establish relations with a mythical country, that is their lookout. Palestine does not exist as a state. It is at best a potential state, and one which keeps aborting itself due to its leaders' ineptitude and poor decisions. A repeatedly failed experiment.

The 2012 vote to upgrade "Palestine's" status from "entity" to "non-member observer state" doesn't equate to a sovereign nation. Just because the word "State" is in the title, doesn't make it one. The only equivalent entity to "Palestine" is the Holy See. Observers have no bearing on the workings of the UN, just an invitation to attend sessions & observe the work of the GA. To be honest, the last thing "Palestine" would want it to be recognized as a sovereign state. When that happens & the first Hamas mortor falls on Israel, under international law, Israel is justified in a full-blown invasion and expulsion of the "palestinians". The Jews aren't going anywhere & Jerusalem will never leave Jewish control again. The sooner the mad mullahs, leftists and radical muslims make peace with that fact, the sooner we can all live in peace. Oh...here's the latest status of your osession: http://www.un.org/en/members/aboutpermobservers.shtml ...Then click on Non-Member States.

#39 Amichai - Sorry, my answer to you is #44. Cipora. If you read Article 3 of the Israeli-Jordan Peace Treaty including Annex I (2)(7) you will see that Jordan does not recognize Israel sovereignty over the occupied territories. You are free to claim that Palestine is not a legitimate state, after all millions of people similarly claim that Israel is not a legitimate state. But your opinion changes nothing. The simple fact is that Palestine now has recognized state rights which not only include the right to conclude treaties, but also to bring charges against Israel before the International Court of Criminal Court. This latter can be done as a matter of right only by states recognized under international law. Just as we in Israel question the sanity of those people who deny our legitimate existence , it would be insanity for you and Israel to continue denying the existence of a Palestinian state.

#39 Amihai, sorry, my reply to you is comment #44 Cipora, if you read Article 3 of the Israeli-Jordan Peace Treaty including Annex I (2)(7) you will see that Jordan does not recognize Israel sovereignty over the occupied territories. You are free to claim that Palestine is not a legitimate state, after all millions of people similarly claim that Israel is not a legitimate state. But your opinion changes nothing. The simple fact is that Palestine now has recognized state rights which not only include the right to conclude treaties, but also to bring charges against Israel before the International Court of Criminal Court. This latter can be done as a matter of right only by states recognized under international law. Just as we in Israel question the sanity of those people who deny our legitimate existence , it would be insanity for you and Israel to continue denying the existence of a Palestinian state.

<(N.B. International law is not the product of personal opinions or individual legal arguments crafted to support desired positions, e.g., Stone, Rostow). > Read your own post. Your first statement gives the lie to the rest. Palestine was NOT recognized as a state; the UNGA is advisory only. The partition became null and void the moment the arab armies attacked. And althought the acquistion of territory by war is forbidden by offensive action, it is not forbidden by defensive action. In 1948 the arabs were on the offensive. the Jews defended. Nice try. But you're still wrong.

You shouldn’t need the wisdom of a Solomon to know that if a bird walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s not going to make good chicken soup. You make three erroneous assertions. 1., The resolution was not “advisory only”. It was an exercise of GA power over internal affairs that are not subject to SC veto. The resolution legally accorded Palestine non-member STATE status in the UN. UN Protocol now requires that all official UN documents refer to the State of Palestine. Tellingly, neither Israel or the United States are questioning Palestine‘s ability to take action before the International Criminal Court. This is a right limited to states which was in question prior to the UN’s change of Palestine’s status. 2., There exists nothing in law nor the UN’s post partition resolutions and behavior or that of its individual member states to support the claim that the intent and power of the UN to allocate the mandate territories between its Arab and Jewish populations became null and void as a result of the War of Independence. An examination of the record reveals the opposite to be true. e.g., the international community rejected Jordan’s attempt to annex the west bank just as it is now rejecting Israel’s claims. 3. The UN Charter makes no distinction between just vs. unjust or offensive vs. defensive wars. These are terms from a by-gone era marshaled in support of quasi-legal arguments that have no merit in the eyes of the international legal community, including that of Israel’s closest ally, the United States. Israel has a right to militarily occupy territory for legitimate defensive reasons pending a peace treaty but this right is subject to numerous restrictions under international law, not least of which is an express prohibition on establishing civilian settlements on occupied territory. As a Jew and a Zionist, I believe that the sooner we negotiate our borders within the context of an Israel Palestine Peace Treaty, the better it will be for us.

some people do not understand that the un cannot create states, only admit states. nor can the un unilaterally determine borders of sovereign states. the unga cannot create states. it can upgrade the status of non-state actors to non-member observer state. take note that it is a "non-member" observer.

1. All UNGA resolutions are non-binding. The UN itself says so: http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/background.shtml The rest of my post was too long, it seems. There was too much to debunk your “facts”. I’ll try again later, but maybe this one pertinent point will get through.

Sorry, but the GA has created its own rules of procedure (pursuant to Art. 21 of the UN Charter.) Granting the status of non-member State observer is an internal procedural matter and therefore binding upon members of the GA within the GA.

The fact that Palestine is not yet a member state of the U.N. does not diminish its legitimacy. After all, Switzerland was a non-member state observer for over 50 years. We agree that the UN cannot “create states” ex nihilo or “unilaterally determine borders of existing sovereign states.” But the UN can prevent states from using force to expand their borders. Israel cannot unilaterally decide Palestine’s borders by settling on land allocated to the Palestinian-Arabs for the creation of their own state. The land was not terra nullius or abandoned but a trust held and conveyed by the UN. The settlements are illegal unless and until such time as Palestine agrees to cede them to Israel for the sake of peace and security. It is Palestine that is being asked to give up it’s lawful territory, not Israel. This is not my personal opinion. It is the well publicized and documented judgement of the world’s nations and the international bodies most representative of international law including the GA, SC, and ICJ. International law is just that -- law between nations. No state that professes to be a member of the community of nations has a right to decide for itself if and how the community’s laws should be applied to its actions. How successful do you think you would be if you stood before your community’s Beis Din and argued that no applicable halakha existed, existing halakha didn’t apply to you, the halacha was wrong and that the judges were incompetent to interpret the halakha anyway. Unfortunately, that is exactly what Israel is arguing and the world’s patience is wearing thin.

Article 21 is for rules of procedure. "Procedure" is how they function (who does what) within the GA, not what they can make legal. Switzerland existed for centuries. The"Pals" have "existed' since the 1960's. It is a political construct to fight Israel, and they have admitted as much. "The world's [anything]" is a phrase showing the writer's wish that the entire world agrees. It does not. Or are you saying that even the UNHRC is right? One cannot expect to attack, and make gains upon losing. Hamas publically rejects a peace settlement. The resolution is dead, no matter your twists and turns. You ignore all the public, professional discussion regarding gaining land by defensive warfare. It was so stupid a concept, that one has to give back what is taken from an attacking enemy, just so he can attack again, it wasn't thought of before; who could even think of such a stupid concept? There is also a public, professional discussion whether it is occupied territory. If you speak of the WB and Gaza, it is not ‘occupied’. It is controlled by the PA and Hamas. The PA is on Jordan's border, Hamas is on Egypt's border. Your very basis for discussion doesn't exist. You ignore what you do not agree with. Read something; it might reduce the drivel in your posts.

As with due process in the U.S., procedural rules can have substantive effect. You will not find "non-member observer state" in the UN Charter. You confuse Israel’s legitimate military occupation with its claims of ownership and settlement rights. Learn the difference. Not “world wide”? What country other than Israel considers the settlements legal? How many GA member states have voted against the settlements? The legal effect of SCR 466 confirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the “disputed” territory is a fact. The ICRC condemnation of the settlements is a fact. The ICJ's advisory opinion against the settlements is a fact. Academic discussions are just that—academic. I know them. I prefer facts. I trust that you will be intelligent enough to figure out what part of my anatomy to kiss when you find that you have neither facts nor law on your side –only academic drivel.

Again: Article 21 is for rules of procedure. "Procedure" is how they function (who does what) within the GA, not what they can make legal. According to you, the US Congress can take over the powers of the Presidency by voting to do so. SCR 466 has nothing to do with what is and is not “disputed” territory. It deals with Zambia and South Africa, not with a “non-member observer “state”” (double quotes are intended) that insists on attacking over and over again. Would you give up land to Hamas? (Yes, you are probably that blind.) The GA resolution was voted for 138 to 9. An overwhelming majority, certainly. But not the unanimous decision you try to present. You confuse the make-up of the UN with “the world”. You probably support the UNHRC because so many nations are in it. Keep twisting, but don’t blame me for your ignorance.

UN SCR 446 explicitly condemns Israeli’s settlements and RE-confirms that the occupied territories are subject to the Geneva Convention. Not a single member of the SC voted against the resolution, not even the U.S. I repeat: the GA, SC, ICJ, ICRC and every country in the world except Israel considers the settlements illegal –that makes it unanimous, no? You can refute me simply by naming a single country other than Israel that believes the civilian settlements in the occupied territories are legal. Why is that so hard to do? The 138:9 vote you refer to was for UN GA upgrade of Palestine to “non-member observer state.” The number in favor of Palestine speaks for itself. It is binding upon the members within the GA structure: e.g., official protocol now requires even Israel to refer to the State of Palestine when addressing the GA and in its UN documents. Only the U.S.'s SC veto power prevents Palestine’s acceptance as a full member state. You will not find “non-member state observer” status in the UN Charter. When you understand by whom and how the status was created you will have the pleasure of knowing that your comments on this topic are rather silly… but, from the bliss you express in your puerile answers, perhaps you prefer ignorance. .. An intelligent response to UN SCR 446 would be interesting.