What you fail to grasp is that neither the San Remo treaty nor the Palestine Mandate document envisaged the creation of a specifically Hashemite kingdom in Transjordan. Rather, they envisaged ARAB national independence in Transjordan, ruled by a Hashemite monarch, as in the Hejaz, Iraq, and Syria. Historical events, however, led to the creation of a Hashemite tribal entity in Transjordan. Under pressure from the Saud tribe in Arabia, the Kingdom of Hejaz collapsed and Hashemite refugees flooded into Transjordan, where the British helped set up an autonomous Hashemite emirate, and in 1946 the independent Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. However, it is not correct to say that Arab national independence was envisioned west of the Jordan river. The Mandate document (including the Transjordanian Memorandum) set the boundary between the Arab and Jewish national homes at the Jordan River. West of the Jordan River, the civil and religious (but NOT national) rights of Arabs was to be protected, while east of the Jordan the Jewish National Home provisions were to be rendered inapplicable. The Churchill White Paper of 1922 further clarified this point, excluding Palestine west of the Jordan from Arab national independence.

Under Al Shari'iah it is not possible for a Muslim to make peace with a non Muslim. The "Peace with Jordan" is not peace but an extended cease fire and boundary arrangement. Ultimately Muslims wait for when Israel is weak to defeat her. That is why it it is important for Israel to be strong and for non Muslims to support Israel.

before you again misuse it to support a contradictory position. The white paper specifically states that it is/was not the intention to establish a Jewish state but a single state ("Palestine") in which both Jews and Arabs would be equally citizens. Herzl and other world Zionist leaders of the time approved the White Paper, explicitly stating that it was not the Zionist intention to form a Jewish State. Of course, this may have been a convenient if not necessary lie. In any case, the competing claims, aims and animosities between Jews and Arabs (not just Palestinian Arabs) made the creation of a single state impossible for which reason the UN devised the partition plan to create TWO states on the territory west of the Jordan river.

The fact is 70% of the population of Jordan are Palestinians. The Hashemite kingdom propped up by the Colonialist British owes Israel for their survival. So, having good relations with Israel is in Jordan's interest. The majority Islamist-Jihadist fanatics-Palestinians could easily dethrone the Hashemite kingdom if not for their fear of their neighbor.

Jordan is not a dictatorship. She is ruled by a constitutional monarchy, with a parliament and responsible cabinets. Israel, the only full democracy in Middle East, must preserve diplomatic relations with that kingdom. Arab Palestine is another country, whose good behaviour is necessary for be recognized by the Jewish State, under secure new borders.

You wrote: "Herzl and other world Zionist leaders of the time approved the White Paper? Really? Even HERZL? Come on, learn some history on your balcony, and discover that Herzl died in 1904!!!

Civil rights and political rights are not identical, and national rights are not covered by the scope of either. Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, colour, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement. Arab citizens of Israel have civil rights. Moreover, Arabic is the second official language of Israel. In Syria, Arabs have national rights, but no civil rights. Martial law has been in force there since the early 60s. Which would you rather be, an Israeli Arab or a Syrian Arab? As for borders, none were created or formalized. A recommendation was passed, the UN Partition Plan, which would have created two states, but the Arab side rejected it and launched a war of annihilation against the Jews and lost. The ensuing 1949 armsitice lines explicitly did not establish international borders, but ceasefire lines "without prejudice to the rights, claims, and positions of either Party"...and this at the behest of the Arab side.

Your distinction between civil and political rights is bogus. If individuals are prevented from exercising political rights (e.g. voting) on the grounds of differences in ethnicity, religion, national origin....etc. then, according to your definition, their civil rights are violated.

I said that civil and political rights are not identical, but the real distinction I drew is between the civil rights of the individual and the national rights of the collective. The distinction is real, not bogus.

Sophistry. The national rights of the collective - which is comprised of individuals.

Peace for Peace is the only way to achieve real peace.

You mean that neighboring country that by law issues a death sentence to anyone who sells property to a Jew? Priceless. I'm so happy we have peace and open relations to that racist, juderein kingdom. We should not forsake its value.

In passing, just as one cannot derive an "ought to be" from a perceived "is" one can not derive an "is" from a perceived "ought to be." Legally and morally, modern Israel exists only within the boundaries recognized by the international community. While Israel's exact borders remain fuzzy and subject to negotiation with Palestine, the occupied territories are just that--occupied, not owned, by Israel. Those who continue to promulgate "revisionist Zionism" willingly sacrifice intellectual honesty and moral integrity to ideology.

Your statement that "modern Israel exists only within the boundaries recognized by the international community" is irreconcilable with your following statement that "Israel's exact borders remain fuzzy and subject to negotiation with Palestine". That is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg. I have written a number of posts on this thread issuing a step-by-step refutation of your baseless claims, backed up by quotes from the relevant documentation, but the Ynet censor decided to stifle legitimate public debate and allow your propaganda to go unanswered.

SC 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israel from territory occupied in the 1967 war but also recognizes Israel's right to secure borders. To the extent that these two conflict the borders can be considered fuzzy. Add to this that the recent U.N. recognition of the State of Palestine explicitly leaves the exact borders between Israel and Palestine subject to negotiations between the two parties. What is NOT at issue or fuzzy (for the rest of the world at least) is that Israel has no legal right to establish civilian settlements in the territories it captured in 1967. There is no need to debate me -debate instead the UN GA, SG, Security Council, ICRC, High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Convention, International Court of Justice, and published legal opinions of various State Departments throughout the world including the U.S. and E.U. It is, regrettably, you who are a victim of the same revisionist propaganda that I mindlessly parroted decades ago. Wait for the negotiations to end.