Palestinians in Jordanian refugee camps?

A friend recently told me that there are Palestinians who have been living in Jordanian refugee camps for 30-40 or more years. He seemed to believe that there were about a million in these camps, perhaps more.

Is this true?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZkPd5vGzBk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVCY-CKTW50

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are large numbers of Palestinians residing in all of the Arab states in the region, although most have seen significant repatriations into the Occupied Territories over the years (many were forced out of Lebanon in the Civil War, and there were mass expulsions from many states, particularly the Gulf States, over the PLO's support of Saddam back in the early 1990's.) Jordan is something of an exception in this regard, and has granted citizenship to many (most?) of the Palestinians there (unlike other Arab states). Although Jordan did also wage a merciless, bloody campaign against said Palestinians back in 1970 (it's known as "Black September.") The majority of the Jordanian population is of Palestinian origin, but the monarchy is not, so this can be a touchy issue there.

Also, "refugee camp" can be a misleading term in this context. It generally brings to mind rows of tents and open-ditch latrines, but this is not the case with the camps the Palestinians inhabit which, over the decades, have been built into urban ghettos that are not distinguishable from their surroundings. Likewise, the designation of descendents of actual refugees as refugees themselves is unique to the Palestinians (likewise, Palestinian refugee issues are handled by the UNRWA instead of the UNHCR, which handles all other refugee issues). The point is that the application of the term "refugee" here has long been highly politicized, and so should not be read as a simple descriptor.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The UN created these refugees. They had no jurisdiction to donate their land to Jews.

 

Actually, as a british territory, they did.

 

Nope. The UN, until today, has no jurisdiction to give away territory to immigrants or religious or ethnic groups. The British did not either. Every single partition they created was only after the people living there agreed to it. For whatever reason. The Palestinians were cheated.

 

They surely did as one of the major allied powers. They could divide up Germany, redraw national borders, occupy nations and disband their armies. It was a desperate time that called for such bold measures. The Palestinians aren't divorced from history.

 

goaty, if the levant was in lets say china (for arguments sake) you'd still concede that eastern european peoples had a valid claim to chinese land, and had more right to that land over the indiginious chinese.

 

None of the above involved replacing indigenous peoples with foreigners and giving them a state that excluded the people who stayed there. Note that Germany participated in the division and is now reunited. That would not have happened if half of Germany was given to the Jews.

 

Jews were also natives. I suppose no Arabs that call themselves Palestinian ever came from anywhere else? Right.

 

Sorry, you cannot be native to a place after 2000 years. Are Italians native to the Netherlands? They occupied them for several hundred years 2000 years ago.

 

How long does nativity last? If Israel keeps the Palestinians out of Israel for another, say, 50 generations, will that make them legitimate?

 

Not every Jew in Israel was a refugee. Furthermore, the Zionist movement began in the late 1800's. The Jewish population was 30% even in the 1930's. That's not an insignificant number.

 

I think we can safely assume that the 7% would have continued to live there if the Europeans hadn't come in. The Jewish population was not 30%

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=636#graph2

 

you have absolutely no grasp of the ideology of zionism, and it's implementation within a historical context do you?

the palestinian mizrahi didn't establish the state of israel.

 

Do major allied powers still have this right? If the USA, Russia, Germany, France, The UK, India, Brazil and China agree to donate Ireland to the Tibetans and to move the people of Tibet to Ireland and the people of Ireland to Australia against the wishes of the Australians would the major powers have this right.

The major powers certainly have the have the power to do many things, but do they have the right? Does might make right?

Did anything change after Hitler? Before Hitler consensus opinion gave very little consideration to the rights of weaker peoples dominated by strong nations. After Hitler a consensus has developed that weaker peoples should have rights even if they are neither White nor Christian.

The UN and the major powers don't do much when China occupies Tibet or when Hutus kill Tutsis or when ethnic Burmese abuse the minorities in Myanmar or when the Turks try to force Kurds to speak Turkish and abandon their Kurdish identity. Almost nobody in the USA defends the strong abusing the weak in those situations. There has been some attempt at times to label the Kurds as terrorists in order to avoid criticizing US ally Turkey. When Guatemalan mestizos soldiers funded by the USA killed 50,000 indigenous Guatemalans (Mayans +...) in an (ethnic and to a lessor degree class) war sold to the USA as a war on communism the US media split with part of the media trying to pretend the abuse was justified or that the abuse did not exist while other parts of the media condemned the abuse and condemned Reagan's support for the abusers.

No foreign conflict story in which US troops were not involved approaches Israel/Palestine for level of media coverage in the USA during the last 30 years. Objectively it is clear that the Palestinians are the victims in this story.

All attempts to present the story in a different light are deceitful. Any person who believes otherwise despite knowing as much about this story as you Spidergoat does has deceived themselves. There is nothing strange about self-deception. We lie to ourselves in support of our greed, hope, and pride. We are emotional creatures governed more by emotions and traditions, than we are by logic. We are a pack animal. Loyalty triumphs over objectivity.

"Desperate times" what desperate times, the war was over. The Holocaust survivors could have been welcomed into the USA. The allied powers made a choice to create Israel. Knowing the allied powers, there must have been a commercial or tactical reason to create Israel because they did almost nothing for humanitarian reasons. The Marshall plan was tactical not humanitarian. I can't find a commercial reason for creating Israel.

The British empire repeatedly used triangulation to control maximum population with minimum power. But what did the allies want in the Middle East that could unify Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill? The answer that I come up with is to deny Germany access to Middle Eastern oil in WW3. The British and French had already made enemies out of the Arabs so preparations for WW3 ("generals always prepare for the last war") would have to assume the Arabs would be on the German's side. Denying Germany access to oil was an important part of how WW2 was won.

Even if I am wrong and the allies were trying to be humanitarian they still did not have the right to do what they did to the Palestinians, they only had the power to do it.

The UN/League of Nations/ British empire had exactly the same right to donate the land the Palestinians were living on to the Jews as the British empire/American colonists had to donate the land that Native Americans were living on to the American colonists/British empire.

 

I have not read of "millions of camps," but there are definitely Palestinians scattered all over the Near East because Israel took their homes and land when it conquered them. They were exiled. They want the right to return, but will not get it because if they did, they would have a majority in the Israeli government and it would end up a HAMAS rather than a JUDAIC state.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

 

You have to remember that the pro-israel people like spider think it is perfectly acceptable to deny the majority of a population of their right so long as the minority is jewish. Not a single one of them one this site is honest enough to admit that the creation of Israel required denying the palestinian arabs their right to self-determination. Also for those of you who counter but what about the jews right to self-determination. They didn't have one simply because any way to give them one would have denied the majority the right and in nothing that I have read about self-determination says its ok to strip the right of self-determination of the majority so the minority can have it.

 

sadly, the exact thing herzl wanted. spider and the rest are herzl's minions

one of the fundemental pillars of zionism (and it's implementation) is the complete dehumanising of the palestinian people, a complete reduction of them to level of sub human/terrorits/fanatics in the perception of the zionists. you see its easier to erase a peoples if you don't consider them human at all. This was the same tactic ironically implemented by hitler and the nazis, dehumanising the jews, to "legitimise" all the atrocities perpetuated against them.

 

It didn't, they just had to do it someplace other than Israel.