John, I fear the analogy if first world and third world does not apply there. In the 19th century, what is today Israel was unpopulated except for few isolated spots and religious sites. In 1880 or so Jewish immigration to revive the land started, and lands were acquired from their owners (Syrian Arab residing in Damascus for the most). That immigration started an influx (there was work) from the neighboring countries. If the law of citizenship that Kuwait applies to Kuwait born arabs of "palestinian descend" applied in Palestine, a great majority of the refugees would be declared citizenship-less. The way I think one should look at the problem is that the Arab countries ejected a million of their Jewish citizens (I had a friend that was still complaining about it ten years later in 1958), and these were absorbed by the new state of Israel, and about an equal number (actually, I believe that at the end of the 1948 war there were "only" 400,000 palestinian refugees) was "ejected from Israel. The state of Israel found it judicious to grant all its Jewish refugees citizenship, the Arab countries kept their refugees in refugee camps as a political "chip". All that is history, and the current situation requires imagination and consideration of the rights of all concerned, but the historical parallel you drew surely is faulty. I am not sure that Jerusalem is part of that solution, I would say that Jordan annexation of the west bank should be recognized and that the capital of Jordan should be the capital of the new Palestinian state. After all, the Arab countries never protested the annexation too much. What to do with the Hashemite king, well, he is the last relic of the other Britain created kingdoms (Syria, Saudia and Iraq if memory serves) for services rendered to the British Empire during WWI. The Palestinian can decide for their own if they would rather be a Kingdom or another form of government. The great majority of Jordan citizenry consider itself "Palestinian" as far as I understand.
Zeev |
