Assaf Awadallah: Misinformed and not very clever.

Submitted by Eyad Nusayr (United States), Jul 26, 2010 at 04:50

Assaf Awadallah: It seems you have not read or understood the article. You are a Palestinian but you are making the same arguments that the Israelis make to support their claim that Jordan is Palestine;

"PALASTINIAN MAKE UP MORE THAN 2/3 OF JORDAN POPULATION" They do not. and even if they do that is no excuse to claim that Jordan "WAS THE DESERT OF PALESTINE" or that Jordan is "THEIR HOME LAND" or even that "THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IN JORDAN AND PALESTINE FOR THOUSAND OF YEARS".

As a Jordanian whose family have lived in the north of Jordan for centuries and since local history is a hobby of mine allow me to educate you a little bit:
Historically, and up to the early 20th century, half the population of Jordan were Fellahin (farmers), I say this because most Palestinian have the notion the Jordanians are Bedouins that have no connection to the land and that Jordan was 100% desert before they came in 1948.

Most of the clans of Jordan (even the Bedouins) have a verbal history that connects them to the land on which they live on for centuries. I say this because Palestinians like to claim that the Bedouins of Jordan came with Abdullah bin Hussein during the Arab Revolt.

The local dialects (which, linguistically, takes hundreds of years to form) in Jordan are unique and very different than the local dialects of Palestine. It is easy not only to distinguish Palestinians from Jordanians but also north Jordanians from south Jordanians by their choice of consonants and pronunciation of vowels.

As the article pointed out; Jordan is not the desert of Palestine (read the article to find out why).

You say that "THERE WAS NO SUCH A PLACE CALL JORDAN UNTIL THE ENGLISH CAME AND ESTABLISHED TRANS OF JORDAN IN 1921". If by that you mean the political entity that is the Jordan of today I would agree with you, but neither did Syria or Iraq exist for that matter. If by Jordan you mean the people and their connection to the land I think I already answered that one.

You say" NOW THE RACIST GOVERNMENT OF JORDAN REVOKING THE CITEZEN SHIP FROM JORDANIAN OF PALESTINIAN ORIGIN BECAUSE THEY ARE SCARED THAT THE PALESTINANS WILL TAKE OVER THEIR COUNTRY AGAIN." Wrong; this is a result of the decision of King Husein to let go of the West Bank and give it to the PLO. Now all those Palestinians became Jordanian citizens because Jordan annexed the West Bank; it would be only fair to revoke their citizenship since the annexation was reversed. Compare Jordan to Syria, Lebanon or Egypt who refuse to give Palestinians citizenship to this day.

You say "IF YOU LOOK AT JORDAN GOVERNMENT YOU WILL HARDLY FIND ANY PALASTINIAN REPRESENTATIVE OR GOVERNMENTAL OFFICICAL S." Again wrong; just look at the heads of government over the years and their cabinets.

Assaf, you want Mr. Pipes to investigate this issue and to force the king to do something about it by cutting financial aid. You realize that is akin to treason but that is not surprising since although Palestinians like you claim that Jordan is theirs to have and keep, none of you has the best interest of Jordan or its people at heart.

It was wrong that Israel kicked out all those Palestinian but it was equally wrong that we Jordanians had to tolerate them as refugees to share land and water with with very little help from the outside. It was wrong to give them citizenship and allow them to terrorize Europe utilizing Jordanian passports to get in. There was a time when we Jordanians couldn't travel anywhere because Palestinian "freedom fighters" were using the Jordanian citizenship and travel documents to do their dirty work.

Mr. Pipes, if you ever have time please write about the 2nd biggest victim of the Arab-Israeli conflict; the people of Jordan.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".