On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 06:51:16 GMT, "Jack F. Twist"
What before 1914 am I leaving out that's relevant?
They promised that the Arabs would rule the area. I think it would have been up to the Arabs how they did or did not divide up the land they won in battle, and I'd like to see evidence that there was an intent to cut off Palestine (whether including or excluding Transjordan) as a separate country from the rest of the conquered-liberated territory, rather than rule everything from the Hejaz to what's now Syria as one land. Remember, Lawrence and the Arabs made it all the way up to Damascus.
That's absolutely true, but what bearing does it have on the history of what's now Jordan, Israel-Palestine, and Lebanon as parts of the province of Syria? The fact is, if you go back in history, there are historical bases for many claims. Thailand can claim several Malaysian states. The Philippines can (and does) claim Sabah. The Hashemites who rule Jordan can claim the Hejaz. Etc., etc., etc. I think that historical claims are completely relevant only when you're dealing with unpopulated areas. And I'll give you another example: The Falkland-Malvinas Islands. As far as I can tell, Argentina's historical claim to those islands is airtight, and Britain clearly stole them. However, the inhabitants, albeit not numerous, are Britons and want British sovereignty to continue, so the Argentinian invasion in 1982 was illegitimate and the British defense (though not all of the actions they took in the war) was legitimate.
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
