Humanitarian Relocation?

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Well, some of this is simply wrong.

Israel is in violation of over 100 UN resolutions and you have the gall to claim it's the Pals who can't live with their neighbors?

Let me spell it out for you, twisted sister, it doesn't matter what fancy little name you want to call it, transferring a population under occupation is ILLEGAL!

(REFERENCE)

PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW : International Criminal Code (Rome Statues): (Went into force on July 2002: 21st Century Law)

Article 7(1d) --- Crimes Against Humanity

• Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
​

Article 7(2d) --- Crimes Against Humanity

• "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
​

Article 8(2a)(vii) --- War Crimes

• Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
​

Article 8(2b)(viii) --- War Crimes

The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
​

Article 49: Deportations, Transfers, and Evacuations, Fourth Geneva Convention

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
​

(COMMENT)

First, let's tackle the easy one. There are some (a few) UN Resolutions that have the forces of law. But most of the 100 Resolution are not violations because they are not binding. The claim is a gross exaggeration of the facts.

Second: (Remember: You framed your objection to: "transferring a population under occupation")

You have to be talking about some action that happened AFTER 1967. Because prior to 1967, there was no "occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)."

"Article 49 is "intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race." (COMMENTARY OF 1958)

"Unlawful deportation or transfers" were introduced among the grave breaches, defined in Article 147 [ Link ] of the Convention as calling for the most severe penal sanctions.
​

I do agree that it sounds like an absolute prohibition, but the exceptions include for reasons of the security of the protected persons or the imperative need in "military necessity."
​

The 1948 Palestinian exodus (AKA: Nakba) is an allegation pertaining to the occurence when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the period December 1947 to January 1949.

• Prior to 15 May 1948, there was no State of Israel, the State of Israel could not have "occupied" any territory prior to that date.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

Well its progress. I don't see the problem in separating these two ( Israel and the Arab Muslims ) But I'd first give the established norms a chance, which brings us back to the strict application of the Geneva Conventions. With Jordan acting as the country of origin

I fail to see how 2 million dead marks "progress".

well you went from never works to seldom works so yeah. Progress.

What we know isn't working is leaving Arab Muslims loose to Israel. They just don't have the capacity to live in peace. So I can understand why people are finally realizing that segregation might just be the only option.

Certainly Israel isn't willing to weaken its position until the Arab Muslims prove over time they want peace. I think at this point we can all admit thats never going to happen.

My suggestion is that we first throw the UN out and then having taken over food distribution use a carrot and stick method offering the Arab Muslims all the food they want at designation stations designed to identify combatants from actual refugees.

Its quick and easy. Repatriate the combatants to their countries of Origin. Jordan, Egypt, Syria, wherever. No nation is required to maintain a hostile enemy force within its own borders.

Their country of origin is Palestine.

 

[Coyote]

Billo_Really, et al,


The 1948 Palestinian exodus (AKA: Nakba) is an allegation pertaining to the occurence when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the period December 1947 to January 1949.

• Prior to 15 May 1948, there was no State of Israel, the State of Israel could not have "occupied" any territory prior to that date.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

It's not an allegation.

 

[Phoenall]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

That is until the muslims do it, and then it is to protect the innocents and no longer a crime. Just look at Syria and the numbers being transferred to hide the migration of terrorists into Europe, why isn't that a crime ?

 

[Coyote]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

That is until the muslims do it, and then it is to protect the innocents and no longer a crime. Just look at Syria and the numbers being transferred to hide the migration of terrorists into Europe, why isn't that a crime ?

What has that to do with anything? You are talking about a country in it's 5th year of civil war, surrounded by failing states, and hundreds of independent militia's and a self-proclaimed Islamic State leading to the persecution, mass slaughter, exodus of millions of refugees of all kinds. There are certainly crimes there, too many to list. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with this discussion which is a deliberately engineered mass transfer of civilian populations.

Do you think it's a good thing?

 

[Phoenall]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

How do you know? If you don't know what would have happened had it gone the other way? How do you define success? Do you think that if, for example, India and Pakistan had not exchanged populations that it would have "worked"? How so?

Because history has shown it. The real question, is it worth the price? Was the partition of India worth some 2 million lives and another couple hundred thoiusand in the seccession of Bangladesh?

What if it were you and your family being moved in a population transfer such as the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands? Many of those expelled had great difficulty adjusting to Israel, fitting in with a Jewish population that was largely different. Many were suffered poverty that they had not been in their native country.

An unwilling expulsion is a crime for good reason - it's inhumane.

Yet it is what you seem to advocate if the muslims ever gain power in Palestine, it would be a two option outcome of many millions dead or the world giving safe passage to 6 million Jews. Could we get there in time to save even half of them from, mass murder and genocide. Would the muslims obey the UN and stop the fighting when told. These are the questions that should be asked by everyone to see what the most likely outcome would be in the I/P conflict.
Now I expect team Palestine to project the arab muslims way on to the Jews because that is what they have been trained to do

 

[Coyote]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

How do you know? If you don't know what would have happened had it gone the other way? How do you define success? Do you think that if, for example, India and Pakistan had not exchanged populations that it would have "worked"? How so?

Because history has shown it. The real question, is it worth the price? Was the partition of India worth some 2 million lives and another couple hundred thoiusand in the seccession of Bangladesh?

What if it were you and your family being moved in a population transfer such as the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands? Many of those expelled had great difficulty adjusting to Israel, fitting in with a Jewish population that was largely different. Many were suffered poverty that they had not been in their native country.

An unwilling expulsion is a crime for good reason - it's inhumane.

Yet it is what you seem to advocate if the muslims ever gain power in Palestine, it would be a two option outcome of many millions dead or the world giving safe passage to 6 million Jews.

What are you talking about? I advocate a two-state solution. Try to stay on track.

Could we get there in time to save even half of them from, mass murder and genocide. Would the muslims obey the UN and stop the fighting when told. These are the questions that should be asked by everyone to see what the most likely outcome would be in the I/P conflict.
Now I expect team Palestine to project the arab muslims way on to the Jews because that is what they have been trained to do

Not sure what you're going on about...

 

[Phoenall]

Because history has shown it. The real question, is it worth the price? Was the partition of India worth some 2 million lives and another couple hundred thoiusand in the seccession of Bangladesh?

The question I was posing is how do you know it wouldn't have been worse if there had been no population exchange?

You don't.

You only can know what DID happen - 2 million innocent civilians did.

There is a reason it's considered a crime.

Where did you get the figure of 2 million from, the best scenario puts the murders of between 10 and 50 million.

 

[Phoenall]

This article was posted elsewhere but I think it deserves its own thread.

It opens:

Consideration should be given even to the heroic remedy of transfer of populations […] the hardship of moving is great, but it is less than the constant suffering of minorities and the constant recurrence of war – US president Herbert Hoover, 1943.

The relentless murder of Israeli Jews and the irreparable collapse of the peace process means that Israel and the international community must now consider the “heroic remedy” of population transfer. After decades of terrorism, it is clear that the majority of Arabs in Judea-Samaria and east Jerusalem are incapable of living alongside their Jewish neighbours. The failure of the Oslo Accords, the rampant criminality inside the Palestinian Authority, as well as decades of Islamic terrorism and anti-Semitic incitement, clearly demonstrate that Jews cannot afford the liberal luxury of uninhibited co-existence with an Arab population that clings to the fascistic and immoral ideology of Palestinianism.



Is there such a thing as "humanitarian relocation"? Should we consider this as a viable option to end the conflict? Do you think it would work? If you disagree with the details of the solution provided in the article, do you have other suggestions?

Israel is in violation of over 100 UN resolutions and you have the gall to claim it's the Pals who can't live with their neighbors?

Let me spell it out for you, twisted sister, it doesn't matter what fancy little name you want to call it, transferring a population under occupation is ILLEGAL!

Unless it is done by the muslims, isn't that right. Look at the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Somalia, Syria and Iraq all areas where the populations have been forcibly transferred

 

[Phoenall]

This article was posted elsewhere but I think it deserves its own thread.

It opens:

Consideration should be given even to the heroic remedy of transfer of populations […] the hardship of moving is great, but it is less than the constant suffering of minorities and the constant recurrence of war – US president Herbert Hoover, 1943.

The relentless murder of Israeli Jews and the irreparable collapse of the peace process means that Israel and the international community must now consider the “heroic remedy” of population transfer. After decades of terrorism, it is clear that the majority of Arabs in Judea-Samaria and east Jerusalem are incapable of living alongside their Jewish neighbours. The failure of the Oslo Accords, the rampant criminality inside the Palestinian Authority, as well as decades of Islamic terrorism and anti-Semitic incitement, clearly demonstrate that Jews cannot afford the liberal luxury of uninhibited co-existence with an Arab population that clings to the fascistic and immoral ideology of Palestinianism.



Is there such a thing as "humanitarian relocation"? Should we consider this as a viable option to end the conflict? Do you think it would work? If you disagree with the details of the solution provided in the article, do you have other suggestions?

Good idea. Transfer the Zionist colonists out of Palestine and let the natives return.

Would that be the native Jews or the Native Zionists ?

 

[Phoenall]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

Well its progress. I don't see the problem in separating these two ( Israel and the Arab Muslims ) But I'd first give the established norms a chance, which brings us back to the strict application of the Geneva Conventions. With Jordan acting as the country of origin

I fail to see how 2 million dead marks "progress".

well you went from never works to seldom works so yeah. Progress.

What we know isn't working is leaving Arab Muslims loose to Israel. They just don't have the capacity to live in peace. So I can understand why people are finally realizing that segregation might just be the only option.

Certainly Israel isn't willing to weaken its position until the Arab Muslims prove over time they want peace. I think at this point we can all admit thats never going to happen.

My suggestion is that we first throw the UN out and then having taken over food distribution use a carrot and stick method offering the Arab Muslims all the food they want at designation stations designed to identify combatants from actual refugees.

Its quick and easy. Repatriate the combatants to their countries of Origin. Jordan, Egypt, Syria, wherever. No nation is required to maintain a hostile enemy force within its own borders.

Their country of origin is Palestine.

So what was it prior to 1988 when there was no Palestine ?

 

[Phoenall]

Billo_Really, et al,


The 1948 Palestinian exodus (AKA: Nakba) is an allegation pertaining to the occurence when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the period December 1947 to January 1949.

• Prior to 15 May 1948, there was no State of Israel, the State of Israel could not have "occupied" any territory prior to that date.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

It's not an allegation.

It cant be truth as the population was only 350,000 before hostilities began, how did it treble overnight ?

 

[Phoenall]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

That is until the muslims do it, and then it is to protect the innocents and no longer a crime. Just look at Syria and the numbers being transferred to hide the migration of terrorists into Europe, why isn't that a crime ?

What has that to do with anything? You are talking about a country in it's 5th year of civil war, surrounded by failing states, and hundreds of independent militia's and a self-proclaimed Islamic State leading to the persecution, mass slaughter, exodus of millions of refugees of all kinds. There are certainly crimes there, too many to list. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with this discussion which is a deliberately engineered mass transfer of civilian populations.

Do you think it's a good thing?

And Israel is it its 66th year of war surrounded by failing states, and has seen many self proclaimed Islamic terrorist groups come and go. It has everything to do with the I/P conflict as it threatens both parties

 

[Phoenall]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

How do you know? If you don't know what would have happened had it gone the other way? How do you define success? Do you think that if, for example, India and Pakistan had not exchanged populations that it would have "worked"? How so?

Because history has shown it. The real question, is it worth the price? Was the partition of India worth some 2 million lives and another couple hundred thoiusand in the seccession of Bangladesh?

What if it were you and your family being moved in a population transfer such as the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands? Many of those expelled had great difficulty adjusting to Israel, fitting in with a Jewish population that was largely different. Many were suffered poverty that they had not been in their native country.

An unwilling expulsion is a crime for good reason - it's inhumane.

Yet it is what you seem to advocate if the muslims ever gain power in Palestine, it would be a two option outcome of many millions dead or the world giving safe passage to 6 million Jews.

What are you talking about? I advocate a two-state solution. Try to stay on track.

Could we get there in time to save even half of them from, mass murder and genocide. Would the muslims obey the UN and stop the fighting when told. These are the questions that should be asked by everyone to see what the most likely outcome would be in the I/P conflict.
Now I expect team Palestine to project the arab muslims way on to the Jews because that is what they have been trained to do

Not sure what you're going on about...

Then why don't you shpuit out loud and clear to the Palestinians that they need to negotiate before their aid is cut off.


The outcome if the international laws of 1923 are not enforced

 

[Coyote]

Because history has shown it. The real question, is it worth the price? Was the partition of India worth some 2 million lives and another couple hundred thoiusand in the seccession of Bangladesh?

The question I was posing is how do you know it wouldn't have been worse if there had been no population exchange?

You don't.

You only can know what DID happen - 2 million innocent civilians did.

There is a reason it's considered a crime.

Where did you get the figure of 2 million from, the best scenario puts the murders of between 10 and 50 million.

10 and 50 million? In the Partition of India and secession of Bangladesh? Estimates vary - upper estimate for the partition is approx 1 million. Upper estimate for the secession of Bangladesh is 3 million (that is considered highly inflated) - I went with an in the middle number of 2 million combined for the partition and later secession of Bangladesh since that was a result of the partition.

 

[Coyote]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

That is until the muslims do it, and then it is to protect the innocents and no longer a crime. Just look at Syria and the numbers being transferred to hide the migration of terrorists into Europe, why isn't that a crime ?

What has that to do with anything? You are talking about a country in it's 5th year of civil war, surrounded by failing states, and hundreds of independent militia's and a self-proclaimed Islamic State leading to the persecution, mass slaughter, exodus of millions of refugees of all kinds. There are certainly crimes there, too many to list. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with this discussion which is a deliberately engineered mass transfer of civilian populations.

Do you think it's a good thing?

And Israel is it its 66th year of war surrounded by failing states, and has seen many self proclaimed Islamic terrorist groups come and go. It has everything to do with the I/P conflict as it threatens both parties

Israel is a stable state, in an unresolved conflict - the IP conflict has little to do with what's going on in Syria and there is certainly no huge exodus of refugees.

 

[Coyote]

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

How do you know? If you don't know what would have happened had it gone the other way? How do you define success? Do you think that if, for example, India and Pakistan had not exchanged populations that it would have "worked"? How so?

Because history has shown it. The real question, is it worth the price? Was the partition of India worth some 2 million lives and another couple hundred thoiusand in the seccession of Bangladesh?

What if it were you and your family being moved in a population transfer such as the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands? Many of those expelled had great difficulty adjusting to Israel, fitting in with a Jewish population that was largely different. Many were suffered poverty that they had not been in their native country.

An unwilling expulsion is a crime for good reason - it's inhumane.

Yet it is what you seem to advocate if the muslims ever gain power in Palestine, it would be a two option outcome of many millions dead or the world giving safe passage to 6 million Jews.

What are you talking about? I advocate a two-state solution. Try to stay on track.

Could we get there in time to save even half of them from, mass murder and genocide. Would the muslims obey the UN and stop the fighting when told. These are the questions that should be asked by everyone to see what the most likely outcome would be in the I/P conflict.
Now I expect team Palestine to project the arab muslims way on to the Jews because that is what they have been trained to do

Not sure what you're going on about...

Then why don't you shpuit out loud and clear to the Palestinians that they need to negotiate before their aid is cut off.


The outcome if the international laws of 1923 are not enforced

What does that have to do with the discussion about forced population transfers?

 

[Coyote]

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

Well its progress. I don't see the problem in separating these two ( Israel and the Arab Muslims ) But I'd first give the established norms a chance, which brings us back to the strict application of the Geneva Conventions. With Jordan acting as the country of origin

I fail to see how 2 million dead marks "progress".

well you went from never works to seldom works so yeah. Progress.

What we know isn't working is leaving Arab Muslims loose to Israel. They just don't have the capacity to live in peace. So I can understand why people are finally realizing that segregation might just be the only option.

Certainly Israel isn't willing to weaken its position until the Arab Muslims prove over time they want peace. I think at this point we can all admit thats never going to happen.

My suggestion is that we first throw the UN out and then having taken over food distribution use a carrot and stick method offering the Arab Muslims all the food they want at designation stations designed to identify combatants from actual refugees.

Its quick and easy. Repatriate the combatants to their countries of Origin. Jordan, Egypt, Syria, wherever. No nation is required to maintain a hostile enemy force within its own borders.

Their country of origin is Palestine.

So what was it prior to 1988 when there was no Palestine ?

The region was still Palestine. Just like it was when there was no country of Israel.

 

[Coyote]

Billo_Really, et al,


The 1948 Palestinian exodus (AKA: Nakba) is an allegation pertaining to the occurence when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the period December 1947 to January 1949.

• Prior to 15 May 1948, there was no State of Israel, the State of Israel could not have "occupied" any territory prior to that date.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

It's not an allegation.

It cant be truth as the population was only 350,000 before hostilities began, how did it treble overnight ?

Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Estimate of number of people who left or fled the area captured by Israel
Final estimates

• 726,000 according to the Final Report of the United Nations Economic Survey Mission for the Middle East published by the United Nations Conciliation Commission, December 28, 1949.[1][note 1]
• 711,000 according to the General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the Period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950, published by the United Nations Conciliation Commission, October 23, 1950.[5][note 2]

 

[Boston1]

It is very difficult to judge the ultimate benefits or negative effects of each case of population transfer or lack of because we can't actually know the outcome had it gone the other way. Certainly, the Israel/Palestine situation would have been bad either way due to the ideologies involved. But how can we really know if it would be worse or better if a population exchange had occurred?

Because it has seldom worked for the better and is now considered a crime for good reason.

Well its progress. I don't see the problem in separating these two ( Israel and the Arab Muslims ) But I'd first give the established norms a chance, which brings us back to the strict application of the Geneva Conventions. With Jordan acting as the country of origin

I fail to see how 2 million dead marks "progress".

well you went from never works to seldom works so yeah. Progress.

What we know isn't working is leaving Arab Muslims loose to Israel. They just don't have the capacity to live in peace. So I can understand why people are finally realizing that segregation might just be the only option.

Certainly Israel isn't willing to weaken its position until the Arab Muslims prove over time they want peace. I think at this point we can all admit thats never going to happen.

My suggestion is that we first throw the UN out and then having taken over food distribution use a carrot and stick method offering the Arab Muslims all the food they want at designation stations designed to identify combatants from actual refugees.

Its quick and easy. Repatriate the combatants to their countries of Origin. Jordan, Egypt, Syria, wherever. No nation is required to maintain a hostile enemy force within its own borders.

Their country of origin is Palestine.

Lets assume thats true.

Lets also assume there was ever a place called palestine

The area of the mandate you prefer to call palestine was divided into two modern nations. Israel and Jordan. Jordan being Arab palestine and Israel being jewish palestine.

The Jordanians expelled all the Jews right about the time it joined the Arab League in its declaration of war against Israel.

Israel did not expel its Arab population. However the suggestion is being made now that perhaps this is the only solution to continues Arab racism and bigotry resulting in near daily violence against the Judaic population.

I don't see any reason why a piece of dirt 100' across the Jordan river is any different than one on the Israeli side. Whats the big complaint?

The two states already exist, its just the Arabs prefer to chip away at Israel until its indefensible.

Jordan is the modern day Arab Palestine. The country of Origin. Unless you want to go even further back in time at which point we'd be sending most of them back to Europe, Egypt, Syria and so on. Anywhere but Israel where they clearly have no intention of living peacefully as neighbors.