AussieBob18

21 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Sorry, but one contradicts the other, I just don't get what your saying, e.g. on one hand your saying, if you are within Australia and reach the OAP age, and qualify, even for those who came back and did their 2 year wait, you get portability, but on the other, your saying if you come back to Australia you can lose portability, it just doesn't make sense, I mean what are you supposed to do, stay out of Australia to keep portability, see where I am going with this ?

No contradiction - but I understand your confusion - let me elaborate some more and maybe this time make it clearer.

Firstly, lets assume you know what portability is and how to be eligible for it.

Ok - someone with portability who lives in Australia, travels overseas for an extended holiday 6-7+ months.  Probably not going to be a problem. Maybe.

Then they do it again the following year.  This could be a problem - depends on how the 'delegate' views their case.

Then they do it again the following year. They definitely have a problem now - the delegate will take action for sure.

And when the CLink delegate takes action, what that action will be is that they will be deem that person to no longer be a permanent resident of Australia.

Do they lose the pension while away? No.  Will they be paid the pension when they return? Yes.

While they are overseas they will continue to be paid the pension, because they had portability when they left.

But when they return to Australia, then they will be no longer eligable for portability because they are no longer a permanent resident.

Next time they leave Australia (appeals aside) they will not be eligible to receive the pension because they have lost their portability.

Portability is indefinite for someone on the pension who is eligible, who moves overseas to live.

They can return for visits of course, but only for short periods and for a reason ( I believe that up to 4-5 weeks is fine).

Portability is not 'repeatable' for someone on the pension who is repeatably taking extensive holidays overseas - case by case determination. 

Portability is not 'repeatable' for someone on the pension who is living in both Austraia and another country - absolutely not.

I hope that has made it clearer.

On 7/17/2020 at 4:44 PM, 4MyEgo said:

I appreciate what you are saying, however, until the legislation is changed to put a stop on pension portability, Centerlink has no right to stop payments if you travel overseas, whether it is indefinitely or for a holiday, excluding reducing the supplements payments, and if they do stop payments, then the appeals process is there for a reason as inconvenient as it would be to have to haul a-ss to get back to Oz to set it straight again.

 

Who knows, this might be in the process, but the legislation will have to be changed first, but anyone who has always planned on living only off of the pension overseas has left themselves wide open, as we know governments change policies all of the time, and if they do change the legislation, their will be a hell of a lot of expats hauling their a-ss-es back to Oz disgruntled I am afraid to say, fortunately for me, I learned a long time ago to only depend on me and not government bureaucrats (for a nicer word) who only look out for themselves.  

 

If this ever eventuated, it wouldn't surprise me as it would save them a s-h-i-t load of pension money going overseas to expats and they would be banking on the numbers staying away from Oz and losing the pension because they might have other means in their established abodes, but doubt they really know how many pensioners overseas don't have any other source of income and would have to return to a tougher life in Oz.

Perhaps I was not clear - what CLink can do, and are doing more and more, is stopping eligibility for portability - which they can do - for those living in Australia and coming and going overseas a lot, but not permanently moving overseas.  Portability is not permanent once granted - it can be removed for someone who resides in Australia but does not meet the 'permanent resident' requirements.  The eligibilty for portability is based upon 'residence', and whether a person is 'resident' or not is determined by CLink.  CLink cannot stop anyone living/residing in Australia from getting the pension if they meet all the requirements. But Clink can stop anyone who is going overseas from being eligible for portability, by changing their permanent residence eligibility.

The elevent SS ACT and the sections involved are listed at this site:  

https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/international/policy/portability-of-australian-income-support-payments

I believed the CLink person who advised me, but I also checked it out as as well. 

It is clear that they have re-written parts of the IMO the words worth noting in '3.1.1.10 Residence requirements' are these:

SSAct section 7(3) lists the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether a person is residing in Australia. These are:

1. the frequency and duration of the person's travel outside Australia
2. the nature of the accommodation used by the person in Australia
3. the nature and extent of the family relationships the person has in Australia
4. the nature and extent of the person's employment, business or financial ties in Australia
5. the nature and extent of the person's assets located in Australia, and
6. any other matter relevant to determining whether the person intends to remain permanently in Australia.

And these:  ...... if a person regularly spends more than 6 months a year outside Australia, then their residence in Australia is questionable.

These rules are not written so that they specifically relate to anyone on the age pension travelling overseas a lot - especially to the same other country.  But CLink are using their interpretation of the ACT to stop portability for those age pensioners having lots of overseas holidays and getting the pension while they are on holidays overseas. And for someone like myself that was intending to live in both Australia and another country, CLink has put a stop to that.

This is not an issue for someone that lives permanently in Australia when they get the age pension, and then goes overseas to live permanently (returning for occasional visits).  This is also not an issue for someone that has returned to Australia to get the age pension, and after serving out their 2 years waitin period, then later goes overseas to live permanently (returning for occasional visits).  But it is a big issue for somone on the age pension who lives in Australia, but who also stays overseas for long periods of time.

What CLink can do is declare that someone is not a 'permanent resident', because of excessive overseas travel and any other matter they deem appropriate.  If CLink determine that someone is no longer a 'permanent rersident' that does not mean they lose pension payments if they are overseas. It means that they lose portability when they next come back to Australia, and they have to serve out a 2 year waiting period to get portability back again. And unless that person makes it totally clear that they never intend to again stay in an overseas country (words not enough) they may not be granted portability again. Portability is for those that decide to go an live somewhere else - once.

IMO the ACT has been changed deliberately to save a few pennies on this matter that affects me and several other related circumstances. The SS Act was definitely not that 'tough' when I was first researching age pension and portability issues 10 years ago.  And I noticed that the portability section was last updated in August 2019. That date fits with what that guy at CLink told me - they srated cracking down in this area late last year.

You are right saying that they have no real idea how mnany age pensioners living overseas don't have any other source of income and would have to return to Aust if it was no longer paid when overseas.  But anecdotal evidence from a Govt study done about 10 years ago indicates that a large percentage would return if overseas payments were stopped. But Intenational SS Agreements precludes them stopping overseas payments - but it doesnt stop them being bastards on the eligibility rules.

There was a study in about 2008-2010 (forget when) that showed clearly that people on the age pension that live overseas, have a net positive affect on the Australian Budget, and this included the costs of those that return late in life. This is why countries like Sweden tax their overseas ensioners a lot less than they do those living in Sweden, and I believe this is the case in many EU countries. In Aust the report was buried (I was in Canb at the time) because it did not show what they wanted it to show - but in Sweden they openly give benefits to those pensioners who are living overseas and are thus costing a lot less to maintain than those in the country.

On 6/25/2020 at 4:24 PM, 4MyEgo said:

My post might have been a little confusing, but the 60,000 baht per month was double the budget we anticipated, not the cost of private health insurance per month, Christ, if it was 60,000 baht a month for private cover, that would not be feasible for us, let alone most as it costs us 720,000 baht a year to survive here, excluding the private health cover for me and the family with separate insurance companies, i.e. 127,000 baht a year for both. I had thought about canning them both, but I am not comfortable with the public system up here, kids and all. One incident without private cover and it could cost a hell of a lot which would put a bigger dent in ones pocket then 127,000 baht, i.e. unless your ok with the risk factor of being treated or having your kids treated in the public system up here, not thanks, basic stuff ok.

 

I hear what your saying about the grass often looking greener, but the way I see it is, I won't have to put up with the smoke from not only the rice and sugarcane fields burning during 3-4 months of the year, there are also neighbours burning rubbish, and cooking around 5pm-6pm at night using that smelly charcoal stuff, people got to eat and can't afford gas, ok, I get that and it's only temporary, but the burning, no thanks, had enough and don't want the kids breathing that smoke in as their lungs are developing.

 

I can enjoy the change in the weather with the 4 season as opposed to here, hot, hotter and hotter, apart from the winter months which is a pleasant change as I don't mind the cold.

Won't miss the mossies and the snakes, especially the mossies, the snakes, well they won't bother you unless they feel threatened.

I will miss the big house as I will be downsizing from 6 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms to 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, but won't be paying a cent out of pocket with the support the government will provide for the kids, so it's a trade off.

I am not under any illusion how much of a nanny state Sydney or Australia is for that matter, but if one toes the line, should have any dramas, that said, I don't mind the police presence and the control over the roads with speed cameras etc etc, it beats the hell out of not having any control here with what's his name flying down the road with foot flat on the pedal as if to say, only know one speed.

Take away the rent and I would pretty much think you can survive in Australia for pretty much the same as in Thailand if you compare eggs for eggs, some things will be more expensive and some a little cheaper, but we are talking eggs for eggs, as mentioned in a previous post, if you want to rent here in Thailand and eat as Thai's do, your miles ahead, but we eat good, clean food and pay for it through the nose here, I mean a jar of 340 grams of peanut butter here is $6.30 at Big C for crying out loud ????

If it wasn't for the government providing the support for the kids, i.e. the money paying for the rent, I would have to suck it in, or is that suck it up and stay here, that said, even when the kids finish high school, they can get further support payments if they don't find work, plus it will only be a couple of more years by the time they finish school that I can apply for the old age pension.

Will miss my current surroundings that's for sure, but will try to get something that has an outlook or is at least private and not so close to others, if at all possible.

If you like peanut butter, better throw a few in your bag before you get back here as I know for $5 back in Oz you can get bigger jars ????

 Edit: Also thought I would confirm as advised today, that even though 2 of the children who were born in Thailand, don't have to wait a year to receive the government support as their mother gained Australian Citizenship in 2014, they are therefore permanent residence as soon as they touch down in Oz.

Now I know why they call it the lucky country and why so many, won't say what race that migrated back in the 70's, breed kids like there is no tomorrow.  

You have picked up the key issues well - medical coverage and kids devlopment/schooling.

Kids not an issue for us - and with Wife having Citizenship we can return to Aus if things get bad medically for either of us.

Just found out something that I should share with others.  I have a contact at CLink and I have been advised that CLink has started cracking down hard on Aussies who travel overseas each year.  The website about who is entitled to get the pension reflects this in that the type of words and meanings associated with: 'Permanent and Australian and Resident' that have been 'fine tuned'.  What this means in practice is that if someone who lives in Australia travels overseas 'too much' they can be deemed to be 'not a permanent resident' when they travel overseas - and what that means is that they will lose their portability next time they return to live in Australia.  As unbelievable as it sounds, a person on the pension can be an Australian Resident and meet as the conditions, but if they travel overseas a lot they can be declared to be not a Permanent Resident - meaning that they are not permanently living in Australia.  

Examples: someone that spends 3-6+ months of each year staying in another country each year (the same one), can after a couple of years be declared to not be a permanent resident. Someone that travels extensively overseas each year for 3-6+ months at a time (different countries) after several years can be declared to not be a permanent resident.  

When I questioned if there was any hard and fast definitions, I was advised that (of course) there is none set.  They have started recently to impose these declarations on people, and as usual, the appeals processes will decide what the 'rules and precedents' are in each case.  In one case a couple that had been travelling overseas each year for 8 years, had their portability removed.  In another case a bloke that was spending 6 months of the year overseas in Europe (would not say where) and 6 months in Australia (family in both countries) had his portability removed.  I was advised that someone who goes overseas for a specific holiday with a start and end date (and advises CLink) will not have an issue - but if they do it every year and it is for 3+ months at a time - they can lose their portability.  Obviously, anyone that loses portability will regain it after staying in Australia for 2 years.  I was also advised that as long as the overseas trip is only for about 4-6 weeks at a time, then there will unlikely be an issue. It is after 6 weeks that pension payments when overseas reduce a little (energy supplement etc.), and this can be the trigger for a review. 

The driver behind all this of course is to reduce the ever growing costs of the pension, and the reality is that people who  travel overseas every year are easy targets for the Pollies to attack.   Why should we give welfare payments to people who are able to afford overseas holidays every year - that is the logic. There are limits on what they can do, particularly because under International Agreements Australia must pay pension 'welfare' to people who live overseas, who first received the pension when living in Australia and meet the requirements for portability.  Other than that, they can pretty much do whatever they want, because there is very little (if any) public support for those on the pension who travel overseas - each year or permanently.  

Anyone that was able to afford it and was going to maintain a premises in Australia and in Thailand, and was going to spend time each year in both locations, better think again. Clearly, the current harsh 'interpretations' of a permanent resident, means that someone has to choose between one and the other, otherwise one day they might find that their next trip backl overseas will have to be without the pension payments.  AND they will have to re-apply for the pension from scratch when they next return to Australia AND they will have to prove that they now intend to live 'permanently' in Australia AND they must not go overseas again for at least 2 years - unbelievable but true I am afraid.  

A couple had been travelling around Australia for over 14 months. CLink recently declared their house to no longer be their 'main residence' and it was therefore no longer exempt and the value was included in their Assets - their pension payments were severely reduced.  The matter is under appeal, but they will likely lose - the pension 'welfare' is not for people who live somewhere else while their million+ dollar house is lived in by their family members.  

On 5/27/2020 at 5:09 PM, 4MyEgo said:

Yes, however not the case, we have 2 kids together born in Oz, she has twin (16) born here and have only known me as their father since they were (2), e.g. wife left her x partner (not married) when they were (1), I also have one back in Oz from a previous (23).

The above said, adoption is not really something we have looked at as there are other avenues, e.g. the child visa 101 at them moment or we wait till they are (18) and they apply for permanent residency however I believe it gets a little harder then and costs more ?

There might be a waiting period as of 12 months, not sure, but I think if the parents are citizens that is waived.

Just doing the calcs with 4 kids 6, 11, 16 & 16 Family A is pretty much automatic, Family B is for the youngest only from my understanding and then there is an annual Family B supplement, plus rental assistance and possibly electricity subsidy, all up coming to around $30,000 a year which is nothing to scoff at and would pay for rent, then all you have to do is survive.

It is not asset tested, although it is income tested, and if you earn less then around $55k it stays the same, over that then it starts to reduce.

Never received any of this kind of support as my income was always in the 6 figures, but nice to know it's there is we do want to return, e.g. 4 season, rent paid for number of years, while kids get a better education and the chance of better jobs in years to come.

A lot to give up here to consider returning, but the kids and the 4 season have to come first, the latter 1st....lol

I am feeling that Thailand is not as cheap as we first thought it would be, especially when you take private health cover into consideration, unless you want to be treated in a country public hospital with hours waiting and doctors that are, well let's just leave that one be.

Don't get me wrong, it's still affordable albeit it is double the budget we first anticipated, now 60,000 baht a month, if you want the same existence (not over the top), same as back home and if your rent is paid back there, you can survive on the same amount I am sure. 

A lot to chew over, to go or to stay.

Mate - If you are paying 60K a month in insurance, that totals 720K per year. You would be better off putting that in a separate bank account and keeping it as a 'medical fund'. 2-3 years and you have more than enough for most issues in a hospital.

I am here in Aus now and cant wait to get back - grass often looks greener I can assure you.

7 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

All very true, but you have to understand that they DO think they are perfect and they DO believe they are the moral betters even as you watch them shift their attitude and narrative in real-time they do it with arrogance and passive-aggressiveness that’s astounding.  

And more and more people are seeing it - some for the first time.  There is a lady called Candace Owens and she and others have been making huge waves and they are calling in a 'blexit' - blacks leaving the Dems. 2020 is going to be biblical - as long as the Dems can be stopped from cheating with postal votes.

7 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

I just want the left to stop using women who have allegedly been abused when convenient for them. I am willing to let this go but if it were a republican we would have investigative bodies being formed. It would go on for months.  Or at least stop pretending their side is impartial and perfect. 

Admit you fight dirty and anything goes to win and I am okay with it. I wish they could simply be honest with themselves because it is painfully obvious to everybody else.

 

It is painfully obvious to more and more people too. Every year there are more and more Dems and MSM lies and deceptions - and all they are doing is emboldening Trump supporters, and making more converts.  2020 is going to be a bloodbath and the end of the Dems as they are as a political force in USA. The Dems will be restructured top to bottom in an attempt to regain their relevance. They will learn the hard way that they are disliked and distrusted, just like the MSM.

10 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

Wonder how long until the sexual assault allegations against Biden are widely reported? #himtoo. Haven't dug through the entire thread but skimmed the last few pages and didn't see anything. 

Mate dont hold your breath. Allegations against Trump or a Trump nominee or a GOP member are given 24x7 coverage and 'women's rights' groups will be marching in the street wearing ******* on their heads - seriously - they will ????

But allegations against a Trump opponent or a Democrat will be ignored and given nil coverage.  There will be no protest by 'women's rights' groups, and there will be no #metoo. Seriously. ????

The MSM are all 'rights' groups are the marketing branch of the Dems and their liberal supporters. 

On 4/23/2020 at 5:27 PM, scorecard said:

All interesting, and confusing. Both Centrelink and the Dept., of Veterans Affairs have told me in their correspondence it's an offence to not tell them current residential within 7 days of any change. 

At one point (just a few months ago) I spoke to an officer on the 'Older Australians' line, she politely said, if you go abroad and don't tell them you have gone abroad and you do continue to get the allowances, they will demand repayment of the allowance I should not have received (deduct it from upcoming payments) and they will also prosecute which could also mean permanent cancellation of all pensions.

A bit of a conundrum. 

There is no hard and fast rule etc. - it all comes down to what CLink decide at the time in in that situation.

Australians can go overseas and when they do, their pension payments drop after 6 weeks.

If you maintain an address, bank account, drivers licence, etc etc - you are still a resident, unless you have decided to move overseas permanently.   You got the payment because you are still an Aust resident probably.

If you are OK with that, then you need to be on an extended holiday overseas. What can happen is that after 2 years a person overseas who does not return can be deemed to be a non-resident - if CLink believes you have no intention to return.  That is the key - having a residence and all that other stuff, and intention to come back.  So if you now have no intention of returning, what I would suggest is that you contact CLink later (before 2 years is up), and advise them that after careful consideration you are considering staying in Thailand for a while - ask will that affect my pension payments if I do that?? ????

Make sure you state that you have been in many places in Thailand, and that you have not set up a home, and you have not lived in any one place for a long time, and that you are now considering getting a permanent place, but you would like to know if that would affect your pension payments and other benefits (ask about Medicare too).

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>mate - some posters here have literally know idea what they are talking about - clearly.
To claim that Hamas or Hezbollah or PLO or any bordering Arab Nation has formally accepted the existence of Isreal - is ridiculous and proof of their ignorance about what has been and is still happening. 

Wrong!

"How Many Times Must the Palestinians Recognize Israel?
Netanyahu’s new 'Jewish state' mantra negates the fact that Palestinians recognized Israel more than twenty years ago. They’re still waiting for Israel to recognize Palestine."
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.579701
 Yasser Arafat recognized Israel's right to exist as far back as 1988, and repeated it in writing in 1993 at the Oslo Peace Accords. Read Arafat's letter of recognition to Israeli PM Rabin here.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

Yes you are wrong !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization

Quote:  In 1993, the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace, accepted UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and rejected "violence and terrorism". In response, Israel officially recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.[17] However, the PLO has employed violence in the years since 1993, particularly during the 2000–2005 Second Intifada. On 29 October 2018, the Palestinian Central Council suspended the recognition of Israel and halted security and economic coordination in all its forms with it.[18]

There is fault on both sides, but it is hard to go past what the PLO did at the Munich Olympics in 1972. 

The PLO are terrorists - period:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence

Learn their history and you will know why most other Arab states do not recognise them, and Jordan was so easy to give up them and their land to Israel.

I would like to know if Biden's poll results were before or after the very credible accusations of sexual assault made against him.

If you dont know about that sexual assault allegation and the details - there is a reason - the MSM are biased against Trump/GOP and are supporting the Dems.  The US mainstream media is more upset about an out of context comment Trump made about disinfectant, than they are about Joe Biden’s sexual assault story.  CNN produced nearly 700 stories about Christine Blasey Ford’s  accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, but they have run ONE story about Tara Reade, Joe Biden’s accuser.  CNN gave airtime to Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys, and her friends, and her family, and they aired focus groups on the allegations.  And the rest of MSM is the same. 

So was this poll done before or after the sexual assault allegations made against Joe Biden.

I am not saying those allegations are true - Joe deserves the benefit of innocence until proven otherwise. But what I am saying is that the media are giving a completely different coverage of these allegations than they did for both Kavanaugh and Trump, when allegations were made against them.

All that is required for Israel to give up the occupied land is for the Arab Nations (and PLO) to accept the UN resolution that posters here are referring to to state that Israel is in the wrong.

https://ethicalfocus.org/the-israel-palestinian-conflict-each-sides-contrasting-narratives/

"The major Arab states rejected the principles of Resolution 242 (UN), and announced their policy towards Israel—the three Nos: No recognition, no peace, no negotiations."

Israel wants peace and to be accepted in the pre-1967 war boundaries - the Arab Nations do not and will not accept that.  They want Israel and all Jews removed.  

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course Israel is an occupying power. Israel has only legal right to land granted by the UN in 1948. The UN has not expanded that.  Israel still occupies land it gained in 67 war, and most accept that as the de facto borders, though I wonder if the US would accept it if it had happened to them.

If it not for the US veto in the UN Israel would have been made pariah long ago, IMO.

Yes and No.  Jordan gave the land away when it was occupied by Isreal after the war - for its own protection - which reasons have proven to be very real.  

https://ethicalfocus.org/the-israel-palestinian-conflict-each-sides-contrasting-narratives/  Quote:

The Six-Day War in 1967 created a fundamental change for Israel. Because Israel conquered the territories of the West Bank and Gaza, these lands with their millions of Palestinians came under Israeli occupation. Then followed the much discussed Resolution 242. The UN stipulated that Israel should withdraw essentially to the 1967 borders, as part of an overall agreement and a recognition of Israel’s right to live in peace and security. The resolution acknowledges the Arab’s rights to these lands, and Israel’s right to peace and security. Israel expected to trade land for peace. In June 1967, Moshe Dayan said, “We are waiting for the Arabs’ phone call. They know where to find us.” The answer was given in Khartoum on September, 1967.

The major Arab states rejected the principles of Resolution 242, and announced their policy towards Israel—the three Nos: No recognition, no peace, no negotiations. Israel became the occupier of an angry and unhappy population. Living under occupation is terrible for the occupied. It is not a blessing for the occupier.

1 hour ago, Throatwobbler said:

I will quickly sum up every posts you have ever made. Blah blah blah Liberals. blah blah blah Liberals. That is the entire content of all your posts.

Ditto yourself and all the liberals. Trumpo bad bla bla bla. Trump bad bla bla bla.

3 hours ago, andersonat said:

 

Here's a bit more "flesh" to that sentence (from Wikipedia) -

"During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel captured and occupied the formerly Jordanian-controlled West Bank, it's one million Palestinian population had now come under Israeli military occupation: Jordan, despite not continuing to be the actual sovereign, continued to pay salaries and pensions to civil servants and to provide services to endowments and educational affairs.

In 1974, the Arab League decided to recognize the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The decision forced King Hussein to relinquish his claim to speak for the Palestinian people during peace negotiations and to recognize an independent Palestinian state that is independent of Jordan.

Jordan's disengagement from the West Bank, in which Jordan surrendered the claim to sovereignty over the West Bank, took place on 31 July 1988: Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank, and recognized the PLO as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people to establish their own independent state."

That is one way to read what happened - another more truthful way is to say that Jordan after losing land in the war, and not wanting it back, or the troubled people in it (Palestinians), 'proclaimed' land that was no longer theirs to belong to the PLO, and this was deliberately done to start the Palestine/Israel conflict.

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

The vast majority of governments disagree. You made a number of claims. Tell me if a foreign power had occupied Northern Queensland and still did so today do you believe the Australian government would agree to unfair compromises in order to avoid conflict on our soil. if they did what would your opinion of them be?

Completely false analogy. There never was a country called Palestine.  It was a part of Jordan who lost it in the war. The war that some Arab nations started to remove Israel by force.  They lost the war and some lands.  You are completely fooled by the media provided information - try doing more research.  Try reading this reasonably balanced website : quote-

"Did the Arab governments help from a humanitarian point of view? Not particularly. The Palestinians have remained unpopular in large parts of the Arab world. When Egypt was in control of Gaza, from 1949 into 1967, Gaza Arabs were rarely allowed to travel into Egypt. After the first Gulf war in 1991, Kuwait expelled 250,000 Palestinians. Only Jordan allows Palestinians to become citizens. Elsewhere in the Arab world they are not permitted to become citizens. Even in Jordan, war broke out, suppressed by the Jordanian government. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been a superbly effective scapegoat and distraction for the Arab masses, who rank very poorly in the UN’s human development index in relation to the rest of the world."

https://ethicalfocus.org/the-israel-palestinian-conflict-each-sides-contrasting-narratives/