Talk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zero0000 (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 21 March 2017 (→‎Maps and sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Benny Morris Quote removal

The following quote appeared on this article until 10/5/2013. "A key feature of the Arabs' plans was the complete marginalization of the Palestinians. … This aptly reflected the political reality: The military defeats of April–May had rendered them insignificant. The Arab League through the first half of 1948 had consistently rejected Husseini's appeals to establish a government-in-exile. … Under strong pressure from Egypt, which feared complete Hashemite control over the Palestinians, the Arab League Political Committee in mid-September authorized the establishment of a Palestinian 'government.'" (Benny Morris, Righteous Victims)

I am removing this text from the article. Benny Morris is a self-professed Zionist, and as such hardly possesses a neutral point of view. Specifically, I think the statement "A key feature of the Arab's plan was the complete marginalization of the Palestinians" is non-factual, and the placing of the word government in quotes, without explanation, is unencyclopedic and distracting to the factual presentation the article ought to portray. The other information (EX: The Arab League through the first half of 1948 had consistently rejected Husseini's appeals to establish a government-in-exile) could perhaps be incorporated into the article with "Righteous Victims" as a text citation, although I caution against this usage given Morris's well-known position on the present political situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.177.144 (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Israeli POV?

Israeli POV is rampant on this article, as could be expected in an encyclopedia that still refuses to acknowledge Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Israel and only views the territory as occupied when Arabs are in possession.

Specifically, this article sites Daniel Pipes' notoriously biased website to make the POV Israeli claims look legitimate and neutral. Also, citing BrainyEncyclopedia for Six-Day war is self-referential because it is just a mirror of Wikipedia and the Six-Day war article Wikipedia Zionists have been POV editing since day one.

POV version: "Following the outbreak of the Six Day War in June 1967, Israel diplomatically requested that King Hussein not join Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser in opening a new front against Israel in the West Bank. Historians note [1] that Nasser placed pressure on a reluctant Hussein provoking him to open a new front against Israel, and in a well-known episode, a secret conversation between the two was recorded (by Israel(yah I'm sure!)) and released, in which Nasser and Hussein conspire to say that US and British planes had allegedly assisted Israel (see [2] for context and text. Thank you Daniel Pipes!) Miscalculating the course of the battle, King Hussein ordered artillery fire on Israeli positions in West Jerusalem. The Israel Defense Forces counter-attacked (it was all self defense!) and heavy urban fighting ensued. "

The allegations about Nasser and Hussein phone calls are Israeli mythology. Just state the facts and leave out the "secret" speculation. NPOV version:

"Following the outbreak of the Six Day War in June 1967, Israel warned King Hussein not to join Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser in opening a new front against Israel in the West Bank. Nevertheless, in accordance with its mutual defense treaty with Egypt, Jordan initiated artillery fire on Israeli positions in West Jerusalem. The Israel Defense Forces counter-attacked and heavy urban fighting ensued."

Let's call a spade a spade. Israel had designs on Jerusalem since 1948. Don't pretend it just happened by accident and 1967 was a self-defense war. Israel attacked "pre-emptively" that means they attacked first. They had plans to seize Jerusalem. Where is the quote from Dayan, "Jerusalem is ours!" " The Israel Defense Force had long planned to capture East Jerusalem and completely pushed the Jordanian army out of the West Bank. The formerly Jordanian-controlled West Bank and its Palestinian civilians were placed under Israeli military rule. + The Israel Defense Force defeated the Jordanian army and completely pushed them out of the West Bank. The formerly Jordanian-controlled West Bank and its one million Arab civilians were placed under Israeli military rule. " --Alberuni 20:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your original research and conspiracy theories are fascinating, but articles with actual links to real information shouldn't be censored. Jayjg 02:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm doing exactly what you taught to me to do. --Alberuni 02:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please deal with article content. What source is there for your POV edits? Jayjg 04:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
MY POV edits? The existing version cites Daniel Pipes and claims there was a conspiracy between Egypt and Jordan. NPOV calls for all versions to be recognized, not just the Israeli one that you prefer. [3] --Alberuni 04:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The link you provided just now has nothing to do with the topic. Jayjg 04:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just testing you! [4] --Alberuni 04:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wow, from Rense.com . I thought you were the guy that had really high standards for what were acceptable websites and what were not. I must say I'm not overly impressed with websites that promote Holocaust denial [5] Jayjg 04:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I admit, I don't like Rense and would not use it in article. I'd rather find a better source but no time with all the revert wars you put me through. Anyway, you are the one who says we should just report what they say and not judge the source. See, maybe role reversal makes you appreciate my position. --Alberuni 04:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, what I've said is that you are not the arbiter of sources. And frankly, after having been the brunt of several hundred abusive statements made by you, I don't appreciate anything about you any more. Jayjg 05:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Likewise. --Alberuni 05:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni, has Jayjg ever attacked you? --Viriditas 20:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
about the "Israel POV?" comment:

1. i would recommend you not to laugh about the fact that israel recorded a phone call between nasser and hussein. israeli intelligence is well-known around the world (mossad,shabahk), like it or not.

2. gathering egyptian forces in sinai, flying above the dimona, closing the straits of tiran, broadcasting on the radio "the attack to free palestine will soon come" and making a pact between egypt, syria and jordan to leave every dispute to focus on the "palestine" problem. those are not enough for israel to strike? even nasser said "i know that closing the straits of tiran is a declaration of war". to start a war you don't have to fire the first bullet.

3.It is well known that israel asked hussein not to join the war, but he did, so israel quickly moved in, when israel took most of the west bank (jenin, olive mountin and other ground near jerusalem) the idea also came to take east jerusalem. You are absolutely right about the fact that israelis always wanted the holy part of jerusalem, due to the fact that the most sacred sites to jews are there, but they never would initiate the attack on east jerusalem if not for hussein. when they realize that they have managed to surround east jerusalem they decided to take it (with no aid from the air or long ranged bombing and using a small amount of tanks but only with their foot corps not to danger the holy sites in the city). Its obvious that moshe dayan will be happy when israel took the holy city back, as where all israelis, and even today one of the most emotional moment in israel history is when dayan, waiting to hear how the fight went, heard on his communication "mount temple is in our hands". Its true that israel didn't HAVE to take east jerusalem, but due to the fact that its the most sacred and holy place for jews (and, obviously, jews could not enter there before the war), i don't see how they could resist. each and every one who reads this should ask himself: if i were at the gates of my holiest place could i resist not taking it? can i really look at it say "oh well" and turn my back on it?. its true circumstances made it easier. and about the partition plan picture: it should be replaced its not accurate. there was a corridor from jerusalem and the area to the sea for international forces. and the partition (jewish state/arab state) is wrong in front of the real partition plan. Daniksm 00:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article at least deserves a neutrality tag, it's indeed written from the israeli POV, unreliable sources are used, there's WP:COATRACK as the purpose seems to be to distract from the present israeli occupation of the west bank and east jerusalem..--Severino (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added. AFAIK, the "Jordanian occupation" meme was mostly created after the Israeli occupation. Jordan annexed the West Bank; though many did object to that, there obviously is a difference between "annexation", and "occupation". The rights of the citizen for a start. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
East Jerusalem and Golan Heights are currently categorized in Category:Israeli-occupied territories. Consistent with your NPOV edit to the article and consistent with your NPOV comment at this talk page, said category should be deleted. Your move. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "slight" difference off course, is that several "major players" in the world accepted the Jordanian annexation. The Israeli one: not so much, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, saying it was "Jordanian occupied" in Palestinian interests. It contributes to the claim that the Palestinians had a right to a state as far back as 1949, which Jordan violated by annexing the area. It also counters claims that the Palestinians deserve whatever happens to them because "they started it" in 1948, if it was in fact Jordan who started it with no input from the Palestinians, and who in fact denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination as a result just as much as Israel can be said to have.Watermark10 (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You changed the subject and moved the goal posts.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could also have mentioned the difference how the "conquered people" reacted to being annexed, however, for the moment I would like to try to limit the discussion to the title of the article. (If we are to discuss the whole 1967, and aftermath, then I suspect we both know that we can do that for all eternity.)
(I should have started a new section, though; a lot of the old discussion is no longer relevant.) Huldra (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move suggested

I suggest a move to something like Jordanian rule of the West Bank, West Bank Jordanian era, West Bank Jordanian era, (1948-1967), or even West Bank (1948-1967), Thoughts? Huldra (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: I do not think "rule" is a correct description. Jordan occupied and annexed it, though its annexation was not recognized by anyone except Britain and Pakistan. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move suggestion. Under international law, the areas under Jordanian rule in 1949 were not considered occupied any more than those that came under Israeli rule at that date (though the situation is different for territory taken by Israel in and after 1967).     ←   ZScarpia   12:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the move. It was most certainly considered an occupation by the international community, and the situation of Israel (as a successor state to the British Mandate of Palestine) is not legally the same as that of Jordan, a country which invaded the territory of said mandate in violation of UN resolutions. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another helping of double standards, wishful thinking, dubious claims and the presentation of personal points of view as facts.
For starters:
  • Justify your claim that the "international community" viewed Jordan's action as an "occupation", a word with legal significance.
  • Explain how Jordan's intervention was in breach of the British Mandate, which officially ended just beforehand.
  • Explain which UN resolutions Jordan's intervention violated. Then, taking into account that Israel's self-declared creation ignored processes laid down in the Partition Resolution, that Israel extended its rule to areas that were supposed to form part of an Arab state under the Partition Resolution, that Israel subsequently ignored resolutions calling for the return of refugees and that Israel ignored the condition it agreed to in becoming a UN member that refugees should be allowed to return, explain why you are using supposed Jordanian violations in order to claim that the West Bank is occupied but not using Israel's violations in order to claim that Israel is occupying territory it subsumed in the same period.
  • Presumably, by referring to Israel as a successor state to Mandatory Palestine, you're trying to claim that Israel's creation was widely sanctioned or seen as legitimate. Justify that as more than a viewpoint, taking into account that Israel's creation was self-declared, not universally recognised and that Israel extended its rule to areas that were meant to form parts of an Arab state or, in the case of Jerusalem, a corpus separatum. In making legal claims, Israel and its supporters sometimes advance the argument that Israel is the "successor state" of Mandate Palestine. Obviously, that argument isn't universally accepted and to try to state it as a fact rather than a point of view would be point-of-view pushing.
  • Bearing in mind that Revisionist Zionists claim that Transjordan was part of Palestine, justify your claim that Jordan's taking of territory is qualitatively different from Israel's is a fact rather than a point of view.
  • Bearing in mind that the neutrality policy requires that disputed claims be stated as points of view rather than facts, clarify whether you are claiming that it is not disputed that Jordan was occupying the West Bank. If you're not trying to claim that it is not disputed, then justify presenting your claim as a fact.
  • Clarify whether you think that it is disputed or undisputed that Jordan "invaded" parts of Palestine.
    ←   ZScarpia   19:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ZScarpia:, I hope the following will be enough. Otherwise, it's you who should bring the RS which approve your POV.
... --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific parts of those sources are you using to support your case?     ←   ZScarpia   02:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried to open my links? Each one of them points to the specifific page (1=>p.50, 2=>48, 3->22) --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kingsindian & Brad Dyer --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the West Bank did not belong to Jordan, I think this description is the correct one. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Various sources on the status of the West Bank historically:

    ←   ZScarpia   18:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to "Henry+Cattan" mentioned in your link: see my #4 above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Inaccuracies

Preventing the establishment of a government under the Mufti is not the same thing as preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state. A number of very reliable sources, including the US State Department, say that other countries recognized the principles contained in the resolutions of the 1948 Jericho Conference which named Abdullah the King of Arab Palestine and the subsequent union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan.

The 1950 act of union and agreement with the Arab League provided for the emergence of a Palestinian state. Since Jordan was a "joint kingdom" that included elected representatives from the West Bank, it is nonsensical to claim that the Palestinian inhabitants occupied themselves.

Examples of express and implied recognition

  • Great Britain recognized the annexation of the West Bank on a de jure basis, and the de facto authority of Jordan over East Jerusalem pending a final status determination. See British House of Commons, Jordan and Israel (Government Decision), HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41 [6]
  • Sanford Silverburg cites an article by Yehuda Blum that relied on another article written by Julius Stone. He says they are the source of the frequently repeated claim that only two states, Great Britain and Pakistan, recognized the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan. Silverburg casts some doubt on the reliability of the claim with respect to Pakistan's recognition. See Silverburg, Sanford R., Pakistan and the West Bank: A Research Note, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 261-263
  • In December of 1948 the mayors of almost all Palestine towns held by the Arabs met in Jericho and declared Abdullah King of Arab Palestine The government of Transjordan announced that any constitutional changes resulting from the incorporation of Palestine would be made at the same time as the setting of the date for the proclamation of Abdullah as the ruler of the joint kingdom. See The Palestine Post, December 14, 1948, page 1, "Jericho Declaration"; "Current biography yearbook", H. W. Wilson Co., 1949, page 5, Abdullah ibn Hussein; Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 2, US State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pages 1163-68; and "Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" submitted to the Internartional Court of Justice, para 2.19, page 18 of 229 [7]
  • In December of 1948 the Secretary of State authorized the US Consul in Amman to advise King Abdullah and the officials of Transjordan that the US accepted the principles contained in the resolutions of the Jericho Conference, and that the US viewed incorporation with Transjordan as the logical disposition of Arab Palestine. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Part 2, Page 1706; Kadosh, Sandra Berliant, United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Summer - Autumn, 1984), pp. 231-252, especially 246
  • The resolutions of the Second Arab-Palestinian Congress were adopted by the Transjordanian government on December 7, 1948 and the parliament approved the creation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on December 13, 1948. See Whiteman, vol 2, pages 1163-68; and the Palestine Post, "Jericho Declaration" article
  • On January 21, 1949 Transjordan officially changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. See Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, Vol. 4, Edmund Jan Osmanczyk, and Anthony Mango, Routledge, 3rd edition, 2004, ISBN 0-415-93924-0, page 2354 [8]
  • The United States extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, January 31, 1949. Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume VI, Page 713
  • Clea Bunch said that "President Truman crafted a balanced policy between Israel and its moderate Hashemite neighbours when he simultaneously extended formal recognition to the newly created state of Israel and the Kingdom of Transjordan. These two nations were inevitably linked in the President's mind as twin emergent states: one serving the needs of the refugee Jew, the other absorbing recently displaced Palestinian Arabs. In addition, Truman was aware of the private agreements that existed between Jewish Agency leaders and King Abdullah I of Jordan. Thus, it made perfect sense to Truman to favour both states with de jure recognition." See Clea Lutz Bunch, "Balancing Acts: Jordan and the United States during the Johnson Administration," Canadian Journal of History 41.3 (2006)
  • When de jure recognition was finally extended to the State of Israel on January 31, 1949, Truman in a significant and symbolic jesture, announced the recognition of Transjordan on the same date. See Devine, Michael J., Watson Robert P., Wolz Robert J., Israel and the legacy of Harry S. Truman, Volume 2004, Truman State Univ Press, 2008, ISBN: 1931112800, page xiii [9]
  • Jordan called attention to the fact that after the unification of the West Bank within Jordan's territory, Jordan concluded a considerable number of bilateral and multilateral treaties with other states. The application of those treaties extended to the entirety of Jordan including all of the West Bank: none of the other parties to those treaties made any reservation to the effect that their applicability to the West Bank was excluded. See Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the Internartional Court of Justice, para 2.21 pages 18-19 [10]
  • § 204, Reporters Note 2, The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says that "Recogni­tion of a state has been effected by express official declaration, by the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with the state, by the presentation of credentials by a United States representative to the authorities of the new state, and by receiving the credentials of a diplomatic represen­tative of that state."
  • Department of State bulletin, Volume: volume 20, 1949 noted de jure recognition of the government of Jordan; that a U.S. legation to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was established in Amman; and that Dr Yussef Baikal had presented credentials as "(Jordan) Minister" to the United States.
  • The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series presents the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions and significant diplomatic activity. It contains a Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950 which documents the US recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921 [11]
  • The US signed several treaties with Jordan: a Technical Cooperation Agreement with Jordan that entered into force February 27, 1951 (Volume 4206 of Department of State publication Volume 2233 of Treaties, a Guaranty of Private Investments Agreement effected by an exchange of notes, signed at Amman July 10 and September 24, 1956, Volume 3663 of Treaties, and an Economic Assistance Agreement including an exchange of notes signed at Amman June 29, 1957, Volume 3869 of Treaties of the United States. None of the treaties contained any reservations regarding the West Bank.
  • Thomas Kuttner notes that de facto recognition was granted to the Jordanian regime, most clearly evidenced by the maintaining of consulates in East Jerusalem by several countries, including the United States. See Israel and the West Bank, By Thomas S. Kuttner, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1977, Volume 7; Volume 1977, edited by Yoram Dinstein, Kluwer Law International, 1989, ISBN 0-7923-0357-1, [12]
  • Joseph Weiler said that other states had engaged in activities, statements, and resolutions that would be inconsistent with non-recognition. See Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state: a European perspective, By Joseph Weiler, Croom Helm, Ltd. 1985, ISBN 0-7099-3605-2, page 48, footnote 14 [13]
  • Joseph Massad said that the members of the Arab League granted de facto recognition and that the United States had formally recognized the annexation, except for Jerusalem. See Joseph A. Massad, Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001),ISBN 0-231-12323-X, page 229
  • The Security Council adopted Resolution 228 (1966) in which the Council observed that, "the grave Israeli Military action which took place in the southern Hebron area [of the West Bank] on 13 November 1966... constituted a large scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel" "Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" submitted to the Internartional Court of Justice, para 2.21, page 19 of 229 [14]
  • In a letter to David Ben-Gurion published by Reuters on 9 January 1968, French President De Gaulle explained that he was convinced that Israel had ignored his warnings and overstepped the bounds of moderation by taking possession of Jerusalem, and so much Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian territory by force of arms. See Text of de Gaulle's Answer to Letter From Ben-Gurion at Select.nytimes.com [15]
  • During the 5th Emergency Session of the General Assembly the representative of the Soviet Union, Mr. Kosygin, repeatedly asserted that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. See A/PV.1526 of 19 June 1967. [16]
  • On June 9, 1967 Foreign Minister Eban assured US Ambassador Goldberg that Israel was not seeking territorial aggrandizement and had no "colonial" aspirations. See Foreign Relations of the United States Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, page 386, Document number 227 Secretary Rusk stressed to the Government of Israel that no settlement with Jordan would be accepted by the world community unless it gave Jordan some special position in the Old City of Jerusalem. The US also assumed Jordan would receive the bulk of the West Bank as that was regarded as Jordanian territory. See Foreign Relations of the United States Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, page 765-766, Document 411

harlan (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan, I'm at a distinct disadvantage when reading your talk page entries by virtue of not being as smart as you. :P So the net effect of what you are saying is that Jordan's presence was accepted by the Palestinian populace via their elected officials and the annexation was recognized as legitimate, whether directly or indirectly, by the Security Council, the US, the USSR, and other countries. Is that a fair summary? In light of these facts Jordan's actions wouldn't have been an occupation. Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is correct. Article 39 of the UN Charter provides that the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. The Security Council eventually did decide that the civil war in Palestine was a threat to international peace, but it had deliberately avoided describing the entry of the Arab armies as an act of aggression or a belligerent occupation.
  • On 9 May UN Representative Austin advised the US Secretary of State that the French representative, Mr. Parodi, had called a meeting of the British, Belgian, and American, representatives to discuss the situation regarding possible action which the Security Council might be called upon to take following May 15. He said that as of May 15 they would be faced by declarations two states of Palestine coupled with the entrance of Abdullah. Regarding the latter, two ideas were current. The first is that if Abdullah moved beyond his own frontier it might constitute an "act of aggression". The second idea was that if he entered on invitation of the Arab population of Palestine his act might not constitute aggression. Parodi said he was inclined to the second theory and thought a conclusion to that effect would avoid endless argument. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948, Volume V, Part 2, page 946.
  • When the Israeli militias started operations under Plan Dalet, internal US State Department memos reported on Israeli militia operations and predicted that the Arab armies would enter Palestine. They said the UN would be confronted by a very anomalous and intolerable situation:

    "The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. The question which will confront the SC in scarcely ten days' time will be whether Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council. The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack. ... Given this almost intolerable situation, the wisest course of action might be for the United States and Great Britain, with the assistance of France, to undertake immediate diplomatic action seeking to work out a modus vivendi between Abdullah of Transjordan and the Jewish Agency. This modus vivendi would call for, in effect, a de facto partition of Palestine along the lines traced by Sir Arthur Creech Jones in his remark to Ambassador Parodi on May 2, as indicated on Page 3 of USUN's telegram [549], May 2, which has been drawn to your attention." See Memo from Rusk to the Under Secretary of State Lovett, May 4, 1948, Subject: Future Course of Events in Palestine. Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848 -- cited in "The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951", William Roger Louis, Oxford University Press, 1984, ISBN: 0198229607, page 545; Zionism and the Palestinians, Simha Flapan, Croom Helm, 1979, ISBN: 0856644994, Page 336; and Fallen pillars: U.S. policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, Donald Neff, 2nd Edition, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995, ISBN: 0887282598, page 65.

  • Prior to the termination of the Mandate, the Jewish Agency declined a UN brokered cease fire proposal because the Zionist Executive preferred the offer of a modus vivendi agreement from the Emir Abdullah of Transjordan. Foreign Minister Shertok told US Secretary of State Marshall about the plan for the Arab Legion and the Haganah to coordinate their respective military plans in order to "avoid clashes without appearing to betray the Arab cause".[17] Marshall also wrote that Shertok had plainly stated the intentions of the Provisional Government of Israel to make arrangements and partition Palestine between themselves and Abdullah.[18] The Emir subsequently confirmed the existence of those agreements to the US Consul in Amman.[19]
  • The Arab Higher Committee advised the Security Council that it had sought the assistance of the League of Arab States and that it was represented as a member in that organization.[20] harlan (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. The Palestine/Jordan situation starts to make a hell of a lot more sense now. If the West Bank under Jordan was merely occupied UNSC Resolution 228 is a non sequitur, as is Jordan granting citizenship to West Bank residents only to remove it in 1988. And the ceding of Jordan's claim to the PLO in '88 no longer looks like a hollow gesture. This contradicts the standard line on most Wikipedia I/P articles regarding Jordan and the West Bank so it will be a long battle to correct. Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The material in the US, UK, and Israeli state archives does not contradict the official version of history that Abdullah and Glubb told in their autobiographies with respect to the establishment of the political union. There are some works that take note of that fact, e.g. See "Jordan and 1948: the persistence of an official history." in "The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948", By Eugene L. Rogan, Avi Shlaim.[21] The UN never questioned the fact that Israel granted citizenship to the Palestinians on its side of the armistice line or considered them under belligerent occupation, despite the fact that they were kept under martial law until the 1960s (by their own government). Unlike Israel and Jordan, the UN had "legitimate" member states that did not bother to conduct elections at all. In state practice, Italy used an Armistice agreement to change sides in WWII, and Great Britain and France employed the Armistice of Moudros to create and administer the new states in Ottoman Asia from 1918 to 1924. That is when the treaty of peace with Turkey finally removed any remaining legal hurdles to the entry into force of their LoN Mandates. harlan (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes it even stranger that someone has put, in any article where it's remotely relevant, references to the international refusal to recognize Jordan's claims to the West Bank and its status as "occupied". Gives me something to do at least. Sol Goldstone (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Under international law, the status of Israel's territory is "occupied" too. An armistice agreement changes a belligerent occupation into an armistice occupation. Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban claimed that "Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held [i.e. all of Israel] has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states." see "Effect on Armistice Agreements", FRUS Volume VI 1949, 1149

It goes without saying that only the legal representative of the communities of the British mandate could sanction Israel's occupation, and that one of those "Arab States" had officially been the joint Kingdom of Jordan (Palestine and Tranjordan) since January 21, 1949.

Many Wikipedia articles incorrectly say that the neighboring states prevented the creation of a Palestinian state. But Abdullah had been proclaimed "The King of Arab Palestine" in December of 1948 - long before the West Bank was ever annexed.

The following is cited from the US State Department's Digest of International Law, vol 2, 1963, by Marjorie M. Whiteman (editor), pages 1163-68: "The second Palestine Arab Conference held at Jericho on December 1, 1948, passed four resolutions regarding the Palestine situation, the first of which stated:

"1. Since Palestine was once a part of natural Syria (an Arab country) and since the Mandate which was imposed on it without the consent of the population and which lasted until the 15th of May, 1948, did not lead the country to its independence or its incorporation into one of the independent sister countries, the people of Palestine now see through political and military developments in Palestine that the time has come when active steps should be taken with the cooperation of the neighboring Arab States to safeguard their future and decide their ultimate fate of living a life of independence and freedom. It was therefore decided that Palestine and the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan be united into one Kingdom and that King Abdallah Bin Hussein be proclaimed constitutional King over Palestine."'

The American Vice Consul at Amman (Stabler) to the Secretary ot State (Marshall), despatch No. 13, Dec. 10, 1948. MS. Department or State, file 867N.01/12-1048.

'The Government of Transjordan in an official policy statement adopted by the Council of Ministers on December 7 and read to the Council of Representatives on December 9, 1948, announced that-

"1. The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan fully appreciates the desire of those who have taken part In the Conference and the majority of the people of Palestine to unite the two sister countries. This desire is consistent with the aim of the Government which will endeavor to bring it into execution through constitutional and international channels at an opportune hour."

The Transjordan Parliament adopted a resolution on December 13, 1948, confirming the policy of the Government in the aforementioned statement.'

The American Vice Consul at Amman (Stabler) to the Secretary of State (Marshall), despatch No. 14, encls. 1, 2, Dec. 18, 1948, MS. Department of State, file 867N.01/12-1848.

On January 21, 1949 Transjordan officially changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. See Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, Vol. 4, Edmund Jan Osmanczyk, and Anthony Mango, Routledge, 3rd edition, 2004, ISBN 0-415-93924-0, page 2354 [22] The step of unification was ratified by a joint Jordanian National Assembly on April 24, 1950. The Assembly was composed of 20 representatives each from the East and West Bank. The Act of Union contained a protective clause which preserved Arab rights in Palestine without prejudice to any final settlement. See "From Occupation to Interim Accords, Raja Shehadeh, Kluwer Law International, 1997, pages 77–78 and Whiteman's Digest. harlan (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US "recognition"

What the cited source says is "In response to Mr. Rifai's question as to when the US was going to recognize the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan, I explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition". the source is a primary document, which say almost the opposite of what is claimed - i.e, Jordan asked when the US will recognize, and got the response that the US will not issue a formal recognition notice. The US accepted the annexation as a done deal, but did not formally recognize it. In contrast, we have numerous reliable secondary sources that explicitly say the Jordanian annexation was not recognized by any country except the UK. What you (and Harln) are doing is original research. HupHollandHup (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC). [reply]

I think this is inline with WP:Primary. There isn't any interpretation of the source, it carefully uses the terms supplied by the State Department. If you object to those words we could always use a direct quote or something along those lines. Like all of this international recognition of territories stuff the wording is extremely important so I've tried not to insert anything potential misleading.
If you have any thoughts about why secondary sources should overrule a primary source publication from the government branch that dictates US foreign policy I am all ears. I simply don't know how both exist, the disconnect is stunning. There are myriad theories I could advance but that would be original research
If you can find any secondary sources directly explaining why this was not a recognition of Jordan's claim to Palestine, please let me know and we can move along with the corrections. I'll be looking to see what I can find as this area of history is already so confusing that the last thing readers need is more wrong information. If the source were not unswervingly precise in what it is saying I would have omitted it. Sol Goldstone (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have "thoughts" above secondary vs. primary sources, I have one of the basic Wikipedia policies, WP:NPOV, which states : "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.". If you want to state that a FRU document that has a state dept. official telling a Jordanian official that the State Dept will not issue a formal recognition notice is in fact a form of recognition - you need to source this to a secondary source. It is acceptable to have such a statement attributed to Massad (as Harlan recently added, though we'd have to wonder why Massad's opinion is notable in this context). It is not acceptable to use the primary FRU to state as fact that the US recognized the annexation, when the FRU does not say this, and when numerous secondary sources say the opposite. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that the representative of the US Government wrote a memo for record which says that the United States recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the territory. WP:PSTS says that Wikipedia policy allows the use of primary sources that have been reliably published. The FRUS is the official published documentary record of US foreign policy decisions. I've added a secondary source. If you care to check the subsection above on implied and express recognition, you will see that there are plenty more of them available. harlan (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The memo says no such thing. In fact, it says almost the opposite - namely "I explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition". If you want to claim this constitutes recognition you need to find a secondary source that says this. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Massad has an earned PhD in political science. Here is the direct quote

I explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn-that the US did in fact recognize the union.

§ 204 of The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says that recogni­tion of a state can be effected by express official declaration, by the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with the state, by the presentation of credentials by a United States representative to the authorities of the new state, and by receiving the credentials of a diplomatic represen­tative of that state."
Department of State bulletin, Volume: volume 20, 1949 noted de jure recognition of the government of Jordan; that a U.S. legation to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was established in Amman; and that "Dr Yussef Baikal had presented credentials as "(Jordan) Minister" to the United States."
The US signed several treaties with Jordan: a Technical Cooperation Agreement with Jordan that entered into force February 27, 1951 (Volume 4206 of Department of State publication Volume 2233 of Treaties, a Guaranty of Private Investments Agreement effected by an exchange of notes, signed at Amman July 10 and September 24, 1956, Volume 3663 of Treaties, and an Economic Assistance Agreement including an exchange of notes signed at Amman June 29, 1957, Volume 3869 of Treaties of the United States. None of the treaties contained any reservations regarding the West Bank. harlan (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Massad's opinion, attributed to him, is fine. The FRU, a primary document, quotes an official that says the US "accepts", but does not "issue formal statements of recognition". If you want to claim this constitutes recognition, that is an interpretation that requires a secondary source. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to say that Massad wrote that the US declared its recognition and add the quote. All of those evidences of recognition were also noted in secondary sources. Thomas Kuttner notes that recognition was granted to the Jordanian regime, most clearly evidenced by the maintaining of consulates in East Jerusalem by several countries, including the United States. See Israel and the West Bank, By Thomas S. Kuttner, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1977, Volume 7; Volume 1977, edited by Yoram Dinstein, Kluwer Law International, 1989, ISBN 0-7923-0357-1 Joseph Weiler said that other states had engaged in activities, statements, and resolutions that would be inconsistent with non-recognition. See Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state: a European perspective, By Joseph Weiler, Croom Helm, Ltd. 1985, ISBN 0-7099-3605-2, page 48, footnote 14 [23] harlan (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the relevant section is "I explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan has been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area." It's the sentence after the section you quoted that is so important. It's an unimpeachable recognition of Jordan's territorial claims from the agency that deals with the recognition of territorial claims. It even explains why the US didn't make a formal declaration. Formal declarations are not, as I understand it (and as these diplomats seem to have understood it), the necessary requirement for recognizing territorial sovereignty under international law.
Please look back over what's written. This isn't interpretation of the source, it's a restatement. If you want us to use a direct quote prefaced by nothing but "On the subject of Jordanian claims to the West Bank, State Department documents from 1950 said:" I am just fine with that. Sol Goldstone (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is interpretation, because the source does not explicitly.say what you claim, and comes very close to saying the exact opposite - that formal recognition will not be provided. You interpret the sentence "the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area" as recognition. I (and numerous secondary sources) interpret this as acquiescence to a done deal, without legally recognizing it. If you want to state in wiki's voice that this constitutes recognition - you must find a secondary source that says so. This is true in any case, and doubly so when we have reliable secondary sources that say the opposite - that the UK is the only country to ever recognize the annexation. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are arguing in circles. Massad does say that the US Government declared its recognition. In addition the article contains another citation to the FRUS from a separate 1950 policy statement on Jordan which mentions that the United States acknowledged its "approval" of the annexation during discussion with the Foreign Ministers of the UK and France. It says the United States together with Great Britain favored the annexation by Transjordan of Arab Palestine and that "The policy of the Department, as stated in a paper on this subject prepared for the Foreign Ministers meetings in London in May [1949] was in favor of the incorporation of Central Palestine into Jordan but desired that it be done gradually and not by sudden proclamation. Once the annexation took place, the Department approved of the action "in the sense that it represents a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people."
Both the Rockwell memo and the Jordan policy statement use the same formula regarding "the will of the people" that the United States has used since the French Revolution in 1792, when Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson said, "It accords with our principles to acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the people, substantially declared." harlan (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hup, you are reading the source through a lens distorted by your idea of our interpretation and perhaps the mistaken idea that formal recognition (how ever you want to define the mechanics of that, are you thinking of treaties?) is the only kind of recognition in international matters. It doesn't matter what we claim the document is saying, only that the article accurately reflect the document. It currently does. Demanding that a secondary source be supplied to specifically refute others is an absurd shifting of the burden of proof not required by Wikipedia policy; if researchers miss or ignore primary sources it is not our duty to supply the work of the less ignorant. Parking this here. Restatement of facts. Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Actually that dog won't hunt. I already supplied the authority on recognition, ASIL's "The Foreign Relations Law of the United States" which says that recognition can be accomplished by accepting the credentials of a government. The State Department Bulletin says the United States extended de jure recognition to Jordan and that it accepted the credentials of the Minister of Jordan. The source for that is listed as the remarks made by President Truman and the Minister during a press conference.

§ 202 of The Restatement, "Recognition or Acceptance of States" says "a. Recognition or treatment as state. Recognition of statehood is a formal acknowledgment by another state that an entity possesses the qualifications for statehood as set forth in § 201, and implies a commitment to treat that entity as a state. States may recognize an entity’s statehood by formal declaration or by recognizing its government, but states often treat a qualified entity as a state without any formal act of recognition."

The US quite obviously recognized the government of Jordan. The State Department Bulletin says the US upgraded its delegation to an embassy and posted a full Ambassador. harlan (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break Recognition of States

I don't really think that applies. Since the laws of the USA are not the laws of the world. Thus irrelevant in my honest opinion. If such notions apply then what did the USSR think? Or Peru for that matter? either one's unilateral opinion would be irrelevant since they had no claim or say in such events. Just as the USA had no say in the events of the of the west bank even if they declared they did. General Choomin (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the US said the union resulted from the expression of the will of the two peoples, and not from the threat or use of force is very relevant. The cases of Israel and Transjordan established the UN policy on recognition and representation that still apply today. Those policies are based upon recognition by individual states. So, the Foreign Relations laws of the United States on recognition are relevant (and based upon the UN Charter in any event). The United Nations has described the situation in its own International law publications:

there is no definition binding on all members of the community of nations regarding the criteria for statehood, and as long as there is no organ which could in casu reach a binding decision on this matter, the decision as to the statehood of an entity depends upon the other members of the community of nations. The governments of various states are the organs responsible for reaching individual decisions in a given case. The decision-making is called the recognition of states. The term signifies the decision of the government of an already existing State to recognize another entity as a State. The act of recognition is in fact a legal decision which depends on the judgment of the recognizing government. The underlying factors, nevertheless, are not solely legal, but in many cases they are mainly political.[24]

I'm sorry I have to do such forms of answers but I feel I must address your points one by one. You just changed the goal posts and are now reiterating my own argument that the decelerations of the USA nor the UK are insufficient to bring about a fully fledged state. A "community of states" is hardly just the announcements of the USA, the UK, nor the Israelis or Jordanians. All of whom had interests in such nonsense. Israel and Jordan both had plans of expansion no matter the opinion of those that lived on such land. The UK neither had the manpower, the money, nor the will to stay as colonial masters of the mandate and where overjoyed to leave the mess they made to the hands of others. As far as the USA is concerned *shrugs*. Four nations is still hardly a "community of nations".
In 1946, the USSR used the lack of diplomatic relations to block Transjordan's membership in the United Nations. That act resulted in a landmark case in the International Court of Justice which held that the only criteria were those mentioned in the Charter, i.e. membership is open to any "peace loving state" that can fulfil the obligations contained in the Charter.
Was part of the mandate of Palestine a part of "Transjordan" during the time?
In 1948 the question of Israel's statehood and the extent of its legal jurisdiction were debated by the Security Council in connection with Chapter VII enforcement actions. Several states asked for that question to be submitted to the International Court of Justice. Abba Eban said

"The act of determining whether a certain political unit is a State or not is known in international law as an act of recognition; and under the Charter, no Member State has surrendered to the United Nations or to any organ thereof its unlimited sovereignty to regard a political unit as a State." See S/PV.340, the 340th meeting of the UN Security Council, 27 July 1948 [25]

Yes Abba Eban's comments make total sense in the context that he was arguing the case for the legitamacy of Israel. By is own definition Palestine would similarly be considered a state when the PLO unilaterally declared independence in 1988. Even having much more legitimacy in regards to "peace loving" then the state of Israel did. Since the political unit that formed the state of Israel consisted of brutal murderers, terrorists, thieves, sadists, and (in the case of the Irgun) rapists. Yet even after 1988 when the political "unit" of the PLO unilaterally declared itself a state the Palestinians still paid the Israelis their taxes. Abba Eban wasn't anything but a representative of that unilateral declaration and to paint him as an unbias member of the IC is disingenuous. I also Find it odd that you would quote him since he is clearly saying that Israel is a state despite the rejection of recognition from any and/or all states or institutions.
When the Security Council representative from Syria questioned the United States recognition of the Provisional Government of Israel. The representative of the United States (Mr. Austin} replied:

I should regard it as highly improper for me to admit that any country on earth can question the sovereignty of the United States of America in the exercise of that high political act of recognition of the de facto status of a State.

"Moreover, I would not admit here, by implication or by direct answer, that there exists a tribunal of Justice or of any other kind, anywhere, that can pass judgment upon the legality or the validity of that act of my Country.

"There were certain powers and certain rights of a sovereign State which were not yielded by any of the members who signed the United Nations Charter and in particular this power to recognize the de facto authority of a provisional Government was not yielded. When it was exercised by my Government, it was done as a practical step, in recognition of realities: the existence of things, and the recognition of a change that had actually taken place. I am certain that no nation on earth has any right to question that, or to lay down a proposition that a certain length of time of the exercise of de facto authority must elapse before that authority can be recognized." See S/1466, 9 March 1950, Letter Dated 8 March 1950 From the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council Concerning "Legal Aspects of Problems of Representation in the United Nations"[26]

Great speech except it is irrelevant as I said. I mean it completely invalidates this document [27] Which was part of the understanding (as well as international treaty) as well as the underpinning of the legal establishment for A Jewish homeland in the mandate. Notice how such a document was based on broad community of nations? You should read it all since it says a lot more then the infamous Mr Austin said then. I guess your great source doesn't want to acknowledge that the defacto authority of the League of Nations had to elapse before the authority of Israel could be recognized.
During the Emergency General Assembly session in 1967 on the subject, the Soviet Union said the West Bank was Jordanian territory. In 1968 French President De Gualle wrote a letter to Ben Gurion, and released it to Reuters News service. It chastised Israel for ignoring his advice not to launch a war and for exceeding the bounds of moderation by capturing Jordanian territory. Six months earlier the entire Security Council had condemned Israel for launching a premeditated attack on "Jordanian territory" in the Hebron area. The citations are available in the section above on Express and Implied Recognition.
'''Even Mr Austin, with all his ignorance of past treaties and history, did not conflate territory with sovereignty. The only thing of note here is that of political maneuverings between cold war and colonial power geopolitics egging in two regional colonial powers to fight another war over land both had already stolen from in 48.'''
We are discussing the wording of a statement that appears in the article which says the US favored the incorporation of the West Bank in Transjordan and approved the annexation after it occurred. It also recognized the sovereignty of the government of Jordan over the territory. The Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States is based upon international laws and conventions including the Montevideo Convention, the UN Charter, and etc. For example § 202(2) of The Restatement, "Recognition or Acceptance of States" says "(2) A state has an obligation not to recognize or treat as a state an entity that has attained the qualifications for statehood as a result of a threat or use of armed force in violation of the United Nations Charter." This and many other articles imply that the union between Palestine and Transjordan violated the UN Charter or wasn't widely recognized. Many published sources say that wasn't the case. harlan (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it does not matter what the "US" favored. It matters less when you don't acknowledge when the collective US did not favor such ideas. You mention sovereignty of the government of Jordan over the territory. Which you haven't cited anyone saying such a thing in reference to Jordan/Palestine. The way you pick and choose your citations is of course highly Bias and contains no academic relevance into what actually constitutes a state nor the history behind it. All you cite is the hubris of the irrelevant. Perhaps you should read a bit of Engel before you comment again on this subject.
PS this a point by point address of your remarks if you do not understand why I wrote between your lines in italics. I find it easier at times to do such things in discussions as it helps address each part specifically. General Choomin (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are way behind on your reading. The United Nations and Great Britain agreed to terminate the Palestine Mandate at the request of the Jewish Agency. [28] The mandate was drafted and conferred on Great Britain by three other states. It was ratified by five less states than the number on the Security Council when the resolutions that established the permanent lines of demarcation between Israel and Transjordan were adopted and the resolution passed that condemned the premeditated attack on Jordanian territory. Prof. James R. Crawford said that in one respect at least, it is clear that the General Assembly partition resolution had authoritative legal effect. Since the demise of the League, the ICJ has held that any alteration in the basis for administration of a mandate requires the approval of the General Assembly. "Britain terminated the Mandate at midnight on 14-15 May 1948, but its action was only legally effective by virtue of the Assembly's approval in Resolution 181(II)." See "The Creation of States in International Law", Oxford University Press, USA; 2nd ed 2007, ISBN-10: 0199228426, page 430.
The request for recognition from the provisional government of Israel said that the state had been proclaimed within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly in its resolution of November 29. [29] The JCPA has an article authored by Clark Clifford which explains that the territorial stipulation was a precondition to the de facto recognition of the government of Israel. [30] So, Mr. Austin was talking about de facto recognition of the GOI's sovereignty over a defined territory.
FYI, the UNSCOP report to the General Assembly said "The notion of the National Home, which derived from the formulation of Zionist aspirations in the 1897 Basle program has provoked many discussions concerning its meaning, scope and legal character, especially since it has no known legal connotation and there are no precedents in international law for its interpretation." The Commission said the conclusion seemed inescapable that the undefined term "National Home" had been used, instead of the term "State", to place a restrictive construction on the scheme from its very inception. [31]
So, the only published reference that you cited, does not mention Mr. Austin, the legal effects of US recognition, or support any of your postulations. You'll need to cite reliable published sources to support all of your disputed or contentious claims. Your personal opinions cannot be used in the article. harlan (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Legality of annexation isn't by the recognition of other states. There is no vote. It's the same as recognition of states, on which the US has this to say :

” ..in the view of the United States, International Law does not require a state to recognize another state; it is a matter for the judgment of each state whether an entity merits recognition as a state. In reaching this judgment, the United States has traditionally looked for the establishment of certain facts. The United States has also taken into account whether the entity in question has attracted the recognition of the International community of states.”[32].

Similarly, 'recognition' of annexation is not mandatory, it's unilateral, independent state by independent state, no vote in the UN.
'legality' on the other hand is determined by Customary International Law, convention and the UN Charter, on which the UNSC must base resolutions such as this one of six reminders of UNSC res 252.
The US stance is derived from its own annexation of Mexican territories, where a referendum of the Mexican citizens of Texas was first held[33]. Once the Mexican citizens of Texas agreed to be annexed, a referendum was held in the US 'to annex'. This and the annexation of Hawaii by the US[34], was instrumental in the eventual passing of the custom of self determination by referendum into Customary International Law and the outlawing of acquiring territory by war.
There is no UNSC resolution against Jordan annexing the West Bank. Customary International Law was followed when the Arabs requested (self determination) Jordan annex and; the Arab states insisted on Jordan as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950), in keeping, as a regional power (tho not a UN Member State at the time), with the UN Charter Chapt XI as no trusteeship agreement under UN Charter Chapt XII had been reached.
Jordan relinquished its role to Israel under the Jordan/Israeli Peace Agreement, wherein Israel assumed all the "responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples had not yet attained a full measure of self-government. talknic (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied vs. Ruled

Let's beat the old horse yet again; was it occupied or was it ruled by Jordan? Did the legal measures taken by Jordan and some representatives of the Palestinians receive recognition and how is it most commonly referred to in RS? Tagging with disputed facts until resolved. Sol (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Prime Minister Eshkol suggested that Jordan had been occupying the West Bank in 1967, King Hussein objected and President Johnson agreed. He instructed U.S. Ambassador Goldberg to insert the word "Israeli" before the word withdrawal in the first operative paragraph of the draft Security Council resolution (i.e. UN SC res. 242). See Foreign relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Page 1015, Document 515, (unnumbered) paragraphs 4 and 5 [35] and page 1026, Document 521, paragraph 4 [36]
This article perpetuates a common misconception. There is no legal difference between the consequences of tacit or de facto recognition and de jure recognition in international law. See for example Article 7 of the Montevideo Convention or the decision in the Tinoco case between Costa Rica and the United Kingdom, 1 United Nations Reports of International Arbital Awards, 1948, pages 377-378 [37]. A host of reliable sources say that tacit or de facto recognition of the annexation of the West Bank evolved among all the parties to the conflict, including the Arab League, and the international community in general. See for example Allan Gerson, "Israel, the West Bank and international law, Psychology Press, 1978, ISBN 0714630918, page 78 [38]; Joseph A. Massad, "Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan", Columbia University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-231-12323-X, page 229; Thomas S. Kuttner, Israel and the West Bank, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1977, Volume 7; Volume 1977, edited by Yoram Dinstein, Kluwer Law International, 1989, ISBN 0-7923-0357-1; Joseph Weiler, Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state: a European perspective, By Joseph Weiler, Croom Helm, Ltd. 1985, ISBN 0-7099-3605-2, page 48, footnote 14; and Foreign Relations of the United States Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, page 765-766, Document 411, paragraph 3 [39].
Israel itself accepted de facto Jordanian sovereignty over the inhabitants when it agreed to negotiate and sign an international armistice agreement with Jordan (not Transjordan). That occurred after Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion had informed the US representative of the UN Palestine Conciliation Commission that Arab Palestine could be accorded a special status in the peace settlement through a union with Transjordan. See the relevant portion of the "Telegram, The Consul at Jerusalem (Burdett) to the Secretary of State, April 20, 1949, Foreign relations of the United States, 1949, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, page 927 [40] The Tripartite Declaration of 1950 guaranteed the territorial status quo determined by the Arab-Israeli armistice agreements. Jordan was subsequently admitted as a member of the UN in 1955. In 1966 the Security Council adopted Resolution 228 which said the Israeli attack on the Hebron area was "a large-scale and carefully planned military action against Jordanian territory".
The ICJ addressed the status of Jerusalem and the armistice agreements in the 2004 advisory opinion. The Court stated that Israel's undertakings under the terms of the agreements remain valid. See paragraph 129 [41] FYI, the Security Council ordered the UN Mediator to find any peaceful solution, imposed a cease fire, and ordered the establishment of permanent lines of demarcation under the auspices of binding Chapter VII resolutions. On behalf of the UN, the Mediator accepted an armistice agreement that granted a joint Israeli-Jordanian committee "exclusive competence" to develop any future plans and agreements (article VIII). It also instructed UNTSO to enforce whatever plans and agreements the Israeli-Jordanian committee provided (article IX). The Security Council adopted that arrangement, cited article 40 (Chapter VII of the Charter), and relieved the mediator of any further responsibility. See Security Council resolution 73. harlan (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the material and you appear to be correct. That does fit in with my understanding of de facto recognition and you've got the sources for it. Dissent, anyone? Sol (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab communities of the Mandate

Obviously the indigenous communities of the Palestine mandate were not belligerent occupants of their own territory. Most of the editors fail to provide a satisfactory legal analysis of the legal status of Arab Palestine, Transjordan, and the new entity "Jordan" before launching into their discussions about "recognition" by other states. That overlooks (i) the inherent right of the non-Jewish "communities" of the Palestine Mandate to establish a single state in all of the territory they occupied after the mandate was terminated; and (ii) the fact that the Security Council had refused to consider the membership application of Transjordan because, among other things, some members claimed it was still part of a joint mandate that had not yet been legally terminated (see below).

Ernest A. Gross, a senior U.S. State Department legal adviser, authored a memorandum for the United States government titled Recognition of New States and Governments in Palestine, dated 11 May 1948 which said that the law of nations recognizes an inherent right of people lacking the agencies and institutions of social and political control to organize a state and operate a government. He said that a legal inquiry called first for a determination concerning the legal status of Palestine just prior to the proclamation of any new states in that country and noted that the whole territory of Palestine, including the Transjordan, had been detached from the former sovereign, Turkey, in the World War I peace settlement. He explained that Article 22 of the Covenant discussed "communities" and that the separation of Transjordan had demonstrated that there was more than one community in Palestine. He concluded that "The Arab and Jewish communities will be legally entitled on May 15, 1948 (the date of expiry of the British Mandate) to proclaim states and organize governments in the areas of Palestine occupied by the respective communities." The memo is contained in the Foreign Relations of the United States 1948, volume 5, part 2, pages 959-965 [42] and is cited by Stefan Talmon, in "Recognition of Governments in International Law" (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), page 36

Here are some relevant facts concerning the legal status of the communities in Transjordan:

  1. When Great Britain announced plans to grant Iraq independence it started a two-year long debate in the League of Nations regarding the legal criteria for the termination of the mandates. It was decided by the Council that the conditions for the termination of a mandate regime applied to the entire territory and all of the communities under joint mandates. Luther Evans wrote that "certain members felt that in a case, such as Syria presented, of certain parts of the territory (i.e. Lebanon) with separate and fully organized governments being more fully developed than others, there could be no objection to their emancipation while certain other parts remained subject to the mandate. The idea prevailed, however, that the mandated territory had been established as an entity, and such it would have to remain, either all emancipated or all mandated." See The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, Luther Harris Evans, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758, esp. 749-750, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2189582
  2. The legal status of the Palestine mandate was not altered by the treaty agreements between the United Kingdom and the Emirate of Transjordan. See League of Nations, Official Journal, 1928, p. 1574, and Marjorie M. Whiteman (ed), Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 631.
  3. The Jewish Agency challenged the legality of the British proposal to grant Transjordan independence in 1946; sucessfully lobbied against its membership in the UN; and backed territorial revisions of the UNSCOP proposal in the Ad Hoc Committee that would have granted the Transjordanian Port of Aqaba to the Jewish state. See "Mandate is Indivisible", the Palestine Post, Apr 9, 1946 p3. archive copy available here [43] and via http://www.jpress.org.il/publications/PPost-en.asp
  4. The Acting Secretary of State advised the Secretary we have had correspondence with Senator Myers regarding Transjordan and he has introduced resolution containing request that executive take no action in any way recognizing Transjordan as separate or independent state and that US representative on UN be instructed to seek postponement of international determination of status of Transjordan area until future status of Palestine as a whole will be determined. We also have received a long detailed legal argument from Rabbis Wise and Silver objecting to independence of Transjordan. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. General, the United Nations Volume I, (1946), 411 [44]
  5. At its final session in Geneva in 1946, the Assembly of the League of Nations adopted a resolution welcoming the plan for Transjordanian independence. Egypt abstained because the proposal did not call for the emancipation of the entire territory of Palestine. See International Organization, Volume 1, World Peace Foundation, University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1947, Page 141.
  6. In 1946 Transjordan unsuccessfully applied for membership in the United Nations. The President of the Security Council said that Transjordan was part of a joint Mandate. He denied that the Mandate had been legally terminated and asserted the rights and obligations of the United Nations. He mentioned that US Secretary of State Byrnes had spoken out against premature recognition of Transjordan, and he added that the application should not be considered until the question of Palestine as a whole was addressed. See Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52) [45]
  7. During the General Assembly deliberations on Palestine, there were proposals to incorporate part of Transjordans' territory into the Jewish state. A few days before the November 29, 1947 decision on partition, U.S. Secretary of State Marshall noted frequent references had been made by the other members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine regarding the desirability of the Jewish State having both the Negev and the Transjordanian Port of Aqaba. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1947. The Near East and Africa Volume V, page 1255 [46] Chaim Weizmann lobbied President Truman and said the Port of Aqaba must be given to the Zionists. see Truman, the Jewish vote, and the creation of Israel, John Snetsinger, page 61 [47] Truman telephoned the US UN delegation and told them he supported Weizmann's position. See FRUS 1947 page 1271 [48]
  8. On 9 May UN Representative Austin advised the US Secretary of State that the French representative, Mr. Parodi, had called a meeting of the British, Belgian, and American, representatives to discuss the situation regarding possible action which the Security Council might be called upon to take following May 15. He said that as of May 15 they would be faced by declarations two states of Palestine coupled with the entrance of Abdullah. Regarding the latter, two ideas were current. The first is that if Abdullah moved beyond his own frontier it might constitute an "act of aggression". The second idea was that if he entered on invitation of the Arab population of Palestine his act might not constitute aggression. Parodi said he was inclined to the second theory and thought a conclusion to that effect would avoid endless argument. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948, Volume V, Part 2, page 946. [49]
  9. When the Security Council inquired about Transjordan's entry into Palestine, the Foreign Minister pointed out that Transjordan had not been recognized as an independent state by either the United Nations or the United States: "I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the goverment of the United States of America, the author of the proposition of addressing the questions about which you informed me, has not yet recognized the government of The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, despite the fact that for two years it has been in a position to meet all the required conditions for such recognition; yet the government of the United States of America recognized the so-called Jewish government within a few hours, although the factors for this recognition were lacking. See Cablegram dated 18 May 1948 from the President of the Security Council addressed to the Foreign Minister of Transjordan, and reply thereto dated 20 May 1948, UN Doc. S/760, 20 May 2003(sic) [50]
  10. The Arab Higher Committee said it had requested outside assistance from the League of Arab States in which the AHC was represented. The AHC was a coalition represented in districts, sub-districts and villages Local National Committees, formed of representatives of the different parties, to control their respective localities. [51] harlan (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

Brewcrewer, if you dont want to edit war over something like this why are you reverting? Why exactly did you remove the tag? nableezy - 23:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
because there is no point in having it there. there is a consensus above not to move the article. somebody wants to bring it up again, so he slaps the article with a template until a second consensus determines there is no good grounds for moving the article. ridiculous.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
. . .so you want to edit war because you are right? The tag's been up there for ages and a tag needs to have an ongoing discussion to justify it. It sounds two users have an issue with the factually nature of the article based around the title wording. Or something. So I started a new thread to find out. It's just a tag, it's not some horrible affront to human decency. Sol (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i don't editwar and i certainty dont go around drive by tagging articles. there does not appear to be any current discussion about any factual accuracy. you want to keep the tag on the article fine. guess how much i care. i'm interested in building in encyclopedia, not argue about a stupid template. this is my last comment about this nonsense.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even put the tag up. If someone really wants it up it should at least conform to tagging rules. Now it does. If no one actually has anything to say in talk I'll remove it myself but I don't see why this is such a point of contention. Sol (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rv as per Wikip policy elucidated by Brewcrewer. InternetIsSeriousBusiness (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor "nableezy" has initiated an edit war over this redundant tag, and evidently canvassed opinion from other activist/SPA editors to aid her. InternetIsSeriousBusiness (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brew, in the future before meatpuppeting for a sock of a banned user, please discuss why are doing so. Thank you. nableezy - 01:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

obsolete tag (March 2008)

Good day to you, I took it off since after having read the talk page from top to bottom I didn't find a single item which has been discussed since March 2008, there was no explanation then so I guess what ever it was went moot . If some one feels there is a need now for a new tag it must be dated (- 2010) and please state in a few words on the talk page the reasons why you think there is a dispute for relevance and clear understanding of the issue at hand according to you. Cheers, Hope&Act3! (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it. There has been an on-going discussion that is still in progress regarding the fact that Jordan was a legal entity that included Arab Palestine. It has not been shown that it was considered to be a belligerent occupant. harlan (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source

Regarding the restoration of The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law on the basis that the legal advisor on matters of international law is not a fringe source, I dont see how a minister's appointment of him makes him a reliable source. Hell, the about the author section of the book makes clear that this view is not one that has any backing outside of Mr Grief's own mind, saying that In the mid-1980s, Howard Grief formulated the original thesis never previously voiced that de jure sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel and Palestine was vested in the Jewish People as a result of the San Remo Resolution adopted at the San Remo Peace. There need to be better sources for such fringe claims. I am removing the source. nableezy - 16:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. In fact, Grief's idiosyncratic theories seem to have gained no support from academics. Grief has no particular qualifications past a regular law degree and private practice as a Canadian attorney. The fact that he became involved with the extreme right Tehiya party and was "advisor" to one of its MKs doesn't help his case. Actually it clarifies his status as a partisan, which is anyway obvious from the preface of his book that openly states he is writing from political motives. According to his extreme position, many actions of the Israeli government such as the Camp David Accords, Oslo Accords, Sharm el Sheikh Memorandum, Gaza "disengagement", etc, were illegal, and he even filed legal briefs at the HCJ against some of them, which shows he must not be cited as a source for the "Israeli viewpoint" either. Actually he is an opponent, from the right margin, of the mainstream Israeli viewpoint. The only thing I imagine he might be citable for is the Tehiya viewpoint, but that would require more work to establish his credentials for that. Zerotalk 22:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem

The key section of the Declaration of the Establishment of Israel provides as follows:-

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL. - http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Declaration+of+Establishment+of+State+of+Israel.htm.

It is true that in the introductory part, there is reliance on Resolution 181(II). However, this is contadicted by the phrase, OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT, and above all by the operative words, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL. The operative words suggest that the new state claims a right to an area over and above than contained in the Plan of Partition for the Jewish state. The cleanest way is to use the operative words of the Declaration at the beginning of this section. Trahelliven (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation of what became the West Bank was illegal?

There's no UNSC resolution condemning the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Here's and example of annexation being illegal.
The Arab States considered Jordan a Trustee occupant Other Secondary Sources [52]
Furthermore Israel signed the 1949 Armistice Agreement with Jordan. "Agreement" .. Israel agreed Jordan would be the occupying power over the territories it held in 1949. talknic (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Cúchullain t/c 13:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem → Jordanian occupation of the West Bank – "East Jerusalem" is redundant, and just makes the title wordier. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • don't know I agree that it is redundant for most people because most people see East Jerusalem in the West Bank. The issue comes certainly from the fact that Jerusalem status is delicate. Some considers it is part of the 'corpus separatum' of '47, others see West Jerusalem as an Israeli city, others see the whole Jerusalem (East included) as an Israeli city.Pluto2012 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I don't think the title is problematic and we can't assume a reader would necessarily know that the West Bank includes East Jerusalem. I don't feel that strongly about it though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - clarify in the first sentence that it includes EJ. But this clunky without cause. nableezy - 06:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem → Jordanian occupation of the West Bank – The last RM was closed as no concessions, but there was very little perspiration in it. The current title is both way too wordy, we can clarify in the lead with a simple "West Bank (including East Jerusalem)" that the occupation included East Jerusalem. Also the title pushes the minority point of view that E Jerusalem is not part of the West Bank. Even if the view that EJ wasn't part of WB was far more common, the title shouldn't be that wordy because one city is disputed, this is like sort of like saying "Occupation of Poland and Danzig".

The current title volatiles WP:NAMINGCRITERIA #2-5. Too wordy to be natural, overly precise, definitely not concise, and not consistent with other article about the West Bank (their scope includes EJ) which are titled "West Bank" not "West Bank and East Jerusalem". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose change indeed. . Back then (1947/1948 and 1967) the borders and namings were unclear or different (though UN had exempted Jerusalem, and the green line was created). When we use todays names (WB, EJ) we must be specific. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting point, I hadn't thought of it. It might at least weaken my point about POV-pushing, and NAMINGCRITERIA # 5, but the rest of my point stands. We can clarify that the occupation included EJ in the lead. The title still falls NAMINGCRITERIA #2-4. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it the more I don't see your point. "West Bank" isn't just today's name, it's the name that Jordan gave it when they occupied it. The West Bank has always included East Jerusalem, ever sense it's creation by the 1949 Armistice Agreements's Green Line, the exact same green line that defines the West Bank today. Is there something I'm missing here? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, factually correct. -DePiep (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Google books: 21 and 3. If its precise enough for majority of reliable sources then its also precise enough for wikipedia.--Staberinde (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Calling your own oversimplified google searches "majority of reliable sources" is laughable. Even before you posted, OP EHC had done more serious work. You could have read. -DePiep (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is wrong with that little search? Google books does provide preview in most cases, so I can easily see that my search didn't provide overlapping between titles and that there is at least fivefold difference between current title and proposed title. While EHC's work is nice, I feel that such specific arguments are sort of redundant then actual common name can be determined.--Staberinde (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - current title redundant. nableezy - 17:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It's today a part of the West Bank

It's part of the West Bank. Including Judea and Samaria Area and Jerusalem (with an Israeli-flag) is POV because that view is rejected by the world. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - i think it should say part of the State of Palestine (palestinian flag), the Judea and Samaria area (with no flag, because it is not sovereign Israeli territory); I'm not sure how to present E. Jerusalem (annexed, but unrecognized). West Bank is not a geopolitical entity, so it cannot be named "today part of".GreyShark (dibra) 17:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: I disagree with your last edit. IMHO, the previous version mentioned the wiki-link to West bank only and without any flag, was better. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map issues.

Couple of notes:

  • The Map color and description mismatch or are very hard to discern.
  • Israel, first recognized by the US, May 15, 1948 - It is misleading, the Soviet Union was the first country to recognize Israel on 17 May, even if US and bunch of other countries did so "unofficial" before.
  • Allotted for Arab state, occupied by Israel Feb/Apr 1949 - How is this relevant to the topic of "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank"? It also offers loaded terminology, the territory wasn't "occupied" as in "occupied territories" 0f 1967, but has been recognized by the UN as Israeli territory due to Arab war of aggression. --89.139.54.217 (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

those 35 synagogues

After an Israeli propaganda document claimed that 34 out of 35 were destroyed, with some being turned into hen-houses or stables, countless authors have obligingly copied the claim either directly or from each other. The fact that none have done any investigating of their own is obvious from the fact that they make exactly the same claim in almost exactly the same words and never add any further information. For years I've been looking for actual evidence, such as a list of synagogues, but so far I can't even verify that there were that many synagogues in the Jewish Quarter. Detailed maps made by Jewish residents of Jerusalem soon before the Jordanian occupation rarely show more than a dozen. I bought a book entirely about the synagogues in the Jewish quarter destroyed by the Jordanians, but looked in vain for even a mention that there were 35 of them. (I'll add the title of this book here soon.) To have 35 in such a small place, some must have been small prayer rooms in private houses; there simply is nowhere else to fit them in. Very few private houses that survived the war were destroyed; actually most were settled in by Arabs displaced from West Jerusalem. But then, to an Israeli propagandist (and also for some religious people), living in a room that used to be used as a synagogue is the same as destroying it. I'd appreciate hearing of any sources that provide actual information rather than just repeating the story. Zerotalk 02:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its very nice WP:OR but it still WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rule against OR on talk pages. Do have anything to contribute? Zerotalk 13:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to this source [53] there are list of destroyed Jewish institutions the original source is book in Hebrew.Its interesting to take a look if you will scan a relevant pages I will translate.--Shrike (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another one interesting [54]--Shrike (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Today part of"

 Palestine
Civil Administration
Coordinator of Government

Shouldn't it? I mean 60% of the land is administrated by Israel through these units. Saying that the West Bank provinces transformed to "Palestine" is not enough cause today Palestine De-Facto bearly controlls 40% of the land.

"only"

User:IRISZOOM: your revert here brought back the word "only", with the justification that "this part since it is from a quote." Alas, it is sourced to 3 different sources. So, shall we remove 2 of those, and make it quote, from say, Eyal Benvenisti? Or any of the other Israelis? (Yoram Dinstein & Mala Tabory) (Btw, the ref. "George Washington University. Law School (2005). The George Washington international law review. George Washington University. p. 390. Retrieved 21 December 2010. Jordan's illegal occupation and Annexation of the West Bank" ...is clearly inadequate, as it has no author, or even name of article.) I still have the question, though, why are these Israelis quoted in the lead, and not, lets say Joseph Massad? Huldra (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you disputing the statement that only GB, Iraq, and Pakistan recognized Jordan's annexation? I'm pretty sure that's uncontroversial. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it because if was part of a quote, which of course shouldn't be changed. Eyal Benveisti and especially Yoram Dinstein are good authors. If you have other reliable sources to add, then add them. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that only GB recognized the annexation is not only very well documented (as above), it is an important facet of the occupation, as it is clear evidence that the annexation did not receive recognition from the international community. One could probably say it is as important as the boilerplate sentence that the international community regards Israeli settlements as illegal that you are religiously adding to every Israeli settlement article.When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Harlan never tired of telling us, the USA also approved the move. It explained to the Jordanian government that formal recognition of border changes was not US practice, which is why the approval is not commonly noted. Probably there are other countries with the same story; it should be researched and cited. Israel was quite happy about it too, which is probably easier to source. Zerotalk 01:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah no, the US did not approve the move, it acquiesced. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From official US documents (I'll give full references when I'm not in a terrible hurry). (1) "The United States with the United Kingdom has favored the annexation by Jordan of Arab Palestine." (2) "The Policy of the [State] Department, as stated in a paper on this subject prepared for the Foreign Ministers meetings in London in May was in favor of the incorporatlon of Central Palestine into Jordan but desired that it be done gradually and not by sudden proclamation. Once the annexation took place, the Department approved of the action "in the sense that it represents a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people. . . . The United States continues to wish to avoid a public expression of approval of the union." (Jerusalem is excluded.) This makes it quite clear what the policy was and also why it wasn't common knowledge. I didn't find the report of what the USA conveyed to Jordan, but I'll look again later. Zerotalk 02:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the US approved of the illegal annexation, it should be simple for you to find a reliable source that says so, rather than relying on you personal interpretation of primary sources. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of attacking Zero0000 who is looking for information and gathers them, each of us, you included, can collaborate in looking for some too (pro- and contra- our initial feelings on the question).
The game is not to comment what Zero0000 brings and give him good or bad points for his work. The game is to gather here all the information that we can find on the question.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not attacking Zero at all, I am pointing out that his personal interpretation of primary sources does not trump secondary sources that say he opposite. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite sure that the topic of (non) international recognition is treated in the book of Shlaim. I'll check this. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not hard to find secondary sources that discuss the original documents, and there is no surprise there as they are quite clear. The other text I mentioned as as follows. The US official Stuart Rockwell reported his conversation with Jordanian official Abdel Monem Rifai (later Prime Minister):
In response to Mr. Rifai's question as to when the US was going to recognize the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan, I explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn that the US did in fact recognize the union." [55] Zerotalk 08:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact most countries do not bother formally recognising border changes. The whole "only recognized by Britain and Pakistan" thing is a theme made up by Israeli after 1967 to justify its own position. (Find an example of it before 1967 to prove me wrong.) Which countries explicitly recognized Israel's annexation of the Western Galillee contrary to the UN partition plan? Probably none: acts of recognition hardly ever mention borders. Zerotalk 08:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What your source above says is exactly what I claimed - the US explicitly did not recognize the annexation (" it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition "), it merely acquiesced to it ("the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. "). Furthermore perhaps you are unaware of what the term "primary source" is - what you provided is a screenshot of the US FRIUS- a primary source if ever there was one. Once again - If the US approved of the illegal annexation, it should be simple for you to find a reliable source that says so, rather than relying on you personal interpretation of primary sources, especially when the article has multiple sources that say the opposite - that only the UK and possibly Pakistan did so. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a picky semantic argument that doesn't really illuminate the facts. It is perfectly relevant, and supported by the sources, that the USA gave informal approval to the annexation. Nobody is arguing that there was a formal action of recognition. The correct procedure is to add the USA to the list with the caveat that it was an informal decision. "Acquiescence" would suggest that the USA didn't like it but decided to accept it, which is simply not true as quotes (1) and (2) say clearly. Incidentally, nobody ever discovered a formal act of recognition by Pakistan either, or even an informal act, so inclusion of Pakistan is dubious. This is referenced in the article. Zerotalk 14:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
asking you to provide reliable secondary sources that support a statement you want to put in the article is not a picky semantic argument - it is a fundamental requirement for editing this encyclopedia. If you can't abide by that - find somethign else to do. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be suffering from a common misunderstanding. There is no rule in Wikipedia against primary sources. There is a rule against original interpretation, but that applies to all sources. An attributed quotation from the sources I found would be 100% within the rules. But anyway I have secondary sources that I will soon add as well, including one making an even stronger statement. Zerotalk 07:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PSTS - "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources....Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation....primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. " Thus is exactly the kind of personal analysis and misuse that you are doing here - taking a source that says the US does not and will not recognize the Jordanian annexation, but that it accepts it as done deal, and wanting to turn it into a statement that ays the US informally recognized the annexation and favored it. This is first rate violation of WP:PSTS. Fourth time now: If you want to put something like that in the article , go find a reliable secondary source that says that. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting a primary source with attribution is not interpretation. It is allowed explicitly by WP:PRIMARY, see the section labelled "Policy". You seem to be confusing my comments on this talk page, which do involve interpretation, with text I might add to the article, which will not involve interpretation. It is not possible under the rules to totally ban a relevant reliably published primary source from article space. Zerotalk 14:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were not quoting a primary source with attribution, you were suggesting "to add the USA to the list with the caveat that it was an informal decision." -a personal interpretation which is a first rate violation of WP:PSTS, which is Wikipedia policy. Spend some time reading policy, you obviously don't understand it. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats a really distinctive way to talk for an account with 365 edits. nableezy - 16:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, secondary sources!
  • Avi Plascov, The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957, p169: "The annexation was, in due course, recognised de jure only by Great Britain and Pakistan and de facto by many other countries (including Israel)."
  • Avi Shlaim, The Politics of Partition, p357: "Abdullah now had the support of the leading Western powers for his plan to proclaim the annexation of the West Bank...".
  • "Countries and Territories of the World" (probably not citable but the references are): "Thomas Kuttner notes that de facto recognition was granted to the regime, most clearly evidenced by the maintaining of consulates in East Jerusalem by several countries, including the United States.[ref: Israel Journal of Human Rights, 1977, p176] Joseph Weiler agreed, an said that other states had engaged in activities, statements and resolutions that would be inconsistent with non-recognition.[ref: Joseph Weiler, Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state: a European perspective, p48]".
  • Douglas Little, A Puppet in Search of a Puppeteer? The United States, King Hussein, and Jordan, 1953-1970, The International History Review, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Aug., 1995), pp. 512-544: "Then, with Washington's tacit blessing, Abdullah held a plebiscite on the West Bank, claimed overwhelming Palestinian support for union with Jordan, and annexed 'Arab Palestine' to his realm in late April." (with citations to multiple US documents including the ones I found).
  • Shlomo Slonim, The United States and the Status of Jerusalem 1947-1984, 19 Isr. L. Rev. 179 1984: Quotes the State Department policy document that I quoted, as defining American policy.
  • Peter L. Hahn, Caught in the Middle East: U. S. Policy Toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict, p91: "Although the annexation rekindled Jordanian-Israeli tension, the State Department approved the move on behalf of Britain's security interests."

Zerotalk 12:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet recognition

I have an old Soviet atlas from 1981, which shows as part of Jordan not only the West Bank + E Jerusalem, but the entire "middle" section of the projected Arab state (in the 1947 UN partition plan), including W Jerusalem. It is shown as an integral part of Jordan, with no indication of some special status (occupation, de-facto control, etc). Since the atlas is an official publication of the GUGK (Main Administration for Geodesy and Cartography at the Council of Ministers of the USSR), shouldn't this be viewed as Soviet recognition of the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank? I also have evidence that this was the official position of (at least some of) the Soviet satellites as well. What is your opinion? 151.237.126.24 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very interesting. Could you find some official sources (which we could quote) which made this an official position of USSR, or any East European states? I´m afraid we cannot quote "an old Soviet atlas", we need an author, or editor. Huldra (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it's an official publication of the Soviet government. You must be aware that in the USSR it was impossible to publish anything independently, everything had to comply with the state policy. So this is as official as it gets. I can upload here photos of the map in question and the page that lists the editors, if you're interested. 151.237.126.24 (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can use this, but like Huldra I'm reluctant to draw conclusions from it, even conclusions that seem obvious, if the source doesn't explicitly state them. I think we can add an image with a caption stating what the image shows, though. I'm thinking of a caption something like "This atlas published by the Soviet government in 1981 shows the central portion of the Arab State proposed by the UN in 1947, plus all of Jerusalem, as part of Jordan". We can discuss the wording. Zerotalk 06:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman "occupation"

It should read "ruled by the Ottomans" not "occupied"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40F:400:5A17:9D09:855D:5368:FCD4 (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unrest in Palestine prior to 1948

I wish to ask Wiki editors whether or not events leading up to 1948 should be mentioned in the section entitled, "Prior to 1948"? My suggested edit would be to add there the following paragraph:

Considering the history of violence between Jews and Arabs in Palestine prior to 1948, Britain decided in 1936 to divide Palestine between the Jews and Arabs. "The commission, under Lord Peel, was appointed on 7 August 1936 to investigate the cause for the outbreak of the Arab rebellion and the way the Articles of the Mandate were being implemented. Between November 1936 and January 1937 the commission studied the situation in the country, and in June 1937 published its recommendation to abolish the Mandate and to divide the country between Arabs and Jews." [Source: The Survey of Palestine under the British Mandate: 1920 - 1948, published by the British Mandate government printing office in Jerusalem in 1946, p. 166] The UN adopted the same position in 1947, with, however, the Arabs rejecting the 1947 proposed UN Partition Plan.[Source...] War soon broke-out, with Egypt sending troops into the country to help secure the country for an Arab state, without any recognition of Israeli sovereignty. At the conclusion of armed conflict, the interim borders were defined (delineated) by the outcome of war, with the Jordanian army taking-up positions within the territories seen by them as the future Arab state, although in scope considerably less than what was originally intended by Great Britain and the UN, since Ben-Gurion agreed that the paramilitary forces now made into the IDF be permitted to take-over the Negev, then occupied by Egyptian troops. In retrospect, lands taken by Jordan in 1948 were officially recognized as the "West Bank" of Jordan in the 1949 Armistice agreement, with lands conquered by Israel forming their de-facto territorial boundary. [Source: Zvi Dror, Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, Ha-kibbutz hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005, p. 273]. (End Quote)

Is there a consensus to add such a paragraph, and which will give more clarity to the issues at hand? Perhaps even it may be seen as appropriate to bring down brief extracts from some of the more outstanding points in Arab-Jewish relations at that time, events that happened in Palestine before the general hostilities that broke-out in 1948. Are they important in this article? Should these incidents be addressed briefly, but without the use of harsh language that tend to denigrate one side or the other?

For example, British contemporaries of that period, such as Sir John Bagot Glubb, in his book, A Soldier with the Arabs (London 1957), have mentioned in their writings the incitement of Arabs against Jews by Haj Amin Husseini, as also as described in the book, A Survey of Palestine (Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry), vol. 1, chapter 2, British Mandate Government of Palestine: Jerusalem 1946, pp. 17 – 24:

April, 1920 (Easter Sunday).

“Savage attacks were made by Arab rioters in Jerusalem on Jewish lives and property. Five Jews were killed and 211 injured. Order was restored by the intervention of British troops; four Arabs were killed and 21 injured. It was reported by a military commission of inquiry that the reasons for this trouble were:

(a) Arab disappointment at the non-fulfillment of the promises of independence which they claimed had been given to them during the war.

(b) Arab belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self-determination and their fear that the establishment of a National Homeland would mean a great increase in Jewish immigration and would lead to their economic and political subjection to the Jews.

(c) The aggravation of these sentiments on the one hand by propaganda from outside Palestine associated with the proclamation of the Emir Feisal as King of a re-united Syria and with the growth of Pan-Arab and Pan-Moslem ideas, and on the other hand by the activities of the Zionist Commission supported by the resources and influence of Jews throughout the world.”

24th September, 1928

“The Jews attempted to introduce a screen to divide men and women during prayers at the Wailing Wall on the Jewish Day of Atonement. This was contrary to the status quo ante and on this account led to objections by the Arabs; orders were given for its removal, the Jews did not remove it and it was forcibly removed by the police in the course of prayers at the Wall. This incident engendered high feeling and was a prelude to the disturbances of the following year. Haj Amin Eff. Husseini and the leaders of the Arab Executive made much of the incident and set themselves to bring about a revival of nationalist agitation throughout the country; branches of Moslem societies were established by them in the provincial towns.”

August, 1929

“On 15th August a Jewish demonstration was held at the Wailing Wall, and on the following day the Arabs held a counter demonstration. From 23rd to 29th August murderous attacks were made on Jews in various parts of the country. The most violent attacks were those against the old established Jewish communities at Hebron and Safad; there were also attacks in Jerusalem and Jaffa and against several Jewish rural settlements. There was little retaliation by Jews, of whom 133 were killed and 339 wounded. Order was restored with the help of British troops rushed up from Egypt; 116 Arabs were killed and 232 wounded, mostly by troops and police.”

“The breach between the two races was widened by the events of 1928-1929, first by the emergence of the religious factor and then by the outbreak of murder and pillage. Reciprocal boycotts of Arab and Jewish trade were organized. All possibility of cooperation, even in the economic field, was eliminated for some time to come and the High Commissioner, returning in haste to Palestine after the outbreak of the disturbances, issued a proclamation announcing the suspension of discussions on the constitutional issue.”

“As it was felt necessary that an Arab body should represent the Arab case in an enquiry into the cause of the disorders, Government recognized the Arab Executive Committee for the purpose.”

October-December, 1929

“A Commission of Inquiry under Sir Walter Shaw visited Palestine and reported, in March, 1930, that 'the Arab-feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future' was the fundamental cause of the outbreak. The findings were very similar to those of the Haycraft.”

Any advice?Davidbena (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any better suggestions?Davidbena (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this contains too much detail that isn't needed for this article. We already have a big duplication problem across Israel-Palestine articles; the parts of the history you cover above are already duplicated perhaps ten times in various articles. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.Davidbena (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here, I still welcome other opinions.Davidbena (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation

@Shrike: please see the first paragraph of Military occupation. The West Bank was "occupied" by Jordan between 1948 and April 1950, when it annexed the territory. In simple terms "occupation" means you have not given full citizenship to the population under the control of your government. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their annexation was not approved by UN.Its similar with Golan heights though Israel annexed it UN didn't recognize it.--Shrike (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the Golan Heights article discusses the modern day component of the history as "annexation and civil rule". The word "occupation" is often used very loosely, and can be misleading. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should change the heading from Jordanian Control to Jordanian Occupation and then we can call the subheading "annexation and civil rule"--Shrike (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This whole articles name is misleading, it should be moved to Jordanian rule of the West Bank, or Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, as that was what it was, for most of this time. This article name is just to give the impression that the present Apartheid system on the West Bank is nothing new..... Disgusting. Huldra (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How dare compare Jewish rule over its own country to a mere "apartheid system"? Since when have Muslims openly invited Jews to share equally with them in the governance of Arab lands? I cannot remember when this happened, Huldra. It's easy, I guess, to point fingers at Israel and forget the long history of violence and hatred directed toward Jews who lived in Arab lands. Besides, Jews are no strangers to their own land.22:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
David, actually, people who have experienced apartheid in South Africa say that the present situation on the West Bank is far, far worse than it ever was in South Africa. If you throw a stone on the West Bank, you will be treated differently if you are a Jew, or if you are Palestinian. Different punishment for the same crime. I don't know how better to define apartheid. And you cannot justify your crimes, by pointing to crimes done against you. I thought that was pretty obvious? Huldra (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know plenty of Arabs here who do not share your view, Huldra. They are given work by Israelis, and many own luxurious houses. The problems that you mention are rare, and only where there is incitement against authority. Jews normally do not throw stones at passing motorists. Where it exists, there should always be a firm reaction by those who wield authority.Davidbena (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: you wrote of a "long history of violence and hatred directed toward Jews who lived in Arab lands". Please read Mark Cohen's Neo-lachrymose Conception of Jewish-Arab History. It might help you filter out some propaganda you have been subjected to. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David, And how many of of these people have gone to jail? Your "happy Arab" reminds me of a story a female friend of mine told me. She (a European female) had been the sole female working in a Western company in West Africa. To her utter disgust, her male coworkers went, in their spare time, to local prostitutes. And then they went on to tell her that the local girls "liked it"! One evening she got to talk to these prostitutes....they could talk freely to her, as she wasn't business, and she wasn't their competitor. Then she heard all about how they utterly despised their customers. Why didn't they tell their customers the truth? "Oh, that would be very, very bad for business!" Huldra (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: I am inclined to agree with you - the article name is both technically incorrect and also appears to be POV for the reason you describe. It was originally called "Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan", but was moved in 2008 ([56]) by a user who apparently didn't know the difference between military occupation and annexation. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Oncenawhile:, I am a Jew, and I have lived at one time (for a duration of one year and two months) in a certain Arab country, and I have seen there personally the oppression of Jews. I now live in Israel (for more than 40 years), and I have during this time-frame come to see the causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and I can say that most Arabs here live decent and respectful lives. Those that may feel disenfranchised, or marginalized in our society, are those whose surroundings are mostly hostile towards Jews (Israelis), and in some cases, they have been involved themselves in inciting others, and therefore have only themselves to blame. As for the title of the current article, it seems to me to be fine. What other title would you suggest calling this article?Davidbena (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: I’m afraid that you are in no position to speak for the Palestinian people. (That would be like, say, me speaking for the Jewish people....How would you like that??) You might read this...that US influence/money stops it from becoming official UN policy doesn't make it less true, Huldra (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decent lives @Davidbena:? They don't even have the most basic civil right, that of voting. Unless you are talking about Israeli Arabs. Anyway, yes the term "occupation" is factually incorrect in this context and I am surprised it went unnoticed all these years, myself included. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns that you were WP:CANVASSed here by user Oncenawhile .While we were in middle of discussion and after I reverted him he have pinged you this unacceptable behavior.--Shrike (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: in my experience Makeandtoss is the best editor Wikipedia has on Jordanian issues. He brought Jordan and Amman to GA status, and has created numerous Jordan-related DYKs. His editing is well researched and always thoughtful. If those considerations constitue canvassing, then I am proud to admit it. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns that you are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH here. I didn't even notice this discussion until a day later, when I realized that "occupation" is indeed out of context here. The only unacceptable behavior here is you trying to shift the discussion. Do you have anything to say to arguments for renaming this article? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can initiate official rename discussion if you like.But according to WP:COMMONNAME it called occupation.--Shrike (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to demonstrate that this is the "common name". Plus thats not how common name works, that is in the case of a literal name.Makeandtoss (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss: Second to that ridiculous picture which was at the start of 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, the title of this article is the very worst of Wikipedia. I tried to change it to "Jordanian rule of the West Bank" back in 2014, but was shouted down. Since then, I have basically tried to avoid this piece of Wikipedia shit. Huldra (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into a long debate about something that does not directly relate to, nor affect, this article. Therefore, what I do know or do not know about the Palestinian people in this country is irrelevant, even though I have heard that they prefer Israeli rule over Hamas rule. The Talk Page should not be used as a "chat page," but only to discuss relevant issues related to the article. My view, as it is the view of many others, is that the current title is applicable to the specific article, since we are ultimately talking about hegemony over the Palestinian peoples, which word would also apply to Jordanian control over the West Bank from 1948-1967.Davidbena (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maps and sources

Makeandtoss in your research on Jordan, have you seen any useful maps and sources describing in detail how the whole country (including the West Bank) was run between 1948 and 1967? This article is very weak at the moment. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any maps or sources specific for this time period, but we can find sources for whatever happened back then. The Jericho Conference, Assassination of Abdullah I, Jordanian general election, 1956, Sulayman Al-Nabulsi's parliamentary government, the Free Officers alleged coup attempt, 1957 imposition of martial law and the 1966 Samu Incident are key events in Jordanian history in that time period where the West Bank played an important role. Further important connections are with the tourism and agricultural sectors. I might be able to help if you give me something specific.. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Makeandtoss:. Very interesting articles. I hadn't realised the importance of the 1956 election in particular. I have found a good contemporary map, and added some better sources. It's a start. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a 1961 Jordanian map at 1:750000. Zerotalk 00:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: is your 1961 still in copyright? If not, it would be great to add it to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Jordanian maps that it show that west bank is part of Jordan but that not the the case of course because the annexation was not approved by UN.--Shrike (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So we shouldn't use Israeli maps either as the UN never approved Israel's annexation of the parts outside the Res 181 boundaries. Zerotalk 08:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any map that's decent is an asset. If we need to qualify something about it, we can do it in the caption. El_C 08:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000:And we don't at least as the main picture of the article.I have no problem to use this map in the article to show position of Jordanian government with proper caption like El_C suggests--Shrike (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: the map I posted is not a "Jordanian map". It was produced by the US Government. It represents the most neutral contemporary map we have. The existing lead map is WP:OR and incorrect (it is a modern map, which was edited by Chesdovi to shade the West Bank. For example, the borders of Jordan-Saudi Arabia do not show Winston's Hiccup as it was in 1955). Oncenawhile (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If some borders doesn't show you welcome to change it but we need to show that west bank is a distinct territory as we show it in Golan Heights article..--Shrike (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Chesdovi's map is WP:OR - there is no source for it. You have provided no sources either. The US government map is a neutral contemporary representation. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is unsurprising that US maps showed the West Bank in Jordan, as the US government was perfectly happy with the annexation. The map I have was published by the UK War Office and Air Ministry in 1961. I think it is out of copyright now but I need to check more carefully. Zerotalk 01:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank&oldid=771354595"