Talk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank/Archive 1

4 reverts, Alberuni, will you go for 5?
This policy violation is become a consistent pattern for you, will you go for 5 reverts now? Jayjg 04:34, 22 November 2004 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Which part of the Balfour Declaration conveyed to you that the British were "granting the entire area of Palestine on both banks of the Jordan River to the Jews"? Here is a copy of the Balfour Declaration:

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

I expect the highest level of academic honesty and integrity from the people contributing to this encyclopedia so that people around the world are not misinformed. I removed your line from the article because nowhere does the Balfour declaration grant the entire land of then British Colonial Palestine to the Jews. Nevertheless, you insisted on putting it back. I hope that in 24 hours you will correct the article appropriately otherwise I will do so.


 * Hi anonymous person why have you not either logged into Wikipedia (since you are so concerned with Wikipedia's "image" and role in the world) or signed with the four tildes ~ ? Now the answer/s to your question above is very simple, and you have provided the best documentary proof. Note the following:
 * 1) The date of the declaration: "November 2nd, 1917" at that time "Palestine" was NOT divided as it was a very wide area that had just been under the control of the freshly defeated and ousted Ottoman Turks. Even as late as 1922 the Jews were to be given quite a lot as promised by the Mandate and the British signees: See the 1922 Text: League of Nations Palestine Mandate that says: "It is absolutely clear that an inherent objective of the Mandate is to grant the Jews a homeland in Palestine based on the Balfour Declaration "made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." Article 2 of the Mandate states explicitly that Palestine is to become a national home for the Jews as well as a place for protecting the rights of other religious groups: "...Article 4 calls for an appropriate "... Jewish agency that shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine...Article 6 goes to great lengths to state that the "Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes." And Article 7 grants Jews who emigrate the right to obtain citizenship: "The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."
 * 2) FIVE years after 1917, by June 1922 comes the notorious Churchill White Paper, 1922: "...Although the White Paper stated that the Balfour Declaration could not be amended and that the Jews were in Palestine by right, it partitioned the area of the Mandate by excluding the area east of the Jordan River from Jewish settlement. That land, 76% of the original Palestine Mandate by area but mostly very sparsely populated desert, was renamed Transjordan and was given to the Hashemite Emir Abdullah from Mecca, son of King Hussein of Hejaz, who was soon forced from his kingdom by the ambitious Ibn Saud. This was a reward by the British for the Hashemite family's help in the fight against the Ottoman Empire. Today it is the Kingdom of Jordan ruled by Abdullah's great-grandson, Abdullah II. The majority of Jordanian citizens today are Palestinian refugees."
 * 3) The Balfour Declaration, 1917 itself that you quote refers to ONLY ONE Palestine and it is that one and only entire undivided Palestine that is being promised HAPPILY to the Jews in 1917: "...on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet."
 * 4) Note who signs the Balfour Declaration: It is Arthur Balfour (1848-1930), he had himself once been Prime Minister of Great Britain (1902-1905), and in 1917 he was the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, see Arthur Balfour, and spoke for the British government in his official capacity as a representative of that government, and it is with the full force of that government that he promises Palestine as a "national home" to the Jews of the world. Palestine is fully under the control of Great Britain and they first promise it to the Jews.
 * 5) The British then change their minds (a few times) later to appease the rioting Arabs as in the Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920, the Riots in Palestine of May, 1921, the 1936 Great Uprising and rewarding the Hashemites...see the History of Jordan:"In 1922, the British divided the mandate by establishing the semi-autonomous Emirate of Transjordan, ruled by the Hashemite Prince Abdullah, while continuing the administration of Palestine under a British High Commissioner. The mandate over Transjordan ended on May 22, 1946; on May 25, the country became the independent Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan."
 * 6) The British then betray their promises to the Jews completely as proven by the 1936 Peel Commission and the notorious White Paper of 1939 "...in which the idea of partitioning the British Mandate of Palestine was abandoned in favour of Jews and Arabs sharing one government...The White Paper, unilaterally conceived by the British National Government under Neville Chamberlain, was published on 17 May and passed in the House of Commons by 268 to 179 in favour. It called for the creation of a unified Palestinian State. Even though the White Paper stated that it was committed to the Balfour Declaration, it imposed very substantial limits on both Jewish immigration and ability to purchase land. In terms of the status quo, it was a significant defeat for the Jewish side who viewed this as a great betrayal of British promises for a Jewish National Homeland in Palestine."
 * 7) Yet in 1917, the Jews are promised a "National home" by His Majesty's Government itself: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object..." A national home means what it says, a place for a nation to be established in ALL of Palestine (no geographic limits are mentioned at all!).
 * 8) The Arabs accepted the Balfour Declaration calling for a Jewish national homeland in Palestine: See the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement 1918-1919 which is part of the Paris Peace Conference, 1919.
 * 9) The non-Jewish communities in Palestine of 1917 are NOT promised a "national home" in Palestine by the British: The Balfour Declaration clearly says: "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". Only the civil and religious rights of the "non-Jewish communities in Palestine" are to be protected as the Jews build the JEWISH "national home".
 * 10) Furthermore: The Jews' "rights and political status" in other places are to be protected as well: "...nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." So giving the Jews the right to build a Jewish "national home" in ALL of Palestine, must not be undermined by persecution of any other Jews "in any other country".

Finally I do hope that I have made it clear that in 1917 and for a time thereafter, the Jews had every right to believe and expect that Great Britain would grant them ALL of Palestine as a "national home for the Jewish people." Please do not change the facts in the article that are true, even if it's only "one sentence". Thank you. IZAK 10:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia, but I am signed in. I do not know why the last post did not show my username.

If the American government "viewed with favour the establishment, in the Western Sahara, of a national home for the native Americans", does that imply that they support transferring ownership of the whole of the Western Sahara to the native americans? Clearly that cannot be deduced from the wording of that sentence. If something is "in" something else, then it is a subset of that thing. In mathematics, it may include the whole thing. But in the tangible world, I do not know of anything described as being "in" something else and occupying the whole space of that other thing. Regardless, whether or not the British were supporting the establishment of a Jewish state on the whole of Palestine cannot be deduced from the semantics of "[the British Government] view[s] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". If I view with favour the establishment of "x" in "y", in no way am I saying to you that I view with favour that "x" should occupy all the space that "y" does. So unless you can prove to me the intent of the British Cabinet members who created the declaration that Balfour quotes from back in 1917, then I cannot accept your argument. You are trying to establish intent that cannot be established directly from the sentence itself, in which case you are inserting your own point of view, and that conflicts with the goals of wikipedia. This is unacceptable and again, I will revert your changes unless you do so yourself.

The following is my point of view and should not appear in the article: I believe that the British were stuck in an intractable quagmire back in the early 1900's. With regards to the Balfour declaration, I believe they intentionally worded it in a vague manner so that they would not commit themselves to having promised more than they could achieve. They wanted to appease the Jews, but at the same time did not want to upset the Arabs. That is why they chose to use the world "homeland" instead of "state" and that is why they said "in palestine" instead of "on the whole of Palestine". They left it vague so that they wouldn't be held accountable.

I remind you to please change the article so that I don't have to revert it. Saads 13:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Saads: Your insertion of a silly hypothetical "point" about the "American government" and their views about "native Americans" and silly "logic" about "x's" and "y's" has nothing to do with reality or this discussion. The Balfour Declaration was a serious DECLARATION rooted in real events and relating to a real place and real people: The Jews' aspiration for homeland in their own ancestral Land of Israel. When Lord Balfour states in the declaration: "I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet..." It is NOT that difficult to see that he is speaking for His Majesty's Government and the Cabinet and it is foolish for you to belittle the significance of such a historic declaration. Furthermore, when the declaration specifies that "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people then why should anyone think it is referring to "part" of Palestine? Your efforts to twist and distort the meaning and implication of a very clear statement by His Majesty's Government fall flat and reveal a POV. Your edits should be reverted. IZAK 08:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Izak, analogies are a powerful tool for understanding. They are not meant to belittle the importance of the Balfour Declaration.  However you fail to address my point.  How does the statement "[the British Government] view[s] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" convey to you that the British were supporting a Jewish state in the entire area of Palestine?  I do not interpret the statement that way and neither do most scholars who have written on the subject.  Provide evidence for your interpretation or remove it. Saads 10:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saads: What don't you get? In 1917, when the declaration was made, "Palestine" meant, and still means in that context, ALL of Palestine at that time, including all of present-day Israel, the West Bank, and the Kingdom of Jordan, and maybe even parts of southern Syria. That is not "interpretation" it is reality! IZAK 03:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but not surprised, to see this point still being argued about. Early drafts of the Balfour Declaration spoke in terms clearly referring to the whole of Palestine, but then it was deliberately changed to read "in Palestine" so as to not include the whole of Palestine. This is documented in any of the many histories of the subject. There is no dispute about this. Incidentally, the historical record also shows that the phrase "national home" was deliberately chosen because it didn't mean "sovereign state". In both cases, the wording was intended to give the British maximum future flexibility. --Zero 06:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A legal interpretation of the Balfour-declaration simply cannot be that it was meant to constitute the entire Palestine. No words are chosen on random, and if it doesnt say all of Palestine, it isn't meant to be read as all of Palestine. Anyways, I've changed to just including the text of the decleration, so people can interpret for them selves. The article on the declaration also discards such a view. --Cybbe 21:13, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you also agree that a legal interpretation of UNSC Resolution 242 can't mean "all" of the territories captured, since "No words are chosen on random, if it doesnt say all of the territories, it isn't meant to be read as all of the territories?" Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It is known that the word "all" is not present in Res 242 purely because the USA refused to accept it and the USA has veto rights in the SC. It was no accident.  So the answer to your question is "yes".  In both cases the wording does not exclude "all" but does not require it either.  In both cases, this uncertainty caused no end of trouble.  That's about where the similarity ends, since the Balfour Declaration was not a legal document at all whereas UNSC Resolutions certainly are.  --Zero 07:34, 20 February 2005 (UTC)


 * Res 242 is not a completely different matter,e the wording was ceartainly not chosen by random. But from a legal point of view, the pre-amble is also a source for interpretation. Look at article 31 of the Vienna Convention for what should be considered when interpreting treaties (the convention is also considered to be customary international law). In the pre-amble of res242 is says "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". It is true that the specific wording of res 242 was not chosen by mistake, but res 242 opens for several interpretations. The article about Resolution 242 discusses this at greater length. Res242 is controversial because of these issues, but where the Balfour Decleration leaves little room for interpretation, res242 does. This has little to do with this article, again i refer you to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Thus, I dont think res242 _can't_ mean all territories, but I'm not necassarily saying it does. International law is a complex matter. --Cybbe 14:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

An analogy for an analogy
Saads - I'd like to offer you a real world example of something that fills the entirety of the space within which it is placed. Think of a gas that fills all the space of a container in which it is placed. If you put in a little gas, it expands to fill the volume of the container it is in. Similarly, you can make the argument that a Jewish homeland "in" Palestine circa 1917 would naturally expand to fill the entire area called Palestine at that time. I'm not saying this was the intention of the Balfour Declaration or of the British Gov't. What I am trying to point out is that short of asking Lord Balfour himself what he meant, we will not know how much of Palestine was intended for the Jewish State at that time.

One thing that is evident, however, is that in 1948 the State of Israel was created with the western bank of the Jordan river as an integral part of it. In fact, the Jordan river was the natural boundary that separated Jordan and Israel and thus a natural dividing line between the two countries. What then took place was an invasion by neighboring Arab states, the result of which was the capture, occupation and subsequent annexation of part of Israel proper into Jordan. When, in 1967, Israel captured land that was taken in by Jordan in 1948, they were simply repatriating land that was given to them at their inception. I am not going to get into the question of who attacked whom first because it is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is, if Jordan could take land in a war with Israel then Israel can do the same back. Otherwise, the world should refuse to acknowledge both the "occupation" of the West Bank by Israel and the annexation of that same land by Jordan thus returning the land originally give to Israel back to Israel.


 * My oh my, such mind-boggling ignorance. --Zero 06:51, 2 February 2005 (UTC)

Good to see some humor in the article
"Jordan changed its name to Trans-Jordan in April 1949" - actually that's pretty funny. I'm reminded why I decided working on these articles is a waste of time. --Zero 06:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a waste of time if knowledgable editors of good faith, on both sides of the issue, work together... Jayjg (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2005 (UTC)

POV title
If Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem, obviously they did not consider it occupied. For comparison, the Golan Heights article says "The Israeli army occupied the heights from 1967 until 1981, when the Knesset annexed the land with The Golan Heights Law." If we are to be forced to tiptoe around Israeli sensibilities with regard to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, we should take at least equal care with regard to Jordanian ones. - Mustafaa 06:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I've fixed a lot of the worst messes here (like the irrelevant overview of 3,000 or so of the years when it was not under Jordanian rule, and the repetitiveness and chronological derangement), but it still really needs a lot more expansion on the years between 1948 and 1967. - Mustafaa 07:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From a legal point of view, there is not necessary at tie between de jure sovereignty and recognition from other states. Although i would perhaps agree that these areas were considered occupied with respect to international law in this period, this is a point of view and thus I can agree with the change to "Rule of the..." at least as long as the title of the article of the territories today doesnt explicitly use the term occupied. To have some consistency, if this article were to be called "Occupation of..." then we might as well have an article named "Occupation of West Bank by Israel". To avoid such a clash of interests and POV, this title is probably the best, as it implies nothing. I do agree that as long as this article is such limited in time and scope as it is, the territories ancient history should not be included here, the right article would be one of historical Palestine. --Cybbe 15:00, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I had a long battle last month with User:Palestine-info about including the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem in the List of military occupations. My position was that since Israel had annexed them, they were no longer occupations.  His was that since the annexations were generally unrecognized as legal, they were still occupations.  We need to have consistency between these articles; if Jordan's annexation of the West Bank is not an occupation, then clearly Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is not an annexation either.  Thoughts? Jayjg (talk)  17:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, IMO they are both considered occupations, but Jordans occupation of the West Bank is still included in that article? I think its fine as it is, the legal contentious issues should be discussed in the article, not in the title of the article. And the article you refer to has a footnote which makes it clear that E.J. and G.H. have been annexed. --Cybbe 18:24, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * My point is that we need a consistent terminology. If Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is going to be referred to as an "Occupation", then clearly Jordan's annexation of the West Bank needs to be referred to as an "Occupation", and vice versa. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say the solution is clear: continue to list both in the military occupations, with a sentence explaining why both are disputed - eg "Golan Heights (annexed by Israel 1981, annexation not internationally recognized)" and "West Bank (annexed by Jordan 1950, annexation not internationally recognized)". That's more or less what the article does right now anyway, except that it uses footnotes instead, right? The same applies for other pseudo-controversial cases, like East Timor. - Mustafaa 20:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If so, we should return this article to its original (Occupation of West Bank etc.) with a similar disclaimer. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no analogy between its list treatment and its title. The main reason for using lists rather than categories is precisely to cope with ambiguities and disputed cases.  Titles, by contrast, need to be NPOV in themselves, rather than having NPOV established by comments. - Mustafaa 23:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think our readers will look for "rule", more likely they will search for "occupation". Since no one objects that the Jordanian occupation has taken place, I propose to either call this article Occupation and rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan or return it its previous name. Objections?  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think our readers are at all likely to look for either; the only way they would stand a chance of finding this article is by clicking from History of Palestine or West Bank. "Occupation and rule" is accurate (given that it includes 1948-1950), but redundant, since rule includes occupation; I therefore favor the shorter title "Rule of..."  No one on either side denies that the Jordanians ruled it from 1948 to 1967. - Mustafaa 01:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would likewise oppose titling an article Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem or Indonesian occupation of East Timor, as in both cases the areas were annexed. Israeli occupation of the West Bank, however, would be legitimate - Israel has not annexed it, and never will short of major ethnic cleansing. - Mustafaa 01:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * IMO, the term "rule" is too priggish, as in "rule of law". I object to using negative terms such as "occupation" or "settler" for one side in the conflict, while whitewashing another. Life is not black and white and we should use similar terminology for similar actions. In addition to emotional connotations, the term "rule" is imprecise: the article describes how the territory was conquered, then occupied, annexed, not just innocently "ruled".  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "Occupation" has an exact technical meaning, which applies unambiguously to Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip but not to Jordan's annexation of the West Bank (which, incidentally, was a very good thing for its inhabitants, who, unlike their fellow Palestinians in other countries, found themselves with passports and freedom of movement.) We do not, you may note, have any article under the title Israeli occupation of the West Bank, nor indeed Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, although both cases unambiguously fit the definition, due no doubt to the usual pro-Zionist whitewashing of this fact; do you care to create such an article? Or, to pick the more exact analogy to what you're asking for, are you planning to write Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem? - Mustafaa 03:24, 28 February 2005 (UTC)


 * What about the word "controlled" ? I.e. "Contol of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan?" --Cybbe 18:02, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

"Entered" vs. "Invaded"
Mustafaa, I'm not sure why you keep inserting the euphemism "entered" instead of "invaded" into the article. How does an "invitation" for invasion changes something from an invasion to an entry? If the SLA had invited Israel into Lebanon, would that have changed it to an "entry"? Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "They were invited" argument is faulty: by analogy, Sudeten, Bohemian, Prussian, Danish, Russian, etc. Germans "invited" the Nazis to merely "enter".  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That analogy is thoroughly faulty; for a start, the Prussians were part of Germany to begin with. But truly analogous cases - eg the Allies' liberation of Vichy France - are also described as "invasions" in Wikipedia, to my surprise, so I'll let this one pass. - Mustafaa 23:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As an analogy, the Allied liberation of Vichy France is silly. France was an independent country conquered by Germany; Palestine was an unincorporated territory involved in a civil war, in which outside Arab forces decided to meddle.  Jayjg (talk)  03:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My mistake about Prussia, but the overall analogy is correct.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yours is certainly more accurate than Mustafaa's. Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * To the contrary. The Arabs of Palestine were the majority and were the native population. - Mustafaa 03:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The analogy fails because Palestine was not an independent country. As for the Arabs of Palestine, aside from the ones who had recently immigrated, I suppose they were native in the same sense that the English and Dutch colonists were natives of the United States after living there for a number of generations. Jayjg (talk)  04:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "A number of generations"? 2000 years, more like, even in the genetically unlikely event that most aren't actually descended from converted Jews. Chronologically, about the least native they could be is native in the same sense that Englishmen are native to England or Bretons to Brittany. - Mustafaa 04:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has genetically proven that most are indeed descended from native Israelites. But we're getting off track here, and I'd rather not bicker with you any more. Jayjg (talk)  04:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We are indeed, but you misunderstood my point - the Palestinians have been genetically proven to descend from native NE Semitic populations, which realistically can only mean Jewish converts to Christianity and Islam. - Mustafaa 04:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cousins or brothers, it doesn't matter. We could be friends instead of enemies. The Arabs of Palestine were the majority and were the native population. - The Jews were the majority in the areas allotted to them by the partition, which the Zionists accepted, while the Arabs repeatedly rejected any Jewish self-determination and chose to go to one genocidal war after another. If they would have chosen peace in 1947, this year we could celebrate 58th anniversary of the Palestinian state. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Or, indeed, had the Zionists been willing to settle for a binational state instead of demanding separation, we might be celebrating a multicultural haven of tolerance instead of decades of battle and dispossession. But "of all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these - it might have been." - Mustafaa 05:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * We know what kind of "haven of tolerance" the Nazi mufti and other Arab leaders had in mind for Jews. The Zionists chose self-determination in the areas designated for the Jewish state by the UN. The responsible for "decades of battle and dispossession" should be held those who attacked their neighboors (who didn't pose a threat) to wage genocide, not those who survived against all odds.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:32, 28 February 2005 (UTC)

Comparison to Israeli "rule" - call for writers
Cut from intro:


 * Like the later Israeli acts concerning the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, ...

Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria. It did not formally "annex" them. It maintains its hold on this area for (what is says are) purely defensive purposes. There's some mention of artillery fire, etc.

If any sources regard Israel's rule of the Golan Height as an "illegal occupation", this should certainly be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. Perhaps we need a section of the present article for this.

Rule (or "occupation") of all three of the following territiories is fraught with political overtones:
 * West Bank
 * Golan Heights
 * East Jerusalem

We need to identify and describe the sources which:
 * call Jordan's capture, "occupation" and/or annexation of the West Bank illegal or otherwise objectionable
 * call Israel's capture and "occupation" of the West Bank (or parts thereof) illegal or otherwise objectionable
 * (ditto for East Jerusalem)

Does anyone feel up to the task? --Uncle Ed 14:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[unnamed thread]
i just changed one line because i thought it was poor grammar. I wrote "The United Kingdom was an exception. Pakistan is often said to have recognized the annexation, but such claims are innacurate." i hope that is what was trying to be communicated by the previous sentence, it was unclear. 65.93.194.50 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)j

this edit
- see issue raised here: Zeq 15:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

my suggestion is to replace it with:

During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the area near the wall was taken over by the Jordanian Arab Legion. Jews were denied access to the wall during the period of Jordanian occupation, in violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreement. Zeq 16:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Jordanian authorities allowed coordinated traffic to Mount Scopus.--Doron 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * you are right. it was not "free Israeli access " but I'll change. Zeq 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of article
I have reorganized this article, in order to cut down the size of the lead, which was well in excess of WP:LEAD guidelines, and also to make the whole article more cogent. Now there are two main sections, History, which describes the important events in chronological order, and Jordanian Rule, which describes general aspects of life in the West Bank throughout the 1948-1967 period. Aside from reordering, none of the content has been changed. Sanguinalis 01:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

West Bank / East Jerusalem distinction in article
Most sources include East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank. Those that don't are generally adhering to a dubious distinction invented by Israel after 1967. We should change the title. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I agree that East Jerusalem was considered a part of the West Bank, up until 1967 anyways. From then on it may have been regarded as a seperate entity, but that is not under this article's scope, since Jordanian rule ended in 1967.VR talk  15:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jordanian Rule vs. Occupation
Occupation is seizure and control of territory by a foriegn power. The occupying power does not recognize the inhabitants as their people, but as foreign. The fact that Jordan gave the inhabitants of the West Bank citizenship and rights, and allow them rights in Jordan to vote and holds seats in parliament shows that Jordan did not consider them foreign.

The territory that is the Gaza Strip, Israel, West Bank, and Jordan was occupied by the British. People own land, not nations. When TransJordan gained independence from the British, it became an independant nation. In 1948, the people of the land that is now Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip also gained independence.

When Israel gained independence, it had around less than 33% of the territory. In 1948 Israel expanded during the same war that Jordan expanded in (to include West Bank). Is the territory that Israel expaneded to considered occupied by Israel? If not, then Jordan's rule of the west bank was not occupation.

There is many problems to calling Jordanian rule of the West Bank as occupation. An occupation is proceeded by a war between the occupied and occupier. There was no war between the inhabitants of the West Bank and Jordan. There was no resistance to Jordanian rule. The inhabitants neither considered themselves occupied.

Land belongs to the people who live on the land. If they do not consider it an occupation and actually identify with Jordan then how can it be considered an occupation when rights are given, citizenship is given, no hostility between the 2.

The current Palestinian flag is the Jordanian flag, but without the star. The inhabitants of the West Bank still to this day identify with Jordan. Many inhabitants still use the Jordanian currency. Qualcuno75 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Annexation of a territory, if that annexation is not recognized internationally as legitimate, does not change the occupied status of that territory. Hence Occupation of the Baltic states, East Timor, etc. The feelings of the inhabitants, actually, have no bearing on occupied status; the Sudetenland was "occupied" even though its Volksdeutsche inhabitants were happy about it.
 * In any case, we should go with what the majority of the reliable sources say. There does not appear to be any debate in the sources about the applicability of the term "occupied" to the West Bank from 1949-67:


 * "Pro-Israel" sources
 * Efraim Karsh
 * J.R. Warner & D. Morrison of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
 * Eugene Rostow
 * Dore Gold


 * "Neutral" sources
 * Encyclopedia Britannica
 * Encarta
 * CNN
 * The Nation


 * "Pro-Arab" sources
 * Lisa Hajjar and Joel Beinin of the MERIP:
 * Mustafa Barghouti writing in the Journal of Refguee Studies:

&lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of the sources is false, I didn't read all the articles you provided, I just read the CNN article, CNN says: "Jordan occupies the West Bank when the war ends in 1949." and then: "Israel reoccupies most West Bank cities from which it had previously withdrawn." When CNN uses the term "occupies" it is using it in the context of wars, and that is different than using it as a long term situation. Using the term "Occupation" in the title of this article is misleading and contrary to the truth and common sense of any editor who is familiar with what really happened. Imad marie (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The same goes for the Britannica article : "his armies occupied the region of Palestine due west of the Jordan River", it's mentioned in the war context, and it is being used as a military term and not a political term. Imad marie (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Britannica and the US department of state refer to the situation as (Jordan rule - or control - over the west bank) Imad marie (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

Requested move

 * 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 no consensus to move at this time. JPG-GR (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "Occupation" does not reflect what really happened in history, the word "Rule" is move factual. Imad marie (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose It was an occupaton.  Yahel  Guhan  06:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the UN resolution that classifies the West Bank as occupied by Jordan? Imad marie (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, Britannica and the US department of state refer to the situation as (rule, control, annexation). They never use the word occupation. Imad marie (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OpposeIt was an occupation by military force and using a military to maintain it and it turned into a de-facto annexation. Only in the 1980s Jordan gave up it's claim to the territory. Zeq (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, to anyone who opposes: who decided that it was an occupation? where is the UN resolution that categorizes the territories as occupied by Jordan? Imad marie (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer: When Jordan mobelize it's forces on April 1948 and enetr a territory and stay there until removed by force it is an oocupation. When the locals are afraid of Jordenian soldeirs that is occupation. Zeq (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your answer is just WP:OR, please provide the UN resolution. Imad marie (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I don't have to show that. Zeq (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some comment is needed... There was a move-war and a long discussion on this topic a while back (see Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict/Records and Talk:Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt). At the time, the problem was with some anti-Palestinian editors trying to change "occupation" to "rule" to establish a precedent for not calling Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights an occupation.

According to Wikipedia's own Military occupation, and more precisely the Hague Conventions, it was a military occupation. The fact that there is no United Nations resolution chastising Jordan for this doesn't really change anything, as there are a number of sources (see the thread above) that refer to Jordan's occupation as, well, an occupation. This is also the terminology used in Wikipedia throughout (see List of military occupations), which is why the term "occupation" stayed.

Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 25.03.2008 13:12


 * Pedro, going back to the history, it's you who who moved the page, I believe your move is opposite to the historical facts. Mentioned above, I found two references (and I can find more) that says Jordan ruled (not occupied) the West Bank. And the UN did not declare the West Bank as occupied by Jordan. According to Hague Conventions: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army", there are no significant records of hostility and violence during that period. It's true that PLO and the Jordanian army have a violent history during that period but their dispute (as it is known) was not about the Jordanian army precedence in the West Bank. Imad marie (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Imad, the term "hostile army" does not have anything to do with actual hostilities taking place. Jordan was excising control over territory that was not theirs. That's occupation. Can you show, by means of an example, that the United Nations must declare a territory as occupied for it to be so? Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 25.03.2008 14:08


 * Why are you objecting to considering the UN resolutions as the criteria that should be decided upon if a territory is occupied? that's somehow strange. Anyway, example: Many, Arabs and non-Arabs, claim that the Palestine land is an occupied territory by the Israeli army, what is the criteria for calling Palestine as occupied in Wikipedia? it's the UN resolution.
 * So, we don't have UN resolution, the situation does not correspond to how Hague Conventions describes occupation, and the references mentioned above are disputed. I see no reason at all for this move. Imad marie (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Imad, you may find that strange, but that's the way it works. The definition of military occupation does not require a United Nations resolution. Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 25.03.2008 14:40


 * I sense POV here, you are ignoring the fact that there are no UN resolutions, and you are ignoring the references I have provided. OK, let me revert the question to you now, Why do you think "Occupied" is the factual title? the explanation you have provided for Hague Conventions is WP:OR, and the supporting references provided above are being misinterpreted. Imad marie (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And, frankly, I sense WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't think any amount of reasoning will get through to you. Before you start a move-war on this, I suggest you have a look at Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles to know what you're getting into. Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 25.03.2008 16:50

(Outdent) The basis for considering the West Bank as occupied by Jordan is that the area was conquered by Jordan - there is no sensible dispute that it was occupied territory in 1948. This is where the Hague convention definition, based on customary law, comes in. The problem comes with Jordan's annexation and the recognition of this annexation (exclusive of East Jerusalem) by the UK, and the next two decades of possession, which acquired a degree of international recognition falling short of recognition of annexation (The Tripartite Declaration by the US, UK and France saying they would enforce the armistice lines). The question is, when does an occupation end? This can be knotty and reasonably disputed (e.g. Gaza, now).

In classical international law, Jordan's actions would almost certainly have been enough and been recognized by other states and ended the occupation. But this was after the UN Charter and the acquisition of territory by force, annexation solely by conquest and subjugation was no longer legal. At the time, although it was known that Jordan's title to the West Bank was irregular, there was no serious protest - there was a weak one from the other members of the Arab League. There were UN protests against the part of the Jordanian (and Israeli) measures that claimed to change the status of Jerusalem. Jordan clearly wanted to let the passage of time regularize its title (this is called "(acquisitive) prescription" in international law, similar to adverse possession), the UK supported it and no one really objected. So Imad Marie certainly does have a case, the UK recognition seems to me to be the strongest evidence for his side. But if the weight of modern references speak of occupation - nobody else but the UK formally recognized the annexation after all - and I think they do, then by Wikipedia standards that is what we should probably go by. (Until and if someone finds an international law analysis of it in a law book or journal, which I think we should give very great weight to.)John Z (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * more than half of The comanders/officers of the army that did this occupation were British so now wonder they "recognized" it.... but no one else did. Zeq (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to study or analyze international low as this would be WP:OR. Pedro before we go for a move war or WP:3O or WP:RFC, what is your response to that a big deal of good references do not refer to the situation as "Occupation": Imad marie (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Britannica: "came under Jordanian rule"
 * 2) the US department of state: "left Jordan in control of the West Bank"
 * 3) BBC: "was ruled by Jordan"
 * 4) CNN: "Jordan retained the West Bank"
 * 5) The Guardian: "the kingdom annexed the West Bank"
 * 6) NYTimes: "which Jordan ruled until 1967"
 * 7) Time: "The seizure of the West Bank"
 * 8) Encarta: "the West Bank was annexed by Jordan in 1950"
 * "Occupation" implies "rule," so a laundry list of sources saying "rule," "control," or "annexation" proves nothing. If you like, peruse a Google News search with 203 hits for "Jordanian occupation," including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, San Jose Mercury News, London Times, Times of India, Jerusalem Post, The Nation, etc etc. The Jordanian rule of the West Bank is widely regarded as an occupation. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 07:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of the results in your query are either talking about Jerusalem (occupation of Jerusalem is another debate) or quoting some people. So I have to say the query you provided is inaccurate. Saying that "The Jordanian rule of the West Bank is widely regarded as an occupation." is WP:OR and contradicts with the references I have provided. Imad marie (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Help:Edit conflict: I think User:Eleland did an excellent job in the thread above and will refer to his arguments/sources there. Your collection of sources look somewhat like a nice exercise in quote mining, but that's a game two can play at: Here's Ariel Sharon on CNN using the term "Jordanian occupation". Or how about one, two, three, four, five instances of the New York Times using the term "Jordanian occupation"? Seriously, you're going to need more than a few cherry-picked quotes...
 * In any case, I agree with User:John Z's argument: can you find a legal/academic source saying it wasn't an occupation?
 * Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 26.03.2008 07:42
 * Non of the references I provided were quotes, unlike your and Eleland's references. Currently I don't a legal/academic source saying it wasn't an occupation, but I'll revert the question to you, do you have legal/academic source saying it was an occupation? Imad marie (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you want the move, you provide the references. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 26.03.2008 08:07
 * LOL, I thought the normal default situation for a territory is "unoccupied" unless we have evidences that opposes that, so if both you and me don't have academic evidences then I can create an article named: Jordanian occupation of the United States? the way I see it it's you who should provide the academic evidences... I see this argument going nowhere... Imad marie (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a violation of WP:Point so i suggest you don't do that. Zeq (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. In terms of WP:NC this is one of the clearer cases of a long list of disputed titles. Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan is the common English name for this topic, and is used by both sides of the politics as well as by those uncommitted. If we move this, the floodgates will open for consequential POV moves; If we leave it as it is, it's a useful precedent for some of the trickier cases. Andrewa (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

RFC - Requested move
Long discussion happened here on whether the article should be moved to (Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan). I have provided 8 reliable references that do not refer to the situation then as (Occupation) they rather use words like (Rule), (Annexation), (Control). The claim that Jordan occupied the West Bank is contrary to the historical facts and contrary to what the references say. Imad marie (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the United Nations never referred to the West Bank as occupied by Jordan. Imad marie (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here from the RfC. Eleland and Pedro makes excellent points above. This was a military occupation by the normal definition of that term (acquisition of territory that was not Jordan's, by force). Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems I was mistakingly not listening to other people's opinions, my apologies for that. I will remove the RFC tag now.

Personally, and as a resident in the middle-east all my life, I believe that the title is inaccurate and does not reflect what really happened in reality. But since everyone here thinks this is the right title I will remove the RFC tag now. Imad marie (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "East Jerusalem and West Bank under Jordan"?Bless sins (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * confusing and mising the point. Zeq (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The link you provide above back to this same page at Talk:Occupation_of_the_West_Bank_and_East_Jerusalem_by_Jordan#Requested_move seems pretty pointless already, and will of course be broken when the discussion is archived.


 * The point you are promoting that it's not an occupation in your view and those of others misses the point however authoritative these others may be. In common English, it is referred to as one, so that's the article title. This is Wikipedia policy.


 * Your own survey of usage by groups such as the United Nations is probably original research and doesn't belong in the article either. But, if a citeable source (such as a UN resolution) explicitly makes a pronouncement on whether it's an occupation or not, that should definitely go in. Can you find such sources? It seems likely they exist if the issue is as clear-cut as you claim.


 * But again, remember our role here is not to promote or endorse these views, but merely to report them. A section in the article doing this seems appropriate to me. Andrewa (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)