Talk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Palestinian and International thoughts?

Why is it the article on Israelis rule of the west bank filled with the opinions of palestinians and the international community, it critices and all, but this article on jordans annexation of the west bank doesn't even have the opinions of the palestinians! AnOicheGhealai (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken Links...

[Talking about Jordan's Rule over Jerusalem] - "They also led a systematic destruction of the Jewish Quarter including many ancient synagogues" , the citation for this is a broken link: is there another source that can replace this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monowiki (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan

I moved this here from my user talk page (harlan):

Harlan - I copied the relevant portion of Hansard bellow;

"His Majesty's Government have decided to accord formal recognition to this union. They take this opportunity of declaring that they regard the provisions of the Anglo-Jordan Treaty of Alliance of 1948 as applicable to all the territory included in the union. This action is subject to explanation on two points. The first of these points relates to the frontier between this territory and Israel. This frontier has not yet been finally determined. The existing boundary is the line laid down in the Armistice Agreement signed between Israel and Jordan on 3rd April, 1949, and is subject to any modification which may be agreed upon by the two States under the terms of that Agreement, or of any final settlement which may replace it. Until, therefore, the frontier between Israel and Jordan is determined by a final settlement between them His Majesty's Government regard the territory to which the Anglo-Jordan Treaty is applicable as being bounded by the Armistice Line, or any modification of it which may be agreed upon by the two parties. The second point relates to Jerusalem. The part of Palestine which is now united to the Kingdom of Jordan includes a portion of the area defined in the Resolution on the internationalisation of Jerusalem adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9th December, 1949. His Majesty's Government wish to state that, pending a final determination of the status of this area, they are unable to recognise Jordan sovereignty over any part of it. They do, however, recognise that Jordan exercises de facto authority in the part occupied by her. They consider, therefore, that the Anglo-Jordan Treaty applies to this part, unless or until the United Nations shall have established effective authority there. His Majesty's Government's obligations under the Treaty are, of course, subject always to their overriding obligations under the United Nations Charter."

In the same section of Hansard "His Majesty's Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty's Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it."

As you can read - on 27 April - HMG recognition subject to a final agreement on 'union' territory and on Jerusalem - no recognition. On 24 April - 3 days prior, to this Hansard record Jordan had already annexed the territory - regardless of and despite the UK conditional recognition recorded in Hansard.
Further - this is a section from http://www.passia.org/seminars/96/arab.htm

"As a result of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine of 1947 the Arab League held a series of meetings, which concluded with the decision to invite Arab armies to enter Palestine in order to defend its territory and people. This led to the first Arab-Jewish war of 1948, as a result of which Palestine became divided: a major part became Israel, while the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was under Jordanian control, and the Gaza Strip was ruled by Egypt.

The Arab League’s political committee supported the Palestinians’ decision to establish a government in Gaza and invited its representative to attend all meetings of the League (1949/50). At the same time, the committee expressed its reservations about Jordan’s plan to annex or forcibly unite with the West Bank, stressing that Jordanian rule was only temporary, i.e., pending the ability of the Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination."

As you can read the Arab League did not concur with Jordans actions, they were not to be permanent
On Israel's declaration of Independence, it is true that it recognizes UN resolution 181 but neither the UN nor Israel's neighbors had either the capacity to or the desire to carry out the terms. It cannot therefore be considered a foundation or even a basis in law for anything since Israel was attacked day's later and all agreements fell away.
On "Palestinian" - i would like to establish some agreement and clarity on the use of this term from a historical point of view or it will continue to promote confusion amongst readers who are less aware. Around 1915 there was some limited use of the term to describe Arab's in the region. In 1922 it was a term applied to all residents of Palestine. During the 30's and 40's there were some attempts to establish an Arab national character. By 1948 it was extensively used to describe the region West Palestine. In the 60's it became the focus of the Palestinian Liberation Organization as a reference to the area that was once defined as West Palestine and by that time Israel. Perhaps it also referred to Jordan? (not sure about this).

Please respond to these before i make my next edit. Copytopic1 (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your personal opinion about resolution 181 is irrelevant. The ICJ noted that it was the source of the permanent responsibility of the United Nations for the Question of Palestine. Many other sources say it contained binding legal decisions regarding the international status of Jerusalem and the termination of the LoN mandate. WP:PSTS permits the use of primary sources and any analysis that they contain. But you are advancing your own unpublished personal analysis of primary sources. According to WP:OR and WP:PSTS "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." The announcement of the UK government says it "formally recognized" the union. The "explanation" that follows does not say recognition was withheld. On the contrary, it says the UK regarded all of the territory included in the union to be within the scope of an international treaty agreement between the UK and Jordan.
The "Examples of express and implied recognition" section above cites analysis from a variety of published sources which say that Great Britain, and many other countries, recognized the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan, and the annexation of the territory by the new entity, Jordan. The British Foreign Office statement regarding the UK position on Jerusalem, says that the UK extended de jure recognition to Israel and Jordan on the same day.[1]. Here is an official document from the State Department FRUS series in which the UK invoked the Anglo-Jordanian Treaty in communications with the US regarding enforcement of the armistice boundary line.[2].
Regardless of any position taken by the League of Arab States, the indigenous Jewish and non-Jewish communities of the Palestine Mandate, including Transjordan, had an inherent right to organize their own government(s) after the mandate was terminated. Stefan Talmon, Eyal Benvenisti, and Marjorie Whiteman all cite an advisory opinion written by the State Department Legal Advisor, Ernest Gross. He said "The establishment of Transjordan illustrated the fact that Palestine as a whole was not a single community." and explained that "The law of nations recognizes an inherent right of people lacking the agencies and institutions of social and political control to organiize a state and operate a government. Article 22 of the League Covenant provided "'Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized; Palestine was covered by this Article. The Palestine mandate instrument referred specifically to 'communities' and in a manner so as to make clear that the principal religious communities of Palestine-Jewish and Arab--were intended by the reference. The United States was legally free to recognize the existence of Jewish and Arab states in the areas of Palestine occupied by them, respectively." -- "The Legal Adviser ( Gross) to the Under Secretary of State ( Lovett), memorandum, "Recognition of Successor States in Palestine", May 13, 1948, MS. Department of State, file FW 867N.01/5-1048." cited in Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 227
Chaim Weizmann wrote that the states neighboring the territory of the British Mandate had no legal standing in its affairs. See "Palestine's Role in the Solution of the Jewish Problem, Chaim Weizmann, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jan., 1942), pp. 324-338". Avi Shlaim wrote that "when the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was reestablished in 1946 after a nine-year hiatus, it was not by the various Palestinian political parties themselves, as had been the case when it was founded in 1936, but by a decision of the Arab League. See The Rise and Fall of the All- Palestine Government in Gaza.[3] During the 1947 General Assembly Special Session on Palestine "The Egyptian representative explained, in reply to various statements, that the Arab States did not represent the Palestinian Arab population." [4] During an Arab League Political Committee meeting in February 1948, the Mufti, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni asked for control of all affairs in Palestine. The Political Committee rejected all of his proposals on the basis that the Arab Higher Committee did not represent the Palestinian people. The Leagues' affairs were handled through its own Palestine Council, not through the Mufti or the AHC. See "Politics in Palestine: Arab factionalism and social disintegration, 1939-1948, By Issa Khalaf, University of New York Press, 1991,ISBN 0-7914-0708-X, page 290. When the United States declined to recognize the All-Palestine Government, it said that it had been established without consulting the wishes of Arab Palestinians. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2, page 1448.
Palestinian Nationality has its basis in international law. See for example The International Law Foundations Of Palestinian Nationality, by Prof. Mutaz Qafisheh [5] The coming into force of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne on August 26, 1924 allowed the government of Palestine to issue Nationality Acts which made the inhabitants of the West Bank and Jerusalem Palestinians. According to Norman Bentwich, the guiding principle adopted was that Ottoman subjects habitually resident in the detached territories became ipso facto nationals of the state to which the territory had been transferred. Bentwich said the Nationality Laws transformed the de facto change into a change de jure. See Bentwich, Norman, 7 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 97 (1926) Nationality in Mandated Territories Detached from Turkey.[6] The Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan mentions a final settlement "in Palestine" about 16 times. The Venice Declaration [7] and the ICJ advisory opinion establish the fundamental legal rights of the Palestinian people as such, not "the Arabs". harlan (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Harlan - in response to your attack on my "personal view of 181" i think you can see that Jordan attacked Israel then in 1950 annexed the 'union' land prior to, therefore without Britain's recognition, it was a completely retrospective affair and it did not make it legal in any way. Further here is what Judge Schwebel has to say. I think you can write about this issue without trying to justify Jordan's actions by making it appear they did the legal and or moral thing...

Professor, Judge Schwebel, the former President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) explains why Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem: "(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense; "(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense; "(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully [Jordan]; the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense [Israel] has, against that prior holder, better title. "As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem."

I'll get to the rest of your comments soon, in the interim can you please provide the sources you draw on to make the claim that Sir John Bagot Glubb's orders were to secure the UN partition plan when it had been rejected, by Jordan. How do you know what Glubb was ordered to do??? (see below...)

On 14 May 1948 Israel declared the establishment of the State of Israel based on the UN Partition Plan. The Jordanian Arab Legion under the leadership of Sir John Bagot Glubb, known as Glubb Pasha were given orders to enter Palestine, secure the UN designated Arab areas, and then enter the Jerusalem corpus separatum as defined by the UN Partition Plan. See 1948 Arab-Israeli War Third phase: May 15, 1948 - June 11, 1948. Copytopic1 (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Harlan - you wrote;

"Palestinian Nationality has its basis in international law. See for example The International Law Foundations Of Palestinian Nationality, by Prof. Mutaz Qafisheh [33] The coming into force of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne on August 26, 1924 allowed the government of Palestine to issue Nationality Acts which made the inhabitants of the West Bank and Jerusalem Palestinians. According to Norman Bentwich, the guiding principle adopted was that Ottoman subjects habitually resident in the detached territories became ipso facto nationals of the state to which the territory had been transferred. Bentwich said the Nationality Laws transformed the de facto change into a change de jure. See Bentwich, Norman, 7 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 97 (1926) Nationality in Mandated Territories Detached from Turkey.[34] The Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan mentions a final settlement "in Palestine" about 16 times. The Venice Declaration [35] and the ICJ advisory opinion establish the fundamental legal rights of the Palestinian people as such, not "the Arabs". harlan (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)"

In the example you cite; Prof. Mutaz Qafisheh from the outset attempts to prove the legal basis for Palestinian Nationality. He retrospectively reconstructs for people and their descendants, defined by the "Present Day" view of Palestinian and ignores others that were also residents of Palestine at any time during the mandate and therefore may qualify for the same retrospective Palestinian National status. His presumption that consideration for Palestinian Naturalization (as he reconstructs it) applies only to those who are also considered "present day" Palestinian nationals, arising out of the post 1948 period, is a retro-fit - pure political expediency. The inference is drawn that Palestinian continuity to the "present day" is axiomatic, a given; that does not make a good legal argument! "For example he makes a key presumption about the existence of "Palestine-natives", in 1925? Saying;

"It is true that some readers might regard certain issues discussed herein as moot question or to be of limited legal value today (e.g.Ottoman nationality, the capitulation system, the nationality of Palestine-natives who were residing abroad upon the enforcement of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order and the Jewish immigration to, together with the naturalization of Jews in, Palestine). Such issues are, nonetheless, of historical significance and cannot be ignored, as they constitute factual and legal developments that shaped the formation of Palestinian nationality as it stands at the present day."

Neither Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne nor the Armistice Agreement have a direct legally binding impact on the naturalization or nationalization of a people or the establishment of the rights of a certain people to a specific geographical territory and thereby a nationalization under the constitution of that territory. Despite all that you say, the unanswered question still remains whether or not there is such a nationality as "Palestinian" or whether we are witnessing a modern politically inspired initiative to bundle a people (unfortunate as it may be for them) into a construct, a nationality that has no bearing to a particular cohesive cultural past with any substantial relationship to anything "Palestinian". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copytopic1 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Copytopic1 (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 [8] 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 [9] 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. [10] --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! [11] --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 [12] 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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
You changed the subject and moved the goal posts.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
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)

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)

@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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
Which specific parts of those sources are you using to support your case?     ←   ZScarpia   02:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
Oppose per Kingsindian & Brad Dyer --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
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)

Various sources on the status of the West Bank historically:

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

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

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 [13]
  • 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 [14]
  • 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 [15]
  • 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 [16]
  • 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 [17]
  • § 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 [18]
  • 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, [19]
  • 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 [20]
  • 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 [21]
  • 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 [22]
  • 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. [23]
  • 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)

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)
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".[24] 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.[25] The Emir subsequently confirmed the existence of those agreements to the US Consul in Amman.[26]
  • 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.[27] harlan (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.[28] 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)
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)

(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 [29] 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)

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).

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [30] harlan (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

(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)

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)

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.[31]

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 [32]

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"[33]

Great speech except it is irrelevant as I said. I mean it completely invalidates this document [34] 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)
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)
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. [35] 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. [36] 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. [37] 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. [38]
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)
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.”[39].

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[40]. 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[41], 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)

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)

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 [42] and page 1026, Document 521, paragraph 4 [43]
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 [44]. 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 [45]; 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 [46].
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 [47] 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 [48] 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)
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)

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 [49] 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 [50] 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 [51]
  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) [52]
  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 [53] 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 [54] Truman telephoned the US UN delegation and told them he supported Weizmann's position. See FRUS 1947 page 1271 [55]
  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. [56]
  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) [57]
  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. [58] harlan (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank/Archive_2&oldid=789393450"