Talk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tag

Brewcrewer, if you dont want to edit war over something like this why are you reverting? Why exactly did you remove the tag? nableezy - 23:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

because there is no point in having it there. there is a consensus above not to move the article. somebody wants to bring it up again, so he slaps the article with a template until a second consensus determines there is no good grounds for moving the article. ridiculous.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

. . .so you want to edit war because you are right? The tag's been up there for ages and a tag needs to have an ongoing discussion to justify it. It sounds two users have an issue with the factually nature of the article based around the title wording. Or something. So I started a new thread to find out. It's just a tag, it's not some horrible affront to human decency. Sol (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

i don't editwar and i certainty dont go around drive by tagging articles. there does not appear to be any current discussion about any factual accuracy. you want to keep the tag on the article fine. guess how much i care. i'm interested in building in encyclopedia, not argue about a stupid template. this is my last comment about this nonsense.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even put the tag up. If someone really wants it up it should at least conform to tagging rules. Now it does. If no one actually has anything to say in talk I'll remove it myself but I don't see why this is such a point of contention. Sol (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Rv as per Wikip policy elucidated by Brewcrewer. InternetIsSeriousBusiness (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

obsolete tag (March 2008)

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

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

source

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

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

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem

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

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

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

Annexation of what became the West Bank was illegal?

There's no UNSC resolution condemning the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Here's and example of annexation being illegal.
The Arab States considered Jordan a Trustee occupant Other Secondary Sources [1]
Furthermore Israel signed the 1949 Armistice Agreement with Jordan. "Agreement" .. Israel agreed Jordan would be the occupying power over the territories it held in 1949. talknic (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1

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

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

---

---

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

• don't know I agree that it is redundant for most people because most people see East Jerusalem in the West Bank. The issue comes certainly from the fact that Jerusalem status is delicate. Some considers it is part of the 'corpus separatum' of '47, others see West Jerusalem as an Israeli city, others see the whole Jerusalem (East included) as an Israeli city.Pluto2012 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I don't think the title is problematic and we can't assume a reader would necessarily know that the West Bank includes East Jerusalem. I don't feel that strongly about it though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - clarify in the first sentence that it includes EJ. But this clunky without cause. nableezy - 06:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

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

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

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

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

• Oppose change indeed. . Back then (1947/1948 and 1967) the borders and namings were unclear or different (though UN had exempted Jerusalem, and the green line was created). When we use todays names (WB, EJ) we must be specific. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• That's an interesting point, I hadn't thought of it. It might at least weaken my point about POV-pushing, and NAMINGCRITERIA # 5, but the rest of my point stands. We can clarify that the occupation included EJ in the lead. The title still falls NAMINGCRITERIA #2-4. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I don't see your point. "West Bank" isn't just today's name, it's the name that Jordan gave it when they occupied it. The West Bank has always included East Jerusalem, ever sense it's creation by the 1949 Armistice Agreements's Green Line, the exact same green line that defines the West Bank today. Is there something I'm missing here? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree, factually correct. -DePiep (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Google books: 21 and 3. If its precise enough for majority of reliable sources then its also precise enough for wikipedia.--Staberinde (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Calling your own oversimplified google searches "majority of reliable sources" is laughable. Even before you posted, OP EHC had done more serious work. You could have read. -DePiep (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So what exactly is wrong with that little search? Google books does provide preview in most cases, so I can easily see that my search didn't provide overlapping between titles and that there is at least fivefold difference between current title and proposed title. While EHC's work is nice, I feel that such specific arguments are sort of redundant then actual common name can be determined.--Staberinde (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - current title redundant. nableezy - 17:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

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

It's today a part of the West Bank

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

I disagree - i think it should say part of the State of Palestine (palestinian flag), the Judea and Samaria area (with no flag, because it is not sovereign Israeli territory); I'm not sure how to present E. Jerusalem (annexed, but unrecognized). West Bank is not a geopolitical entity, so it cannot be named "today part of".GreyShark (dibra) 17:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: I disagree with your last edit. IMHO, the previous version mentioned the wiki-link to West bank only and without any flag, was better. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Map issues.

Couple of notes:

• The Map color and description mismatch or are very hard to discern.

• Israel, first recognized by the US, May 15, 1948 - It is misleading, the Soviet Union was the first country to recognize Israel on 17 May, even if US and bunch of other countries did so "unofficial" before.

• Allotted for Arab state, occupied by Israel Feb/Apr 1949 - How is this relevant to the topic of "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank"? It also offers loaded terminology, the territory wasn't "occupied" as in "occupied territories" 0f 1967, but has been recognized by the UN as Israeli territory due to Arab war of aggression. --89.139.54.217 (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

those 35 synagogues

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

Its very nice WP:OR but it still WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no rule against OR on talk pages. Do have anything to contribute? Zero^talk 13:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well according to this source [2] there are list of destroyed Jewish institutions the original source is book in Hebrew.Its interesting to take a look if you will scan a relevant pages I will translate.--Shrike (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Another one interesting [3]--Shrike (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"Today part of"

Palestine
Civil Administration
Coordinator of Government

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

"only"

User:IRISZOOM: your revert here brought back the word "only", with the justification that "this part since it is from a quote." Alas, it is sourced to 3 different sources. So, shall we remove 2 of those, and make it quote, from say, Eyal Benvenisti? Or any of the other Israelis? (Yoram Dinstein & Mala Tabory) (Btw, the ref. "George Washington University. Law School (2005). The George Washington international law review. George Washington University. p. 390. Retrieved 21 December 2010. Jordan's illegal occupation and Annexation of the West Bank" ...is clearly inadequate, as it has no author, or even name of article.) I still have the question, though, why are these Israelis quoted in the lead, and not, lets say Joseph Massad? Huldra (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you disputing the statement that only GB, Iraq, and Pakistan recognized Jordan's annexation? I'm pretty sure that's uncontroversial. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it because if was part of a quote, which of course shouldn't be changed. Eyal Benveisti and especially Yoram Dinstein are good authors. If you have other reliable sources to add, then add them. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

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

As Harlan never tired of telling us, the USA also approved the move. It explained to the Jordanian government that formal recognition of border changes was not US practice, which is why the approval is not commonly noted. Probably there are other countries with the same story; it should be researched and cited. Israel was quite happy about it too, which is probably easier to source. Zero^talk 01:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah no, the US did not approve the move, it acquiesced. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

From official US documents (I'll give full references when I'm not in a terrible hurry). (1) "The United States with the United Kingdom has favored the annexation by Jordan of Arab Palestine." (2) "The Policy of the [State] Department, as stated in a paper on this subject prepared for the Foreign Ministers meetings in London in May was in favor of the incorporatlon of Central Palestine into Jordan but desired that it be done gradually and not by sudden proclamation. Once the annexation took place, the Department approved of the action "in the sense that it represents a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people. . . . The United States continues to wish to avoid a public expression of approval of the union." (Jerusalem is excluded.) This makes it quite clear what the policy was and also why it wasn't common knowledge. I didn't find the report of what the USA conveyed to Jordan, but I'll look again later. Zero^talk 02:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If the US approved of the illegal annexation, it should be simple for you to find a reliable source that says so, rather than relying on you personal interpretation of primary sources. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Instead of attacking Zero0000 who is looking for information and gathers them, each of us, you included, can collaborate in looking for some too (pro- and contra- our initial feelings on the question).

The game is not to comment what Zero0000 brings and give him good or bad points for his work. The game is to gather here all the information that we can find on the question.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not attacking Zero at all, I am pointing out that his personal interpretation of primary sources does not trump secondary sources that say he opposite. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am quite sure that the topic of (non) international recognition is treated in the book of Shlaim. I'll check this. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not hard to find secondary sources that discuss the original documents, and there is no surprise there as they are quite clear. The other text I mentioned as as follows. The US official Stuart Rockwell reported his conversation with Jordanian official Abdel Monem Rifai (later Prime Minister):

In response to Mr. Rifai's question as to when the US was going to recognize the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan, I explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn that the US did in fact recognize the union." [4] Zero^talk 08:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact most countries do not bother formally recognising border changes. The whole "only recognized by Britain and Pakistan" thing is a theme made up by Israeli after 1967 to justify its own position. (Find an example of it before 1967 to prove me wrong.) Which countries explicitly recognized Israel's annexation of the Western Galillee contrary to the UN partition plan? Probably none: acts of recognition hardly ever mention borders. Zero^talk 08:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What your source above says is exactly what I claimed - the US explicitly did not recognize the annexation (" it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition "), it merely acquiesced to it ("the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. "). Furthermore perhaps you are unaware of what the term "primary source" is - what you provided is a screenshot of the US FRIUS- a primary source if ever there was one. Once again - If the US approved of the illegal annexation, it should be simple for you to find a reliable source that says so, rather than relying on you personal interpretation of primary sources, especially when the article has multiple sources that say the opposite - that only the UK and possibly Pakistan did so. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a picky semantic argument that doesn't really illuminate the facts. It is perfectly relevant, and supported by the sources, that the USA gave informal approval to the annexation. Nobody is arguing that there was a formal action of recognition. The correct procedure is to add the USA to the list with the caveat that it was an informal decision. "Acquiescence" would suggest that the USA didn't like it but decided to accept it, which is simply not true as quotes (1) and (2) say clearly. Incidentally, nobody ever discovered a formal act of recognition by Pakistan either, or even an informal act, so inclusion of Pakistan is dubious. This is referenced in the article. Zero^talk 14:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

asking you to provide reliable secondary sources that support a statement you want to put in the article is not a picky semantic argument - it is a fundamental requirement for editing this encyclopedia. If you can't abide by that - find somethign else to do. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be suffering from a common misunderstanding. There is no rule in Wikipedia against primary sources. There is a rule against original interpretation, but that applies to all sources. An attributed quotation from the sources I found would be 100% within the rules. But anyway I have secondary sources that I will soon add as well, including one making an even stronger statement. Zero^talk 07:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:PSTS - "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources....Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation....primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. " Thus is exactly the kind of personal analysis and misuse that you are doing here - taking a source that says the US does not and will not recognize the Jordanian annexation, but that it accepts it as done deal, and wanting to turn it into a statement that ays the US informally recognized the annexation and favored it. This is first rate violation of WP:PSTS. Fourth time now: If you want to put something like that in the article , go find a reliable secondary source that says that. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Quoting a primary source with attribution is not interpretation. It is allowed explicitly by WP:PRIMARY, see the section labelled "Policy". You seem to be confusing my comments on this talk page, which do involve interpretation, with text I might add to the article, which will not involve interpretation. It is not possible under the rules to totally ban a relevant reliably published primary source from article space. Zero^talk 14:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You were not quoting a primary source with attribution, you were suggesting "to add the USA to the list with the caveat that it was an informal decision." -a personal interpretation which is a first rate violation of WP:PSTS, which is Wikipedia policy. Spend some time reading policy, you obviously don't understand it. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well thats a really distinctive way to talk for an account with 365 edits. nableezy - 16:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, secondary sources!

• Avi Plascov, The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957, p169: "The annexation was, in due course, recognised de jure only by Great Britain and Pakistan and de facto by many other countries (including Israel)."
• Avi Shlaim, The Politics of Partition, p357: "Abdullah now had the support of the leading Western powers for his plan to proclaim the annexation of the West Bank...".
• "Countries and Territories of the World" (probably not citable but the references are): "Thomas Kuttner notes that de facto recognition was granted to the regime, most clearly evidenced by the maintaining of consulates in East Jerusalem by several countries, including the United States.[ref: Israel Journal of Human Rights, 1977, p176] Joseph Weiler agreed, an said that other states had engaged in activities, statements and resolutions that would be inconsistent with non-recognition.[ref: Joseph Weiler, Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state: a European perspective, p48]".
• Douglas Little, A Puppet in Search of a Puppeteer? The United States, King Hussein, and Jordan, 1953-1970, The International History Review, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Aug., 1995), pp. 512-544: "Then, with Washington's tacit blessing, Abdullah held a plebiscite on the West Bank, claimed overwhelming Palestinian support for union with Jordan, and annexed 'Arab Palestine' to his realm in late April." (with citations to multiple US documents including the ones I found).
• Shlomo Slonim, The United States and the Status of Jerusalem 1947-1984, 19 Isr. L. Rev. 179 1984: Quotes the State Department policy document that I quoted, as defining American policy.
• Peter L. Hahn, Caught in the Middle East: U. S. Policy Toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict, p91: "Although the annexation rekindled Jordanian-Israeli tension, the State Department approved the move on behalf of Britain's security interests."

Zero^talk 12:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Soviet recognition

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

Thanks, very interesting. Could you find some official sources (which we could quote) which made this an official position of USSR, or any East European states? I´m afraid we cannot quote "an old Soviet atlas", we need an author, or editor. Huldra (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said, it's an official publication of the Soviet government. You must be aware that in the USSR it was impossible to publish anything independently, everything had to comply with the state policy. So this is as official as it gets. I can upload here photos of the map in question and the page that lists the editors, if you're interested. 151.237.126.24 (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we can use this, but like Huldra I'm reluctant to draw conclusions from it, even conclusions that seem obvious, if the source doesn't explicitly state them. I think we can add an image with a caption stating what the image shows, though. I'm thinking of a caption something like "This atlas published by the Soviet government in 1981 shows the central portion of the Arab State proposed by the UN in 1947, plus all of Jerusalem, as part of Jordan". We can discuss the wording. Zero^talk 06:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ottoman "occupation"

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

Unrest in Palestine prior to 1948

I wish to ask Wiki editors whether or not events leading up to 1948 should be mentioned in the section entitled, "Prior to 1948"? That, is there a consensus to add the following paragraph:https://books.google.co.in/books?id=KBSDam2TDaEC&pg=PA166&lpg=PR4&focus=viewport#v=onepage&q&f=false

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

Are they important in this article? Should these incidents be addressed briefly, but without the use of harsh language that tend to denigrate one side or the other?Any advice?Any better suggestions?Davidbena (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The lay-out and content of the RFC has been extremely edited and moved across sections by Winged Blades ^Godric at 07:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC) to attract more participants.

Survey

Discussants,please only vote in this particular section.If you wish to discuss the issue in detail, use the discussion section.

• I think this contains too much detail that isn't needed for this article. We already have a big duplication problem across Israel-Palestine articles; the parts of the history you cover above are already duplicated perhaps ten times in various articles. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay.Davidbena (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Details of each individual incident

For example, British contemporaries of that period, such as Sir John Bagot Glubb, in his book, A Soldier with the Arabs (London 1957), have mentioned in their writings the incitement of Arabs against Jews by Haj Amin Husseini, as also as described in the book, A Survey of Palestine (Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry), vol. 1, chapter 2, British Mandate Government of Palestine: Jerusalem 1946, pp. 17 – 24: April, 1920 (Easter Sunday). “Savage attacks were made by Arab rioters in Jerusalem on Jewish lives and property. Five Jews were killed and 211 injured. Order was restored by the intervention of British troops; four Arabs were killed and 21 injured. It was reported by a military commission of inquiry that the reasons for this trouble were: (a) Arab disappointment at the non-fulfillment of the promises of independence which they claimed had been given to them during the war. (b) Arab belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self-determination and their fear that the establishment of a National Homeland would mean a great increase in Jewish immigration and would lead to their economic and political subjection to the Jews. (c) The aggravation of these sentiments on the one hand by propaganda from outside Palestine associated with the proclamation of the Emir Feisal as King of a re-united Syria and with the growth of Pan-Arab and Pan-Moslem ideas, and on the other hand by the activities of the Zionist Commission supported by the resources and influence of Jews throughout the world.” 24th September, 1928 “The Jews attempted to introduce a screen to divide men and women during prayers at the Wailing Wall on the Jewish Day of Atonement. This was contrary to the status quo ante and on this account led to objections by the Arabs; orders were given for its removal, the Jews did not remove it and it was forcibly removed by the police in the course of prayers at the Wall. This incident engendered high feeling and was a prelude to the disturbances of the following year. Haj Amin Eff. Husseini and the leaders of the Arab Executive made much of the incident and set themselves to bring about a revival of nationalist agitation throughout the country; branches of Moslem societies were established by them in the provincial towns.” August, 1929 “On 15th August a Jewish demonstration was held at the Wailing Wall, and on the following day the Arabs held a counter demonstration. From 23rd to 29th August murderous attacks were made on Jews in various parts of the country. The most violent attacks were those against the old established Jewish communities at Hebron and Safad; there were also attacks in Jerusalem and Jaffa and against several Jewish rural settlements. There was little retaliation by Jews, of whom 133 were killed and 339 wounded. Order was restored with the help of British troops rushed up from Egypt; 116 Arabs were killed and 232 wounded, mostly by troops and police.” “The breach between the two races was widened by the events of 1928-1929, first by the emergence of the religious factor and then by the outbreak of murder and pillage. Reciprocal boycotts of Arab and Jewish trade were organized. All possibility of cooperation, even in the economic field, was eliminated for some time to come and the High Commissioner, returning in haste to Palestine after the outbreak of the disturbances, issued a proclamation announcing the suspension of discussions on the constitutional issue.” “As it was felt necessary that an Arab body should represent the Arab case in an enquiry into the cause of the disorders, Government recognized the Arab Executive Committee for the purpose.” October-December, 1929 “A Commission of Inquiry under Sir Walter Shaw visited Palestine and reported, in March, 1930, that 'the Arab-feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future' was the fundamental cause of the outbreak. The findings were very similar to those of the Haycraft.” Davidbena (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Occupation

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

Their annexation was not approved by UN.Its similar with Golan heights though Israel annexed it UN didn't recognize it.--Shrike (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but the Golan Heights article discusses the modern day component of the history as "annexation and civil rule". The word "occupation" is often used very loosely, and can be misleading. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Then we should change the heading from Jordanian Control to Jordanian Occupation and then we can call the subheading "annexation and civil rule"--Shrike (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This whole articles name is misleading, it should be moved to Jordanian rule of the West Bank, or Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, as that was what it was, for most of this time. This article name is just to give the impression that the present Apartheid system on the West Bank is nothing new..... Disgusting. Huldra (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

How dare compare Jewish rule over its own country to a mere "apartheid system"? Since when have Muslims openly invited Jews to share equally with them in the governance of Arab lands? I cannot remember when this happened, Huldra. It's easy, I guess, to point fingers at Israel and forget the long history of violence and hatred directed toward Jews who lived in Arab lands. Besides, Jews are no strangers to their own land.22:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

David, actually, people who have experienced apartheid in South Africa say that the present situation on the West Bank is far, far worse than it ever was in South Africa. If you throw a stone on the West Bank, you will be treated differently if you are a Jew, or if you are Palestinian. Different punishment for the same crime. I don't know how better to define apartheid. And you cannot justify your crimes, by pointing to crimes done against you. I thought that was pretty obvious? Huldra (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I know plenty of Arabs here who do not share your view, Huldra. They are given work by Israelis, and many own luxurious houses. The problems that you mention are rare, and only where there is incitement against authority. Jews normally do not throw stones at passing motorists. Where it exists, there should always be a firm reaction by those who wield authority.Davidbena (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Davidbena: you wrote of a "long history of violence and hatred directed toward Jews who lived in Arab lands". Please read Mark Cohen's Neo-lachrymose Conception of Jewish-Arab History. It might help you filter out some propaganda you have been subjected to. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

David, And how many of of these people have gone to jail? Your "happy Arab" reminds me of a story a female friend of mine told me. She (a European female) had been the sole female working in a Western company in West Africa. To her utter disgust, her male coworkers went, in their spare time, to local prostitutes. And then they went on to tell her that the local girls "liked it"! One evening she got to talk to these prostitutes....they could talk freely to her, as she wasn't business, and she wasn't their competitor. Then she heard all about how they utterly despised their customers. Why didn't they tell their customers the truth? "Oh, that would be very, very bad for business!" Huldra (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: I am inclined to agree with you - the article name is both technically incorrect and also appears to be POV for the reason you describe. It was originally called "Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan", but was moved in 2008 ([5]) by a user who apparently didn't know the difference between military occupation and annexation. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile:, I am a Jew, and I have lived at one time (for a duration of one year and two months) in a certain Arab country, and I have seen there personally the oppression of Jews. I now live in Israel (for more than 40 years), and I have during this time-frame come to see the causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and I can say that most Arabs here live decent and respectful lives. Those that may feel disenfranchised, or marginalized in our society, are those whose surroundings are mostly hostile towards Jews (Israelis), and in some cases, they have been involved themselves in inciting others, and therefore have only themselves to blame. As for the title of the current article, it seems to me to be fine. What other title would you suggest calling this article?Davidbena (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Davidbena: I’m afraid that you are in no position to speak for the Palestinian people. (That would be like, say, me speaking for the Jewish people....How would you like that??) You might read this...that US influence/money stops it from becoming official UN policy doesn't make it less true, Huldra (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Decent lives @Davidbena:? They don't even have the most basic civil right, that of voting. Unless you are talking about Israeli Arabs. Anyway, yes the term "occupation" is factually incorrect in this context and I am surprised it went unnoticed all these years, myself included. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have concerns that you were WP:CANVASSed here by user Oncenawhile .While we were in middle of discussion and after I reverted him he have pinged you this unacceptable behavior.--Shrike (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: in my experience Makeandtoss is the best editor Wikipedia has on Jordanian issues. He brought Jordan and Amman to GA status, and has created numerous Jordan-related DYKs. His editing is well researched and always thoughtful. If those considerations constitue canvassing, then I am proud to admit it. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have concerns that you are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH here. I didn't even notice this discussion until a day later, when I realized that "occupation" is indeed out of context here. The only unacceptable behavior here is you trying to shift the discussion. Do you have anything to say to arguments for renaming this article? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You can initiate official rename discussion if you like.But according to WP:COMMONNAME it called occupation.--Shrike (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You will need to demonstrate that this is the "common name". Plus thats not how common name works, that is in the case of a literal name.Makeandtoss (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Second to that ridiculous picture which was at the start of 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, the title of this article is the very worst of Wikipedia. I tried to change it to "Jordanian rule of the West Bank" back in 2014, but was shouted down. Since then, I have basically tried to avoid this piece of Wikipedia shit. Huldra (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a long debate about something that does not directly relate to, nor affect, this article. Therefore, what I do know or do not know about the Palestinian people in this country is irrelevant, even though I have heard that they prefer Israeli rule over Hamas rule. The Talk Page should not be used as a "chat page," but only to discuss relevant issues related to the article. My view, as it is the view of many others, is that the current title is applicable to the specific article, since we are ultimately talking about hegemony over the Palestinian peoples, which word would also apply to Jordanian control over the West Bank from 1948-1967.Davidbena (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Maps and sources

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

I am not aware of any maps or sources specific for this time period, but we can find sources for whatever happened back then. The Jericho Conference, Assassination of Abdullah I, Jordanian general election, 1956, Sulayman Al-Nabulsi's parliamentary government, the Free Officers alleged coup attempt, 1957 imposition of martial law and the 1966 Samu Incident are key events in Jordanian history in that time period where the West Bank played an important role. Further important connections are with the tourism and agricultural sectors. I might be able to help if you give me something specific.. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Makeandtoss:. Very interesting articles. I hadn't realised the importance of the 1956 election in particular. I have found a good contemporary map, and added some better sources. It's a start. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a 1961 Jordanian map at 1:750000. Zero^talk 00:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zero0000: is your 1961 still in copyright? If not, it would be great to add it to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Jordanian maps that it show that west bank is part of Jordan but that not the the case of course because the annexation was not approved by UN.--Shrike (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

So we shouldn't use Israeli maps either as the UN never approved Israel's annexation of the parts outside the Res 181 boundaries. Zero^talk 08:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Any map that's decent is an asset. If we need to qualify something about it, we can do it in the caption. El_C 08:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zero0000:And we don't at least as the main picture of the article.I have no problem to use this map in the article to show position of Jordanian government with proper caption like El_C suggests--Shrike (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: the map I posted is not a "Jordanian map". It was produced by the US Government. It represents the most neutral contemporary map we have. The existing lead map is WP:OR and incorrect (it is a modern map, which was edited by Chesdovi to shade the West Bank. For example, the borders of Jordan-Saudi Arabia do not show Winston's Hiccup as it was in 1955). Oncenawhile (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If some borders doesn't show you welcome to change it but we need to show that west bank is a distinct territory as we show it in Golan Heights article..--Shrike (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Why? Chesdovi's map is WP:OR - there is no source for it. You have provided no sources either. The US government map is a neutral contemporary representation. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: I am struggling to figure out this new rule. Does it mean that even though we both agree that the current map is incorrect and unsourced, it will stay as the lead picture because you want it to? And what is the threshold for "consensus" under this new rule? I thought I had consensus to remove the map when you agreed it was incorrect. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It is unsurprising that US maps showed the West Bank in Jordan, as the US government was perfectly happy with the annexation. The map I have was published by the UK War Office and Air Ministry in 1961. I think it is out of copyright now but I need to check more carefully. Zero^talk 01:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Below are four more contemporary maps. None show the "dotted lines" between TJ and WB of our unsourced lead map:

• 1958 - http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1958060400#H2_4
• 1966 - http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1966070600
• 1960s - https://www.etsy.com/listing/163092471/iran-map-israel-palestine-map-1960s?ref=market
• 1960s - https://www.etsy.com/listing/163080884/turkey-and-middle-east-map-1960s-cram?ref=market

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

To have an OR map, done by a WP editor in the lead is outrageous. I have reintroduced the official map Makeandtoss inserted, Huldra (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead map - consensus to remove?

The lead map in this article has no source. The borders with other countries have been shown to reflect modern boundaries, not 1948-67 boundaries. With respect to illustrating the connectivity between the WB and TJ, it does not match with either of the two contemporary maps we have been discussing. Should this map remain in the article? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should have an RFC how the map should look.In my mind as we talk about west bank the relevant area should be shaded in different color to the very least and also there should be border between Jordan and the west bank as it not part of their territory similar to Golan height and Israel. --Shrike (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any contemporary maps to support your view? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary map is a primary source.We should use a secondary WP:RS that point the annexation was not approved by UN--Shrike (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: we need to be consistent here. Look at List of annexations. Were the Goa, Tibet and Ogaden annexations "approved by the UN"? No. But they were considered to have been accepted by the transferring parties. So today they are shown as integral parts of the acquiring countries. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

We need to go according to what WP:RS say on this matter.--Shrike (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This situation was not in the slightest like Israel+Golan. In this case Jordan annexed a part of the Arab portion of the UN partition plan with the apparent approval of the residents and the objection of nobody except other Arab countries. It was more similar to Israel's annexation of the Western Galilee. It isn't at all like the seizure of part of another sovereign state to the condemnation of the entire world. Regarding the map, I think we can zoom in a little to show the West Bank better; there is no need to include all of Jordan. The map should indicate where the West Bank is, as that is the topic of the article. Zero^talk 08:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

To my mind the holy grail map here would be one showing Jordan split into all its governates between 1950-67, with the WB governates highlighted in red. That would be consistent with other similar articles throughout the encyclopedia. But i have not seen a precedent map showing that yet. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I of course don't agree on you interpretation but I tend to agree with your suggestion regarding a map.--Shrike (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

At the Jordanian census of 1931, the census districts were: Amman, Balqa, Ajlun, Karak, Ma'an, Hebron, Jerusalem and Nablus. Obviously the last three were the West Bank. That division is quite unlike the current one and don't know if the census districts were the same as governates then. these districts were also the main political divisions. Zero^talk 12:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I found a CIA map from 1967/8 with the district boundaries shown (slightly different from 1961). More later. Zero^talk 12:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two problems with showing governate boundaries. One is that they changed several times during 1950-67. Another is that the three governates comprising the West Bank would be almost invisible if the whole of Jordan is shown. The 1968 CIA map is good, but imperfect in that the Saudi-Jordanian boundary changes made in 1965 are not shown. I propose to solve most of these problems by cutting out a rectangle in which the West Bank is about half the height of the image. Horizontally it would cover from Tel Aviv and the sea to well past Amman. Haifa just fits into the north-west corner and all of the Dead Sea is included. The West Bank governates Nablus, Al Quds and Al Khalil would be shown, also the East Bank governate Al Balqa. The western parts of governates Irbid, Al Asimah and Al Karak would appear. Somehow it would be indicated which governates formed the West Bank. How does that sound? Zero^talk 07:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The west bank should be colored differently as this is topic of the article.--Shrike (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The map has topographic shading which would be nice to keep. I can indicate the West Bank by outline. Zero^talk 08:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you please upload the map to the talk page.So we could form opinion about it.--Shrike (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking forward to the new map! El_C 08:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2017

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

The result of the move request was: There was clear consensus for the article to be moved. However the target of the move was much harder to call. Probably the most supported (or perhaps least opposed) title was "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank" which is where it is now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank → Jordanian West Bank – Better reflects the contents of the article, which discusses the history of the region between 1948-67. The initial act of occupation (as in "invasion") is covered in the article on the 1948 war. Describing the 1948-67 period as an occupation is factually incorrect, as the area was annexed (see the article military occupation which explains the difference) with the explicit consent of the Palestinians. There was some debate from other Arab states as to whether Jordanian control should be permanent, or more like a "trusteeship", but the Jordanians were clear that this was a permanent arrangement and provided full civilian control and citizenship. So I propose we simplify the title to remove both confusion (for readers that are looking for info about the invasion) and stop it from misleading (for those that readers that the word occupation would make think this was military control like the current status in the West Bank). Oncenawhile (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment – I'm inclined to agree with the nom, but have a reservation. On the one hand, the region had representation in the Jordanian parliament, another aspect of being part of a country rather than merely being occupied by it. However, on the other hand, the Arab League did not recognize the annexation, nor did the rest of the world except for the UK and the US. Something needs to tip the balance... Did the residents agree? Consent by those governed would be a strong indicator, but I could find nothing on the residents' consent to the annexation, such as a referendum vote by them. Could you provide a citation? The Transhumanist 21:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @The Transhumanist: this took place at the "Jericho Conference of 1 December 1948" where Palestinian leaders and other notables voted on the union. Sources for this include the following:

• Anderson, Betty S. (15 September 2009). "Union with Jordan". Nationalist Voices in Jordan: The Street and the State. University of Texas Press. pp. 114–. ISBN 978-0-292-78395-9.
• Maoz, Moshe (22 May 2015). Palestinian Leadership on the West Bank (RLE Israel and Palestine): The Changing Role of the Arab Mayors Under Jordan and Israel. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-45032-0.
• Mishal, Shaul (14 July 2014). "Conflictual Pressures and Cooperative Interests: Observations on West Bank - Amman Political Relations, 1949-1967". In Joel S. Migdal (ed.). Palestinian Society and Politics. Princeton University Press. pp. 169–. ISBN 978-1-4008-5447-9.

By the way, the current article drafting regarding which other countries recognized the annexation is a red herring. Annexations are not recognized as a matter of course by third party countries in the same way as declarations of independent states. For annexations to be normalized they are normally only recognized by the parties to the transfer. See List of annexations for a list of other examples. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by normalized?--Shrike (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It was not resisted by any segment of the population. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Your first source includes the following statement: "Many of them chose to continue their political opposition, but now doing so within the boundaries of the Hashemite state and under the rubric of Arab nationalism." The source also expressed that "The solution to the conundrum of the British Mandate of Palestine had been determined on the battlefield, and the Palestinians had failed in their national efforts." This doesn't sound like the Jordanians were invited. Were they? Sources? The Transhumanist 22:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

To my read, these quotes very clearly confirm that the Palestinians accepted Jordanian rule. For context, the region was previously British-run Mandatory Palestine. When the British left, they encouraged the ex-British army officer who commanded the Jordanian Army, Glubb Pasha, to take control of what became the West Bank in order to ensure that the Jewish forces did not conquer the entire country (they expected a result consistent with UNGA 181).Oncenawhile (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

So far, I've only seen the implication that Jordinian rule was welcomed. It will take explicit citations to convince me. The Transhumanist 23:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Your second source states "The Palestinian armed organization, the PLO – which has undertaken to lead the nationalist struggle of their people – was for long periods unable to operate on the West Bank because of strict security measures taken by the Jordanian and Israeli governments respectively." This makes it sound like the desires of the people for their own independent nation were suppressed. Did the PLO support annexation, before the Jordanian armed forces entered the area? Sources? The Transhumanist 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The PLO was founded in 1964 in Cairo, so the time period is barely relevant to this article. Most importantly though, the PLO's founding document, the 1964 Palestinian National Covenant excluded the West Bank from its activities (this was changed after 1967): "Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields." Oncenawhile (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Your third source states "From the standpoint of the Palestinian Arabs, the war had ended in utter defeat. For King 'Abdallah of Jordan, however, it enhanced the political authority of Jordan and increased his military power." With them defeated, and Jordan's army securing the area, how was this not an occupation? Who defeated them? And under what context did Jordanian armed forces enter the region? Based on the war article, it looks like it was a land grab, in response to the creation of Israel and its military push for territory, and also due to the end of the British Mandate over the area. It appears that the Palestinians were overrun from all sides and had no say in the matter. Please clarify. Did they perceive Jordan as their rescuer? If so, please provide sources. The Transhumanist 22:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think my answer to your first question (at 22:15) covers all this. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not explicitly. That takes explicit citations. I'm still hanging in the balance. Very interesting subject, though -- I'm highly intrigued, and await the conclusion in suspense, like for the end of a movie or book! The Transhumanist 23:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

One thing that is very unclear from the sources above, and the articles, is how many Palestinians fled this area and became refugees? The Transhumanist 22:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

In the 1948 Palestinian exodus and the 1949–56 Palestinian exodus, Palestinian refugees fled TO the West Bank. In the 1967 Palestinian exodus, many of them, and others, fled again, this time into Transjordan. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I strongly object to the proposed "name change." We're talking specifically about Jordanian control / occupation / hegemony over the eastern parts of Palestine during the years 1948-1967. The title "Jordanian West Bank" gives the impression of some "de facto" ownership by Jordan of these lands, lands - mind you - that were traditionally called in different periods by the names Judea, Palestine and Israel. The area of concern was never meant to be an integral part of Jordan, which such a title would imply. Rather, Jordan stepped-in during the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 to help secure lands for the Arab peoples who were then in a state of war with the Jewish people. If such a title seems right to you for this article (which deals with the years 1948-1967), then it would also be right to describe the same area by today's politics, viz. "Israeli West Bank". Davidbena (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Jordan annexed the West Bank, and that annexation became normalized. Israel have not annexed the territory - it is currently under military occupation. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Israel knows the flack that it would receive by "formally" declaring the lands "annexed" (which is purely a technical term). However, a formal declaration or no declaration at all does not take away from the fact that the lands called the "West Bank" are under Israeli control, legally by our point-of-view, and perhaps "illegally" by others' point-of-view. What matters here is the reality on the ground. Today, Israelis refer to the country, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River as Israel proper. Even maps by the government mention it as such.Davidbena (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

David, annexation is not "purely a technical term". It means providing citizenship to the inhabitants. The reason Israel hasn't annexed the area is not about bad PR, it is about demographics. Whilst Israel keeps the territory, they have a unattractive binary choice - be outnumbered the "others" in a democracy, or subjugate the "others" as non-citizens under military control. So here we are today with the modern world's longest ever military occupation. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It is without question that there can hardly be found today any true democracies in the Middle-East. Saudi-Arabia is not one. Syria is not one. Gaza is not one, neither Jordan, nor Iraq. A "Jewish State" takes precedence over a "Democratic State." We can respect our Arab neighbors, but Israel must take care that only she controls its own destiny. De facto annexation precludes the necessity of formally declaring that it belongs to Israel. When Russia took Crimea and annexed it, there was a large public outcry at the UN. Israel abstained from condemning Russia because, in reality, borders of countries have since time immemorial been determined by war. You see, all throughout the annals of history that is how borders of countries were delineated. While the UN seeks to bring some civility into the picture, it is largely construed by politics. We can always ask ourselves what is in the essence of the name, "West Bank." The fact remains, however, that the people of Israel are connected to its land, and the land is governed by the State of Israel, whether recognized as such or not.Davidbena (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the status of the Palestinians and other non-Jews who live there? The Transhumanist 23:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: You speak of Israel's presence in its own land as an "occupation." How can it be an occupation when the Palestinian Arabs have ALWAYS been subjugated to foreign powers? Before Israel, they were under the British, and afterwards, the Jordanians. Before the British, they were under the Ottoman Turks, just as the Jews were.Davidbena (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please see article military occupation. It is very clear. It means Israel is controlling an area without providing civil and political rights. Because much of the population believes exactly the nationalist propaganda that you illustrated above. Nationalist concepts of "our people" and mythical history are considered more important than actual humanity and real lives. But I digress. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If the people there are "subjugated", then it does sound like an occupation. But were the locals subjugated by the Jordanians? The Transhumanist 23:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A better word would have been "subject" unto foreign powers (yes, unto the Jordanians, the British, the Turks, the Mamluks, etc., etc.), just as Jews were subject unto foreign powers for centuries, although Jews had every right to say, "My land is occupied by foreigners!" It would have been true then, had they said that, but they bore their suffering patiently. The best solution is to stop encouraging a "two-State solution." Throughout history, those who have wielded power in the Jewish nation - from King Saul to King Agrippas - have governed over both Jewish and non-Jewish subjects. This has always been normal, and has never been thought-of as abnormal, or something that needed to be changed. The Palestinian Arabs must, therefore, learn to live with the Jewish State and to respect its laws, which same State, mind you, has also gone the extra mile and given to them some form of municipal rule under the Palestinian Authority (PA), all in conjunction with Israeli law and authority. Of course, we as Israelis can accord them with due respect, as I think most Israelis do.Davidbena (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"Subject to foreign powers" is incorrect. Palestinians became the majority of the population, and were able to vote as such. Sure they were subject to the Hashemite monarchy, but so were all citizens in the whole country (as Jordanians still are, albeit with a few more democratic powers).

You imply that the land "belongs" first and foremost to Jews, based on belief in the Zionist national myth developed in the late nineteenth century. Palestinians believe the land "belongs" first and foremost to them based on their own national myth as well as the actual land ownership of their parents and grandparents etc. It doesn't matter who is right; what matters is that it's almost impossible that either side will stop believing these things any time soon. A solution needs to respect everyone's beliefs, not subordinate one below the other. We should get back to the discussion in this thread. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: - I have not spoken about Zionism at all. I was referring to the historical context of Jews (Israelites) who have lived in this country since the Bronze Age, and who were often expelled from their own country during the Roman era, by the act of war. As for the Arab populations being subject to foreign powers, even though they were the majority, this is still the case. The Palestinian Arabs have never once in recent history held power in this country, but were ALWAYS subject to foreign powers, just as the Jews were who lived in Palestine. Before Israel took the helm of government in 1948, the country was under British rule and law (1917–1948). Before the British Mandate of Palestine, the country was ruled by the Ottoman Turks (1517–1917) , and before them the Mamluks of Egypt (1253–1517), and before them the Ayyubid dynasty were the custodians of the land (which rule ended in 1253, and included all the areas of the country south of Nablus), and before them the Seljuk Turks (1087–1099), and before them the Egyptian Fatimids (969–1087) etc., etc. In 1948, the Arab armies came together and tried by the dint of war to force a political solution upon Israel, but failed.Davidbena (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Davidbena: every component of your historical narrative above was developed in parallel with Zionism in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. Prior to then, Jews did not consider themselves the exclusive ethnic descendents of the Israelites. And the idea that "Arabs" were an ethnic group who turned up in the seventh century was also not conceived. This conception of history became ingrained in the Jewish national consciousness as Zionism took hold. Fast forwarding to today, these nationalist myths have been deconstructed, and remain only as tell tale signs of people whose knowledge of the actual history of the region is confined to propaganda. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

While completely unrelated to the actual discussion, I'd just like to point out that obviously this dismissal of Jewish history is factually wrong to an outrageous degree. Oncenawhile has already seen reliable sources here on wikipedia which make this quite clear, but it hasn't held any sway. Oh well. Drsmoo (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: At the back of my mind I remember a time when you provided a few interesting quotes on this topic that i didn't have time to respond to and ended up leaving hanging. I looked for them now but can't find them. Any chance you can remember where? I think it was in the middle of last year. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, there have been many examples throughout Wikipedia where this conspiracy theory had been peddled and swiftly refuted. I think the most recent was at Lshana Haba where I added a reliable source that showed the phrase was used since at least the 10th century. Drsmoo (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not quite decided on what is the perfect name for this article, though I'm convinced that the present title is bad. The present title is a POV push to try to pretend that the situation then was analogous to the situation in the West Bank now, which is as remote from the facts as it is possible to be. As I've said before on this page, a closer analogy is with the western Galilee (the orange portion at the top in this map). It was in the Arab portion of the UN partition plan, but was conquered by Israel and became a normal part of Israel that nobody today questions. Between 1949 and 1967 almost nobody questioned that the West Bank was going to remain part of Jordan either. (I'm omitting East Jerusalem, which was more complex.) Actually the whole world except for some Arab countries was happy with it. Israel was happy with it (to disprove this you need to cite pre-1967 Israeli policy directly, not the version constructed after 1967 to justify the Israeli occupation). The local leaders officially accepted it too, though one must recognise that they were in a position of having few options to choose from and the Palestinian nationalists were effectively sidelined. Nor is there any similarity to the governance now and then. Jordan granted immediate citizenship to the residents of the West Bank, even recent Palestinian refugees, and provided the same civilian government structure as on the East Bank. There was no similarity to the military government that Arab residents of the West Bank are subject to today. Zero^talk 00:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

One should also note that the two governments themselves provided the vast difference between the two situations. Jordan annexed the West Bank into its own territory and laws, but today, after almost 50 years, the status of the West Bank in Israeli law remains "belligerent occupation". Zero^talk 00:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"Belligerent occupation"? Perhaps people should ask themselves what the situation was like before Israel and Jordan took control of these territories. There were pogroms (massacres) and perpetual incitement against Jews who lived among the Arab populations. Even the British themselves were often attacked when they sent out surveying parties to take measurements of the land. The need at the time was to restore some semblance of order, which it did, but kept the Palestinian Arab peoples in check and subject to either the newly established State of Israel, or to the recently established Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The title, in my humble view, is applicable and should remain as it is. To suggest otherwise is to ignore general Arab unrest and dissatisfaction over Jordanian hegemony, which sparked an insurrection and plot against the life of King Abdallah who visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.Davidbena (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The massacres Jordan's rule was protecting against are these. You appear to have a one-sided understanding of the history here. What books have you been reading?

Abdullah was killed for the same reason as Yitzhak Rabin - he was negotiating peace. It has nothing to do with the topic of this article.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

When a sovereign of a country is killed, for whatever reason, it shows that the subject of that country who murdered him had his own political agendas. It is still a sign of unrest over the ruling sovereign and his agenda for the people.Davidbena (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

David, "belligerent occupation" is the status in international law that Israel cites as its justification for the military regime in the West Bank. It isn't my phrase. You can find proof in many judgments of the High Court. [6] Zero^talk 08:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Zero, how about Jordanian annexation of the West Bank? El_C 07:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be accurate, but would incorrectly imply that the article is about the 1950 legal act. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought of that too and had the same disquiet as Once. But it could be ok — think of it as the annexation and its resulting aftermath. Zero^talk 08:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, as a single historical event that encompasses it all. I think, as a title, it's both a more direct and descriptive. El_C 08:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I would agree to the title "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank." The title still implies all that is understood by the term "occupying power", or the dictates of one power over another people and/or their denied right of self-determination.Davidbena (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: the term "occupation" could mean two things; possession and/or military occupation, obviously not the latter here. The use of this term in this article, implies the latter, which is completely false. Jordan gave all the citizens of the "occupied" territory (as in possession), the Jordanian citizenship. Parliamentary seats were doubled to ensure appropriate representation, and Palestinian figures were added to the centralized government. Tawfik Abu Al-Huda, a Palestinian, became the prime minister a number of times in the 1950s. That draws zero parallels with Israeli control over the West Bank today. The annexation by Jordan had a tacit Israeli approval. The Palestinians very much welcomed the Arab Legion's march from the east, they were the only military force at the time capable of fighting the Zionists and salvaging what could be salvaged of territories. There is a huge difference between opposition to Jordanian rule and opposition to Jordan's rule. When Palestinians were elected to the parliament, forming an opposition, it was not an entity that opposed the legitimacy of the regime, but that opposed some of the regime's policies, like every other benign political system in the world. This is extremely evident by the fact that Jordanian era was largely peaceful, but was marred by few events like for example the aftermath of the Samu Incident. But even then, Palestinian opposition to Jordanian policies rarely included the questioning of the regime's legitimacy. Some of the articles at List of annexations have "annexation of ...." as the article's title, but Jordan's annexation was 2 years after it "occupied" the territory, so this format isn't suitable. "Jordanian West Bank" is most suitable, or "Jordanian control of West Bank". Makeandtoss (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, after some reconsideration, "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank" is suitable as the 1948-1950 period is insignificant.. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose/Comment "Jordanian Occupation and Annexation of the West Bank (1948-1967)" may most accurately reflect the subject matter of the article. "Jordanian West Bank" sounds as though it's referring to a geographical area within Jordan, rather than a particular time period, and implies an acceptance for the annexation which didn't exist. The annexation was not accepted by international law, or by any country other than Britain and Pakistan. So I think it should be referred to as occupied as the Golan heights are on Wikipedia, as that was the legal status. There's no shortage of legal sources referring to it as an occupation up to 1967 Ie.,

"From 1948 to 1967, the Gaza Strip was subject to Egyptian occupation and military rule, while the West Bank was occupied by Jordan (which unilaterally sought to annex the territory)" - Journal of Refugee Studies (Oxford University).

The West Bank also formed part of the Palestine Mandate territory. It was occupied by Jordan in 1948, following the 1948 war with Israel. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank in 1950. The annexation was not recognized under public international law, Britain (with a reservation regarding East Jerusalem) and Pakistan being the only states to recognize the annexation, which was also vehemently opposed by the Arab states - International Journal of Cultural Property (Cambridge University)

"The same considerations apply in double measure to the West Bank, which was forcibly and unlawfully occupied by Jordan during the 1948-49 War and later annexed by it in 1950. This unilateral annexation of the West Bank was in direct violation of Article 2(2) of the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949,17 which provided in part that: "No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either party; ... the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations." The purpose of this provision, which was included in the Armistice Agreement at the insistence of other Arab states to prevent Jordanian annexation, was to freeze the legal situation that existed at the time, pending the conclusion of a true peace treaty between the parties. This being so, the unilateral act of Jordan in annexing the West Bank was devoid of any legal effect: "(t)erritorial change cannot take place as a result of the unlawful use of force...." II Jordanian annexation of the West Bank followed on the heels of its unlawful use of force, and as an aggressor, "it cannot be juridically substituted for the legal government." 1 9 From all this, it follows that Jordan cannot claim any reversionary rights as sovereign with respect to the West Bank." - Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Drsmoo (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

References

• The annexation does not need to be accepted by the international community for it to become an annexation. An annexation is an annexation. When you give civil rights to people outside the country's original territory, that is called annexation, and this happened, and this is called annexation, regardless of whoever liked this annexation or not. Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is a similar case. There are two months between Russian special forces taking control and between the formal annexation. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Also I oppose including "occupation" in the name because it was only during the first two years and its presence would imply the 1948-1967 period. Its a really insignificant period. The 1948 Arab–Israeli War ended on 10 March 1949, the intermediate period is seriously insignificant. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Not least because the Jericho conference, in which Palestinians approved Jordanian rule, happened in December 1948. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Although "Jordanian Occupation and Annexation of the West Bank (1948-1967)" might be a better description, it is an absolute horrible name for an article..."Jordanian West Bank" makes no implications about occupation, rule, or annexation: those are things which should be discussed in the article itself, not in the name of the article, Huldra (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose It would be violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME most of the sources that discuss this time frame call it explicitly as occupation.For example [7] says that Jordan "never had a status of a legitimate sovereign over Judea and Samaria and enjoyed at the most the rights of a belligerent occupant there". Here is a small selection of sources:

• Esther Rosalind Cohen (1985). Human Rights in the Israeli-occupied Territories, 1967-1982. Manchester University Press. pp. 49–. ISBN 978-0-7190-1726-1.
• Michelle L. Burgis (2009). Boundaries of Discourse in the International Court of Justice: Mapping Arguments in Arab Territorial Disputes. BRILL. pp. 86–. ISBN 90-04-17463-X. see note 135
• Clea Bunch (30 November 2013). The United States and Jordan: Middle East Diplomacy During the Cold War. I.B.Tauris. pp. 22–. ISBN 978-1-78076-470-2.
• Ira Sharkansky (2003). Coping with Terror: An Israeli Perspective. Lexington Books. pp. 129–. ISBN 978-0-7391-0684-6.
• Sai Felicia Krishna-Hensel (8 April 2016). Religion, Education and Governance in the Middle East: Between Tradition and Modernity. Routledge. pp. 100–. ISBN 978-1-317-06736-8. --16:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned before there's a difference between occupation (possession) and military occupation. Wikipedia policies like common name should not be used to mislead the public. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• More comment. It would be great if people could bring sources that are divorced from the argument over Israel's occupation. We are supposed to be discussing 1949–67, not 1967–now. Pretty much all of the sources brought here are concerned with the Israeli occupation and most seek to justify it. For example there is the really stupid argument that Israeli's status is not occupation because Jordan's status was occupation. Where are the sources from before 1967 which claim that hardly anyone accepted Jordan's annexation? Actually, I challenge anyone to find a pre-1967 source that claims anything similar to "only Britain and Pakistan recognised the annexation". I think this story is an Israeli invention. Jordan claims that when it achieved UN membership in 1955 no state complained about the West Bank — is that true? Zero^talk 01:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

See clause 30 of the UNSC meeting notes for United Nations Security Council Resolution 109: all 11 UNSC members voted for Jordan's accession. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)e

Contemporary sources are WP:PRIMARY and can't testify anything on WP:COMMONNAME--Shrike (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Your WP:OR doesn't interest anyone.The sources that are are scholarly sources from scholarly publishing house and considered WP:RS their use of term "occupation" regarding this time period are relevant when we determine what is WP:COMMONNAME in WP:RS sources.--Shrike (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There are tons of modern sources that use the word "annexation". There are also tons of modern sources that say the USA and multiple other states approved the annexation. Many are quoted higher on this page. So that argument comes up short. Also, some of your sources use occupation to refer to the initial military state (which everybody considers occupation) and not to the civil state that followed. Zero^talk 08:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of these sources don't mean occupation as in military occupation because obviously its not, not the first two years at least. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment re United Nations in United Nations Security Council Resolution 228, it was described as "territory of Jordan". The UN does not habitually recognize annexations (see List of annexations - i'm not sure any were recognized formally, even those which are normalized such as Goa). Oncenawhile (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Practically every source provided in the above discussion says the area was occupied. The argument for moving it to a new name seems to be quite POVy ("wouldn't want a reader to think this occupation is like some other occupation which I don't like"). Considering the sources call it an occupation, and practically no country recognized the annexation, per NPOV the article should not be moved to a name that implies this was uncontested Jordanian territory. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This source explicitly mentions that the military occupation ended in 1949. [8] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose this specific move proposal but support renaming the article. Somebody thought they were being clever by creating a false equivalency between the Israeli occupation and the Jordanian occupation. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The word "occupation" is always a relative term. Jews who returned to live in their ancestral homeland during a time when the country was ran by a colonial power, and other Jews who had already been living in the land for generations and who were, themselves, called "Palestinians" during a time when the country was ran by a colonial power, aside from the fact that in the same country there had never been an independent Palestinian State, such scenarios truthfully ought not to be called an "occupation" simply because Jews became the victors in a war that was forced upon them. The UN, disputing, thinks Israel's presence in its own land is an "occupation," while Israel does not officially think of its presence in its own land as an "occupation." The word "occupation" conjures up a negative connotation, as if the "occupying power" never belonged there, when, in fact, the Jewish people have always belonged in their land, and have actually lived in their land (i.e. the West Bank), alongside other peoples, up until the time when they were evicted from this region of the country taken-over by Jordan in 1948. If Jordan's control over the areas known as the "West Bank" is not considered an "occupation" in the purest sense of the word - when the Jordanian Legion laid no claim whatsoever to the country, yet took control of the country and annexed it, a fortiori Israel's presence in the same area, areas actually settled by Jews prior to 1948, should not be considered as "occupied territory." This is common logic. In short, the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories (West Bank) because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place.Davidbena (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Davidbena, this is not the appropriate place to argue about the meaning of the word "occupation" and whether Israel's occupation of the West Bank, which is about to enter its 50th year, is really an occupation. The only purpose of this section is to discuss whether and how to rename this article, not a theoretical but non-existent article titled Israeli occupation of the West Bank. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: It is important to recall here that the expressed reason for the proposed "name change" was to disassociate the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank from the so-called Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank. See Huldra's remark in Talk:Jordanian occupation of the West Bank#Occupation. I think that most editors here will agree that if you go back over my talking points in the previous paragraph, you'll see that the points raised are all legitimate and indirectly related / connected to the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. We can all better understand what "occupation" truly is - military or otherwise - when we first understand what it was not vis-à-vis Israel.Davidbena (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:MShabazz, what would you suggest as a name? Huldra (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Huldra, I'm afraid I don't have any suggestions, but I think Jordan's occupation of the West Bank—which involved convening a bogus Palestinian parliament to "accept" Jordanian rule, formally annexing the territory, and issuing passports to Palestinians—has to be recognized as qualitatively different from Israel's military occupation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why don't we use "Jordanian occupation and annexation of the West Bank", as was suggested above but with no years appended? Every source agrees that Jordan occupied the place, whether they believe occupation ended in 1950 or 1967, and every source agrees that Jordan annexed the place, whether they think the annexation was legal or illegal. Differences of opinion on when it was occupation and when it was annexation can be explained in the article. Zero^talk 01:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Every single annexation is by definition preceded by a military occupation. A title like this would be inconsistent with all the other annexation articles I am aware of across the encyclopedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If it was annexed, it was annexed. Full stop. I don't see why we ought to turn the title into a convoluted occupation and annexation of—I still submit that annexation is good enough and is representative of what happened. And we don't need to tie this to the Israeli-occupied territories if the historiography doesn't. El_C 01:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You both make good points. Zero^talk 01:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If occupation does feature that prominently in the historiography, maybe we have no choice but go with a convoluted title... (My view here is not set in stone. I am always open to arguments which rely on the scholarly consensus.) But does it, truly? I would rather the article have a convoluted title, than have a fluid historical event be split into two articles just for having a simpler title. I don't think anyone wants that. El_C 01:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It is misleading to write, as some have above, that "the sources" call it occupation. Of course many sources do and if you include the word "occupation" in your search terms you will get what you seek. Practically all such sources, as far as I know, were written post-1967. Most of those sources are more about the Israeli occupation and quite a few of them seek to bolster the Israeli position by devaluing the Jordanian position. Others are just passing mentions rather than specialist opinions. But there are also "good sources" with that opinion and of course we need to include that opinion. Opposed to that there is quite a large body of sources which don't question the annexation. Search for "Jordanian West Bank" at Scholar and Books and you will find very many of them. The phrase "West Bank" arose around 1950 but it wasn't very popular until later, so to find pre-1967 sources you need to try things like "both banks" and "Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan" (which was adopted as a name at the time of annexation). I wasn't able to find any pre-1967 sources that call the 1950-1967 regime an occupation, though surely there are some such sources somewhere. I looked at a large number of UN documents and found that from 1950 onwards the territory was routinely referred to as Jordanian. I found no exceptions and no complaints (in particular, Israel and the USA were quite happy about it). In fact many states were fine with it; see higher up on this page for quotes from many good sources to that effect. There is actually a paper (Silverberg?) which tried to trace the "only UK and Pakistan" story but couldn't find it before 1967. Zero^talk 02:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find any pre-1967 sources that call the 1950-1967 regime an occupation—that tends to further affirm in my mind that it should be Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Otherwise, we risk bringing post-1967 politics into it. Then again, one could pose the argument that such politics have since become part of the modern historiography and scholarship and that excluding mention of them would be a mistake. A simpler, cleaner title does seem appealing, however. Even if, again, it takes away from the comparison to the Israeli-occupied territories. Maybe we should decide if we want to draw that comparison—and to what extent it is part of the overall historiography should guide our answer to that. El_C 02:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Right. The title "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank" does not imply "Jordanian legal annexation of the West Bank" any more than it implies "Jordanian illegal annexation of the West Bank". It is simply a fact. So it would be a suitable title. Zero^talk 02:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

How does this title sound: "Jordanian control of the West Bank (1948-1967)"?Davidbena (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to suggest West Bank Governorate, which was the official term for the area during Jordanian administration (and without going into its exact status).GreyShark (dibra) 11:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - the military occupation of the West Bank by Jordan was shortly changed into unilateral annexation (same thing Israel did for E.Jerusalem). Since there was no military governance system, the region was not under military occupation during Jordanian rule. I would however prefer the term West Bank Governorate, which was the descriptive term in Jordanian civil affairs.GreyShark (dibra) 11:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I support Greyshark's proposal here, with two nuances:

(1) splitting this topic into two articles would provide real clarity for readers. Just as we have two such articles on Crimea - Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (the story of the act of occupation and then annexation) and Republic of Crimea (the current political entity.)

(2) the West Bank was not one single governate and did not have any specific west bank-only political structures (e.g. a separate west bank parliament was debated in 1949 and decided against). So it should be West Bank Governates in the plural, with subsections for each of the three governates which comprised it.

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

(Once beat me to it.) @Greyshark09: I've never heard of "West Bank Governate" (singular) and I can't find any mention of it now. I notice that you created an article on it with no sources. I don't know when exactly they were established, but by the 1961 census there were three governates in the West Bank: Nablus, Quds and Khalil. I have a CIA map that shows their boundaries. These State Department notes say "In 1950, the country was renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to include those portions of Palestine annexed by King Abdullah. Jordan established three governorates on the West Bank: Nablus, al-Quds (Jerusalem), and al-Khalil." So I wonder what your source of information is. "West Bank Governates" is an interesting idea for a title. Zero^talk 13:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

One of the expressed reasons for the proposed "name change" was to disassociate the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank from the so-called Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank. See Huldra's response in Talk:Jordanian occupation of the West Bank#Occupation. I'm not so sure that we as editors should be striving to cover-up this fact, especially considering the differences between the two systems. We can all better understand what "occupation" truly is - military or otherwise - when we first understand what it was not vis-à-vis Israel.Davidbena (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The following article refers to Jordan's rule over the West Bank, prior to annexation in April of 1950, and especially in December of 1948, as "Jordanian and Iraqi military occupation." See The Implications of Jordanian Land Policy for the West Bank, by Michael R. Fischbach, Middle East Journal (Summer, 1994), p. 495. It seems that when this area of the country was annexed by Jordan, only two countries recognized the annexation (Great Britain and Pakistan); the United States and the Arab states did not acknowledge the annexation. See The United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948, by Sandra Berliant Kadosh, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Summer - Autumn, 1984), Indiana University Press.Davidbena (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zero0000: i haven't reviewed the sources yet, but considering the claim that West Bank was divided into three governorates - then Jordanian West Bank Governorates would be good. West Bank Governorates is confusing with the administrative system of the PNA and SOP.GreyShark (dibra) 06:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: I would support that proposal. Zero^talk 10:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: A governorate is an administrative division of a country. It is headed by a governor. As English-speaking nations tend to call regions administered by governors either states, provinces, or colonies, the term governorate is often used in translation from non-English-speaking administrations. Still, any governorate in the West Bank would have been directly under the auspices of the king of Jordan and his colonial policies directed at the peoples living in the West Bank. Where Israel has given a form of self-rule and self-determination for the peoples living in the West Bank (by giving civil administration to the Palestinian Authority), this provision did not exist under the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Jordanian hegemony over the West Bank lasted almost 19 years, ending in 1967. It is my view that the proper title for this article is: Jordanian rule over the West Bank (1948-1967). In my humble opinion, this would be far better. The word "governorate" only construes the fact that it was still a foreign power exercising authority over another people.Davidbena (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be exceptionally great if we stop shoving irrelevant opinions into this already stuffed discussion. Jordanians did not "colonize" the West Bank. Jordan was not a "foreign power" exercising apartheid. Israel did not grant the Palestinians meaningless civil administration out of love, but out of fear. Jordan transferred its citizenship to the Palestinians, Israel did not, and that is the thin line between occupation and annexation. I find it illogical to have two articles for a single topic, because the 1948-1950 period is insignificant. As mentioned before, every annexation is preceded by an occupation. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: The only opinion given by me was a better title. The rest, however, is fact. Occupation by any other name is still occupation. Moreover, you stand to be corrected, insofar that Israel did not act out of fear when it gave civil administration to the PA, but rather acted out of a spirit of accommodation at the request of the US Administration in Washington, D.C., and to help ameliorate conditions in the territories governed by Israel, mind you, other peoples living in the State of Israel. As for "apartheid", that belongs to South Africa. Here, the situation is different. No man has exclusive ownership of the country to give it away. The land belongs to G-d and to whom he gives it. Although Jews govern the country and seek to live in peace and harmony with their non-Jewish neighbors, yet are they also realistic, knowing what would happen if part of the country were given full-autonomy with Jewish enclaves among them. Look at what happened to Gaza. Full-autonomy was given to them, but they turned around and used it as a base to import lethal weapons to be used against Israel. Here, a long history of hatred and violence dictates what Israel can and cannot do with respect to the Palestinian peoples.Davidbena (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Lol land belongs to God. Which one exactly? And what about those who don't believe in a god? I think I will stop here, because obviously you still insist on stuffing this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Davidbena: The Jordanian West Bank Governorates were very much similar to the Moroccan Southern Provinces - also a non-recognized annexation of 3/4 of Western Sahara (the rest being governed by the self proclaimed SADR). If we compare Jordanian annexation period with the Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip, the Israeli occupation of WB and GS (1967-81) and consequent civil administration (1982-1993), Palestinian autonomy (1994-2012) and Palestinian pseudo-state (2013-present), then Jordanian rule is similar to neither of those. Unlike Jordan, Egypt didn't annex Gaza and Israel didn't annexed the entire West Bank (except E.Jerusalem), though of course it is pretty evident that Israeli occupational military governance system became obsolete in 1981 in favor of MOD civil administration and eventually Palestinian self-rule.GreyShark (dibra) 17:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: The point is that Jordanian governance over the West Bank -- be it called by whatever name it is called by -- was still viewed by the world community at large as illegal. It was not recognized by any country, except by Great Britain and Pakistan. While different in scope from the Israeli control of the West Bank prior to 1981, insofar that Jordan had actually annexed the West Bank in April of 1950, while Israel did not do so, this detail does not take away from the fact that Jordan was still viewed by the Palestinian people as a hegemonic power.Davidbena (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Davidbena, actually Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was entirely legal - it was King's decree. The same way Israeli annexation of E. Jerusalem was legal by Israeli law and Russian annexation of Crimea was legal under Russian law. What you mean is that in some cases annexation was not recognized by some/many countries - that doesn't mean it is "illegal", but rather "not recognized". Don't mix legal status (annexation) with views and opinions (recognition). Sometimes people site "international law" as basis for legality/illegality, but we all know that international law is a fiction.GreyShark (dibra) 19:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the Southern Provinces are different, since it appears to be a commonly used term, unlike these governorates. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09:International law is often biased, but here we're speaking about "annexation" of the West Bank by Jordan. When countries do not recognize another country's annexation, that is another way of saying it is "illegal annexation." What one country thinks of itself is different altogether. The US illegally annexed Texas in 1844, followed by Statehood in 1845. This prompted the Mexican-American War in 1846-1848, in which the US was victorious. Later, the US and Mexico agreed on terms of reparations for America's "unlawful annexation" of Texas, which amounted to no less than extortion. You see, "annexation" even by the victor in a dispute is not always a good thing.Davidbena (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support some move. The article is plainly about more than just the initial occupation, but the annexation as well. "Jordanian West Bank" does appear to be in use in sources for the topic, as does "West Bank governorates" (plural, no caps). Jordanian annexation of the West Bank would also be a decent descriptive title, or if necessary Jordanian occupation and annexation of the West Bank. Unfortunately I don't see a lot of sources for "West Bank Governorate" in the singular, proper noun form.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.