Talk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit warring

Afaics, editor @Zarcademan123456: is in breach of 1R (and quite possibly 3R as well).

Diff 1Diff 2Diff 3

LOL I missed a whole day apparently. Thought today was Tuesday. Next time please note on my wall, thank you Zarcademan123456 (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zarcademan123456: In order to take the matter to the appropriate forum I am required to attempt a resolution on this page, I did ping you and you have now responded.

In addition a PM to change the name of this article to "Jordanian occupation and annexation of the West Bank" was closed "not moved" on 13 April (there were no yes votes other than that of the proposer (Zarcademan 123456).

Therefore the opening sentence of the lead "The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was the occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and its subsequent annexation" is in direct contradiction of the PM result. Yet attempts to alter this sentence so as to remove the word occupation in line with the outcome are being reverted without any justification.

Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

“Occupation” refers to system of governance before annexation. If we want to be strictly true to article name, then we should either just completely ignore period before annexation or say something along lines of “Jordanian annexation occurred after the occupation of West Bank following capture of area during war.” The whitewashing of the occupation period needs to stop though. Also, where’s the ping? If pinged I should get notification right? Or are you referring to ping from days ago, not recent? Also, more appropriate for this chat to be on my talk page? Idk, I am just asking Zarcademan123456 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

If by ping you mean “@zarcademan” then while I notice you did that for whatever reason I didn’t get notification Zarcademan123456 (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This section is about "edit warring", my notifying you about it and attempting resolution as required. I have now done so.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

“Also, more appropriate for this chat to be on my talk page? Idk, I am just asking” just saw “am required to attempt a resolution on this page”, my failure to read critically, apologies. Thx for notification on page Zarcademan123456 (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have also now informed you directly on your talk page about the edit warring policy (you are already aware of the 1R policy on IP pages)

Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Zarcademan123456, could you please point me towards the RfC you mentioned? I can't find it. As for the first sentence, I have reworded my formulation to include explicit mention of the occupation, while still flowing better with the rest of the first paragraph. Does that address whitewashing issues? CMD (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: He means the PM I linked above, the one that you commented on, he says that your comment is a "ruling", Bottom of this section as well refers Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure works for me. Thank you Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Rule or Occupation?

Should the section titled "Jordanian occupation" be changed to "Jordanian rule"? Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Vote

• Yes Because the Jordanian annex is not an occupation. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• No at first is was military occupation till 1950 then it was illegal annexation unrecognized by international community --Shrike (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

*No , per Shrike. Compare with how we treat East Jerusalem or Golan Heights, a subsequent annexation not recognized by other countries does not end the status of a territory as occupied. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Blocked sockSelfstudier (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• No, Weak oppose. Jordan annexed the West Bank and made it part of its country, so wasn't a military occupation, but so is East Jerusalem. The idea of Israeli occupation was born in 1967 and is applied in hindsight to Jordan's occupation of Gaza. Even if it does change to move, I think it is important to note that Jordan's occupation was just the same as Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously For the nth time: it was occupied 1948-1950, annexed 1950-67. Two years do not trumph 17 years. Also: occupation implies "not equal rights" as the citizens of the occupier. That was not the case here: People of the West Bank had equal rights with the rest of Jordan. This is a silly game by pro-Israel editors to make the Jordanian era (1948-1967) sound "equal" with the Israeli occupation, (which for sure would never dream of giving equal rights to the Palestinian people on the West Bank, but instead have introduced an apartheid state), (And East Jerusalem is but a small pert of the West Bank) Huldra (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Another thing: Israel reminds us ad nauseam that the Jordanian annexation was "not recognised by the international community". BUT: Jordan had exactly as much right to the West Bank, as Israel had to the Galilee (including Nazareth) and the other parts which were supposed to go the new Palestinian Arab state.

That is to say: None.

Both Jordan and Israel did their very best to gobble up the land that were for the Palestinian Arab state. That Israel got lots more international acceptance for its land-grabbing than Jordan did, only tells us one thing: Israel had lots of more powerful foreign friends than Jordan had, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Huldra, people of the Golan have equal rights. Will you change the Golan from occupied to rule throughout Wikipedia? Also, the only apartheid state in the West Bank is the one operated by the Palestinian Authority. Further, Jordan's annexation was not recognized by the international community, so are we going to go there as well?Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

To compare it would be if, say, Template:Golan Regional Council was instead called Template:Golan Regional Council annexed by Israel, or Template:Golan Regional Council occupied by Israel. It isn't, as you well know. Huldra (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No. We're talking about a section in an article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• No occupation is occupation. Are you going to change how we call the West Bank, Golan, East Jerusalem? Consider that the Golan and East Jerusalem is not "occupied" in the traditional sense and its residents have full citizenship rights, yet on Wikipedia it still says "occupied" not "rule." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• No per Shrike. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• No Per @shrikeZarcademan123456 (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• No per @shrike ~ HAL333 15:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• No per discussions made above. Idealigic (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Think I agree with User:Huldra's point here. The majority of content in the section in question covers the annexed West Bank. Not the occupied West Bank. Ideally I think the section would be called simply Annexation and the first subsection Occupation, but "Rule" could work too. NickCT (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Neither per User:Huldra. The military occupation was 2 years long and the annexation was 17 years long, so have an "Occupation" section (now the part called "The road to annexation") and make "Annexation" a section. AnomalousAtom (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• No It was an occupation. Smith0124 (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

@Selfstudier: Per WP:RFCBEFORE, where is the discussion of this issue on this talk page prior to the RfC? --Bsherr (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bsherr: Pretty much the entire talk page is of relevance, most of it is about or related to this issue and you can also find more of the discussion (with some repetition) here and here as well. It has been going on for a while now and we need to resolve it.Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Okay, so just to be totally clear, there is no discussion anywhere on this talk page about changing the section header in this article prior to you starting an RfC. Because I have looked at "pretty much the entire talk page" and found zero mention of it. Only two discussions on other pages that haven't even been closed yet, right? So I'm assuming you don't mind if I terminate the RfC so that we can have the necessary local discussion first, right? --Bsherr (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I made the RFC in a form that allows for the discussion of the subject in a free form way and that seems to be the way that the editors up to now are interpreting it. If you would like to suggest a better way of summarizing all of the above talk page discussion (as well as the edit warring) into an RFC dealing with the question, I'm all ears.Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Yes, but that's irrelevant because you failed to institute a local discussion before commencing an RfC, on a talk page with a recent history of editors abusing the RfC process. So, what conclusion should I draw about your intentions? Did you make a mistake, or are you editing tendentiously? --Bsherr (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me phrase it differently, no matter how the RFC question would be phrased (and I am certain it could be phrased in a manner that would address the technicality) all of the responses would be exactly the same. I have not abused any RFC on this page afaik and if you consult the edit summary for the page you will see that I have made major improvements to it quite recently in response to a semi-consensus achieved in a page move discussion on this page, this one that you say you have read. Do you not agree with me that that discussion (along with the one just above the edit warring section), both very recent discussions, deal with the question we are again discussing here? To me those discussions are clear that there is no consensus for "occupation" and yet we have editors denying same, also on a technicality, that a PM consensus doesn't count for the content on the page even though it is about the exact same thing. You can also see from the edit summaries that I am not doing the edit warring. From May 2 to now, I have made just two small edits, both of which were reverted with a demand that I gain consensus (again) for removing "occupation" so I can hardly be blamed for doing just that.Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Again, that is all irrelevant. Do you understand the difference between a local discussion and an RfC? Do you understand that the former is a prerequisite for the latter? --Bsherr (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do. And I am saying that we have had that. What you appear to be saying is that because the RFC uses a short simple summary of all of these prior discussions, it invalidates the RFC. What do you want me to do, close it and do it again with a more lengthy summary of all of the discussions on this page?Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If we have had that discussion on this talk page, please identify it with a link to the talk page archives or the section heading on this page. This is the second time I have asked you to do that. You have only previously provided other discussions on other pages. Why do you keep bringing up the summary of the RfC? I don't see where I have made any mention of that. --Bsherr (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I already linked the main discussion on this page in my comment above, it's on this page, not another page. [Here it is again. I didn't link the second one, I just said it is in the section above the edit warring section of this RFC, here if you need a link. And as I said before, virtually the entire talk page is concerned with little else, although I accept that outside editors might not realize that at first glance. I just noticed that this RFC as well seems to have been made a subsection of the edit warring section (by Redrose), I guess that's OK too, that is also part of the same discussion, it's all of a piece, this hasn't just happened yesterday, it's been going on for a while.Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

For additional clarity and to save you clicking about, the two section links that I gave you (both on this page) deal with the following page move discussions:

1) Jordanian annexation of the West Bank → Jordanian occupation of the West Bank

2) Jordanian annexation of the West Bank → Jordanian occupation and annexation of the West Bank

The idea of using Jordanian rule was brought up in the first of these (not by me) and it is as well discussed on pages other than this one that are related to it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I don't see anywhere in that requested move discussion where anyone refers to the name of this section. Could you point that out please? --Bsherr (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Why does the name of this section have to appear there? You started this discussion by reference to RFCBEFORE which talks about the need for prior discussion, which we have had. I still have no idea what it is you are trying to get at, can you not just explain in plain English what it is you want? Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment Internationally, UNSC 478 declared the Jerusalem annex "null and void" and UNSC 497 declared the Golan annex "null and void". (ie, internationally, those areas are considered to have the same status as if the annex had not occurred). No such resolution exists for the Jordanian annex.Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How many countries recognized the illegal annexation? --Shrike (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no resolution declaring it illegal either.Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment Note about [https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/9614F8FC82DCA5DF852575D80069E0C0 The Legal Status of the West Bank and Gaza, UN 1982] describes the events leading up to and including the Jordanian annex (Section II).Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment In the articles for Jerusalem, for East Jerusalem and Islamization of Jerusalem, it is referred to as "Jordanian rule" and in the article West Bank, it is referred to as "Jordanian West Bank". So this particular article needs to say "Jordanian occupation" because why?Selfstudier (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment As to whether it is or isn't an annex, one might like to consult this (p12 onwards) for a review of actual sources rather than opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If we are using UNSC resolutions as a basis, please keep in mind this quote I found from 2002:

“There has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the more than a million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia being kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every year, UN bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments like crucifixion, stoning, and cross-amputation. This is not legitimate critique of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is demonization of the Jewish state.” Bayefsky, Anne. "Perspectives on Anti-Semitism Today". Lecture at conference "Confronting Anti-Semitism: Education for Tolerance and Understanding", United Nations Department of Information, New York, June 21, 2004. We are more than welcome to use UNSC regulations as a basis; that is after all, international law. However all I would like is a recognition that, similar to Jim Crow, apartheid and many nazi era laws, that the law is not always just or right. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@selfstudier, By the same logic, given by the author regarding Jordanian sovereignty, that Jordan was in Union with the west bank, given that Israel never used the term annex with regards to east Jerusalem and the Golan, would they not also be considered merely in “Union” and not occupied?

Regardless, the crux of the matter is that it is bias (and takes quite a bit of legalistic finesse) to call Jordanian governance of the area “annexation” but not “occupation” (the author glosses over the Kong’s ruling that the term “Palestine” be scrubbed from official documents after annexation, between 1950-1967) and refer to the analogous Israeli governance over east Jerusalem as an “occupation”. Please also note, unlike Jordan, Israel never used the term “annexation” in regard to east Jerusalem. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment This closely related RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration has now been closed and should be read in it's entirety. The close includes the statement "Although I do not agree that the no-consensus outcome of a requested move discussion in April 2020 should affect our word choices, editors do prefer "annexation" over both "occupation" and "rule"."Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

And how do you think that part of the Rfc is relevant here? Debresser (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Its only about Arab villages not this article --Shrike (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

False. "Change rule to occupation" refers, a second leg of the RFC (established by Debresser, in fact and certainly relevant to the discussion here).Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment I see this is still going on. Meanwhile, Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule, and following a move review, has been moved from Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation. This seems relevant to this discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"Arab Legion soldier posing in the ruins of the Hurva Synagogue, Jerusalem"

"Posing" is POV trash. Take out the trash. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:7C84:C06:A3C1:2409 (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Religion = Sunni Islam???

I mean, who came up with the idea to add this to the info box? There's a significant Christian minority in the West Bank/Palestine. It's not only Islamic or Sunni and they weren't any Islamic organizations fighting back them, all of them were leftists or secular nationalists. DerKarthager (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There are always minority religions. I see no problem to go by the majority religion. Not doing so would make the parameter meaningless. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wait, the Zionist likes "majority religion"? I'm shocked! 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:7C84:C06:A3C1:2409 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I changed it into "Sunni Islam (majority) Christian (minority)", hope that is ok, Huldra (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Recognition: Pakistan

Since access to Silverburg's Middle Eastern Studies article via the link in (currently) reference 34 is restricted {#12 mentions it without a link} it would be useful to add the link to this unrestricted site and/or the article itself. Is that feasible? Mcljlm (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Silverburg, Sanford R. “Pakistan and the West Bank: A Research Note.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 19, no. 2, 1983, pp. 261–63. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4282940. Accessed 28 May 2022 would be more usual. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There's also restricted access via that link. Mcljlm (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You can register and read for free, also access via WP library, jstor is used all the time on WP. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I registered at jstor 2 years ago when noticing the option but even if people are still able to register and read 100 articles a month for free now according to the brief statement the option is "through the COVID-19 crisis" and the detailed statement "JSTOR has temporarily increased the number of total available articles you can read online for free from 6 to 100 per month". Once JSTOR decides the crisis is over the increase will disappear. Apart from that many people prefer not to register on any website.

I was notified a few months ago I was eligible to to use the WP library and have used it several times since discovering (including to read articles at jstor) but not all WP users or editors have access to the library.

Since there's at least one site accessible without the need to register users should be be given the possibility of doing so. Mcljlm (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Mcljlm (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Z-Library WP cannot prevent individual users accessing these sites, perhaps another editor would edit it for you, I would prefer not do it myself, no offense.Selfstudier (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2022

Having two redundant images in this section that essentially convey the same, but squishes the text and pushes everything to the left, seems unnecessary. Also it looks horrible. I think it would be better to get rid of one of them (either this one or this one). Also the template below doesn't make things better, since it causes more squished text, but getting rid of one of those two unnecessary images will fix the problem for good. Thanks.--Shapurkay09 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather keep them both, I rearranged them a bit, idk if it is better or not. Let's see what other editors think about it. Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Rename

I think current name is only a part of the intended scope. If the scope is to cover 1948-1967 or even background on 1921 colonial divisions and aftermath until 1987’s disengagement, then this article deserves another name. Perhaps, “Jordanian West Bank” or “West Bank under Jordanian control”.

Annexation and recognition in the lede and sections

The 3rd paragraph of section 3.2 Jordanian disengagement is "The West Bank territories which were conquered by Jordan in 1948 during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War after the British mandate ended on that territory and Israel declared independent, were annexed to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on 24 April 1950, and all the Arab residents were given Jordanian citizenship. The annexation of these territories was recognized only by Pakistan, Iraq and the United Kingdom." It would be better for that to be integrated into section 2.2 Annexation.

In addition the lede includes "Recognition of Jordan's declaration of annexation was granted only by the United Kingdom, the United States, and Iraq, with dubious claims that Pakistan also recognized the annexation." (with citations but no links) while section 2.2 Annexation includes "The United Kingdom formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, de facto in the case of East Jerusalem. The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty. Pakistan is often claimed to have recognized Jordan's annexation too, but this is dubious." with citations and links. Perhaps those links could be added to the lede citations. In addition it would be useful for the unrestricted access Silverburg link https://booksc.eu/book/27206765/d3a943 to be included since there's restricted access from the current link.

Iraq, along with the rest of the Arab League states, didn't recognise the annexation. See the Arab League resolution as reported to US Ambassador to Egypt Caffery by Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha in June 1950 at the Department of State Office of the Historian's site or Google Books and what Glubb wrote in A soldier with the Arabs published in 1957 (in snippet); (in whole book). Mcljlm (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I cut paste the first suggestion, still needs some work to integrate it properly into the section. May I ask why you do not edit the article yourself? If there are citations in the article body, you don't strictly need them again in the lead but go ahead if you like it better that way, I don't think anyone will object.Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Basically it seemed a big change to make and I wasn't sure what the best wording would be. Additionally I noticed the problem when it was early morning and I wasn't sure how long it would take; discovering the Glubb quote and its original source had already taken time.

Since then I've been looking for the source of the Massad's reference (mentioned in citation 10) - Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan p.229 where the following appears: "Soon after, however, all member states established diplomatic relations with the kingdom, implicitly recognizing its expansion — although not a single Arab state has ever recognized it officially. The United States and Britain also declared their recognition of 'Abdullah’s annexation, except for Jerusalem.". The footnote following that passage cites Jordan: A Political Study, 1948–1957 by Aqil Hyder Hasan Abidi pp. 55–56 but I haven't been able to find those pages online. Mcljlm (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Jordan: A Political Study, 1948–1957 by Aqil Hyder Hasan Abidi pp. 55–56

Seems like a reasonable summary on the face of it, usually we would not need to drill down through the citations, do you have some specific reason for doing so? Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Currently the text of footnote #10 is "Joseph Massad said that the members of the Arab League granted de facto recognition and that the United States had formally recognized the annexation, except for Jerusalem. See Massad, Joseph A. (2001). Colonial Effects ... p. 229.". Since at least part of that may be Abidi's words or Abidi based on Glubb and/or others Abidi should be checked and the text changed if Massad is just repeating what others said. Just started to read Abidi at Internet Archive {thanks; I couldn't find it there before}. Mcljlm (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That is what Massad wrote, but some interpretation is needed (which Massad is qualified to make). The Congress that called for the unification of both banks of the Jordan, and its approval by the Transjordanian cabinet, was in December 1948. Abidi writes "The United States granted de jure recognition to new Transjordan on 31 January 1949." However the formal annexation did not occur until the following year, so the question is whether the US recognition of 31 January 1949 implied approval of the annexation agreement that had not yet been carried out. It is known that after the annexation, the US conveyed its approval in an informal way to the Jordanian government. Zero^talk 05:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why we are preferring Silverburg (1983) for his view that Pakistan recognition is dubious. We have Benvenisti (2004, cite 8 in the article) and Quigley (2010 not yet in) both saying that Pakistan did. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, I added Quigley, if this is all we are using Silverburg for and he is the only one saying this, I think it should go out. Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Silverburg is the only one who has investigated the matter rather than just repeating what earlier authors claimed. An example of a specialist who agrees is Kumaraswamy, Beyond the Veil: Israel-Pakistan Relations (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, 2000), page 9. Zero^talk 14:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Uh huh, but Bienvenesti/Quigley decided not to repeat what Silverburg/Kumaraswamy said, right? OK, if it's not just Silverburg, then we have to say something along the lines "There is disagreement over..blah". Agreed? Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

In a footnote at the end of his 1987 article Origins of the 1950 Tripartite Declaration on the Middle East https://pluto.huji.ac.il/~slonims/publications/Origins_of_50_Tripartite_decleration.pdf Shlomo Slonim uses the phrase "Pakistan's alleged recognition" and then refers to Silverburg's article. Mcljlm (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to disputed rather than disproven. Silverburg's main points are that no original source can be found and that the claim seems to have arisen only after 1967. He asked the two earliest writers where they got it from and neither could provide evidence. One of them, Yehuda Blum, wrote to him that Britain was the only country to recognize the annexation at the time, but Pakistan did so "sometime later in connection with an official visit by King Husayn to Pakistan". If this is the correct story then the claim is true but misreported. Someone should do a thorough search of Pakistani and Jordanian newspapers. Zero^talk 02:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

In July 2005 User:Ramallite said "Can't find a single item on Arabic Google about Pakistan recognizing Jordan's annexation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AWest_Bank%2FArchive_1#Pakistan. Mcljlm (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

booksc is just Zlib again, I already commented on that in the previous section. If you have Jstor (usual in WP), then there's no need.Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The link from citation #9 United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa p. 921 doesn't lead me to any DOS document. If the reference is to the paragraph above the Editorial Note on page 921 of the June 5, 1950 784A.00/6–550 document Memorandum of Conversations, by Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell it would be better for the link to be to to the Department of State Office of the Historian's site. Mcljlm (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

They must have changed this since I last looked, it used to be possible to directly access FRUS. Cite 21 is the same problem I think. I'll do it later. Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, done those. Quigley doesn't say anything about Iraq, only Benvenisti does. Look into that a bit more, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the Caffery/Glubb sources are insufficient, they don't mention Iraq specifically. The first is about something else anyway. It does say in this article that when the Arab states wanted to boot Jordan out of the league, Iraq vetoed that. What we want is a more modern source specifically saying that Iraq did not.. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Quigley's basis for "Of the states of the world, only Britain and Pakistan formally recognized the merger.[note]46" https://archive.org/details/statehoodofpales0000quig/page/118/mode/2up is Malanczuk, Israel: Status, Territory and Occupied Territories Encyclopedia of Public International Law(1990) p. 171 https://archive.org/details/statehoodofpales0000quig/page/276/mode/2up. There "Britain (with a reservation regarding East Jerusalem) and Pakistan remained the only States to recognize the annexation" appears https://books-library.net/files/books-library.online-02262150Fq5K3.pdf. Malanczuk doesn't cite any source and neither he nor Quigley mention Iraqi recognition. Mcljlm (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Since Kumaraswamy has been referred to on this page but not quoted I'm doing so here. In his 2000 Beyond the Veil, p.9, he wrote "Pakistan is often accused of being the only country apart from the United Kingdom to have recognized Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950. Even though there is no historical evidence to support this assertion, a number of Israeli scholars and commentators have repeatedly accused Pakistan of endorsing Jordan’s former claims to the West Bank. [Note]3". Note 3: "A serious and pioneering refutation of this allegation can be found in Sanford R. Silverburg [article details]. The allegation, however, persists." https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/systemfiles/(FILE)1190278291.pdf.

In his 2010 India's Israel Policy, p.120, he wrote "Other than a handful of Arab states, no major power inside or outside the Middle East had recognized the APG [All-Palestine Government]. Great Britain is an exception, and it tacitly recognized the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank.[Note]82" https://www-degruyter-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/document/doi/10.7312/kuma15204-006/pdf or https://epdf.tips/indias-israel-policy.html. Note 82: "Suggestions that Pakistan had recognized the Jordanian annexation has been challenged by Silverburg, “Pakistan and the West Bank.”" https://www-degruyter-com.wikipedialibrary p.297 or https://epdf.tips/indias-israel-policy.html [page]297 or https://www.google.co.il/search?q=%22challenged+by+Silverburg%22&newwindow=1&hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=uvDVYoeWEZTwa-yqutAG&ved=0ahUKEwiH29nDz4P5AhUU-BoKHWyVDmoQ4dUDCAg&oq=%22challenged+by+Silverburg%22&gs_lcp=Cg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzEAxQnAhYnAhg7x5oAHAAeACAAa8BiAHdApIBAzAuMpgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-books. Mcljlm (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

We have covered Pakistan in the article with "disputed". As for Iraq, unless we have a Silverburg or equivalent contesting Benvenisti, that needs to stay. This is not really a major issue, as the US representative said "it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area" and Quigley "However, a merger is not the kind of action that necessarily leads to formal recognition by other states." Instead, what countries frequently do is line up to condemn something they disapprove of, as the League did. Theoretically, the UN could have denounced it but didn't probably because with US and UK backing, in those days it would have gone nowhere. Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Revert

This edit, ignoring BRD is obvious POV, the only purpose of it is to add in the expression Judea and Samaria area. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The entire end note is tendentious bs. "In reality"??? Beyond that, we dont need to get in to administrative districts, or divisions of the Oslo Accords, it simply is not relevant. I simplified the endnote dramatically. nableezy - 04:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)