Talk:Emirate of Transjordan

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Jordan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jordan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jordan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JordanWikipedia:WikiProject JordanTemplate:WikiProject JordanJordan articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks YOU can help with: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : 1958 Jordan crisis, Mohammad Hamed, Abdul Qader al-Taneer (composer of national anthem), Illegal drug trade in Jordan Assess : by quality and by importance - Harrana, Jordanian general election, 1951, Desert castle Cleanup : International rankings of Jordan, Jordan–Israel Mixed Armistice Commission Copyedit : Culture of Jordan, Nabataeans, Princess Sarvath al-Hassan, 'Umayri Expand : Six-Day War, Crown Prince of Jordan, Jordan University of Science and Technology, 1944 Jordan League, Medical education in Jordan Merge : Jordanian protests (2011–12), November 2012 Jordanian protests NPOV : Dabke, King's Academy, The Children's Museum Jordan Stubs : Jordan-related stubs - As-Salam al-Malaki al-Urduni, Transjordan (region), Flag of Jordan, Abdullah Ensour's cabinet, Headwater Diversion Plan (Jordan River) Update : Jordanian protests (2011–12), Agriculture in Jordan, Jordanian Communist Toilers Party, Jordan–Syria relations, Jordanians in the United Arab Emirates Wikify : Jordanian art, Jordanian cuisine Other : Category:Jordan articles missing geocoordinate data Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 11, 2005, April 11, 2011, April 11, 2012, April 11, 2015, April 11, 2017, April 11, 2019, and April 11, 2021.

Most of this appears to be a simple rewrite of information that appears on [3] and [4]. Their copyright policies would not allow this information here, so this is a case of plagiarism that needs to be fixed. Geoffrey

I have not seen much response other than User:Branden's addition of a few paragraphs, with which, along with a tiny and possibly incorrect summary, I have replaced the page. Therefore, with modifications from the boilerplate text, I say this. -Geoffrey 01:20 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Removed possible copyright infringement. Text that was previously posted here is the same as text from these webpages, which are exact copies:

1. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_transjordan.html
2. http://www.kingabdullah.jo/about_jordan/making_transjordan.html

To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our license or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please indicate so on this talk page. If there was no permission to use this text then please leave this page as a stub article.

It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does not have the express permission from the copyright holder is possibly illegal and is a violation of our policy. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily suspended from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffrey~enwiki (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 March 2003 (UTC)[reply]

---

Removed "This likely explains why the lands east of the Jordan river were implicitly consdidered of secondary importance (being on the "other" side of it)." which is just an unimportant opinion. -- zero 08:40, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence. I guess it's only unimportant if etymology is unimportant. Ask yourself why the area *west* of the Jordan river wasn't called "trans"-Jordan. Or don't, I guess -- evidently you feel it's better to delete stuff out of the Wikipedia than improve it through analysis. Branden 05:17, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The primary European access to Palestine throughout history was from the coast. That's why the west is "this side" and the east is the "far side". No other speculation is required. As far as importance is concerned, as well as being more accessible the west side was more fertile, more populated, and more important economically. --Zero 10:42, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I just want to mention here that the word Cisjordânia (derived from Cisjordan) is used in Portuguese, instead of "West Bank". So, this word did catch on outside Jordanian circles. PMLF 22:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, in Romanian, West Bank is called Cisiordania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.89.4.131 (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

The map is not an accurate map of Transjordan. This is a map of the modern day Jordan. Transjordan was slightly different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.209.4 (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2005‎ (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a new infobox. It contains some information from the Mandate of Palestine article (flag, high commisioners). If these are incorrect, please remove them (and insert the correct flag) - 52 Pickup 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed on the FOTW website that the Transjordan flag (1921-1946) is totally identical to the current Jordanian flag. I think it's right so I will change the British Mandate Flag with the Jordanian one.

Wikissa 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what is the different between them? radiant guy (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Kirkbride and Philby in the info box? They don't belong there. The British person with real authority was the High Commissioner for the Mandate of Palestine, starting with Herbert Samuel. Zero^talk 00:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be blind but I am having trouble discovering who this Samuel idividaul is in the opening section.

"When Samuel set up the civil mandatory government in mid-1920 he was explicitly instructed by Curzon that his jurisdiction did not include Transjordan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.30.2 (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to this article is not clear on the de facto creation of a "Mandate for Trans-Jordan", and the map is misleading. Sources below:

• 1922 Transjordan memorandum
• 1922 "Order defining Boundaries of Territory to which the Palestine Order-in-Council does not apply"
• 1925, Hadda Agreement, "This Agreement will remain in force for so long as His Britannic Majesty's Government are entrusted with the Mandate for Trans-Jordan"^[1]
• 1928/29, United Kingdom and the Emir of Transjordan, independence agreement of 20 February 1928 see Bentwich, "The Mandate for Transjordan", X Brit. Yb. Int'l L. (1929) 212.
• 1945, British High Court (in Jawdat Badawi Sha’ban v. Commissioner for Migration and Statistics）： “Now, Trans-Jordan has a government entirely independent of Palestine – the laws of Palestine are not applicable in Trans-Jordan nor are their laws applicable here. Moreover, although the High Commissioner of Palestine is also High Commissioner for Trans-Jordan, Trans-Jordan has an entirely independent government under the rule of an Ameer and apart from certain reserved matters the High Commissioner cannot interfere with the government of Trans-Jordan... Trans-Jordan comes within the meaning of the word ‘state’ as used in Article 15 [of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order]... Trans-Jordan nationality is recognised and we know that Trans-Jordan can, as in this case, grant a person naturalisation, i.e. grant an alien or foreigner Trans-Jordan nationality which is a separate nationality and distinct from that of Palestine citizenship... Palestinians and Trans-Jordanians are foreigners and therefore Trans-Jordan must be regarded as a foreign state in relation to Palestine”^[2]

Whilst Transjordan was certainly including in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which as a legal document itself was not modified, it was in fact a de facto separate entity for its entire existance. In other words, there is currently confusion here between the League of Nations legal technicalities, and the actual situation in the territory. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would you have us do? Is there a recommendation for a revised lead? Do you have a new map? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an issue on a bunch of related articles - sowing confusion throughout wikipedia's telling of the 1920-47 period in the region. Need a solution across all the articles - I haven't got a good answer just yet. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my hachet work, this section still contains quite a lot of very poor text based mostly on one source (US foreign relations publication) and not even report in that very well. I think it largely counts as WP:SYNTH. Also the "Status of the Emirate" contains only material that should be redistributed to other sections. Zero^talk 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the gist of the sentence is correct, but I think the wording could certainly be improved. Prior to the meeting at salt in August 1920 Britain had zero presence in Transjordan. If you look at the terms that Samuel laid out at Salt (and the correspondence between Curzon and Herbert) it is clear that Tranjordan is not being brought under the Samuel's Palestine administration. In any case the arrangement that is made at Salt only lasts a few months until Abdullah and his army march into Transjordan and occupy the whole territory unopposed. If you look at the timeline, there is in fact no time when Transjordan is administered directly by Samuel's administration in Palestine. The only issue is how to express this in a clear and encyclopedic manner. Dlv999 (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if indirectly, it is clear that Britain ruled the area in some fashion. e.g., "Transjordan remained under British control until the first Anglo-Transjordanian treaty was concluded in 1928. Transjordan became nominally independent, although the British still maintained a military presence and control of foreign affairs and retained some financial control over the kingdom." Scott Illini (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing that. The key word in the sentence is "Jerusalem". Oncenawhile (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wording definitely can be improved. With such poor grammar, it is hard to know what the intended meaning is, regardless of its validity or lack thereof (and I don't find it or anything like it in the cited source.) How about "...exercised authority over only the area west of the Jordan"? Hertz1888 (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is all unsupported synthesis. Again, "ever" is quite sweeping. Scott Illini (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of sources that support it, including the one linked to the title of this discussion. If you think "ever" is sweeping, please provide a source that suggests otherwise. I would be fascinated to know what dates you believe the Jerusalem administration might have covered Transjordan. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced it with a much clearer paragraph. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like the term "no mans land" in this instance, I think it gives the wrong impression. There was a certain ambiguity over the sovereignty of the territory, but it was not uninhabited, the population to a large extent carried on as normal. Apart from that I find the edit is agreeable. Dlv999 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it implies uninhabited. It's a direct quote from Bentwich "The High Commissioner had ... only been in office a few days when Emir Faisal ... had to flee his kingdom" and "The departure of Faisal and the breaking up of the Emirate of Syria left the territory on the east side of Jordan in a puzzling state of detachment. It was for a time no-man's-land.". Oncenawhile (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very careful about adopting the language of British officials and zionists of the 1920's and 30's for the Wikipedia voice without attributing or citing the source. In the language of Zionists and British officials of the time there can often be seen a blank negation of the indigenous population of Palestine and Transjordan, and at worst the language would today be regarded as racist. In my opinion this use of "no mans land" is a perfect example. In the eyes of the British administration and Zionists the native inhabitants were irrelevant, to them, if the territory was not part of the British or French Empires it was a "no mans land". But I see no reason why we should be adopting this outdated imperialist mindset for the Wikipedia voice without attribution. The territory was not a "no mans land" although British Imperialists and Zionists of the time may have perceived it as such. Dlv999 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing not mentioned (?) is that the High Commissioner for Palestine was also the High Commissioner for Transjordan; I think this arrangement lasted until 1946. This doesn't contradict the claim that Transjordan wasn't administered from Jerusalem, but it does allow for some confusion. The Peel Commission report (p60) put it like this:"The British High Commissioner for Palestine retained such ultimate powers as the continuance of the Mandate with its international obligations implied; but the function of the British Resident at Amman and his handful of British subordinates was to advise, not to govern, and the departments of the administration were headed by the Amir’s Arab ministers and staffed almost entirely by the Amir’s Arab officials." Zero^talk 12:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was only the case from after the Cairo Conference (as Transjordan was not part of Palestine before). And after that it was a technical position under the Emir. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The High Commissioner was not under the Emir, where did you get that idea from? Zero^talk 14:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. My understanding is that the High Commissioner had two titles (for Palestine and Transjordan) as you said, and he appointed the Chief British Representative (later the British Resident) to Transjordan. The Resident was the administrative advisor to the Emir. In other words, the administration was headed by the Resident, who was under the Commissioner and the Emir. The Commissioner and the Emir were not over or under one another. See below for how it apparently worked in practice:

For reasons of administrative convenience it has been found necessary to place the Chief British Resident under the High Commissioner, because the High Commissioner is the representative of His Majesty the King in the whole mandated territory of Palestine, that is to say, in Trans-Jordan and Palestine together. This does not mean that the Trans-Jordan Government is in any way under the Palestine Government. It is not. They are separate administrations altogether. It is true that for administrative convenience again, various heads of Departments in Palestine have assisted the Chief British Resident and the Trans-Jordan Government in regard to technical matters in which they are experts. For instance, the Palestine auditor overhauled the whole financial arrangements of the Trans-Jordan Government, and gave them a decent accounting system and a set of financial regulations, and the Palestine Postmaster-General lent them an officer to get their Post Office into order. But all these people came to Trans-Jordan as advisers, and on temporary Missions.[6]

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, if anyone wants a really detailed source on the period, here and here is the PhD thesis of the former British Ambassador to Oman. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great source! Incidentally from 1928 to 1946 the role of the High Commissioner and Resident were prescribed by the 1928 treaty that is reproduced starting at page 282 (pdf page 289). In quite a lot of matters, Transjordan was supposed to act on the advice of the British government as provided via the High Commissioner and the Resident. Zero^talk 05:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase " ... It was for a time no-man's-land" when read in context simply refers to a lack of government or administration. Perhaps certain people ought to widen their knowledge of the English language and its idioms before they make assumptions of racism.

BTW, a large proportion of the people in the area concerned were nomads and Bedouin with no fixed geographical area to call their own, and who respected no national borders, pre-Mandate, or post-Mandate. Hence "no-man's-land".

OH, and one more thing. At the time there were very few accurate maps of the whole Middle East area. Organised mapping of the region had to wait until as late as the 1940's and the North African Campaign. Thus prior to this it was difficult to sort out who lived where, and where one country ended and another one began.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.216 (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think "no man's land" here means "not under the control of either Britain or France". To editor Onceinawhile: can it be clarified? As for maps, you are simply wrong. Zero^talk 11:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that’s how I read it too – no one was claiming sovereignty at the time, for that short period. I have added a second source for the use of the term (Gelber) in addition to Bentwich. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile, Zero0000, and Dlv999: To please everyone: what about adding a word, "Transjordan politically became a no man's land"? And it's as much about the Ottoman Empire disappearing and about neither of the Arab states coming up in Syria and the Hijaz controlling it (and none forming in the Transjordan territory), as it is about Western Powers, so let's stay cool about the wording. Arminden (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: No, these were the days of military administrations. If anything the implication is more that neither France nor Britain controlled it militarily. I think the current wording is fine, absent a more detailed description. Zero^talk 11:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're both saying the same thing, with a few nuances. Ottomans gone, UK and FR not in charge there yet, Kingdom of Hijaz (not under military administration) not master over the territory either. As smb has written: we're not here to copy 1:1 the wording of the Western colonial offices. A military administration is also nothing more than a form of political administration, answering to politicians back in the metropole. That's why I suggested adding "politically", it covers all bases and takes away the (unjustified) worries of those who believe "no man's land" would imply "not populated" or alike.

There is the wording in the lead of Interregnum (Transjordan).Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A "political no-man's land" is not a standard phrase but I would take it to mean a place where nobody claims sovereignty even if a foreign army is sitting on it; it shows that conflating military and political administrations is not a good idea. I don't think we know for sure what the sources meant, so it is best to stick to the wording used by the sources. (Edit-conflict: Self's proposal with its source is good.) Zero^talk 14:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A land exchange between Jordan and Saudi Arabia took place.. [7] We should add Saudi Arabia to the infobox.--Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the historical nature of "Transjordan" (although it is assumed and not explained here). But to say "There were many urban settlements beyond the Jordan River" presumes a particular location. Could this be changed to "east of the Jordan River"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"And the other, a small Circassian community in Amman. ^{[1] [2]}" was introduced into the lede by Makeandtoss 11:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC) in this edit. Various editors modified it a bit over the succeeding 20 months. Today, CopperPhoenix removed "There was also a small Circassian community in Amman." and the 2nd ref, but left the 1st in this edit 13:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC). Maybe it doesn't need to be in the lede, but should this doubly referenced sentence survive somewhere in the article, and if so where?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a large Circassian emigration to Jordan in early 1900s, to the point where they started forming a notable part of the land's ethnic fabric. Not sure if this point is an enough reason to include this part in the lede. --Makeandtoss (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emirate of Transjordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140916132453/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C7AAE196F41AA055052565F50054E656 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C7AAE196F41AA055052565F50054E656

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: Why don't you want a literal translation of the Arabic name added? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 16:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from what goes in the article lead, I'd like to know more about this. Is the literal translation "East Jordan" or "East of Jordan"? It doesn't mean the same as "trans", which is "across", even though "Transjordan" was always the official translation. Zero^talk 04:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic name of Transjordan=Sharq Al-Urdun, which is literally "East of the Jordan", even though trans=!east. It is unclear if Al(the)-Urdun(Jordan) meant "the Jordan", which usually is about the river, rather than "Jordan" as the "the" is redundant. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000 and Makeandtoss: What we have now is "Imārat Sharq al-Urdun, lit. 'Emirate of east Jordan'". It looked fishy to me, then I saw Makeandtoss's translation, which obviously makes more sense, "east of the Jordan", so in context "Emirate [of the land(s)] east of the Jordan", which isn't by any means equivalent with "Emirate of east Jordan", since the latter implies either a land or country named Jordan/Urdun[n] before 1921, defining the emirate as its eastern section, or a pre-existing land or country named "East Jordan". One can go back to Jund al-Urdunn, and maybe that's precisely what the emir's Arabic "translation" of the British, biblical sounding name played on, but that's just my private speculation. This meaning, reminiscent of the Early Muslim glory days and the Hashemites' descendance from the Prophet w/o openly challenging the British, would do honour to the emir's diplomatic skills. In any case, we need a "reliable source". On the other hand: Zero, as a native-speaker you can say if this goes too far for the purpose and "Emirate of east Jordan" works just well, that I can't tell. Maybe just use capital E for 'East' (part of an official name, but not really, "just" a literal translation, so again I don't know). Arminden (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: It is actually quite simple and logical. When the British chose the name, most British officials were headquartered in Palestine, so that region to them was always across the Jordan River, and by implication, to the world. Palestine was a much visited land and that region would logically be the one beyond the Jordan River; Transjordan. But for Transjordan to call itself Transjordan (in Arabic) would be ridiculous as that would imply Palestine (from Amman’s perspective). It was simply a subjective name that was turned into an objective one in Arabic. East of Jordan River=Sharq Al-Urdun. I think it doesn’t matter if the transliteration gave the literal or figurative translation. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: Thanks, but no. The Brits knew about Transjordan before leaving home: they grew up with the Bible and related studies.

Of course it made no sense from Salt or Amman, but my point is: the template states that we're offering a LITERAL translation, and we're not. Before my edit (fully using the template), it was even manually added: "lit.". Thou shall not lie ;) Arminden (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: @Makeandtoss: The meaning of "Transjordan" is not in doubt. Arminden is right that "East Jordan" is problematic, but on the other hand Makeandtoss' version "East of the Jordan" seems perfectly reasonable. The only problem is whether we can use it in the article, since we don't have a source. All the sources I can find translate the Arabic as "Transjordan" even though we know it is not a literal translation. Perhaps @Al Ameer son: can help. Zero^talk 05:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden, Makeandtoss, and Zero0000:This situation is common in Chinese place names. See List of etymologies of country subdivision names#China; about half the country live in provinces with similar names. Extracts below:

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happened is quite clear: the Brits came with a ready-made name, and the Arabs had to find an equivalent that doesn't make them sound ridiculous at home. It's up to us to deal with it or ignore it, sources allowing.

It's related to what the article says about the emir ruling independently/autonomously. Of course he didn't, I don't know any details, but it was probably similar to Roman client-kings: a lot of freedom in dealing with internal issues (as long as he "kept the province quiet" and toeing the line), and in external matters the metropole had all the say. So "Eastern Urdunn" for internal consumption, and biblical/Josephus-inspired Trans-Jordan for "those who mattered", aka the "Powers" (see the wonderful language of the Palestine Order in Council). Arminden (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transjordan in the Bible#Etymology Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you are the uploader of the Mandatory Palestine map, and was wondering if you could do a similar one for Transjordan? Makeandtoss (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fjmustak is who put in the district borders. Im not sure what youre looking for with the Transjordan map, but if its the district borders Im afraid Im not much use to you. nableezy - 23:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Makeandtoss, I would gladly make a similar map for Transjordan, except that I could not find an original map with the boundaries of each district. If you have any sources, please provide them. --Fjmustak (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fjmustak: Yes that thought crossed my mind. I will look around. I wonder if @Oncenawhile: and @Zero0000: have any idea. Makeandtoss (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What time period do you want? I have a 1968 map with districts Irbid, Al Asimah, Al Balqa, Al Karak, Maan. Are you sure there were defined districts in the mandate period? Zero^talk 09:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: The Emirate's time period, or at least the Emirate's borders time period (before the 1965 land swap with Saudi Arabia). I have no idea if there were defined districts, and I am unsure where to find such information. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: Here are 1937 and 1941 maps showing district boundaries but they only cover a fraction of the country. Incidentally you should move this discussion to an article talk page so that it won't get lost. Zero^talk 13:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Onceinawhile: Can you help here? Zero^talk 02:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This paper says "Before its establishment, the East Bank of Jordan consisted of five contesting government authorities. They were dissolved and replaced by a new state in 1921. The state's territory was sub-divided into three main districts. In 1923, the state's administrative divisions were reorganised and six regions were set up. Adjustments to state's administrative territorial divisions were constantly made. Nowadays, the state's administrative regional structure is sub-divided into 12 main governorates and a good number of districts and sub-districts." The source given for 1921–1923 is "Mohammad A. Al-Salah, Trans-Jordan Imerat Administration, 1921-1946, Dar Al-Mallahi Press 1st edn, 1985, pp. 75-105." I can't identify that; I guess it is Arabic. It might have a map. Zero^talk 03:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joab B. Eilon; Yoav Alon (30 March 2007). The Making of Jordan: Tribes, Colonialism and the Modern State. I.B.Tauris. pp. 25–35. ISBN 978-1-84511-138-0.

This book discusses the original districts of Transjordan in detail on pages 25-35. No map though. It is also consistent with page 38 (point 3) of this.

Actually there are maps at the end of the Preface. Zero^talk 15:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been looking at the details of the elections – for most of the Transjordan period there were 16 elected members: [8]. It might be possible to find a map of the electoral districts.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So @Fjmustak: @Zero0000: @Onceinawhile: we have three options:

1-[9] Undefined districting.

2-[10] Defined districting to west of Hejaz railway and nothing to its east.

3-Major cities only: Amman, Salt and Kerak, like in the Mandatory Palestine map. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makeandtoss, I see that adding district boundaries based on the bits and pieces we have (with nothing concrete that I've seen) sounds a bit like WP:SYNTH. Also, it appears that the subdivisions changed several times during the mandate. Out of the three options outlined, I'm more inclined towards the third option (major cities) --Fjmustak (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think (1) is most likely to be correct. It could be checked by finding the announcements for the creation of the municipalities of Zarqa in 1928 and Mafraq in 1945 (since they are both east of the railway). I would be surprised if they were not part of the four organized governates. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fjmustak: I guess we will just go with the major cities as per the consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makeandtoss Does https://books.openedition.org/ifpo/5012 help at all? I'm not precisely clear what it is you seek.Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: No we were talking about Transjordan's districts (1921-1946), like this. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Hum, as far as I can tell, after Ma'an sanjak was reintegrated into TJ in 1925, (then you have your Ottoman 4 + Amman main areas) the Brits/Abdullah seemed to manage things mainly via the tribal leaders rather than at the district level, maybe that's why there is no readily available district map. Not even a census till after independance.Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fjmustak: I don't mean to be too pushy. Just wanted to ask when the map will be ready as the article desperately needs it. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selfstudier, according to the maps at Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, Maan and Aqaba were in OETA East, not in the Kingdom of Hejaz. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked some of this yet, I just copied that part straight off this page (although it says Tabuk rather than Aqaba) http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_transjordan.html.I know they ends up in ETJ in 1925, I'm not that clear about where the Southern stuff was prior. Maybe it was only for a short time.There is a map on the KoH page, i can't really make it out from that although it shows TabukSelfstudier (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have been doing a bit of searching, it seems Hussein made a fuss about this and did not accept the situation (an occupation does not confer title and TJ didn't exist then so I guess that leaves room for an argument). I will find out the details and add them into the article.Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we have something about this here https://books.google.com/books?id=n706ShSYt-sC&pg=PA220 and here https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/husayn_ibn_ali_king_of_hejaz "..the Ottoman collapse in November 1918 opened the way for their triumphal entry into Damascus – an occasion that Husayn marked by annexing Ma‘an and its hinterland (including Aqaba) to the Hejaz". Not sure how/if it relates to Hejaz Vilayet23:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have found the answer. See:

• Randall Baker (1979). King Husain and the Kingdom of Hejaz. The Oleander Press. p. 220. ISBN 978-0-900891-48-9.: The British had moved in to take advantage of the situation created by Husain's presence in Aqaba and pressed for the annexation of the Hejaz Vilayet of Ma'an to the mandated territory of Transjordan. This disputed area, containing Maan, Aqaba and Petra, had originally been part of the Damascus Vilayet during Ottoman times, though boundaries had never been very precise. It was seized first by the Army as it pushed north from Aqaba after 1917 and had then been included in O.E.T.A. East and, later, in Faisal's kingdom of Syria. Husain, however, had never accepted this and had stationed a Vali alongside Faisal's administrator, but the two men had worked in harmony so that the dispute never came to an open struggle. After Faisal's exile, the French mandate boundary had excluded this area and the British then considered it to be part of the Syrian rump which became Transjordan, though nothing was done to realise that claim, so Hejaz administration held de facto control. Britain had, however, made its position clear in August 1924 when it cabled Bullard: "Please inform King Hussein officially that H.M.G. cannot acquiesce in his claim to concern himself directly with the administration of any portion of the territory of Transjordan for which H.M.G. are responsible under the mandate for Palestine"
• Clive Leatherdale (1983). Britain and Saudi Arabia, 1925-1939: The Imperial Oasis. Psychology Press. pp. 41–42. ISBN 978-0-7146-3220-9.: By 1919 British forces had withdrawn from this easterly area leaving the local administrative arrangements confused. In Aqaba, a qaimmaqam (district governor) had been appointed who disregarded both Husein in Mecca and Feisal in Damascus with impunity. Another qaimmaqam had been appointed by Feisal at Maan, despite Husein having instructed the official at Aqaba to extend his jurisdiction over Maan. Britain, at the same time, decided to develop a joint Arab-Palestine free port in the Aqaba area, though there existed strong doubts over Aqaba's suitability as a future port."
• bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/3330/1/56493109.pdf includes a number of maps

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, Delimitation of the Eastern border of Palestine Avraham P. Alsberg Published online: 18 Jun 2008, it says that when Allenby established OETA, the Ma'an sanjak was not included in OETA East. It also says that the East was considered as occupied by the King of Hejaz who had been granted belligerent status. Now it makes more sense, KoH annexes Ma'an/Aqaba (not including it in OETA E is a sort of de facto recognition of that) and has status of occupier for the rest (until Kingdom of Syria). His claim on the Negev triangle is a bit unclear but the British in any case gave that to Palestine. Later on Saud takes Hejaz and claims what Hejaz had annexed (it took a very long time before Aqaba claim was sorted out). There are also some other items of interest in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.com/books?id=SACHDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3 confirms that Ma'an Aqaba was with KoH Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: I am not convinced by these sources; the quotes further above (Leatherdale and Baker) explicitly describe the ambiguity between Faisal’s and Hussein’s areas, which these sources don’t mention. I am not comfortable with this wording for the same reason. The Leatherdale and Baker analysis suggests that neither had sovereignty over the area but both claimed it, which seems reasonable.

To be certain here I’d like to see a source for the Kingdom of Hejaz claiming not just the Hejaz Vilayet but also the Ma'an sanjak, together with some explanation of whether that claim was recognized in any way. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OnceinawhileI think you are getting the timeline confused, Faisal has no claim over anything until the Kingdom of Syria and it is only then you have the double claim (I have not removed the Leatherdale material). Then after that, which is not that long, it is back to Hejaz again. The Alsberg source is the same source used in the OETA article, it contains a map (described as an official map) showing the sanjak of Ma'an not in OETA. Later when the Negev was handed over to Palestine, the UK representative claimed that Abdullah had his father's permission to authorize it (Biger 181).

Here it is in Hansard as a written reply by Amery to a parliamentary question https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1925-07-06/debates/813917f8-9ae4-4d46-b085-b735068d2160/Transjordan. There the UK say they protested although the fact is they let it be until finally they were forced to do something about it in 1923/4 (Kuwait Conference, to which Hussein was invited, further confirmation of Ma'an Aqaba position in Mary Christina Wilson (28 June 1990). King Abdullah, Britain and the Making of Jordan. Cambridge University Press. pp. 100–. ISBN 978-0-521-39987-6.). It still wasn't sorted out for Aqaba even after the Hadda agreement. (I have other sources as well, one says that when Abdullah arrived in Ma'an that did not disturb the British because it was technically under Hedjaz control and it was only when he moved to Amman that they were moved to action.)

Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Self, on the timeline, since Faisal nominally headed the Arab Revolt and the OETA East administration, he would have considered himself as controlling the region since the 1917 Battle of Aqaba.

This is certainly part of the problem; from my perspective, OETA cannot "claim" anything it is the vehicle to contain an occupation and it does not appear to have contained Ma'an Aqaba (whether that was because the British did not want to upset the King or for any other reason).As for the Revolt, the McMahon correspondence is a deal between the British and the King, not with Faisal (or Abdullah).(also remember that the triple entente had just recognized him in December 1916 as the King of the Hejaz). So, after Aqaba, the occupier there (annexed or not) is the King (via the Hejaz), not Faisal. It also seems to me the relationship between father and sons deteriorated at some point (after Balfour/Sykes-Picot discoveries, maybe).Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein’s claim was simply that his Kingdom of Hejaz corresponded to the Hejaz Vilayet, which it was claimed had be amended to include Ma’an just before the war in 1914. I believe that proposed 1914 amendment is disputed, which underpins this whole question.

I have to look it up, the issue came up in regard to the Negev as well except that it was some other intra Ottoman boundary change in that case. Even so, that does not affect whether the King was the occupier (in the same way that the British were the occupiers West of the Jordan).Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hansard link is a great find. It confirms the British claim that they always considered the area as being outside Hejaz, although “It is true that for some time [HMG] acquiesced in the status of the Ma'an and Akaba districts remaining indeterminate pending a final delimitation of the frontier”.

I think you and I are saying the same thing. The point I am emphasizing is that we shouldn’t side with one claim or another in wikipedia’s neutral voice as this was a disputed topic.

I agree that we should not take sides and we should include all relevant sources.Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In many ways the situation was similar to the Occupation of Zor. The region was sparsely populated, not fully under the control of either side, and noone has “sovereignty” yet. It is not right to say unambiguously that the region was firmly part of either side during that period. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an article at Occupation of Ma'an to try to bring all the sources together and deal with this question centrally. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we can discuss it there and see if we cannot reach some sort of conclusion to put in the various articles.Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,
@Zero0000: (who I see as the specialist of this matter)

I have a question regarding the historiography (and not the history) of the aera. This is not directly linked to wp editing whereas I found numerous ambiguity between *Palestine* and *Mandatory Palestine* in several articles which could require some clarification
Historically, *Palestine Mandate* was initially established on the West Bank of Jordan river and in 1923, Mandate was used as a legal instrument to give a status to the entity of the *Emirate of Transjordan* that was given to Abdullah. (Not doing so could have opened the door eg to French claiming the territories and/or some unstability, ... Whatever -> a status was needed.) Article 25 of the Mandate Protocol and Churchill White Paper clarified the situation in stating that all the area of *Palestine (region)* had not to see the establishement of a Jewish State but only a part of it and the East Bank was removed from Jewish settlement ("if not spirit, the letter of the promises" etc). Still historically, Zionist movement complained about this situation given lands of *Palestine (region)* West of Damas-Medine railway were parts of the historical lands of Israel and they claimed for the right to establish there too. Later the IZL used as emblem a map with both banks of the Jordan river cut by a gun to illustrate they revendicated both *Palestine Mandate* and *Emirate of Transjordan*, named Palestine or Eretz Israel as part of a future Jewish State and that they were ready to fight for this.
The historiography of this "solution" has evolved and, whereas I could not identify the original source, it is widely stated (wrongly) that the *Palestine Mandate* was already partitioned at the time and 70 % were given to Arabs, with all that this could mean. Etc. Etc. (That's a annex point but if someone knows who talk about the 70 % first...)
My concern is that I wonder if this extreme view has not become a strawman argument to hide the historical perspective too.
Historically, if it is wrong that :

The *Palestine Mandate* was partitionend and 70 % of Palestine (Emirate of Trasnjordan) were given to Abdallah, son of Hussein.

But it is right that :

[For many reasons linked to promises and geopolitics], the East Bank of *Palestine (region)* was not included in the British Mandate so that a new entity East or Jordan river comprising Eastern Palestine (region) and other territories could be created (rather the Kingdom of Syria for Fayçal or later with the failure the Emirate of Transjordan fo Abdullah)". And therefore, in the perspective of the Zionist movement, they were right to claim a part of the land promised by Balfour for the establishement of the Jewish Mandate was not included in the Mandate of Palestine, ie removed from it...

nb: this has nothing to deal with the legacy and legitimity for a Palestinian State West or Jordan river, at the time or today and nothing to deal with the negation of the Arab Palestinian nationalism and reality at the time. That's not the point. That's more about the fact that both Zionist claims seem to be often mixed.

What is your mind ?

2A02:2788:925:F87E:44D9:D78A:20C7:5D3 (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could clarify, I have some problem following your argument? You said you had a question (more than one?), what is it exactly? Alternatively, you wish to amend the article, how exactly? Just so you know, Wikipedia is not really a forum for general discussion, we need specifics.Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Selfstudier,

I know WP:FORUM...

In numerous articles related to this period and creation of the Emirate of Transjordan, the situation is not clear. Eg, in the article Emirate of Transjordan it is not talked about Balfour Declaration in the "Relevant British Agreement" section. It is also written "The agreement allocated to Britain control of what is today southern Israel and Palestine, Jordan and southern Iraq, and an additional small area that included the ports of Haifa and Acre to allow access to the Mediterranean.[11] The Palestine region, with smaller boundaries than the later Mandatory Palestine [Palestine Region was wider than that...], was to fall under an "international administration"." There are other examples.

I wonder if the fancy of the partition of Mandatory Palestine and lost of 70 % does not make people forget the initial Zionist point of view, which is legitimate in historical sense and requires to be explained.

2A02:2788:925:F87E:44D9:D78A:20C7:5D3 (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my stupidity, I am still not seeing any question or any proposal to amend the article.Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is confusing because "Palestine" has at least four meanings: (1) an undefined region named in the Balfour Declaration; (2) an undefined region allocated to Britain at the San-Remo conference; (3) the totality of the region (including Transjordan) covered by the Mandate for Palestine from when it was approved by the League of Nations in 1922; (4) the region (excluding Transjordan) administered as Palestine from 1920 to 1948. Context and background knowledge is required to know which meaning is intended in each instance. The most important fact about (1) and (2) is that there were no defined borders and many opinions on where the borders should be. By 1921 at the latest, Britain had decided that (1) did not include Transjordan, which didn't contradict anything that had been promised before but upset the Zionists who wanted more. At the Cairo conference in 1921, the government was advised that Britain had no legal right in Transjordan at all unless it was covered by the Mandate, so they added Transjordan to the Mandate with a proviso that the Balfour Declaration didn't apply there. Then they convinced the League of Nations to approve that arrangement. In summary, the popular story that Palestine was a large region that Britain cut Transjordan off from is wrong; Transjordan was added, not subtracted. Zero^talk 15:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zero0000.

I agree that the borders of what is "Palestine (region)" were not clearly defined in any agreement at the time and therefore it is confusing. But I think it is clear and was accepted that Palestine was much wider than the final Mandate of Palestine. It was clear for all that Palestine extended West of Jordan river. In article 25 of the mandate it is stated that :

In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

There is a Palestine East of Jordan... That's not Transjordan. But there is one.

That's confirmed in Churchill White Paper that says :

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.

Given that the Mandate intended at the time to fully become a Jewish State was finally established on the West bank of Jordan, and given the White Paper clearly explains the Jewish State would not be established on the whole of Palestine, that means as for article 25 that a part of Palestine is outside the Mandate of Palestine...

Another point. You underline that the final borders of the Mandate didn't contradict British promises. Indeed, but it is explained here above that it is not because Palestine stopped at the Jordan river but because it was never clearly promised that the Jewish State would be established on the whole of Palestine. And there are other documents that go to the same direction...

Do you agreee ?

2A02:2788:925:F87E:44D9:D78A:20C7:5D3 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing Mandate and Palestine. They are not the same thing. And are different things at different times. And this is still not a forum.Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To anon: No I don't agree. Look up the timing of the events you mention and check where they fit into the timeline that I gave. Zero^talk 16:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The table at Mandate_for_Palestine#Key_dates_from_Balfour_Declaration_to_mandate_becoming_effective should make it clear. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier:. I suggest that you stop here if you don't understand. It is cristal clear that I don't mix both, on the contrary. And please do not copy/paste the usual answer made to the usual trolls that come to claim the 70 % fancy story.

@Zero0000:. I don't understand what you disagree with precisely.

So you think that the "Palestine (region)" in the mind of the protagonists were limited to the territories West of the Jordan river ? I think that in the mind of all protagonists, "Palestine (region)" extended East of this. If not what are the meaning of :

"In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine"

"[Balfour promise was not that] Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine."

@Onceinawhile:

All these events are clear to me. And on the contrary, the timeline show that if Transjordan was indeed added to the *Mandate* the initial Mandate was established on a smaller territory than Palestine. Which events do contradict this ?

There are other evidences.

2A02:2788:925:F87E:A4E7:C2A5:5BFC:A59F (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP is neither a forum nor a soapbox; we have heard all this nonsense before and it has all been thoroughly rebutted. If you want to discuss the matter in terms of specifics then take it to the relevant page, Mandate for Palestine.Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, some books for you:

• Garfinkle, Adam (1998). "History and Peace: Revisiting two Zionist myths". Israel Affairs. 5 (1): 126–148. doi:10.1080/13537129808719501., "After the Cairo Conference of March 1921, whereupon the Emirate of Transjordan was created, Article 25 pertaining to Transjordan was added to the draft Mandate – in August 1921. Article 25 notes that Transjordanian territory is not included in the Jewish National Home. This language confuses some readers into imagining that Transjordanian territory was covered by the conditions of the Mandate as to the Jewish National Home before August 1921. Not so; what became Transjordanian territory was not part of the mandate at all. As noted, it was part of the Arabian Chapter problem; it was, in other words, in a state of postwar legal and administrative limbo. And this is also not to speak of the fact that, as of August 1921, the mandates had yet to be approved or take effect."
• Wasserstein, Bernard (2008). Israel and Palestine: Why They Fight and Can They Stop?. Profile Books. ISBN 978-1-84668-092-2.: "Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921–1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there – but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' has become part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement."
• Abu-Lughod, Ibrahim (1988). "Territorially-based Nationalism and the Politics of Negation". In Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens (ed.). Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question. Verso. ISBN 978-1-85984-340-6.: "... the statement presented by Mr Herbert Samuel, the first British High Commissioner, to the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Transjordan between 1920–25 ... is sufficiently clear on the distinctness of Transjordan and its emergence and leaves no doubt that Palestine did not include Transjordan in prior periods ... The Zionist and later on the Israeli discourse stresses the 'fact' that Israel emerged on only a very small part of Palestine – less than a third – by which they mean the entirety of Palestine and Transjordan; hence the term 'the partitioned State' ... While Israel officially is more circumspect in its pronouncements, its official spokesmen often refer to Jordan as a Palestinian State and claim that Palestinians already therefore have a state of their own. A series of advertisements that appeared in major American newspapers in the course of 1983 claimed openly that Jordan is Palestine. The series was presumably paid for by 'private' sponsors who support Israel but have been reported to be acting on behalf of certain sectors of Israel's leadership. Though rightly discredited as spurious scholarship, Joan Peters's From Time Immemorial (1984) gave much publicity to the Zionist definition of Palestine as including Transjordan (and, throughout, her work utilizes seriously flawed data that specifically refer to 'Western Palestine'). Perhaps Israel's preference for a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in terms of what has become known as the 'Jordanian' option reflects the same understanding."

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile:

That's cristal clear and are excellent secondary reliable sources.

The 3rd is interesting because it uses the strawman argumentation I was referring too in mixing two Zionist claims : "The Zionist and later on the Israeli discourse stresses the 'fact' that Israel emerged on only a very small part of Palestine – less than a third". And the 2nd one also talks about Jabotinsky. Why ? A reliable source is expected not to talk about propaganda.

It remains that article 25 is cristal clear as well. What are the territories of Palestine East of Jordan river as it is talked about ?

And Churchill White Paper would be amazing with this interpretation. Why to underline that it was never promised to establish a Jewish State on the whole of Palestine when/if the Mandate was established on the whole of Palestine ? That shows that (as expected) "Palestine (region)" was wider than the Palestine Mandate.

I found map of 1915 and 1918 extending Palestine up to Damas. But map of the Ottoman Empire put the whole area East of Jordan from Dead Sea to Damas in the Syria villayet. On the other side it can hardly be denied that at the time, Palestine meant Holy Land in Christian ears and that were Christian who ruled the world. The "Holy Land" extends east of Jordan and even very high in the North but Neguev is out of it. It was clearly not in Palestine.

@Zero0000: I think we face here an equivalent issue than the one with Azzam Pacha quote, but on the other side. 2A02:2788:925:F87E:E977:4E0:7431:CDAB (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Cartography of Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. And done.

The last one dating 1880 is titled "Western map of Palestine" and stops at Jordan River [11].

I invite you to consider this question a new way with a more critical approach... I fear we all have been poisoned by what we heard around us (or what we wanted to hear and read) because historical facts are not as obvious as it seems. 2A02:2788:925:F87E:E977:4E0:7431:CDAB (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You think you discovered something, but you didn't. It's just same old, same old. Zero^talk 10:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000:

Would you mind answering on the comments (1) about article 25, (2) White Paper then ?

Because I don't see any explanation for this. There is also the map that I checked, following Onceinawhile suggestion (3) and which is totally clear.

I admin that the wp:rs here above are cristcal clear but there lack the link to the 1st sources to justify their analysis. And the 3rd source fits my views.

I also disagree that it is the "same old, same old". The new nuance is that I underline they are 2 Zionist claims (one that sounds true but that was politically rebuked for good reasons and contradictory promises ; and one that is propaganda). The second claim is used in a strawman dialectic not to answer fairly to the first one. The promise was not hold and Palestine was indeed cut of its East side at the creation of the Mandate.

I would be happy to be wrong and more of all want to understand and have a clear vision but if nobody can answer to the point, that sounds a little bit as bad faith not to take into account of the consequences.

2A02:2788:925:F87E:E977:4E0:7431:CDAB (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article 25? The Mandate (for Palestine) included within it the territory East of the Jordan up to a border to be determined. What is confusing about this? Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I see anything confusing or contradictory about the phrase "in Palestine" either.Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile:

Regarding the map of 1880, you can notice that "Western Palestine" contains South Lebanon, which is not in the "Irgun narrative" but which was part of the territories claimed by Weizmann for a Jewish homeland and didn't end in the British Mandate of Palestine. Reviewing Henry Laurens book, French refused to "offer" this area to the Palestine Mandate claiming they were not bound by Balfour and were tired of giving territories to Armenian, Turkish, Syrians, ... They didn't argue that was not Palestine and that it had not promised to Jews. On the contrary, the confirm this.

2A02:2788:925:F87E:E977:4E0:7431:CDAB (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were many different definitions of Palestine, as you can see from the range of notable maps, and the ranges of definitions at Timeline of the name "Palestine".

So when the Balfour Declaration mentioned Palestine, it was undefined. The only time boundaries had been shown by British officials prior to that time was in the Sykes Picot agreement. The first time it was defined after that was in OETA South. Both stopped at the Jordan River. Transjordan was never promised to the Zionists, a fact that Weizmann knew well (see for example the quote box on the right of Mandate_for_Palestine#Addition_of_Transjordan).

I have forgotten what point you are trying to make. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is proven that whereas Palestine was not clearly defined at the time it extended North and East of the territory on which the British Mandate of Palestine was established.

It is IZL propaganda to claim that British Mandate was cut to create Transjordan.

It is true to state that the Mandate was not established on the whole territory that was initialy expected for it (and in a way, Palestine was shared).

Secondary sources should confirm this. I will try to find some but I would be particularly shocked to discover there are many and that only other ones were selected on wp to make a point. Based on that some articles should be reformulated.

And given this is known on wp, I can not assume good faith any more.

2A02:2788:925:F87E:51E5:1DDD:B3CA:B5A0 (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you have some sources (rather than your opinions) and specific amendments in mind, we will be happy to look at that, meanwhile it's just hot air.Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, you came here to make a point and you failed. You should go away now. Zero^talk 11:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000. I am Ceedjee/Pluto. I am shocked by your behaviour here.

Nobody answered to the arguments. And only Onceinawhile really discussed even if he didn't answer either to particular points.

I will look for 2nd WP:RS. 2A02:2788:925:F87E:51E5:1DDD:B3CA:B5A0 (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pluto2012? I quite enjoyed our collaborations all those years ago. I even remember discussing this topic.

Regarding your statement above "It is true to state that the Mandate was not established on the whole territory that was initialy expected for it (and in a way, Palestine was shared)"... whose expectations are you referring to?

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he forgot how to log in? Or perhaps we should just stop feeding the troll.Selfstudier (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less about it in practical terms, but I see the "usual suspect" in the singular, receiving some help from less expected sides, refusing a dialogue and getting nasty. Not in order to avoid a "forum", but by knee-jerk reflex. Zero, your answer re. the four relevant legal meanings for "Palestine" is a good mathematical basis for a discussion. You shouldn't have refused it implying X didn't do his homework (I'm using X, as 2A02:2788:.... is too long, and I don't know where "ANON" came from).

X is asking why there is no mention of the option that meaning (2), San-Remo, does in terms of set theory overlap with the expectations raised by the Balfour Declaration, so meaning (1). There are no clauses in either excluding such an overlap. Very simple. Beyond that, you are alluding at the fact that Weizmann knew well what to expect and what not to expect. But Weizmann is not the Zionist Organisation, nor equal with every actor from the ZO (set theory again). So A), expectations were legitimate, because the intersection of the 2 sets is not nil.

Were expectations fully unrealistic? The Balfour Declaration and the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence were quite clearly incompatible with each other in both spirit and letter (ask Lawrence), the boundaries of the French and British spheres of influence were very much renegotiated at length, and there are plenty of other examples how borders were unclear and were then created, de facto or de jure, after a long process – either haggled over, or fought over – so claiming some kind of clarity here is nonsense. If official, written documents are vague, that leaves room for legitimate expectations among all the implicated sides. That's how I see X's question, and it has merit, strictly academically speaking. So B), expectations were not unrealistic. Neither for some of the Zionists, nor for Abdallah, who offered the Jews a canton within his intended wider kingdom (why shouldn't "national home" = "canton"? Theoretically speaking.)

The step from mathematical, set theory considerations, to political claims, crosses the unbridgeable ravine of reality. The far-right Zionist claim that the Arabs already got their share of Palestine in the shape of East Palestine aka (Western) Jordan is crap, first and foremost in terms of Realpolitik. (And nobody should misconstrue this as to mean that I'm supporting it in de jure terms.) But that wasn't the point, so reacting to a point not made or supported by anyone makes no sense. I mean logically, 'cause on I/P every nonsense makes perfect sense to all the combatants habitually involved. Arminden (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]