Passover programs in Florida
Apartments for rent
Morse Life


Jordan King Abdullah’s Nasty Comments

Posted by Gerald Honigman on July 3rd, 2007

In a July 1st interview with the Jordanian newspaper, Al-Ghad, Jordan’s King Abdullah said that all of the photo-op sessions and such ultimately mean nothing for the Palestinians because they “face a solid enemy that works according to programs and plans.” He then warned that Israel will never have the peace and security it wishes unless it surrenders to the Arabs’ territorial demands.

Now, for someone whose country consists of some 80% of the original borders of Mandatory Palestine–and whose population is mostly “Palestinian” (however one defines that, since most of the latter were actually newcomers to the Mandate themselves)–I can undersdtand the King being a bit nervous about this subject.

Add to this his Dad’s (the late King Hussein) slaughter of more Palestinian Arabs in a month than all who have died during their years trying to destroy Israel, Abdullah’s remarks are a lesson, indeed, in chutzpah. ” Black September” is how the Palestinian Arabs remember this–when Arafat’s PLO allied with Syria in 1970 and tried to seize the bulk of Palestine from the Hashemites and were slaughtered by the thousands in the process. Many fled into Israel to escape the wrath of their brothers. And it was Israel’s mobilization in the north which saved Hussein’s derriere from further Syrian involvement.

Periodically, one Jordanian spokesman or another engages this touchy issue, so a reality check is in order. The points are so basic to this conflict that many of us, for a variety of reasons, feel obligated to repeat them over and over.

Indeed, the Hashemites would be wise to not address this issue to anyone with a knowledge of the actual history involved. Since many do not possess this, Abdullah and his comrades feel free to rant

To truly appreciate what comes next, first find a map of the Middle East. One of the world will do, but everything will be much smaller. Find Jordan and then find Israel to its west.

As has been written often, in 1922, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill, to reward Arab allies in World War I (remember the movie, Lawrence of Arabia ?), chopped off roughly 80% of the original Mandate of Palestine issued to Great Britain on April 25, 1920–all the land east of the Jordan River (the East Bank)–and created the purely Arab “Emirate of Transjordan”…today’s Jordan. This gift of the lion’s share of “Palestine” to Arab nationalism was engineered by Churchill in 1921 at the Cairo Conference.

Emir Abdullah (the current Jordanian King’s great-grandfather), who received the land on behalf of the Hashemites who were in the process of getting booted out of the Arabian Peninsula by the rival clan of Ibn Saud (hence, Saudi Arabia today), attributed this gift to an act of Allah in his memoirs. Sir Alec Kirkbride, Britain’s East Bank representative, had much to say about this separation of the bulk of the Palestinian Mandate as well.

“In due course the remarkable discovery was made that the clauses of the mandate relating to the establishment of a National Home for the Jews had never been intended to apply to the mandated territory east of the river (A Crackle of Thorns, page 27).”

Thus, right from the getgo, Arab nationalism was awarded most of the Palestinian Mandate.

Pro-Arab professors typically ignore all of this when teaching this topic. The main starting date for them is not 1920, but 1947…the proposed partition of “Palestine.” Of course they conveniently omit explaining that this was the second partition of the land–which the Arabs rejected themselves–and pretend that Jordan was always a separate state. Had the Arabs accepted this second partition, they would have wound up with some 90% of the territory. So much for the standard Arab line that Jews got all or most of the land.

The Jordan-Palestine connection is just one of many well-documented facts (not “Zionist propaganda”) completely ignored or distorted by spokesmen such as King Abdullah and, unfortunately, little known by much of the rest of the world. Arabs typically claim Jews got 78% of all of the land, and leading newspapers typically prepare segments on the Middle East ignoring this crucial connection as well.

When Egypt’s Nasser decided, once again, in June 1967 to drive the Jews into the sea, he contacted Abdullah’s father, King Hussein (his calls were intercepted and taped) and convinced him to join in the massacre of the Jews. Israel, through the United Nations, begged Hussein to distance himself from Nasser’s plans.

Hussein didn’t listen and instead launched an attack on the Jewish half of Jerusalem instead.

The rest, as they say, is history. And that’s how Jordan lost Judea and Samaria (renamed by British imperialism the West Bank)–which it seized in the 1948 fighting (subsequently changing its name from Transjordan-to Jordan)–in the first place. Led by British officers, Transjordan joined other Arab countries in attacking a miniscule, reborn Israel in 1948, trying to nip it in the bud.

As I am forced to repeat too often in order to answer yet another pro-Arab propagandist, whatever will or won’t become of the land in question (and a meaningful territorial compromise is a must), it must be noted that the land in question, which the Jordanian king refers to, is disputed territory–not “Palestinian” land.

Jews lived and owned property there until their slaughter in the 1920s.

In reality, the “West Bank” consists of non-apportioned parts of the Mandate, and leading authorities such as Eugene Rostow, William O’Brien, and others have stressed that these areas were open to settlement by Jews, Arabs, and other residents of the Mandate as well. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of Arabs poured into the area from all the region…Arab settlers setting up Arab settlements.

The League Of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission documented scores of thousands of Arabs entering into Palestine from just Syria alone. Hamas’ “patron saint,” Sheikh Izzedine al-Qassam, was from Latakia, Syria. Fatah’s Arafat, himself, was from Egypt. It’s estimated that many more Arabs entered the Mandate, to take advantage of the economic development going on because of the Jews, under cover of darkness and were never recorded…more Arab settlers setting up more Arab settlements.

Returning to the present, Israel does not deserve the nasty comments it received from Jordan’s young king–regardless of the delicate balancing act he must indulge in given the realities of the Jordan-Palestine connection.

Israel does not seek to rule over millions of Arabs’ lives in Judea and Samaria. What it must have is a reasonable compromise over these disputed lands…not the unilateral, Munich style “solution” too much of the rest of the world now has in mind that will return the Jewish State to its nine-mile wide existence of the 1949 armistice line–not border–days.

4 Responses to 'Jordan King Abdullah’s Nasty Comments'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Jordan King Abdullah’s Nasty Comments'.

  1. david singer said,

    on July 5th, 2007 at 4:40 am

    Gerald is spot on as usual but with one very important exception.

    He states:
    “As has been written often, in 1922, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill, to reward Arab allies in World War I (remember the movie, Lawrence of Arabia ?), chopped off roughly 80% of the original Mandate of Palestine issued to Great Britain on April 25, 1920–all the land east of the Jordan River (the East Bank)–and created the purely Arab “Emirate of Transjordan”…today’s Jordan. This gift of the lion’s share of “Palestine” to Arab nationalism was engineered by Churchill in 1921 at the Cairo Conference.

    Emir Abdullah (the current Jordanian King’s great-grandfather), who received the land on behalf of the Hashemites who were in the process of getting booted out of the Arabian Peninsula by the rival clan of Ibn Saud (hence, Saudi Arabia today), attributed this gift to an act of Allah in his memoirs. Sir Alec Kirkbride, Britain’s East Bank representative, had much to say about this separation of the bulk of the Palestinian Mandate as well.”

    Nothing was chopped off in 1922. The Mandate was amended in 1922 to prevent Jews settling within 77% of Palestine then called Transjordan. But all 100% of Palestine remained under Britain’s authority and control until 1946 when Transjordan was granted independence at the last session of the League of Nations before its dissolution.

    Britain created an Arab administration there but could do nothing to cede sovereignty without League of Nations approval, which was not given till 1946.This was the first partition of Palestine - giving the Arabs of Palestine their own independent State in 77% of Palestine in which not one Jew lived.

    This action amounted to a “reverse Balfour Declaration” which gave the Arabs a State in 77% of Palestine originally intended as an area in which the Jewish National Home would be reconstituted and from which Jewish settlement had been “postponed or withheld” since 1922. That action now become permanent.

    Palestine in 1948 was therefore a vastly different area of land to Palestine in 1946 - only 23% of Mandatory Palestine.

    Arab propaganda starts the history of Palestine from 1948. This has been its crowning success and Israel’s abysmal failure to properly communicate the real history of Palestine from the time of its modern recreation by the League of Nations in 1920.

  2. Gerald Honigman said,

    on July 5th, 2007 at 10:37 am

    Thanks, David…

    My publishers are always at me for being too verbose…So I cut back some of the fine details that you now bring up.

    As far as Jews are concerned, it was indeed cut off as of 1922…and that’s what matters the most here. Arab nationalism was indeed handed the lion’s share of the land. That was my main point, so I chose to leave out what you added for the sake of length. I’m always getting nailed by publishers about that.

    Perhaps I should have placed the word “effectively” before “cut off” to at least drop a hint.

    Thanks again…

    Jerry

  3. david singer said,

    on July 5th, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    Is the glass half empty or half full?

    Palestine as a territorial entity existed intact from 1920 to 1945. The Arabs were rewarded with a sovereign state in 1946 in 77% of Palestine by the League of Nations.The Jews had been denied any rights to live in that part of Palestine from 1923.

    The Jews had to fight six Arab armies in 1948 to secure a state in just 17% of Palestine.

    It is these facts that are rarely stated when one looks to the justice of the claims by both Jews and Arabs in relation to Palestine.

  4. Gerald Honigman said,

    on July 6th, 2007 at 8:08 am

    Since David has elaborated further about my article’s point about the effective separation of Transjordan from Jewish nationalism–Zionism–in 1922, let me share with our readers the key work that even anti-Israel profs are often forced to recognize on this topic, Dr. Aaron Klieman’s “Foundations Of British Policy In The Arab World:The Cairo Conference of 1921″ (The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore and London, 1970).

    Book has lots of other interesting facts about why this effective separation occuried, while leaving overall independence of the Emirate until later. Much had to do with appeasing Hashemites for loss of their promised Greater Syria dreams with France installed in Syria after WWI. So, the two princes–Abdullah and Feisal–got Transjordan and Mesopotamia respectively…shafting Jews and Kurds (who were promised independence there) respectively. My own work on the latter, published while doing my own doctoral studies, can be found on recommended reference lists of leading universities all over the world–including Paris’s famed Institut d’Etudes Politique. It first appeared in the Nobel Laureate-sponsored academic journal, the Fall 1981 Middle East Review and was titled “British Petroleum Politics, Arab Nationalism, And The Kurdish Struggle For Independence.”

    The point I was making in my article, however–that the bulk of the Palestine Mandate became separated from the Jews as of 1922–does not require this elaboration…as important as it is for understanding subsequent details.

Leave a Reply