"Two Banks Has the Jordan" - From the Other Side

One the main and principled political and ideological elements of the Revisionist Movement founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky is the claim for the integrity of the homeland.

In a practical sense, that meant that the Palestine Mandate should have extended to both sides of the Jordan River, instead of Article 25 of the Mandate decision allowing Great Britain to postpone the application of the reconsitution of the national Jewish homeland east of the Jordan River.

Jabotinsky wrote the words to a song on the matter.

A map representing the demanded borders was always prominent

And the Irgun adopted it as well.

Well, now I've found a Telegram account in Jordan and look at the map:

^

Sharif Hussein ibn Ali and "Palestine"

Sharif Hussein ibn Ali was an Arab leader from the Banu Hashim clan, Sharif and Emir of Mecca from 1908 and, after proclaiming the Great Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire with Lawrence of Arabia, King of the Hejaz from 1916 to 1924 and, quite briefly, Caliph in 1924. With the Hejaz invaded by the Saudis, he had to flee and be exiled. He claimed he was a 37th-generation direct descendant of Muhammad, as he belonged to the Hashemite family.

His son was Abdullah I and his great-great-grandson, Abdullah II (son of Hussein, son of Talal), is the current King of Jordan.

In January 1924, he arrived in Amman, then TransJordan, here seen received by Lt.-Col.  Frederick Peake Pasha, the British Resident Representative (and creator of the Arab Legion):

and another picture during that time:

On March 11 he received pledges of fealty from local Arabs, Arabs from west of the Jordan River and neighboring Arab countries.

But what did he think of "Palestine"?

As this article, "Sharif Husayn ibn Ali and the Hashemite Vision of the Post-Ottoman Order: From Chieftaincy to Suzerainty", details, he seemed to think it shouldn't exist:

So, it isn't that some pro-Israel/Zionism advocates think an 'Arab Palestine' wasn't and shouldn't be.

^

How Important Was It for Jordan to Keep Jews from the Western Wall?

How important was it for Jordan to keep Jews from the Western Wall is perhaps a long question.

The short answer is here:

Instead of fulfilling their obligations as per the Armistice Agreements of 1949, Article VIII, 2, to provide

free access to the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives

and thereby benefiting their own citizens, Jordan preferred to be anti-Jewish.

^

Letter to the Editor Re: Temple Mount

Jerusalem Post Weekend Magazine, Otober 29, 2021

Jeremy Sharon’s excellent overview of the Temple Mount situation at present should have recalled four background essentials for a fuller understanding of the issue.

Firstly, the sanctified Jewish “Temple Mount” area is smaller than the Muslim al-Haram al-Sharif, and Jews do not seek to enter Muslim buildings. There is enough room for Muslims, Jews and Christians to pray without “invading” another’s territory.

The second is that Jewish prayer is recognized as a basic right by decisions of the High Court of Justice based on the 1967 Law for the Preservation of Holy Places. Prayer is not illegal.

Third, the status quo of 1967 is not upheld by the Muslim Wakf, which has built three new mosques within the compound, destroyed historical and archaeological artifacts and altered administrative customs.

Fourth, Jordan, which is responsible for the (Jerusalem) Wakf Islamic religious trust and funds it, refuses to fulfill its obligations as per the 1994 Peace Treaty with Israel. Article 9 reads: “Each Party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance... The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.” Even the positioning of surveillance cameras that could help prevent violence at the Temple Mount was sabotaged by Jordan.

YISRAEL MEDAD

Shiloh

^

Did the Palestine Mandate Expire With League of Nations Demise?

I have a newspaper clipping in this 2012 post of mine on the legality of Britaisn creating Jordan in 1946. In essence, the claim was that as TransJordan had been part of the original Palestine Mandate whose whole purpose was to reconstitute the historic Jewish national home - until that was done, no territory could be fully separated from the Mandate nor could any political entity be established without also creating a Jewish state.

It is not quite that legible and so here is the full text from the JTA report I now have found:

The British Government believes that the Palestine Mandate expired with the demise of the League of Nations, its delegate to the Security Council’s Membership Committee said today.

The statement came in connection with debate on the application for membership in the U.N. by Transjordan, which was part of the Palestine Mandate. The British representative, Paul Falla, defended Britain’s unilateral proclamation of TransJordan’s independence by declaring that with the death of the League of Nations it devolved upon the British Government to either declare Transjordan independent or seek a trusteeship. It decided on the former course, he said, after consultation with the U.N. General Assembly. Falla made no reference to Palestine proper. Falla spoke after a statement by Soviet delegate Alexei N. Krasilnikov, who said that the Palestine Mandate had never been terminated, and consequently TransJordan’s status as an independent state was invalid. The Soviet spokesman said the regular procedures laid down for termination of a mandate had been violated by Britain’s declaration of Transjordan’s independence. The General Assembly resolution last year welcoming Transjordan’s independence was not sufficient to legalize violation of the Mandate, he added.He also challenged the validity of the Transjordan treaty with Britain, which allows the latter to maintain troops on Transjordan territory. Krasilnikov added that his opposition did not indicate any change in the friendly Soviet feelings towards the people of Transjordan and the Soviet desire to see them truly independent.

The US State Department also disagreed.

More here.

Jordan's UN membership was held up two years until Israel was established.

^ 

Were The Nabateans Ancient Jordanians?

This I found at the official Jordan Petra News Agency site and piqued my interest:

The Nabateans, an Arab people, were among the first to settle in Jordan, with their base in Petra.

As a country called Jordan did not really exist at that time. Even Wikipedia knows that 

Jordan refers to the history of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and...of the region of Transjordan.

Note the description here, for example:

Among the oldest references to Arabs in what is now Jordan is the account of the battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE,

And here:

Nabataeans...carved into the rose-red rocks of present day Jordan 

a source which also illuminates that they were not that native:

The Nabataeans probably originated as a nomadic Arabic tribe known as the Nabatu. They emerged in the seventh and sixth centuries BC, migrating into the region which today forms parts of Jordan... 

The Britannica only mentions Jordan as a river:

Nabataean, member of a people of ancient Arabia whose settlements lay in the borderlands between Syria and Arabia...When the Roman emperor Trajan annexed the kingdom (AD 105–106) and set up the new province of Arabia, Bostra (Bozrah), east of the Jordan River, was chosen in place of Petra as the provincial capital.

The Nabateans were not ancient Jordanians.

^ 

Odd Legal Reasoning

I was alerted to this information:

From one of the NGO Amicus briefs filed to the ICC, a bizarre argument:

Prior to the Palestine Mandate, Great Britain administered Palestine as a belligerent occupant.11 Although the San Remo Convention adopted on 24 April 1920 assigned the Mandate for Palestine under the League of Nations to Great Britain, this did not come into force until 29 September 1923.12 Between 24 April 1920 and 29 September 1923, ‘Great Britain had no other title to the exercise of public power in Palestine than  that afforded by its military occupation.’ 

My response:

Does this mean that Jordan, formerly Transjordan, created out of nothing during those same years (Cairo Conference March 1921; Churchill in Jerusalem and his famous walk at the end of that month; the League of Nations July 1922 decision to prohibit Jews settling in Transjordan) has no right to exist?

_____

And other response:

There are three entirely different arguments here.

The first part is the not-crazy argument that the date of the Mandate coming into force is not the date the Mandate was approved by the allied states, nor the date it was actually implemented on the ground (both in 1920), nor the date it was approved by the League of Nations (1922), but only the date of the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) , in which Turkey surrendered sovereignty over the territory.

The second part is the same idiotic argument that Palestinian Arabs have been making for decades that upon Palestine becoming a Mandate, it became an independent state, and that state has an ethnic identity of Arab such that Israel cannot claim the rights of that state.

And the third part is where the two arguments are combined in a logically inconsistent non sequitur and the NGO argues that since the Mandate only came into force in 1923 when Turkey yielded sovereignty, and since the Mandate already came into force in 1919, when the League of Nations Covenant was adopted (by virtue of the ratification of  Treaty of Versailles), Palestine has been a state since 1919 because there was a Mandate of Palestine.

The last two arguments can be found in more eloquently stated form (albeit no less illogical) in Henry Cattan’s books from fifty+ years ago.

^

Rogel Alpher's Sardonic Wit

In what passes for sardonic sarcastic left-wing humor, Rogel Alpher, accusing Israel's right-wing of wanting to end the peace we have with Jordan, writes, inter alia:

Jordan is also bothering [???]* the right on the Temple Mount. Another flood of articles in the right-wing media concerns the desire and right of Jews to change the status quo on the Temple Mount. The most minimal demand is to allow Jews free access to pray there. The maximalist demand is the demolition of the al-Aqsa Mosque and the rebuilding of the Temple. The Jordanian Waqf is in the way – they are also too proud and arrogant. This is another reason to remove the person who is giving the Waqf his backing, King Abdullah, and to revoke the peace treaty that recognizes the special status and role of Jordan on the Temple Mount.

No one wants to revoke the peace treaty. We all would like it to be honored, by all sides, equally.

As Rogel knows (or he may not), Article 9 in the treaty reads - and I highlight the really important themes Rogel should be supporting as a left-wing, liberal humanist:

PLACES OF HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE
Each party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance.In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.

I think those are worthwhile values to campaign for and if Abdullah II can't fulfill that aspect of the treaty, he should be held accountable. 

Rogel knows that PM Netanyahu is firmly behind the status quo. Internal Security Minister Gilad Erdan likewise supports it although he does allow acts that the courts have permitted in principle but previous ministers have been nervous to allow. He also knows that the numbers of maximalists actually pushing that demolition/rebuilding agenda is small although the dream of a future scenario like that is undoubtedly held by the majority of Jews.

In other words, Alpher is not being funny but using scare tactics and rumor mongering.

________

* The Hebrew term used is מפריעה which in this instance means 'interferes with' or 'disturbs'.

^

To What State Does that Artifact Belong?

I read that the U.S. – Jordan Cultural Property Agreement was signed on December 16, 2019.  It aims to "restrict the import of Jordanian artifacts to the United States of America, which includes coins, manuscripts, stones, minerals, ceramics, glass, mosaic plates and ancient bones, seashells and human, animal and plant remains, whose history ranges from about 1.5 million years BC to about 1750 AD".  It also stresses the "need to return Jordanian artifacts that was confiscated in the United States of America to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".  In addition, there is the goal of "increasing awareness of the Jordanian civilizational and cultural heritage".

Far be it from me to interfere with archaeological preservation but I am wondering about a problem.

Up until 1922, the territory of that kingdom by the desert was part, and so it was known, of Palestine. 

If there is an artifact in the US from, say, 1100 BCE, does it belong to Jordan, a future Palestine or, perhaps, Israel, the state that ruled the area at that time? Please recall, it was named Palestine by the Romans only in 135 CE.

This is confounding me.

Did Assistant US Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Mrs. Marie Royce who signed the document or her superiors give a thought about that?

^

What is a 'Historical Connection'?

Great Britain's Ambassador to Jordan, Edward Oakden, was told two years ago by Jordan's Lower House Speaker, Atif Tarawneh, that Jordan attaches great importance to the Palestinian cause and believes that the Hashemite custodianship is the legitimate guardianship of Jerusalem's holy shrines. And he added:

"Jordan's custodianship is firm and historically entrenched and any attempt to circumvent that is bound to inflame the sensibilities of Arabs and Muslims around the world"

On that background, consider the statement of Jordan's King Abdullah II who is vowing to keep protecting Islamic and Christian holy sites in Occupied Jerusalem. He called it

a “red line” for his country

and admitted during a visit to the Zarqa governorate last week 

that he’s under pressure to alter his country’s historic role as custodian of the Jerusalem holy sites but that he wouldn’t. Abdullah says: “I will never change my position toward Jerusalem in my life.”

This is a consistent line. Last April. the King was quoted

Stressing that the Hashemite custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem is “a historical duty and responsibility that we are proud to carry”, King Abdullah said: “We will persevere in upholding this responsibility, in coordination with our brothers at the Palestinian National Authority and with your support.”

What "history" is he talking about?

The most compact statement is this, from the 2013 Jordan-PLO Agreement on the Jerusalem Holy Sites:

Recalling the role of King Al-Sharif Hussein Bin Ali in protecting, and taking care of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem and in the restoration of the Holy Sites since 1924; recalling the uninterrupted continuity of this role by His Majesty King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, who is a descendant of Al-Sharif Hussein Bin Ali; recalling that the Bay’ah (oath of allegiance) according to which Al-Sharif Hussein Bin Ali held the custodianship of the Jerusalem Holy Sites, which Custodianship was affirmed to Al-Sharif Hussein Bin Ali by the people of Jerusalem and Palestine on March 11, 1924; and recalling that the Custodianship of the Holy Sites of Jerusalem has devolved to His Majesty King Abdullah II Bin al-Hussein;

An expanded research booklet is here. That "custodianship" was based on some eight months that Ali claimed to be Caliph but was tossed out:

Two days after the Turkish Caliphate was abolished by the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 3 March 1924, Hussein declared himself Caliph at his son Abdullah's winter camp in Shunah, Transjordan.[10] The claim to the title had a mixed reception, and Hussein was soon ousted and driven out of Arabia by the Saudis, a rival clan that had no interest in the Caliphate.

That booklet first debunks Jewish history. Rather badly and so stupidly. On page 59, we read:

The present-day Israeli narrative seeks to justify the ethnic domination of Jews in the Holy Land by making the claim that the earlier 400-year connection of Jews to Jerusalem (and the later 100-year connection) gives Israel sovereignty over it. However, Jerusalem was founded by the Arab tribe of the Jebusites 2000 years before the arrival and brief rule of the Hebrews. In fact, many different nations and peoples have lived and ruled in Jerusalem, but for more than 1200 years of the last 1400 years since 638 CE, Jerusalem has been a predominately Arab and Islamic city. Moreover, in the 5000 years since Arabs founded the city, they have maintained a constant presence there (as Muslims or pre-Islam) and have ruled it for at least 3200 of the 5000 years of recorded history, compared with only about 500 years of Hebrew and Jewish rule.

Bunk.

Then, on pages 56-57, the Jordanian "historical connection" is explained:

...the Jordanian Hashemites took on the role of the guardians and custodians of the Muslim Holy Sites in Jerusalem. In 1918, British Commander Hogarth was instructed to deliver a guarantee to Sharif Hussein bin Ali — Emir of Mecca and father of the founding King of Jordan Abdullah I — that Muslim Holy Sites shall be considered a Muslim concern alone and shall not be subjected directly or indirectly to any non-Muslim authority. Since 1922, the Hashemites have undertaken three major restoration projects of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem and since 1948 Jordan has continuously maintained the Awqaf Administration in the Old City. The First Hashemite restoration of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque took place during the period of 1922–1924, under the auspices of Sharif Hussein and in cooperation with the Supreme Muslim Council. This exceptional historic role continued during the periods of the “British Mandate”, the period of Jordanian rule over East Jerusalem (1948–1967) and even after the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem (1967–present). Sharif Hussein bin Ali donated 24,000 golden lira to the first renovations of Al-Aqsa Mosque and requested to be buried there before his passing.  

History of less than a century.

Jordan was not officially a country, a sovereign and recognized country, until 1946, by the way.

There you have it.

^

When A Congressman Compared the Jordan River to the Mississippi

When the US Congress had no problem supporting Zionism, criticizing pro-Arab diplomacy and...comparing the Jordan River to the Mississippi River:-

Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives joined today in condemning on the floor of their respective Houses the granting of independence to Transjordan. One Congressman suggested that the matter to placed before the Security Council of the UNO by the U.S. delegation.

Senator Claude Pepper, Democrat of Florida, sharply attacked British policy in Transjordan and Palestine, in a general statement in the Senate on foreign policy with particular reference to the Iranian situation. The British Mandate over Palestine “should have been repealed a long time ago,” he said.

Rep. Gordon McDonough, California Republican, urged the State Department to consult with the British Foreign Office “to assure the British that the heroic and creative Hebrew people, who have already worked such marvels in transformation in the insert of Palestine, can, by their friendship and trust, be infinitely better guarantors of western principals of peace and freedom in the Near East than can illiterate, comedic Bedonine,” McDonough asked that the American delegates to the UNO be instructed to investigate this matter in the Security Council.

Rep. Angnatua Bennett, New York Republican, compared the separation of Palestine and Transjordan to a situation that might develop should the U.S. be divided at the Mississippi. He recalled the treaty of 1924, in which Great Britain promised not change the status of Transjordan under the Mandate without the approval of the U.S. Government. “To my knowledge,” he said, “that approval has not been granted.

Senator Owen Browster, Republican of Maine, told the Senate that the State Department should “investigate the sudden creation of this new independent state of Transjordan.”

JTA, April 4, 1946.

Background.

^ 

No Protection for Jewish Holy Sites?

For the record

King Abdullah II on Tuesday...affirmed that Jordan stands with all its potentials and capabilities to achieve their legitimate and just rights. He will continue his efforts to work with the actors and the international community to create political horizons that serve Palestinian interests and the right of the Palestinian people. 

During the meeting, they stressed the importance of maintaining coordination and consultation between the two sides on the latest developments related to the Palestinian issue and Jerusalem. His Majesty stressed the importance of preserving the status quo in Jerusalem as the key to achieving peace in the region, stressing that Jordan continues to play its historical and religious role in protecting the Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, based on the Hashemite tutelage on these holy sites.

Jordan was negligent in the extreme during 1948-1967 as regards protecting and preserving Jewish holy sites (including the Mount of Olives cemetery, synagogues, etc.) it illegally occupied and violated terms of the Armistice Agreement about access to the Western Wall (see Article VIII, 2).

Jordan cannot be trusted.

^ 

What Could Be Missing in Jordan Archaeology?

Jordan was created by Winston Churchill in 1921.

Given that, it would difficult to find "Jordanian" archaeological artifacts and remains.

However, since Transjordan, besides being part of "historic Palestine" (and thanks to Marc Lamont Hill for resurrecting that term), was also Eastern Eretz-Yisrael, 

the two tribes and the half-tribe have received their inheritance beyond the Jordan at Jericho eastward, toward the sun-rising.'  Numbers 34:15

I would have expected mentions of the territory's Jewish past in an official archaeological report.

I was wrong.

I searched this 104 page document for the terms "Jewish", "Israelites" and "Hebrews". It is entitled "Archaeology in Jordan Newsletter - ACOR, 2016-2017 Seasons". The ACOR is for The American Center of Oriental Research. Its Board of Trustees. It is private and was founded in 1968.

In its Mission Statement, it notes,

ACOR has broad relationships in Jordan as well as deep relationships with key Jordanian national and local governmental agencies and academic institutions. 

I found no mentions of those three terms.

I continued to search.  "Roman" came up 37 times. "Christian" 5 times. "Byzantine" 16 times. "Ottoman" 11 times.

Here is a map of the sites:

To be fair, and honest, I couldn't find "Crusader" or "Canaanite".  But I did not review all past issues.

Still, odd that the Jews were missing.

On page 513 of the 2010 report I found this:

An ostrakon of a storage jar should be mentioned: the partly preserved inscription is in a Transjordanian dialect/Old Hebrew. 

Hebrew is  "a Transjordanian dialect"?  Really?

According to a 1993 publication, ACOR

As a member of ASOR, it has a strict policy of non-involvement in politics and follows their code of archaeological ethics

They seem to have an odd concept of "non-involvement in politics".

P. S.

I emailed them asking for a response or comment.

^ 

More Jordanian Provocation

Alerted by ThisOngoingWar, I found this from December 5, translated from the Arabic:

Al-Aqsa Conference aims to support the steadfastness of Jerusalemites

The story:

The Hashemite Guardianship is a historical right to the Islamic and Christian holy sites in the city which will be launched with the participation of about 1,000 participants
The Minister of Awqaf, Islamic Affairs and Holy shrines, Dr. Abdul Nasser Abu Al-Basal said that the conference "cry of the Al-Aqsa Mosque" is the second conference of the road to Jerusalem.He explained in a press conference held yesterday to talk about the conference will start on 20 of this month [December] Arab and Islamic countries and the world and Islamic Christians to support the steadfastness of the sanctified Jerusalem and the assertion of [the Hashemite] guardianship...Chairman of the Palestine Committee in the House of Representatives Yahya Saud, it became necessary to have a conferenceInternational Islamic world to mobilize the defense of Jerusalem and Islamic and Christian sanctuaries.
He said that the visit to Jerusalem does not mean normalization with Israel, it strengthens the steadfastness of our brothers in Jerusalem.
He stressed that the Hashemite guardianship of the Islamic and Christian holy sites is a historical right of the Hashemites...
Incursions into it in addition to the existence of a new approach by the occupation authorities towards the Al-Aqsa Mosque.  The Judaization of the holy sites and the division of them into time and place.He said that we need to stand up all the Islamic world and free to assert our right in Jerusalem and holy places and not to leave...We want to leave al-Aqsa mosque alone or leave the holy ones alone.
...The identity of the Holy Mosque on the entire Haram al-Sharif 144 acres and a quarter above the ground and underground is counted as the biggest challenges before us, we will not accept partnership, negotiation and division neither under nor above the ground.In addition to restoring the custody of the age of the mind in all its details and dimensions and importance...Al-Saud said that the Hashemite guardianship of the holy sites in Jerusalem is a historical right of the Hashemites since 1924...

And mentioned in the Jordan Times.

This is in violation of Article 9 of the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty with regard to places of religious significance so:-

1. Each party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance...3. The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.

Previous provocations:

here,

and here.

^

Jordan, Part of Palestine

Let's quickly review basic geo-political history.

Is the country "Jordan" or, the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" part of Palestine which, in my opinion, means that any resolution of the so-called "Palestinian Arab problem" need include in its geographical elements the participation of that country?

Two sources suggest yes.

One:

An area in the extreme north of Palestine, previously included in the territory of Syria, was transferred to Palestine, as from the 1st April 1924, in accordance with the terms of the Palestine-Syria Boundary Convention of 1920. This area contains twenty villages with a population of nearly 9,000. It includes Tel-el-Ivadi, the ancient Dan, and its inclusion has restored to Palestine her biblical boundaries “from Dan even unto Beersheba.”

Two:

Although Trans-Jordan is under an administration separate from that of Palestine, this Report would be incomplete without a summary, however brief, of events in that territory. It forms part of the same Mandatory Area; its Government is under the general superintendence of the High Commissioner for Palestine; it demands, indeed, no small share of his attention...

...When the war ended, Trans־Jordan found itself within the administrative area which had been entrusted to His Highness the Amir Faisal, the third son of King Hussein of the Hejaz; his capital was at Damascus. In July 1920, the Amir came into conflict with the French authorities, who exercise the Mandate for Syria, land left the country. At that moment Trans-Jordan was left politically derelict. The frontier between the two Mandatory zones, as agreed between Great Britain and France, cut it off from Syria, but no authority had been exercised from Palestine. The establishment of a direct British administration was not possible, since Trans-Jordan was part of the extensive area, with regard to which a premise had been given by the British Government in 1915, in the course of negotiations with the Hejaz, that Arab independence would be favoured there. Nor would His Majesty's Government have been prepared, in any case to send armed forces to maintain an administration. These conditions having arisen soon after my arrival in Palestine, I proceeded to Trans-Jordan in August 1920. I held a meeting with the leading inhabitants, and, as no centralised government was at that time possible, I took steps to establish local Councils in the three districts into which the country is divided by its natural features. These Councils assumed the administration, of affairs, with the .assistance of a small number of British officers, who were sent from Palestine for the purpose. A few months later, His Highness the Amir Abdulla, the second son of King Hussein, arrived in Trans־Jordan from the Hejaz. He had with him a small force, and he expressed hostile intention with regard to the French authorities in Syria, The Colonial Secretary, Mr. Churchill, was at that time in Palestine. A conference with the Amir was held at Jerusalem, and an agreement made, under which the Mandatory Power recognised him, for a period, as administrator of Trans-Jordan with the condition that any action hostile to Syria must be abandoned. In 1922, the Amir visited London; the arrangement was confirmed

Jordan is part of historic Palestine.
^

What's With the Waqf?

Being reported there's a crisis between the Jordanian Endowments [Waqf] and the Jerusalem Endowments [Waqf] Department ... and threats of separation?

the Jordanian Awqaf sent a delegation to occupied Jerusalem to cancel the contracts of all employees and the work of new contracts...the staff rejected the wording of the new contracts being unfair to them, while the Waqf as represented by its director in Jerusalem, Azzam al-Khatib, said anyone who refuses to sign will be dismissed

Seems the employees view their role as on of "protecting Al-Aqsa Mosque and confronting the settlers".

In addition to duration of their work contracts and other items, there is a demand regarding a  deduction for Jordanian health insurance, which they do not benefit by forcing Jerusalemites to the Israeli health insurance, and turn it into an optional item for those who wanted them.

The Jerusalem Waqf responded saying,

"We consider ourselves the people of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which has always sponsored Islamic institutions and trusteeship in the city of Jerusalem and caring staff and workers in the endowments of Jerusalem in various means of support and improve the functional and living conditions for them, which the most recent of which was the issuance of a Royal Decree to improve the salaries of employees and to grant a financial reward of one month's salary for each year of service. "

A meeting was held in the office of the Director General of the Jerusalem Waqf on October 15th in the presence of the Assistant Director General of the Jerusalem Endowments, the Finance Manager and the Director of Human Resources.

So, is the tension financial, religious or political?

(H/T=RRR)

^

Jordan: Israel High Court of Justice Has No Right to Adjudicate the Temple Mount

Google translated from this Arabic-language web news site:

"Awqaf" denounces a judicial ruling recognizes Talmudic prayers at the Haram A-Sharif

03-09-2018 

Saraya - The Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs condemned the decision of the Supreme Court of Israel, which "responded to the request submitted by the extremist Israeli society (the Temple Mount Faithful of the alleged temple) to be granted the right to perform prayers in the mosques of Al Aqsa Mosque." [no one wants to pray inside a mosque]

"This decision is rejected and there is no authority or sovereignty over the Al-Aqsa Mosque because it does not have the authority to do so," Abu al-Basal said in a press statement. "The Al-Aqsa Mosque is a pure Islamic mosque by decree. We warn of the consequences of any decision by the occupation authorities' to harm the Islamic Al-Aqsa Mosque, influenced by the extreme right-wing parties that seek to stir the feelings of Muslims all over the world, leading to the outbreak of religious wars In the region has long been warned." The occupation authorities are displaying political adolescence in order to achieve political goals and electoral interests desperate...

He added that the decision of the Israeli occupation court to allow Jewish extremists to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque "will constitute a change to the historical and religious situation, contrary to international and humanitarian law, and contrary to the decisions of international organizations." This is a flagrant violation of Islam and Muslims worldwide. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the occupying Power in 1994, and a major measure of the historic Hashemite trusteeship over the Islamic and Christian holy sites, "recalling the Hashemite role spanning the ages since the reign of Sharif bin Ali, the founder of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and Talal bin Abdullah the warrior on the walls of Jerusalem with the soldiers of the Jordanian Arab Army, and King Hussein Bin Talal, who founded the Committee for the reconstruction of Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock supervised by Jordanian law Hashemi in 1954, God bless them all, to His Majesty King Abdullah II Based on the implementation of guardianship and care for holy sites in Jerusalem.

H/T=EOZ

^

Chaim Weizmann and TransJordan

Ze'ev Jabotinsky demanded Palestine. All of Palestine. Including TransJordan.

That's what the 1923 Zionist Congress decided:

Trans- and Cis-Jordan are "one historical, geographic and economic unit" and "in accordance with the legitimate demands of the Jewish people", the Congress expects that an expression of such will be achieved in Transjordan and eventually it will be carried out.

He declared 

that the opening of Transjordania to Jewish settlement is an essential condition no longer opposed by the Transjordanian Arabs but by the mandatory administration.

“A Transjordania which would have the same population density as Palestine has room for one and a half million immigrants, while a Palestine on both sides of the Jordan would harbor five or six millions,” Jabotinsky asserted. “A political regime which would promote settlement instead of hindering it would in a few decades solve the tragic problem of the Jews without harming their non-Jewish neighbors.”

Jabotinsky's 1935 list of the obligations a friendly mandatory power to the Jews and of the Jews to themselves should included

1. A land reserve for agricultural colonization following a geological survey of uncultivated land in Palestine and a loan for reclaiming land.
2. A similar survey in Transjordania.

If not granted land, then Jews should be able to purchase them.

Unlike Chaim Weizmann, his rival, you may have thought.

Really?

He held, for a while at least, similar views.

Here - 

"Transjordania must be opened to Jewish endeavours"

Earlier, there was a scandal when the Mizrachi representative Yehoshua Farbstein revealed negotiations for purchase of lands on the east side of the Jordan River in which he was quite involved.

And here:

(For Weizmann background, see here.)

How much was Weizmann pro-Transjordan?

Well, he said in May 1926

I openly and explicitly stated here as well as in London that we see in Transjordania the eastern part of Eretz Israel. However, we will build the bridge across the Jordan not with soldiers, we will make our way there by Jewish work, with the plough and not with the sword, only through the good will of the two nations, the Jews and the Arabs, will we cross the Jordan.

He pressed the first High Commissioner Herbert Samuel on the matter and latter replied in a December 20, 1936 item:

Sir Herbert Samuel, first British High Commissioner for Palestine, explained last night why Transjordan was not included with the Holy Land under the Balfour Declaration. He told the Anglo-Palestine Club that a pledge had been given to king Hussein that Transjordan was, like Iraq and Hedjaz, to be included in the Arab domains.

The explanation was indirectly a reply to Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, who recently raised the question in Jerusalem before the Royal Commission now conducting hearings there. Sir Herbert said the Arabs claimed that Palestine was also included in the Arab domains, but the British would not admit this.

And, as this book relates, he valiantly attempted to complete purchases but the British viewed that effort with displeasure and he never asserted the Jewish claim after that, as Herbert Samuel had declared in October 1934:

“The rumors that Transjordania will be annexed to Palestine are unfounded. Transjordania is a part of the British mandatory area and negotiations are now under way between the Government of Great Britain and Emir Abdullah, ruler of Transjordania, as to the conditions and form of administration of the country”

Weizmann eventually wilted.

The story:

History aside, Jordan is Transjordan is part of historic Palestine.

P.S.

Abba Hillel Silver, in January 1935, published a piece entitled "Land Hunger" which include this:

This calls for the opening up of Transjordania at the earliest possible moment for Jewish settlement. On this pivotal issue of Transjordania all the energies of the Zionist movement should now be concentrated. 

^

What the Grand Mufti's Successor Told Prince William (And What Saudi Arabia & Jordan Told Israel)

As reported (in Arabic) at Arab21:

Akrama Sabri reveals to Arabi 21 details of his conversation with Prince William

The head of the Supreme Islamic Committee in the occupied city of Jerusalem and the preacher of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Sheikh Ekrema Sabri, revealed the details of what took place between him and Prince William Duke of Cambridge during a visit last Thursday to the Al-Aqsa Mosque about a week ago.

"Jerusalem belongs to Muslims and Christians, a Palestinian city occupied by the Israeli occupation that is trying to Judaize it, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque belongs to Muslims alone and has nothing to do with the Jews," Sheikh Sabri said.

Sabri told "Arab21" that he had addressed William so: "Britain has historically harmed the Palestinians, and this damage still exists. Britain must remove this damage, because the Balfour Declaration was a disaster for the Palestinians."

On the response of the British Prince to this talk, Khatib al-Aqsa said that the prince "listened, and stressed that Britain's foreign policy is still considered the city of Jerusalem occupied, and did not agree to the American decision on the occupied city of Jerusalem," when US President Donald Trump acknowledged Jerusalem "the capital of Israel," he said.

That theme, of "Judaization", is expressed in an analysis provided by an expert on sites of sanctity, Dr. Najih Bkirat, whose title is Director of Religious Education in Jerusalem, when he elucidated on the "three dimensions behind the daily incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque" in Al-Watan's July 2 issue. 

Claiming that about 16 thousand settlers had "stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque" since the beginning of this year until the beginning of June, and expecting more during the next six months, "especially with the exploitation of Jewish holidays, as well as the so-called 'destruction of the alleged temple'", he said in a press statement: 

"We are facing a phenomenon that has beyond it and that the war of intrusions launched on the Aqsa Mosque can be read in three dimensions. First, removing holiness from all Islamic manifestations and Arab buildings, to replace the "alleged structure" Islamic and remove the place [Al-Aqsa]".

"The second dimension of the incursions, is the process of  'Jewish settlement, a settlement of human worshipers and worshipers and the people of the mosque, "by increasing the number of settlers, which provides them with special rules to guard them and welcome them to encourage them to break into the daily.

...the third dimension, which is the most dangerous, is the conflict over sovereignty and administration, meaning that "despite the presence of Arab tutelage [that is, Jordan's custodianship] and management of the Haram with the presence of more than 500 employees inside and outside the sacred compound, there are attempts to take sovereignty not only outside the gates, but to move to the stage of managing the place, under the pretext of taking care of the intruders, which will entail interference in the administration of endowments and the management of guards, in addition to many other departments.

What also irks them is activity at the Bab al-Rahma [the Golden Gate] Cemetery - the setting of an iron wall south of the cemetery on an endowment land tract overseeing al-Husaini Hill.

For those who follow me, this language of storming, Judaization, taking-over, et al. is almost as incendiary as Hamas kites.

In the meantime, Haaretz reports:

Jordan, Saudis and Palestinians Warn Israel: Erdogan Operating in East Jerusalem Under Your Nose; Israel is 'sleeping at the wheel,' they caution

And Israel Hayom has it so:

In bid to buy influence, Turkey hands out money in east Jerusalem

Turkey wants a foothold.  It is suggested to cut that short.

And Amit Segal on Channel 10 TV just now, as I am writing, informs us that MKs will be allowed to ascend the Temple Mount.  Confirmation: once-every-three-months.

I am guessing if Jordan keeps quiet, Netanyahu will bump Turkey out of Jerusalem entirely, including sponsoring Temple Mount interference.

^