Talk:Jordanian option

Jordanian Option art. is needed

An article on the Jordanian Option is needed.

1. The Jordanian Option preceded the Allon Plan or was formulated by others than Allon.
2. The Allon Plan was initially NOT supporting the Jordanian Option, but opposed it. So DISTINCT from it.
3. The concept of the Jordanian Option long survived the demise of the Allon Plan and is still invoked until present time.

Arminden (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to the author. Ref problem.

UnspokenPassion, I need to thank you for the great job you've done here. I've learned a lot from your excellent and concise overview.

Regarding Shamir, Sharon & Co.: sorry for the tone of my edit summary, I forgot who wrote the article in the first place. I guess you have a hard copy of Ashton's book, can you please look it up? Thank you and all the best, Arminden (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden, thank you for your kind words. I’m glad you found the overview useful. No worries about the edit summary. I’ve looked up Ashton’s book, and here are the relevant quotes:

• p. 4: "The Likud Party’s accession to power in Israel in 1977 brought with it the more pressing danger posed by their ‘Jordan is Palestine’ slogan. During his final two decades on the throne, what Hussein most feared was an Israeli attempt to resolve the Palestinian problem by driving the Palestinians out of the occupied West Bank and into Jordan, overthrowing his regime in the process."
• p. 23: "The aggressive anti-PLO strategy pursued by the Likud government was coupled with a revival of the ‘Jordan is Palestine’ slogan, which was favoured by major figures within the government including Sharon and Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir."
• p. 253: "For the Israeli right, the King’s disengagement was a political opportunity, giving further sustenance to the ‘Jordan is Palestine’ argument. With the ‘Jordanian option’ favoured by the Labour Party now dead and buried, it argued that a large-scale ‘transfer’ of Palestinians from the West to the East Bank of the Jordan was a more attractive approach. To guard against just such a possibility, Hussein announced that West Bank Palestinians would no longer be considered Jordanian citizens. Additional measures taken by the Jordanian authorities to try to discourage the movement of West Bankers into Jordan included changing the five-year Jordanian passports held by West Bank Palestinians into two-year travel documents."

Best regards, UnspokenPassion (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed, this truly helps. What I mainly take from it though, is an essential point, which isn't presented visibly & strongly enough (bold, in the intro and the headings, and in the text): namely that the Labour Party's 'Jordanian option' meant Jordan reintegrating most of the West Bank, while Likud's 'Jordan is Palestine' position involved a large-scale 'transfer' of Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan and the creation of 'Greater Israel' containing biblical Judea & Samaria. These 2 positions don't have almost anything in common. The article must be adapted in order to reflect this. Arminden (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi ​UP. I don't get it: you added some 1500 bits' worth of apparently very good, informative material, and then removed it all again. Why? Arminden (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, yes, it was a mistake, a technical glitch. I've re-added the material, thanks for catching that. UnspokenPassion (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@UnspokenPassion: So you chose to revert all my changes just because you disagreed with the addition of the two words of "in Israel"? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Move

To be moved to Jordan option as more common name than Jordanian option. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Please present proof. Arminden (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Jordanian option is more common, that's not really the problem with this article tho. I will sort it out in due course, meanwhile no-one is going to care much about this long dead idea. Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden: @Selfstudier: Google results; Jordan option 111k, Jordanian option 18k results. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Jordan option is picking up a lot of other stuff. Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

When adding "Israel" to the search: Jordan option gets 10k results and Jordanian option gets 6k. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware but if you actually go looking for sources, you will find Jordanian option comes up more often. Eg: https://www.runi.ac.il/media/5ivdgzib/2831jordanoption2004.pdf

"The classic “Jordanian Option” had been a codeword in Israeli politics for a way to circumvent the existential national conflict between two claimants to the same land by re-engineering it as a border dispute to be resolved between

two existing sovereign states, in conjunction with a subordinate Palestinian representation. Its primary source was Israel’s refusal to deal with the PLO. The classic “Jordanian Option” had lost its relevance in light of the wide acceptance of Palestinian nationalism and national claims in the international community and the Arab world, while the Israeli rationale was canceled with the Oslo accords." Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Or in Slater's Mythologies without end for something recent (2020). Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, now we have an Israeli source saying it is an Israeli idea, and that it is a moot one. Still haven't seen any counter sources disputing this. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, it initially became moot but then the stupid idea keeps rearing its ugly head. Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Not because they believe it's achievable (explicitly mentioned in Nentanyahu's memoirs), but as a good distraction and delegitimisation tool. Oh well, I can't find even find any comprehensive and critical sources about this. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Scope

@Arminden: Obviously Jordan would not call its own political considerations and decisions as the "Jordan option"; this is an Israeli term coming from Israeli political considerations, regardless of whether it was supported or considered by the Trump administration or any other government: "The Jordanian option is an Israeli term, describing an Israeli political strategy: Israel, having failed to find an acceptable Palestinian negotiating partner, willing and able to settle the Palestinian dimension of Israel's conflict with the Arabs." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It's the term chosen on Wiki, not my invention. Obviously based on existing RS literature.

King Hussein, not Trump. It has been consistent Hashemite policy since the Arab Revolt to unite as much Arab land & people under the rule of the dynasty, with the West Bank being pursued for the longest time. If Arab or Western sources have focused on a specific name for this policy, i.e. its WB-related aspect, pls bring it up and I'll be happy to see it included, or even replace the current title. But is there one?

There are Jordanian aspects and West Bank Palestinian aspects to it as much as there are Israeli ones. And I'm talking of support, not of opposition. So we can agree on different terms should you offer widely used alternatives, but not on declaring it a purely Israeli concept. You might be unaware of the Jordanian moves, or disagree with them, but that's not relevant here.

N.B.: I have pointed out that there are actually 2 very different Israeli concepts dealt with here, and edited in order to make that very visible. Only the 1st one had various degrees of Jordanian and Palestinian backing. So I don't think your probem is primarily with me.

One can of course discuss only the post-67 aspects, when Israel, by occupying the WB, thought to have the stronger cards, but the topic, however we choose to call it, is older than that. So yes, the definition, i.e. deciding what we're talking about, is the main issue, as always. The name is a mere result of the outcome of this discussion. Arminden (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden: You are confusing different ideas. Jordan's takeover of West Bank in 1948, or King Hussein's attempts to retake the West Bank 1967-1988, are obviously not considered part of the Israeli-termed and promoted "Jordan option". These are Jordanian decisions, not Israeli proposals. I have provided an RS saying it is an Israeli term and idea, and I have not seen any RS-based counterargument to that in your four paragraph response. Here are two more RS saying specifically this is an Israeli idea:

• 1988 LA Times: "The king’s relations with the Palestinians have always been ambiguous and indecisive. When he proposed a federated Arab kingdom of two autonomous regions --Jordan and Palestine--in 1972, a scheme nearly identical to today’s so-called Jordan option, it sparked protest demonstrations throughout the West Bank." It is clear from this RS that the Jordan option was articulated in the 1980s.
• 2010 Al Jazeera: "Over the years, two variations of the “Jordan option” have developed. The first is based on “transferring” the Palestinian population of the East Bank and even Israel “proper” to Jordan, where the Palestinian homeland is to be established. The second scenario is based on establishing a Palestinian state in Jordan, which would also include the Arab-populated areas of the West Bank." Clearly both far-right Israeli proposals and ideas.

Makeandtoss (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Essentially the Jordanian option(s) died in 1988 when Jordan gave up it's claims. Arguably they died before that in 1972. Everything after that is Israeli (right wing typically + Trump) Jordan options, including the defunct Jordan is Palestine nonsense, see also Three-state solution. Although I don't object to having some sort of article about this, we did manage without one for a long time until it was resurrected by an Icewhiz sock. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

M&T, I'm not confusing anything. It's all part of the same concept, promoted by different actors. If we did have a separate article about smth like "Takeover and/or (con)federation projects between Jordan and the West Bank & East Jerusalem, with and without Israeli input", I'd just link somehow this page to that and be quiet; but we don't, and for obvious reasons, the awkward and huge title being one of them.

It's one topic. Neither Israel, nor the kings of Jordan would have come up with such plans independently from each other, and all West Bank mayors except the mayor of Nablus supported it at some point for good reasons. King Hussein was and is well respected by many, so is Shimon Peres, and both worked at some version for a while. Sock or not, the latest edits are based in great part on Avi Shlaim, who's hugely critical of Zionism, and Moshe Shemesh, a professor at Ben Gurion U I never heard anyone attacking for right-wing leanings or excesses of any kind. Someone like Ilan Pappe has no problem in citing Shemesh's research results into Jordanian-Israeli relations and taking them at face value. So clear facts, RS, clean historical analysis.

Yes, the "Jordanian option" is dead for now, but history will tell, and "Jordan is Palestine" is the wet dream of Jewish Israeli extremists, fascists,... have your pick. But that has nothing to do with the encyclopedic need to present the history of these two concepts, their evolution and variants, including those who supported them - in Israel, but also in Jordan and on the West Bank. One may hate, dispise, mock, choose (or be taught) to ignore this or that -- or love & embrace it; history doesn't change because of that, just sub-standard historiography does.

P.S.: If you insist to be outraged by regional confederation proposals, please take time to read about Monte Melkonian. An Armenian patriot and Communist, he understood about the danger of fighting against overwhelming odds for independence. Once his favourite option (post-Soviet confederation) lost the contest and the opposite decision was taken, he fought bravely and died fighting in Nagorno Karabakh, helping to gain a short-term victory turned complete national catastrophe after a few short decades. All small(ish) nations disappear at times if they attempt to break free, with some surviving and reemerging, and some staying gone for good. This goes for Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan, Lebanon, maybe Ukraine, Armenia, Romania, and so forth. One more reason not to dismiss any concept of pooling together resources and power, especially in times when nationalists are going berserk. Don't count too much on the UN. Arminden (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden: Again, this seems as a case of a personal opinion trumping RS. Where is the RS supporting your claim that the Jordan option encompasses Jordanian actions prior to 1980s? I am not outraged by anything and I would suggest avoiding personalizing this and focusing on how the Jordan option is an exclusively Israeli term to solve an Israeli problem. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the scope should be "(Israel's) Jordan option" (rename article to that) and "Jordanian options" should be a background section to explain where the Israeli versions come from (and why they won't just die and go away). Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Jordan and Jordanian options are the same in RS, i.e. Israeli terms. But yes, I agree in that the Jordanian actions/decisions should be a background to the article whose scope is about Israel's Jordan option; not that Jordanian action's are part of the article's scope. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, and to you both: please take the time to truly read both the existing article and what I'm saying here, at least what's hihlighted.

M&T, I offered you the benefit of trust, please don't keep on narrowing down the question to what seems to you a convenient rhetorical argument. But since you insist:

1. The topic is the concept of combining Jordan and the West Bank Palestinians into some kind of union. Not just Israel's push for it. If we already had a main article covering the larger topic, then one on the Zionist/Israeli subset would be a discussion worth having, but there's only this one article, so no discussion needed on that. Nobody writes an article on the elephant trunk when there's none about the elephant.
2. Sources: You keep on asking for RS, and it's embarrassing, because the existing bibliography is offering all you need. To quote from the most Arab sounding source, Bani Salameh & El-Edwan (2016), "The identity crisis in Jordan: historical pathways and contemporary debates": "For him (Prince Abdallah), Paestine and Trans-Jordan were one..." And on, and on, and on.
3. Title: I don't care much, as I wrote already: bring up another one which is as widely accepted and we can talk. Making one up though isn't a great option. I could then suggest "The Jordanian option for the Palestinians" (to avoid using the term "Palestinian question", because talking of "national questions" has an unholy past), and we'd be stuck in all the expected counter-arguments. The current title is as neutral and comprehensive as one may hope for, it's a boat we shouldn't rock, but again, show other, good solutions and I'll be happy to be persuaded. The problem here is not the title. Cheers,

Arminden (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

PS: And the article here is already about the elephant, not just the trunk, so calling it "Elephant trunk" would be wrong, dishonest, misleading, POV, silly... Shall I continue? Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden:

1- "The topic is the concept of combining Jordan and the West Bank Palestinians into some kind of union" No, it is not. Jordanian option is an Israeli term as per RS, therefore, the topic is the Israeli concept of combining Jordan and the West Bank Palestinians into some kind of union after having diminished possibility of a two state solution in the wake of its construction of settlements post-1967. The scope of the article beings in the Israeli dilemma of how to keep the land and build settlements while avoiding being an apartheid state; this is obviously not applicable to pre-1967.

2- "For him (Prince Abdallah), Paestine and Trans-Jordan were one..." that has nothing to do with Israel's Jordan option, which as elaborated above, rose post-1967 not before it.

3- I am not opposed to the title, but the more accurate title in RS is "Jordan option", and this would be an uncontroversial move given a quick google search results. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

M&T, this is YOUR suggestion for a definition. As I've said before, if we'd already have the wider topic of Jordan and WB united in some way treated in an article, we'd have the freedom to split a subset regarding JUST the Israeli plans from the Jordanian ones into a spin-off article. But we don't. So rather than wagging the dog by its tail, i.e. twisting the article to fit the (way you interpret the) current title, I am strongly suggesting that you give the article whatever title you can find that fits the ENTIRE idea of union, whoever supported it in the past or present. I can imagine that the current title might do the job for that purpose too, but honestly I don't know.

In Late Ottoman times and to a degree under the Brits, there was a lot of movement over the Jordan Valley, see the Nabulsis of Salt for instance or the Bedouin tribes straddling the divide. This to touch just on the more recent pre-48 history. Ties were and are strong. Those proposing the idea for Hashemite monastic reasons, and later for mainly right-wing and messianic neo-Zionist reasons, took advantage and made use of such well-founded arguments. Water, roads, trade, resources etc. are additional reasons, not just for a JO-WB confederation of some kind, but an at least economic one with Israel too at some point. Which point now has disappeared far beyond the horizon, along with most reasonable policies in the region. May the guilty parties go the way of the dodo - but they won't. Arminden (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden: My suggestion is backed by numerous RS. Still haven't seen any RS supporting your suggestions. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You insist on not getting my point, which is quite a simple one, so I guess not allowing yourself to. You're talking of a limited concept and googling for the right name. I'm talking of the wider concept, which puts into good perspective the narrower one as well. It also just so happens that the article is already written for the larger concept. Changing the article to fit the title, but actually to fit a POV more convenient to some (I'm not even saying it's you), that's not done , ever, if one respects the platform, the topic, everyone and everything. As I said, change the title, by all means, if you find a more suitable one for the existing article. Sorry, but I'll stop for now, 'cause it doesn't make sense. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

See #Jordanian Option art. is needed but had to wait for an Icewhiz sock to make it...with predictable consequences. What happened to the "Palestinian option"? We should make up an article for that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

We mustn't forget Gaza, however much Israel would like to separate it, that's not going to happen either. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You're back at it, politics & militancy when rational approach is required. Gaza never was and still isn't part of this topic concerning JORDAN, as opposed to Egypt. Concerning the latter, pls see Three-state solution - and in general, pls read and understand articles & discussions before editing. Arminden (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I've read it, I understand it, just more of the usual, keep your advice to yourself if you don't mind. Selfstudier (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Most happy to. Once it starts showing. Time is valuable. Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Editorial

Now that two prominent editors here have been banned as socks, there is clearly a POV issue here, most of the article reads like an editorial, rather than encylopaedia entry, especially the captions and the image choices, to name one example. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a policy that one can use that argument retroactively? I don't think so, but I might be wrong. And who are those two, not that it matters i.m.o.? Arminden (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)