Why was almost 80% of the Mandate territory of Palestine given to Arab Jordan?
The British underwent a change of heart about the establishment of the Palestine Mandate. The reasons were related to political developments that had taken place in the region between 1920 and 1922. The result was that Abdullah, an Arab from the Hejaz (now Saudi Arabia), was abruptly installed as the Emir of Transjordan by the British. In a British memorandum presented to the League of Nations on 16 September 1922, it was declared that the provisions of the Mandate document calling for the establishment of a Jewish national home were not applicable to the territory known as Transjordan (today called Jordan),thereby severing almost 80% of the Mandate land from any possible Jewish Homeland.
The world seems to have plunged into historical amnesia about this. Most people somehow forgot that Arab claims towards Palestine were already satisfied once. It is the Jews and not the Arabs who suffered from the “game” that was played between the Great Powers after World War I. International lawyer David Fromkin described these events in his book A Peace To End All Peace. Fromkin wrote:
- Britain feared that if Arabs from the territory of British Palestine were to attack the French in Syria, France would retaliate by invading British Palestine.
Thus, Winston Churchill opted for a “Hashemite solution.” He decided to “buy off [Prince] Abdullah: to offer him a position in Transjordan.” Churchill brought a memorandum to the March, 1921 Cairo Conference, which envisaged:
- … establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine west of the Jordan and a separate Arab entity in Palestine east of the Jordan. Abdullah, if installed in authority in Transjordan, could preside over the creation of such an Arab entity.
Churchill disregarded important objections that “since Transjordan had been included by the League of Nations in the territory of [mandated] Palestine, it was not open to Britain unilaterally to separate it from the rest of Palestine.” In order to silence Churchill’s opponents, Britain accepted a “compromise concept of Transjordan: while preserving the Arab character of area and administration to treat it as an Arab province or adjunct of Palestine.”
It is important to indicate that the British Colonial Office regarded “the administrative separation of Transjordan as a merely provisional measure. It [was] decided not to allow Zionism in Transjordan for the present but also not to bar the door against it for all time.” As it often happens, the temporary arrangement “hardened into an enduring political reality and the Arabian prince became a permanent factor of the Palestine Mandatory regime.”
Therefore, 76% of the country was given “to an Arab dynasty that was not Palestinian. The newly created province of Transjordan, later to become the independent state of Jordan, gradually drifted into existence as an entity separate from the rest of Palestine; indeed, today it is often forgotten that Jordan was ever part of Palestine.”
From the moment of its creation, Transjordan was closed to all Jewish migration and settlement, a clear betrayal of the British promise in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and a patent contravention of its Mandatory obligations. Britain continued in its role as Mandatory over the whole of the area of the Mandate from 1922, but Jewish hopes of reconstituting the Jewish National Home were thereafter to be limited within the 23% of Palestine west of the Jordan River, an area that includes whatis today called the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
The League of Nations was dissolved after the conclusion of World War II with the terms of the Mandate still uncompleted, and a new body, the United Nations,was founded on June 26, 1945. Article 80 was specifically placed in the UN Charter to cover Mandates for places like Palestine where the purposes of those Mandates still remained uncompleted at the time of the demise of the League of Nations. Article 80 made it clear that the rights created by the Mandate and the terms of the Mandate were not to be affected.
Palestine continued to be administered by Great Britain under the Mandate until 1946 when Transjordan was granted independence. In one fell swoop, sovereignty in 77% of Palestine had been awarded to the Arabs. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations recommended that both a Jewish State and an Arab State be created in the remainder of the Mandated territory west of the Jordan River, and that Jerusalem be internationalised. Eventhough this was dramatically favorable to the Arabs and punative to the Zionist Jews, the Jews accepted the proposal. The Arabs rejected it.
Cheapest Chicago Cubs Tickets Colorado Rockies Discounted Tickets Discount New York Yankees Tickets
Note: This is a moderated site. Only comments that add value to the discussion will be published.
Have been for this site for a long time, for the history. Copied it. Will sit down and read it after printing it out.
Thank you. I am assuming it is factual.
I wonder why our prime minister, when recently speaking in front of the UN assembly (A.K.A. the whole world) has not started his speaach with those facts (assuming they are facts). that particular act of the British govermnet (de-facto ceding Trans-Jordan from palestine) of subverting the meaning and language of the British mandate, given not by the British government but by the international body of that time, is the pivotal corner from which we Israelis should start counting the loss of space and land. there is a huge difference between concensual international decision and a unilateral decision, un-authorised by any body other than the British policy makers of that time.
I am very pleased to discover this site, http://www.palestinefacts.org. I would like to refer your readers to the book, THE LEGAL FOUNDATION AND BORDERS OF ISRAEL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW by Howard Grief. The book is available from Amazon.com in the English version; there may be a Hebrew version as the book is published by Mazo Publishers Jerusalem, Israel.
In response to Amos Shvueli above, I would suggest that his question can be asked of every Israeli public official and Diaspora Jewish leader. I will go further to suggest that it will take a popular campaign to bring the Israeli government and the Israeli people, along with Diaspora Jews around the world, to recognize the importance of the San Remo Resolution of 1920 that expressly prohibits the Mandatory authorities from make such important, not insignificant, changes to the International Agreement of the Great Powers at the San Remo Conference. Yes, Great Britain is to this day, in violation of International Law by their actions in creating Transjordan, for what ever reason, and then further violating their Mandate by restricting Jewish immigration. I am preparing an outline of numerous “starting points” for future public statements and negotiations concerning the Rights of the Jewish People based on the grant of rights by the Great Powers. Jerusalem is another example of a right recognized as part of the “reconstituted historical homeland of the Jewish people.” I am asking that the managers of this site and its followers read Howard Grief’s book and that this dialogue continue.
Dear Sir,
What you call facts is a great misunderstanding. Jews depend on what is called a “divine promise” which is not valid for the most of humanity. By your claim any right can be taken out by any body or group depending on myth. By this claim you put more than ten million people under suffering and scattering as if you are repeating your own story. Palestine was inhabited even before your ancestors were accepted as honored guests by the local people of Palestine. So historically, I don’t think you have any claim in Palestine and even from religious point of view, Jews now are the least religious people on globe. why don’t you speak the truth and ease the suffering of innocent people and go back to those who tortured you in Europe and claim your lost rights. All the time you have been enjoying good life among Arabs and Muslims and now you are paying them back wrongly.
If Jordan should fall to the muslim brotherhood, then issues like this need to be ironed out. We should at that point go back to the San Remo Agreement designating Jordan as Palestine because that’s what it is. Jordan is Palestine – that infact is what it was set up for. The British Foreign Office have got to be forced to admit this in the International Courts.
So, what if the British would have decided to keep the whole of Transjordan a place for the Jewish Home? Would this mean that the whole of Palestine (todays Israel+Jordan) would be Israel today? Of course not! With relatively even more Arabs around then just in the western part, the Jewish population would never have been large enough to create their own state. They would have had no choice as to live under the Arab kings and try to gain influence through other ways then democracy as this would never exist.
I also don’t know if the Zionists were seriously interested in any place across the Jordan river. Also, all they were promised in the Balfour Declaration was a ‘Jewish Home,’ without explaining what that was, what size, what form, including which places, etc. I also do not read about any protests from Jews about being held out of Transjordan, or even thrown out because they were already there. Were Zionists actually interested in that part as it holds hardly biblical places of jewish interest?
Before the White Paper, all settlement took place in todays Israel and none in (Trans)Jordan and I think there was a good reason for that. I never read anything about Israel being a fertile and profitable part of the Levant, but is that not the main reason why so many people wanted to be there, especially after the Zionists did their best to bring its potency to flourish? But despite of its fertility, it took tons of hardship to build up something there, fighting malaria, heat, misfortune, etc. I could not imagine Zionist settlers wanting to do that in the Jordan desert. Besides all the biblical claims, the area of todays Israel is simply the best place to be in the area, given the climate and the soil. All the poor Arabs have is desert and oil. You only need to take the bus from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and then to the Dead Sea to understand this. Beyond Jerusalem, there is only desert. Israel is the green balcony at the Mediterranean Sea.
And then, why were the Zionists so eager to accept the UN-proposal when they knew that they just had lost 76% of the country that they could have had? Were they really that humble? Come on! To me, this sounds like changing history to make Israel look better in the present (which they do not need!), but correct me if I am wrong!