October 13, 2012
Somehow in Prince Hassan’s mind a 19 year occupation of the territory grants the Hashemites sovereign rights, whereas Israel’s 45 years of control means nothing. And who exactly promised Judea and Samaria to the Hashemites?
|(Prince Hassan bin Talal)
(MEMRI via israpundit.com) In a meeting with Palestinian citizens in Jordan, Prince Hassan bin Talal, Jordanian crown prince between 1965 and 1999, made an unusual statement, saying that the territories of the West Bank are actually part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. He added that the two state solution is irrelevant in the current stage.
The Jordanian website Almustaqbal-a.com reported that the speech by the Jordanian prince took place at an October 9 meeting with Palestinians from Nablus, members of the Ebal charity organization. The meeting was organized by Jordanian Senate President Taher Al-Masri, who is himself a Palestinian from Nablus. During his speech, Prince Hassan said that he intends to visit other organizations in Jordan that represent West Bank residents.
The report stated that “Prince Hassan stressed that the West Bank is part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which included both banks of the [Jordan] River” and added that Hassan “did not personally oppose the two state solution, but that this solution is irrelevant at the current stage.”
 He later added that even if the two state solution does not materialize, there are other options. According to Hassan, “both sides, Arab and Israeli, no longer speak of a political solution to the Palestinian problem.” He implied that even the Oslo Accords had met their end, and said that Arab losses from the Accords are estimated at $12 billion. The report added: “The attendees understood that Prince [Hassan] is working to reunite both banks of the [Jordan] River, and commended him for it.”
Prince Hassan later added: “The unity that existed between the west and east banks for 17 years… was arguably one of the best attempts at unity that ever occurred in the Arab [world]… I hope that I do not live to see the day when Jordan, or the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, relinquishes the land occupied in 1967 by the IDF, since it would bring us all to witness the humiliating end… These lands, which were occupied as part of the 1967 lands, including East Jerusalem, were promised to us, and nowadays we speak of them as Area C…”
Prince Hassan tried to clarify his statements and said that in terms of sovereignty and law, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan in 1948, and that everyone, including the Palestinians, agrees that Jordanian law is the basis for the demand to reclaim them from Israel. However, he added, Jordan ceased negotiating for these lands with Israel following a request by the Palestinian Authority. Hassan said: “If, God forbid, we were to recognize the Jordan River as a border with Israel, then every element hostile to Jordan – and there are many – could claim that Jordan has failed in its demand [to restore] Arab rights.”
In an attempt to further emphasize Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank, Prince Hassan said that Ahmad Al-Shukeiri, who founded the PLO in Jerusalem in 1964, was actually “a guest of King Hussein in Jerusalem.” According to Hassan, “it must be clear that Jordanian legal and sovereign responsibility [over Jerusalem] was [decided] by our grandfathers when they fought atop Jerusalem’s walls.”
Prince Hassan stressed that Jordan should be a top priority for Palestine, and Palestine a top priority for Jordan.
 Albaladnews.net, October 9, 2012.
 It should be mentioned that other Jordanian websites that reported on Prince Hassan’s speech claimed that he had said: “I personally oppose the two state solution.” However, in a video of Hassan’s speech, he clearly expresses “disagreement with the elimination or disappearance of the two state solution.”
 Almustaqbal-a.com, October 11, 2012
if this is so, then I suppose then Jordan can legalize their Palestinians as citizens… right? …not likely
If Israel annexes the territory, the issue of Jordanian citizenship for the Arab residents is a negotiable option, but this certainly would not involve granting the Jordanians sovereignty.
July 19, 2011
The Guardian reports that the ‘Palestinians’ may be looking for a way out of the ‘statehood’ trap
Some Palestinian observers believe the PA leadership, despite its robust statements committing to the UN approach, may also be quietly seeking a way to “climb down the tree“.
A Kuwaiti paper reported last week that Jordan will vote against the creation of a ‘Palestinian’ reichlet if it comes up for a vote in the UN General Assembly in September.
On the other hand, Jordan is nearing a crossroads in its attitude toward the Palestinians. In my book, The Political Legacy of King Hussein (2004), I analyze the advantages that Hussein could have found in losing of the West Bank to Israel.
First and foremost, Israel would be in charge of resolving the Palestinian issue, and the Palestinians would not be in a position to claim Jordan as a Palestinian state.
In recent months, Israel seems to have divorced itself from its traditional policy of resisting a Palestinian state at all costs.
In the Jordanian mind, this translates to a position that might endanger the very existence of the Hashemite Kingdom, as well as the 1994 Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty, and a de-facto abandonment of the traditional friendship between the two countries that has survived many crisis since 1960.
Jordan has tried (and usually succeeded) in letting Israel lead the way against the creation of a Palestinian state. However, Israel is now seen as being too weak to halt a Palestinian independence process. The creation of such a state would put Jordan’s very existence in jeopardy: The PLO is formally and spiritually committed to taking over all of mandatory Palestine – i.e., Jordan, the territories and Israel. Considering that Israel would hold its ground within the 1967 lines, the next target of a small, economically weak, irredentist Palestinian state would be Jordan – a country that has already served as a battleground for the PLO in 1970-71.
If, indeed, this is the current Jordanian reading, it follows that the US and Israel are seen as weak players that cannot be trusted to support the kingdom.
That reading sounds pretty accurate to me. Read the whole thing.
It would be easier for everyone if the Arabs just clarified the words of Mohammad and said Palestine was not the goal. The goal is to kill the Jews in Israel because Islamic texts say that is what will happen.
September 6, 2010
The view from my family’s living room takes in a tremendous vista. We live on a hill with much of northern Jerusalem within sight. When journalists have come to our home, and there have been dozens such visits in the past five years, I routinely try to draw their attention to the shell of a building – a very large building – off to the left side. It’s on a hill somewhat higher than ours. I tell them to look carefully, to pick out the large exposed cement pillars, the enormous flat roof. I tell them that this is a building site that has remained essentially untouched, certainly unfinished, for more than forty years. It was intended to be the palace of Jordan’s King Hussein, constructed by him as a kind of celebration of nearly two decades of domination by the ruling Hashemite family of the city below, of Jerusalem. Indeed of the entire region that these journalists and their editors and colleagues have grown accustomed to calling the Israeli Occupied Territories.
I have not yet met a single journalist or press
photographer or film crew or stringer or editor who admits to
knowing about Hussein’s partly-constructed palace or what it means.
The modern Kingdom of Jordan, formerly known as Transjordan, represents approximately 78 percent of the original Palestine Mandate and was founded in 1949 following the War of Independence between Israel and the surrounding Arab states. There is no difference, ethnically-speaking, between Arabs who lived east of the Jordan river in that portion of the Palestine Mandate which eventually became Jordan and those Arabs who originally lived west of the of the Jordan river in the area commonly known today as the “West Bank”. Even demographers
do not distinguish between them.
But professional propagandists
who wish to draw an artificial distinction between these groups of Arabs for the sake of political expediency or to push a particular agenda, do
attempt to bifurcate them:
But Jordan’s leading news website www.Ammonnews.net doesn’t shy away from hectoring the government over misappropriation of funds by senior officials or highlighting fault lines between the country’s Palestinian population and indigenous Jordanians.
Note that “indigenous Jordanians” are simply those (Palestinian) Arabs who happened to be living in the eastern portion of the Mandate when the country was founded. Notwithstanding, the Jordanian government often discriminates unfairly between its Arab citizens of different tribal ancestry and has recently revoked the citizenship of thousands of subjects who originally came to Jordan from the West Bank. Reuters doesn’t mention this and suggests, misleadingly, that such deprivations are only now being considered:
Hattar’s ‘Allofjordan’ was one of the few outlets, along with ‘Ammonnews’, to publish statements of normally apolitical ex-army officers asking King Abdullah to revoke citizenship of thousands of Jordanians of Palestinian origin, echoing the same fears the kingdom could turn into a Palestinian state.
Would Reuters be as taciturn if the Israeli government had stripped its Arab population of citizenship? Rhetorical question.
The damage caused to us Israelis by the shallow and
cowardly practice of journalism of this sort came home to me quite
sharply in an encounter of which I was part in Europe. In February
2004, I was invited to join a small delegation of Israelis, all of
us victims of terror because of things done to us or our loved ones
by terrorists. The purpose of the delegation was to go to a
first-of-its-kind event – an international congress of victims of
terror from many countries, organized in a major European capital
and intended to provided a voice for the victims – a voice, as all
of us know, that is rarely heard. And in particular to let the
voices of Israel’s victims be heard.
In the week before our departure from Israel, word
came back from the organizers of the conference, hearing that we
were about to arrive. They said: If you plan to come as a delegation
representing Israel, it would be better not to come. If you insist,
then you will be invited to pay at the door and to take a seat in
the audience, but we have no desire for you to speak or to be
official recognized. It would be better for everyone if you stayed