Pakistan and the West Bank
A research note
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10280196 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sanford R Silverburg (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1983 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 261-263 |
| Publication date | 1983-04-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Middle Eastern Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0026-3206 • E-ISSN: 1743-7881 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/00263208308700547 |
| OpenAlex | W2240769799 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 5 |
Following hostilities between Transjordan and the newly-established state of Israel a cease-fire agreement was reached on 11 March 1949.1 Accordingly the undemarcated boundary was established defacto where the respective militaries held positions. The cease-fire agreement was then cemented by an armistice agreement.2 By that latter arrangement, Transjordan came to administer the territory known as the 'West Bank'. Beginning in November 1948 Transjordan's King Abdullah began a campaign to encourage Arab Palestinians to request the annexation of their areas of Palestine to the Kingdom of Transjordan.3 On 1 October 1948 Abdullah convened the First Palestinian Congress in Amman, followed two months later by a similar congress, this time in Jericho, whereby Palestinian Arab notables requested the monarch to annex the West Bank to Transjordan. This action was ratified by the Transjordanian parliament on the seventh of the month, although formal annexation did not occur until April 1950.4 In the meantime, Israeli-Jordanian talks were underway, secretly, dealing with frontier delineation.5 The point at issue in this note is the oft-cited reference that the annexation was recognized by both Great Britain and Pakistan. While there is no question as to the British action,6 no original source for the Pakistani action has come to light. The significance of our concern has a two-fold importance: there is the question of sovereignty in that part of Palestine that remained outside Israel proper in accordance with the 1949 Israel-Jordan armistice agreement. Secondly, the pure historical question is yet to be answered. The origin of the assertion that Pakistan gave recognition to Abdullah's move, as best as can be determined, is found in two sources. Subsequent to the 1967 ArabIsraeli conflict, Dr Julius Stone, the prominent Australian international law authority, published a pamphlet, 'The Middle East Under Cease-Fire: Notes on the Legal Position Before the Security Council in October 1967'.7 In his discussion of the Jordanian legal position of jurisdiction over the West Bank, he was moved to claim it 'an annexation recognized as valid only by the UK and Pakistan'.8 However, the most cited reference is an article by the Israeli international lawyer and diplomat, Yehuda Blum.9 It was presumably his research that permitted him to write: 'In fact, there are only two States who have recognized the extension [that is the annexation of the West Bank] of the territory of the Kingdom of Jordan, namely the United Kingdom and Pakistan.0 Interestingly enough, he supports the British act by the relevant reference while an additional source given is Stone's publication, noted above, thus making the question rather circular. Correspondence with these two major sources provided essentially nothing new. Stone offered three secondary sources noted elsewhere in this note that might shed some light on the point. Ambassador Blum, on the other hand, while not being able to convey any substantial information was able to offer a potential clue for further research. He noted in his correspondence that the British were, in fact, the only power to recognize the Transjordanian act 'at the time of annexation'.'2 The Pakistani act of recognition according to Blum occurred sometime later in connection with an official visit by King Husayn to Pakistan.'3 What becomes fascinating is how this unsupported statement has since been accepted and disseminated in a variety of publications and forms. A standard international law text conveys the message in a discussion of belligerent occupation.'4
Ancient history · Palestine · Political science · West bank · Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · History · Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
| Citations per year | 0.05 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 1987 - 2005 (19) |
| Highly cited | No |