Revision as of 20:27, 1 September 2024 editArminden (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users55,996 edits →Thanks to the author. Ref problem.: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:58, 2 September 2024 edit undoUnspokenPassion (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users832 edits →Thanks to the author. Ref problem.: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
::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. ] (]) 21:28, 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. ] (]) 21:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::Hi {{hidden ping|UnspokenPassion}}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? ] (]) 20:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC) | :::Hi {{hidden ping|UnspokenPassion}}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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:58, 2 September 2024
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Jordanian Option art. is needed
An article on the Jordanian Option is needed.
- The Jordanian Option preceded the Allon Plan or was formulated by others than Allon.
- The Allon Plan was initially NOT supporting the Jordanian Option, but opposed it. So DISTINCT from it.
- 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."
- p. 4:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)