A different Six-Day War?

Yea, I know there are plenty of POD's dealing with this, but I haven't seen this one before...


In reading up on the 1967, I recently learned that the West Bank was administered by (Trans)Jordan up until… well, the Israeli’s kicked them out in the Six-Day War.
The outcome of the Israeli offensive is impressive, to say the least (and won't be tampered with here); so what if we were to change the combatants?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but King Hussein gave in to internal pressure to sign a defensive agreement with Nasser. Within a day of the air offensive beginning, the Jordanians were shelling Jerusalem, and they entered the war. The rest is history.

So, I got to thinking: What if Hussein hadn’t given in whole-hog to internal Palestinian pressure and only made a public show of support for Pan-Arab sentiment, big, fancy speech, and so on. He might not receive the insane welcome of OTL, but he would likely buy enough time.

Next, let’s assume that intel as to just how badly the Israeli’s had beaten the Egyptians get’s to the Jordanians. Such as… they properly ID jets over Israel as Israeli, rather than mistaking them for Egyptian.

So, when things do kick off, we have the Jordanians standing ready, but NOT firing the first shot. Israel still goes after Egypt and Syria, but Jordan?

Would Israel have broken the under-the-table agreement and not gone after Jordan/the West Bank? Would there have been internal collapse if Jordanian-Palestinians see the army holding back?

The pacific in me is inclined to think that the Israelis would have held back; honored the agreement, and not invaded the West Bank.
As such, the Green Line would have held, and the West Bank would have either stayed Jordanian, or eventually gained some autonomy. Perhaps a brighter future?

Thoughts?
 
IIRC whilst East Jerusalem and the West Bank were controlled by Jordan I don't think there were many countries that officially recognised their ownership of them. If Jordan stays out and maintains control of them then it possibly opens up a whole can of worms, for a start the Palestinians are still likely to be pissed which means we could possibly be looking at an alternate Black September three years early. There's also the demographic danger, considering the population sizes of Jordan and the Palestinians in the West Bank, respective birthrates and whatnot, over time they could be looking at a reverse takeover where the Palestinians come to dominate simply by dint of numbers. At the very least it's a threat to the Jordanian character of Jordan.

One rather cynical ploy I came up with when I suggested a similar scenario was for Jordan to recognise these possible threats and plan for them, East Jerusalem is annexed to Jordan proper whilst the West Bank is held as a special territory with the residents being given provisional citizenship. Provisional citizenship doesn't give them access to the full benefits enjoyed by Jordanian citizens and they're mostly 'encouraged' to remain in the West Bank. There is a path to full citizenship but it's really just a way of creaming off the most economically valuable Palestinians - the doctors, lawyers, engineers etc. - whilst leaving the rest in a West Bank zone which has a certain amount of devolved government and is mostly left to itself. The borders between the West Bank, Israel and Jordan are patrolled by the Jordanian armed forces to make sure no-one tries anything foolish and to keep the Israelis sweet they're allowed access to East Jerusalem and the Western Wall via certain border crossings between set times every day with no overnight stays. Over time this proto-Palestinian state gains more powers and eventually the Jordanians decide it's in Jordan's better interests to bid them a fond adieu, with a few provisions, whilst keeping East Jerusalem as an enclave.
 
It stays divided.
Which was better than what happened immediately post '67.

I agree Israel does not attack Jordan and the West Bank remains under Jordan's control.
Which, in the short term, might be very bad for Jordan, but in the long run, might be a good thing.

IIRC whilst East Jerusalem and the West Bank were controlled by Jordan I don't think there were many countries that officially recognised their ownership of them. If Jordan stays out and maintains control of them then it possibly opens up a whole can of worms, for a start the Palestinians are still likely to be pissed which means we could possibly be looking at an alternate Black September three years early. There's also the demographic danger, considering the population sizes of Jordan and the Palestinians in the West Bank, respective birthrates and whatnot, over time they could be looking at a reverse takeover where the Palestinians come to dominate simply by dint of numbers. At the very least it's a threat to the Jordanian character of Jordan.

One rather cynical ploy I came up with when I suggested a similar scenario was for Jordan to recognise these possible threats and plan for them, East Jerusalem is annexed to Jordan proper whilst the West Bank is held as a special territory with the residents being given provisional citizenship. Provisional citizenship doesn't give them access to the full benefits enjoyed by Jordanian citizens and they're mostly 'encouraged' to remain in the West Bank. There is a path to full citizenship but it's really just a way of creaming off the most economically valuable Palestinians - the doctors, lawyers, engineers etc. - whilst leaving the rest in a West Bank zone which has a certain amount of devolved government and is mostly left to itself. The borders between the West Bank, Israel and Jordan are patrolled by the Jordanian armed forces to make sure no-one tries anything foolish and to keep the Israelis sweet they're allowed access to East Jerusalem and the Western Wall via certain border crossings between set times every day with no overnight stays. Over time this proto-Palestinian state gains more powers and eventually the Jordanians decide it's in Jordan's better interests to bid them a fond adieu, with a few provisions, whilst keeping East Jerusalem as an enclave.
I fully agree on the stepping up of the Black September TL. On the other hand, I wonder of Jordanian Palestinians might have seen just how badly Egypt and Syria got spanked, and might have forgiven.
On the otherhand... probably not.

Either way, the political fallout for Hussein would have been catastrophic: even if he hadn't been treatybound to get into it.

Still, I'm inclined to wonder whether the Israeli's would have found some future causus belli to invade and begin setting up settlements, or if the Green Line might have actually held, and the whole Intafada / problems of the 70's and 80's might have been avoided (formation of the PLO and affiliates, the various Red Army factions gaining ground, the various Palestinian based training camps, etc).

Jordan could easily have lost the Monarchy all together (even Hussein probably couldn't have gotten out of that mess), but by sacrificing the King, might have gained more legitimacy in the eyes of the other Arab states. As it was he seemed to swing back and forth in (Palestinian) public perception between either a colaborator with Israel and the West (which he pretty much was), or a Pan-Arab hero. Getting rid of him as a focal point for attention might have settled things down.

And while a reduced rump of the '47 line, at least it would have been a stable, easily definable line that both sides didn't cross. As such, there could have been a much earlier, much more realizable possibility for a long(er) lasting Two State solution.

Am I missing anything here?
 
Top