Jordan stays out of 6-Day War

Hierophant · Oct 7, 2004

OTL King Hussein was very reluctant to attack Israel. From Wikipedia

Jordan was reluctant to enter the war. Some claim that President Nasser used the obscurity of the first hours of the conflict to convince King Hussein that he was victorious; he claimed as evidence a radar sighting of a squadron of Israeli aircraft returning from bombing raids in Egypt which he claimed to be Egyptian aircraft enroute to attacking Israel. One of the Jordanian brigades stationed in the West Bank was sent to the Hebron area in order to link with the Egyptians. King Hussein decided to attack.

What if King Hussein decides to sit back and wait a while until victory is assured? Obviously their is going to be discontent with the populous, especially Palestinian, perhaps leading to a civil war. With Anglo-American aid I think Hussein can keep it together eventually. How will the Middle east develop with Israel not occuping and settling the West Bank and East Jerusalem? I think its likely that Hussein will eventually disband the refugee camps and allow for the Palestinians to settle down. OTL even today Palestinians refugees are largely forced to stay in camps by neighboring governments in order to keep them angered at Israel. Not letting them settle leaves them embittered.

If Israel didnt have the West Bank would they keep more of the Sinai for settlement? Would they settle more of the Gaza Strip? How would the West Bank develop without an occupation and infatah?

Grimm Reaper · Oct 7, 2004

The Gaza Strip is either included in the Camp David accord or, following the peace treaty with Jordan, is included as an auxiliary portion of the West Bank.
Not even the most fanatical Zionist considers the Gaza Strip worth having, especially considering the sheer size of the population.

The Israelis will continue to be the victims of terrorist attacks, along with endless liberal carping about the refugees so-called right of return, especially since there is now no chance of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. However the level of violence will be greatly reduced and there will never be such things as the Intifada. The Palestinians are intelligent enough to know the difference between how Israel handles such matters and how even the most moderate Arab regimes handle them.

Historical Note: PLO founded in 1964, PRIOR to Six Day War.

If the Palestinians are never expelled to Lebanon then possibly that country is spared the mayhem that began when they let the Palestinians in following Black September, and Lebanon remains a commerce-oriented and moderately Western society. More likely is that the number arriving is LARGER than OTL.

Historical Note: Be aware that not only had King Hussein permitted an Egyptian officer to take some direction over the Jordanian Arab Legion, but that two battalions of the Egyptian army(elite troops. paras?) were already on the West Bank, so avoiding the war might have been a challenge.

Alayta · Oct 8, 2004

If hussein sits out the war, there would be less violence in the aerea.
A strong problem for the israelis is their feeling of beeing all alone among enemies. If one of the neighbouring countries would have denied an attack, this could ease thid problem for the israelis. The arabic people, realizing that husein, the only ruling descendant of Mohammed, did the right thing, could probably become less anti-israel?
Furthermore, the israelis woud not have the problem of insurgents in the west-bank. Settlers could still move into that (friendly!) aerea by purchasing land, like the zionists did before.

On the other Hand - if israel decides to act preemptive against jordan everything could be much worse now.

Oddball · Oct 8, 2004

Grimm Reaper said:
Not even the most fanatical Zionist considers the Gaza Strip worth having,

Grimm Reaper said:
The Palestinians are intelligent enough to know the difference between how Israel handles such matters and how even the most moderate Arab regimes handle them.

Even though I agree with most of your post, IMHO you'r wrong in both these two cases.

The most fanatical Zionists would even go further, and neighter the Palestinians or their sympathizers have a grasp of how a Arab state would have handled them (this is not meant as a excuse of some Israeli actions though).

Grimm Reaper · Oct 8, 2004

Red, after the events of 1953-54, the Palestinians on the West Bank and in Jordan know only too well how King Husseing would handle an uprising. At the rate the Intifada is going, the Palestinian death toll may equal the toll in Spring of 1954 IN ABOUT ANOTHER 90 YEARS.

Oddball · Oct 8, 2004

Grimm Reaper said:
Red, after the events of 1953-54, the Palestinians on the West Bank and in Jordan know only too well how King Husseing would handle an uprising. At the rate the Intifada is going, the Palestinian death toll may equal the toll in Spring of 1954 IN ABOUT ANOTHER 90 YEARS.

I know. And IMHO history would repeate itself if it hapened today. But early fifthies is a long time ago.

So my statement stand...

Btw, dont get me wrong, Im flying the Israeli flag myself...

aktarian · Oct 10, 2004

Justin Green said:
What if King Hussein decides to sit back and wait a while until victory is assured?

Israel uses some other pretext some years later to invade anyway. Jewish state just can't be without Judea (and Samaria).

Alayta · Oct 10, 2004

aktarian said:
Israel uses some other pretext some years later to invade anyway. Jewish state just can't be without Judea (and Samaria).

Why? if jordan is not agressive, than the westbank is not as imprtant as it was?

Oddball · Oct 10, 2004

aktarian said:
Israel uses some other pretext some years later to invade anyway. Jewish state just can't be without Judea (and Samaria).

This is IMNSHO BS

You better explain what you base your "theory" upon...

Israel have never in history unnprovoked and deliberatly, started a war of annexation.

aktarian · Oct 10, 2004

Alayta said:
Why? if jordan is not agressive, than the westbank is not as imprtant as it was?

1. Israel will want entire Jerusalem.
2. WB is Jewish ancient homeland. Sentimental reasons.
3. Israel will want secure borders no matter who is next door.

Red said:
This is IMNSHO BS You better explain what you base your "theory" upon...

WB is called Judea and Samaria by Iraelis. This is land hat is closely connected to creation of Judaism.

This was said by Netanyahu several years ago.

Red said:
Israel have never in history unnprovoked and deliberatly, started a war of annexation.

Not in last 37 years anyway.

Oddball · Oct 10, 2004

Alayta said:
Why? if jordan is not agressive, than the westbank is not as imprtant as it was?

Added to that, A friendly Jordan is mutch more usefull to Israel than a hostile West Bank. Considering King Hussain will be having a mutch more free hand in containing the Palestinians than Israel, it would acctualy benefit Israel to leave the West Bank to Jordan. And as history shows us, he WILL contain them...

That is a friendly Jordan...

Oddball · Oct 10, 2004

aktarian said:
WB is called Judea and Samaria by Iraelis. This is land hat is closely connected to creation of Judaism.

This was said by Netanyahu several years ago.

Dont worry, I know my history...

Defending a allready achieved stand is quite different than arguing before it have happened.

aktarian said:
Not in last 37 years anyway.

Care to elaborate? Im getting exited about this one...

If you call the six days war unprovoked, you realy are out off line...

aktarian · Oct 12, 2004

Red said:
Care to elaborate? Im getting exited about this one...

If you call the six days war unprovoked, you realy are out off line...

I call it unprovoked. Begin called it unprovoked. Rabin called it unprovoked. Peled called it unprovoked.

Brilliantlight · Oct 12, 2004

aktarian said:
I call it unprovoked. Begin called it unprovoked. Rabin called it unprovoked. Peled called it unprovoked.

If troops massed along the Canadian and Mexican borders with the respective governments openly calling for war the US would be in Mexico City and Toronto quicker then you can whistle "From the Halls of Montezuma"!

aktarian · Oct 12, 2004

Brilliantlight said:
If troops massed along the Canadian and Mexican borders with the respective governments openly calling for war the US would be in Mexico City and Toronto quicker then you can whistle "From the Halls of Montezuma"!

And if US prez would later state that those troops were not a threat and leaders of Canada and Mexico weren't preparing for war'?

Grimm Reaper · Oct 12, 2004

It was certainly provoked. Even the UN admits that the Egyptian blockade at the Straits of Tiran constituted an 'act of war'.

aktarian · Oct 12, 2004

Grimm Reaper said:
It was certainly provoked. Even the UN admits that the Egyptian blockade at the Straits of Tiran constituted an 'act of war'.

What about Israeli incursions and militaristion of demilitarised zones (not to mention "clearing" Palestinian villages and villagers from said zones)? Does that constitute "act of war" as well?

Grimm Reaper · Oct 12, 2004

Things that did not exist do not apply. There were no Israeli incursions into the Sinai Penninsula and certainly no Palestinian communities in the middle of Egyptian desert. The UNEF saw to that until Nassar ordered them out and U Thant complied. Nor would it have been possible to 'clear' a village in Egyptian, Jordanian, or Syrian soil. They would have been back hours after any Israeli soldiers left.

Oddball · Oct 12, 2004

aktarian said:
I call it unprovoked. Begin called it unprovoked. Rabin called it unprovoked. Peled called it unprovoked.

aktarian said:
And if US prez would later state that those troops were not a threat and leaders of Canada and Mexico weren't preparing for war'?

Were have you gotten this from? Could you please direct me to your source, I would like to evaluate this myself, especialy take a look at the context...

Anyway, Its easy to look back in history and say that there realy was'nt any threat afterall when you know the outcome. I have a sneaky suspicion that with groving confidence in the IDF and IAF, so is the selfesteem groving.

Was it an aggressive move? Yes

Was it unprovoked? No

Brilliantlight · Oct 12, 2004

aktarian said:
And if US prez would later state that those troops were not a threat and leaders of Canada and Mexico weren't preparing for war'?

I would want why else on God's green Earth would the Canadians and Mexicans massed on our borders? Massing troops on someone's borders is usually a very clear sign that they are preparing for war. They didn't go through all the trouble and expense of moving troops there just to play shuffleboard!