http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_6b.jpg
‘Iraq al-Amir. © Ammar KhammashAlthough the influence of Greek culture had been felt in Jordan previously, Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Middle East and Central Asia firmly consolidated the influence of Hellenistic culture. The Greeks founded new cities in Jordan, such as Umm Qais (known as Gadara) and renamed others, such as Amman (renamed from Rabbath-Ammon to Philadelphia) and Jerash (renamed from Garshu to Antioch, and later to Gerasa). Many of the sites built during this period were later redesigned and reconstructed during the Roman, Byzantine and Islamic eras, so only fragments remain from the Hellenistic period. Greek was established as the official language, although Aramaic remained the primary spoken language of ordinary people.
Alexander died soon after establishing his empire, and his generals subsequently struggled over control of the Near East for more than two decades. Eventually, the Ptolemies consolidated their power in Egypt and ruled Jordan from 301-198 BCE. The Seleucids, who were based in Syria, ruled Jordan from 198-63 BCE.
The most spectacular Hellenistic site in Jordan is at ‘Iraq al-Amir, just west of modern-day Amman. The Qasr al-Abd (“Castle of the Slave”) there is constructed of very large stones, some of which have sculpted figures of lions and eagles. The Qasr is surrounded by an artificial moat and was probably either a temple or palace, although its small entrance would have made it a significant defensive asset. The “castle” belonged to a governor of Ammon named Hyrcanus, who was also a member of the influential Tobiad family. It was built in the late-second century BCE.http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_6a.jpg
Marble sculpture of a lioness and her cub. Qasr el'Abed, ‘Iraq al-Amir. © Mouasher

Before Alexander’s conquest, a thriving new civilization had emerged in southern Jordan. It appears that a nomadic tribe known as the Nabateans began migrating gradually from Arabia during the sixth century BCE. Over time, they abandoned their nomadic ways and settled in a number of places in southern Jordan, the Naqab desert in Palestine, and in northern Arabia. Their capital city was the legendary Petra, Jordan’s most famous tourist attraction. Although Petra was inhabited by the Edomites before the arrival of the Nabateans, the latter carved grandiose buildings, temples and tombs out of solid sandstone rock. They also constructed a wall to fortify the city, although Petra was almost naturally defended by the surrounding sandstone mountains. Building an empire in the arid desert also forced the Nabateans to excel in water conservation. They were highly skilled water engineers, and irrigated their land with an extensive system of dams, canals and reservoirs.
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_5.jpgClose-up of red sandstone, Petra. © Michelle Woodward
The Nabateans were exceptionally skilled traders, facilitating commerce between China, India, the Far East, Egypt, Syria, Greece and Rome. They dealt in such goods as spices, incense, gold, animals, iron, copper, sugar, medicines, ivory, perfumes and fabrics, just to name a few. From its origins as a fortress city, Petra became a wealthy commercial crossroads between the Arabian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman cultures. Control of this crucial trade route between the upland areas of Jordan, the Red Sea, Damascus and southern Arabia was the lifeblood of the Nabatean Empire. We still know comparatively little about Nabatean society. However, we do know that they spoke a dialect of Arabic and later on adopted Aramaic. Much of what is now known about Nabatean culture comes from the writings of the Roman scholar Strabo. He recorded that their community was governed by a royal family, although a strong spirit of democracy prevailed. According to him there were no slaves in Nabatean society, and all members shared in work duties. The Nabateans worshipped a pantheon of deities, chief among which were the sun god Dushara and the goddess Allat.
As the Nabateans grew in power and wealth, they attracted the attention of their neighbors to the north. The Seleucid King Antigonus, who had come to power when Alexander’s empire was divided, attacked Petra in 312 BCE. His army met with relatively little resistance, and was able to sack the city. The quantity of booty was so great, however, that it slowed their return journey north and the Nabateans were able to annihilate them in the desert. Records indicate that the Nabateans were eager to remain on good terms with the Seleucids in order to perpetuate their trading ambitions. Throughout much of the third century BCE, the Ptolemies and Seleucids warred over control of Jordan, with the Seleucids emerging victorious in 198 BCE. Nabatea remained essentially untouched and independent throughout this period.
Although the Nabateans resisted military conquest, the Hellenistic culture of their neighbors influenced them greatly. Hellenistic influences can be seen in Nabatean art and architecture, especially at the time that their empire was expanding northward into Syria, around 150 BCE. However, the growing economic and political power of the Nabateans began to worry the Romans. In 65 BCE, the Romans arrived in Damascus and ordered the Nabateans to withdraw their forces. Two years later, Pompey dispatched a force to cripple Petra. The Nabatean King Aretas III either defeated the Roman legions or paid a tribute to keep peace with them.
The assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE augured a period of relative anarchy for the Romans in Jordan, and the Parthian kings of Persia and Mesopotamia took advantage of the chaotic situation to attack. The Nabateans made a mistake by siding with the Parthians in their war with the Romans, and after the Parthians’ defeat, Petra had to pay tribute to Rome. When they fell behind in paying this tribute, they were invaded twice by the Roman vassal King Herod the Great. The second attack, in 31 BCE, saw him take control of a large swath of Nabatean territory, including the lucrative northern trading routes into Syria.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_7.jpg
Riding through the Siq, Petra.
© Jad Al Younis, Discovery Eco-Tourism Nonetheless, the Nabateans continued to prosper for a while. King Aretas IV, who ruled from 9 BCE to 40 CE, built a chain of settlements along the caravan routes to develop the prosperous incense trade. The Nabateans realized the power of Rome, and subsequently allied themselves with the Romans to quell the Jewish uprising of 70 CE. However, it was only a matter of time before Nabatea would fall under direct Roman rule. The last Nabatean monarch, Rabbel II, struck a deal with the Romans that as long as they did not attack during his lifetime, they would be allowed to move in after he died. Upon his death in 106 CE, the Romans claimed the Nabatean Kingdom and renamed it Arabia Petrea. The city of Petra was redesigned according to traditional Roman architectural designs, and a period of relative prosperity ensued under the Pax Romana.

The Nabateans profited for a while from their incorporation into the trade routes of the Roman Near East, and Petra may have grown to house 20,000-30,000 people during its heyday. However, commerce became less profitable to the Nabateans with the shift of trade routes to Palmyra in Syria and the expansion of seaborne trade around the Arabian peninsula. Sometime probably during the fourth century CE, the Nabateans left their capital at Petra. No one really knows why. It seems that the withdrawal was an unhurried and organized process, as very few silver coins or valuable possessions have been unearthed at Petra.

Pompey’s conquest of Jordan, Syria and Palestine in 63 BCE inaugurated a period of Roman control which would last four centuries. In northern Jordan, the Greek cities of Philadelphia (Amman), Gerasa (Jerash), Gadara (Umm Qais), Pella and Arbila (Irbid) joined with other cities in Palestine and southern Syria to form the Decapolis League, a fabled confederation linked by bonds of economic and cultural interest.
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_8.jpgCross-road at Jerash (The Southern Tetrapylon).
© Michelle Woodward
Of these, Jerash appears to have been the most splendid. It was one of the greatest provincial cities in Rome’s empire, and was honored by a visit of the Emperor Hadrian himself in 130 CE. In southern Jordan, the Kingdom of Nabatea retained its independence until 106 CE, when Emperor Trajan’s forces took control of the region. Roman road-builders followed soon after the military, and in 111 CE the Via Nova Triana (Trajan New Road) was completed. It ran from the southern port of Aqaba all the way to the Syrian city of Bosra. Forts and watch-towers were built along this and other trading routes, while Amman, Jerash, and Umm Qais were laid out with colonnaded streets and theaters. A degree of cultural tension existed between the inhabitants of Jordan, who at this time largely spoke Greek, and their Roman occupiers who decreed that Latin should be the official language of the country and that their religion should follow that of Rome. Nevertheless, it was generally a peaceful period during which a number of important infrastructural developments occurred.

Many of these were clustered together on the foundations of ancient Roman settlements, and a good number of pagan temples were plundered to build churches. Church-building witnessed extraordinary growth during the reign of Emperor Justinian (527-65 CE). Most of these churches were of basilica type, with semi-circular apses to the east and two parallel rows of pillars supporting a higher roof over the nave.
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_10.jpg
Mosaic Map of the Holy Land.One indication of the prosperity of the period can be seen in the mosaic floors which decorated many of these newly-built places of worship. These ornate mosaics often portrayed animals, people and towns. The most impressive examples of Byzantine mosaic artistry can be seen in Madaba, and the greatest of these is the famed sixth-century Map of the Holy Land, also known as the Mosaic Map of Palestine.
In the sixth and seventh centuries CE, Jordan suffered severe depopulation. The plague of 542 CE wiped out much of the population, while another cause may have been the Sassanian invasion of 614 CE. The Sassanians, who had ruled Persia and Iraq since the early third century CE, occupied Jordan, Palestine and Syria for fifteen years, but the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius managed to recover the area in 629 CE. His gains were not to last for long.

After hearing the call of God, the Prophet Muhammad, Praise Be Unto Him (PBUH), first tried to convert the people of his home, Mecca. When the Meccans threatened him and his followers, they journeyed to the neighboring town of Medina in the year 622 CE. This migration, known as the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. Eight years later, the Prophet returned to Mecca to convert its people to Islam. From then on, the new faith spread rapidly throughout the Middle East and North Africa.


It took the Arabs only ten years to fully dismantle Byzantine control over the lands of Jordan, Palestine and Syria. After two unsuccessful attacks against the Byzantine garrison town of Mu’ta (south of Amman, near Karak) in 629 CE, the Muslim Arab tribes regrouped for a much wider military operation. In the year 636 CE, the Muslim armies overran the Transjordanian highlands and won a decisive battle against the Byzantines on the banks of the Yarmouk River, which marks the modern border between Jordan and Syria. This victory opened the way to the conquest of Syria, and the remaining Byzantine troops were forced to retreat into Anatolia only a few years later.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_line.gif

The Muslims wasted no time in taking Damascus, and in 661 CE proclaimed it the capital of the Umayyad Empire. Jordan prospered during the Umayyad period (661-750 CE) due to its proximity to the capital city of Damascus. Its strategic geographic position also made it an important thoroughfare for pilgrims venturing to the holy Muslim sites in Arabia. As Islam spread, the Arabic language gradually came to supplant Greek as the main language. Christianity was still widely practiced through the eighth century.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_line.gif

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jordan_bullet2.gif Abbasids

A powerful earthquake rocked Jordan in 747 CE, destroying many buildings and perhaps contributing to the defeat of the Umayyads by the Abbasids three years later. The Abbasids established their capital in Baghdad, leaving Jordan a provincial backwater far from the center of the empire. The Desert Castles were abandoned, and Jordan now suffered more from benign neglect than from the attentions of invading armies. However, recent excavations have shown that the population of Jordan continued to increase, at least until the beginning of the 9th century CE.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_line.gif

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jordan_bullet2.gif Fatimids

In 969 CE, the Fatimids of Egypt took control of Jordan and struggled over it with various Syrian factions for about two centuries. At the beginning of the 12th century CE, however, a new campaign was launched which would once again place Jordan at the center of a historical struggle. The impetus for the Crusades came from a plea for help from the Emperor of Constantinople, Alexius, who in 1095 reported to his Christian European brothers that his city, the last bastion of Byzantine Christendom, was under imminent threat of attack by the Muslim Turks. The prospect of such a severe defeat prompted Pope Urban II to muster support for Constantinople as well as for the retaking of Jerusalem.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jordan_bullet2.gif Ayyubid and Mamluks

Salah Eddin founded the Ayyubid dynasty, which ruled much of Syria, Egypt and Jordan for the next eighty years. In the year 1258 CE, an invasion of Mongols swept across much of the Near East. The marauding invaders were eventually turned back in 1260 CE by the Mamluk Sultan Baybars, who fought a successful battle at Ein Jalut. The Mamluks, who were from Central Asia and the Caucasus, seized power and ruled Egypt and later Jordan and Syria from their capital at Cairo.

The four centuries of Ottoman rule (1516-1918 CE) were a period of general stagnation in Jordan. The Ottomans were primarily interested in Jordan in terms of its importance to the pilgrimage route to Mecca al-Mukarrama. They built a series of square fortresses—at Qasr al-Dab’a, Qasr Qatraneh, and Qal’at Hasa—to protect pilgrims from the desert tribes and to provide them with sources of food and water. However, the Ottoman administration was weak and could not effectively control the Bedouin tribes. Over the course of Ottoman rule, many towns and villages were abandoned, agriculture declined, and families and tribes moved frequently from one village to another. The Bedouins, however, remained masters of the desert, continuing to live much as they had for hundreds of years. Population continued to dwindle until the late 19th century, when Jordan received several waves of immigrants. Syrians and Palestinians migrated to Jordan to escape over-taxation and feuds, while Muslim Circassians and Chechens fled Russian persecution to settle in Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Turkey.
The Ottoman period saw a general neglect of infrastructural development in Jordan, and what was constructed was usually with some specific religious orientation. For instance, castles such as Qatraneh were built to protect pilgrimage routes, while most schools, hospitals, baths, wells, orphanages and, of course, mosques, were built with a particular religious function in mind. The most significant infrastructural development of the Ottoman period was the Hijaz Railway from Damascus to al-Madina al-Munawarra in 1908. Designed originally to transport pilgrims to Mecca al-Mukarrama—the extension from al-Madina al-Munawwara was never completed—the railway was also a useful tool for ferrying Ottoman armies and supplies into the Arabian heartland. Because of this, it was attacked frequently during the Great Arab Revolt of World War I.

The Great Arab Revolt

Although the Sykes-Picot Agreement was modified considerably in practice, it established a framework for the mandate system which was imposed in the years following the war. Near the end of 1918, the Hashemite Emir Faisal set up an independent government in Damascus. However, his demand at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference for independence throughout the Arab world was met with rejection from the colonial powers. In 1920 and for a brief duration, Faisal assumed the throne of Syria and his elder brother Abdullah was offered the crown of Iraq by the Iraqi representatives. However, the British government ignored the will of the Iraqi people. Shortly afterward, the newly-founded League of Nations awarded Britain the mandates over Transjordan, Palestine and Iraq. France was given the mandate over Syria and Lebanon, but had to take Damascus by force, removing King Faisal from the throne to which he had been elected by the General Syrian Congress in 1920. In November 1920, Emir (later King) Abdullah led forces from the Hijaz to restore his brother’s throne in the Kingdom of Syria. However, the French mandate over Syria was already well planted, and Emir Abdullah was obliged to delay his pan-Arab goals and focus on forming a government in Amman. Since the end of the war, the British had divided the land of Transjordan into three local administrative districts, with a British “advisor” appointed to each. The northern region of ‘Ajloun had its administrative center in Irbid, the central region of Balqa was based in Salt, and the southern region was run by the “Moabite Arab Government,” based in Karak. The regions of Ma’an and Tabuk were incorporated into the Kingdom of the Hijaz, ancestral home of the Hashemites. Faced with the determination of Emir Abdullah to unify Arab lands under the Hashemite banner, the British proclaimed Abdullah ruler of the three districts, known collectively as Transjordan. Confident that his plans for the unity of the Arab nation would eventually come to fruition, the emir established the first centralized governmental system in what is now modern Jordan on April 11, 1921.

King Faisal I, meanwhile, assumed the throne of the Kingdom of Iraq in the same year. The Hashemite family ruled Iraq until King Faisal’s grandson King Faisal II and his immediate family were all murdered in a bloody coup by Nasserist sympathizers led by Colonel Abdel Karim Qassem on July 14, 1958. The Hashemites suffered another major blow in 1925, when King Ali bin al-Hussein, the eldest brother of Abdullah and Faisal, lost the throne of the Kingdom of the Hijaz to Abdel Aziz bin Saud of Najd. The loss, which was brought about by a partnership between Ibn Saud and followers of the Wahhabi movement, led to the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and brought to an end over one thousand years of Hashemite rule in Mecca.http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/album_g14.jpg
Left to right: King Ali of the Hijaz, King Abdullah of Jordan, Crown Prince (later King) Talal of Jordan, Abdul llah (Regent of Iraq), circa 1937.
© Royal Hashemite Court Archives
Emir Abdullah soon succeeded in loosening the British mandate over Transjordan with an Anglo-Transjordanian treaty. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. This angered the Zionists, as it effectively severed Transjordan from Palestine and so reduced the area of any future Jewish national home in the region. The treaty stipulated that Transjordan would be prepared for independence under the general supervision of the British high commissioner in Jerusalem, and recognized Emir Abdullah as head of state. In May 1925, the Aqaba and Ma’an districts of the Hijaz became part of Transjordan. The period between the two world wars was one of consolidation and institutionalization in Transjordan. Abdullah sought to build political unity by melding the disparate Bedouin tribes into a cohesive group capable of maintaining Arab rule in the face of increasing Western encroachment. Abdullah realized the need for a capable security force to establish and ensure the integrity of the state in defense, law, taxation, and other matters. Accordingly, he set up the fabled Arab Legion as one cornerstone of the fledgling state. The Arab Legion was set up with assistance from British officers, the most well-known of whom was Major J. B. Glubb.
Although the Arab Legion provided Emir Abdullah with the means of enforcing the authority of the state throughout Transjordan, he realized that true stability could only be realized by establishing legitimacy through representative institutions. Hence, as early as April 1928 he promulgated a constitution, which provided for a parliament known as the Legislative Council. Elections were held in February 1929, bringing to power the first Legislative Council of 21 members. The Legislative Council was guaranteed advisory powers, and seven of its 21 members were appointed.
Between 1928 and 1946, a series of Anglo-Transjordanian treaties led to almost full independence for Transjordan. While Britain retained a degree of control over foreign affairs, armed forces, communications and state finances, Emir Abdullah commanded the administrative and military machinery of the regular government. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The Balfour Declaration’s commitment to a Jewish national home in the British mandate of Palestine soon came back to haunt Britain and the Arabs. Arabs were outraged by the implication that they were the intruders in Palestine, when in fact at the end of World War II they accounted for about 90% of the population. While Jewish immigration to Palestine in the 1920’s caused little alarm, the situation escalated markedly with the rise of Nazi persecution in Europe. Large numbers of European Jews flocked to Palestine, inflaming nationalist passions among all Arabs, who feared the creation of a Jewish state in which they would be the losers. Palestinian resistance erupted into a full-scale revolt which lasted from 1936-39. This revolt, which in some respects resembled the intifada of the late 1980s, was the first major outbreak of Palestinian-Zionist hostilities.
Although the strict terms imposed on Transjordan since 1921 prevented Emir Abdullah from establishing official contacts with Palestinian Arabs under the British mandate, he nonetheless gave refuge to Palestinian leaders and political activists. He constantly warned the British against earmarking Arab lands for a Jewish national home and allowing increased Jewish immigration to Palestine. He also intervened at various levels on behalf of the Palestinians, while warning of impending disaster should a diplomatic solution to the problem not be found. His predictions fell on deaf ears, but came true nonetheless.
As the Jewish population in Palestine increased sharply during the 1930s, fighting between Jews and Arabs increased also. Both sides blamed the British, who failed miserably in their attempts to reach a settlement acceptable to all. The conflict was muted by the onset of World War II, during which both sides cooperated with the British. Transjordan’s Arab Legion also joined the side of the Allies, helping the British and the Free French drive the Vichy forces from Syria.
The crisis of Palestine reached a boiling point in the years immediately after the war. With international sympathy firmly behind the Jews in the wake of the Holocaust, Zionist leaders pressured the British to admit thousands of displaced Jews. At the same time, underground Jewish groups such as the Irgun and the renegade Stern Gang initiated a campaign of terrorism against the British. Washing its hands of the whole imbroglio, Britain declared in February 1947 that its mandate over Palestine would end on May 14, 1948. The matter was then addressed by the United Nations, which, after rejecting various plans, voted for the partition of Palestine in November 1947. The plan called for the partition of Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state, with al-Quds (Jerusalem) to be placed under UN trusteeship. More than half the territory, including the valuable coastal strip, had been allotted to the Jews, who only owned about 6% of the land. The Arabs were shocked, and conflict was inevitable.
On May 14, 1948, the British terminated their mandate over Palestine, and the Jews immediately proclaimed the independence of the state of Israel. The Soviet Union was the first country to recognize Israel, followed promptly by the United States. The tragedy of Palestine was born.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_line.gif

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jordan_bullet2.gifThe 1948 Arab-Israeli War

Prior to the UN General Assembly’s November 1947 decision to partition Palestine, King Abdullah had proposed sending the Arab Legion to defend the Arabs of Palestine. Reacting to the passing of the partition plan, he announced Jordan’s readiness to deploy the full force of the Arab Legion in Palestine. An Arab League meeting held in Amman two days before the expiration of the British mandate concluded that Arab countries would send troops to Palestine to join forces with Jordan’s army.
Immediately after the proclamation of the state of Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq sent troops to join with Jordanian forces in order to defend their brethren, the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine. However, the attacks were uncoordinated and each army took orders from its own commanders. The Jewish forces were therefore able to exploit the political and military differences among the Arab armies. Contrary to the popular misconception, Israel also held a distinct manpower advantage over its adversaries. By the end of May 1948, Israel fielded a mobile army of 25,000 front-line troops, a number that would grow to nearly 80,000 by the end of that year. In addition, many Israeli soldiers had seen combat action during World War II. The Jewish militias exploited their military advantage to consolidate control over their allotted areas, as well as to entrench themselves in some strategic areas allocated to the Arabs of Palestine.
The violent establishment of the state of Israel led more than 500,000 Palestinian Arabs to flee their homes, with many settling in what became known as the “West Bank” (the west bank of the Jordan River). It is a well-documented fact that a systematic massacre of around 245 Palestinians occurred on April 9, 1948 in the village of Deir Yassin. The Irgun and the Stern Gang systematically conducted this and other massacres, such as that at Kafr Qassem, in order to create a general climate of terror that encouraged the unarmed and defenseless Palestinians to flee.
Of all the Arab armies engaged in the defense of Palestine, the one which defended Arab land most successfully was Jordan’s Arab Legion. With some help from Hashemite Iraq, the Legion succeeded in preserving for the Arabs a major part of their land—the territory subsequently known as the West Bank—along with the Old City of Jerusalem, which the Jews were unable to seize. From the beginning, Jordan’s army faced an uphill battle against Jewish forces which were far superior in number and armament. In addition, the Jordanians had no reserve forces and were hampered by a UN arms embargo which left them perpetually short of ammunition. The relative success enjoyed by the Jordanian forces in the face of overwhelming odds is a tribute to the heroism, discipline and leadership of the Arab Legion.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_palestine2.jpgTwo refugees, an old man and his wife,
sit reminiscing about the old days.
"Nakba in Pictures"

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_line.gif

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jordan_bullet2.gifThe Arab Legion and the Defense of Jerusalem

The heroism and comparative effectiveness displayed by Jordan’s army during its defense of Palestine are widely acknowledged. In particular, the Battle of Jerusalem exemplified the high professional standards of Jordan’s Arab Legion. Known in Arabic as al-Quds al-Sharif, Jerusalem is sacred to Muslims, as it is considered to be the third holiest city in Islam. Along with the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, Jerusalem holds a special place in the heart of the Islamic world. The Dome of the Rock was built on the spot from which Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven on his famous night journey, and Muslims originally faced Jerusalem in prayer (today they turn to Mecca). Christians also hold Jerusalem sacred as the crucifixion site of Jesus Christ. Arab Christians and Muslims fought together in the defense of Jerusalem against the Zionist invasion.
The Battle of Jerusalem can be broken into four distinct phases. The first stage was one of street skirmishes between Arabs and Jews. It started in December 1947 and ended with the commencement of war in May 1948. The UN partition resolution prompted this phase of hostilities, which was characterized by frequent rioting and local skirmishes. The second phase began when Jewish militias invaded the Old City in April 1948 and lasted until the entry of the Arab Legion into Jerusalem on May 18. A cease-fire took effect between Arabs and Jews on May 2, and was supposed to remain in force until the evacuation of the British. On May 7, the same truce was elaborated on to include the removal of Jewish troops, who by then occupied the Arab sector of the city. The Jewish militias did not adhere to the truce, and consequently controlled much of Jerusalem when the British mandate expired on May 15. This was a blatant violation of the partition plan, which designated Jerusalem as the center of a special United Nations zone.
Despite the enormous military challenge such an operation presented, King Abdullah insisted on sending the Arab Legion to defend Jerusalem. When the Arab Legion entered the Old City on May 18, 1948, commencing the third phase of the Battle of Jerusalem, the Israelis were already firmly entrenched. Indeed, in previous days they had been attacking pockets of Arab resistance in an attempt to complete their seizure of Jerusalem. Fierce fighting ensued when the Hashemite forces entered the city, yet the well-trained Arab Legion managed to gain the upper hand quickly. After ten days of heavy fighting, the Jordanians routed Jewish forces from the Old City.
Jordanian forces also took a strong position at Latrun, cutting the primary road which connected Jerusalem with Jaffa and Tel Aviv. During the Battle of Latrun, an Israeli force of 6500 men was unable to break through a Jordanian force of only 1200 defending western access to the city. The Israelis, however, managed to build and defend a secondary road (the Burma Road) to the city, thereby securing West Jerusalem. On June 11, a truce was agreed, and hostilities ceased for almost a month. A stalemate had been reached, with the Jews controlling West Jerusalem and the Arab Legion defending the Old City and the adjacent Arab quarters in East Jerusalem.
In early July, the Israelis launched a determined offensive to capture East Jerusalem, yet they were unable to penetrate the stubborn defenses of the Arab Legion. The United Nations imposed a second cease-fire on July 19, 1948. The Hashemite forces had successfully defended the holy sites from the Israelis. While fighting fierce battles to safeguard the city, the Jordanian army made every effort to prevent damage to the holy places, thereby preserving them for future generations. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War came to an end in mid-1949, as a series of armistice agreements were signed between the Arab parties and Israel at Rhodes. Jordan did not participate in the Rhodes Conference, but concluded its armistice with Israel directly on the ground.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_line.gif

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jordan_bullet2.gifUnification of the Two Banks

As a result of the war, many Palestinian Arabs from the Jordanian-controlled areas found that union with Jordan was of vital importance to the preservation of Arab control over the “West Bank” territories which had not fallen to the Israelis. Consequently, in December 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders and notables from the West Bank convened a historic conference in Jericho, where they called for King Abdullah to take immediate steps to unite the two banks of the Jordan into a single state under his leadership.
On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan’s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_line.gif

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/album_g112.jpg
His Majesty King Talal bin Abdullah, circa 1951.
© Royal Hashemite Court Archives

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jordan_bullet2.gifThe Reign of King Talal

Following the martyrdom of King Abdullah, the Jordanian throne passed to Crown Prince Talal, the late king’s eldest son. King Talal assumed the monarchy on September 6, 1951. Due to health reasons, however, King Talal abdicated the throne less than a year later, on August 11, 1952, in favor of his eldest son Prince Hussein, who had been made heir apparent on September 9, 1951. During his tenure, King Talal initiated the development of a new, liberalized constitution. This document made the government collectively, and the ministers individually, responsible before parliament. It was formally ratified on January 1, 1952.

The 1950s were a period of tumultuous political upheaval throughout the Arab world. Much of this turbulence was attributed to popular dissatisfaction caused by the creation of the state of Israel and the loss of Palestine in 1948-49. Colonial powers also continued to exert their influence over the Arab nation, a condition which prompted seething resentment among the masses. Popular discontent led to a sharp growth in support for several radical pan-Arab ideologies. The Ba’th (Renaissance) Party originated in Syria in the late 1940s under the leadership of two Damascus schoolteachers, Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Bitar. It championed the immediate political unity of all Arab states under the slogan of “Unity, Freedom, and Socialism.” While gaining a degree of popular support throughout the Mashriq (eastern) region, it eventually gained power in Syria and Iraq through military coups. Feuding branches of this pan-Arabist party remain in power today in Syria and Iraq.
One of the key players in the Arab political arena during the 1950s and 1960s was Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Coming to power in 1954 after participating in the 1952 Free Officers’ coup which overthrew King Farouk, Nasser possessed charisma and oratory skills which enabled him to rally the Arab masses. Nasser’s brand of pan-Arabism, broadcast via radio throughout the Arab world, especially appealed to the displaced Palestinians. With his popularity boosted enormously after the Suez Crisis of 1956, when he successfully stood up against the combined front of Britain, France and Israel, Nasser appeared to be the new Salah Eddin who would unify the Arabs and reconquer Palestine.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/album_f19.jpgHis Majesty King Hussein meets with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser,
mid-1950s. © Royal Hashemite Court Archives
The vocabulary of pan-Arabism was always more appealing in the actions it lead to. Nasser, the Ba’th and others continually tried to outbid each other for leadership of the pan-Arab movement. Instead of fostering unity among Arabs, the rivalry fostered by the radicals led to deep divisions between Arab states. Eventually in 1967 it led to another crippling setback in the struggle against Zionism. While Nasser, the Ba’th and radical pan-Arabists frequently proposed unity agreements only to see them dissolve in mutual recrimination, King Hussein steadfastly pursued his own ideal of Arab nationalism. As he saw it, pan-Arabism could only succeed in promoting unity among the Arabs if it respected the special character of the different Arab countries and regimes, without trespassing on their individual national sovereignties. In the words of King Hussein:

Arab nationalism can survive only through complete equality.... It is in our power as Arabs to unite on all important issues, to organise in every respect and to dispel friction between us... Given sincerity and sound leadership, the Arab League has great potential. It is the anvil on which Arab nationalism must be forged.... Over the need for Arab unity there is no difference of opinion. So, instead of debating an accepted principle, let us debate a practical plan.... Let all of this be undertaken through an active, respected Arab League, in which... danger of domination by any member of the family would be eliminated.

Essentially, the “unity” proposals of Nasser and the Ba’thists consisted of one state seeking to impose its domination over another. The short-lived United Arab Republic, consisting of Egypt and Syria, lasted from 1958-61 and demonstrated the shortcomings of the radical unity plans. While popular in the “street,” this risky approach maximized rivalry among Arab states at a time when unity of purpose was needed more than ever before. With time, King Hussein’s visionary pan-Arab statesmanship became evident, and the radicals were discredited in the eyes of the Arab people.
Three days after his coronation in May 1953, King Hussein called upon newly-appointed Prime Minister Fowzi al-Mulqi to introduce a series of liberal reforms, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press. However, a sense of civic responsibility had not yet permeated the Jordanian populace as a whole. Radical groups exploited the reforms and relentlessly attacked the regime, thus undermining the stability and integrity of Jordan. Sometimes they even cynically initiated riots in order to provoke reprisals. Nasser’s propaganda broadcasts, in particular, incited massive riots which undermined domestic order.
Throughout the course of his long and fruitful reign, King Hussein tried to govern according to the precepts and ideals of democratic liberalism, while at the same time maintaining the necessary prerequisite of public order. This balancing act was not always easy. For example, in 1956, completely free parliamentary elections were held, and radical groups including communists and Ba’thists dominated the new cabinet.
In another important development, King Hussein dismissed the British commanders of the Arab Legion in 1956, and terminated the Anglo-Jordanian Treaty in March of 1957. However, he thought that his government’s leftward drift would eventually lead to a communist infiltration of the Arab world, and consequently he resisted the trend. A number of riots, and an externally-inspired coup attempt which was personally thwarted by King Hussein, forced him to impose martial law in the spring of 1957.
These disruptions to Jordan’s stability were followed by a succession of internal upheavals which culminated in perhaps the most serious threat to King Hussein’s early reign—the crisis of July 1958. Five months after the formation of the Arab Federation, a federal union between Jordan and Iraq, a bloody military coup in Iraq by pro-Nasserist officers led by Colonel Abdel Karim Qassem shattered the Arab Federation and left Jordan isolated.
With a deft hand characteristic of his leadership, King Hussein was able to haul Jordan out of this state of siege. While maintaining a firm grip on Jordan’s internal security, he reluctantly accepted British military help and an American oil airlift in order to preserve the state against its external enemies.

Having weathered the tumultuous radicalism of the 1950s, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan entered the decade of the 1960s with renewed hope and confidence. The 1960s proved to be promising years, as the economy started to take off. The industrial backbone of Jordan’s modern economy—the potash, phosphate and cement industries—were developed during this time. In Zarqa, east of Amman, an oil refinery was constructed. The country was linked by a network of highways, and a new educational system was introduced to the Kingdom. In 1962, the Kingdom constructed its first national university, Jordan University, at Jubeiha, on the outskirts of Amman. Prior to the 1967 War, Jordan witnessed higher rates of economic growth than most other developing countries. A thriving construction industry provided job opportunities for Jordanians, while tourism from Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and the many East Bank attractions provided the Kingdom with a wellspring of foreign exchange income. The economy was further boosted by remittances from Jordanian expatriates who left to work in the countries of the Arabian Gulf. The progress the Kingdom underwent during these years gave rise to a new middle class of educated Jordanians keen on building their country. As this group of professionals grew in number and talent, Jordan became more stable.

Another outcome of the Cairo summit was the establishment of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Concurring with other Arab leaders, King Hussein recognized the need for an organization of this kind which could coordinate Palestinian efforts. His only concerns were that the PLO should cooperate with Jordan and that its military activities should be under the strict control of the United Arab Command, lest they should inadvertently drag the Arabs into a war with Israel for which they were unprepared. The mid-1960s also saw the rise of independent Palestinian guerrilla groups (known in Arabic as the fedayeen), the most notable of which was Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement. In their relentless attempts to outbid Nasser, the Ba’thist Syrian government encouraged guerrilla raids into Israel—not from Syria, but from Lebanon or Jordan. The Israeli reprisals to these militarily senseless raids were predictably harsh, and Jordan was forced to reign in the guerrillas. For this, Jordan was attacked again by the propaganda machines in Cairo, Damascus, and Baghdad.
Responding to a fedayeen raid, on November 13, 1966, Israel launched a major attack on the West Bank border village of Samu, rounding up villagers and destroying their houses. A Jordanian armored column hastened to repel the attack, but was overwhelmingly defeated by the Israelis’ superior firepower. Instead of serving as an alarm warning of the dangers of uncoordinated military raids, the tragedy gave further grist to the opponents of the Hashemite Kingdom, who argued that the regime was responsible for what had happened at Samu. Radio broadcasts from Egypt, Syria and Iraq prompted rioting in major Jordanian cities.
By the spring of 1967, the situation had become extremely intense. On May 16, Nasser shocked the world by asking the United Nations to withdraw its forces from Sinai. To the surprise of many, his request was honored two days later. Moreover, the Egyptian president closed the Straits of Tiran on May 22.
Sensing that war was now likely, King Hussein aligned Jordan firmly with Egypt, suggesting an Egyptian-Jordanian Mutual Defense Treaty. Nasser immediately accepted the idea, and the treaty was signed on May 30. The treaty stipulated that Jordan’s forces were to be placed under the command of Egyptian General Abdul Moneim Riad. Iraq also signed the pact, while the Syrians denounced it and refused to sign.
The outbidding and rivalry of radical Arab parties allowed Israel to launch a surprise attack on June 5, 1967, virtually eliminating the Egyptian air force in a single blow.14 At that point, the outcome of the war was decided. In response to the Israeli attack, Jordanian forces launched an offensive into Israel, but were soon driven back as the Israeli forces counterattacked into the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. After destroying the Egyptian air force, Israel had complete control of the skies, raining down deadly napalm bombs on the defenseless Arab forces. After a spirited defense of Arab East Jerusalem, the outnumbered and outgunned Jordanian army was forced to retreat to preserve the East Bank heartland against the Zionist expansion. When the final UN cease-fire was imposed on June 11, Israel stood in possession of a wide swath of Arab land, including the Egyptian Sinai, Syria’s Golan Heights, and, most significantly, what remained of Arab Palestine—the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
Of the states participating in the conflict, Jordan paid by far the heaviest price. As a result of the war, more than 300,000 Palestinian Arabs became refugees and fled to Jordan. For many of them, this was the second uprooting in less than two decades, having been driven from their original homes in 1948. Jordan’s economy was also devastated. About 70% of Jordan’s agricultural land was located in the West Bank, which produced 60 to 65% of its fruits and vegetables. Half of the Kingdom’s industrial establishments were located in the West Bank, while the loss of Jerusalem and other religious sites devastated the tourism industry. Altogether, areas now occupied by Israel had accounted for approximately 38% of Jordan’s gross national product.
Despite the economic devastation wrought by the war, Jordan continued to shoulder its previous administrative and financial responsibilities for the West Bank. It continued to pay the salaries and pensions of civil servants, while administering religious endowments or waqf and educational affairs.

Between 1967 and 1970, Jordan employed a dual strategy of political and military initiatives to work for the return of Arab lands lost in the 1967 War. On November 22, 1967, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 242, calling on Israel to withdraw from the areas it had occupied in the recent war, and for all countries in the Middle East to respect the rights of others “to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries.” The formulation and passage of this landmark resolution, which is still the primary reference point for building peace in the Middle East, was in large part the initiative of King Hussein. Jordan accepted the resolution as a basis for negotiation. In March 1969, King Hussein held talks in Washington with American President Richard Nixon, in which he proposed the renewal of a six-point Arab peace plan along the lines of Resolution 242. The next year, the United States sponsored the so-called Rogers Plan. Although Jordan and Egypt publicly accepted the plan, its rejection by Israel, Syria and the PLO doomed the plan to failure.
While diligently pursuing a peaceful solution to the conflict, King Hussein took the lead in the defense of Arab land with the help of the burgeoning Palestinian fedayeen groups. On March 21, 1968, Israeli forces carried out a major attack on the Jordan Valley village of Karamah, where they began destroying the village homes with dynamite. During the ensuing Battle of Karama, the Jordanian army launched a heavy artillery barrage against the Israeli tanks and the raid was repelled with heavy losses to the invading Israeli troops. King Hussein saluted the Jordanian army and the fedayeen of Fatah, who also took part in the battle, by declaring that “we have reached the point where we are all fedayeen.”

The partnership with the Palestinians desired by King Hussein fell apart in September, 1970. The pervasive and chaotic presence of armed Palestinian fedayeen groups who expected immunity from Jordan’s laws was leading to a state of virtual anarchy throughout the Kingdom. Moderate Palestinian leaders were unable to reign in extremist elements, who ambushed the king’s motorcade twice and perpetrated a series of spectacular hijackings. Forced to respond decisively in order to preserve his country from anarchy, King Hussein ordered the army into action. The situation prompted different reactions throughout the Arab world. While most leaders privately expressed sympathy with the position of King Hussein, many took a public stance in favor of the fedayeen in order to embellish their credentials as “Arab nationalists.” The conflict reached a crisis point in September when some 200 Syrian tanks, camouflaged rather unconvincingly as Palestinian Liberation Army tanks, crossed into Jordan. The Syrians were bereft of air cover, however, and Jordanian aircraft forced a Syrian retreat within three days. In a brief yet intense campaign ending in July 1971, the Jordanian army put an end to the chaotic actions of these Palestiniansguerrillas in Amman.

Following the events of 1970-71, domestic policy aimed principally at promoting national unity among the Jordanian population. This desired unity was considered the ultimate guarantee for the survival and security of Jordan. Once achieved, Jordan could be transformed into a model Arab state by opening the way for a full return to democracy. For the moment, however, matters of security and order remained the immediate concern of the regime. As political stability gradually returned, investment began to flow back into the Kingdom. Jordan witnessed unprecedented growth levels in a number of areas, especially the services, construction and financial sectors. Jordan’s rapid economic and social development also owed much to the oil boom enjoyed throughout the Middle East during the mid and late 1970s. Large remittances flowed in from the 400,000 or so Jordanian citizens who supplied skilled labor mainly to the oil-rich Gulf states.
The outbreak of the Lebanese civil war in 1975 led to large-scale fighting in the capital city of Beirut, destroying much of the city’s banking and insurance infrastructure. Accordingly, much of this regionally-oriented sector relocated to Amman, fueling a boom in service industries. By the early 1980s, Amman had been transformed into one of the most dynamic Arab capitals.
Although the Kingdom’s economy was enjoying a boom, the Israeli occupation of Arab lands hindered the progress of the region toward justice and prosperity. Jordan therefore pressed continuously for a coordinated Arab diplomacy in the effort to liberate the occupied West Bank and Arab Jerusalem from Israeli occupation.
Among these efforts was a 1972 plan offered by King Hussein in which he proposed the establishment of a United Arab Kingdom. This plan would reorganize the Kingdom along federal lines, with the East Bank and West Bank each having its own parliament and administration. Matters relating to foreign affairs and defense would be dealt with by a central governmental structure with equal representation from both banks. While the proposal met with some support, rival nationalisms and mutual suspicions between East Bank Jordanians and West Bank Palestinians ensured enough opposition to effectively veto the idea.
Events soon overtook the proposed United Arab Kingdom plan, however. Jordan was not directly involved in the October War of 1973, although it did contribute by sending troops to assist Syria. With Israel overconfident in its ability to defeat the Arabs militarily, and failing to respond to Arab peace overtures, the Syrians and the Egyptians launched a surprise attack to regain the Golan Heights and the Sinai, lost to Israel in 1967. The Arab armies’ initial military successes, especially the amphibious crossing of the Suez Canal and the storming of the Bar-Lev Line, reversed much of the psychological setback caused by the 1967 defeat, disproving the myth of Israel military invincibility. However, lack of coordination between Egypt and Syria, combined with American resupply of Israeli stocks, eventually allowed Israel to gain the upper hand. In retaliation for assisting Israel, Arab Gulf states announced the suspension of oil exports to the United States. Cease-fires ending the war lead to a series of disengagement agreements between Israel, Egypt and Syria. This process culminated for Egypt and Israel in the Camp David Accords of 1978. However, Israel annexed Syria’s Golan Heights in 1981, and Israel and Syria remain in a state of war.
In the face of a brutal Israeli occupation, Palestinian nationalism continued to grow. At an Arab summit conference held in Rabat, Morocco in 1974, King Hussein agreed, along with all the other Arab leaders, to a summit declaration recognizing the Palestine Liberation Organization as the “sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.” Consequently, responsibility for negotiating the return of the occupied Palestinian lands was transferred from Jordan to the PLO.
Jordan’s commitment to the realization of Palestinian rights was further exemplified in its reaction to the Camp David Accords of 1978. The treaty between Egypt and Israel shattered the near-term chances for a just and comprehensive settlement of the conflict, as it neither required the Israelis to withdraw from occupied territories (excluding the Sinai) nor asserted Arab sovereignty over them. Along with most Arab leaders, King Hussein rejected the treaty as destabilizing to the region.

Attention switched from the Arab-Israeli conflict to the Arabian Gulf in 1980 when war erupted between Iraq and Iran. Throughout the eight-year war, Jordan, along with the United States, France and Arabian Gulf countries, supported Iraq against the threat of Iranian revolutionary expansionism. Nonetheless, Jordan always called for a peaceful settlement to the war, which, in the end, claimed around one million lives. It was during this time that trade between Jordan and Iraq began to flourish. In particular, the supply line from Jordan’s Red Sea port of Aqaba overland into Iraq assumed major strategic importance, contributing significantly to the development of the Jordanian economy. This was due in part to the disruption of political and economic ties between Syria and Iraq, as Syria allied itself with Iran and halted trade with Iraq. Although Jordan continued to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, King Hussein recognized that the continuing refusal of Israel and the United States to negotiate with the PLO had stonewalled any prospects for movement in the peace process. Therefore, after consulting with PLO leader Yasser Arafat, he offered on February 11, 1985 to coordinate negotiations with Israel under a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. The agreement confirmed the principle of confederation between Jordan and an otherwise independent Palestinian state to be set up in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, the Israeli government’s rejection of negotiations, combined with opposition from within the PLO, derailed this initiative.

In recent years, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has made remarkable progress toward establishing the basics of a pluralistic, organized political structure that can serve as a model for the region. Since Jordan resumed its commitment to parliamentary politics in 1989, a number of sweeping reforms have been adopted to ensure that the venture is placed on a solid footing. Most notable among these are the reintroduction of political parties to Parliament, the drafting of the National Charter, the expansion of press freedoms and a firm commitment to pluralism and human rights. In the words of King Hussein, Jordan’s commitment to fostering a democratic political culture is an “irreversible option.” In 1989, political reform began with parliamentary elections that were hailed internationally as among the freest ever held in the Middle East. The new parliament emerged as a political force that exercised full legislative powers. In addition, the formulation of the National Charter established the framework for organized political activity in the country. The Charter, which guarantees the protection of human rights, offers an indigenous model of democratic pluralism based on the only true guarantors of stability: public participation and collective responsibility.
Freedom of the press, one of the cornerstones of democracy, was enhanced with the enactment of new legislation on press and publications. In the area of human rights, the government repealed martial law, which had been enforced in the aftermath of the 1967 War. The government also encouraged the stationing of several international and regional human rights organizations in Jordan, and ratified a number of treaties on human rights.


http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jo_line.gif

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/images/jordan_bullet2.gifThe National Consultative Council

In April 1978, King Hussein decreed that a National Consultative Council be created to temporarily replace Parliament. Between 1978 and 1984 three councils were formed, consisting of representatives appointed by King Hussein from various sectors of Jordanian society. These councils were not intended to be a substitute for a freely elected parliament, but were a temporary measure in lieu of the fact that one-half of Parliament’s seats remained under Israeli occupation. Also as a result of Israel’s occupation, martial law was imposed throughout the Kingdom.
The last National Consultative Council was dissolved by royal decree in January, 1984. As a compromise measure aimed at reinvigorating the democratic process without cutting the Kingdom’s electoral ties to the West Bank, deputies elected to the 1967 Parliament, known as the Ninth Parliament, were recalled to an extraordinary parliamentary session held in Amman later in 1984. There they voted on new members to replace those who had died since 1967, or were otherwise unable to attend because of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. The newly constituted legislature accurately reflected the demographic and geographical profile of the 1967 Parliament, and was known as the Tenth Parliament.