Wasn't Jordan's takeover of the "West Bank" in 1948 illegal as it was outside their mandated territory east of the Jordan River?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Jordan occupied the West Bank during the 1948 war and formally annexed it by parliamentary resolution on 24 April 1950; that annexation was recognized by only a handful of states and was widely regarded as lacking international legitimacy [1] [2]. Most sources say the annexation was treated as unlawful or at least not broadly accepted — Britain, Iraq and Pakistan are cited among the few recognitions while the Arab League and much of the world rejected unilateral Jordanian sovereignty [1] [3] [2].
1. How Jordan came to control the West Bank — battlefield, politics and the Jericho vote
Jordan’s Arab Legion seized and held East Jerusalem and large parts of the territory west of the Jordan River during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War; by the 1949 armistice the military frontier effectively became the interim boundary [2]. King Abdullah I then convened local notables: a Jericho conference of West Bank figures in December 1948 endorsed union with Jordan, and Jordan moved to integrate the area administratively before formal legal steps culminating in the 1950 parliamentary resolution [1] [3].
2. The formal act: unification framed as annexation but called “unification” in Amman
On 24 April 1950 the Jordanian Houses of Deputies and Notables adopted a resolution declaring the West Bank and East Jerusalem part of the Hashemite Kingdom, installing West Bank residents as equal representatives in a reconstituted parliament and extending Jordanian citizenship to many Palestinians [1] [3] [4]. Jordan described this as “unification” of the two banks based on geographic and national unity [1].
3. International response: limited recognition, broad scepticism
Internationally the annexation was not accepted. Multiple accounts state the move “was widely considered as illegal and void by most of the international community,” and that formal recognition was limited — with Britain and a very small number of states extending recognition while the Arab League opposed Jordan’s unilateral claim or preferred a trusteeship arrangement [3] [1] [2]. Some sources note disputes about which countries recognized it de jure or only de facto [5].
4. Legal arguments offered by opponents and supporters
Opponents argued that occupying armies lack authority to create new sovereignty unilaterally and that the post‑Mandate territory was meant to be resolved by a political settlement — arguments echoed in contemporary diplomatic objections and later legal commentary [6] [3]. Jordan and its supporters argued the steps taken (local endorsement at Jericho, parliamentary votes, extension of citizenship and administrative integration) created a practical, if imperfect, legitimacy rooted in self‑determination and on‑the‑ground control [1] [4].
5. What recognition (or its absence) meant on the ground
Despite limited external recognition, Jordan administered the West Bank from 1948 until Israel captured it in 1967; during those years Jordan exercised civil authority, changed administrative symbols (police, stamps), and incorporated West Bankers into political life and the nationality framework — a fact contemporary sources record as evidence of de facto rule even where de jure acceptance was absent [3] [1] [4].
6. Competing narratives and political agendas in retrospective accounts
Present-day descriptions reflect political agendas. Israeli and some Western sources emphasize illegality and Arab League opposition [6] [7]. Jordanian and some regional commentators stress administrative unity and the practical integration of populations [1] [4]. Palestinian and Arab opinion has ranged from acceptance by some local notables at the time to later rejection and Jordan’s own 1988 disengagement indicates shifting political calculations [8] [1].
7. Limitations in the record and what sources do not say
Available sources in this collection agree on the facts of occupation, the 1950 parliamentary resolution, limited recognition and broad international scepticism, but they do not supply exhaustive legal judgments from major courts or full diplomatic archives here; detailed evidence about every country’s internal decision process or later legal memoranda is not found in the present reporting (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for the original question
Jordan’s takeover was a de facto occupation followed by formal annexation steps in 1950 that many governments and international actors rejected as an unlawful unilateral acquisition of territory; a few states recognized Jordanian sovereignty, but the dominant international view, reflected in the cited sources, treated the annexation as lacking broad legal legitimacy [3] [1] [2].