When Sovereignty Clashes with Solidarity: The Enduring Debate Over Black September

A single tweet about events from over 50 years ago has reignited fierce debate about how we interpret state violence, Palestinian resistance, and the thin line between maintaining order and suppressing legitimate grievances.

The Historical Context

Black September refers to the violent conflict that erupted in Jordan in September 1970, when King Hussein’s military forces moved against Palestinian fedayeen (guerrilla) groups that had established a significant armed presence within the kingdom. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and affiliated militant groups had effectively created a “state within a state” in Jordan, launching cross-border raids into Israel that often provoked devastating Israeli retaliation against Jordanian territory. After a series of airline hijackings by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) brought international crisis to Jordan’s doorstep, King Hussein ordered his military to act decisively.

The resulting conflict was brutal. Estimates of Palestinian casualties range from 3,000 to over 10,000, with thousands more displaced to Lebanon and Syria. The PLO’s military infrastructure in Jordan was dismantled, fundamentally altering the geography of Palestinian resistance and setting the stage for Lebanon’s subsequent civil war. For Palestinians, Black September became synonymous with betrayal by fellow Arabs. For the Jordanian state, it represented an existential battle for sovereignty.

The Contemporary Resonance

The tweet’s characterization of Black September as merely “defending sovereignty against armed militants” has struck a nerve precisely because it touches on debates that remain painfully relevant today. Across the Middle East, governments continue to invoke sovereignty and stability to justify crackdowns on various forms of dissent and resistance. The framing matters enormously: what one side calls “maintaining order” another experiences as systematic oppression.

This particular interpretation also emerges at a time when Palestinian political movements face increasing pressure and fragmentation. The question of armed resistance versus diplomatic engagement continues to divide Palestinian political factions, while host countries grapple with how to balance support for Palestinian rights with their own security concerns. The legacy of Black September haunts these discussions, serving as both a cautionary tale about the limits of armed struggle and a reminder of the vulnerabilities Palestinian communities face even among ostensibly sympathetic Arab states.

Beyond Simple Narratives

The danger in reducing Black September to a simple narrative of “sovereignty versus chaos” lies in what it obscures. While it’s true that some Palestinian factions had created serious security challenges for Jordan, this framing ignores the broader context of Palestinian dispossession and the legitimate grievances that drove militant action. It also sidesteps uncomfortable questions about proportionality—was the scale of violence necessary to restore order, or did it reflect deeper anxieties about Palestinian political aspirations?

Moreover, focusing solely on the state sovereignty angle neglects the human cost borne primarily by Palestinian civilians who had little say in the decisions of either armed factions or the Jordanian government. Many Palestinians in Jordan had fled there as refugees, only to face another round of violence and displacement. Their experiences complicate any neat distinction between “defending sovereignty” and “attacking Palestinians as a people.”

The Policy Implications

How we interpret historical events like Black September has real consequences for contemporary policy. If we accept uncritically that states can use unlimited force to maintain sovereignty against non-state actors, we risk legitimizing disproportionate violence against marginalized communities. Conversely, if we refuse to acknowledge the genuine security dilemmas that host states face when armed groups operate from their territory, we may perpetuate cycles of conflict.

The challenge for policymakers today is to learn from Black September without repeating its tragedies. This means developing frameworks that respect both state sovereignty and the rights of stateless peoples, creating mechanisms for political grievances to be addressed without resort to violence, and ensuring that civilian populations are protected regardless of the actions of armed groups claiming to represent them.

As debates over Palestinian statehood, refugee rights, and resistance strategies continue to evolve, the ghosts of Black September remind us that simple narratives rarely capture the full complexity of political violence. The question we must ask ourselves is whether we’re willing to grapple with that complexity, or whether we’ll continue to retreat into comfortable interpretations that align with our existing political commitments while real human suffering persists.