Indigenous Jordanians

The view from my family's living room takes in a tremendous vista. We live on a hill with much of northern Jerusalem within sight. When journalists have come to our home, and there have been dozens such visits in the past five years, I routinely try to draw their attention to the shell of a building - a very large building - off to the left side. It's on a hill somewhat higher than ours. I tell them to look carefully, to pick out the large exposed cement pillars, the enormous flat roof. I tell them that this is a building site that has remained essentially untouched, certainly unfinished, for more than forty years. It was intended to be the palace of Jordan's King Hussein, constructed by him as a kind of celebration of nearly two decades of domination by the ruling Hashemite family of the city below, of Jerusalem. Indeed of the entire region that these journalists and their editors and colleagues have grown accustomed to calling the Israeli Occupied Territories.

I have not yet met a single journalist or press
photographer or film crew or stringer or editor who admits to
knowing about Hussein’s partly-constructed palace or what it means.

via kerenmalki.org

The modern Kingdom of Jordan, formerly known as Transjordan, represents approximately 78 percent of the original Palestine Mandate and was founded in 1949 following the War of Independence between Israel and the surrounding Arab states.  There is no difference, ethnically-speaking, between Arabs who lived east of the Jordan river in that portion of the Palestine Mandate which eventually became Jordan and those Arabs who originally lived west of the of the Jordan river in the area commonly known today as the "West Bank".  Even demographers do not distinguish between them.
But professional propagandists who wish to draw an artificial distinction between these groups of Arabs for the sake of political expediency or to push a particular agenda, do attempt to bifurcate them:

But Jordan's leading news website www.Ammonnews.net doesn't shy away from hectoring the government over misappropriation of funds by senior officials or highlighting fault lines between the country's Palestinian population and indigenous Jordanians.

Note that "indigenous Jordanians" are simply those (Palestinian) Arabs who happened to be living in the eastern portion of the Mandate when the country was founded.  Notwithstanding, the Jordanian government often discriminates unfairly between its Arab citizens of different tribal ancestry and has recently revoked the citizenship of thousands of subjects who originally came to Jordan from the West Bank.  Reuters doesn't mention this and suggests, misleadingly, that such deprivations are only now being considered:

Hattar's 'Allofjordan' was one of the few outlets, along with 'Ammonnews', to publish statements of normally apolitical ex-army officers asking King Abdullah to revoke citizenship of thousands of Jordanians of Palestinian origin, echoing the same fears the kingdom could turn into a Palestinian state.

Would Reuters be as taciturn if the Israeli government had stripped its Arab population of citizenship?  Rhetorical question.

via r-mew.blogspot.com

The damage caused to us Israelis by the shallow and
cowardly practice of journalism of this sort came home to me quite
sharply in an encounter of which I was part in Europe. In February
2004, I was invited to join a small delegation of Israelis, all of
us victims of terror because of things done to us or our loved ones
by terrorists. The purpose of the delegation was to go to a
first-of-its-kind event – an international congress of victims of
terror from many countries, organized in a major European capital
and intended to provided a voice for the victims – a voice, as all
of us know, that is rarely heard. And in particular to let the
voices of Israel’s victims be heard.

In the week before our departure from Israel, word
came back from the organizers of the conference, hearing that we
were about to arrive. They said: If you plan to come as a delegation
representing Israel, it would be better not to come. If you insist,
then you will be invited to pay at the door and to take a seat in
the audience, but we have no desire for you to speak or to be
official recognized. It would be better for everyone if you stayed
home.

via kerenmalki.org