(Worthwhile Read) Oslo and the Story of the Palestinian Village Leagues - by Yigal Carmon

Twenty-three years ago today, on the lawn of the White House, the Oslo Accord was signed. Both Israel and the US shared the questionable assumption that the PLO represented the one and only option for peace with the Palestinian people. Indeed, such was the situation at that time. However, this situation was the product of the policies of all the parties involved – the US, Israel, and, in its own way, the PLO, which had systematically eliminated its opponents. Fifteen years previously, a Palestinian movement had emerged in the Palestinian territories that sought peace with Israel in opposition to the PLO. It failed. Although 38 years have passed since that failure, the PLO and its supporters in the West are still haunted by this movement. I was personally involved in this endeavor and witnessed it firsthand. Here is the story of the Village Leagues.

Yigal Carmon..
MEMRI Daily Brief No.103..
13 September '16..

In August 1978, Mustafa Dodin and a group of Palestinian activists submitted a request to the Military Administration in the West Bank to establish a village league in the Hebron area. Dodin, a former Jordanian minister, was a prominent figure in that region, and was known for his opposition to the PLO and his ties with the Jordanian government, especially with the circle of Wasfi Al-Tal, who had been Jordan's prime minister.[1] Having returned from Jordan to his native town of Dura near Hebron, Dodin wanted to establish a political movement that would strive for a settlement with Israel. However, the Israeli administration refused to allow political activity of any kind in the occupied territories, even if its objective was to negotiate a peace treaty with Israel. Dodin was therefore compelled to submit a new request for establishing a social-administrative body as was legal under Jordanian law (which continued to apply to the occupied territories under the Israeli Military Administration), namely a village league. Even this request was held up for about a year and a half until its final approval in August 1978.

The objection to political activity reflected what was known as the "Dayan policy," which had prevailed since the summer of 1967. This policy was never formulated systematically by Dayan himself, but was, rather, a composite of general principles, guidelines and specific ad hoc directives that he issued to his subordinates. It included a ban on political activity of any kind, as well as an instruction to avoid any preferential treatment of moderate elements. This applied equally to supporters of Jordan and to the handful of individuals who strove for Palestinian autonomy under the aegis of Israel, whose most notable representative was the renowned attorney from Ramallah, Aziz Shehadeh.[2] In practice, however, implementation of the policy went much further: extremist PLO supporters were treated sympathetically by the Israeli authorities and extremist newspapers such as Al-Fajr and Al-Shaab were granted licenses on direct instructions from Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan. The official explanation given for this was that Israel did not intervene in the public conduct and freedom of speech of residents of the territories so long as they refrained from terrorist activities.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Surprise? Jordan: We Do Not Want Palestinians

...Countries such as Lebanon and Syria would rather see Palestinians living as "animals in the jungle" than grant them basic rights such as employment, education and citizenship. It is no surprise that refugees fleeing Syria have no ambitions to settle in any Arab country. They know that their fate in the Arab world will be no better than that of the Palestinians living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
12 September '15..

A recent decision by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) to cut back its services has left Jordan and other Arab countries extremely worried about the possibility that they may be forced to grant citizenship rights to millions of Palestinians.

During the last few weeks, many Jordanians have expressed deep concern that the UNRWA measures may be part of a "conspiracy" to force the kingdom to resettle Palestinian refugees.

According to UNRWA figures, more than two million registered Palestinian refugees live in Jordan. Most of the refugees, but not all, have full (Jordanian) citizenship, the figures show. The refugees live in 10 UNRWA-recognized camps in Jordan.

Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to Palestinians. Still, many Jordanians see their presence in the kingdom as temporary.

Although there is no official census data for how many inhabitants are Palestinian, they are estimated to constitute half of Jordan's population, which is estimated at seven million. Some claim that the Palestinians actually make up two-thirds of the kingdom's population.

Over the past few decades, the Jordanians' biggest nightmare has been the talk about resettling the Palestinians in the kingdom by turning them into permanent citizens. The talk about turning Jordan into a Palestinian state has also created panic and anger among Jordanians.

Jordan's "demographic problem" resurfaced last week when a senior Jordanian politician warned against plans to resettle Palestinian refugees in the kingdom.

Taher al-Masri, a former Jordanian prime minister who is closely associated with the ruling Hashemite monarchy, sounded the alarm in an interview with a Turkish news agency.

Commenting on UNRWA's severe financial crisis, which has resulted in cutting back services to Palestinian refugees living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, al-Masri said: "I believe this is part of a plan to turn the issue of the Palestinian refugees into an internal problem of Jordan. UNRWA is paving the way for liquidating the Palestinian cause."

Al-Masri, whose views often reflect those of the monarchy, expressed fear that the UNRWA cutbacks would prompt the world to consider the idea of turning the Palestinians in Jordan into permanent citizens, especially as most of them already carry Jordanian passports.

Al-Masri and other Jordanian officials maintain that Jordan is entitled to protect its "national identity" by refusing to absorb non-Jordanians.

Thoughts on Israel, Jordan, and the 'Disproportionate Response' Response

...For many it seems that the definition of disproportionate is any action taken by the Jewish state that might limit its enemy’s abilities to eventually destroy it.

Tom Wilson..
Commentary Magazine..
12 February '15..

In the wake of the brutal execution of Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh by ISIS, Jordan has unleashed a barrage of air attacks on the Islamist rebels. Over three days the Hashemite kingdom boasted of having hit some 56 targets and of killing 7,000 ISIS fighters. Whatever the actual figures, there can be no doubt that Jordan has massively increased its action against the jihadists, and now, with Jordanian television endlessly broadcasting images of King Abdullah in camouflage uniform strategizing alongside his generals, it is being reported that the Jordanians are moving a large force to the country’s Iraqi border. To be clear, there is nothing disproportionate about any of this. ISIS represents a very real threat to what is generally thought of as one of the weaker Arab states and the Jordanians are now using the kind of force warranted to seriously combat ISIS. But imagine if instead of ISIS it was Hamas, and if instead of Jordan boasting of 7,000 killed, it was Israel.

Of course Jordan had been participating in strikes against ISIS long before the kidnapping and murder of al-Kasasbeh. Back in September Jordan had joined with the Gulf states as part of the U.S.-led effort against ISIS. But since al-Kasasbeh’s horrific murder Jordan has begun to seriously flex what military muscle it has. Indeed, it is doing so in an open display of revenge against ISIS. Quite apart from the fact that many will consider such revenge a just response, it is also fully in Jordan’s national interest to push back ISIS before the rebels are able to cross the country’s porous desert border. No doubt many in the region will simply be grateful to see someone displaying the will to take serious action against ISIS and the terrible prospect that its rapid expansion represents.

Yet, watching all of this unfold one can’t help but think of the war that took place this summer shortly before allied strikes on ISIS began. The world was indeed shocked, albeit momentarily, by the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers while on their way home from school. But as Israel launched Operation Brother’s Keeper in an attempt to find the boys and to round up Hamas operatives in the West Bank, there were already the first mutterings that Israel needed to show restraint. Concerns were expressed that Israel’s operation in the West Bank might “destabilize” the situation.

Then when a desperate Hamas short on friends and money used these events as an excuse to unleash an unprecedented wave of rocket and tunnel warfare against Israeli civilians, Israel’s allies formed a chorus calling on the Israeli government to show maximum restraint. That phrase was so chilling in its moral redundancy and yet so commonly heard that it became inspiration for a remarkably apt song by Peter Himmelman.

Fortunately, Israel ignored the calls coming from Washington and the European capitals, and acting in its national interest hit Hamas hard. But for doing so the Israelis were now subjected to another allegation; that this was a disproportionate response. Even John Kerry was unwittingly caught on camera discussing the matter in angry and condescending tones; “it’s a hell of a pinpoint operation, it’s a hell of a pinpoint operation!” the secretary of state was heard saying.

The discussion around the escalation in Jordan’s war against ISIS has been unrecognizable in comparison. Even if the claim that 7,000 ISIS fighters have been killed in airstrikes is true, how many civilians have been killed alongside those fighters? Today the question of civilian casualties goes virtually unmentioned, whereas during Israel’s war with Hamas every news screen seemed to keep a running tally of the numbers killed in Gaza, always with an emphasis on the claim that these were mostly civilians, often accompanied by sneering remarks by journalists about how few Israeli casualties there had been. Not enough for the liking of those in Europe such as Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo, that was for sure.

Abbas, Incitement and the Temple Mount Fight

...Leaders on both sides should be doing all they can to keep Jerusalem calm, but peace can’t be bought by agreeing to a segregated apartheid-like ban on Jews visiting or living in some places. Rather than acquiescing to such dangerous attitudes, the U.S. should be sending a sharp message to Muslims that they must learn to live with their Jewish neighbors and share the city. But so long as Washington is shooting insults at Israel you can be sure that more violence and incitement is likely to follow.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
30 October '14..

Israel was back in the cross-hairs of both the international media and the Arab and Muslim worlds today after violence led to a temporary shutdown of access to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and its mosques. Condemnations of the Jewish state came in hot and heavy from various Islamic sources and even Jordan, a country that has a peace treaty with Israel and is dependent on it for security cooperation. Few bothered to mention, let alone condemn, the attempted murder of a Jewish activist that led to the closure or the drumbeat of incitement from Palestinian leaders that helped create the trouble. But while, as our Seth Mandel pointed out, the shooting generated biased media coverage that drew on the same themes as those inciting the violence, there is more to unwrap here than that. The obsessive focus on keeping Jews out of Judaism’s most sacred site and indeed, out of much of Jerusalem tells us all we need to know about why peace is nowhere in sight.

From the frame of reference of those critical of Israelis in the quarrel over both their capital and the Temple Mount, the notion of Jews moving to parts of the city or visiting or even praying on the plateau above the Western Wall is deeply provocative. Arab sensibilities are inflamed by the presence of Jews in either majority-Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem or those that are predominantly Arab. They are especially outraged by the spectacle of Jews walking around the Temple Mount in the vicinity of the mosques or, as is currently forbidden, praying there.

Most of the West accepts this way of looking at events as inherently reasonable and those, like the Jew who was shot yesterday, that advocate Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount or Israeli leaders who believe that Jews have every right to live in any part of their ancient capital that they want are termed extremist disturbers of the peace. Indeed, Jordanian King Abdullah, who finds himself compelled to verbally attack Israel because most of his subjects are opposed to the peace treaty and are unimpressed by the fact that it is the Jewish state that is the real guarantor of their ability to hold off ISIS and other Islamists, said that both Jewish and Islamic extremism was to blame for the problem.

Naharayim, Bizarre Jurists and the Kingdom of Jordan by Sarah Honig

...Still we believe, maybe naively, that jurists are a special category that ought to know better – much better. Surely even the minimally fair-minded must agree that the deliberate shooting of schoolgirls is as heinous a crime of hate as imaginable. There should be no equivocation here, much less identification with and glorification of the merciless perpetrator. Perhaps our inherent trust in the equitable judgment of members of Jordan’s judiciary is misplaced.

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
12 March '14..

Unfortunately, not many Israelis recall that today is the 17th anniversary of the Naharayim massacre in which a Jordanian soldier cold-bloodedly massacred seven Israeli schoolgirls.

Yet that unspeakable crime is bizarrely, almost obsessively, remembered in Jordan and there it has oddly just made the headlines again – but not in the way Israelis would readily imagine.

On Tuesday, Jordanian jurists had taken to the street and raucously protested the killing a day earlier of one of their colleagues, Raed Zeiter, at the Allenby Bridge crossing. Israel had officially expressed regret, shared its initial probe findings with the Jordanians and acceded to Jordanian demands to jointly investigate the matter. So far it all sounds cooperative and well-intentioned enough.

The reaction inside Jordan, however, took none of this into account and, if anything, exploited the incident to fan the flames against Israel and once more agitate for the release of the Naharayim slayer, which has incomprehensibly become a cause célèbre for all too many in Jordan, and, most disconcertingly of all, for its legal community.

Members of Jordan’s Bar Association didn’t rally after Zeiter’s shooting as outraged but hitherto impartial observers. Before having even had the chance to examine and ascertain any of the facts, they demanded the extradition of “the Israeli murderers.” The Jordanian jurists, having a priori formulated their verdict, vowed to mete out their brand of justice. Its nature isn’t difficult to surmise.

They congregated at Amman’s Palace of Justice and burned an Israeli flag there to the sound of hoarse shouts calling for the expulsion of Israeli diplomats and the immediate release of Ahmed Daqamseh, who on March 13, 1997, callously shot to death seven young Israeli girls out on a school excursion.

We may well wonder what the Allenby Bridge incident has to do with the Naharayim bloodshed. Why use it as a means to facilitate Daqamseh’s release?

The Kingdom of Jordan Also Has Reason to Worry About the Two-State Solution

...Jordanians reject Secretary Kerry's proposals because they are only "playing host" to Palestinians who they believe should not be not full citizens. And they believe only the IDF, not the U.S. or the UN, will protect them from an unwelcome influx of more.

Shoshana Bryen..
JPC/Forbes..
07 February '14..

It has been said that Jordan is the only Arab country in which Palestinians have "full citizenship." That is less than a complete truth. As Secretary of State John Kerry pursues his plan for a "two state solution," the insecurity of Palestinian legal status in Jordan is emerging.

Israel's vociferous objection to removing the IDF from the Jordan River line in the West Bank is easy to understand. Maj. Gen. Ya'akov Amidror, former National Security Advisor said bluntly, "Only Israeli forces can make us sure that we will not find ourselves living with another Gaza Strip in Ramallah, which is five miles from the Israeli parliament in the city of Jerusalem. This is so important for us that we are not going to give it away."

The Jordanians, too, are adamant about rejecting the proposal. There is close security cooperation between the Israeli and Jordanian security services. The Jordanians are capable and dedicated to preventing infiltration of operatives and weapons into the West Bank through its territory. The Israelis are equally dedicated to border security along the Jordan River that helps keep the Kingdom secure.

But more is at work.

The estimable Arab-Israeli journalist Khalid Abu Toameh, senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, reported this week that a group of retired Jordanian army generals issued a statement warning their government against accepting Kerry's proposals for fear that Palestinians would be "settled" in Jordan. "This is an American-Zionist plot to liquidate the Palestinian cause at the expense of Jordan."A Jordanian columnist wrote, "Jordan's politicians and parties want to alert the world that Jordan is playing host [to Palestinians] and Jordanians believe that Kerry is offering to turn Jordan into a Palestinian state."

MP Abdel Hadi Majali accused Kerry of "diluting the Jordanian national identity by dropping the right of return for Palestinians and granting them Jordanian citizenship."

Why would Israel want to replace its best friend in the Arab world–Jordan–with its worst enemy, a radical Palestinian State with the size, infrastructure, finances, weaponry and international legitimacy of the Kingdom?

It doesn't. The Jordanians are, in fact, reflecting a little-known fact of life east of the River: the shaky legal status of Jordanian Palestinians and the deep desire of East Bank non-Palestinians to be rid of them. A quick recap of Jordanian/Palestinian history:

Jordanian Parliament - Water, Energy, and Trade? Who Needs Those?

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary/Contentions..
09 May '13..

As Jonathan noted yesterday, it’s hard to blame the lack of Mideast peace on Israel’s “occupation of Arab lands” in 1967 when peace was singularly lacking even before 1967. But this theory rests on a more fundamental fallacy: that all human beings basically want the same things – peace and a good life – and therefore, what Westerners consider a reasonable compromise should satisfy Middle Easterners as well. To understand just how false this is, consider Wednesday’s unanimous vote by the lower house of Jordan’s parliament to expel the Israeli ambassador.

On Tuesday, a group of Jews visited Judaism’s holiest site, the Temple Mount. They didn’t engage in “provocations” such as praying or reciting Psalms, but to many Arabs, the very presence of Jews at the site to which Jews have prayed for 3,000 years is a provocation. Palestinians therefore began hurling rocks and chairs at them, causing the police to intervene. And according to the Jordanian parliament, this sequence of events constituted “criminal attacks by the settlers” – i.e. Jews.

That alone is troubling enough. But parliament’s decision to respond by voting to expel the ambassador is even more troubling given how much Jordan would lose by ending its peace with Israel.

First, under the peace treaty, Israel provides Jordan with tens of millions of cubic meters of water each year. Recently, it even increased this amount to help Jordan cope with its flood of Syrian refugees. Scrapping the treaty would thus greatly exacerbate Jordan’s already severe water shortage.

Keeping mum on an outrage in Jordan

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
22 April '13..

The very fact that 110 members of Jordan’s parliament (out of a total of 150) signed a petition for the release of the murderer from Naharayim speaks volumes about what parades as morality and coexistence next door to us.

Jordan, it needs to be stressed, is formally at peace with Israel.

Hence the implicit message from Amman is disconcerting in the extreme. Purported representatives of public opinion showed us where their hearts are, regardless of whether the massacre-perpetrator stays behind bars or not.

Surely even the minimally fair-minded must agree that the March 13, 1997, cold-blooded shooting of Israeli schoolgirls is as heinous a crime of hate as imaginable.

There should be no equivocation here.

In the wake of the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty, the confluence of the Jordan and Yarmouk rivers, (Naharayim – two rivers in Hebrew) was reserved as a tourist site and named optimistically “the Island of Peace.” It was under Jordanian sovereignty but developed and maintained by several Israeli kibbutzim. It was ironically there that a Jordanian corporal, Ahmed Daqamseh, opened fire on Israeli children from Beit Shemesh during their school outing.

He killed seven 13-year-old girls and wounded others.

Daqamseh was sentenced to seven life terms, which in the Jordanian context means 25 years in prison. Yet he is far from being disowned and condemned by his compatriots.

The reverse is true. There has been continued overt and vociferous agitation for his release and he is often outrightly celebrated as a hero. Distressingly, King Abdullah keeps mum.

The Island of Peace - Poor impulse control or deadly ideology?

In 2011, Daqamseh said that he had not committed any crime, but rather “fulfilled his national and religious duty.” He was supported by Jordan’s Justice Minister (and his former attorney) Hussein Mjali, who called him a ‘hero’.

Fresnozionism.org..
15 April '13..





News item:

An overwhelming 110 members [out of 120] of the Jordanian House of Representatives signed a petition demanding a pardon for a Jordanian soldier who shot and killed seven Israeli schoolgirls in 1997.

Ahmad Musa Mustafa Daqamseh shot the girls during a school fieldtrip [to the Island of Peace] in Naharayim, near the Israel-Jordan border, and is currently serving a life sentence.

Here’s a description of the island:

The Island of Peace is an Israeli-Jordanian park at the confluence of the Jordan River and Yarmouk River, on the border between Israel and Jordan. …

Land along the Jordan River’s alluvial slopes and floor bed was under Jewish ownership before the establishment of the State of Israel. In 1927, Pinchas Rutenberg, founder of the Palestine Electric Company, signed an agreement with King Abdullah I of Jordan to build a hydroelectric power station. The canals and dams built for this purpose created a man-made island. …

In 1994, Israel ceded the area to Jordan as part of the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace. Jordan agreed to lease it back so the Israeli farmers from Kibbutz Ashdot Ya’acov could continue to cultivate the land. Farming continues under a 25-year, automatically renewable lease. A gate was established to enable Israeli tourists to visit the park without a visa or passport, on presentation of their identity cards to the Jordanian guards at the border crossing.

It is a remarkably beautiful place, and represented one of the rare instances of anything approaching normal relations between Israel and any of its Arab neighbors. In 1994, King Hussein of Jordan told PM Itzhak Rabin that “no place better illustrates the fact that we are at peace.”

The 1997 murders were horrific. Daqamseh said that the picnicking girls had ridiculed him while praying, so he opened fire on them from a guard tower with his M16. Then he climbed down and chased them, continuing to fire until his weapon jammed.

In a gesture of a kind not seen from an Arab leader before or since, King Hussein came to Israel and visited the the shiva houses of the victims, sat on the floor with mourners, and ordered that the families be compensated. “Your pain is my pain,” he said.

Daqamseh was sentenced to life in prison by a Jordanian court, which normally equates to 25 years. His defense was a form of insanity plea: he could have received the death penalty, but the court was lenient because of his “antisocial personality disorder.” And by Western standards — even by King Hussein’s — anyone who would shoot down 13 and 14-year old girls because he believed they had made fun of him would have to be crazy.

In 2001, his mother called an al-Jazeera TV program and made this statement:

I am proud of my son, and I hold my head high. My son did a heroic deed and has pleased Allah and his own conscience. My son lifts my head and the head of the entire Arab and Islamic nation. I am proud of any Muslim who does what Ahmad did. I hope that I am not saying something wrong. When my son went to prison, they asked him: ‘Ahmad, do you regret it?’ He answered: ‘I have no regrets.’ He treated everyone to coffee, honored all the other prisoners, and said: The only thing that I am angry about is the gun, which did not work properly. Otherwise I would have killed all of the passengers on the bus.

Why Peace Won’t Happen - One More Reason

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
12 April '13..

Anyone who regularly follows the translations of the Palestinian media available on Palestinian Media Watch (www.palwatch.org) or www.Memri.org understands that the blithe talk about the possibility of Middle East peace that is heard on the left is utterly unrealistic. But keeping one’s finger on the pulse of a Palestinian culture that continues to foment hatred of Jews and Israel isn’t the only indicator of just how deep this animus runs in Arab culture. Just as informative is a look at the cultures of the two Arab countries that have already made peace with Israel: Egypt and Jordan. The potent anti-Semitism of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as the prejudice that runs throughout the culture of the largest Arab nation is well documented. But the situation in Jordan is less well known.

Jordan’s reputation as a moderate Arab nation stems mostly from the attitude of former King Hussein and his successor King Abdullah. Like his father, the Jordanian monarch is well spoken in English, charming and, despite the criticisms he lobs across the border at Israel in order to maintain his standing as an Arab leader, very much uninterested in conflict with the Jewish state. But his people and even those in his government are a very different manner.

As the Jerusalem Post reports, 110 out of 120 members of the Jordanian parliament have endorsed a petition calling for the release of the former soldier who murdered seven Jewish children in 1997. The shocking incident at the Island of Peace along the border between Israel and Jordan prompted King Hussein to personally apologize to the families of the victims for what he considered a blot on the honor of both his country and its armed services. But to the overwhelming majority of Jordanians, he appears to be a hero. If that doesn’t tell you something about how difficult it is to imagine the end of the Middle East conflict, you aren’t paying attention.

Occupation? Who is Occupying Whom?

Prof. Moshe Sharon..
Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav..

The word "occupation" has been used for many years to describe Israel's rule over Judea and Samaria (the area which is known as "the West Bank") and Gaza Strip which Israel conquered in 1967 during the Six Day War when it vanquished the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt, respectively. In the distorted language of the media and politicians, whether in Israel or in most other parts of the world, these two territories are described as the "occupied Palestinian territories", as if, in 1967, Israel conquered a land called "Palestine" and appropriated Palestinian lands for itself. Unfortunately, very few media consumers in the West or the East are aware of the falsehood behind the use of these terms.

Let us first take a quick look at the simple facts regarding this "occupation". Israel conquered the "West Bank" from Jordan and not from any nonexistent "Palestinian" entity; and Israel conquered Gaza from Egypt. But these two countries, Jordan and Egypt, conquered these territories themselves during the War of Independence of 1948 and subsequently ruled there illegally. The Jordanians even annexed the area West of the Jordan River and called it the "West Bank". Egypt established its own administration in Gaza. These two territories were, therefore, in Arab hands for nineteen years, but during this time of Jordanian and Egyptian occupation, no one ever thought of establishing a Palestinian state in them, despite the fact that it would have been possible to establish such a state easily and this state would have won recognition, even from Israel.

Moreover, neither the Jordanian occupation of the "West Bank" nor the Egyptian rule in Gaza were recognized , for the simple reason that these two countries conquered territories that were, according to international agreements, international decisions and international law, parts of the Jewish national home. Actually, the only right to sovereignty over these territories belonged and still belongs to the State of Israel.

The 100 "Pro-Palestinians"

Hisham Jarallah..
Gatestone Institute..
28 August '12..




Some 100 "pro-Palestinian" activists from different countries arrived in Jordan during the past few days on another anti-Israel mission.

The activists did not come to Jordan to:

 - Visit or help thousands of Syrian and Palestinian refugees who are being held in miserable conditions along the Jordan-Syria border.
 - Hear information about the daily massacres in neighboring Syria. Had they wanted, the "pro-Palestinians" could have interviewed dozens of Syrians and Palestinians who fled the violence and bloodshed in Syria and heard horrific stories about how both the Syrian army and the "revolutionaries" have been slaughtering innocent civilians, including women and children.
 - Protest against the kingdom's official policy of discrimination against Palestinians -- an issue that has drawn sharp condemnations not only from Palestinians, but also from some Jordanians.
 - Demonstrate against the government's recent decision to impose severe restrictions on media outlets.
 - Hear about the harsh conditions of Palestinians living in a number of refugee camps in Jordan.
 - Protest against the Jordanian government's decision to revoke the Jordanian citizenship of tens of thousands of Palestinians.
 - Hear how thousands of Palestinians have been expelled from Iraq and other Arab countries in recent years.
 - Promote the rights of women under Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
 - Protest against the Palestinian Authority's crackdown on journalists and bloggers.

They did not come to Jordan because they were planning to visit Lebanon and see for themselves how Palestinians are subjected to apartheid regulations that prevent them from working in many professions.

Instead, the activists spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a mission whose only purpose is to provoke Israel, and not help Palestinians.

CAMERA - The Washington Post’s ‘Little Kingdom’ is Four Times Bigger than Israel

ER..
CAMERA/Snapshots..
09 May '12..





Describing Jordan in an article headlined “Beneath the civility, Jordanians simmer; Growing frustrations threaten the stability of key U.S. ally” (May 8), The Washington Post referred to “this little kingdom….”

The land area of Jordan, Israel’s eastern neighbor, totals 34,500 square miles. Jordan’s population is 6.5 million. Israel comprises 8,019 square miles and its population totals 7.6 million (all figures from the CIA World Fact Book). That makes “this little kingdom” more than four times larger than the Jewish state.

Jordan ranks 112th by size out of more than 200 on the list of countries. Israel is 154th. If Jordan is, accurately, “this little kingdom,” then readers should expect journalistic descriptions of Israel as “this tiny democracy.”

Tobin - Who’s Mistreating the Palestinians Again?

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
17 April '12..

The standard cliché of Middle East reporting is the notion of Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians. But as anyone with even a minimal grasp of the history of the region knows, the real victimizers of the Palestinians have always been the Arab nations who refused to absorb or resettle them after 1948 but instead preferred to keep them homeless as props to use in the war to destroy Israel. That this is an ongoing story rather than merely a chapter of history is demonstrated anew on the border between Jordan and Syria where Palestinians fleeing the chaos and violence of the revolt against Bashar al-Assad have been left stranded. But as has been the case with the exploitation of the Palestinians in the past, the world isn’t paying much attention.

As the always insightful Khaled Abu Toameh writes for the Gatestone Institute’s Website, more than 1,000 Palestinians attempted to enter Jordan from Syria, but the government of King Abdullah has kept them in a makeshift tent refugee camp with poor sanitary conditions while refusing them entry. The king’s priority remains repressing any possible signs of unrest among the approximately 80 percent of his subjects who are Palestinian and wants nothing to do with them or their plight. So while international “human rights” activists remained focused on aiding Palestinians seeking to destroy Israel, they ignore the real abuses of refugees going on right next door to the Jewish state.

(+Video) Promotion of the values ​​of Jordanian tolerance and moderation

LOTL..
16 April '12..

One visiting the official website of the Jordan Radio and Television Corporation, the Kingdom of Jordan State TV, will find the following in its mission statement. One thing it shows, is a dedication to journalistic and media practices, of which many of those who live in Western countries, hold dear.

Vision

Provide meaningful national information dedicated to freedom of expression and opinion, within an atmosphere based on independence and responsible freedom of expression and the homeland of all classes and sects and reverse the will and aspirations, in addition to the practice of media performance are based on professionalism, excellence and responsibility.

Message

Promotion of the values ​​of Jordanian tolerance and moderation, pluralism and the preservation of the identity of Jordan by highlighting the popular tradition and the need to give a wider horizon of local dimensions, and more attention, through the expansion of the follow-up news and local events.

Strategic objectives

Cover the entire area of ​​the Kingdom of radio and television broadcasting.

Spread the message of Jordan to the corners of the globe.

....

And in practice? Time to meet the neighbors.

Friday Sermon on Jordan TV: Jordanian Army Is Invincible, Will Shatter the Might of Israel - Jordanian TV - March 23, 2012
http://www.memri.org/


Published on Apr 8, 2012 by MEMRITVVideos

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand 
.

Sherman - From potentate to puppet?

Martin Sherman..
Into the Fray/JPost..
03 February '12..

We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are perpetual and eternal and those interests it is our duty to follow – Lord Palmerston, British foreign secretary, 1848

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (The more things change, the more they stay the same) – Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, 1849

The Lone Ranger, to his hitherto trustworthy American-Indian comrade, Tonto, on realizing they are surrounded by hostile Apaches: It looks like we’re in a lot of trouble, old friend!
Tonto: What do you mean ‘we,’ Paleface? – an old joke

The eternal potential for perfidy – or at least the impermanence of loyalties – in pursuit of interests, personal or national, is being illustrated by the events unfolding in Jordan today.

Crumbling of conventional wisdom?

It has long been a pillar of conventional wisdom in the Middle East that the Hashemite kingdom is a bastion of moderate pro-Western stability. Accordingly, it has been held that the relationship between the monarchy and radical elements in the Arab world in general, and among the Palestinian in particular, will inevitably be adversarial. Consequently, the assumption has been that, by their very nature and the nature of their goals, these elements necessarily are an existential threat to the regime in Amman.

Furthermore, with the eruption of the Arab Spring, the dominant view has been that the popular waves of support for resurgent Islam are a grave menace to the rule of incumbent autocrats, monarchical or military.

After all, Islamic regimes have risen in the wake of deposed dictatorships in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, while other are under siege in Syria and Yemen. The same scenario was presumed valid in Jordan.

However, here it seems the Palestinian question might be disrupting – even reversing – this pattern, at least for the time being.

For as the recent visit by Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to Amman (his first official one since his 1999 expulsion) shows, a surprising, even counter-intuitive, truth seems to be emerging.

Rather than radical Palestinian Islamic elements threatening to overthrow the monarchy, they appear to be articulating a rationale for sustaining it. At least in the medium term and at least as far as appearances are concerned. This may have dangerously deceptive consequences for Israel.

Singer - Palestine - Fixing The Figures, Fudging The Facts

David Singer
canadafreepress.com
03 October '11

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/40908

As the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly continue to consider the PLO application for the State of Palestine to be admitted as the 194th member of the UN - there is concern in Jordan that approval of such application could:

1) represent a distinct threat to continued Hashemite rule in Jordan and

2) challenge Jordan’s right to exist as a viable and independent State within secure and recognized boundaries.

Jordan’s King Abdullah had indicated his concern at these possibilities prior to the PLO presenting its application for membership to the UN on 23 September.

Clearly worried by the possible outcome of the current UN hearings - the King had been at pains to stress Jordan’s independence stating on September 12:

“Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is Palestine. We haven’t changed politically and we will not change. The ‘alternative Palestinian homeland’ will never be part of the discussion; it is not an option and is not in the Jordanian lexicon”

Jordan’s foreign minister - Nasser Judeh - reportedly said two days later that whilst his country supported the Palestinian campaign - the best way to attain statehood was by direct negotiations.

Whilst this might well be Jordan’s position - it is certainly not the PLO‘s.

Jordan’s fears appear to be have been well founded after PLO Chairman - Mahmoud Abbas - told the General Assembly on 23 September :

“ Yet, because we believe in peace and because of our conviction in international legitimacy, and because we had the courage to make difficult decisions for our people, and in the absence of absolute justice, we decided to adopt the path of relative justice - justice that is possible and could correct part of the grave historical injustice committed against our people. Thus, we agreed to establish the State of Palestine on only 22% of the territory of historical Palestine - on all the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel in 1967.

Mr Abbas’s statement followed closely on the heels of a similar one made just four days earlier by Palestinian Ambassador to Australia - Izzat Abdulhadi - who said:

“Palestine would become a State on the Occupied Palestinian Territories or 22% of historic Palestine, while Israel retained 78% of historic Palestine.” (Australian September 19).

The publication of these virtually identical - but misleading and deceptive - statements within days of each other must surely have confirmed King Abdullah‘s worst fears.

Zahran - A Plan B for Jordan?

Mudar Zahran
Hudson New York
16 September '11

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2429/jordan-plan-b


The King of Jordan, Abdullah II, delivered a speech on September 11, in which he mentioned the Jordanian civil war of 1970 for the first time ever: "There are not any issues we are too embarrassed to discuss, even if there is someone who wants to discuss the incidents of 1970, this is a part of history; let us think of the future and not the past."

Commenting on the fear of Jordan's Bedouin minority -- who make up the king's military and are the protected class -- that Jordan might become the Palestinian majority's homeland -- a plan dubbed "the alternative homeland" by the local media -- the king said: "I would like to assure everyone that Jordan will not be an alternative country to anyone. Is it even logical that Jordan will become an alternative to anyone while we sit there and do nothing? We have an army and we are willing to fight for our country and for the future of Jordan, and we must speak vigorously and not ever allow this idea to remain in the minds of some of us….We have fought Israel before many times."

"Jordan and the future of Palestine," he added, "are much stronger than Israel today; the Israeli is the one who is afraid….When I was in the United States, I spoke to an Israeli intellectual; he told me that what was happening in Arab countries today is in the interests of Israel. I told him, 'I think it is the opposite: your situation today is much harder than before.'"

King Abdullah also mentioned the need to address the issue of "national identity" in Jordan -- a phrase associated with isolating the Palestinians, who make up 80% of the population, in favor of the Beduin minority, for whom he would establish Jordan as a purely Bedouin state: "We must speak with a loud voice about the Jordanian identity," he said, "yet national unity is a red line." In other words, the king openly supports talk about imposing a Jordanian Bedouin identity on the country, while at the same time prohibiting any "unity" with the Palestinians -- a notion he had previously denounced.

Daphne Anson - Jeopardising Jordan

Daphne Anson
10 July '11

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/07/jeopardising-jordan.html

The latest incisive article by Sydney lawyer David Singer, a founder member of the International Analysts Network, is entitled "Jordan – Abbas Offers Abdullah The Kiss Of Death". The article comes via the antipodean J-Wire service.

Writes David Singer:

'Jordan’s King Abdullah is clearly worried about the future direction of his country – if developments over recent weeks are any indication.

His Majesty told the Washington Post on 16 June:

“2011 will be, I think, a very bad year for peace, Although we will continue to try to bring both sides to the table, I am the most pessimistic I have been in 11 years.”

Whilst the Palestinian Authority refuses to resume negotiations with Israel any hope of peacefully resolving sovereignty in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza will deteriorate and the King‘s pessimism will become self-fulfilling.

The absence of any such negotiations impacts on Jordan (known as Transjordan until 1950) because of its following historic, geographic and demographic ties with the West Bank and East Jerusalem:

Jordan comprises 78% of former Palestine – whilst Israel comprises 17%. The remaining 5% comprises the West Bank and Gaza.

Jordan’s population is overwhelmingly comprised of Arabs (or their descendants) who fled the invasion of Palestine by six Arab armies (including Jordan) in 1948.

Jordan was the last Arab occupier of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from 1948-1967 – driving out all the Jews who had lived there prior to 1948.

In 1950 a joint parliament comprised equally of members from the West Bank and Transjordan voted to unify the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Transjordan into one state which was renamed Jordan – and it remained so unified until the loss of the West Bank to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War. Only Great Britain and Pakistan recognized such union but it flourished unchallenged for 17 years.

West Bank Arab residents became Jordanian citizens and enjoyed that status from 1950 until 1988 – when Jordan finally relinquished all claims to the West Bank – but not its custodianship of the holy sites in East Jerusalem.

Jordan has kept its territorial claims alive to the West Bank and East Jerusalem as a result of clause 2 [A] of Annex 1 (a) of the peace treaty it signed with Israel in 1994. Sovereignty in all or part of the West Bank and East Jerusalem could be claimed by Jordan at any time under this clause – with Israel‘s concurrence – notwithstanding Jordan’s earlier repudiation in 1988. Any renewed claim would not result in a breach of the terms of Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel.

Tobin - Abdullah’s Hypocritical Lament

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary/Contentions
16 June '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/16/abdullah%E2%80%99s-hypocritical-lament/

Jordan’s monarchs have always gotten a free pass from the Western press no matter what their country did or how despotic the Hashemite regime was. That explains the way King Abdullah turned an interview with the Washington Post yesterday into another commercial for his government as a force for peace and democracy.

Abdullah was in the nation’s capital for talks with President Obama in which he urged him to take “bold steps to “jump-start peace talks” between Israel and the Palestinians. Abdullah seemed to be reading from the Obama playbook when he said that Israel had to act now to save itself: “If it’s not a two-state solution, then it’s a one-state solution,” he said. “And then, is it going to be apartheid, or is it going to be democracy?”

Astonishingly, Abdullah went on to lecture Israel about the need for granting democratic rights to Palestinians and said that the ascendance of right-wing parties in Israel was the result of too much American support: “When you get billions in aid and your weapons resupplied and your ammunition stock resupplied, you don’t learn the lesson that war is bad and nobody wins,” Abdullah said.

That the autocratic, unelected leader of a minority regime such as that of Jordan would be allowed to lecture a democracy like Israel on this score without being challenged is a tribute to Jordan’s incredibly good public relations if nothing else. If anybody needs democracy, it is the Palestinian majority in Jordan that has chafed for generations under minority Bedouin rule. But although he is as much under the gun as other Arab autocrats during the year of the Arab Spring, Abdullah was not asked by the Post about giving his own people some rights.

Yet Abdullah’s carping about Israel is particularly absurd and hypocritical. Israel’s turn to the right, it has little, if anything, to do with American support. Rather, it is the direct result of Palestinian rejectionism that has utterly destroyed the Israeli left in successive elections in the last decade. Israel has already embraced the two-state solution that he advocates but it has been rejected time and again by the Palestinians who even now refuse to even negotiate with the Jewish state. Even worse, the Palestinian “moderates” that Abdullah and Obama want Israel to make concessions to have now embraced a coalition with the Islamists of Hamas making peace even less likely.

If there is any country that has been coddled by the United States it is Jordan, not Israel. It was Abdullah’s father, after all, the charming and popular Hussein, who is responsible for the unification of Jerusalem and Israel’s capture of the West Bank. It was he who embraced Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser and war against Israel in 1967. Hussein also supported Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. Though he was loved in Israel for making peace with it in 1994, over the decades he slaughtered thousands of Palestinians in order to hold onto his kingdom. Yet the United States, and Israel have always been so desperate to preserve that monarchy that they have winked at everything its rulers have done.

If Abdullah cares that much about democracy, he ought to try it at home. And if he’s worried about peace, the king and his friend President Obama need to start pressuring the Palestinians, not Israel, to negotiate.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.