Showing posts with label King Hussein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label King Hussein. Show all posts

Friday, February 10, 2017

Why should the Jordanian occupation dissection of the Jewish homeland be considered valid? - by Stephen M. Flatow

...a fascinating question: Did the King of Jordan have a right to nullify the Jewish claim to the land of Israel?

Stephen M. Flatow..
JNS.org..
09 February '17..

To hear the foreign news media tell it, Israel’s Knesset has approved extreme right-wing legislation that will steal Palestinian land by legalizing illegal outposts, thereby demolishing hopes for Middle East peace.

The truth, of course, is very different.

The Israeli government has not authorized the establishment of a new Jewish community in Judea and Samaria since the establishment of the Oslo Accords.

But Oslo did not resolve the status of the empty land in those territories. And there is a lot of empty land out there — as anybody who has ever traveled in the territories knows.

(Continue to Full Post)

Stephen M. Flatow, a vice president of the Religious Zionists of America, is an attorney in New Jersey. He is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995.

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. 
.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

July 31 was a very big anniversary for Palestinian Arab history - by Elder of Ziyon

...But since it was done by Arab leaders, and supposedly for their own good, no one talks about it.

Elder of Ziyon..
03 August '16..

July 31 was a very big anniversary for Palestinian Arab history. Yet amongst all the anniversaries that Palestinians mark, I didn't see anyone talking about July 31 this year.

On July 31, 1988, Jordan's King Hussein announced that - at the PLO's request - he was cutting all administrative and legal ties with Arabs who lived on the West Bank of the Jordan river.

With the stroke of a pen, over a million Palestinians changed from being Jordanian citizens to becoming citizens of nothing.

(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. 
.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Whitewashing Palestinian Violence Again at the NY Times

...Hewing to a well-worn pattern, The New York Times again whitewashes Palestinian violence and responsibility for conflict. This time, though, there's a novel twist to the old, tired formula: the story doesn't involve Israel.

Jordanian Prime Minister
Wasfi Tal, murdered by
members of the Palestinian
 "Black September" terror group
in 1971
Tamar Sternthal..
CAMERA Snapshots..
01 December '14..

Certain traditions die hard. Like camels in the Jordanian police force. And Times' whitewashing of Palestinian violence.

Hewing to a well-worn pattern, The New York Times again whitewashes Palestinian violence and responsibility for conflict. This time, though, there's a novel twist to the old, tired formula: the story doesn't involve Israel. In an interesting article about the traditional use of camels in Jordan's desert police force, Ben Hubbard writes (Nov. 29):

Jordan’s rulers have long seen those descendants of Palestinians, who tend to care less about the monarchy, as a demographic threat to their rule, according to Ora Szekely, an associate professor of political science at Clark University in Massachusetts, who studies Jordan.

This sentiment increased after Black September, the violent battle that began in 1970 between the Jordanian Army and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Thousands were killed, but the monarchy won and expelled the P.L.O. from the kingdom.

“This cemented the decision and convinced the monarchy that the only people they could trust were the East Bankers,” Dr. Szekely said, “and especially the Bedouin.”

What, exactly, convinced the monarchy that it couldn't trust Palestinians? Contrary to Hubbard's muddled reporting and the confusing statement by Dr. Szekely, the violence of Black September was not the cause of the late King Hussein's distrust of Palestinians; it was the result.

In addition, the source of King Hussein's lack of trust was not merely of a demographic nature. In August 1970, Yasser Arafat convened the Palestine National Council in Amman, which openly debated overthrowing King Hussein (Arafat's War, Efraim Karsh). Indeed, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine twice attempted to assassinate the King in early September 1970.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

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.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

A Jordanian Hero?

Paula R. Stern
A Soldier's Mother
16 February '11

Fourteen years ago, a school in Beit Shemesh took their students to the Island of Peace - Naharayim, on a school trip. Fourteen years ago, a Jordanian soldier saw the students, and opened fire, killing 7 young girls. I remember that day so well, and the days that followed. I watched the news and kept asking my husband to explain something that could not be explained.

How, I kept asking him...how does a parent send a child to school in the morning and bury her that night? That thought, that image, haunted me for years. What helped, a bit, was the amazing action of the Jordanian king. King Hussein did the unthinkable - he came to Israel. He insisted. He was deeply ashamed and angered by what his soldier had done and so he came to Israel, to Beit Shemesh, to the homes of the parents of these young girls and made a condolence call.

(Read full "A Jordanian Hero?")

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
.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Is Jordan next in line?

Op-ed: Topping of King Abdullah’s regime in Amman may have positive implications for Israel

Ron Breiman
Israel Opinion/Ynet
Published: 02.07.11, 12:20

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4025025,00.html

The riots taking place in the Arab world in general, and in Egypt in particular, may create a new Middle East, and not in the delusional respect marketed by Shimon Peres and the other Oslo proponents, but rather, in a realistic and threatening way. Even if the current Egyptian regime survives the current crisis, it will clearly not last long given Mubarak’s advanced age and the upcoming presidential elections.

Hence, Israel should not be caught off guard. It must take into account the possibility of a different reality on its southern border, growing transfer of weapons to the Gaza Strip, the easing of infiltration by “refugees” into Israel in the aims of weakening it, and mostly, possible violation of the Sinai demilitarization agreement.

Israel must prepare for all these developments in advance, on the basis of a sober risk assessment. The decision on how to respond in case of Egyptian military deployment in the Sinai must be taken today, not when the risk is materialized.

If the unrest in our region gravely harmed a powerful regime like Mubarak’s, it may certainly cause grave harm to weaker regimes, such as King Abdullah’s in Jordan. The official Israel views it as a danger, yet as it has no power to prevent the boiling over of riots from Egypt to Jordan, Jerusalem prefers to keep its head in the sand and be surprised if and when Amman ends up looking like Cairo.

The destabilization of the Jordanian regime will change the realities of our life and its implications may be even more tangible than those of the process in Egypt. The takeover of power by the people east of the Jordan River, even if it is accompanied by the support of radical, hostile forces, does not depend on Israel. At the same time, we would do well to rid ourselves of the dominant doctrine in Israel and also see the glass half full in respect to such possible development.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

These Talks Will Not Satisfy Either Side


JINSA
Report #: 1,020
03 September '10

The current Washington "peace talks" have less chance of producing either a Palestinian state or legitimacy and security for Israel than even their previous editions.

-Mahmoud Abbas isn't Arafat.

-Hamas rules Gaza with an iron fist with political support from Turkey and weapons from Iran. Hamas and Iran are willing to mix Sunni and Shiite fundamentalist orthodoxies in the name of their greater enemies - Israel and Fatah. Turkey is stirring the pot.

-The Arab states are not interested in Palestine and want Israel to do something about their priority - Iran.

-Egypt's ailing President Hosni Mubarak did not drag himself to Washington on behalf of a Palestinian state, but on behalf of his son Gamal.

-King Abdullah's already minority position in his kingdom shrinks daily and there are calls to oust Palestinians lest they build a mini-State in Jordan as they did in Lebanon.

-Prime Minister Netanyahu isn't Prime Minister Barak.

Senator Mitchell said there is a "window of opportunity" now. With due respect, it is not a window but trompe l'oeil - the French decorating trick that "fools the eye" by drawing outdoor scenery on solid walls. Which is not to say nothing interesting is happening.

Prime Minister Netanyahu spent an hour-and-a-half in private with Mahmoud Abbas yesterday. A fly on the wall might have heard the following:

(Read full report)

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.
.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Hypocrites in Washington: What Egypt's Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah Really Want


Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
03 September '10
Posted before Shabbat

Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah, who were invited to Washington attend the launching of direct negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, went there out of concern for their regimes, and not because they cared so much about the Palestinians or the Middle East peace process. The two Arab leaders accepted the invitation mainly due to the growing problems each one is facing at home.

Mubarak's trip to Washington comes amid growing opposition in Egypt to the idea of his son, Gamal, succeed him as president. Posters carrying the pictures of Gamal and seeking support for his candidacy have appeared in many places in the country, drawing sharp protests from many Egyptians.

The 82-year-old Mubarak is understandably desperate to have his son succeed him, but knows that without the backing of the US and the approval of the mainstream media in the West, Gamal will never be permitted to step into his father's shoes.

Such backing from the US and other Western countries is even more important than winning the support of the Egyptians, whose opinion doesn't matter anyway.

After all, these are the same Egyptians who, over the past three decades, have been giving their beloved dictator more than 95% support in government-sponsored referendums where the president's only rival is the president himself.

(Read full post)

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.
.

Monday, March 29, 2010

President Obama Follows Up on His Middle East Victory, A Satire


Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
29 March '10

“President Obama! President Obama,” said the aide in a cheery voice as he entered the Oval Office, “we just heard that Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to stop all construction in Jerusalem and give in to all your demands!”

“That is wonderful news,” chortled the chief executive. ‘’And as you know I never waste a moment. Quick! Get me my friend Mahmoud Abbas on the phone.”

With the magical swiftness of the White House communications equipment, within moments the leader of the Palestinian Authority was on the line. Quickly, Obama explained to him what had happened, adding, “and now we can move quickly to a comprehensive peace.”

“Not so fast,” answered Abbas. “Since you got the Israelis to back down on that issue—and a great job you did, Mr. President-- surely you can now get them to agree to a return to the 1967 borders, accept all the Palestinian refugees who want to go live in Israel, and drop all the demands they have on us to do anything. Oh, and they have to agree that if we sign a peace treaty that doesn’t mean the conflict is over so we can then launch another round to get everything.”

“But you said that’s all you needed to make a peace treaty!”

“Oh, yes, Mr. President, it’s all I need. But then there are all those Fatah leaders who have the real power and they have their heart set on a Palestinian state from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean. Then there are those Hamas leaders, and you know how unreasonable they can be! Why if I settled for anything less they’d have my head! Oh, yes, that reminds me, unless Hamas agrees do keep in mind that anything I accept doesn’t apply to the Gaza Strip and Hamas. They can just go on fighting. Hope you don’t mind.”

(Read full post)
.

The hard truths the UN does not want to hear


Bataween
Point of No Return
28 March '10

When David Littman of the NGO World Union of Progressive Judaism chose to address a poorly attended session about the rights of Jewish refugees from Muslim lands at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva (sic) on 23 March, it was too much for the vice-president of the session to take: to Littman's point that there were more Jewish refugees than Palestinian Arab refugees, the vice-president blurted out his surprise: "Excuse me, sir?" and promptly cut Littman off. He allowed other delegates to have their say uninterrupted. Via Jihadwatch (With thanks: Eliyahu)



Here is most of David Littman's text:

"Our written statement *contains full facts and figures relating to the British Partition Plan of 1922, by which more than 77% of the 1921 League of Nations designated area of Palestine [120,000 km²] became the Hashemite Emirate of Trans-Jordan, renamed The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1946. Then came the UN General Assembly 1947 Partition Plan, whose aim ** was to divide the area west of the river Jordan - covering the remaining 23 percent of the original Mandate area - into "independent Arab and Jewish States", with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum administered directly by the United Nations. This UN 'Partition Plan' was categorically refused by all Arab League countries, five of whom then invaded Israel [- a day after its rebirth on 15 May 1948].

(Read full post)
.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Undeserved Hosannas


Jason Maoz
Contentions/Commentary
05 February '10

* “Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your arms, with your hands, with your nails and teeth.”

* “After we perform our duty in liberating the West Bank and Jerusalem, our national duty is to liberate all the Arab territories.”

* “The removal of the Israeli occupation from our occupied land, Palestine, is the first and basic condition for just peace. … The Islamic nation and just believers in any religion or creed will not accept the situation of the … cradle of prophets and divine messages being captive of Zionist occupation.”

Quick — name the Jew hater or vicious enemy of Israel capable of spouting such venom. Arafat? Khadaffi? Ahmadinejad? Actually, the speaker in all three cases was everyone’s favorite Arab moderate, the late King Hussein of Jordan (on, respectively, Radio Amman, June 6, 1967; Radio Amman, Dec. 1, 1973; and Amman Domestic Service, July 11, 1988).

I have this little calendar that lists the names of prominent people who died or were born on each specific date. Seeing that the anniversary of Hussein’s death (Feb. 7, 1999) is upon us brought to mind both the decades of duplicity that defined the king’s life until almost the very end and the Hosannas that have been coming his way for the past 11 years. (The trend continued in two recent, largely positive, biographies.)

(Read full post)
.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Bye-bye Jordan


The Muqata
15 January '10
Posted before Shabbat

The Muqata blog would like to say good-bye to all our readers in Jordan.

As you Jordanian readers know The Jordanian government has ruled that electronic communication like websites will be subject to the country's Press and Publications Law.

Presumably that means that websites such as ours that advocates that Jordan, with it's overwhelming Palestinian majority is a de facto Palestinian state under illegal Occupation by the Hashemite government, will not be taken too well by the authorities over there and will result in the Muqata blog being censored.

(Read full post)
.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Barack Obama's 1967


Zalman Shoval
JPost Opinion
05 October 09

US President Barack Obama's inspirational speech at the UN included more than a few passages about the Middle East conflict. He expressed the hope for "a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world," a wish shared by all Israelis. Upon closer look at some of the president's statements, several question marks arise.

The speech didn't, for instance, mention Islamic fundamentalism or Jihadism, the principal reasons for instability in the Middle East and beyond. Nor did it condemn the Arab world's refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people's right to a state of its own. No less problematic, the reference to ending "the occupation that began in 1967" puts history on its head, as it implies, perhaps unintentionally, that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This clearly inverts cause and effect.

As the writer and historian Simon Schama wrote, history should endeavor "to disentangle fact from fable," also reminding us that one of America's Founding Fathers, John Adams, had said "Facts are stubborn things." Well, the facts regarding the conflict in the Holy Land, though often deliberately or inadvertently distorted or ignored , are indeed "stubborn." Terrorist activities against Israel had started years before the "occupation," and the PLO committed to the destruction of the Jewish state was founded in 1964

NO LESS important in the factual and historical sense are the actual antecedents of the "Six-Day War" which resulted in the "occupation" to which the president's speech referred.

On May 13, 1967 the Egyptian dictator Gamel Abdel Nasser announced that two Egyptian divisions would move into the Sinai Peninsula bordering on southern Israel - contrary to international agreements, US commitments and UN guarantees. Caving in to Nasser's blustering, the then UN Secretary U Thant agreed to remove the UN emergency force from the area.

The next day, Egyptian armored and infantry columns crossed the Suez Canal and started moving towards the Israeli frontier. Shortly after, Cairo announced that it would block all shipping to the port of Eilat, Israel's only maritime outlet in the south, while Egyptian Mig21 war planes began flying over Israeli territory including the Dimona area. Concurrently, Syrian and Iraqi forces were ordered to prepare for an assault on northern Israel. The minimum strategic aim of the Egyptians, as was revealed later, was to cut off Israel's Negev from the rest of the country - but Nasser himself, in both public and secret statements, left no doubt that his ultimate aim was the complete annihilation of the State of Israel.

A decisive turning point leading up to the Six-Day War and grievously affecting the history of the entire Middle East to this day, occurred on May 30, 1967. On that date, King Hussein of Jordan, who had been regarded both by Israel and the US as a paragon of peace and moderation, without warning, infamously signed a military agreement with Egypt's Nasser, his former bitter enemy, including a Jordanian commitment to join Egypt in any war with Israel, stationing Egyptian and Iraqi forces inside Jordan. The "Arab Legion," considered by many as the Arab world's best fighting machine, was put under Egyptian command. Cairo radio crowed that now Israel's only escape was the sea.

Jordan (formerly Trans-Jordan) had in 1948 occupied and later annexed the western part of Palestine, hence called the "West Bank" - thus making the kingdom Israel's next door neighbor, abutting on most of the latter's population centers, including west Jerusalem and Israel's only international airport. King Hussein's precise motives are debatable; some believe that he wanted to placate the Palestinian majority inside his country, others ascribed it to the King's desire to get part of the spoils if the Arabs were be victorious against Israel.

The rest, as the expression goes, is history. The war broke out on June 5; the Egyptian air force was totally destroyed on the first day and the IDF advancing toward the Suez Canal, wiped out the Egyptian forces in its wake. The blockade of Eilat was lifted. In the north, the Golan Heights from which the Syrian army began its attack on Israel, were taken - and Jordanian troops, after an unsuccessful attempt to force their way into West Jerusalem, were, after several days of hard fighting, expelled from all of the land west of the Jordan River. Israel had achieved complete victory in a war of legitimate self-defense against blatant aggression whose declared aim had been its obliteration.

ALL OF the above was fully acknowledged by most of the nations of the world, though not, of course, by the Arab countries and their allies, or by the Soviet Union which according to some views, had actually egged on the Arab governments in their aggressive designs. Successive American leaders declared that Israel should never be asked to go back to its former vulnerable borders, while the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242 which specifically linked any Israeli withdrawals from "territories" to achieving secure borders.

This is what 1967 is all about: not "ending" occupation, but making sure that Israel will never again be put in a situation like the one it faced in that fateful year.

The writer is the former Israel Ambassador to the US, and currently heads the Prime Minister's forum of US-Israel Relations.
.