A key item on the agenda for Jordanian King Abdullah's meeting with President Obama on January 17 will be the fate of Israel-Palestinian negotiations. Jordan hosted a series of direct talks between Israel and the PLO which began on January 3. Israeli and Palestinian officials have agreed to conduct a fourth round of talks on January 25 -- the day before Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas demanded that Israel freeze all settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and present a framework for a two-state solution. Israel, however, rejects the January 26 ultimatum and argues it has until March to provide a response.
This time discrepancy notwithstanding, reports from the first three direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians ostensibly indicate bleak prospects for achieving a mutually agreed settlement. The Saudi newspaper al-Watan reported that the third meeting held last Saturday failed to achieve "any progress."
However, it may be surmised that in fact the opposite is true, and that both sides are working closely toward reaching an agreement. To be sure, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat for leaking details to the press, which contradicts media reports suggesting progress has not been made.
In the absence of diplomacy, Abdullah fears that Israel could exploit failed talks with Palestinians by seeking to transform Jordan into a Palestinian state. Jordan occupied the West Bank after the 1948 War and ruled it until 1967. Since then, some Israeli officials have sporadically advocated the "Jordanian Option," which calls for the expulsion or relocation of Palestinians into Jordan. Last September, Abdullah spoke at length categorically rejecting any attempts to implement al-watan al-badil (the alternative homeland). However, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman described Jordan as "a stabilizing element in the region" and rejects any efforts which would undermine Jordan's sovereignty and abrogate Israel's peace treaty with the Hashemite Kingdom.
To prevent any attempt of implementing the Jordanian option while simultaneously adjusting to the unprecedented events of the Arab Spring which has strengthened Islamist parties from Morocco to the Persian Gulf, Jordan has reneged on its 1999 decision to expel Hamas. In November, Jordanian Prime Minister Awn Khasawneh described the act as "a legal error" and a political mistake. On January 11, he affirmed that Hamas members would be welcomed back in Jordan following their expulsion from Syria, as long as they refrained from engaging in political activity.
Jordan can play an important role in any future peace agreement since it once ruled the West Bank and enjoys close ties with Israel and the PLO. This is a positive development which the United States should encourage.
However, Washington should also remind the Kingdom of the risks it faces in permitting Hamas to return on its soil. Even if Hamas ostensibly agrees not to engage in any political activity which could drag Jordan into direct conflict with Israel, Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. For years, Jordan has struggled with the Islamic Action Front -- the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood -- and as Islamists gain power in elections throughout the Arab world it is almost inevitable that they too demand greater representation in the Jordanian parliament.
Follow Michael Sharnoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MichaelSharnoff
There is nothing to "transform". It is impossible to argue based on REASON that Jordan is NOT "a Palestinian state". The vast majority of its population is "Palestinian"; "Jordan" is nothing but an invented name for a country split off from the initial Mandate of Palestine, to provide a homeland for the Arab (the term "Palestinian" hadn't been invented yet) population -- while the remainder of the mandate was to become the homeland of the Jewish people. The only thing NOT "Palestinian" in Jordan is the Hashemite dynasty, which hails from Hijaz (today's Saudi Arabia) and has been enthroned by the British colonialists simply because they were "friendly" towards British interests. Even that is becoming less of an issue, as the current king has a Palestinian wife. "[King] Abdullah fears that Israel [is] seeking to transform Jordan into a Palestinian state"?? No, he doesn't. What he fears is the loss of his throne -- that's all.
Jordan did not exist until 1921 when Winston Churchill invented it. For the next 25 years, Britain dominated the nation’s affairs. Britain also created, trained, and led the Arab Legion. This force captured the eastern half of Jerusalem in the 1948 war, and much of what the United Nations had partitioned to be the Arab state.
In 1946, Transjordan formally became independent, and Abdullah, who the British had installed as the nation’s ruler, assumed the title of king. One of Abdullah’s goals was to create a Greater Syria. Toward that end, he annexed the area of Palestine he controlled and shortly thereafter renamed his country the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. One consequence of this action was to more than double the country’s population, which included about 400,000 Palestinian refugees.
Abdullah was essentially a tribal ruler, having come from that tradition in Arabia, and increasingly was faced with the political complexities of ruling a nation where Palestinians made up the majority of the population and where his territorial ambitions clashed with those of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Ironically, his relations with Israel were better than those with the other Arabs. The Israelis believed it might be possible to reach a peace agreement with Abdullah; however, those hopes were dashed when the king was assassinated on July 20, 1951, in front of a mosque on the Temple Mount by one of the Mufti of Jerusalem’s followers.
Christian fundamentalists exists. the culture wars go on.
Jewish extremists exist. We see them in the media, just as we see the others.
So, what do we do? Do we have three different sets of rules for confronting them?
Is it a case by case basis? You want the Jordanian government to behave one way, the Tunisian another, the British another? Brits can't deport an Islamist extremist because Jordanian government might do something you implicitly advocate?
The greatest illusion of Francis Fukuyama is that the project of Modernity is complete. Modernity is crumbling.
Perhaps the "Jordan Option" to consider would be Israel establishing a border along the lines suggested by Olmert, to include the major blocs of communities near the Green Line and in EJ, evacuate the other enclaves deep in the WB, build a wall along the border, then hand the whole mess east of the line to Jordan. They can help establish a Palestinian state there if they choose and be responsible for its security. The Palestinians can avoid having to deal and make nice with Israel and instead negotiate with Jordan about the specifics of a new state.
Of course, Jordan wasn't interested in establishing a Palestinian state prior to 1967 nor afterward with the nos of Khartoum and I doubt they want to deal with it now, either.
If you read back , Jordan was vehemently against the three "NO"s of Khartoum, and the Palestinians rejected those NOs in the end of the 1980s
1) San Remo Conference decisions regarding "Palestine", 1920
2) League of Nations decisions regarding "Palestine", 1922
3) United Nations Charter, Article 80, concerning "Palestine", 1945
4) United Nations Security Council Resolution, 242, Nov. 1967
5) Interim Agreement between Israel and the PLO, Sept, 1995
Disregarding the above and attempting to "advance" peace outside of the framework of the relevant international law and bilateral agreements will only lead to dead end, again!!
They stand on their own.
What is with the distractions?
http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp?id=2857857&camp
Gaza Activist Stabbed After Exposing Hamas Use of Human Shields
The stabbing in Gaza of a Palestinian rights activist after he exposed Hamas' contempt for its own people by using them as human shields, and after he criticized the radical Islamic group for torture, abuse and trampling free speech, should be strongly condemned by the United Nations—both as an attack on the victim’s human rights, and on the idea of freedom of expression.
Masked attackers on Friday stabbed Mahmud Abu Rahma multiple times in the back, leg and shoulders, it was revealed today.
This latest attack on a rights activist underscores Gaza's brutally enforced intolerance for any discourse other the anti-Israel mantras of Hamas, which rules the area with an iron fist.
Abu Rahma's crime was publishing an article in the Palestinian press that dared to criticize Hamas' "outrageous attack upon free expression and peaceful assembly" over the past year, and the "hundreds of cases of torture and abuse."
Abu Rahma also dared to publish basic facts about Gaza that completely contradict the Hamas narrative, and that of the UN's Goldstone Report, which repeatedly found "no evidence" that Hamas used civilians as human shields.
more at http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp?id=2857857&cam
1) Accept Israel's right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people
2) Cease all acts of terror and violence against Israel and against its population, as well as all preparations for such acts
3) Adhere to all agreements reached with Israel and signed by the parties, including the decommission of illicit weapons, e.g. mortars, rockets as well as small arms
Israel, certainly, will be delighted to collaborate with a Hamas that meets these simple and appropriate demands and would do so for the sake of bringing about an accommodation of peaceful coexistence between Arab and Jew, between the Muslim-Arab world, local and regional, and the independent nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel.
Why should Washington stick its nose in Jordan's affairs? Why should the preservation of a monarchy be of interest to the readers? What is the real reason for the advocacy of this article?
a. Jerusalem will remain united under Israel's sovereignty and will also include the suburbs of Giv'at Zeev and Ma'aleh Adumim
b. All major Jewish settlement blocks will be incorporated into sovereign Israel
c. The Jordan Valley must be viewed in the widest sense of the term and it too will remain under Israel's rule
d. The future Palestinian state will not be a regular state in that it will be demilitarized, its airspace will be controlled by Israel, as will its boundaries and all of its border passes: land, sea and air
Mr. Rabin, in a few short words, described a self-governing Arab political authority that operates under the overall control of Israel. Mr. Rabin was not only a man of peace but also a pragmatist. Perhaps all of us should learn to appreciate his approach to resolving the Arab Israeli conflict and the achievement of an an accommodation of peaceful coexistence between Arab and Jew, between the Muslim-Arab world, local and regional alike, and the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel.
(end)
1) "Palestine" - a territory, not a nationality or a state - was partitioned already some time ago. It was done by the international community in 1921 and 1922 during which 77% of it was already handed over to the Arabs and subsequently came to be known as Jordan. The rest, 23%, was assigned to the Jews as "the national home for the Jewish people"; an irrevocable decision that is now part of the UN Charter, Article 80.
2) The basis for resolving the dispute over the territories in question is based on UN Security Council Resolution, 242, accepted by all relevant parties to the conflict. 242, it must be noted, doesn't expect the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to retreat bu from "territories" - not "all" and not "the" - something which it has accomplished a long time ago. But, 242 doesn't call for the setting up of an additional state in these territories, nor does it even make use of concepts such as "Palestinians" or "Palestine".
3) It was on the basis of 242 that the late Mr. Rabin - dubbed worldwide as the prince of peace - drew in his speech of October 1995 at Israel's Knesset the contour for an accommodation:
(will continue...)
But I think you demostrate quite clearly that Rabin as a support of peace is a westernized myth