T. Belman. Mudar argues that the King should be removed and that Jordan should become Palestine. Mudar impresses with his depth of knowledge and writing ability. For those who aren’t aware, Mudar received a PhD after writing this article. He then started work on a second PhD which will soon be granted.
[,,]
A Path to Peace?
The desperate and destabilizing measures undertaken by the Hashemite regime to maintain its hold on power point to a need to revive the long-ignored solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict: the Jordanian option. With Jordan home to the largest percentage of Palestinians in the world, it is a more logical location for establishing Palestinian statehood than on another country’s soil, i.e., Israel’s.
There is, in fact, almost nothing un-Palestinian about Jordan except for the royal family. Despite decades of official imposition of a Bedouin image on the country, and even Bedouin accents on state television, the Palestinian identity is still the most dominant—to the point where the Jordanian capital, Amman, is the largest and most populated, Palestinian city anywhere. Palestinians view it as a symbol of their economic success and ability to excel. Moreover, empowering a Palestinian statehood for Jordan has a well-founded and legally accepted grounding: The minute the minimum level of democracy is applied to Jordan, the Palestinian majority would, by right, take over the political momentum.
For decades, however, regional players have entertained fears about empowering the Palestinians of Jordan. While there may be apprehension that Jordan as a Palestinian state would be hostile to Israel and would support terror attacks across their long border, such concerns, while legitimate, are puzzling. Israel has allowed the Palestinians to establish their own ruling entities as well as their own police and paramilitary forces on soil captured in the 1967 war, cheek by jowl with major Israeli population centers. Would a Palestinian state on the other side of the Jordan River pose any greater security threat to Israel than one in Judea and Samaria?
Moreover, the Jordan Valley serves as a much more effective, natural barrier between Jordan and Israel than any fences or walls. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the centrality of Israeli control over the western side of the Jordan Valley, which he said would never be relinquished.[31] It is likely that the area’s tough terrain together with Israel’s military prowess have prevented the Hashemite regime from even considering war with Israel for more than forty years.
It could be argued that should the Palestinians control Jordan, they would downsize the military institutions, which are dominated by their Bedouin rivals. A Palestinian-ruled Amman might also seek to cut back on the current scale of military expenditures in the hope that the U.S. military presence in the region would protect the country from unwelcome encroachments by Damascus or Tehran. It could also greatly benefit from financial and economic incentives attending good-neighbor relations with Israel. Even if a Jordanian army under Palestinian commanders were to be kept at its current level, it would still be well below Israel’s military and technological edge. After all, it is Israel’s military superiority, rather than regional goodwill, that drove some Arab states to make peace with it.
The Palestinians in Jordan already depend on Israel for water[32] and have enjoyed a thriving economic boom driven by the “Qualified Industrial Zones,” which allow for Jordanian clothing factories to export apparel to the United States at preferred tariff rates if a minimum percentage of the raw material comes from Israel.[33]Hundreds of Palestinian factory owners have prospered because of these zones. Expanding such cooperation between a future Palestinian state in Jordan and Israel would give the Palestinians even more reasons to maintain a good relationship with their neighbor.
Both the United States and Israel should consider reevaluating the Jordan option. Given the unpopularity of the Hashemite regime among its subjects, regime change in Amman should not be that difficult to achieve though active external intervention would likely yield better results than the wait-and-see-who-comes-to-power approach followed during the Egyptian revolution. After twelve years on the throne, and $7 billion dollars in U.S. aid, Abdullah is still running a leaky ship and creating obstacles to resolving the Palestinian issue.
Washington’s leverage can come into play as well with the Jordanian armed forces which are, in theory, loyal to the king. With hundreds of troops undergoing training in the United States each year and almost $350 million handed out in military aid, the U.S. establishment could potentially influence their choices.
Recent events in the Middle East should serve as guidelines for what ought to be pursued and avoided. U.S. diplomacy failed to nurse a moderate opposition to Egypt’s Mubarak, which could have blocked Islamists and anti-Americans from coming to power. The current turmoil in Libya has shown that the later the international community acts, the more complicated the situation can get. An intervention in Jordan could be much softer than in Libya and with no need for major action. Abdullah is an outsider ruling a poor country with few resources; his only “backbone” is Washington’s political and financial support. In exchange for a promise of immunity, the king could be convinced to let the Palestinian majority rule and become a figurehead, like Britain’s Queen Elizabeth.
As further assurance of a future Palestinian Jordan’s peaceful intentions, very strict antiterrorism laws must be implemented, barring anyone who has incited violence from running for office, thus ruling out the Islamists even before they had a chance to start. Such an act should be rewarded with economic aid that actually filters down to the average Jordanian as opposed to the current situation, in which U.S. aid money seems to support mainly the Hashemites’ lavish lifestyle.
Alongside downsizing the military, a defense agreement with Washington could be put in place to help protect the country against potentially hostile neighbors. Those who argue that Jordan needs a strong military to counter threats from abroad need only look again at its history: In 1970, when Syria invaded northern Jordan, King Hussein asked for U.S. and Israeli protection and was eventually saved by the Israeli air force, which managed to scare the Syrian troops back across the border.[34]Again in 2003, when Washington toppled Saddam Hussein, Amman asked for U.S.-operated Patriot missile batteries and currently favors an extended U.S. presence in Iraq as a Jordanian security need.[35]
Should the international community see an advantage to maintaining the military power of the new Palestinian state in Jordan as it is today, the inviolability of the peace treaty with Israel must be reasserted, indeed upgraded, extending into more practical and tangible economic and political arenas. A mutual defense and counterterrorism agreement with Israel should be struck, based on one simple concept—”good fences make good neighbors”—with the river Jordan as the fence.
Conclusion
Considering the Palestinian-Jordanian option for peace would not pose any discrimination against Palestinians living in the West Bank, nor would it compromise their human rights: They would be welcome to move to Jordan or stay where they are if they so wished. Free will should be the determinant, not political pressure. Besides, there are indications that many would not mind living in Jordan.[36] Were the Palestinians to dominate Jordan, this tendency will be significantly strengthened. This possibility has also recently been confirmed by a released cable from the U.S. embassy in Amman in which Palestinian political and community representatives in Jordan made clear that they would not consider the “right of return” should they secure their civil rights in Jordan.[37]
Empowering Palestinian control of Jordan and giving Palestinians all over the world a place they can call home could not only defuse the population and demographic problem for Palestinians in Judea and Samaria but would also solve the much more complicated issue of the “right of return” for Palestinians in other Arab countries. Approximately a million Palestinian refugees and their descendents live in Syria and Lebanon, with another 300,000 in Jordan whom the Hashemite government still refuses to accept as citizens. How much better could their future look if there were a welcoming Palestinian Jordan?
The Jordanian option seems the best possible and most viable solution to date. Decades of peace talks and billions of dollars invested by the international community have only brought more pain and suffering for both Palestinians and Israelis—alongside prosperity and wealth for the Hashemites and their cronies.
It is time for the international community to adopt a more logical and less costly solution rather than to persist in long discredited misconceptions. It is historically perplexing that the world should be reluctant to ask the Hashemites to leave Jordan, a country to which they are alien, while at the same time demanding that Israeli families be removed by force from decades-old communities in their ancestral homeland. Equally frustrating is the world’s silence while Palestinians seeking refuge from fighting in Iraq are locked in desert camps in eastern Jordan because the regime refuses to settle them “unless foreign aid is provided.”[38]
The question that needs to be answered at this point is: Has the West ever attempted to establish any contacts with a pro-peace, Palestinian-Jordanian opposition? Palestinians today yearn for leaders. Washington is presented with a historical opportunity to support a potential Palestinian leadership that believes in a peace-based, two-state solution with the River Jordan as the separating border between the two countries. Such leadership does seem to exist. Last September, for example, local leaders in Jordanian refugee camps stopped Palestinian youth from participating in mass protests against the Israeli Embassy in Amman;[39] as a result, barely 200 protesters showed up instead of thousands as in similar, previous protests.[40] As for East Jerusalem, under Israel’s 44-year rule, Muslims, Christians, and members of all other religions have been able to visit and practice their faith freely, just as billions of people from all over the world visit the Vatican or Muslim pilgrims flock to Mecca. Yet under the Hashemite occupation of the city, this was not done. Without claiming citizenship, Jerusalem would remain an open city to all who come to visit.
The Jordanian option is an overdue solution: A moderate, peaceful, economically thriving, Palestinian home in Jordan would allow both Israelis and Palestinians to see a true and lasting peace.
Mudar Zahran is a Jordanian-Palestinian writer who resides in the United Kingdom as a political refugee. He served as an economic specialist and assistant to the policy coordinator at the U.S. Embassy in Amman before moving to the U.K. in 2010.
[1] “Jordan: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2001,” Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, Mar. 4, 2002.
[2] “The Report: Emerging Jordan 2007,” Oxford Business Group, London, Apr. 2007.
[3] “Jordan: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2001,” Mar. 4, 2002.
[4] “Brief History,” Civil Service Consumer Corporation, Government of Jordan, Amman, 2006.
[5] Jordan News Agency (PETRA, Amman), Jan. 10, 2011.
[6] “Jordan: Palestinians,” World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples, Minority Rights Group International, 2008, accessed Sept. 20, 2011.
[7] “Stateless Again,” Human Rights Watch, New York, Feb. 1, 2010.
[8] The Arab Times (Kuwait City), Jan. 13, 2011.
[9] “Jordan: Stop Withdrawing Nationality from Palestinian-Origin Citizens,” Human Rights Watch, Washington, D.C., Feb. 1, 2010.
[10] “Jordan: Information on the right of abode of a Palestinian from the West Bankwho holds a Jordanian passport which is valid for five years,” Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Oct. 1, 1993, JOR15463.FE.
[11] “Jordan’s treatment of failed refugee claimants,” Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Mar. 9, 2004, JOR42458.E.
[12] The Palestinian National Charter, Resolutions of the Palestine National Council, July 1-17, 1968.
[13] Al-Jazeera (Riyadh), Oct. 1, 2005.
[14] Amman News, May 2, 2011.
[15] Ibid., May 2, 2011.
[16] Awni Jadu al-Ubaydi, Jama’at al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin fi al-Urdunn wa-Filastin, 1945-1970 (Amman: Safahat Ta’arikhiyya, 1991), pp. 38-41.
[17] Samer Libdeh, “The Hashemite Kingdom of Apartheid?” The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 26, 2010.
[18] CNN, Nov. 28, 2007.
[19] Michael Korda, Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia (New York: Harper, 2010), p. 19.
[20] Hürriyet (Istanbul), Mar. 4, 2011.
[21] Libdeh, “The Hashemite Kingdom of Apartheid?”
[22] PETRA, Aug. 6, 2011.
[23] “Profile: Jordanian Triple Agent Who Killed CIA Agents,” The Telegraph(London), Jan. 2010.
[24] Al-Arabiya TV (Dubai), Aug. 3, 2004.
[25] The Jerusalem Post, Sept. 24, 2010.
[26] Los Angeles Times, Oct. 1, 2006.
[27] The Guardian (London), Dec. 6, 2010.
[28] Qudosi Chronicles (Long Beach, Calif.), Dec. 16, 2010.
[29] “Assessment for Palestinians in Jordan,” Minorities at Risk, Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland, College Park, Md., Dec. 31, 2006.
[30] “Jordan Military Expenditures—Percent of GDP,” CIA World Factbook, May 16, 2008.
[31] Ha’aretz (Tel Aviv), Mar. 2, 2010.
[32] Lilach Grunfeld, “Jordan River Dispute,” The Inventory of Conflict and Environment Case Studies, American University, Washington, D.C., Spring 1997.
[33] Mary Jane Bolle, Alfred B. Prados, and Jeremy M. Sharp, “Qualifying Industrial Zones in Jordan and Egypt,” Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., July 5, 2006.
[34] Mitchell Bard, “Modern Jordan,” Jewish Virtual Library, accessed Aug. 11, 2011.
[35] The Christian Science Monitor (Boston), Jan. 30, 2003.
[36] The Forward (New York), Apr. 13, 2007.
[37] “The Right of Return: What It Means in Jordan,” U.S. Embassy, Amman, to Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C., Feb. 6, 2008.
[38] “Non-Iraqi Refugees from Iraq in Jordan,” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Feb. 20, 2007.
[39] Mudar Zahran, “A Plan B for Jordan?” Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C., Sept. 16, 2011.
[40] The Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2011.
@ Ted Belman: Thanks, Ted. The Uou Tube list is much more English-language- user-friendly than his Facebook page, which before now was the only place I knew to look for Mudar’s videos and other communiques.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
Adam-Ted…..I’m following your dialogue with interest. If you (Adam) are looking for rhe Zahran speech to the EU…which I believe I saw on Israpundit some time ago. I just typed on youtube..”Mudar Zahran’s speech to the EU”…and it was at the top of the list..just over 8 minutes long.
“*%&$…**” ….”No bother…Don’t mention it”.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
I went to the You Tube site for Jordan Opposition Coalition.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jordan+opposition+coalition
Just a few follow-up comments about Mudar’s blog. There are several videos on the blog (not, as far as I can determine, the European Union speech), in which Madar courageously advocates for an improved Arab-Israeli and Arab-Jewish relationship, including a few in the Arabic language addressed to Arab listeners. However, the blog is poorly indexed, making it very difficult to locate these videos, which are commingled witha much larger number of videos of demonstrators shouting abuse at Abdullah. The video index lists the videos only in the Arabic language, which makes it hard to use by Arabic illiterates like myself. The images of the videos on the video index are too small to make it possible to use them to determine the contents of each blog, the place and occasion being recorded, etc. And if you leave the index page to view one of the videos listed on it, it is difficult to get back to the index page and continue one’s search for a specific video.
Is there some way you can contact Mudar see if he could put in place an index more user-friendly to English language viewers and readers?
@ Ted Belman: Ted, I did find Mudar’s Oxford Union speech on his blog. I listened to it again and was much more favorably impressed by it than when I listened to it the first time. He makes many good points, provides an excellent summary of Israeli-Palestinian history, and courageously advocates for Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian reconciliation. He denies that Jews are responsible for the Palestinian’s problems, and correctly pinpoints Britain as having a major share of the blame for the conflict.
So far, I have been unable to find his UN speech on his blog. But that is probably because the list of videos on the blog site is only in the Arabic language, and the pictures of each video are very small. Ted, can you provide me with a link to the UNited Nations video that is also on the JOC blog site? Thanks.
Ted,
I certainly believe you are a loyal supporter of Mudar; and if you gave your word, I believe you would be faithful to me as well. What is really at issue here, has nothing to do with our faith in you, and everything to do with your faith in Mudar’s cause.
My earliest education in revolutions, was reading about the rise of Fidel Castro — a “popular” leader, whom people looked to to free them from the corrupt government of Fulgencio Batista. We all know how that turned out. After a few other experiences, I realized that revolutions almost always end in one of the following:
1. They fail, or
2. They end up in totalitarian states.
The only revolutions I can think of which have had long-term success are the U. S. of America and the dominions of the British Empire. I credit the success of these, to the fact that the rebelling citizens were already inured to a long tradition tending towards representative democracy and freedom. Israel and India fit this mold though they have only been around a short while (71-72 years, as modern states). Modern Japan, another democratically successful state, was not created, in its latest incarnation, through rebellion.
What do I believe about Jordan? I believe that the two groups with the best chance of success in the coming years are a. the Hashemite dynasty, and b. the Sunni jihadis, backed by Turkey, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood.
https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Jordanians-call-for-a-third-intifada-to-thwart-Deal-of-the-Century-590563. This is an important article in today’s Jeruslem Post, summarizing the recent findings of MEMRI monioring the Jordanian press.The Jordanian press, including its government-owned newspaper, is calling for a violent armed “infida” in Fatahland to thwart the Trmp ‘deal of the century.” They are even criticizing Abbas for having so far failed to launch an armed intifada against Israel. Definitely not “security cooperation” with Israel.
@ Ted Belman: Ted, is his speech to the Oxford speech on his web blog? I may have overlooked it when I skimmed through the videos.
I also can’t remember if he discussed Jordanian-Israel relations in his Oxford Union speech. Please remind me. Thanks.
@ Ted Belman:
I hope you don’t mind my “butting in”…. For me..words always mean something… though it depends.. can be just camouflage meaning nothing . And being a lawyer you know this is true. You used a phrase re Mudar that you might like to reconsider. It is…”at the moment” …
That moment seems to me to have already lasted for several years. that’s what Adam may be getting at. Just a guess…but ……
In the above I wrote
“Of course they cannot. In the hands of these limited leaders the great cause of the Jews becomes a little bit game int he hands of great forces, which spin into chaos and into their oblivion.”
I need to clarify what I said there. By “oblivion” I was not talking about Jewish oblivion. They have passed through simply too much for that. I must be precise on that. It was meant as the total world system which is based on the profit motive of commodity production which unleashes uncontrolled forces which drive our species into oblivion.
But then as an atheist supporter of Jewish people, and not one person on earth dare deny me that, Jews will also go down because there are NO miracles.
The lesson of these Arab states, without fail, is that while a nationalism based on a nation state is possible, it cannot happen on the basis of the democratic vote as is the practice in the west, but in a different form, usually an army dictatorship.
This is because of Islam. Islam dominates.
There was a nationalism in Iraq but it was a nationalism based on the Baathist model. In essence one set of gangsters take power to prevent a worse gang of gangsters taking the state power.
There is the recurrent and up to now always dominant theme…you chose between bad and badder!
It was the same situation in ALL of these countries up until now. Always faced with this same choice.
Iran 1979
Iraq
Tunisia
Ivory Coast
Syria
Each have their own peculiar characteristics. Saddam was a monster and slotted his cruelty in with the Stalinist Baathist political theories. Like Hitler Saddam had severe personal problems in his childhood. But in the end that translated into other political things.
On the other hand the Syrian Baathists of the Alawites had a far differing background. As Daniel Pipes shows the Alawites and the Assads saw their minority rule as a counter to Jihad, and actually in the opening months worked to arm the Christian minority to fight against the Jihad, as did the Kurds also.
With the Assads it was a military and police dictatorship but it was so because it countered the Jihad. But when all is stripped bare it was the same as Saddam.
Of all things certain in this world it is that the name “Palestinianism” denotes Jihad and Jew Hatred.
Nor will they move, ever, to this newly formed Jordan. Since when did the Jihad ever give up any land they have taken over?
So start by destroying “Palestinianism” in Gaza as part of the aim of giving the Arab enemy nothing whatsoever except open recognition of THEIR hatred, Jew Hatred.
But this form of Zionism seems to have run its course. It will not plan to achieve, any more. That is the crunch issue. The ideas of Ted expressed on this blog, and most likely Trump too, are a very big distraction for the Jewish people and threatens them.
In the position of Ted I am often reminded of that woman Caroline Glick who ensconced herself with much “Zionist” pouting in the bowel of the American Bush regime in the pivotal 2003 war on iraq. We are still paying for it and her even today.
Plus due to global warming this area is destined to be more and more arid desert and dependent totally on distilling water from the sea. But can the laws of nature be so easily thwarted?
Of course they cannot. In the hands of these limited leaders the great cause of the Jews becaomes a little bit game int he hands of great forces, which spin into chaos and into theit oblivion.
The way Ted operates is a great lesson fort the Jewish people. He won the argument on Global Warming by simply denying facts, such as the Canadian Report I highlighted here a few months ago, and printing only ONE side, of a totally serious argument.
Of course that leads to disaster. All arguments have to be taken on board, and all arguments answered.
In this situation Ted is gambling with Islam and gambling with Palestinianism.
And we must remember Jordan was robbed from the Jews. Why help them in the slightest to spread their wings? This will likely be my opposition to the coming Trump moves.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
All true. At the moment his focus is on attacking Abdulah not promoting himself. First things first.
The reason I hint at what is going on is because you can’t read about it anywhere. Watch what happens today and next Friday.
In Feb he spoke at the Oxford Union. Over 135,000 people have wiewed it.
@ Ted Belman: Ted, I never ignore what you tell us. I always study it carefully. It is just that I can’t always find verification for it from other sources. Hence my skepticism. As President Reagan said, ‘trust but verify, trust but verify.”
I also study Mudar’s blog carefully. He regularly reports on Jordanian opposition to Abdullah. However, he does not claim that he, personally, will soon hold power. He doesn’t even claim that there is much support for himself as Jordan’s leader. Nor does he even advocate for his own candidacy. He is very modest, and he does not confirm Ted’s predictions that he personally will soon take power–only that Abdullah will be overthrown.
The opponents of Abdullah whom he features on his videos do not mention him (Mudar) in their demonstrations or speeches.
None of the other opponents of Abdullah whose statements are shown on Mudar’s videos praise Israel or advocate Israeli sovereignty west of the Jordan. They rarely mention Israel at all. Mudar himself does advocate this position in two videos,the most recent one being an interview on Swedish TV. in March 2018. As far as I can find, he doesn’t advocate these positions in any videos since then. In fact, he doesn’t even show any videos of himself speaking since that date.
When I read the Arab-language comments (in Google translation) that he also publishes on his blog, most attack both Mudar and Israel.
@ Ted Belman:
Well….t least I have never “pressured” you-but. on the contrary, have supported your reticence…-and have done from the very beginning. But much seems to be happening in that area, and so-far Mudar has remained out of the public picture, never mentioned and off the books completely. So…whilst I strongly hope that what you say, will happen -or a reasonable facsimile- fellow members are concerned that you may only be getting what Mudar passes on to you. I feel that there are other indications (likely still in midst preparation) you can’t talk about, which back you up.
So…whilst I am not with them, I can’t blame them for being dubious.
I had this very dispute with Yamit 82 a few of months ago which he slid out of with a spurious excuse.. I’m quite happy to wait- and-see. The other “younger” guys re more impatient in their “I want it…I want it…” After all the fuss and splutter….that’s all we-and perhaps even you- can do.
@ Ted Belman:
Ted, You believe in Mudar’s UN-corroborated information he provides you. Others are more skeptical or in total disbelief. That is simply why what you are saying may at times be ignored.
Sorry, I certainly like you and respect your dedication to Israel but until I actually see independent confirmation of the things Mudar says will happen (such as them actually happening) skepticism will prevail.
@ Edgar G.:
I am very thankful that Israpundit has such informed Isra-punditeers. I am surprised that no one makes the case for believing that I know what I am talking about.
@ Ted Belman:
Well…one thing is notable , and that ts..that when Ted is talking about this particular subject he does not speculate. He makes bald statements which have the air of certainty. Of course nothing in this life is certain -except two…and they’re both evil..,
So whilst he is picking up on my comment about the enjoyment of exercising our minds with a variety of speculative possibilities…. (reminds me of the story of “There are always two possibilities”…although with the sharp minds of Isra-punditeers there are many more than two),…. he should know that it shows the appreciation in which we hold this blog.
You guys continue to ignore what I tell you and prefer your speculation. Trump has nothing to do with what is happenning in Jordan. Currently the million man Beduoin tribe is combinning with the 2 million Palestinian refugees to challenge the king. They will shortly succeed.
@ Bear Klein: Sounds like a realistic analysis to me, Bear.
@ Edgar G.: I agree, Edgar, that Trump will want a government in Amman that is friendly to Israel. The problem is that his ability to insure that such a government will replace Abdullah is probably limited without an American military intervention, and trump likes to avoid military interventions if he can. Unlike most of our recent Presidents, he is a man of peace. It is one thing that I like about him.
He and his spokesmen, for the record, have said that they do not seek to replace Abdullah, and that they consider him a friend and ally of the United States. That’s for the record, at least. I think they are aware that Abdullah, may abdicate in the near or at least forseeable future, and I am sure Trump or his people are monitoring Jordanian politics to see who is likely to replace him. However, the best that he can do short of military intervention would be to warn the new government of an aid cutoff if it adopts policies that are hostile to the United States or Israel. But such a threat may be effective.
I think that Trump will tolerate a Jordanian regime that continues to make anti-Israel noises, or harass Israel in minor ways (such as allowing the wakf in Jerusalem to harass the Israelis), as a means of playing to the brainwashed Jordanian “street.”, as long as it continues security cooperation with Israel.. The Israelis are tolerating this behavior by Abdullah, and will probably tolerate similar behavior from a new regime. And it is difficult for Trump to be more pro-Israel than Israel’s own government.
Bear’s concern that Jordan might simply break up into feuding micro states a la Syria or Somalia is a realistic danger if the Hashemites fall. I am not sure what the U.S. and Israel can do about it if that happens.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
Surely if the king fell they’d try to take over and insert THEIR adherents into the power structure in a major way. Internal politics is one thing, but taking over a country is another…even a tinpot little regime like Abdullah’s.
As Adam pointed out Trump would not likely “normally” interfere in Jordan’s internal mess-up, But with his special relationship with Israel loudly averred and proclaimed many times. It might be different….because with the deck cleared, he would want to see a friendly ruler and govt installed. It would be a big achievement for him and perfectly in line with his oft-announced decades-long regard for Israel.
Of course, le all of us, it is just (enjoyable) speculation. but I always look s what seems logical……To me anyway.
Many “red herrings” are raised in these disccussions.
P.S. ADAM- There’s no question now or ever before of Israel occupying any other country. Jordan under a friendly ruler would be the “buffer zone” .
@ Adam Dalgliesh:@
Edgar G.
Muslim Brotherhood is given a certain amount of freedom in Jordan but is NOT allowed to run things. The Parliament is allowed to do things as long as they agree with the King.
If the King of Jordan falls Israel will build up security on the mutual border. Israel is completely gun-shy about occupying another country at this point. Jordan could become another Syria broken into pieces with varying factions both domestic and foreign taking over certain parts. I could only see Israel taking over buffer zones it needed if foreign actors get involved and this was strategically needed.
@ Edgar G.: Yes, Edgar, they are more or less allied with Abdullah on a pragmatic basis. But there are numerous reports that, like most Jordanians, they don’t really like him much. If he does fall, they will make every effort to maintain their political influence, or if possible increase it. Their support for the present regime is conditional on its continued unfriendliness to Israel, and Abdullah’s tolerance for their propaganda, radio and TV stations, etc. I think they will desert Abdullah when and if it becomes clear that he is going to fall from power, and will concentrate then on saving themselves.
@ Bear Klein: I agree that the Israeli government will not want to get involved in Jordan’s internal battles if it can avoid doing so. It does not seem willing to get involved in the internal politics of either Fatahland or Hamsland. So there is no reason why it should try to involve itself in Jordanian internal politics. In fact, I don’t see how Israel could influence Jordanian internal politics except by invading and occupying the country. And considering all the problems that would cause Israel, I think they would only attempt it as a truly desparate last resort.
I don’t think the Americans will try to dictate to the Jordanians who should run the Jordanian government when and if Abdullah abdicates. I don’t think that they will try to force Abdullah to abdicate. That is not not what I am reading from Trump and his spokesmen. If Abdullah does fall, I think the Americans will make it clear that they will end all aid to Jordan if it a) expels the Americans from their bases in Jordan, b) refuses to allow American air crews to operate from Jordan, or c) ends all security cooperation with Israel and allows terrorists to attack Israel from Jordanian territory, or d) is controlled completely by the mUslim Brotherhood. I think that the U.S. will recognize, and even continue to give some aid to a future Jordanian government that meets these conditions, regardless of what specific individuals hold the top government posts. Trump has not, with very rare exceptions, been inclined to meddle in the internal politics of foreign countries.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
I don’t think the “Brotherhood” are as much “opponents” as they are “allies” presently.
Are they not even “Parliamentarians”….??…
@ Bear Klein:
Bear–It’s always possible that I did. but I don’t think so. …..unless there are hidden nuances that I missed.. A few points I left alone, because they eventually run into the main postulations. My comment does not differentiate between external and internal enemies. The Muslim Brotherhood alone are not be merely internal enemies, but are internationally active. It is just that their “headquarters” are said to be in Jordan. .
So any possible threat that might bring Jordan into ACTIVE aggression against Israel should be handled severely by the Jewish State. The severity would depend on the level of danger, as is always the case with Israel, and which I believe to be wrong.
Because of Israel’s past many experiences, being forced to allow mostly-defeated enemies “off the hook” time and again. I strongly advocate that perennial enemies should be hammered into the dust to make sure they won’t re-organise for the next 50 years or longer.. .
@ Bear Klein: Excellent points, Bear. Whatever Mudar wrote in 2014, in practice would need strong support from a competent military force to acquire and maintain power. His numerous Jordanian opponents and critics, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, are not going to disappear.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:Ted, said Mudar Zahran is the designer of the Jordan is Palestine. I will quote what Mudar wrote above in the article.
What you are saying would likely be true in reality but see below this is not what Mudar wrote in 2014. Then I am completely skeptical that reality has anything to do with this alleged plan or is it better described as just a PHD theory that has no basis on the ground in actuality?
@ Bear Klein: Actually, the Mudar Zahran-Belman plan depends upon on a strong Jordanian military, since according to Ted it will be accomplished by a military coup by the Jordanian Army. Without strong military backing, Zahran could not possibly hold power and suppress resistance from the muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, IS and Al Quada-affiliated groups, the Iranians and their Iraqi allies, etc.
@ Ted Belman:
Mudar lives in Britain not Jordan no?
Is he invited to Bahrain?
@ Edgar G.:Actually perhaps you did not completely understand what I wrote. I also believe it is dangerous to have enemies controlling Jordan. What I am saying Israel will not fight the internal battles of Jordan. Currently the Jordanian military and the IDF cooperate on joint border security plus more.
@ Bear Klein:
@ Edgar G.:
When Mudar is in power, Israel and Jordan will negotiate a mutual defense treaty. Together they will keep Israel and Jordan safe.
Notice that neither Abdullah nor Abbas were invited to Bahrain.
@ Bear Klein:
I think differently. Having toxic enemies taking over Jordan is almost like having them in your living room. Jordan is too close -actually contiguous-and there are no barriers except the River which means.none at all.
Jordan being kept free of invasions etc. provides the depth for manoeuvre lacking in Israel, with the country only 65 miles across. (The only barriers are the Judean Mountains). the distance from the Sea to the River.
Israel actually at the instance of Kissinger and Nixon moved GROUND TROOPS in a blocking formation which had the Syrians think twice about backing the PLO Army in its battle with Jordan. Sharon moved his army at the order of Golda Mier (PM). So Mudar has it partially correct Israel did stop the Syrian Army in an effort to keep the PLO and Syria from taking over Jordan.
Sharon did not want to do this originally because he thought if the PLO won then Jordan would have been the Palestinian State. I always thought Sharon was wrong because if the PLO had won it would have used Jordan to attack Israel.
The question today is there a Pal-Arab leadership that can effectively make peace with Israel if it controlled Jordan. Given that the population is almost all anti Israel and anti Jews, would a leader survive with the Jordan is Palestine viewpoint. Is this not why Abdullah plays both sides of the stick, making deals with Israel on the one side but verbally attacking Israel in public?
If Jordan had weak military would NOT ISIS take parts of Jordan? Would the Muslim Brotherhood not take over other parts. Thinking that Israeli or USA soldiers are going to be the around the clock guardians keeping Jordan in tact is ludicrous. There maybe situations where they could get help certainly but mostly they to secure their own territory. Israel helps Jordan by guarding its border with Jordan today and they may share intelligence. Israel may have provided Jordan warning that ISIS was coming its way a few years ago, allowing the Jordanian military to cut-off the attack. I doubt if Israeli soldiers would have gone into attack Iraq to stop an attack on Jordan.