The Hashemites should relinquish any dreams of sovereignty over any part of Israel; in fact they should count themselves very lucky if they manage to maintain their rule over Jordan, where many of their subjects view them as occupiers. PHOTO: REUTERS On October 9, former crown prince of Jordan, Prince Hassan, told a group of Palestinians in Amman that “the West Bank is a part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which included both banks of the [Jordan] River.”
Hassan added that: “I hope that I do not live to see the day when Jordan, or the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, relinquishes the land occupied in 1967 by the IDF.”
Prince Hassan’s comments come at a very critical time for the ruling Hashemite family in Jordan, with regular anti-regime protests sweeping their kingdom, open calls for toppling the king and a staggering economy. The unrest in Jordan is often overlooked by the global media, as they are occupied with bloodshed in Syria and the trouble in Egypt.
In fact, the weekly anti-regime protests in Jordan are mainly coming from Jordanian East-Bankers, or Beduin Jordanians. The last major one took place on October 5; an unprecedented anti-regime march which took place in the capital Amman, and where the Palestinian majority and refugee camps took place in the protests for the first time.
What might have been the most alarming issue for the king and his uncle Hassan is the fact that that march marked the beginning of the Palestinian majority’s participation in the anti-regime protests, which opened the window for a true revolution to come if both East Bankers and Palestinians join forces against the regime.
Therefore, the Hashemite regime has been running around like a headless chicken; first claiming the October 5 mega-march was dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood of Jordan, thus sustaining the Hashemite’s claim that “it is either them or the Muslim Brotherhood ruling Jordan,” playing on the fear factor for Israel and pro-Israel forces in the West. Nonetheless, Jordanian media itself reported 78 Jordanian and Palestinian political factions were involved in the protest, of which the Muslim Brotherhood was only one.
Furthermore, the Hashemite Kingdom’s media sources tried to play down the number of protesters who participated in October 5 march; claiming it was as low as 5,000. Still, prominent Jordanian daily newspaper Alghad slipped up and quoted a Jordanian security official saying “250,000” people were seen marching toward the protest location in downtown Amman.
In other words, the Hashemites are in trouble, and they are not necessarily immune to the Arab Spring tsunami streaming through the region. Therefore, Prince Hassan’s statement was most likely made out of desperation: he wants to export the Hashemites’ trouble to Israel by reviving the alleged Hashemite right to the West Bank. At the same time, Hassan is trying to appeal to the Palestinian majority, telling there might be a possible arrangement whereby they are absorbed. At the moment, the Palestinian majority in Jordan is excluded from government jobs, state college education and state healthcare.
Should the regime in Jordan fall or the king’s powers be compromised, the Palestinian majority will take over. Whether it’s a he or a she, an Islamist or a moderate, whoever is in charge will be a Palestinian. The possibility that Prince Hassan is trying to sweet-talk the Palestinians and to remind them that the Hashemites had ties to the West Bank is a sign of how desperate Hassan and his nephew, the king of Jordan, might be.
Meanwhile, by making such statements, Hassan ignores basic historical fact. The map of British Mandate for Palestinian which was commissioned to Great Britain in 1919 by the League of Nations included all of today’s Israel and today’s Jordan.
Hassan simply ignores the Faisal-Weizmann agreement which his clan signed in 1919, by which Jews agreed to give up 78 percent of the British Mandate for Palestine promised to them by Great Britain as a future Jewish homeland. That compromise was made by world Jewry then for a clear reason: Establishing a homeland for the Arabs in the area under the Hashemites.
Today, and according to UN reports on refugees’ rights, the Hashemite regime tells its Palestinian majority that they are merely “refugees who should return to Palestine,” while in reality, Jordan is a Hashemite-occupied part of the British Mandate for Palestine, which Jews have given up in exchange of an un-fulfilled promise of peace.
Furthermore, in 1948, when the Hashemites occupied the area West of the River Jordan, to be renamed the West Bank, the Arab League itself did not recognize Hashemite sovereignty over that land nor did the world or the UN. In fact only three countries recognized the Hashemite rule over the West Bank as legitimate: the United Kingdom and Pakistan in addition to the then Hashemite-ruled Iraq.
The King of Jordan and his uncle better realize that picking on Israel will not get them a revolution-free pass from their discriminated against and disenfranchised Palestinian majority or their angry East Bankers. The Hashemites should also relinquish any dreams of sovereignty over any part of Israel; in fact they should count themselves very lucky if they manage to maintain their rule over Jordan, where many of their subjects view them as occupiers.
The writer is Palestinian-Jordanian writer who resides in the UK as a political refugee. Send Large Small Print Share
Ask Yamit, who lives in Israel, if “most Muslims have mellowed.”
“Malik = Pakistani Muslim whack job who can give us the enemy Muslim world view. Got it now?”
My point is, Wallace, that I have known (as do all those who know even a little about Islam proper) long ago, without Malik, what “the enemy world view” is. It’s a no-brainer, basically.
If you think Islamic terrorism against the Jewish people began in the 20s and the 70s, you need to study more about the history of Islam as regards the Jewish people. Most Muslims have not “mellowed”. This should be common knowledge for someone as well read as you.
Sun Tsu is not Malik nor is he Muslim. There is a vast difference. You seem not to have read my post. To compare Sun Tsu with Malik is to flatter Malik. Sun Tsu was a genius. Malik was a Pakistani Muslim whack job.
“…the two state solution with one Islamic State and one Jewish State will never work so long as the Islamists are in control of the Muslims.”
A two state solution is totally out of the question. Also, so long as Islam is the preponderant religion (Islamists and all) of those who would advocate and inhabit a “two state solution,” the so-called “two state solution” will never work.
Islam is in control of the Islamists and not the other way around. You have it all backward. Do you actually think Islam without the Islamists could possibly be salubrious for the Jewish people? The Islamists articulate the real and veridical Islam, which exists with or without the Islamists. You’re contradicting your earlier post: sharia is part of Islam proper, regardless the Islamists.
Michael Devolin Said:
Sun Tsu in the Art of War tells us to “know your enemy” well enough to think the way he does. Malik is telling us how they think. And that tells us that the two state solution with one Islamic State and one Jewish State will never work so long as the Islamists are in control of the Muslims.
Malik, shmalik. Same old Quranic crap all over again. It’s nothing new and nothing more than a prescription for terror. As with most endeavors inspired by the Quran, even a Muslim general’s stratagems for war, they inevitably auspicate terror and bloodshed being inflicted upon the infidel by way of homocidal religious fervour. I no longer waste my time reading such atrocious garbage. There’s about as much revelation in Malik’s ideas as there is in reading Daniel Pipes telling his readers that “Muslims are going to react violently.” Like that’s news.
Not to sound disrespectful, Wallace. I just have no respect for anything “islam”.
@ Michael Devolin: The British presence deferred the inevitable conflict to 1948 when the Jews had a much better chance of survival. When I say inevitable, it may be helpful to read Malik “The Quranic Concept of War” and the reviews of it by J.C. Meyers published in Parameters at the US Army War College.
It turns out that when a state does not adopt Sharia, this is a casus belli to an Islamic State or Islamic group. Maybe that explains why the PLO and other terrorists are always claiming to “resist” the Jews when they are attacking them. Meyers thinks this turns logic on its head. Carried to its logical conclusion, this makes a two state solution into cognitive dissonance as such a solution can only be a temporary solution until adjacent Muslim forces are strong enough to attack or “resist” as they call it..
“It’s not true that they are illegitimate rulers, if one goes by the paths taken by European royalty.”
Would this be the path common to that taken by Lord Cardigan and the British Calvary in the charge of the Light Brigade? How does royalty legitimize oppression? Being of Irish heritage, I am quite averse to being regarded by “royalty” as merely the “dust of empire,” thank you very much.
The British presence in Israel was never salubrious for the Jewish people just as the Roman presence was never salubrious for the Jewish people.
Jordan would be fools to depose their King and Queen, one reason being tourists love royalty, and Jordan’s royalty are among the Most Beautiful People.
It’s not true that they are illegitimate rulers, if one goes by the paths taken by European royalty. Queen Elizabeth of England comes from a German/Austrian family that was named Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but her grandfather George V changed the family’s last name to Windsor, taken from the name of Windsor Castle. He did this because the war-like Germans had bad reputations, having started WW I, and he didn’t want his family associated with them. Smart move, because these Germans would also start WW II. The present Germany is reformed and now helping out other European counties financially. We shouldn’t forget, however, that according to historical records, they are descended from the Assyrians, fierce warriors from Antiquity.
The West Bank has been a part of Israel for thousands of years, and in accordance with accepted Muslim custom, Israel took it back by force in the same way it was taken from them.
You wrote” Is Jordan the Hashemite-occupied Palestine?”
Mudar, do you have any doubt?
Prince Hassan also ignores the peace agreement and boundary agreement in which Jordan relinquished its claim to Palestine West of the Jordan River (CisJordan) in exchange for the Government of Israel’s relinquish its claim on Palestine East of the Jordan, (TransJordan).
“Jordan is a Hashemite-occupied part of the British Mandate for Palestine, which Jews have given up in exchange of an un-fulfilled promise of peace.”
I don’t remember any Jew ever giving up this land. If I remember correctly, Jews were forced to give it up. Besides, Britain had no right to this land in the first place.
“It most certainly won’t be a she.”
You got that right, Laura! I’ll sooner have angels flying out of my arse!
Didn’t Jordan already relinquish their false claim to Judea and Samaria in 1988???
It most certainly won’t be a she.