President @JoeBiden will be meeting the kinglet at @WhiteHouse next week..
Mr. Biden, WE THE JORDANIAN PEOPLE will be peacefully toppling the kinglet and regime, soon.
You are wasting your time and taxpayers money by supporting this already finished Iranian puppet of a dictator— Mudar Zahran ??? ????? (@Mudar_Zahran) July 14, 2021
@Edgar
Yes, I agree Mary was too given to trusting the wrong people. It was unfortunate. I didn’t mean to make light of her childhood, as her fate was a traumatic one for a child so young. Your comment on her bravery is quite easily acknowledged, she was a spirited and passionate woman who could have achieved many things had she simply had a better sense of judgement. I think this point blends well with your comment on trusting the wrong people, as well.
I am pleased to finally find someone who agrees that it was likely Henry VII who murdered the young princes in the tower, it is an opinion that is shared by few who I have discussed this subject, but everything points to this in my mind. Yet, the Tudors held the great gift of living long enough to claim their own propaganda as historical fact, while thoroughly ferreting out their opposition, both personalities and contrary records, . Henry VII had a wicked obsessive dedication towards ending every Yorkist he could find. In truth, this cold trait was likely instilled in Henry VII by his mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort – I think she influenced him greatly throughout his kingship. Henry VIII seemed to have a sharp change in character about the time he participated in the Field of the Cloth of Gold, a large tournament, in which he suffered a great head injury from a jousting match which left him unconscious for two hours. It would have been better for most of his wives and many others had he not arisen, but the Tudors were mostly born of hardy stock.
Yes, I have a deep appreciation for the rise and fall of the sons of Richard Plantagenet. It would have been nice if they used more than the few choice names at the time to make talking about them more easily accomplished, as very many of the key players each seems to be named Edward, Richard, or Henry. And I am familiar with the film with Vincent Price – his evil smile as he murdered each of his adversaries still comes to mind, very macabre.
Richard was a very capable warrior, and in his age that gave him the most important ability as a king – winning battles. He did make mistakes and take liberties, but as you note, his undoing was really just the work of the Stanleys who made a living of betraying their kings.
@ Peloni
Mary who was married as a child, and then shipped off to Scotland, thus going from “civilisation”, extremely highly spirited, ,and also highly educated far beyond most, arriving in a savage, primitive country almost overnight. She, tied to her French relatives, could not cope, even with her capable mother alongside. She had a very independent spirit, true, and perhaps was born out of her time, but her BIG mistake was trusting the wrong people, like her half-brother who was a devious scoundrel, and also Elizabeth Tudor. She may have been foolhardy, but brave beyond any ordinary woman . She led troops in battles, like a man, not like Joan of Arc who was mostly a figurehead -a simple peasaint who saw “visions, heard voices” (a sick kid)
Jane Grey was very nicely dealt with by Harrison Ainsworth, most of whose books I have. I read “The Tower of London” at least 3 times. And, strangely enough, The original movie “The Tower of London”, in which Basil Rathbone and Boris Karloff took leading parts, with Vincent Price as The Duke of Clarence, is all about the Edward 4th period. Price went for a last swim in a barrel of wine, I recall. Very ominous, lost of going up and down grim looking stone steps. I saw this movie also a few times. Maybe it was my “macabre” period..
I have always had a detestation of the Tudors, and I suppose Henry V11 was the worst. A scheming, “long-headed” cruel figure. He had everyone with even the faintest claim to the throne, killed, and most likely the Princes in the Tower also. He had the Countess of Salisbury, an old woman, and sick, executed on a trumped up charge. I know the scheming thst went on to give the succession to Arthur and Henry, and the incarceration of Edward Plantagenet. I have read very many accounts of the period, having first become interested after reading Josephine Tey’s “Daughter of Time”. I have a 2 volume, very old set of the memoirs of Phillipe de Commines who very briefly mentions it also. I used to be abel to reel off almost every name of that period, Warwick the Kingmaker got my interest. And I saw Richard as a loyal and serious brother to Edward, who abused his position, with his tricky actions. As if they were kings of the universe with no ome to say yea or nay.
You may have seen that they have found what is firmly believed to be the skeleton oh Rickard 3 when working on a parking lot. He was not “Crookback’ as his enemies said, but had some scoliosis. Small and broad, must have been very strong physically. Archbishop Morton, I think was the moving figure behind the lies and scandals which later surrounded Richard. None so twisted as Church officials.
Tichard also trusted the wrong people in his leniency with the Stanleys, who betrayed him at the end.
@Edgar
Yes, of course it is true about the rabble that the composed the Great Arab Revolt when compared to the British Army, or likely any army less useless than the Ottomans. This was my meaning of taking the criticisms of the British “with a grain of salt, but not too large of a grain” as there was likely merit behind their critiques even though they were well motivated towards this conclusion. Lawrence’s distraction in the desert was, however, more substantive for motivating future generations to substantive actions than the one in which he lived, I believe, as he did awaken the idea among the Arabs that they might one day throw off their foreign overlords – though, again, it must be confessed that the foreign overlords were mostly removed by the limits of their ability to stay and play in the sand, as it were. It was to prove to be an unfortunate matter for the Arab public, as the inept ministrations of the British were likely more concerned with the general good than the inept native warlords who took over control from the imperialists. Well, someday, somewhere we might find a man who has the energy, intellect and perseverance to provide a proper image of how the Arabs could be well led – it would be refreshing and useful to see such a thing come to be. Who knows, perhaps, this opportunity is even closer than the future…
I share your opinion on Lady Jane Grey, a great crime – none of the Grey girls had a good history, though, just tragedy after tragedy it seemed. Mary Queen of Scots evokes the image of the most reckless of spirits – it was almost as if she meant to proceed with the most foolish of paths imagined in every step of her sad life. One that I would add to this list is the Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick, the one Henry VII kept locked away for so long and then beheaded to gain the marriage of Catherine of Aragon for his son Arthur whose brother, Henry VIII, took his spot at the alter…what a long and terrible crime to so shield a child from human contact just to make his head part of the dowry for your son’s queen…I have always had a unfortunate opinion of Henry VII, actually most of the Henry’s were either pretty poor kings or downright scoundrels, outside of Henry II and Henry V, each of whose deaths resulted in the kingdom being placed into great jeopardy by the power vacuum they left in their wake.
@Peloni,
Yes your depiction of the British is very accurate. By chicanery and brute force they conquered a massive empire. And once in their grasp it was impossible to get loose. It took WW2 and the afteramaths of rebellious client states to shove them back into their small Island. However, their influence still lingers.
As for Lawrence, we must always remember he ws NOT a soldier , and the account of his “dare-devil, brilliant” escapades were greatly magnified by Lowell Thomas. The “Arab Revolt” was merely a series of scuffles with few if any advantage on either side. It took Allenby, a real soldier to make the “kill”. Lawrence actually admitted , in a moment of Candour, that much of “The 7 Pillars of wisdom” was not exactly “accurate”. Just imagine this little guy dressed on Arab robes, complete with leather open sandals, attracting attention, in wandering arund Paris ….
Yes, a dyed-in-the wool, poseur.
Meinertzhagen gives a telling account of a long column of Turkish prisoners being shepherded by a few dozen British soldiers from behind. He describes a town they went through, where the population, when they saw the Turks, put out flags and gaily were singing songs etc, which abruptly died when the end of the column came into view.
Yes the French kings for the most part were a rotten bunch, physically and morally, and the times in which they lived were putrid. I am also reminded of the sons of Henry 2 who succeeded and died off like flies. One of them was married as a child to another child, Mary Queen of Scots, in my opinion, one of the two saddest figures in British Royal history. The other was Lady Jane Grey.
Ted Belman the bankrupt who only TAKES benefits from Israel . He even lied about banning me. https://companycheck.co.uk/company/02503912/T-BELMAN-UK-LIMITED/companies-house-data
https://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/02503912
My intent was not to label Mudar as a devil, so forgive me if any thought this was my implied meaning in pursuing the metaphor, as it could not be further from any basis in fact or imagination. I find the inability of people to accept such a reasoned voice for the future over the libels and deep betrayals of the past as a conversation really beyond the need of any discussions. And this most recent betrayal by Abduallah is to aid in the Persian conquest of his own people while gaining a support for his rotted regime – surely this must be seen to be the final betrayal by his family before their influence is decisively left extinguished.
Meanwhile, Mudar’s standards on economy and close interactions are not the commonplace lip services which have too often been accepted as endorsing democratic desires, while maintaining their true Islamist intentions in their native tongue to their impassioned followers. Indeed, Mudar’s vocal endorsement of such standards are soundly based upon fundamental principles of economy, freedom and reciprocal support and alliance thru which his policies have been specifically fashioned to greatly improve his people’s current plight. These very same fundamental principles, which also reject the globalist agenda, resonate within every statement, interview and speech he makes before those sympathetic to such views as well as those less inclined to support such things – his ability to maintain a common voice in any language, alone, distinguishes him among other Arab leaders and adds to an undeniable validity of his earnest desires to bring these visions into existence. Each Arab community, village and state would only benefit from any success that could be demonstrated by his efforts, let alone Israel. With this in mind, Ted’s description of him being a visionary is well stated and easily supported, in my view.
Since I first read of Mudar upon the pages of Israpundit some years back, I was surprised by his ability to completely win my support. I was initially reticent to have faith that such a man as this might actually exist in all of the Arab lands, and yet, his faithful adherence to his proclaimed objectives have overwhelmed my doubts and I could not be more supportive of him and his efforts. So, again I would express that Mudar is no devil, but embodies the very hope that might influence the entire region into a markedly more moderate future which would only benefit the inhabitants as a whole, including we Jews.
I hope to see the future of Israel and Jordan becoming more aligned to their designed paths which were initially engineered by the clumsy efforts of colonial powers one century ago. In spite of their efforts being based upon such sloppy ignorance which was only informed by commitments to their former allies and their current circumstances, a happy coexistence bred by the intermingling and interdependence of our two nations and two peoples interactions would be a happy vision to seek, and to this end I look forward to the many successes of President Mudar in the coming years that will benefit the current occupants of the lands that were once the subjects the British Mandate.
@Edgar
Yes, your description is a good summary of his family’s twisted history. I knew of Talal’s insanity but I was unaware of it being found among other members as well – it reminds me of Charles the Beloved of France, the insanity mixed into his line caused a great series of misfortunes leading to many fallen kings, murdered princes, pretenders and lords alike.
Regarding the choice of the Hashemites, the arbitrary nature of consideration by the British as reliable authority figures throughout their empire has long impressed me by their lack of merit, but then again it was not so long before this period that their own officers were chosen by the power of the purse, and this un-meritorious practice was only abandoned some ~40yrs before WWI. The Hashemites were an ally and Lawrence was determined to see there assistance rewarded. Of the lot of them, the youngest, Faisal, always impressed me as the skilled of the three brothers, though the faithless nature of his family was found to have a strong vein in Faisal as well, having bound himself to Weitzmann’s cause only very shortly afterwards chosen otherwise – ever the poor salesman, uninterested in the customer after the sale is completed. Still Faisal did seem to have a more global view to motivate him. His intent was always to control Syria, which was beyond the interest of his British allies, though he never gave up on this point. He never parted with his dreams of controlling this area and even after being made king of Iraq, unsatisfied with his Iraqi kingdom, his eye always drifted back to Syria, always looking for the next sale, so to speak. He developed a pan-Arab vision that many have tried to pursue and still do to this day.
I have read of many of the British army figures having poor and dismissive opinions of Lawrence. His vision for the Arabs was quite beyond their ability to fulfill and did challenge the aims of the settlement between the British and French empires, so I have always accepted the depictions of Lawrence’s detractors with a grain of salt, but not too large of a grain. Indeed, the reality of chaos that the British and French employed in their methodology of making certain of their hold over their portion of the winnings following the 1919 Peace always calls to mind an image of people scrambling about to collect golden coins that had been unknowingly dropped by some tax collector as he traveled thru town – the chaos later gave way to many problems with which they would struggle for years to force three square pegs into a tiny round hole, all the while being quite aware of the impossible nature of succeeding with any one of them. Still, the British being British would seek the greater source of power in the area, namely the Arabs, and empower them to the detriment of the Jewish outliers with a new interpretation of the Balfour agreement. The British Empire was an immense and brutish source of inept practices that often placed a bull within a china shop and called it a success as long as the bull held the British banner. Their sharp betrayal to fulfill the designed purpose of the Mandate was an ugly mark upon their Empire, but to be certain, just one of many betrayals. Should their dominance not have been crushed by the toll upon them by WWII and its aftermath, 1948 would likely have had a less significant meaning to the Jewish people.
@Edgar
I removed him and banned him.
@TED
Who is this disgusting Goldman guy, How did he slither into our midst.??
@Peloni,
They were all rather incompetent, the least being Abdullah, who got a kingdom for threatening to attack the French in Damascus because they kicked out his brother Faisal before he even had a chance to warm the throne that he claimed…as King of ALL the Arabs. Abdullah pretended that he was defending the family honour…but still took nearly a year to straggle up with his 1000 or so bandits as far as Amman, where he “rested” for many months. It was then called Moab, almost unpopulated, run by a handful of mostly Arab policemen..
The seminal book on the subject is by Christopher Sykes (son of the Sykes-Picot plan) and is called “Crosroads to Israel”… Remarkably interesting and informative. tells the story very convincingly, showing the haphazard and hurried way in which things were done after WW1 in the Middle East. Meinetzhagen (Allenby’s Chief od Intelligence) confrms the situation. He cnosidered Lawrence a poseur, who “had a way of slowly backing into the limeligh”. He knew Lawrence very well and shared a tent with him fo 2 years during and after the War.
I think the most incompetent Hashemite was Hussein the Sherif of Mecca and “King” of Hejaz….. He was half mad, in fact a strain of lunacy goes right through all the Hashemites in one way or another. One of Hussein’s sons was crazy, and one of Abdullah’s sons was also a lunatic. His name was Talal and succeeded Abdullah for about a year, until they led him away to a sanitorium. HIs son, Hussein, became king. He, of course, the jolly old educated in England chap, with the rakish beret,, had the army which had been trained by Glubb Pasha, but still lost YESHA in 1967, by, ignoring the pleas of the Israeli govt, joining Nasser in attacking israel.
This whole incident was actually very laughable. Nasser, always spouting off mosty thunder with very little lightning, was denouncing “that malignant little dwarf in Amman”, and without breaking his stride one iota, was hugging, and kissing his “Arab brother” on both cheeks 2 days later when, Hussein flew to Cairo.
Anyone who prefers the devil we know over the devil we don’t know is misinformed as to how ban the devil we know is and is ignorant of what Mudar the devil we don’t know, stands for. In reality, he is not a devil at all but a visionary much like MBS.
(2 of 2)
Abdullah’s move to become a proxy of Iran has many consequences, not the least of which is the impact upon this choice between the Devil you know and the Devil you don’t know. The Hashemite family as rulers of Jordan over the past 75 years are worthy of many unfortunate descriptions, and, yet, none of them, prior to now, could be claimed to include being labeled as an Iranian proxy.Hence, the suggestion of maintaining a known over an unknown is not the choice at hand, as the Devil you know has been deposed, in his own mind at minimum, as he has seen to seek support of a second Devil within his borders.
So, it is not between Mudar’s revolution vs the Hashemite Kingdom. The Hashemite King has all but acknowledged his fall with this process of subservience to his new Mullah masters in Tehran and attempts at popularizing their faith within his borders. With this in mind, it should be accepted that the choice at hand will decide the outcome of revolution in Jordan, not a choice between maintaining this king and his challenger. Change is coming and the choice appears to be between an Iranian proxy-state and the opposition leader, Mudar Zahran.
The outcome of this contest for control of the state will be pivotal on many points of interest, not the least of which is Israeli security concerns. For myself, ignoring Iranian support for Abdullah, I am very supportive of Mudar’s stated goals and his well reasoned proclamations towards the establishment of a gov’t that might, with assistance, support his people towards a stabilizing example that could benefit the entire region in addition to the Jordanian public. When the consideration of the Iranian proxy king is added to this analysis, it seems there is really no choice all. An Iranian puppet in the visage of Abdullah is a Devil that should never be supported or allowed to become known.
/2
(1 of 2)
So, the Devil you know…This phrase is used to temper rash decisions inclined towards adopting change – which could have quite uncertain outcomes – over the more conservative approach of adopting the limited benefit of supporting a known policy, principle or person, ie a choice between the known and the unknown. I would submit that this is exactly the choice that is missing in the Kingdom of Jordan in this current crisis, and any claiming Abdullah as a known choice is missing the evolving reality.
The Hashemites’ rule is a vestigial fragment of long rejected colonialist designs and ambitions over the region’s inhabitants. Indeed,they owe the very basis of their legitimacy of ruling to being named as proxies of the British Empire under the Mandate to this very purpose. With the recollection of this limited justification of their authority in mind, it should be further noted that the Hashemites have never been able to display any competency as rulers to any extent of reason or to any group beyond themselves, but their rule has never been so challenged by their inept practices as have been exposed and rejected by the people of Jordan of late.
This generalized rejection of Abdullah by his subjugated subjects has led this current failed monarch upon a search for some outside source of protection against the public’s will to reject both him and his corrupted domination over them. It seems Abdullah has found this support in the form of his powerful Shia neighbors in Iran. Indeed, the Sunni Kingdom of Jordan has made the radical move of supporting and spouting of Iranian propaganda intended to popularize the Shiite Iranians to the Jordanian public. To this point, the Jordanian gov’t has begun encouraging the visitation to Shia sites of worship – even more radical than this was Abdullah’s personal visit to Shiite sites of worship in an effort to popularize such visitation – the worship of such sites is seen as heretical by the nation’s Sunni faith. Similar steps as this can be pulled from a close analysis of Iran’s domination in other failed states which are now under Iranian captured authority such as Lebanon and Iraq.
/1
@ Frank Adam.
We are not visualising a “momarchy,” but a Democratic Republic- Arab style,- with a President and the usual paraphernalia..
@Ted Belman
Under ANY circumstances I cannot visualise that there will be NO oppositon. The very nature of poltics ensures that they always is.
And however peaceful the takeover is, there will be dissenters, and Arabs beingArabs, it most likely will descend to some bloodshed. How much will dpend on MUdar’s handling of his military, and the hold he may have on the People.
I believe Mudar when he says the toppling will be peaceful. The reason being that there will be no opposition.
@Frank
In Mudar’s case, he is the devil I know after 10 years of a very close relation. We have agreed on many aspects of how he will cooperate with Israel.
I’ll believe MZ when I se if he can run a modestly democratic monarchy in the style of 18th and 19th century Britain.
Meanwhile knowing the Arab World and that it is more person run than institution run, I shall prefer the devil I know however mildly pro Iranian. Disruption of any sort will bring very much more hostile forces to Israel’s doorstep.
Mudar, kindly comment except for Israel and once in Tunisia when has there been a peaceful change of regime and yet alone type of regime?
How can one be so certain that the King’s secret police will not be violent. He stopped his own relative now and it was with threat of force and not peaceful whispering in anyone one’s ear.
Also there is no evidence of your claim that Egyptian special forces were on the border. I surmise that was just scare tactics and not something occurring in fact.