Reasons for mistrust

By Walid M. Sadi

Sometimes I wonder why some people, including MPs continue to cast doubt on the ability of the government to protect the interests of the country in the face of the ongoing peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

Some people fear that the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be at the expense of Jordan and its identity.

These people contend that the projected solution would erode the Jordanian identity by having Palestinian refugees permanently settled in Jordan either because Israel would never allow them to return or because some would choose to stay in Jordan.

The decision to grant children of Jordanian women married to foreigners civil rights has been viewed as only the beginning of a longer and wider process that could lead to the “Palestinisation” of the country.

These sceptics have not accepted the repeated assurances of the government that the endgame for the Palestinian question would never be at the expense of Jordan’s vital interests and their suspicions continue to grow despite the assurances that their fears and anxieties are ill founded.

The explanation may be in issues touching on the Jordanian nationality and identity.

After the influx of a million and a half Syrian refugees and the entry into Jordan before that of almost a million Iraqis, some Jordanians began to feel more and more marginalized.

In the eyes of the sceptics, the issue of the more than a million and half Palestinian refugees already residing in the country has been compounded.

The aggravation of the refugee crises in the area has led some to fear that Jordan is fast turning into one large refugee camp housing Palestinians, Syrians and Iraqis and indigenous Jordanians are becoming a minority.

To fix this problem, the government must reckon with three deeper issues.

First could be the consequences of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war that led to the loss of the West Bank. That was the beginning of the rift between Jordanians and Palestinians.

Second is the 1970 catastrophic armed conflict between Jordanian forces and Palestinian commandos stationed on Jordanian soil. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as the Jordanian-Palestinian relations are concerned.

Third was the 1988 Jordanian political decision to sever all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank despite the constitutional constraints.

That decision cemented the break of relations between Jordan and the Palestinians.

Ever since, the ties between the two peoples who once forged one united nation became sour and filled with suspicions.

Now the two sides are reaping the harvest of these three events in their contemporary history, which gave rise to mistrust between them.

Nothing would heal the wounds between them and put their relationship on a more positive foundation than the restoration of the unity between the two banks of the Jordan River after the Palestinians establish their own independent state.

Anything short of that would perpetuate the hostility and ill feelings between the two sides.(http://jordantimes.com/reasons-for-mistrust)



On test is a friendship

BY DAOUD KUTTAB    

The seriousness of the US-initiated framework for a possible solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem appears to have shaken dormant relations in the region, including in Jordan. The Palestinian-Jordanian relationship, which is experiencing its highest degree of cooperation and mutual trust, is being put to the test.

The challenges facing this important relationship stem from identity issues that have plagued Jordan for decades but which have been pushed under the rug.

Jordanian politicians, pundits, journalists and even government officials are expressing different degrees of concern and worry regarding the aftermath of US Secretary of State John Kerry plan, even though information about the plan is very sketchy.

The potential of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has resurrected badly needed discussion about political reform, which was delayed until the resolution of the Palestinian cause. The refugee issue is perhaps the most important part of this discussion.

Two million registered refugees in Jordan are the biggest single group of Palestinian refugees in the world. Their case is even more complicated by the fact that they are also full Jordanian citizens, though not equitably represented in Parliament as a result of large-scale gerrymandering.

Murmurings began on websites and social media, and from former Jordanian officials, including former prime minister Marouf Bakhit, who requested that a Jordanian representative attend the ongoing US-led talks to ensure that Jordanian rights are preserved.

The issue of Palestinians in Jordan was also included in the discussions about the rights of Jordanian women to pass on citizenship to their children.

A promise by the government to a parliamentary coalition led by Madaba MP Mustafa Hamarneh to give civil rights to children of Jordanians provoked angry responses from East Bank Jordanians who fear that this will cause a shift in the sensitive demographics of Jordan.

Respected columnist Fahed Fanek picked up on the issue saying, without substantiation, that the idea of giving temporary or permanent passports to Palestinians caused the emptying of the West Bank.

The discussion, however, was further escalated when members of Parliament demanded a briefing from the government on the progress of the peace talks.

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriate Affairs Nasser Judeh gave a general briefing about Jordan's key interests in the peace talks, but this did not please the MPs who wanted more details.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour came to the podium and surprised parliamentarians by questioning the transparency of the Palestinian side vis-à-vis the Jordanian counterparts.

Ensour said that Jordanians are afraid of a Palestinian surprise, a hint to the fact that Jordan, like many others, was caught totally by surprise when the Oslo back channel produced the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian memorandum of understanding. Although he praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the media picked on Ensour's questioning of the Palestinian openness to Jordan.

Ensour's claim, however, was quickly responded to by Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al Malki. He insisted on the fact that Palestinians are totally open and transparent with Jordan.

Malki's statement produced some angry remarks from some Jordanians.

Former head of the Royal Court, Riyad Abu Karaki, wrote on his Facebook page that Malki's statements were inappropriate.

He used the Arabic word "eib" (shame) to describe the hints at the disconnect between the palace and the government.

There is no doubt that the national identity issues confronting Jordanians if and when the Palestinian issue is resolved are daunting.

Real political reform and an equitable share to all citizens, which has been postponed for years, will not be justified any further.

While the late King Hussein's memorable quote that Jordan is for its citizens, irrespective of origin, remains the guiding principle for the way forward, many fear that the interests of some Jordanians who have benefited from the central government for decades will be washed away once the need for equity among all citizens become the rule.(http://www.timesofoman.com/Columns/Article-1705.aspx)


When a logo on a piece of paper determines lives

By Ray Hanania


Israel keeps demanding that Palestinians recognize it as a “Jewish” State but says nothing about its own responsibilities for peace.

Palestinians have recognized “Israel’s right to exist,” it’s confiscation of land in 1948 and now has to do even more just to make the Israelis happy enough to sign a peace accord.

But can Israelis ever be happy? Or, do they prefer conflict because it gives them everything that they want, as long as they control the power imbalance?

In other example of Israel’s double-talk, Israel is now refusing to allow Palestinians in need of emergency medical care to leave Gaza to enter the West Bank for treatment.

The reason? The Palestinian paperwork has a new logo which reads “State of Palestine” rather than “Palestinian Authority” as it has been designated in the past.

Forget for a moment that we’re talking about life and possibly death situations here where civil patients need medical care and are trying to get from one Israeli managed prison, the Gaza Strip, to another, the West Bank.

I mean seriously. Does Israel have a problem with logos, or maybe the real problem is Israel doesn’t really want a Palestinian State of any kind?

The peace process officially kicked off in 1993 with a handshake between two “terrorists,” Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian President Yasir Arafat. Of course, each side doesn’t consider their own a “terrorist,” just the other.

But while Palestinian fanatics reacted with a wave of suicide bombings to block the peace process and prevent compromise advocated by Arafat and the majority of Palestinians, Israelis were no better.

Rabin was murdered in 1995 by an Israeli settler fanatic after extremist leaders like Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the agreements as “evil.” After battling to undermine peace, Sharon then intentionally provoked Palestinians by declaring at the Dome of the Rock that Muslims and Christians would “never” have control over the sacred ground holy to everyone, except him.

Then, Israelis freely went to the elect polls and selected the most extremist leaders they possibly could to run their country, candidates for Prime Minister who openly declared they would reverse the Oslo Peace Accords and then expel Palestinians – only the Christian and Muslims ones in order to annex all of the West Bank.

They never really wanted Gaza. They just seemed to enjoy managing it as a prison, first with the Israeli soldiers guards inside the Gaza Strip and later from outside the Gaza Strip using Egyptian soldiers as stooges to do the dirty work on the Sinai border.

No. The skirmish over a few words “Palestine State” isn’t about procedures or processes, or when words can or can’t be used. The problem for Israel is that most Israelis and the leadership there today have a problem with recognizing the rights of Christians and Muslims to live in the Holy Land.

Declaring Israel a “Jewish” State is an outright insult to any Christian or Muslim not just Arab but in the world.

The Holy Land is holy not just to Jews but to Christians and Muslims, too. It doesn’t matter that most Christians in the West have abandoned their religion and care more for the commercialization of Christian holidays. They don’t celebrate the birth of Jesus in the West. They celebrate the Christmas Holiday sales.

Israelis recognize this. They know Christians don’t really care about the dismal situation of Christians living in the Holy Land under Israeli oppression. They know they can hate Christians as equally as they hate Muslims and American taxpayers will keep writing those $5 billion checks to help Israel reinforce its occupation and settlement machine.

I remember when I was young, watching Hollywood movies where “Arab terrorists” would hijack a plane and allow all the non-Jewish passengers to leave the plane safely while holding the Jewish passengers hostage.

It was reprehensible conduct, conduct cited by pro-Israel fanatics to reinforce the lies and stereotypes against the rights of Arabs so people like the mind-controlled and brainwashed Americans would never question the lies.

Yet somehow, the idea that Israel is preventing Christians and Muslims from crossing out of the Gaza Strip to go through Israel to get to a hospital in the Palestinian West Bank tells me that this is about more than just a few words printed on a piece of stationary.

We’re at the cusp of a very important peace process that Americans have invested so much to help make happen. Yet Israel is doing everything it can to stop it. Building more and more settlement housing on confiscated Christian and Muslim lands. And now imposing blockades to prevent people in need of medical care from getting to hospitals because of stationary.

It’s more than bureaucracy. It’s about the very substance of how Israel really views peace. And it shows once again that Israel’s government doesn’t support peace. Israel’s government doesn’t want to compromise. Israel’s government is the criminal enterprise that is engaged in stripping human beings of fundamental human rights and imposing a system of racial and religious superiority should determine how people live and are treated. Is that the kind of ugly State that many Israelis are demanding?(http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20140216195842)