Hamas' leaders and Jordan
The impending visit by Hamas leader to Jordan seems to be the subject of discussions in the region. Elaph reports that the Qataris are mediating to arrange the visit. The major stumbling block is Khaled Mesha'al, who was given the choice in 1999 between retaining his leadership role in Hamas and staying in Jordan. He chose the former. The government's argument then and now is that it is inappropriate for a Jordanian national to hold a leadership position in an outside organization or government. Other issues, as I noted before, were Hamas' interference in Jordanian security and politics.
A few days ago, another Hamas leader, Mohammad Nazzal, made the astonishing statement that Hamas does not recognize the disengagement decision of 1988, by which Jordan renounced claims to the West Bank and withdrew Jordanian citizenship from residents of the WB. Samih Ma'aitah discussed this in Al Ghad a couple of days ago. Because of his Islamist tendencies, Ma'aitah (probably driven by embarrassment) tried to portray the statement as an individual mistake driven by a selfish desire to retain Jordanian citizenship without understanding the broader consequences of this position. I find this hard to swallow, and I am waiting for other Hamas leaders to explain what their position is on this statement.
Saleh Gallab, a vocal opponent of Hamas interference in Jordan, took a less generous view of this statement, saying flatly that "It is clear from Nazzal's statement that there is a [Hamas] intention to use [the Palestinian election] victory to go back to it it's old habits, to interfere in Jordanian internal affairs, and renew it's previous attempts (a generous word) to control the MB and the IAF. All of this would be a huge affront to the warm relations between two brotherly peoples, the Palestinians and the Jordanians, and an attack on the national unity of Jordan" (it sounds better in Arabic).
I find it amusing that many people are optimistic that Hamas will eventually be able to cut a deal with Israel, while it seems hesitant to recognize Jordan's sovereignty. Jordan must deal with Hamas on the basis of preservation of Jordan's national interests. If this is not possible, so be it. As Abderaouf Rawabdeh said "We will not be intimidated in our position by a threat we remember, or coercion we were aware of, or allegations that forgo justice and truth".
Labels: Islamists
posted by Khalaf @ 7:09 PM
19 comments
19 Comments:
The last statement by Nazzal is obviousley not smart and shallow, just like Hamzeh said, any talk about the current political state in palestine would be then invalid!
I'm hoping to see a correction among the few upcoming days by a much aware voice in Hamas,
Now, I agree with Saleh al Gallab most of the time, but have to admit that the man is totally against Hamas, and probably has issues concerning palestinians, so his opinion is out of credibility here..
Khalaf,
You tend to view Jordan-Palestine as a rivalry between USA-Soviet Union. In your mind there is a Cold War, strategic interests at stake, deception, spying, undermining each other, there is a hidden agenda...etc.
Why is this mindset prevalent East of the Bank? Nazzal's statment of not recognizing the 1988 decision is more of a rejection of anything coming from the King in Jordan. Maybe personal enmity he couldn't contain. But it should be kept at just that level.
As you are very strongly a nationalist, I want to pose a hypothetical question to you, had the British established two countries East of the Jordan, one around Ajloun and another in the south (the Hashemite one being in the South), would you have felt this rivalry towards the "other", even though under another scenario, the "other" is your current King.
It is the "3asabeyyeh" mentality that is our enemy, not Hamas or the Palestinians.
And regarding Saleh Gallab, wasn't he one of Arafat's very very close aides who had a position i Fatah? He's now in the "2a3yan". It means your identity shifts with the blowing wind. You can quote anyone, but Gallab...?
I dont like to attack a person in their absence, but I felt obliged to remind you of his past this time. Apologies.
Hamzeh: I agree that this is about welcoming the Palestinian leadership in Amman. As for the deportation, I think that we disagree, as Ibrahim Ghosheh has since returned to Jordan, after agreeing to play by Jordanian rules and not being a leader in a Palestinian organization.
Rami: I disagree that nationalism should necssarily mean rivalism, or anything like you suggest. There is no 3asabieh in Jordan towards Syrians or Lebanese, or even Palestinians. Jordanians from both sides of the river interact at a human level everyday. We are colleagues, friends and spouses. I do NOT view any Jordanian as "the other".
Having said that, I must say that a problem exists with Jordanians who have a problem identifying themselves as being Jordanian. This is a reality, and it has to be recognized, as it allows for external hands to mess with our national unity. Jordanian and Palestinian interests diverge, just as interets of siblings diverge. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as each side respects the interests and needs of the other (not "THE OTHER" :)).
As for Saleh Gallab, his history is well known. However, he currently says things that need to be said. I would have quoted anybody who made this statement, because I believe the statement is accurate.
Omar: I liked your blog. Keep up the good work. As for your point about Gallab, I believe that it is innacurate. I hate attacking peoples' character when we disagree with their views. We should learn more about the finer points of political debate.
Khalaf,
"There is no 3asabieh in Jordan towards Syrians or Lebanese..."
I beg to differ. Remember the visa problems with Lebanon and the reciprocated slamming of visa requirements?
As for the Syrian side, this rivalry is all too close in history to be forgotten. The 80s, 70s were hot periods for rivalry - remember the Wihdeh Dam? Can you tell me how far has it gone in 30 years? It is only that today, Syria is busy with a heavy-weight and is too busy to rival Jordan.
"Jordanian and Palestinian interests diverge"
I assume they diverge to remain close enough to allow for coperation. Interests can't diverge enough for us to call in a common enemy to mediate or benefit from the situation, can they? I agree with hamzeh's point that, to say the least, the majority of Jordan is Palestinians. How far can you diverge now? This is an excuse that doesn't stand the evidence. If you really wanted to know where Jordanian interests are, why dont you run a referundum on major issues? In whose name can you speak without such a mass referendum?
Well, I can speak for myself. There is nothing in the constitution that allows Jordanians to head foreign organizations on Jordanian territory. The so-called deportation was better than the alternatives; i.e. allowing violation of Jordanian sovereignty or putting people in jail.
How can the majority of Jordanians be Palestinians? They are either Jordanians or Palestinians. Since most Jordanians of Palestinian origin hold Jordanian national numbers, they are Jordanians. Period. If they feel that their identity is not Jordanian, then the problem irises from there. I don't see what can be done about that. If you live in Jordan and want to practice politics, your loyalty needs to be to Jordan. If your loyalty lies elsewhere, then at least declare that you have no business in interfering in the politics of the country.
Khalaf,
"There is nothing in the constitution that allows Jordanians to head foreign organizations on Jordanian territory"
Check with a lawyer on this, but the philosophy of the Law is that it declares what is prohibited, rather than what is permissible. If the Constitution doesn't explicitly state it, its permissible, no?
With regards to:
"They are either Jordanians or Palestinians"
What's a dual nationality meant to mean for you? You surely can't be more of a super-power than the USA which permits dual nationality, or Great Britain. Indeed many Britons are nationals of the USA and serve *Governments* on both sides of the Atlantic, not only the private sector. Martin Indyk is an Australian, became a naturalized US citizen in 1993 and became America's ambassador to Israel.
Is Jordan more of a super-power than the USA? Or a country made of a different set of laws?
There is more to life than chasing Palestinian politicians out of the country.
Any of asking Mish'al out of Jordan, there is no law on earth that can kick a citizen out of his country. You can imprison him for sure, but you cannot push him outside of the border. A citizen is a more established fact in a nation-state than a government, because the mode of governance can change, but a citizen is forever the building block in the country.
Come on Rami. Misha'al was given a choice between giving up his post, going to jail or leaving. Not everybody breaking the law enjoys such a group of choices.
When you say "the philosophy of the Law is that it declares what is prohibited, rather than what is permissible. If the Constitution doesn't explicitly state it, its permissible, no?" it becomes clear that you haven't read the constitution, which states the rights of citizens. The constitution is not a criminal code.
I don't see your point about dual citizenship. Are we in a more stable and secure position than the US? If the US feels secure about the status of Martin Endyk,then that is their soveirgn decision. Isn't Jordan entitled to make it's own? Yes, Jordan is made of a set of different laws.
This is a bizzare statement "There is more to life than chasing Palestinian politicians out of the country". I don't think anybody has it as a sole single item on his resume'.
Cheers
Khalaf,
You sound reasonable, was this:
"a choice between giving up his post, going to jail or leaving"
a court verdict? A citizen has the right to a Cout of Justice, no matter how convoluted or Kangaroo the court it. This right is in the Constitution, no?
"There is nothing in the constitution that allows Jordanians to head foreign organizations"
It's a precarious situation when the King himself ruled over that same foreign territory at a point in time. Would this organization still be foreign?
"Are we in a more stable and secure position than the US?"
Is this arguement supposed to justify an action b ythe executive branch by way of emergency laws? Aren't those long gone?
"Yes, Jordan is made of a set of different laws"
What would those be? Wasn't the Constitution and Civil Code modelled after the French/Swiss? I never heard that Jordan ever created special laws for itself.
"I don't think anybody has it as a sole single item on his resume"
This arguement is a fallacy. You don't answer the point, only mock it.
We can disagree, but let's at least agree to base it on pure rationale.
Hamzeh: We disagree about the deportation issue. As for loyalties, I can sympathize that all Jordanians feel close to the Palestinian cause, to Arab causes and to Islamic causes. This is not something we should relearn. We have paid a lot for these causes, and it was our obligation and honor to do so. If the Arabs take a serious decision to unite, create a real open market or a real mutual defence pact, I am sure that Jordan will be the first in line. I am not against that, but we should recognize that this will not happen any time soon.
So, instead of hypothesizing about romantic unrealistic scenarios, we should deal with reality. This reality was that Hamas was working to undermine Jordan prior to 1999, and is still reluctant to recognize Jordan's sovereignty. Now, this might be cast in a romantic vision involving unity and democracy. But unity with whom? Under what conditions and what form of government? If this is their goal, they should say it, and if we agree, why not. This will not happen through subversion or a coup.
Also, shouldn't Hamas be worried about liberating Palestine, rather than trying to gain influence in Jordan? I doubt that this is why Palestinian voters elected them.
I disagree with your premise that Jordanians of Palestinian origin are united in their support of Hamas activity in Jordan. It is not accurate or helpful to portray the situation in this light.
Rami: Sorry. Actually, I didn't understand that point, so I responded poorly to it.
This is an interesting conversation. Regarding dual citizenship, I think Palestinians or Jordanians should have the choice to have them both, as it is the case when it comes to other nationalities; Amerian, Europian etc... However, I do not think that any one who have a dual citizenship should have the right to in a leadership politial position. If he wants to be part of such position of either country then he should drop the other nationality.
Look at Al-Zarqawi for example, every time they neentioned his name in the media, they folow it with "Jordanian bron terrorist". Believe it or not, Indiviuals can affect the sovernity and the reputation of the whole nation, that is why i do not thank that Hamas leaders should have the right to have two citizenships!
في البداية لابد من شكر خلف على ما يوفره من جردة صحفية للوضع في الأردن، برغم اختلافي معه في وجهة النظر حول الخلاصات
احب أن الفت اهتمام المناقشين أن موقفي حول موضوع الغاء زيارة حماس للأردن موجود على مدونتي
http://www.jordanianissues.blogspot.com/
آملا أن نتابع النقاش قريبا
To put it briefly, I think the Hamas issue could have (should have!) been handled with a little more care and "finesse", both in 1999 and now.
Why haven't we learned yet that the "Jordanian vs. Palestinian" topic holds a lot of sensitivities for everyone, and should be dealt with with some reverence? Do we just enjoy aggravating each other?!
Oh how I despise it when this "argument" starts and, inevitably, escalates into personal accusations and attacks. This has plagued every Jordanian internet discussion forum ever since they started, and is the reason I stopped participating in one of them several years ago.
Saleh gallab he is loyal to who pay more and thats his history, one day i will post about him.
Hamzeh: Do you have foundations for your allegations that it was the US behind the Hamas crisis in 1999? Please enlighten us.
As for Hamas meddling in Jordanian politics, this is well known and well documented. It is not an unfounded allegation, as you claim.
Ziad: I disagree. We are fully capable of having a civilized discussion, and remain friendly. Of course, we will disagree, but that is the fun of it.
Khalaf,
To add to hamzeh's point on:
"Talk about undermining Jordan's sovereignty in 1999"
Doesn't the recent legislation in the Parliament excluding US personnel from being tried by the International Court of Justice if they comit war crimes on Jordanian soil a breach of soverneigty and the rights of the citizens if they are breached? In other words, an American can slaughter 100 Jordanians alive and no one can lay a hand on him, not even our government.
To give you a historical parallel, in 1963 the Shah of Iran forced the parliament of Iran to pass such a resolution. Demonstrations broke out and 100 people died in them, the Savak was throwing people off the rooftops and people were still demonstarting. Khomeini was sent into exile for 15 years for objecting to this treaty.
Are we speaking of a sovereign people here, or ones that pretend to be in words only?
Finally, wasn't Badran, the ex-Prime Minister nominated by Condolezza Rice herself? Where is the independence in decision-making?
Hi Hamzeh: I am amused that the second link you site (the Israeli site) contains the following statement "[...]Jordanians, who had been monitoring the deepening relationship between the extremist wing of the Muslim Brotherhood and Jordanian Hamas, for some time. Hamas personnel had taken to appearing at the Muslim Brotherhood's offices, using their services and trying to formulate what they called a "tangible opposition to the Jordanian policy of supporting the Oslo Agreements.""
Previously, you stated the following "[...]talking about Hamas's influence in Jordan as if it's an uncontested reality when all it is is a theory that some people like to promote because of their personal dislike of Hamas. You keep saying Hamas saught to undermine Jordan's security and sovereignty prior to 1999, how? So far all these allegations are unfounded."
So, do you want to cite only the parts you like from this article?
I concede that Jordan has to face fiscal realities when it makes political decisions. Americal pressure might have been a factor, but it is clear that it was a small factor, with local political realities being a larger one.
Hamas will soon learn the same type of lesson regarding fiscal realities.
Rami: We were only talking about the Hamas situation. Of course US financial pressure is used to change Jordanian policies. I have written about that a couple of times in the past myself.
Hamzeh: Lets drop it. I think we understand each other.
Post a Comment
<< Home