Saturday, June 16, 2007

Nice try, but it won't work

It is widely recognized that the base of the Islamist movement in Jordan is strongly rooted with Jordanians with Palestinian origins. Thus, much of the defense of Hamas last year when the arms smuggling case broke came from this perspective. Many people, even who don’t identify with the Islamists, viewed Hamas as a legitimate resistance organization that had not been tainted with Arab or Palestinian blood. Recent events in Gaza changed this myth for most.

So, in an interesting turn of events, the head of Hamas, Khaled Mish’al has met with Nahid Hattar. In their meeting, Mish’al told Hattar what he wanted to hear: Hamas loves Jordan, and is grateful for King Hussein saving his life; Hamas can become a gateway for Jordanian influence in Palestine; the peace process is at dead end and the liquidation of the Palestinian cause is a grave threat to Jordan; and hardships imposed by Israel on the Palestinians will lead to mass displacement from the occupied territories towards Jordan. He also admitted involvement in the smuggling of weapons to Jordan, but said that they were only destined to be transported to the West Bank (yeah, right).

Hattar, like many East Bank Jordanians, worries about changing the character of the state in a way that decreases the influence of traditional power structures that purport to defend East Bank Jordanian interests. So, playing on this, Misha’al told him that he is totally against the calls for increasing Palestinian Jordanian political representation, as Adnan Abu Odeh continues to do.

Now, Mish’al continues to hold a Jordanian passport. Moreover, Hamas and Jordanian Islamists still call the 1988 disengagement unconstitutional, and demand its revocation. So, basically, Mish’al has sold off his Palestinian Jordanian constituency, with all their demands, in favor of trying to appease and woo East Bankers for their support. I suppose this started with Hamas’ demand to break organizational links with the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. However, the depth of cynicism and political opportunism has never been more on display. Machiavelli would be proud.



At 9:45 PM, Blogger Mohanned said...

I think what we would see now in jordan is more polarization..Did you check assabeel news paper? this is just pathetic! I want to see what Mr.Majali is saying about the so called "confederation"..
And what kills me is that they always talk about soloutions based on the fact that "east bankers" are ok with anything!
Now they all love the king and jordan, what a hypocracy!!

At 10:06 PM, Blogger Khalaf said...

Hi Mohanned: You are right. This is why I say that it won't work.

At 10:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scary. Sometimes I think I am better off not knowing the nuances of this regions politics!!

At 3:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, he only admitted that weapons were smuggled out of Jordan, not into it. He clearly stated that it was in cases that happened before the story that broke out last year, which he did not admit involvement in by Hamas. He also clearly rejected any idea of carrying out any acts of hostility against anyone in Jordan, be it against Israeli interests or against armed Fatah supporters.

Regarding the disengagement, he actually did not mention it. You keep referring to the same statement by one Hamas official from last year. It is obvious Hamas have accepted the disengagement given Mashaal's statement that having any sort of Jordanian organization be tied to Hamas is out of the question.

Actually, reading what Mashaal said, and taking note of the point you keep bringing up about some Hamas officials' rejection of the 1988 disengagement, I have to point out the Jordanian National Charter of June 1991, which has a separate chapter dedicated to illustrating the Jordanian - Palestinian relationship. Mashaal's words in the Hattar story fit perfectly within the frame of the Jordanian National Charter, which demands that each side (Jordanian or Palestinian) respect the other's choices, but also clearly states that the two identities (Jordnaian and Palestinians) are two sides of the same coin facing the expansionist threat that is driven by the zionism movement in Israel.

So it seems to me, that Hamas' most influential figure has accepted both the disengagement plan and is expressing his party's respect for Jordan's national identity as stipulated in its National Charter, but the folks in Jordan who keep treating the Palestinian issue as no more than a sticky situation for Jordan choose to remind everyone of the disengagement, but completely avoid the real spirit and origin of Jordan's national identity.

Instead of doubting Mashaal's honesty, we must hold him accountable to his words and make more people aware of what he said so that both he and Hamas understand what is required of them now (acting on those words), and that is the only way dark chapters can be closed between the two sides and new ones can be opened.

Hamas are there and they are most likely not going away anytime soon. We don't have the option of looking away and pretending that they don't exist. Since their participation in the elections, they have been giving all the right signals to show their willingness to cooperate.

The ball has been in the other's side court for too long now, but the other side simply doesn't wanna play.

At 7:55 AM, Blogger Khalaf said...

Kinzi: I know what you mean. Still, knowing is better than not knowing.

Hamzeh: Man, you are loyal. I just explained how he is selling you out.

As for the weapons, he said that they were for smuggling to Palestine. This is a far cry from the earlier claim that the whole issue was fabricated, wouldn't you say? The fact is, Hamas had a large cache of weapons in Jordan. If these weapons were not manufactured here, they were brought in. If the government didn't know about them, then they were smuggled INTO Jordan. As for the ultimate use, we need to trust Mish'al on that. Of course, even use of Jordan as a smuggling route (if you believe Mish'al) is a clear violation of Jordanian sovereignty. This same sovereignty that he purports to respect. So, here I am pointing out actions, and not supposed intentions as you said I should avoid. I hope that Misha'ls actions match his words. To start, he needs to live up to the responsibility of previous actions. This would start with cooperating with Jordan's security forces on the weapons case. This has been the Jordanian demand all along.

At 9:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Khalaf, I would prefer that you try not to put me in anyone's camp, call me "loyal" to someone, or try to include me in "Mashaal's constituency". I don't appreciate being labelled like that. I never called you loyal to anyone, did I?

Anyway, you and I both agree that the concept of a Palestinian leader like Mashaal having a constituency in Jordan is wrong. I'm sorry for whoever might think that they are part of such group, but they've had it all wrong for a long time now; I say it's time for them to wake up.

Then there's the on again off again weapons case of last year. You insist on taking the words written in the article as referring to that case, when the article clearly says nothing of the sort. Mashaal admits that weapons were smuggled from Jordan into the West Bank, but he says NOT in the case that was publicised last year. We don't know how long before that those cases happened or what the size of those smuggled arms were or how many times it happened either. We don't even know if maybe the ops were facilitated by elements in the government itself! Also, Hattar doesn't say that Mashaal admitted that Hamas was involved in smuggling the arms into Jordan from outside. The weapons could have been obtained inside Jordan after having been brought in by other parties. Of course, you can assume that Hamas smuggled them into Jordan or requested that they be brought in maybe when it was under less scrutiny by the regime, but this still remains an assumption that the article doesn't support.

Regarding Jordanian sovereignty. Yes, I agree it infringes on the sovereignty to some extent. But to say that an act of smuggling has compromised a country's sovereignty, it must be on a big scale. We don't know the scale because he was referring to cases that were never publicised or talked about before, and we don't even know if the Jordanian government at the times those smuggling ops happened knew about them or not.

In any case, I wouldn't stress over the finer details of what constitutes an infringement on Jordan's sovereignty and what doesn't. It's not like with all the big players involved in the region already, Jordan can afford to stand on its own and realistically expect to have its sovereignty remain in tact. What I'm trying to say is, if our sovereignty doesn't get compromised by one side, it is bound to be compromised by the other side we choose to ally with.

At 9:53 AM, Blogger Khalaf said...

Sorry to have offended you. I was not trying to be personal, and I have said before that Jordanians are Jordanians. It is a fact that this view is not shared by everybody, from both sides. I think that we agree on this point.

As for the weapons case, it is clear that he was referring to "the weapons case" . Reread the sentence. Arguing about when it happened is trying to change the subject. It could have been a day or a week before. Who is saying otherwise? As for scale, you remind me about the old joke where a man offers a woman a million dollars to sleep with him. When she agrees, he changes the offer to ten dollars. "Now that we established that you are a prostitute, we can haggle about the price". Scale has nothing to do with anything, although nobody except you has implied that it was a small operation.

At 4:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you not realized, the Jordan is Palestine today. What do you call a country with a population of 70% from another country?

Call it what you want, the reality is on the ground and Israel is very happy about it.

Stop trying to act as Mr. Analyst because what you say doesn't make any sense

At 4:56 PM, Blogger Khalaf said...

Best numbers say that Jordanians from Palestinian heritage make up around 40-45% of the population of Jordan. The 70% number is a fictitious propaganda number with no basis in reality.

I don't understand the logic in which this argument is framed. Jordan is Palestine because 70% of it's population is Palestinian. Does this mean that all Palestinians have right to live here? On what grounds? I can think of no legal or moral grounds on which this argument can be based, even if the fictitious 70% number were true.

At 6:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The scale of smuggling does matter. I actually did not say anything to the effect of suggesting what the scale of such ops was. All I said is that neither of us knows what the scale was. We don't even know when the cases Mashaal was talking about happened, Hattar clearly says:

حدثت في اوقات سابقة عن اثارتها

meaning that whatever Mashaal talked about was something that happened before the publicised story. He could have been talking about things that happened as far back as the 90's when he was still in Jordan.

At 6:47 PM, Blogger Mohanned said...

So hamzeh let me get this right..You trust meshael and hattar while everyone else is prone to lying, Hamas is an islamic movement(thats what they say) while hattar is a secular and a christian and we are supposed to believe what they "say" to each other..Oh and before I forget what do you think about what he said regarding keeping the "misrable" status quo that the palastenians live-in in jordan?
O zay ma begool el mathal:
جدي بظحك عتيس

At 8:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I think the only fiction is in the numbers your mentioned. What is a Jordanian? 70% likely is of Palestinian origin, 10% likely from a Saudi tribe, 10% likely from other nighboring Arab tribes, and the last 10% original inhabitants of East Jordan.

Regardless, the point I'm trying to make is that Israel has already achieved its goal of the idea of "Al Watan al badeel" and I'm not trying to argue who lives where and who is the majority and has the right to live there. This is a whole different topic.

Actually the point I'm trying to make is that Arabs are too busy arguing and fighting each other while Israel is enjoying the heck out of it.

At 8:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and 10% from mars, 10% from honolulu, and we are waiting for the other 10% from the moon.
Add it together we get 130%, Come on man get a life, the subject is hamas and meshal not who comes from where..

At 8:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thats precisely the point, the subject is not hamas and mashal for khalaf, its an opportunity for himt o attack the Palestinians, you see it in his previous posts

At 11:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mohannad, I actually don't trust anyone :D But I have quickly learnt that if not trusting anyone means I should act under the assumption that everything somebody I might have had disagreements with or have known to lie in the past says is going to be a lie everytime, then really I might as well give up on every person the first time. I also have learnt that no one is perfect. So while I don't necessarily trust the guy, I still don't see any reason to doubt what he says, especially given Hamas' shift into politics in the last two years.

Also, I'd like to knowg where you got this idea that I called anyone lying in my comments!

About your question whether we should believe what these people said to each other, I don't see why it would be a better idea not to! As I told Khalaf, it is more productive for everyone to assume good faith in Mashaal and hold him accountable to these words in the future than to not take him seriously and ignore what he said.

If his words are taken seriously, he will be committed to actually acting according to them in the future, but when you simply dismiss everything he says as not being solid enough, then he really doesn't need to cooperate and in politics you will have destroyed any committment from him before he actually has to respect it. In other words, I think you can't really tell someone "doesn't matter what you say," and then in the future change your mind and saying "see? you didn't do it" (which means it suddenly matters what he said)!

If you can point me to the part of the Hattar piece that you're referring to in the last question I can tell you what I think.

At 11:39 PM, Blogger Mohanned said...

Here is the link, I read this story a month ago in alsabeel news paper which is the media arm of the IAF

When you read it like the average jo you would fall in love with hamas, but we actually forget that hamas is part of the world wide muslim brotherhood movement that has the goal of establishing an islamic empire(which I don't mind), so for meshael to come and tell me that he cares about jordan as a legitimate entity he must be thinking that I am a Kiddo, hamas used to be loved by each and every muslim, but when they bombed busses with children they lost some credibility, then they began to send women to commit suicidal mission, then they began to send kids!! Once you pollute islam with politics then you have lost the moral high ground that you gained through the years, hence I don't trust you anymore..

And again, what do you get when an "islamic guy" is promising a secular christian? Come on bro, you are 100 times smarter than that;)

Again, smuggling weapons through jordan is one of the greatest threats, simply because it provides israel with a "legitmate" reason to invade or bomb jordan..Is that in the national interest of jordan?

At 6:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And again, what do you get when an "islamic guy" is promising a secular christian? Come on bro, you are 100 times smarter than that;)

Well I am obviously not as smart as you think I am, because I still don't get it. Maybe I was sick that day in school when they explained how the idealogy of the person you're talking to determines whether you're truthful or lying!

When you want to lie to someone, and not tell that lie to everyone else, you don't give them permission to publish your lies. So this notion that you have that he must be lying because he's talking to someone that doesn't subscribe to every aspect of his idealogy is wrong.

If people of differing idealogies couldn't be honest with each other when they talk, how do we expect any two different cultures to build bridges in between? And much of Hamas' job since its came to political power, and much of what it has to continue doing is building bridges with as many people as it can. And this is what everyone of its opponents is trying to make sure doesn't happen.

I obviously can't change your mind. You just believe he's telling lies. I'm saying neither of us knows really and I'm choosing to assume good faith and choose the route where if the guy says something good, we take him seriously and hold him accountable for it in the future. You undermine any accountability in the future by choosing to not take the guy's words seriously now.

At 8:19 AM, Blogger Mohanned said...

No I think you were talking to the kid next to you..
But lets go back a little bit, hamas and most of the palastenians believe that king hussein sold the west bank just like his granfather did-Thats what I keep hearing in their media and read on their websites, so now Mr.meshael LOVES the hashmeites? Can you see the hypocricy?Oh, I forgot, I have to take his words only when I like what I hear..The whole politics thing is dirty and meshael is not going to be pure..Each and everyone is looking for his own gains..
Good luck..

At 10:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, I forgot, I have to take his words only when I like what I hear..

Well I'm not sure. First we have to know whether he really believes what you say he believes about selling the West Bank. Did he make any statements about that in the past?

But regardless, I personally choose not to dwell on the past, especially our past in the Middle East because if I wanted to do so, I would end up not talking to or trusting anyone. This is why I think the people who bring up the stories of the 60's and 70's wars in relevance to the present situation are stupid. In politics, you can't dwell on the past like this. This is why what you talked about is what you hear from the public, the people who are not in politics, the people who want to hold a conversation in a coffee shop or pretend like their opinion matters or can change anything (like someone's mind).

Since it came to the political stage, I have not seen Hamas send signals that go the way you were pointing at, about labeling our king (or his father and great grandfather) as traitors. They came and they understand that they can't survive alone. Is it too out of this world an idea for them to actually believe that they need us and therefore they need to cooperate with us?

My point is simple. What step today (or unfortunately I should say yesterday), was the right step to take? I think the right step was talking to Hamas.

Ask yourself the following question and try to come up with an honest answer. Do you think we in Jordan would have not talked to Hamas if there was no outside pressure on us from Jordan? Because many arguments have been brought up in support of why we should not even talk to them in this discussion, but the one that I think stands alone and that is the real reason we don't talk to them, is US pressure. If this US pressure didn't exist, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Haniyyeh would have been received in Amman with open arms a long time ago.

But we [Jordan] are a country that from its birth had no cojones!

At 10:29 PM, Blogger Khalaf said...

Hamzeh: Misha'al is a sleazy politician who is controlled by his masters in Damascus and Tehran. I would not trust him if he said that half of ten is five. You call for us to trust him, despite his own admission of complicity in the weapons case is not convincing. It is reckless.

As for cojones, Jordan actually followed its mob instincts twice; once in 1967 and the second in 1990. I think that we are better off using our brains than our testicles. We can watch as our neighbors display their mindless masculinity. I think we can learn lots of lessons of what not to do from them.

At 10:36 PM, Blogger Mohanned said...

Actually how do you know that there is no communication with hamas?

Jordan is not egypt nor saudi arabia, we got no political influence on the west except for intelligence cooperation which is now what keeps us going-which I also think we are underpaid.I do realize that, and once the war on terror is over(as if) our role(the leadership) is no longer needed.

To answer your question, I beleive that we should talk to everyone even satan himself if we want to survive in this region-but egypt took role of talking to hamas;of course after they got the permission..

Another point you forget is that hamas is now operating from damascus, syria thinks of jordan just like lebanon; a country that doesn't deserve to exist. And we all know the love-hate relationship between the two leaderships-for your surprise and mine syria now is trying to ease the tensions with jordan and recently they aired an hour long program praising jordan and the king!!And of course this meshael meeting happened at the same time while syria is trying to "make out" with jordan, something tells me that the timing is not innocent since the meeting took place in damascus where hattar heart is..

And your point that we can hold him accountable could have been valid in eutopia, not in the real world, because they can be in bed with syria today, but tomorrow who knows whose bed will it be?(after israels peace with syria-and I think it is coming soon)

BTW you didn't tell me what you think about meshael saying that the election law in jordan should stay the same? Isn't it the جدي بظحك عتيس methodolgy?

At 11:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Khalaf: it's not really about trust to me; it more has to do with what the right step to take is. To me, I've always had a problem with Hamas, but when they decided to run for elections, I saw an opportunity to end up with a situation where my problems with Hamas don't exist anymore. The question is, how do we get there from where we are now? Well, I can tell you one thing for sure, you don't get there by ignoring the problem or pretending that the people who facilitated it in the past (who just made a positive move) don't exist and hope that they just die (which is what the boycott is essentially).

I don't expect anyone to trust anyone else, they don't have to. But I still expect that people are smart enough to realize that they need to take certain risks, and that even when you don't trust someone, you still have to deal with them, especially in politics. Or are you gonna tell me that the only reason we're so friendly with the US is because we trust them? Do you really trust them? Well we're doing more than pure business with them, are we not?

Mohannad: I saw the debka link you provided, but I have a serious problem with you now. Weren't you the one who wrote so angrily on your blog because some people believed the reports that were in Israeli newspapers about what the king said regarding the refugee right of return, and if I remember correctly, you had a big problem with the people believing everything that the Israeli press was saying? What would your self then say to your self now? Anyway, I'm not really sure what that debka story really means or how it's supposed to be true. If our king was "in league" with Mashaal, what is it that they are in league about? A game of chess online? How is that materializing on the ground? There's nothing really to support that claim.

Regarding Syria, again you are dwelling on the past. In the last two or three decades, who claimed that Jordan was southern Syria except for that one Syrian general on Al Jazeera during Hafiz's rule, not his son? Did you hear Bashar say that? Do you honestly believe the Syrians would think that they can realistically control Jordan after it's been an independent country for the better part of a century now? This talk about them invading us or we extending our monarchy to Iraq (which surfaced after the war) is really archaic at this point.

I'm not sure what the link is that you're drawing between any peace between Israel and Syria in the future, and Hamas' respect for its word in the future with respect to Jordan. But my advice is that one should stick to what they need to do, and with regards to what I said earlier it is clear. You can't talk about any commitment in the future if you outright dismiss the discussion in the present. So you either take the man's words seriously and earn the right to hold him accountable for them in the future, or you let him go. It's really about what you choose to do and say, not what happens between 3rd parties.

Finally, I'm not familiar with the "jedi byed7ak 3a tais" expression, and I really don't care for Mashaal's opinion about the elections law in Jordan and would suggest that he keep that opinion to himself.

At 11:46 PM, Blogger Mohanned said...

I assumed that you would be interested in reading this, this piece in debka came like two weeks after the kings speech in the congress, no one pointed to it but everyone one jumped to point to haaretz!

Anyway it seems that we always agree on disagreeing, I am talking about something and you always turn it around in a way that doesn't make any sense to me..

"and I really don't care for Mashaal's opinion about the elections law in Jordan and would suggest that he keep that opinion to himself."
This last statment of yours says it all, but oh, isn't he jordanian?

Thanks man, I enjoyed this debate..

At 11:47 PM, Blogger Mohanned said...

And by the way there is a rule, he who doesn't learn from the past is STUPID..

At 12:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"but oh, isn't he jordanian?

I know he is a Jordanian citizen, and I remind because he is a Jordanian citizen, preventing him from entering Jordan (what our government does) is a violation of the constitution.

I don't care about what he said about the elections law, simply because we are not discussing the Jordanian elections here.

"And by the way there is a rule, he who doesn't learn from the past is STUPID.."

Absolutely true. I hope you don't take "dwelling on the past" to be the same as "learning from the past."

At 2:25 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Salam Khalaf,
wow - many comments this time.

I do not know much about Hamas/Jordan issues. And thus, I found your article this time rather vague. I would love to give some feedback on why. I usually enjoy your articles, understand them, and find it hard to disagree.

As a fedback, your 3rd paragraph is rather vague:
"So, playing on this, Misha’al told him that he is totally against the calls for increasing Palestinian Jordanian political representation, as Adnan Abu Odeh continues to do."

Increase it where? in Jordan? and how can this happen if the constitution treat all citizens equally?

And then, in the 4th paragraph, you say "Mish’al has sold off his Palestinian Jordanian constituency"

So, to paraphrase, you're saying "Mishal sold off his constituency because he used to support their dislike of the disengagement, and not he supports it" is this right?

I'm not sure what is the "formal" position of political parties on this issue, but people-wise, even hamas supporters, I've never met individuals against the disengagement. I think Hamzeh says something to that effect in the comments. It might be true or false - I don't know. But I think it is definitely not a given (that Jordanian Palestinians or all Hamas Supporters are against the 88 disengagement - most whom I talked to consider it a request by Arafat).

Finally, you conclude with:
"However, the depth of cynicism and political opportunism has never been more on display. Machiavelli would be proud."

The only "change of attitude" that I can point in the article was the disengagement issue, which I do not find very strong. So, when I reached this part, I really couldn't connect it with what is said before.

You also mention the weapons smuggling case... which, even though I see as belittling the sovereignty of Jordan... I do not view as the ultimate fact to decide whether Hamas/Mishal love or hate jordan. I view it more as a mistake or civil-disobedience, not paying taxes, not serving in IDF issue. It's a limited scope of breaking the law.

I have to say that usually I find your articles easier to understand and easier to agree with. In this one, ... as honest feedback, since I don't know much about Jordanian/Hamas issues, I have to say that I didn't find it as persuasive. I wish you included more info and details.

Finally, in one of your comments you make very interesting observation:

"As for cojones, Jordan actually followed its mob instincts twice; once in 1967 and the second in 1990. "

In 1967, the whole conflict was still hot, Naser won big in 56, and the king was in his youth... so I can see the rationale behind your classification. But in 1990... really? you think so? I don't understand why we ended up siding with Iraq, but it's hard for me to believe it was mere 'mob instinct'.

What do you think about 1978? would you add it to this list also?

At 6:14 AM, Blogger Mohanned said...

Hey arrabi,
I will leave the first parts for khalaf, but I will answer the last part, king hussein is know for caring about the public's opinion when it comes to making critical decisions like the 1967 war and the 1990 gulf war, in the 1990's saddams populartiy was unprecendented even among high ranking official-during the the late 1980's he gave cars and money to most of the officials as gifts, so king hussien being the smart person he is decided to win the street rather than winnig the west which by the way he did in 1994 when he signed the peace treaty with israel(some people consider it as a price we had to pay for standing by saddam)..
Alla ysam7ak ya rajol fata7et 3lay jroo7..God bless his soul, I just wish he is still alive..

At 6:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding 1967, it's actually interesting when you look at it from the perspective of some people like Finkelstein who says that:

"The historical record strongly suggests that neither Jewish neo-conservatives in particular nor mainstream Jewish intellectuals generally have a primary allegiance to Israel, in fact, any allegiance to Israel. Mainstream Jewish intellectuals became "pro"-Israel after the June 1967 war when Israel became the U.S.'s strategic asset in the Middle East, i.e., when it was safe and reaped benefits."

This would mean that there really wouldn't have been the US pressure on Jordan at the time that would equal the one that exists today when Israel is more a key asset to the US than it was considered before the 1967 war.

Regarding 1990, there are two points to keep in mind. Jordan didn't actually fight against anyone. Second, Iraq was Jordan's number one trading partner at the time. So, as much as I respect Allah yer7amoh King Hussein and think he did have big cojones, I don't think his decision in 1990 was a difficult one.

At 10:01 AM, Blogger Khalaf said...

Hamzeh: Your point on trust is well taken. The Jordanian government has said that they will speak to Hamas if they cooperate in the weapons case. I don't think that that is too much to ask.

Arrabi: Abu Odeh says that Jordanians of Palestinian origin are not given enough senior government posts and seats in Parliament. I have written about this before and I have provided a link for more on this.

The IAF and Hamas leaders have stated many times that they do not recognize the disengagement. This is well documented. I find the change in the rhetoric quite significant, even if it seems subtle to many people.

It is natural Mish'al to belittle the weapons case. What, is he going to say that they planned to assassinate Jordanian officers and blow up infrastructure, as his men confessed on TV? Of course he is going to say that it was for use against Israel. If what he is saying is true, why won't he cooperate with the investigation?

I don't think it was smart to side with iraq in 1990, and the only reason why this happened was because the king was concerned with popular opinion. The Syrians and Egyptians used their brains instead of the cajones. Too bad Assad Jr. isn't as smart.

As for '78, I would say that we all would have been better off if we made a deal then than in 1993/94. there were few settlements, and territorial compromises would have been easier. It would have taken too big cajones to take that step back then, I think.

Hamzeh: I think that US pressure on Jordan in 1967 would have been a good thing. Unfortunately, the Ahmad Saeed opiate frenzy had nothing to counteract it. We are all still paying the price.

At 12:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a history lesson. Thanks for allowing the fly on the wall to listen.

Khalaf, I lost your email address and have a question for you (not political). could you email me at when it's convenient?

At 2:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kinzi, just wanted to point out some spam bots pick up email addresses when they're written like that and you end up with a bunch of unwanted mail. This is why you'll see a lot of people type their email addresses in public using weird syntax to try to avoid the bots, like this:
my_email_account at site com
my_email_account sitecom

At 2:36 AM, Blogger antiZionist said...

هذه أكبر أكاذيب المخبارات ،عندي معلومات موثقه من داخل المخبارات العامه ،بئن عمليه تهريب الاسلحه مسرحيه من أنتاج وتصميم وتنفيد المخبارات العامه.وأكتفي بهذا القدر من المعلومات

At 11:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

عمون هوا موقع المخبارات العامه،لاتصدق ما يكتب في هذا الموقع

At 9:03 PM, Blogger GLToffic said...

Just thought I would pass along a blog to create a dialog.


Post a Comment

<< Home