Islamic extremism on rise in Jordan

Members of Islamist Syrian rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra man a checkpoint on the border crossing between Syria and Jordan, which they claim to have taken control of, in Daraa, Dec. 26, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Ammar Khassawneh)

Islamic extremism on rise in Jordan

Fire is under the ashes, and the wind is nearby. This is how Jordanian politicians describe the situation in their country these days.

Summary⎙ Print The Islamists in Jordan are growing stronger, which is linked to the war in Syria.

Author Jean AzizPosted May 18, 2014

Translator(s)Rani Geha

A number of Jordanian politicians are touring neighboring countries to explain to their officials what is going on in Jordan, and to explore the international perspective over what is “being prepared” for Jordan.

A delegation from the Jordanian Council on Foreign Relations visited Lebanon late last week. The delegation’s members looked worried, and a prominent Jordanian politician and council member explained to Al-Monitor the risk indicators on the Jordanian scene.

He said three indicators should be especially considered. 

• First is the spread of arms in the country. The price of a Kalashnikov rifle has become an international indicator about the level of militia arming in third world countries, and its price is now less than $500 in Jordan. Two years ago, a Kalashnikov was rare and cost no less than $2,000. The drastic drop in price indicates that the rifle is abundant and the market could be flooded. He said that the weapons are mostly coming through the Syrian border.
• The second risk indicator on the Jordanian scene is the Sunni fundamentalists. Reports by various media outlets of the April 17 airstrike by Jordanian fighters on a Syrian opposition convoy transporting weapons to Jordan have become almost daily news for Jordanians. The council member said that, in Amman, there is talk about regular convoys that cross the border to Jordan from near Daraa in Syria, and those convoys are loaded with large quantities of weapons of all types. But who is behind these operations? According to him it is the Sunni Islamist fundamentalists, in particular groups affiliated with al-Qaeda or that aspire to be. 

The Jordanian Islamist groups are heading toward more militancy, extremism and fundamentalism, until they reach the stage of armed jihadism, the politician said. The politician gave this example: The recent events in Maan were a clear warning and an alarm bell that rang in the ears of all Jordanians and of everyone concerned with the situation in Jordan. Starting on April 23, the Jordanian province in the south has seen a complete security breakdown and serious armed unrest. The events began with the killing of a fundamentalist by the state’s security forces as they were trying to arrest him. Matters suddenly evolved into armed confrontations and a kind of civil disobedience.

The council member explained the importance of the Maan events. He said the Maan region is the largest Jordanian province and is located in the south of the country on the border with Saudi Arabia. It has the road historically used by Muslim pilgrims headed to Mecca. This is what made the province an Islamist stronghold throughout the history of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Even when the Muslim Brotherhood was a tiny minority in the country, the group was still able to have one of its members elected as a Maan deputy. However, after the recent Arab developments and the growing strength of extremist groups, it became apparent that Maan’s Islamists are no longer with the Muslim Brotherhood, but have become mostly Salafist jihadists, according to him.

During Muslim holidays, the people are categorized according to how many worshippers listen to mosque preachers with known political affiliations. The Muslim Brotherhood came in third place, the pro-government preachers came in second and Salafist-jihadist preachers came in first, as they attracted the most worshippers in this area of 80,000 people.

Most of the people in the area acted against the Jordanian authorities in the last week of April. They closed roads and attacked government buildings and centers, both civilian and military. The city almost became an independent statelet within Jordan. What’s more, it seemed that a number of neighboring regions were ready to do the same. Most importantly, the leaders of the jihadist movement in Maan came out publicly and told the media what could be understood as the movement's adopting the disturbances, and also leading them. This dangerous reality is happening amid an abundance of arms, according to the Kalashnikov indicator. In addition, there is a heavy presence of displaced Syrians in Jordan. All that is worrying Jordanian politicians that something serious is being prepared for their country.

• The third risk indicator, the Jordanian politician explained, is the Islamists trying to find a “suitable soil” for sectarian strife and factionalism within Jordan. This is unprecedented in the state’s history. He gave a clear example: On May 1, a Salafist party invited Saudi Sheikh Mohammad al-Arifi, who is well known for his fundamentalist extremism, to deliver a lecture at the University of Jordan in Amman. It should be noted that the sheikh is known to have issued extremist fatwas in the past. After the lecture, the organizers arranged to distribute to the media the news that a Christian Jordanian girl, from the area of Ajloun in the ​​north of the country, came forward, after Arifi’s sermon, to declare that she had converted to Islam and was now a Muslim. Hours later, a news report claimed that the girl’s parents killed her in her hometown as punishment for leaving her religion.

The two news reports were enough to turn the atmosphere in Jordan into something similar to what we see in areas of Egypt with both Islamists and Copts, when, for instance, following a girl's conversion to Islam or Christianity dozens are killed without any questions raised or clarifications made. In the case of Jordan, it should be noted that no one confirmed whether the news reports were true. In fact, subsequently it was argued that the reports were false. But it was enough to reveal the sectarian incitement initiated by Islamists in Jordan.

The Jordanian politician ended the interview with Al-Monitor by saying, “It’s ironic that a Jordanian government minister discussed all this in a meeting with a number of Jordanian civil society activists. He even told them that he had preliminary information indicating that parties in a 'major Gulf state adjacent to Jordan' are responsible for everything that’s happening in Amman.”

His words leaked and the news spread quickly, which led to a silent diplomatic crisis between the two neighbors. The crisis ended when that same minister took the initiative to hold a luncheon, to which more than 1,000 people were invited, in honor of the state's ambassador the minister had accused. The accusation was refuted. But there is still fire under the ashes in Jordan. When will the wind reach it? The Jordanian politician said, “The timing is settled. It’s when the internal war starts among the armed Islamist wings in Daraa, Syria. That will be the signal of it moving to Jordan.”

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/05/jordan-fears-syria-war-islamists.html?utm_source=Al-Monitor+Newsletter+%5BEnglish%5D&utm_campaign=8cc8c8b817-May_19_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_28264b27a0-8cc8c8b817-100366937#ixzz32DGnzELA

Security deteriorates in south Jordan city

Al Monitor

Published 2 May 2014Jordan,Maanunrest,

Security deteriorates in south Jordan city

The Jordanian political sphere is wrong to think what is happening in the southern city of Maan is normal. It is even more wrong to believe that the old methods used to address the crises of this marginalized and poor province have yielded results and strategic solutions. Had these solutions proven effective, the city would not have become in the past few days a ghost city filled with military vehicles, fear and anticipation.

Summary⎙ Print The security situation in Maan, Jordan is deteriorating as officials turn a blind eye to serious threats that might affect the Hashemite Kingdom.

Author Moussa BarhoumehPosted May 2, 2014

Translator(s)Steffi Chakti

Original Article اقرا المقال الأصلي باللغة العربية

If the official neglect of this crisis continues, Maan could become the spark that ignites the explosive barrels found in many cities and provinces in Jordan. For a while, this country has been living according to the belief that the unrest and daily killing in neighboring countries renders the sacrifice of reform an acceptable, tolerable and agreed upon issue by different political parties.

This belief can benefit from the state of fear spreading among Jordanians, and can feed on the country's stability (relative to its neighbors). Despite its relevance, this does not mean that disturbing security issues related to reform packages, the openness toward various movements, the drifting away from the mindset of the exclusion of the other and the implementation of a genuine plan that does not aim at creating media buzz should be disregarded. This plan should tackle the issue of development in the less fortunate provinces, mainly Maan.

Financial and administrative corruption is compromising not only the credibility of the government but also that of the rule itself. This issue should be tackled by the means of innovative, transparent and convincing tools. Walid al-Kurdi, the husband of the king’s aunt, for example, was involved in corruption cases without being subject to prosecution that proves satisfactory to the public opinion. The latter has doubts that the regime is trying to sweep the embarrassing issue under the rug.

As a result of these complicated problems, the old-new disobedience in Maan, which is located on the border with Saudi Arabia, was born. Every house contains arms, and sometimes, groups adopting jihadist rhetoric own relatively heavy arms. This is the case with Mohammad al-Shalabi al-Makna, dubbed Abu Sayyaf, who is one of this group’s influential figures in Jordan. 

Maan has not been able to integrate itself into the state. Impressions are piling up that this province is above the law, something proven by the latest developments, wherein the headquarters of intelligence and military intelligence were set ablaze. Meanwhile, a strike convened by activists and adopted by society’s institutions has had deep significance. Obviously, the state does not consider the latter issue and instead employs useless, absurd and short-sighted measures, considering Maan a mere security issue and failing to think outside the box to find solutions that are influential on the ground.

Such solutions should bridge the gap between state and society and dispel concerns among people who are fed up with the government's promises to develop this distressed city. The inhabitants struggle with the highest levels of unemployment and poverty among all 12 provinces, even though the government announced it allocated $100 million of its last budget to implement development projects this year in the city.

During the protests in Maan, angry slogans were chanted, such as “down with the regime.” However, this does not mean that these slogans express an urgent social and political desire among people. Yet, the use of this slogan expresses the feeling that the father, in the psychological sense of the word, is competing with his son and is not showing enough care. 

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/05/jordan-situation-maan-ignoring.html?utm_source=Al-Monitor+Newsletter+%5BEnglish%5D&utm_campaign=80aebe7f5f-January_9_20141_8_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_28264b27a0-80aebe7f5f-100366937#ixzz30qxy728Q

Palestine – Kerry Can’t Keep Kidding Himself

[Published 6 April 2014]

J Wire

David Singer

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s unshakeable belief that he could succeed in facilitating what had eluded former American Secretaries of State for the last 20 years – the creation of a 22nd Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza for the first time ever in recorded history – has been shattered following Israel cancelling the release of 26 prisoners convicted of terrorist attacks prior to the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Israel’s action followed the PLO lodging applications to join 15 UN international agencies in breach of its commitments not to do so whilst negotiations between Israel and the PLO were being conducted.

Kerry now needs to immediately focus his attention on Jordan – the last Arab State to have occupied the West Bank between 1948 -1967 and which – together with Israel – comprise the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine 1920-1948.

Redrawing Jordan’s international boundary with Israel to restore the status quo existing before the outbreak of the 1967 Six Day War – as far as is now possible given the changed circumstances on the ground – provides a realistically achievable alternative to the doomed Israel-PLO negotiations.

Lorenzo Kamel – a historian at Bologna University and a visiting fellow at Harvard’s Center for ­Middle Eastern Studies – has published an error-riddled article attempting to distance Jordan from becoming involved in any such negotiations – which Kerry should unequivocally reject.

Kamel’s following misleading claims have been corrected by my bold responses:

1.  “Whenever there is a concrete effort to push forward the peace process, talk about “a substitute homeland” for the Palestinians re-emerges. Most of those supporting this scheme claim that well before the partition suggested by the UN General Assembly in 1947, the Zionist movement suffered a mutilation of territory following the unilateral British decision in 1922 to separate Transjordan from the rest of the land subject to the Mandate for Palestine…

…” Transjordan was thus part of the Mandate for Palestine with the proviso that Britain might administer it separately and for a period which at best may be considered scarcely relevant.”

Transjordan remained subject to the Mandate for Palestine from 1920 until 1946.

It was only the provisions of the Mandate relating to the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine that were “postponed or withheld” in Transjordan under article 25 of the Mandate –  as this Note presented by the Secretary General to the League of Nations clearly stated:

“In the application of the Mandate to Transjordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country will be taken by the Administration of Transjordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory.

His Majesty’s Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan, and undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that territory in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable.”

The seeds for an independent Jew-free Arab State in 78% of Palestine had thus been planted by Great Britain in 1922.

Transjordan achieved its eventual independence on May 25, 1946 – whilst the remaining 22% of Palestine continued to be subject to the Mandate until 1948.

2. “Transjordan, unlike Palestine, was never occupied by British troops and during the mandatory period there was no “overlapping”, either at a legal or practical level, between the two areas.”

The Arab Legion was formed in Transjordan in 1923 and financed by Britain and commanded by British officers under Captain Frederick Peake.

Transjordan was always included in the annual Report for the Mandate for Palestine presented to the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission. “

3.  A citizen of Transjordan was required to ask for official permission before being admitted to Palestine.”

Immigration from Transjordan was not illegal, and was not recorded as immigration at all until 1938. 

   

4. “The awareness that Palestine was distinct from Syria and Lebanon is said to have always been present in the Arab and Muslim consciousness.”

An early nineteenth-century Egyptian historian, ‘Abd ar-Rahman al-Jabarti, referred to the inhabitants of El Arish in the Sinai Peninsula as Syrians. Palestine was called Southern Syria first in French, then in other languages, including Arabic. …

…Indeed, from the moment Prince Faysal set up a government in Damascus in October 1918, he stressed that Palestine was a part of Syria. At the Paris Peace Conference, where the British, French and Americans sorted out their interests after the war, Faysal called Palestine his “right hand” and promised to work for it as he would for Syria and Iraq. “I assure you, according to the wishes of its people, Palestine will be a part of Syria.” Three months later, Faysal wrote General Edmund Allenby that Palestine “is an inseperable [sic] part of Syria.” 

5. “Zionism certainly accelerated the general development of the region and the process of self-identification of the local majority, but never did the land beyond the Jordan have a religious, social or cultural value comparable to the land between the river and the Mediterranean Sea.

Kamel’s claim is refuted by article 2 of the PLO Charter which states that “Palestine with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate is an indivisible territorial unit.”

Negotiations between Jordan and Israel have now become the only answer to avoiding renewed conflict and violence between Jews and Arabs.

Kerry is kidding himself if he thinks otherwise.

History shines light on the true borders of Palestine

[Published 2 April 2014]

The Nation

Lorenzo Kamel

[This article contains many untrue and misleading statements which I have forcefully rebutted in my article "Palestine - Kerry Can't keep Kidding Himself.]

“Israel opposes the establishment of an additional Palestinian state in the Gaza district and in the area between Israel and Jordan.” 

These words were included in the “peace initiative” presented in May 1989 by Israel’s Labour-Likud national unity government. Twenty-five years later, the “Jordan option” is back and being increasingly mentioned in the media.

These claims are problematic.

The Mandate for Palestine had direct, complete and explicit jurisdiction over the area that, in 1922, became the Emirate of Transjordan for eight months: from July 1920, when King Faisal was thrown out of Damascus, to March 12, 1921, the day of the Conference of Cairo which, in Winston Churchill’s words, sanctioned “the policy to be adopted with regard to Trans Jordania”.

Whenever there is a concrete effort to push forward the peace process, talk about “a substitute homeland” for the Palestinians re-emerges. 

Most of those supporting this scheme claim that well before the partition suggested by the UN General Assembly in 1947, the Zionist movement suffered a mutilation of territory following the unilateral British decision in 1922 to separate Transjordan from the rest of the land subject to the Mandate for Palestine. They argued that the Palestinians already had a sovereign state – Jordan – and that, therefore, Israel, even by incorporating today’s West Bank and Gaza Strip, would comprise only 22 per cent of the whole “historic Palestine”.

It was a “partially legal” time lapse even from the juridical perspective imposed by European powers, given that the Mandate for Palestine was formally assigned to London by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, becoming operative in September 1923. 

Transjordan was thus part of the Mandate for Palestine with the proviso that Britain might administer it separately and for a period which at best may be considered scarcely relevant.

Read more: http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/history-shines-light-on-the-true-borders-of-palestine#ixzz2y5bV9A6k 

Jordan and the PLO exposed as the obstacles to peace

[Published 17 March 2014]

Mudar Zahran speaks his mind on resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict in this 27 minute taped interview with Doron Keidar.

He provides an alternative to the destructive discourse which still continues to insist on two Arab states in former Palestine after 20 years of failed negotiations to achieve such an outcome the first time ever in recorded history.

Exiled to Great Britain for daring to speak his mind - Zahran makes some startling and confronting statements that make for gripping viewing.

He identifies the enemy of the Palestinian Arabs as not Israel - but the Arab dictatorships in the 22 Arab states.

"Israel on a bad day is far better than the rest of the world on a good day"

Identifying himself as an orthodox practising Moslem and a Jordanian-Palestinian - he labels the current peace negotiations as a bad idea and urges Obama to stop listening to Arab Governments.

I hope this interview triggers a lot of comments which I will be more than happy to respond to.

Jordan-Palestine ties strained by peace talks

[Published 23 March 2014]

Al Monitor

Mohammad Ad-Fdeilat

Jordanian politicians are good at using a sieve to hide the sun — even the bright sun at the height of summer. Worse, they are convinced of what they are saying, and they try to convince the people, too. They try to address the country’s most difficult problems using slogans that become legally binding without being stipulated by law, and that makes these slogans vulnerable to being replaced by new slogans at any time. Thus, the problems remain unresolved and end up exploding later. This is what is happening with Jordanian-Palestinian relations in Jordan now.

A problem that slogans cannot hide

Jordanian-Palestinian relations have been complicated since the establishment of the Emirate of Transjordan in 1921, which became a kingdom after gaining independence in 1946 and the Palestinian nakba in 1948. The root of the problem is that Palestinian refugees were forcibly moved to the other bank of the River Jordan without the ability to return and became Jordanian citizens in accordance with the Jordanian-Palestinian unity decision of 1949. The latter claimed the Palestinian territories that were not occupied in the nakba as part of Jordan, under the throne of King Abdullah I. The constitution stipulated that the non-occupied lands were an integral part of Jordan and that their inhabitants were Jordanian citizens.

The matter became even more complicated with the June 1967 defeat, in which Jordan lost even more land, over and above those areas lost in the nakba of 1948. After the defeat, more Palestinians in the West Bank moved to Jordan (the East Bank) and became Jordanian citizens.

Then, in 1988, Jordan’s late King Hussein disengaged Jordan administratively and legally from the West Bank, a decision that violated the Jordanian constitution. Jordan justified that move by claiming that Arab pressure was exerted on Jordan to empower the Palestine Liberation Organization, which had been recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians in 1974. The Jordanian and Palestinian public criticized the decision, which they considered as conceding occupied Jordanian land that was not occupied on unity day.

Jordanian-Palestinian relations have been formed by political decisions taken by the heads of the political structures on both banks of the river. Those decisions have affected the entire structure of the two peoples, whereby any change will collapse the whole structure.

At first, the relationship was marked by sympathy for a people who had lost their land and become refugees dreaming of return. That sympathy developed into active support for a cause that was considered the primary cause of the Arabs. Moreover, the Palestinian cause became a Jordanian cause in the unity framework. But that didn’t last; in the wake of the 1967 defeat, a new terminology appeared: east Jordanians and Jordanians of Palestinian origin. The objective of that terminology was to consecrate the idea that there are two separate peoples and reject the two peoples melting together into one.

East Jordanians feared that the Palestinian majority would crowd them out of the country’s resources and control the Jordanian economy. Thus, east Jordanians rushed to fill the top positions in the state and said that they feared for their national identity. They revolted over losing benefits they would have had were it not for the Palestinian presence.

Racial division was thus established in Jordanian society, and that division was reinforced by the events of Black September in 1970 between the Palestinian resistance and the Jordanian army. This ended with the exit of the Palestinian resistance from Jordan forever.

The Palestinians said that they left Jordan after a massacre that targeted their presence, while the Jordanians said that they protected their country from the ambitions of armed gangs. Each party retains a painful memory of what happened and considers itself the victim.

Amid this complex relationship and the growing racial discourse, the Jordanian government did nothing to address the root of the problem in the historical context that created it. All the government did was adopt the slogan launched by the late King Hussein: “A country of immigrants and supporters.” But the slogan failed to address the problem because it consecrated the notion that there are two peoples in Jordan, with the east Jordanians having a privileged status over Jordanians of Palestinian origin.

Then the king repeated other slogans whenever the Jordanian-Palestinian relationship was tense: “Jordanians from various roots and origins” and “National unity is a red line.” The elite produced its own slogan: “We are all Jordanians for the sake of Jordan and we are all Palestinians for the sake of Palestine.” Under these slogans, it was forbidden to talk about problems in the relationship and the fears of both sides. East Jordanians who raised the slogans “Jordan is for Jordanians” and “Let’s preserve the national identity” were fought. And slogans launched by Jordanians of Palestinian origin, such as “Fair representation in state institutions” and “Those with transgressed rights,” were also fought. The latter slogan was used after a campaign of systematic exclusion, which Jordanians of Palestinian origin considered a denial of their role in building the country.

The “fire under the ashes” ended up burning the “romantic” slogans, and east Jordanians ended up clashing with Jordanians of Palestinian origin. They traded accusations. The Palestinians were accused of “selling their country,” while Jordanians were accused of being “conspirators against the cause.”

The two sides are fighting to control the majority

The Palestinians are not the only ones who were added to Jordan’s demographic makeup. Before them came the tribes that migrated from different Arab countries over the years, and earlier came the Circassians who took refuge from the Tsarist invasion of the Caucasus in the 19th century. There are also the Chechens, the Armenians and the Hijazis who came with the army of the Great Arab Revolt, which was led by King Abdullah I, the son of Sharif Hussein bin Ali. Then came the Iraqis in the wake of the occupation of Iraq in 2003. And today, there are the Syrian refugees.

In all this mosaic of Jordanian society, east Jordanians have no quarrel except with Jordanians of Palestinian origin, who make up one side in the eternal bilateral conflict for the majority.

Official Jordanian statistics show that the number of Jordanians in 1948 was 400,000; that, in the wake of the nakba, the country received 100,000 refugees; that Jordan’s population in 1967 reached 1.2 million and received 400,000 new refugees; that the population in 1990 was 4.17 million and received 300,000 refugees — the Palestinians who were living in the Gulf. The statistics ignore the fact that the latter already had Jordanian nationality and that non-Palestinian Jordanians are also diverse. The statistics make it look like Palestinians were being added to a pure east Jordanian people.

Amid the competition for the majority, the two biggest components recognize that Jordanians of Palestinian origin make up about 35% of Jordan’s 6.5 million people — a figure that has remained constant throughout the history of the relationship, with the rest being east Jordanians — without considering the other components of the social fabric.

A “Catholic marriage” and charges of treason

Efforts to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations aimed at reaching a “final solution” to the Palestinian cause usually raise the tension in Jordanian-Palestinian relations, while that tension declines when the negotiations stall.

The negotiations harm Jordanian-Palestinian relations whenever the proposed solution doesn’t allow for the return of the refugees. Such solutions raise the fears of east Jordanians that Jordan may turn into an alternative homeland for the Palestinians, an idea promoted by the Israeli right. Some fear the formation of a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation, where the Palestinian identity will predominate over the Jordanian one.

Throughout the 66 years of the Jordanian-Palestinian “Catholic marriage,” both sides have accused each other of treason. Therefore, both sides settled on being afraid all the time. Moreover, that fear will continue amid the slogans that try to address the imbalances in the relationship. The latest of these slogans is “in defense of Jordan and Palestine.” It was devised to face the growing racial discourse that accompanied the tour of US Secretary of State John Kerry in the region. Under the slogan of “harmony,” the two sides traded accusations that are sometimes whispered and sometimes said publicly, to assert their inability to reach a final resolution for the relationship.

The above article was translated from As-Safir Al-Arabi, a special supplement of As-Safir newspaper whose content is provided through a joint venture of As-Safir and Al-Monitor.

Author Mohammad al-FdeilatPosted March 23, 2014

Translator(s)Rani Geha

Original Article اقرا المقال الأصلي باللغة العربية

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/03/jordan-palestine-relations-tense-peace-talks.html#ixzz2wv3Dm4B4