Doc's Talk: Jordan's King and the Muslim Brotherhood: An Unholy Marriage

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Jordan's King and the Muslim Brotherhood: An Unholy Marriage

Mudar Zahran

Preface by Ted Belman

I have been in touch with Mudar Zahran for over a month now. He is seeking support, of all kinds, to assist the Jordanian Palestinians in building a democratic and secular party to contest what will hopefully be the future elections in Jordan. As the Palestinians represent the majority of the residents of Jordan, they expect to form the next government, given fair elections. Zahran advised that they were prepared to invite all Palestinians throughout the Middle East to come to Jordan and receive full citizenship. This would solve the Arab-Israel conflict in a blink. In addition, he wanted my help in building a lobby to convince the U.S. administration to induce King Abdullah to democratize. I asked him to write the following article.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon has been witnessing protests for the last ten months, though much less intense than those of the Arab Spring. Still, the protests there are very regular, and the protesters have been upgrading their demands. Today, most factions have come to the point of threatening that if their demands for reform are not met, they will call for deposing the king. Some are already calling for it.

Jordan's king, Abdullah, has established an image for himself as a secular modern ruler who has kept Israel's Eastern front quiet amid a hostile Middle East. Is it possible that the Hashemite regime's anti-Islamist, secular image is just a façade?

The Arab Spring tsunami has laid bare a different face of the Jordanian monarchy -- one which shows a lengthy, well-established cooperation with the Islamists, which is now evolving even further. In fact, amid the sweeping opposition protests in Jordan, the only Jordanian political force supporting the monarchy now is none other than the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nonetheless, the king seems determined not to exact any significant reforms and justifies this with the excuse that "the Islamists will take over." In his interview with the Wall Street Journal -- published in 21 September 2011-- the king claimed that rapid reforms would bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power, as they were "the only people who are organized" in Jordan. This claim by the king finds many believers in the West and is in line with more established fears, as the Islamists have just taken over Tunisia. In Morocco, too, the Islamists just achieved a landslide victory in the parliamentary elections.

Nonetheless, the Islamists in those countries are very different from the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, as the Brotherhood in Jordan is not the regime's enemy. In fact, it is quite the opposite. For starters, the Muslim Brotherhood has historically been at the receiving end of extensive tolerance and support from the Hashemite regime, even before Abdullah came to power. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned in most Arab countries, is allowed to operate freely in Jordan. The regime allowed them to establish their own political party, the Islamic Action Front Party. The Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan runs charitable organizations, owns businesses, publishes its daily newspaper, and has been recruiting members in the open.

Furthermore, since Abdullah came to power, the Hashemite regime has been cracking down on all the political rivals of the Muslim Brotherhood. For example, in 2008, the Jordanian government introduced a new law retroactively banning all political parties unless they manage to recruit five hundred members within at least five of the country's twelve counties. As a result, most existing political parties were outlawed except for the well-financed Islamists.

No wonder the king told the Wall Street Journal that the Muslim Brotherhood was the only organized group in Jordan. He had made it so. He wants the West to believe that if he is deposed, the Muslim Brotherhood will come to power -- circumstances which, presumably, the West abhors.

The Hashemite regime allows the Muslim Brotherhood to organize anti-American and anti-Israeli protests, while peaceful secular reformists, like the 24th March movement, are clamped down on by the ruthless Jordanian riot police. In September, the Muslim Brotherhood called for protests against both the American and the Israeli embassies. This was in coordination with Nahid Hatter, a right-wing Jordanian Bedouin writer who admitted that he was close to the fearsome Jordanian Intelligence Department. The Palestinians did not respond to the Muslim Brotherhood's call -- the Washington Post reported that barely 200 people attended -- and as a result, the protests were a failure. In the past, such an event would have garnered tens of thousands of Palestinians from refugee camps.

It seems that the Hashemite regime is determined to convince the world that it will have to choose between the king and the Islamists ruling Jordan.

Yet is that really the case? It is a fact that most leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan are Bedouin Jordanians and not Palestinians. For example, of the nine members of the board of the Islamic Action Front Party -- the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm -- only two are Palestinians. Also, the board of governors of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan is made up of nine members, of whom five are Bedouin Jordanians. In a country where the majority of the population is Palestinian, you would expect proportionate representation within the Muslim Brotherhood. Also, this might be an indication that Jordan's Palestinian majority does not support the Muslim Brotherhood.

Since the Arab Spring began, the Jordanian regime has been in a difficult position. The Palestinian majority is systematically discriminated against and disgruntled. It might as well do what the majority in Syria are doing. Despite the Palestinians' lack of involvement in the ongoing protests, they -- like the rest of the region's people -- are observing closely what is happening in their neighborhood, and they could take action at any moment.

The king's allies, the Bedouin Jordanians, have been most active in the protests, and recently, the most prominent Bedouin Jordanian opposition, the 36 Movement, called for toppling the regime. The rest are calling for abolishing the king's powers and turning the country into a constitutional monarchy.

Shortly after watching two formerly invincible dictators, Mubarak and Ben Ali, fall, the king turned to the Muslim Brotherhood. He first met with them for discussions in February 2011 amid the start of the Arab Spring.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been an active part of the protests. Nonetheless, they have refused to call for the toppling of the king and have kept their demands as low as just reforming the government. I spoke to Zaki Bani Rushied, a former aide to of Hamas' leader Khaled Mishaal and president of the Islamic Action Front Party, the Brotherhood's political front. I asked him why the Brotherhood was determined to refuse any calls to topple the king, as Bani Rushied himself said recently. Rushied responded: "We have evaluated the situation and we've decided we want the regime to stay[.] ... [W]e are just demanding a reform policy to lead the country to democracy ... we are not willing to give up on the regime. If we do so, the alternative homeland will be achieved." Bani Rushied here is talking about the "Jordan is Palestine" option for peace, which the Jordanian regime has used as an excuse against allowing political rights for the Palestinian majority.

Bani Rushied continued: "Our agenda is against Israel. The Americans and the Israelis have been trying to sell the alternative homeland solution, and therefore we will not do anything that would facilitates that[.] ... [S]hould a new regime be established in Jordan, it will make the Palestinians feel that they do actually have a country, and the Palestinians in Jordan will play the role of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. They will be guard dogs for Israel, just like Palestinian troops trained by General Keith Dayton[.] ... [D]id you not hear him say [that] 'we have produced the new Palestinian'? That is exactly what we fear." This was Bani Rushied's answer as to why is the Muslim Brotherhood is so supportive of the king.

Bani Rushied noted that the Muslim Brotherhood has been scaling back its opposition after the appointment of a new Jordanian prime minister in October -- namely, Oun Khasweneh, the renowned judge at the International Criminal Court. Oun Khasweneh has been appeasing the Islamists since his arrival -- for example, by inviting them to join his government. They turned him down, claiming that they were expecting more "reformist steps."

Furthermore, Khasweneh did the unthinkable by telling the media that "the Jordanian state's decision to expel Hamas leaders in 1999 was a political and constitutional mistake." Khasweneh even told Time that he had always thought that expelling Hamas leaders from Jordan was unconstitutional! Before making these statements, Khasweneh received Hamas's spokesman Muhammad Nazzal at his home, and spoke to Hamas's leader Khalid Mishaal over the phone. Around the same time, Jordan's minister of communication, Rakan Majali, said that "the Jordanian state is serious about correcting the political mistake with Hamas by re-establishing ties to it," noting that "this will not mean we will be handling Hamas as an alternative of the Palestinian Authority."

Jordan is an autocracy in which the king rules, and where a prime minister is basically executing what the king wants. It seems that the Jordanian regime is not as anti-Islamist as it claims to be, and it seems that both the Muslim Brotherhood and the regime don't want the Palestinian majority to come to power. From the king's point of view, it would mean the end of his kingdom. From the Muslim Brotherhood's point of view, it would present Palestinians everywhere with "the alternative homeland" -- i.e., the "Jordan is Palestine" option is "a threat" to their attempts to destroy Israel..

While the fear of the Islamists hijacking Arab revolutions is a valid one, it is likely that Jordan is different, as the Muslim Brotherhood there is the regime's ally. Therefore, should the Arab Spring make it to Jordan, it likely will not bring Islamists to power as many seem to fear. Those keen on establishing peace and stability in the Middle East should re-examine the situation in Jordan and stay alert to the unfolding of different potential scenarios.

Mudar Zahran is the putative leader of the Palestinians in Jordan. He currently resides in exile in London, U.K.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/01/jordans_king_and_the_muslim_brotherhood_an_unholy_marriage_1.html at January 20, 2012 - 06:33:02 PM CST

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk