Somehow in Prince Hassan’s mind a 19 year occupation of the territory grants the Hashemites sovereign rights, whereas Israel’s 45 years of control means nothing. And who exactly promised Judea and Samaria to the Hashemites?
(Prince Hassan bin Talal)
(MEMRI via israpundit.com) In a meeting with Palestinian citizens in Jordan, Prince Hassan bin Talal, Jordanian crown prince between 1965 and 1999, made an unusual statement, saying that the territories of the West Bank are actually part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. He added that the two state solution is irrelevant in the current stage.
The Jordanian website Almustaqbal-a.com reported that the speech by the Jordanian prince took place at an October 9 meeting with Palestinians from Nablus, members of the Ebal charity organization. The meeting was organized by Jordanian Senate President Taher Al-Masri, who is himself a Palestinian from Nablus. During his speech, Prince Hassan said that he intends to visit other organizations in Jordan that represent West Bank residents.The report stated that “Prince Hassan stressed that the West Bank is part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which included both banks of the [Jordan] River” and added that Hassan “did not personally oppose the two state solution, but that this solution is irrelevant at the current stage.” He later added that even if the two state solution does not materialize, there are other options. According to Hassan, “both sides, Arab and Israeli, no longer speak of a political solution to the Palestinian problem.” He implied that even the Oslo Accords had met their end, and said that Arab losses from the Accords are estimated at $12 billion. The report added: “The attendees understood that Prince [Hassan] is working to reunite both banks of the [Jordan] River, and commended him for it.”
Prince Hassan later added: “The unity that existed between the west and east banks for 17 years… was arguably one of the best attempts at unity that ever occurred in the Arab [world]… I hope that I do not live to see the day when Jordan, or the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, relinquishes the land occupied in 1967 by the IDF, since it would bring us all to witness the humiliating end… These lands, which were occupied as part of the 1967 lands, including East Jerusalem, were promised to us, and nowadays we speak of them as Area C…”
Prince Hassan tried to clarify his statements and said that in terms of sovereignty and law, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan in 1948, and that everyone, including the Palestinians, agrees that Jordanian law is the basis for the demand to reclaim them from Israel. However, he added, Jordan ceased negotiating for these lands with Israel following a request by the Palestinian Authority. Hassan said: “If, God forbid, we were to recognize the Jordan River as a border with Israel, then every element hostile to Jordan – and there are many – could claim that Jordan has failed in its demand [to restore] Arab rights.”
In an attempt to further emphasize Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank, Prince Hassan said that Ahmad Al-Shukeiri, who founded the PLO in Jerusalem in 1964, was actually “a guest of King Hussein in Jerusalem.” According to Hassan, “it must be clear that Jordanian legal and sovereign responsibility [over Jerusalem] was [decided] by our grandfathers when they fought atop Jerusalem’s walls.”
Prince Hassan stressed that Jordan should be a top priority for Palestine, and Palestine a top priority for Jordan.Endnotes: It should be mentioned that other Jordanian websites that reported on Prince Hassan’s speech claimed that he had said: “I personally oppose the two state solution.” However, in a video of Hassan’s speech, he clearly expresses “disagreement with the elimination or disappearance of the two state solution.”
if this is so, then I suppose then Jordan can legalize their Palestinians as citizens… right? …not likely
If Israel annexes the territory, the issue of Jordanian citizenship for the Arab residents is a negotiable option, but this certainly would not involve granting the Jordanians sovereignty.
Missing Peace (h/tDoc)report about the situation in Jordan since the beginning of the uprisings in the Arab world Jerusalem, April 25, 2012 Jordan’s ‘Arab Spring’ protests started as a peaceful small-scale demo against corruption in the town of Theeban in January 2011. Since then the protests have spread out to the outlying governorates, along with the rise of so-called popular movements. However, the unrest never reached the magnitude of the uprisings in countries such as Yemen, Egypt and Libya. As in other Arab countries, protests in Jordan were being led by the Islamist movement, which dominates the political opposition, as well as by the popular protest movement which includes numerous pro-reform organizations. Protests The Jordanians mainly protested against corruption and favoritism. Demonstrators called for investigations into regime corruption at almost all the protests. Later the protests were directed against the worsening economic situation in the country. The deterioration of the economic situation is alarming as it could lead to a full-blown revolution as happened earlier in Tunis and Egypt. Jordanian demonstrators demanded reform and change general in a peaceful way. Lately however, some protests have turned violent. Last week dozens of people were injured during clashes between Salafists and pro-government demonstrators in the city of Zarqa. Compared to the protests in other countries across the region, those in Jordan have been relatively few. This situation can be explained by a lack of organizational skills among the few political parties and an effective security system. In addition, from the outset of the protests consensus existed that political and economic reform – not regime change – were the solution. Palestinians The fact that the Palestinians, who make up almost two thirds of the population, have not joined the protests may explain why there hasn’t been a full-blown revolution in Jordan. However, the Palestinian Arabs in Jordan have good reasons to be angry at King Abdullah and his government. Although the majority of Jordan’s population is Palestinian, they have been discriminated against for decades. This is something which King Abdullah in fact admitted when back in 1999 he called upon his Jordanian (non-Palestinian) subjects to “end class divisions that have marginalized Palestinian citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom”. He also said at the time that “discrimination must end”. This discrimination includes the refusal of the Jordanian Government to let Palestinians actively take part in the governing of the country. For example, the Palestinian majority in Jordan holds only 6 seats in a 120 member Parliament, while in Israel the 20 % Arab minority holds 14 out of 120 seats in the Israeli Parliament. In addition the UN Higher Commission for Refugees confirms that Jordan’s government still treats the majority of its Palestinian citizens as refugees. Human Rights Watch reported in 2010 that King Abdullah’s government has randomly been cancelling passports of numerous Palestinians throughout Jordan, thereby destroying livelihoods and breaking up families. Recently Jordan even revoked citizenship of PLO and PA officials. At the same time a new electoral law sought to limit Palestinian representation in the Jordanian parliament even further. Instead of taking responsibility for his government’s discriminatory actions, King Abdullah has accused Israel of being an ‘apartheid’ state. He made this accusation in an interview with the Washington Post about the failed peace negotiations between Israel and the PA which were conducted in Amman. The king said that “Israel will have to choose between democracy and apartheid”. Reforms From the outset of the revolts in other Arab countries it has been clear that King Abdullah was concerned that a similar revolt could threaten his regime. Therefore he was quick to announce reforms. He has also been trying to divert the attention towards Israel by blaming the Jewish state for the shortcomings and failures of the Jordanian government, just like other Arab leaders have been doing for years. Abdullah also tries to hide his opposition to the Syrian regime because he fears Assad’s repercussions and because the Jordanian economy largely depends on Syria. The majority of Jordanian-produced goods are imported by Syria and Syria also serves as Jordan’s gateway to Lebanon, Turkey and Eastern Europe. If the trade relations between both countries were to come to an end, the already weak Jordan economy would receive a massive blow, which in turn could spark more protests and demands to topple the King and the Jordanian government. One of the reform measures which Abdullah installed included firing the government and replacing it with a new one. Similar actions were undertaken by Saudi Arabia, which uses its oil wealth to keep its citizens quiet. However, the reform measures were not enough to satisfy the protesters and they demanded more extensive changes. Their demands included serious efforts to fight the regime’s corruption, a demand for an elected prime minister (instead of a prime minister appointed by the king), abolishment of the senate (also appointed by the king) or its transformation into a body elected by the people, and a demand to pass a new elections law. In short, the protest and reform movement demand a decrease in the king’s powers and more influence and freedom of action for the parliament. Aggressive The protests continued, becoming more aggressive over time. Some protestors even publicly demanded that King Abdullah step down (there is a law in Jordan which forbids direct criticism of the Royal Family). The tone of the demonstrations changed when the protesters saw that their situation was not really changing for the good. Demonstrators started to display signs with slogans such as “there can be no reform under the current security grip” and “the people want freedom, justice and an end to corruption”. More recently various opposition members and groups have been accusing the King of being an “occupier”. They also accused Queen Rania of ruling the country instead of her husband. In response to the radicalization of the protests, the regime has taken several measures to satisfy the Islamic movement and Bedouin tribes in Jordan. This included attempts to buy them off with money and positions of power. The regime started to show flexibility on several issues which were previously considered sacred. For example, the king now said that he would be willing to curtail his own powers and that there might be talks about a constitutional monarchy. Islamists The regime also tried to pacify the Islamists by starting a dialogue. This move came after it became clear that the Islamic parties were the driving force behind the protests which are taking place in cities all over Jordan almost every Friday. In addition, the regime gave in to demands of the Islamic movement to free prisoners, including the release of 150 Salafi-Jihadist prisoners who were imprisoned for attacking security officers with swords during a rally in the city of Al-Zarqa which took place in April 2011. Furthermore, the regime also announced that it would renew its contacts with Hamas. The relations between Jordan and Hamas were suspended in 1999 because of Hamas’s terrorist activities. Hamas leader Khaled Mashal was expelled from Jordan subsequently, after which he moved to Damascus. In 2006 Jordan blacklisted the organization after an alleged weapons cache was discovered in the country. Now the regime is trying to patch up things with Hamas, in order to satisfy the Islamists in Jordan. Khaled Mashal visited Jordan at the end of January 2012, allegedly to find a new home for Hamas’s headquarters which until then had been located in Damascus. The US government however, immediately made clear that it would not tolerate the establishment of Hamas’s headquarters on Jordanian soil and warned that there would be serious repercussions if the regime did not prevent this from happening. Shortly afterwards the Jordanian regime hurried to make it clear that Mashal’s visit had no “political implications and does not signal a change in Jordan’s political agenda”. Israel In Israel pundits are worried that the Jordanian regime will not be able to hold off the Islamists in the long run. New concessions to keep the Islamists at bay will probably be necessary but could further destabilize the region. These concessions will no doubt include a review of the relations with Israel. Already at this moment it is apparent that Israeli-Jordanian relations are deteriorating. The (failed) Global March to liberate al Quds/Jerusalem (an anti-Israel manifestation that took place at the end of March) was, for instance, prepared at a conference in Amman last January. In the same month Jordanian MP’s called for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador. Recently a spokesman for the Jordanian government called Israeli actions against the continuing rocket fire from Gaza ‘barbaric aggression’. In the beginning of April Jordanian state TV broadcasted an inciting sermon by imam Khaleb Rabab’a. He told worshippers that “Jordan’s army will destroy Israel and will regain Jerusalem from the killers of prophets”. The survival of the Israeli Jordanian peace treaty is to a large extent dependent upon developments in the relationship between Egypt and Israel. If the new regime in Egypt moves to change or annul the peace treaty with Israel, pressure in Jordan to do the same will follow suit.
The cracks are already showing. when the flood comes from Egypt, Jordan will follow. Now is no time for Bibi to flirt with a Contiguous state when Israel is surrounded by killers. Surrounded by killers and cut in two is stupid.
The Guardian reports that the ‘Palestinians’ may be looking for a way out of the ‘statehood’ trap
Some Palestinian observers believe the PA leadership, despite its robust statements committing to the UN approach, may also be quietly seeking a way to “climb down the tree“.
A Kuwaiti paper reported last week that Jordan will vote against the creation of a ‘Palestinian’ reichlet if it comes up for a vote in the UN General Assembly in September.
On the other hand, Jordan is nearing a crossroads in its attitude toward the Palestinians. In my book, The Political Legacy of King Hussein (2004), I analyze the advantages that Hussein could have found in losing of the West Bank to Israel.
First and foremost, Israel would be in charge of resolving the Palestinian issue, and the Palestinians would not be in a position to claim Jordan as a Palestinian state.
In recent months, Israel seems to have divorced itself from its traditional policy of resisting a Palestinian state at all costs.
In the Jordanian mind, this translates to a position that might endanger the very existence of the Hashemite Kingdom, as well as the 1994 Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty, and a de-facto abandonment of the traditional friendship between the two countries that has survived many crisis since 1960.
Jordan has tried (and usually succeeded) in letting Israel lead the way against the creation of a Palestinian state. However, Israel is now seen as being too weak to halt a Palestinian independence process. The creation of such a state would put Jordan’s very existence in jeopardy: The PLO is formally and spiritually committed to taking over all of mandatory Palestine – i.e., Jordan, the territories and Israel. Considering that Israel would hold its ground within the 1967 lines, the next target of a small, economically weak, irredentist Palestinian state would be Jordan – a country that has already served as a battleground for the PLO in 1970-71.
If, indeed, this is the current Jordanian reading, it follows that the US and Israel are seen as weak players that cannot be trusted to support the kingdom.
That reading sounds pretty accurate to me. Read the whole thing.
It would be easier for everyone if the Arabs just clarified the words of Mohammad and said Palestine was not the goal. The goal is to kill the Jews in Israel because Islamic texts say that is what will happen.
I have not yet met a single journalist or press
photographer or film crew or stringer or editor who admits to
knowing about Hussein’s partly-constructed palace or what it means.
The modern Kingdom of Jordan, formerly known as Transjordan, represents approximately 78 percent of the original Palestine Mandate and was founded in 1949 following the War of Independence between Israel and the surrounding Arab states. There is no difference, ethnically-speaking, between Arabs who lived east of the Jordan river in that portion of the Palestine Mandate which eventually became Jordan and those Arabs who originally lived west of the of the Jordan river in the area commonly known today as the “West Bank”. Even demographers do not distinguish between them.
But professional propagandists who wish to draw an artificial distinction between these groups of Arabs for the sake of political expediency or to push a particular agenda, do attempt to bifurcate them:
But Jordan’s leading news website www.Ammonnews.net doesn’t shy away from hectoring the government over misappropriation of funds by senior officials or highlighting fault lines between the country’s Palestinian population and indigenous Jordanians.
Note that “indigenous Jordanians” are simply those (Palestinian) Arabs who happened to be living in the eastern portion of the Mandate when the country was founded. Notwithstanding, the Jordanian government often discriminates unfairly between its Arab citizens of different tribal ancestry and has recently revoked the citizenship of thousands of subjects who originally came to Jordan from the West Bank. Reuters doesn’t mention this and suggests, misleadingly, that such deprivations are only now being considered:
Hattar’s ‘Allofjordan’ was one of the few outlets, along with ‘Ammonnews’, to publish statements of normally apolitical ex-army officers asking King Abdullah to revoke citizenship of thousands of Jordanians of Palestinian origin, echoing the same fears the kingdom could turn into a Palestinian state.
Would Reuters be as taciturn if the Israeli government had stripped its Arab population of citizenship? Rhetorical question.
The damage caused to us Israelis by the shallow and
cowardly practice of journalism of this sort came home to me quite
sharply in an encounter of which I was part in Europe. In February
2004, I was invited to join a small delegation of Israelis, all of
us victims of terror because of things done to us or our loved ones
by terrorists. The purpose of the delegation was to go to a
first-of-its-kind event – an international congress of victims of
terror from many countries, organized in a major European capital
and intended to provided a voice for the victims – a voice, as all
of us know, that is rarely heard. And in particular to let the
voices of Israel’s victims be heard.In the week before our departure from Israel, word
came back from the organizers of the conference, hearing that we
were about to arrive. They said: If you plan to come as a delegation
representing Israel, it would be better not to come. If you insist,
then you will be invited to pay at the door and to take a seat in
the audience, but we have no desire for you to speak or to be
official recognized. It would be better for everyone if you stayed