| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Dr. Walid Phares ably explains the attacks in Jordan in FrontPage. While he is absolutely right that Jordan represents a more moderate form of Islam than that of the Saudis, the Jordanians still have some ways to go to come up to the universal norms of human rights.
After every jihadist terror attack or violent outburst around the world, the mainstream media always advances its myriad theories about the so-called “root causes” of the particular attack in question. Unfortunately, most of the time their analyses are fictions. That was the case last week with the interpretations of the French Intifada. And this is the case again just hours after terrorists struck three hotels in downtown Amman, Jordan.Some commentators rushed to conclude that Jordan was targeted just because it was an ally of the United States and a backer of the war in Iraq. From al-Jazeera's opinion-makers to mainstream news agencies in the West, the common wisdom overflowed: had the small Arab Kingdom not involved itself in Iraq “regime change,” the angry nationalists wouldn't have shed Jordanian blood. Unfortunately, this equation misses the mark.
So what then is behind the surge of terror in the Hashemite Kingdom?
First, one has to consider the weight of Jordan's. Jordan is ruled by a prominent Arab Muslim dynasty, the Hashemites, who are a serious competitor to the Wahhabis. The Hashemites are not the equivalent of Monaco's princes in Europe. In the Arab world, the ancestors of King Abdallah were the legitimate rulers of Mecca and Medina until the Saudi clan "invaded" Western Arabia in the 1920s. The remnant of the Hashemites established TransJordan with the help of the British as Wahhabism took hold of the peninsula and its religious shrines. Since then, the Saudi Kingdom exported fundamentalism, while the Hashemite Kingdom established a monarchy. The result: two fundamentally opposing views of Islam and the world.
Next, al-Qaeda grew out of the Cold War. While bin Laden pledged to destroy America and the infidels, King Hussein remained a faithful ally of the West and a proponent of a peaceful settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians. After his passing, his son, Abdallah, pledged to resume his father's anti-terrorism stance.King Hussein didn't participate in Operation Desert Storm, nor did his son, King Abdallah, engage Jordanian troops in the removal of Saddam Hussein. Moreover, the country opened its borders to Iraqi refugees, including many Sunnis, particularly Saddam's family. Despite the protests of commentators offering lightning-quick analysis, Iraqi Sunnis do not resent Jordan's alleged involvement in Iraq's war. To the contrary, many in the West and among the Shi'ites criticized Jordan for being too soft in its support for Iraq. Thus, there is no Arab frustration over Jordanian intervention in Iraq. But there is another frustration for another reason.
The jihadists have many reasons to dislike Amman's monarch, but Iraq does not figure in this assessment. Rather, King Abdallah has endorsed his father's signing of a peace treaty with Israel. But even this is not the main reason for why Islamic fundamentalists have targeted this kingdom.
The “root cause” of Islamist action against Jordan is this: the Hashemites are moderate Muslims, possibly the most successful in distancing their religion from Zarqawi's barbarism. Jordan is modernizing and has become friendly with the U.S., the UK, Europe, and Arab moderates.
The Hashemites have contained radicalism and denied the jihadists safe haven within the country. Amman rejected Damascus’ occupation of Lebanon, Syria's support of terrorism, and al-Qaeda's extremist ideology. Lately, government officials say Jordanian imams were able to reform Islamist militants jailed for violence. The concept of participating in the war of ideas has been tested in Jordan: successfully or not, moderate clerics, supported by the government, attempted to use parts of the Koran to negate the Wahhabi doctrines, allegedly based on a literal interpretation of that same Koran.
There is also a basic personality clash: Abu Massab al-Zarqawi is a Jordanian national. His bloody role in Iraq has reached the zenith of jihad. He wanted to teach the apostate monarch and his Western educated queen a lesson. This takes on added importance for the terrorist, because it is his homeland. Zarqawi wants to attack Jordan, not because he misses the souvenirs of his childhood, but out of geopolitical ambitions. The Sunni triangle’s closest and most natural borders are with Jordan. By striking in downtown Amman, Zarqawi will be opening a Western front, thereby creating more room for his terror network which is under increasing strain as Iraq strengthens its democracy, military and police.
For al-Qaeda, Jordan is ripe for violence. The Islamists inside the country have reached an apex of influence, but they have also reached their limitations. Zarqawi attempted to use biochemical agents two years ago to destabilize the regime – an attempt which failed and exposed Syria's deep role in jihad, since Zarqawi's men came through Syria.
Al-Qaeda believes that a majority of Jordanians are sympathetic to its views. In fact, the Islamists in Jordan make up about 18 percent of the population, and hence, the parliament. The majority of the fundamentalists are members of the Palestinian community in Jordan. They are still a minority, but their community is growing quickly, and the Islamists believe they will have a majority in the future. But the jihadists also believe they don't have to wait to achieve a numerical majority. Their points are based on regional considerations.
Jordan is an ally of the United States and is training Iraqi security forces. Once Iraq securely establishes a pluralistic, democratic nation capable of defending itself, Jordan's jihadist threat will be contained. Thus, al-Qaeda's strategists plotted to strike two birds with one stone: by destabilizing Jordan, they would deprive Iraq of its most serious regional ally. By destroying the Hashemites, the terrorists would serve the interests of the Wahhabis.
Hence al-Qaeda struck downtown Amman against tourist symbols, as it did in Bali. The jihadists expect to start a chain reaction: Jordan's economy dwindles, civil war erupts, its support for the War on Terror vanishes, its potential alliance with Iraq goes down in flames, and eventually an Islamic emirate or caliphate rear its head in the region.
Al-Qaeda is living out a fantasy. Unfortunately, if we do not hold a tough line in Iraq, its fantasy could become Jordan's nightmare.
Posted by Robert at November 10, 2005 6:25 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I always wondered if we stopped providing Saudi Arabia with their defense whether oil-poor Jordan would invade “Hatred’s Kingdom.” The Jordanian royal family believes it is the rightful ruler and protector of the Hijaz. Shall we step aside and find out?
Posted by: JasonP![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 10, 2005 6:56 AM
Wasn't there a poll released recently that had Jordan as the most anti-Israel population in the Middle East? This is a moderate Muslim country?
Posted by: JanuaryMan at November 10, 2005 7:06 AM
Prof. Phares says that Britain helped the Hashemites take over Transjordan and set up their state there. But two points are missing.
1-- Transjordan too, like the area of the Land of Israel west of the Jordan river, was assigned by the international community at the San Remo conference in 1920 to the Jewish National Home, now Israel. The San Remo decision was endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922. But not long after, the British set up Transjordan as an emirate [principality] for Abdullah the Hashemite, son of Hussein [Husayn], sharif of Mecca, a British ally during WW One. Hence, setting up the Transjordan emirate was illegal, as it violated the integrity of the Jewish National Home. By the way, the British ruled Transjordan as part of the Palestine mandate for a Jewish National Home until they gave up the mandate in 1948. Meanwhile, they refused to apply the principles of the Jewish National Home to Transjordan, as stipulated in the Mandate document itself, albeit the Mandate document gave them a loophole to "withhold" the National Home provisions from Transjordan.
2-- While the British were helping Emir Abdullah set up his emirate east of the Jordan, they were also helping the Saudis/Wahhabis to take over the Hijaz, western Arabia where Mecca and Medina are located. In fact, it was Kim Philby's father, H. St. John Philby, who advised and assisted Abdul Aziz ibn Saud [called "Ibn Saud"] to take over the Hijaz [incidentally driving out the Hashemites] and set up the new kingdom of Saudi Arabia [combining Hijaz and Nejd], modestly named after his own dynasty, who had never, of course, been kings anywhere. But the Saudis, local tribal chieftains, had made a pact with a certain ibn Abdul-Wahhab, founder of the Wahhabi cult, in the late 18th century, in central Arabia [the Nejd].
In short, the British were on both sides in Arabia. Philby and other British officials recklessly helped adherents of the Wahhabi cult to take power.
at November 10, 2005 8:10 AM
You’re right, Eliyahu, the British also helped establish the Saud regime. Of course, one wonders how much they knew about Islam … perhaps even less than today’s political leaders if that is possible. As I said, shall we step aside and give a wink to Saudi Arabia’s enemies?
Posted by: JasonP at November 10, 2005 8:19 AM
My naive take is that if the Hashemites ruled Mecca/Medina today the virulent Jihadist strain would not be so prominent. That the Jihadist mass murderers get a lot of confidence-inspiration from the Wahabbi control of Islam's twin holy cities
Posted by: dennisw at November 10, 2005 8:31 AM
"Of course, one wonders how much they [the British Empire] knew about Islam …"
It was a completely different world back then, in the decades after 1900, and before 1948. The West was spectacularly dominant over the entire globe, and had been for at least a couple of centuries -- its power and influence increasing exponentially into the 19th and 20th centuries. Islam was a corrupt shell of its former self. The great Ottoman Empire (which even throughout the 19th century was considered "the Sick Man of Europe") was carved up like a Thanksgiving Turkey in the 1920s. PC idiocy was a minority view in the West, without the absurd dominance it now holds over the majority of our ordinary people, our Academics, our politicos, and our journalists.
The years between the Two Wars saw Western powers, particularly France, Germany and above all the British Empire deeply criss-crossing the Muslim world for influence and advantage, wielding their power in blatant manners. Almost the entire Muslim world (that wasn't already de jure colonialized) had become de facto colonial territory for the West during those few decades. Had the West not dismantled its great Colonialist structure, and instead pursued the colonization of the Muslim world, we would now be far safer, and the Third World would now be far safer, more productive and more ethical.
Oil had not yet become a geopolitical weapon in the hands of Muslims. Israel and its Western nexus had not yet become a focal obsession for worldwide Muslims. Muslims had not yet begun to parasitically accumulate Western weapons in order to wage terrorist commando operations. Islamic terrorist cells were confined to underground secret societies virtually unchanged from those that festered for centuries, and that mostly just attacked fellow Muslims.
It was a completely different world back then.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 10, 2005 10:05 AM
Eliyahu
Very informative. thank you
was it not St John Philby who was a fanatical arabist and antisemite, i believe who betrayed the British in their efforts to gain the saudi oil wells?
How did the americans get in ?
And does Jesus james Angleton figure in any of this?
at November 10, 2005 10:06 AM
This excerpt from Madzionist Blogoff
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Stunning News: Jordan's bombings were performed by moslems!
Incredibly, the triple suicide bombings in Jordan were committed not by Jews, Christians, Hindus or Buddhists , but by (gasp) moslems! The religion of peace!
How could this be?
Well, yes, it is a shocker for us all to think an act of terrorism could be attributed to lovable followers of mohammed, but, alas, it somehow appears to be true. In fact, contrary to what the always objective mainstream media has taught us about islam's renowned tolerance, the moslems who blew up the hotels in the name of allah were targeting people who were not practicing islam strictly enough.
In fact, some have even suggested that Jews may have been in the vicinity of the hotels, and, as we all know from the MSM's crackerjack reporting of the news from Israel, the Jews are always disenfranchising moslems. So, perhaps it was somehow the fault of the Jews after all.
Whew, what a relief! I'd hate to think islam would ever get blamed for anything. Those clever Jews sure do muddy the waters, don't they?
Posted by: Madzionist at November 10, 2005 11:13 AM
Good points, Dr. Pepper. One can't fault the British, 80 years ago, for not having the foresight that an internal theological squabble in a dying religion could become a worldwide threat in a revived religious/political movement. Nor imagine that, flush with oil wealth, they might obtain WMDs unheard of at the time. Finally, as you point out, one would not imagine the level of appeasement, moral self-doubt, and prevalence of devious 5th columnists as we have today.
Of course, we have far fewer excuses.
Posted by: JasonP at November 10, 2005 11:18 AM
Why go to school? Just come to JW/DW. You guys are a wealth of information, and lots of you are guilty of level headed thinking as well. We of limited intelligence and education salute you.
Not a military salute...thats to ridgid and boring...a raised beer salute. Raised beer is the universal social solvent, and symbol of good cheer. Everytime you guys post something profound, I raise my beer...that way I get better informed and drunk at the same time...lifes wunnerful aint it? Thanx....
at November 10, 2005 11:52 AM
januaryman:
You are quite right about the poll showing that the most hostile opinion rating against Israel came from moderate Jordan, but then given the large and very heavily propagandized "Palestinian" population in Jordan, that's hardly surprising.
The "moderation" is found among Jordan's royal class. You may also recall that the late King Hussein took some very heavy reprisals against PLO operatives within Jordan's borders.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 10, 2005 12:23 PM
"The past is a foreign country, people did things differently there"
I would attribute but I know not to whom.
If you read Gertrude Bell's letters, or Andre Servier's book (see the fine website by John Sobieski)
http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com/
or quotes going back far earlier, you will see that there have always been Westerners who had the Arab/Muslim number.
I think the problem was similar to what makes financial analysts so spectacularly wrong so often, the assumption that things wouldn't change, projecting the status quo would stand.
Posted by: t-ham at November 10, 2005 1:57 PM
Chevalier
I learned something from you, the suspicion that Philby helped the USA get a franchise for the Saudi oil, instead of the British. I'd like to check it out. Of course, we know about his son's peculiar treasonous record.
Others,
I am not sure how much the British foreign office and Colonial Office knew about Islam and the Arabs. Churchill no less had made some very unflattering remarks about them, I believe. And he was active in that period. Maybe some of these operatives really preferred Islam for its bloody fanaticism.
As to Hashemite control of Mecca and Medina and all the Hijaz, it probably would have been better than the Saudi/Wahhabi control that we now have. Faisal and his father Husayn were hypocrites --no doubt when signing the famous Faisal-Weizmann agreement too. But then most politicians are hypocrites to some degree. And sometimes hypocrites are preferable to those who are too frank, like the Iranian mullahs and ayatollahs. On the other hand, the Talmud warns us that hypocrites are more dangerous. We all hope for the best.
Posted by: Eliyahu at November 10, 2005 2:36 PM
I have serious problems with believing thay ANY muslim country can be taken at their word.....they seem to excel in the realm of double speak,and since they are "allowed" to lie to achieve their stated goals(the worldwide caliphate),it's hard for me to put the term "moderate" in front of "country".The savages simply blew up the most visible western presence in the country.To often muslim regimes simply pay lip service to the civilized world when it comes to dealing with "The Base".They are petrified that any actual replies to moolie butchery will spell their doom.Instead,many times they simply lie to "beat the band".
Posted by: leviticus at November 10, 2005 2:48 PM
Until the so-called "moderates" of the muslim world step up and actually do more than capture a few sacrificial "jinn" terrorists to appease the west......I won't be counting on any help from them.It's naive to think any other way.
Posted by: leviticus at November 10, 2005 2:55 PM
Jordan's king vows to hunt down bombers
Why doesn't he vow to hunt down the radical teachings and text that eventually causes "the bombers."
I think we know why.
Support for suicide bombings against the U.S.:
Morocco 56% X 33 million = 18.5 million
Jordan 49% X 6 million = 2.9 million
Lebanon 49% X 4 million = 2 million
Pakistan 29% X 162 million = 47 million
Indonesia 26% X 242 million = 62.9 million
Turkey 24% X 70 million = 16.8 million
Total = 150.1 million - doesn't even include Iran, Syria, or Egypt, the number could easily DOUBLE.
Therefore about 300 Million MUSLIMS are in favor of support for suicide bombings against the U.S.
Islamic leaders seem to be more concerned about "backlash" than extremists among them.
Posted by: Report at November 10, 2005 4:33 PM
Just like when in New York young muslim's stomped on an American flag in the streets of New York, and sang Alla u Akbar, and onlookers did nothing. While the defamers of the flag relished in the fact that they could do so, because of American so called "loopholes." This was not a loophole, and get it right, it is the right all should have to express speach. Derogatory or not, you have freedom, and if I had seen it first hand, the flag would have been raised and there would have been one hell of a fight, for freedom!
Posted by: todd at November 10, 2005 07:26 PM
at November 10, 2005 8:19 PM
Chevalier,
I checked out Philby and oil in the book Powerplay: Oil in the Middle East, by Leonard Mosley [not sure about the spg]. Mosely writes that Philby brought Ibn Saud in touch with an extremely rich American named Charles R Crane, once US minister to China, the Crane of the King-Crane Commission, and a fanatic Judeophobe. Crane wanted to bring Muslims [such as Haj Amin el-Husseini, British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem] and Christians together in an anti-Jewish crusade. He was an admirer of Hitler and the employer of George Antonius, author of the propagandistic book, The Arab Awakening, through his Institute of Current World Affairs. Antonius dedicated his book to Crane, nicknamed "Harun al-Rashid."
Back to Philby and oil. Crane seems to have put up money for oil exploring in Ibn Saud's new kingdom and then American companies came in to take over from him. So directly or indirectly Philby helped American firms get the oil concessions in Saudi Arabia. Maybe Philby was looking out more for the Saudi interest than for British economic interests.
at November 11, 2005 4:36 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)