| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jordan, the Arab Kingdom of Jordan, was formerly the Emirate of Transjordan, and before that, it was a territory formerly part of the Ottoman Empire that included the entire trans-Jordanian part of historic Palestine. Therefore, it was part of the territory that was originally intended by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations to be included in the Mandate for Palestine (the Mandate that had as its sole purpose the establishment of a Jewish National Home).
Today, Jordan exists on Jizyah. That is, it exists on economic favors -- outright aid, and special dispensations, such as Most Favored Nation Status -- given it by the United States. These favors are not received with gratitude but rather as due. Jordan's population has consistently shown itself, in polls, to be virulently hostile to the United States. Yet nevertheless, this aid is given as if it were Jordan's due, and never to be tampered with. The attitudes, then, of both donor and recipient are the classic attitudes of the Jizyah, that "protection" money given by the "protected people" to their Muslim masters.
It is absurd for Jordan even to dare to mention that it might want "nuclear power for peaceful purposes." No Muslim state should be allowed to begin work on nuclear projects. No Muslim state currently well along on nuclear projects should be permitted to continue. As for Pakistan, the one Muslim state that, through theft by A. Q. Khan and a program of state deception, was permitted -- through Western negligence -- to acquire such weapons, this is now a country that alone is causing Western nightmares. What will happen to those weapons? Who will control them in the case of a different regime, or no regime at all? What group might be aided by members or ex-members of the Pakistani government (Hamid Gul comes swimmingly to mind)? Pakistan must be prevented from perfecting its weapons-delivery systems, and must be threatened with complete economic collapse and possibly physical destruction, if those weapons are not put in Western hands. The Pakistani masses need not know, but the Western governments must know, that those weapons are not available for Pakistani or other Muslim use.
As for Jordan, even for talking in this way, it needs to be punished. The Administration will not do it. But Congress can end all aid to Jordan, and end as well that program to encourage textile factories which turn out to be factories in which Jordanian Arabs simply exploit non-Arab workers as wage-slaves with their wages often withheld -- a situation that has been investigated by outsiders who declare that the exploitation of workers (non-Arabs) by owners (Arabs) have been the "worst" they have seen anywhere in the world. For more on that, look in the Jihad Watch archives or google more widely.
No, Jordan needs now to be read the riot act and to suffer the consequences even of daring to suggest it has a "right" -- knowing what we all know about Islam and Muslim views of Infidels as inculcated by Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- to "nuclear energy" for (of course) "peaceful purposes."
If Abdullah thinks being a nice guy, with fond memories of Deerfield, and having a pretty wife, is enough to blind Americans to the nature of the country he happens to rule thanks to the British doing an unnecessary favor for the Hashemites booted out of the Hejaz by the Al-Saud, he's got another think coming. Or at least he should have, if anyone in Washington had the courage to follow through. And if his "adviser" on how to present Islam to the non-Muslims, a certain Joseph Lumbard, thinks he can present his sanitized version of Islam and continue to have it accepted by unwary Infidels -- whose numbers decrease every day -- he too has another think coming. It will be fascinating to see how Lumbard deals, for example, with the contents of The Legacy of Jihad -- those dozens of Western scholars of Islam, from decades ago, writing on the subject of Jihad. Their articles do not date, but acquire even more force and pith and relevance now.
Chances are he will not dare to read it. For what then can the Lumbards of this world say in response?
And what should be the Infidel response? Just quiet fury, and determination to end the Jizyah not only to Jordan but also to Egypt. And to redimension relations with the chief funder of the ideological Jihad all over the world, in both Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the most dangerous and malevolent Sunni enemy of Infidels -- Saudi Arabia.
Posted by Hugh at January 19, 2007 12:18 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"Jordan, the Arab Kingdom of Jordan, was formerly the Emirate of Transjordan, and before that, it was a territory formerly part of the Ottoman Empire that included the entire trans-Jordanian part of historic Palestine. Therefore, it was part of the territory that was originally intended by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations to be included in the Mandate for Palestine (the Mandate that had as its sole purpose the establishment of a Jewish National Home)".
Well palestinians, there you have it. Get out of Israel and the "occupied territories"-you don't belong there. You have no right to "palestine"-never have, never will. In fact, you are encroaching on Israel!
As for jizyah for Jordan and the rest of the ummah-let's redirect this wasted money to better purposes-like giving some of this aid to real jihad busters like Ethiopia (unlike Pakistan) if not to fund the "get us off the oil" project.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 19, 2007 12:28 PM
I must respectfully disagree Hugh.
Jordan's population, 70% Palestinian, may indeed be implaccably hostile to the USA, but the King of Jordan is a committed friend. When one thinks of radical alternatives to Musharraf in Pakistan for example, one realizes that as bad as things are there, they could be much, much worse. That reality applies to Jordan even more.
Though many of us are often frustrated with the naivetay of the Israeli government on a host of security issues, one thing is certain, there is a broad consensus among Israelis on all sides of the spectrum that King Hussein is preferable to any alternative and must be maintained on his throne. Hell, his father literally warned Golda Meir in 1973 that Egypt and Syria were preparing a surprise attack.
My man, I like you, I really do. I have great respect for your intelligence...and Lord knows you've taken me out to the woodshed on more than one occasion. But I swear sometimes your advocacy is so radical that it dovetails with the objectives of the Islamists.
Posted by: Cornelius at January 19, 2007 1:33 PM
"Jordan's population, 70% Palestinian, may indeed be implaccably hostile to the USA, but the King of Jordan is a committed friend..."
-- from a posting above
Several comments.
What matters is not that King Abdullah may be a nice fellow, but what the population of Jordan thinks and does, for that population limits his freedom of maneuver. That population, "Palestinian" (i.e., with roots in Western Palestine) or "Jordanian (i.e., with roots in Eastern Palestine), or 95% of it, freely expresses its hatred of the United States. Could this "committed friend" of the United States, in such circumstances, ever do something to alienate such a population?
Does King Abdullah attempt to slowly educate his Muslim population in anything like the historical reality? Does he dare to explain that the so-called "Arab world" does not belong either to the Arabs, or to the Muslims, alone? Did King Abdullah ever say a word against the regime of Saddam Hussein? Is he on record anywhere as having denounced the massacre of the Kurds? Is he on record as having said that the Lesser JIhad against Israel is unwise, or is he rather on record as attempting to divert Infidel attention from the centrality of Islam in that war, and working to convince Infidels that "if only" Israel gives up this and gives up that, there will be a permanent "solution" to what he surely knows has no solution, but is merely a situation that can be contained if, and only if, Israel is perceived to be overwhelmingly more powerful than those states that might otherwise attack it -- and the rulers of those states who might, just like King Abdullah's father, be forced to join in such an attack, as he was in June 1967, because it seemed, as Nasser assured him in a series of telephone calls (recorded by the Israelis), that the Arabs were winning and there was no excuse for holding back.
Posted by: Hugh at January 19, 2007 2:12 PM
As you point out, King Abdullah could certainly be doing much more. But I think in any cogent analysis, we'd all agree that
1) his room to manuever is quite constricted, considering the nature of the neighborhood and the precariousness of his position (even as it relates to his own subjects).
2) his position has been much more concliatory towards Israel and the West than just about any country in the Arab world (Morocco and Tunisia would be close contenders).
No sir, abandoning Jordan at this point in time would do nothing to further the national security interests of the USA. It would only weaken the closest friend we have in the Muslim world.
at January 19, 2007 3:30 PM
Stopping the Jizyah of foreign aid is not "abandoning Jordan." Muslim countries should not be kept afloat by non-Muslims. King Abdullah can go hat in hand to Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Arabs. After all, they need Jordan to survive as part of the Sunni alliance. They need those Jordanian troops to help fight the Shi'a. They will pay.
It is the West that must disabuse both the Muslims, and its own elites, that something is owed Muslims. Nothing is owed Muslims by Infidels. It is they, and what they have done to so many lands and peoples, that requires an explanation, and apology, and endless recompense. Nothing is owed them, either, by the non-Arab peoples upon whom Islam was successfully inflicted, and they forced to abandon or forget their own histories, their own identities, for a second-rate brand of Arabness (vide Pakistan, and all those "Sayeeds").
Jordan will be taken care of. And so will Egypt, by the same Sunni Arabs, if it is clear that the West is going to put a stop to its Jizyah. And so will those shock troops of one of the Lesser Jihads, that conducted against Israel -- that is, the local Arabs known as the "Palestinians." All of them can get whatever support they can from the recipients of, so far, ten trillion dollars in OPEC revenues since 1973 -- and counting.
Posted by: Hugh at January 19, 2007 10:58 PM
Your broader point - one you've made many times here - is hard to argue with. Egypt, with the dripping anti-American and anti-Jewish vitriol being spewed not just in its opposition press, but in Al Ahram.
But I must point out the incongruity in...
HUGH: Stopping the Jizyah of foreign aid is not "abandoning Jordan."
with....
HUGH: Muslim countries should not be kept afloat by non-Muslims.
The implication is that a termination of foreign aid to Jordan would indeed be an abandonment, since we both seem to agree that the country IS being "kept afloat" by what you describe as 'Jizyah."
Perhaps you're right that the Saudis would step in and prop the little monarch up. But there are other possibilities....that he would cast his lot with the Syrians, whom he might perceive as more relevant to his survival (having them as allies instead of adversaries).
Or perhaps without his Western patrons, his days may be numbered. It's hard to say for certainty.
You seem eager for us to burn our bridges to any and all in the Muslim world. I don't quite feel similarly. I think allies can be useful...as long as the relationship contains some elements of reciprocity....which the relationship with Jordan obviously does. The King does cooperate on security issues...and unlike the Syrians, he's not in the game of facilitating Palestinian or Iraqi terror.
I maintain that a friendly King Abdullah on Israel's eastern border and Iraq's western border is infinitely preferable to a potential radical alternative.
Just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Posted by: Cornelius at January 20, 2007 12:27 AM
You apparently did not read what I wrote. Let Jordan stay afloat -- with the party blowing up the inner tube being the House of Al-Saud, or Al-Thani, or Al-Sabah, or any number of royal thieves in the Persian (not Arabian) Gulf. They'll do it. They won't want to let Jordan fall into the hands of those -- i.e., the "Palestinians" -- who might not wish them well, who might be part of a los-de-abajo revolution of those who might insist, and might have ways to insist, that the rich Arabs be more forthcoming in sharing their wealth.
As for "burning our bridges in the Arab world" --what bridges are those? What have those non-existent "bridges" done for us, except to be used as the transportation links for permitting Muslims to arrive and settle deep within our country, and to make mischief and much more than mischief, over our legal and political institutions and our social arrangements and understandings, and our freedom of maneuver in foreign policy (the very policy that must now take as its centerpiece a resolute attack on all the instruments of Jihad including the money weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest). Oh, I suppose those non-existent "bridges" you refer to are also good for Americans driving over with toys and good things to eat for all those boys and girls in Muslim Arab lands, the children of those "ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East" whom Bush is so fond of referring to, and who likes to claim they are just like us, want exactly what we want.
No they don't.
And those "bridges" are a figment of propaganda by some, and a refusal to see through that propaganda, by others.
Surely you don't want to be counted among those others, do you?
Posted by: Hugh at January 20, 2007 12:44 AM
Well, one obvious bridge is intelligence cooperation with certain governments in the Muslim world. Another would be cooperation on Iraq and Israel. I would hope we can both agree that Jordan's policy vis-a-vis both Iraq and Israel is substantively different than Syria's. Needlessly cutting Jordan loose will only diminish our ability to insure its continued cooperation on these vital issues.
I understand your insistance that the Saudis will pick up the tab, but aside from money, they can offer Jordan very little by way of security guarantees. A rupture in US-Jordanian relations would no doubt leave the Jordanians scrambling for a new patron....and one way to cover their back would be to move closer to Syria (and by extension, Iran).
There are alot a variables involved of course, so ir's impossible to know for sure how it would play out (just like in Iraq).
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree once again.
Where we are on the same page is the immigration issue. If terminating immigration from the Muslim world (excepting persecuted non-Muslims) caused an irreparable rupture in our relations with the entirety of Dar ul Islam, it would be well worth the price. Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen any time soon.
Posted by: Cornelius at January 20, 2007 12:40 PM
"Muslim countries should not be kept afloat by non-Muslims"3
....Amen to that!!!Let them use their own oil profits and intellegience to survive.....oops..
Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 22, 2007 9:31 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)