Jordanians said Saturday they were concerned about Syria’s fate with the escalating, multi-national demands for it to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Although Syria has been publicly urged to withdraw from Lebanon by Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Russia, the United States and France, among other nations, some Jordanians reportedly believe the U.S. demands are a pretext by Washington to execute plans it has had for Damascus for some time.
Jordanians who spoke to United Press International said they believe the same U.S. scenario implemented in Iraq was being prepared against Syria. Khaled Walid, 25, said what happened to Iraq with the American threats before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 was now being repeated in Syria, "but with different pretexts."
Source: [New Kerala]
Is this article trying to say that the Jordanian public is siding with the Syrians? I wonder. Since I have been away from Jordan for a couple of months, I’m perhaps not as in touch with the Jordanian public’s reaction to recent Lebanese political developments. But I’m really interested to know what the Jordanian reaction is to the "people power" in Lebanon? Was it jubilation, disapproval, or even envy? Is there anyone who can shed some light on this?
I believe that people asking for Jordan to have a pan-Arab stand simply suffer from a bad case of short term memory, when have Jordan and Syria ever been on good terms? People forget that at the first signs of instability in Jordan during September 1970 events, Syrian troops overrun northern Jordan and occupied Irbid and the surrounding areas. People overlook the fact that formations of the Jordanian Armed Forces are aligned in a way to foil a Syrian attack.
I don’t know what role Syria played when they stepped into Lebanon, if what they did helped in ending the civil war then that’s definitely something they deserve praise for. But I think everyone can agree that Syria has long outstayed its welcome in Lebanon, and the purpose of them there no longer became the benefits of the Lebanese people, but rather the benefits of Syria. Assad said it more than once, he wants the withdrawal from Lebanon to be “a part of the peace plan with Israel” but what that really means is that Lebanon was the last bargaining card that Syria was holding on to, and now they’re losing that card.
Natasha please look at the bigger picture you are really oversimplifying the issue.
Yes Jordan first of course, but regardless of the many mistakes of the past we are still Arabs, even if you do not even believe that, which would be a shame frankly, there is a bare minumum of tact that could be observed, and in all honesty i never thought i would be saying such a thing, but this government is starting to push the limits of people’s feelings a bit too far.
Syria for all its mistakes, and they are many, for at the end of the day the people in power there are a bunch of thugs, but it also has done Lebanon some good deeds in the past, so while the Lebanese have the right to ask for their country back, turning Syria into ‘the source of all evil’ is wrong, especially at a time like this, when we all know Syria is a ‘targeted’ state.
At the end of the day like it or not, we all live in a small area next to each other, and we all depend on each other and need each other (I mean Jordanians, Syrians, Palestinians and Lebanese. And then probably even Israelis but thats another story) so its about time we all start learning how to get along.
Thanks for the link Ayman. I just read it. Do you have more? I’m glad that we have access to the Syrian point of view. I guess it helps clarify things more.
As for my own interpretation of Jordan First, I would say it means Jordan the country along with its people should come first.
Although I don’t agree with everything in the following article, it gives us an idea about the reaction of Syrians to the comments of Mr. Mulki:
And one quick comment: Does “Jordan First” mean mean “Jordanian People First” or “Jordanian Government First”?