I have to admit I was quiet shocked when I read the front page story of Al-Rai daily this morning. According to Jordanian officials, Hamas members have smuggled weapons into Jordan and have been "eyeing strategic locations in the kingdom." Here is the full story in English.
The question is why, and why now? Isn’t Hamas already fighting battles in their own backyard? Aren’t they currently being marginalized and facing intense pressure form the international community? What are they thinking, really? Another question: How will the Jordanian public react to this? Will Hamas’ popularity decrease in Jordan or will Jordanians brush this off as another conspiracy theory. I believe the latter is the most likely scenario. In this region, conspiracy theories are always, ultimately, the winner.
Meanwhile, I’ve noticed for the past two days that a number of Jordanian papers have been using the term "martyr" and "was martyred" in reference to the suicide bomber that blew himself up in Tel Aviv two days ago, killing nine civilians. With all due respect, in my humble opinion, I believe the Jordanian papers should be more responsible, staying away from the use of subjective terms to describe suicide bombers that kill unarmed civilians. Disclaimer: I do not mean to mock anyone’s beliefs. I’m making this point from a purely journalistic point of view.
Hey natasha i just wanted to say hey!!!
I an American and I like to read this blog to keep up with Jordanian opinion – it is obviously different to me than Iraqi opinions and Eygyptian opinions. And I have to say this post was no exception. I think Natasha is correct – “martyrdom” is something that the Muslim religion has to move away from. Not for acceptance by the West – but for survival in their own homeland. How many died in the “martyrdom” war between Iraq and Iran? And what changed afterwards – what was won? Dying for the cause is noble but if a body count is the only measure, neither side(s) win.
As for the Western cultures, “Martyrdom” is a concept the West will never accept nor understand. It is specifically one of the few things that sets Islam apart from the rest of civilization. Whether matryrdom will change Islam or Islam will change the concept remains to be seen. But it is definitely one of the most compelling reasons for the lack of trust by the West (Europe and the US) of Islam as a mainstream religion. The numbers make it popular but not a mainstream cultural desire.
Acceptability by Islam of other religions and by other religions of Islam is crucial. The world will not go on if we can’t get past this.
Natasha is correct – suicide bombers are terrorists, not martyr’s. Whether you agree is important – terrorists only intent is to kill innocents to wear down the fabric of that society. The will to survive can be politically diminished by attempts at appeasement. “Please don’t kill us” is not survival – it is capitulation. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli’s are ready for capitulation. Which makes Anonymous correct also – We must keep in mind that the cause is what we need to find a solution for not the symptoms of the conflict. People will eventually realize that the whole world’s peace depends on peace and justice for the Palestinians. From an American point of view, the Israeli’s have to be considered also. What I find here is sympathy for both sides – but generally a lack of understanding about why things are the way they are. Again Anonymous says – This is not the result of something that happened today or yesterday. This is the result of one people steeling another’s homeland. Well, the first part is true but you will have difficulty convincing the Western world of the second part. While there is plenty credibility of the historic events to Israel’s existence, there is also some question about why that happened. But it did. And today Americans and the West see Israel in a rather tenuous defensive posture – surrounded by Arab countries, some proclaiming that turning the land into glass is an acceptable foreign policy. Giving up certain areas recently should have helped but it seems unlikely that it did. Personally, I have a difficult time looking at Israel the country any different than I saw Kuwait the country in 1991.
As far as “support” for Hamas – the Western world can’t do that. Hamas may have been freely elected but look at the choices – Arafat’s legacy of corruption or Hamas lack of corruption history? Both assign themselves to terrorism and death as the only weapons acceptable. Hamas is simply more honest about it. And Jordanians would be foolish to think that Hamas will change. Regard the following comment from Roger Kimball – while quoting a Hezbollah leader, it seems he is actually less inclined to violence than Hamas:
I recall a statement by one Hussein Massawi, a former Hezbollah leader, which I believe I first read in one of Mark Steyn’s columns. “We are not fighting,” Mr. Massawi said, “so that you will offer us something. We are trying to eliminate you.
If that is supposed to be our future as Americans, it is bleak. And if we don’t survive it, the best parts of the Arab world won’t either. Not because of America, because of terrorists like Hamas.
Consider analysis of Jordan’s 9/11 from the New York Times in light of the current circumstance. Instability in the kingdom bodes well for forces that want change, perhaps change to face that would be more friendly to Hamas. This introduction to the Nov. 11 article needs to be considered in the broader sense now:
“All is chaos under heaven,” a revolutionary once wrote, “and the situation is excellent.” The writer was not Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist whose group has claimed responsibility for the triple bombing last week in Amman, Jordan, but Chairman Mao.
The creation of chaos has often been a first step in the revolutionary process, and that is one way to look at the terrible bombings, which killed 57 people.
Many Jordanians, who lit candles, marched and appeared united against the terrorism, said that Mr. Zarqawi had achieved little beyond generating a fierce backlash against his cause.
But some experts on the Middle East warned the shock and fury that came after the explosions may have been part of the terrorists’ calculation, a first step toward fracturing Jordanian society, with a goal of one day overthrowing the state.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/weekinreview/13glanz.html?ex=1289538000&en=8accc8f73c1c74e2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Well, what is really quite interesting is the strong desire for so many to believe what Hamas has to say on the issue but not to believe the Jordanian government. Hamas has a history of dirty deeds on Jordanian soil, which everyone knows. They also have connections with the MB/IAF, which everyone knows. Those two facts are not in dispute. So why do many/most of those here and elsewhere choose to support the statements of another government? Why is Hamas given the benefit of the doubt on this, while Jordan is not given the time of day to slowly produce links and connections that more clearly show what went on. Admittedly, Jordan has a PR issue when it comes to things threatening the kingdom. The television parades of conspirators always beggars belief. But this show is more a symptom of the distrust that seems rife within the Jordanian public, a public that seems to trust Hamas over their own government. That seems very problematic. And it seems not too far a stretch to say others might see such a reality as “opportunity.”
So many are still smarting over “normalization.” Get over it. It’s done and it’s the only way forward at this point. Egypt and Jordan knew it and yes, they were pressured. And yes, it sucks. But it was the most pragmatic thing to do. Just because so many don’t like that agreement and how it came about, it should not taint Jordan’s claims, and at the very least it shouldn’t make Hamas more trustworthy. Hamas and Jordan have a troubling history; think Ibrahim Ghosheh stuck at Queen Alia in 2001. That scene provides a great deal of subtext to this situation.
It seems pretty clear that Hamas was moving weapons through Jordan from Syria. It may not have come from on high but then again it may have. Whether there any intent to strike targets inside the kingdom is a more difficult question. Many are saying “no way” because simply because it’s not been done before; it’d be stupid. But is that really enough evidence, especially given the unique position Hamas is now in. Isn’t it conceivable they might try a different route? Of course it is, it’s just as conceivable as any other conspiracy theory about Jordan.
Lastly, some point to the bankrupt Palestinian treasury as evidence that Hamas simply couldn’t afford such an action. First, take a look at these weapons. We’re not talking MIG fighters or a Stinger. This stuff looks at Qassem III or below level. Second, remember the financial difficulties the territories faced while Arafat and his cronies sat fat and happy. Don’t give Hamas the benefit of the doubt – again. They likely do have money that is going towards other things rather than municipal salaries and the like.
Hamas has done well for people in Palestine. That is not in doubt. But King Abdullah has also done well for Jordan. Regardless, Hamas actions shouldn’t provide them carte blanche on an issue like this. There is evidence to support this was a dirty deed and their fingerprints are all over it. Why aren’t people in Jordan providing their government, the one they pay taxes to, the one that provides them the lifestyle they enjoy, with a moment or two for clarity.
Finally, Hamas rise to power has shown their naïveté, pushing forward the point still further that their actions now may not mirror what’s come before. It certainly should suggest that they do not deserve more consideration than Jordan on this issue. Hamas is finding that it was one thing to stand on the sidelines and point, to live day-to-day as an ideologue. But reality requires compromise. Daoud Kuttab notes that in a discussion with West Bank Hamas leader Hassan Yousef, the group is now in an unenviable position that “will result either in the fall of its short-lived government or in the collapse of its political principles.”
He goes on to make some very salient points:
“Various friends have tried to advise Hamas leaders, providing them with ideas on how to get out of the mess they found themselves in. Left-wing groups have suggested that Hamas use the umbrella of the PLO, which signed various peace agreements. Fateh leaders suggested that Hamas recognise the Palestinian Basic Law (constitution) and do what any new ruler does, accept existing agreements and treaties. Arab leaders have suggested the adoption of the Beirut summit’s peace plan as a way to get around the condition of recognising Israel.
Israel also appeared willing to deal with Hamas if it reined in the radical groups who launch rockets in Gaza or send suicide bombers from the West Bank. In every political test that it faced, Hamas failed to understand what was happening and the consequence of its decisions.” That’s found in full here.
Jareer
Also if you are going to use one of my comments, use it completely, don’t take the part that you can try and hide behind the whole quote started with the follwoing before what you posted for the benefit of others:
“While I don’t agree with Hamas’ way of fighting occupation,…”
Nice try Jareer
Cheers
Jareer
Actually not at all. Once again you are not understanding what I’m saying. Basically what I’m saying is that what Hamas or some other Palestinians are doing is known why they are doing it, both you and I disagree with that method. The difference between you and me is that I am saying to stop it we should solve the problem to put an end to all the un needed violence. On the other hand, I’m not sure what you propose? Go after them and kill them and then they come back and do the same thing again, then go after them again, then they come back and do the same thing yet again?
Give me your idea of solving the conflict? Its easy to say that its wrong, both you and I in addition to 50 million people can say this, however, to find solutions to end this insane violence is the real job. Tell us what your idea is?
Cheers
Cheers,
Isn’t this what you said above in the third post ?
” I urge you not to compare someone thats fighting occupation to terrorists without a cause such as the Jordanian Zarqawi. ”
You are attacking me by saying blind, …etc ; thats fine, I am not taking it as an offense, but I ask others to judge what you said above, not you or me.
The quote provided is simply there to provide an alternative conspiracy to the “Jordan did this because it’s the pawn of the USA” plot. What it says is that Hamas could have done this for the very reasons mentioned, to split the kingdom, as Bani Irsheid and the IAF have always wanted. Jordan has always been a country of two minds: one wanted normalization, one did not. One wanted to move forward and develop a modern nation capable of suriving without the supoort of anyone. The other wanted to continually drag conflicts across the border, be they from east, or west. If Hamas wanted to hurt Jordan, this situation, their denial and the gauntlet thrown down by the IAF is a pretty bloody good way to do that, isn’t it.
Jareer
And once again to explain to your simple mind what I was trying to say I’ll give it another shot.
All I’m saying is that to stop violence you must solve the problem, address the cause of the conflict. If you keep addressing symptoms then the cycle of violence would continue. Obviously you read what you choose and you don’t what you choose.
For your info. I am the first against fanatic movements regardless of relegion, so once again I am offended by your ignorant comment, you should know more, I’m assuming you are mature enough
Cheers
Jareer
You must be blind. What part of my posts did you not read when I said 50 thousand times that I don’t agree with Hamas and what they do is wrong? Are you blind?
Cheers