Jordan: King Abdullah Losing the Support of Tribes?
The Jordanian tribe is now planning a huge rally against Israel, with whom it has a peace treaty. Other tribes have been invited to join the rally, posing a major and unprecedented challenge to the monarchy.
Walid Obeidat, Jordan's new ambassador to Israel, a member of one of Jordan's largest and most influential tribes, deserves an award for being one of the most courageous diplomats not only in his country, but in the entire Arab world.
His tribe has now "disowned" him because he agreed to serve as ambassador to Israel, which has a peace treaty with Jordan.
This is a particularly harsh punishment: it means that Obeidat would no longer enjoy the backing of his tribe.
Clans often "disown" one of their members when he or she is involved in an extremely serious crime or an act of treason.
It also means that he and his wife and children would be boycotted by the tribe for the rest of their lives.
Obeidat is courageous not only because he decided openly to challenge his tribe, but also for rejecting a $5 million bribe that was offered to him by the tribe in return for turning down the offer.
The tribe had also offered to nominate him as as its candidate in the upcoming parliamentary election, but Obeidat insisted on rejecting that offer, as well.
A defiant Obeidat is set to assume his new job this week after presenting his credentials to President Shimon Peres.
"By accepting this post, he has crossed all the red lines," the Obeidat tribe said in a statement published last week. "The tribe was and remains loyal to the liberation of all Palestinian land, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea."
The Jordanian tribe is now planning a huge rally against Israel that will coincide with the ambassador's arrival in Tel Aviv. Other tribes have been invited to join the rally, posing a major and unprecedented challenge to the monarchy.
By coming out against the decision to appoint a new ambassador to Israel, the Obeidat tribe is openly challenging King Abdullah and questioning his policies and decisions.
The Obeidat's response to the appointment of the new ambassador is a sign of increased tensions between Jordan's King Abdullah II and the kingdom's Bedouin tribes.
This is not about hating Israel as much as it is about King Abdullah losing the traditional support and loyalty of his kingdom's tribes.
Some of these tribes have recently come out in public against the beleaguered monarch, who is already facing strong criticism for failing to implement meaningful reforms and combat rampant corruption.
Yet these tribes have also stopped the Jordanian authorities from taking legal action against members who are suspected of corruption and other crimes.
Some of the tribes, according to sources in Amman, have formed alliances with the king's Muslim Brotherhood rivals, who are spearheading the current wave of anti-government protests in Jordan.
There is nothing that King Abdullah can do at this stage other than attempt to "compensate" or "appease" his erstwhile supporters, probably by offering them financial aid and government jobs.
If the king fails to do so, his kingdom will be headed toward more instability in the coming weeks and months.
Reader comments on this item
|The irrational nature of the Israeli-Arab conflict [53 words]||Batya Casper, Israelathebook.com||Oct 17, 2012 00:16|
|Force is now for killers, terrorists, and unjust people who have no respect for God [175 words]||Issa Kirarira||Oct 16, 2012 06:41|
Comment on this item
by Burak Bekdil
Where Turkey stands today is a perfect example of how, when Islamists -- mild or otherwise -- rule a county, even the most basic liberties are systematically suppressed.
"A climate of fear has emerged in Turkey." — Hasam Kilic, President, Turkey's Constitutional Court.
The prosecutor demanded a heavier penalty for the victim than for her torturers.
The European Commission identified government interference in the judiciary and bans imposed on social media as the major sources of concern regarding Turkey's candidacy for full membership.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."