Dr Khairi Janbek, Author at CrossFireArarbia

Trump’s Paradigm Shifts

Dr Khairi Janbek
November 7, 2024

Dr Khairi Janbek

Islolationism in American terms meant historically, the interests of the USA are best served by not getting entangled in wars across the Atlantic, nor in the political affairs of Europe and possibly beyond, while keeping the economic expansion going.

Now to what extent will the incoming administration of Donald Trump proceed with isolationism and to what extent it believes will serve US interests?; in the mean time let us not forget that people electioneering or euphoric, are not the same people in the Oval Office.

But still the first signs of isolationism are emerging in the field of US trade policy, with intended high customs and duties on imported goods from abroad.

This goes as well for the foreign policy of Trump which signals his distaste to negotiating with blocks and preferring bilateral agreements. This puts him in good standing with likeminded world leaders but certainly at odds with the EU, which by extension at odds with NATO also.

Ukraine

As for the current hot spots, Trump is accustomed to paradigm shifts, for a start he thinks that supporting Ukraine is a money losing project, and good business requires an atmosphere for peace. Therefore, most likely Trump will adopt a position of neutrality in this war, neither doing anything to harm Ukraine effectively, nor help it financially or militarily, while at the same time, trying to open diplomatic and trade dialogue with Russia.

He may take the initiative to urge negotiations between the two parties on the basis of a business deal, in other words concessions. No Meg’s Russia and not totally sovereign Ukraine, in any case, in Trump’s eyes, it is a European war after all.

Mideast

Now when it comes to the Middle East, this can be more tricky. Trump has good relations with the Gulf Arab leaders, leaders of Egypt and Jordan, but also he is committed to the security of Israel and has good relations with Netanyahu.

In a sense he has to square the circle if he wants to keep his relationships unscathed to deal with two most sour issues: The two state solution to the Palestinian problem, and the future of Iran, while taking into consideration, that both his allies, Egypt and Jordan are jittery about the issue of population transfer.

Trump’s option would be offering Netanyahu a free hand in Iran with US support, in exchange for a semblance of Palestinian self-rule, thus paving the way for deligitimising Hamas while legitimizing and presenting the continuation of war as a war between Israel and Iran, with Iran’s proxies being a legitimate target.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris and the above opinion is that of the author and doesn’t reflect crossfirearabia.com.

Opinion

Religion, Nationalism, Middle East Style!

Dr Khairi Janbek
November 5, 2024

Dr Khairi Janbek

When you consider yourself as a member of the greatest group in existence, irrespective of its characteristics, it is only natural to assume that the values of this group are the greatest, and consequently, the only valid values which are permissible to hold.

However, we must not delude ourselves, because religion cannot be neatly put in the pigeonhole as a moral, or personal spiritual force, for the very ancient nature of organised religion has given it a powerful role in defining peoples personal and group identities,

in other words, religion plays a national as well as personal, moral, and spiritual roles.

Nationalist and religious identities are both manifestations of the need for belonging, as people have the basic need to belong, a need which can be expressed in inclusive or an exclusive way leading to serious consequences.

Dualism

In the context of the Arab world, dualism has ruled supreme, the choice has always been, either religion or nationalism, but Iran, Israel and Turkey, have managed to fuse religion into nationalism. Each one of those countries, reflecting on themselves individually, thought of themselves as great nations, consequently, this meant that great nations require great religions, and not only that, but their own perspective of their own faiths can only be the true path.

The Arab world till now, shows that religion and nationalism remain irreconcilable, which makes it difficult for the Arab individual to understand Iranian, Israeli, and Turkish societies.

In fairness however, one must say that, the reluctance of any Arab state to claim representation of Islam is very likely to bring severe opposition from both Islamists and nationalists.

Therefore by separating Islam from nationalism, the individual Arab state strengthens its own brand of legitimacy, and as we see, every Arab state is comfortable with the abstract notion of an Islamic Umma (greater nation) in as much as it is comfortable with the abstract notion of Arab Umma (greater nation).

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris and the above opinion is that of the author and doesn’t reflect crossfirearabia.com.

Opinion

Jordan: United Kingdom Plan and Dashing The Chance for Peace

Dr Khairi Janbek
October 29, 2024

By Khairi Janbek

In order to reinforce the concept of the unity of the two banks, which was reaffirmed at the Cairo Arab Summit in 1970, and in order to placate the rising Palestinian sentiments, King Hussein unveiled on 15 March, 1972, his United Arab Kingdom Plan (UAK).

In an address to the nation on that day, the late King elaborated on the proposed plan, as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan would, after the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank, become the United Arab Kingdom comprising of two regions: First: Region of Palestine ie. West Bank and any future territories to be liberated and whose inhabitants opt to join in, with Jerusalem as its capital. Second: Region of Jordan, is East Bank and its capital Amman.

Furthermore, Amman would be the administrative capital of both regions. The King would be the head of state. There would be a local parliament and local government for each region, as well as a federal government and a parliament. There would be one federal supreme court and one army.

The late King added, this arrangement is his preference, though he intended to give the Palestinians, after liberation, the opportunity to determine their own future, and pledged to respect their choice.

Despite the fact that this plan was only a proposal, it drew violent reactions from the PLO as well as the Arab states who all in the 1970 Arab League Summit reaffirmed the unity of the two banks.

The late Mr. Yasser Arafat considered the plan a mere ressurection of Jordan’s long standing policy of insisting that the West Bank was an integral part of Jordan, and the Palestinians residents were Jordanian citizens. He considered that, a real threat to his own claim of representing the Palestinian people.

Ties between Jordan and Israel will remain government-to-government but “never people-to-people, and that's precisely because of Israeli politics,” Mustafa Hamarneh, a confidant to Jordan’s late King Hussein, tells The National https://t.co/UVOhx5YQbA
— The National (@TheNationalNews) October 27, 2024

The late president Sadat of Egypt wanted to identify his own regime with the Palestinan cause, and announced before a cheering crowd at the Palestine National Council (PNC) meeting in Cairo on 10 April 1972, the break of diplomatic relations with Jordan. Syria, in order not to be upstaged by Egypt, cut diplomatic relations with Jordan and closed its borders.

Significantly the Plan remained under consideration until the Rabat Arab Summit of 1974, when the Arab states decided the sole representative of the Palestinian people should by the PLO.

The Rabat Summit forced Jordan to withdraw from direct involvement in the peace process at the time when the eyes of the whole world and the attention of the USA, were focused on the settlement of the Arab-israeli conflict.

The Rabat decision confused the issue. Instead of concentrating on the basic problem of Israel’s occupation of Arab lands, the questions of Palestinian national rights and independent Palestinian state were introduced. The nature of the problem changed overnight.

Jordan tried to seperate the issue of withdrawal from the issue of national rights of the Palestinian people. Jordan stood for the ending of the Israeli occupation of all Arab lands; occupied after 1967 war, establish peace and then address the question of Palestinian national rights within the context of inter-Arab relations.

But the Arabs states supported the claims of the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, and the PLO leadership was not prepared to accept Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank in favor of Jordan, fearing that would prevent it from attaining its goal; Creation of an independent Palestinian state.

The various Arab states supported the PLO for their own reasons, and were totally content to dump the Palestinian problem on the shoulders of the PLO.

The Late President Sadat and ex-US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, exploited the PLO’s position and the Arab support to it, and manipulated events in order to enable Egypt to sign a separate peace with israel.

The Rabat decision which neutralized Jordan’s role, and paved the way for Egypt’s separate peace with Israel, enabled Tel Aviv to tighten its grip on the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

Developments since Rabat have shown that, Jordan’s position for a comprehensive peace settlement with Israel, would have been the best chance for a lasting peace. A chance dashed in Rabat.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris and the above opinion is that of the author and doesn’t reflect crossfirearabia.com.

Opinion

Oslo Accords, Old Memories

Dr Khairi Janbek
October 24, 2024

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When the Oslo Accords was signed, the greatest achievement was seen as being, the breakthrough in the impasse of mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel. They both recognized each other’s right to exist, and that was all about it. Of course everyone knew then as much as now, that crucial issues were not addressed, but the whole picture was: Israelis and Palestinians will no longer kill each other.

As for how to proceed in order to establish a two-state solution from there on was left to the future to take its own course without any hint even at the end of the five-year transitional period when there was supposed to a be sovereign Palestinian state. From then on it was a matter of illusions; Palestinian illusions as well as Israeli illusions.

For the PLO, the hope was that by accepting 22% of the Palestinian lands and relinquishing the right on the rest of the territories, a Palestinian state can be built with parts of East Jerusalem as its capital, while for the Israelis, a Palestinian “ bantustan” governed by the PLO, dependent on Israel with limited ‘petro-dolar’ support was the limit.

But who came out to make a name for himself right from the start as the fierce opponent of Oslo; it was of course Mr Benjamin Netanyahu. Was his opposition taken seriously, indeed it was, but all hopes were pinned on US support to keep the situation stagnant in the format of a no Palestinian state but also no Israeli re-occupation.

However, this stagnation is brought in back today as Oslo came to end by the Palestinians and Israelis effectively killing each other and a situation of non-contextual relevance to the once seen as a historical agreement. Indeed, when the guns spill death, words tend to be superfluous, but ultimately the guns will stop and the words will start flowing again with the Oslo Accords consigned to the shelves of history.

What would all this mean in a US election year it is hard to say, and even harder to predict. How would the future occupant of the White House call the shots in the Middle East, given the fact, and forgive the cliche, the region is indeed on the brink of a big war.

Will there be a new pressure from the US for a new wider peace accord between the Arabs and the Israelis that can guarantee within it at least, the minimum of Palestinian rights, or a semblance of an accord forced on the wreckage of a post big regional war, for which the winner gets the spoils? It is a hard to tell, but it won’t take too long to find out.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris and the above opinion is that of the author and doesn’t reflect crossfirearabia.com.

Analyses

Is an Israel-Iran War Coming?

Dr Khairi Janbek
October 7, 2024

By Dr Khairi Janbek

In the late 1990s, the grandiose talk of a new order for the Middle East emerged which turned out to be nothing more than a euphemism for Disney Land Arab countries, poverty and conflict-stricken regional reality, with a mixture bordering on more than buffer zones.

Now we have a less ambitious notion and that is a new balance of power in the Middle East, another euphemism for Israel calling the shots and all its neighbors being called on to abide.

But how does this new notion translate in practical terms? Well basically, to all concerned and less concerned waking up every morning asking the question: Will Israel strike Iran or will it not?

Of course, this is a horrific question if indeed Israel does hit Iran as it carries with it many important existential perils for the whole region and beyond.

One believes whatever is on Benjamin Netanyahu’s mind to achieve advantageous results must be carried out before the date of the US elections this November because no matter what he has been told by the US prospective candidates, at the end of the day, a sitting president doesn’t act like a president-elect.

Now what would a direct confrontation and open warfare between Israel and Iran entail? Well primarily, direct confrontation takes precedence over war by proxies, which means Israel will have to go directly into destroying the military capabilities of Iran in a hugely destructive war.

Israel: “We have postponed our retaliation against Iran.”

Reason: Uncertainty about the consequences of the attack.

Hmmm… Perhaps Iran did succeed in conducting nuclear weapons test? 🤔

Great power game on the global chessboard! pic.twitter.com/UXx7oEikfO
— S.L. Kanthan (@Kanthan2030) October 7, 2024

This would ultimately open the possibilities for its own destruction which means dragging the US and western powers into the conflict, no matter how reluctantly they maybe to defend it, and/or basically go into a slippery-slope open warfare reaching Syria and Iraq and Iran and whatever is on its plate regarding Gaza and Lebanon.

The current wisdom dictates a large scale war does not seem to be likely on the agenda, but that does not exclude a cycle of tit-for-tat strikes between Israel and Iran. Clearly Israel knows that for the economy of the west which is seriously preoccupied with prices and inflation, to target the Iranian oil facilities is a red line.

Moreover, to target the Iranian nuclear facilities would open the door for Tehran to retaliate against the Israeli nuclear facilities which will have dire consequences for the whole region and the world.

Therefore, if Israel is seriously thinking of dealing a blow to Iran, it will either resort to targeting personalities from the hierarchy of the country, and/or will be a just a face saving act with superfluous consequences.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris and the above opinion is that of the author and doesn’t reflect crossfirearabia.com.