Dr Khairi Janbek, Author at CrossFireArarbia

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.

Opinion

Dialectic of Converging Interests

Dr Khairi Janbek
September 29, 2024

By Dr Khairi Janbek

One’s experience has always been in peace building and not war mongering, therefore try to understand that to make a paradigm shift can make one fall into the transition gap.

From the start I can say I have been wondering about the daily carnage, murder and destruction in the Middle East. Point one, how come a country like Israel, well-endowed with superior technology, can pinpoint the time and space accurately of the Hezbollah leaderships, same with Hamas, and assassinates them with impunity, fails to see the coming of 7 October from merely across the border?

Some said that Israel has been fighting Hezbollah for a long time which enabled it to organize infiltrations and plans for assassinations, but isn’t its war against Hamas has been just for the same length of time?

So can Israelis accuse their own state with negligence, or is this so-called negligence carries notions that are more than meets the eye?

Now, what about Israel carrying out land operations across the border into Lebanon, for all intents and purposes, this would be the ideal time with the Hezbollah command in disarray? Or is it really that fact that Israel has no intention of doing so a priori?

To explain what I mean bluntly, after all the expected new leader of Hezbollah is Hashem Safi el Deen; he is through and through Iran’s man, his brother is also the bureau chief of Hezbollah in Tehran, all the top ranking commanders of the Iran allied groups in Syria and Iraq will be also through and through Tehran’s men and strictly under its direct command.

Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that Iran neither sold out Hezbollah nor any other its allies, but rather sold out the leaderships of those allied organizations in order to end their autonomy.

Which could mean also, Israel’s intentions are not actually the elimination of the allied organisations of Iran, but rather the elimination of their leaders in a dialectical formula of convergence with its Iranian enemy

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

Domination Space For Common Space

Dr Khairi Janbek
September 27, 2024

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When we think of contemporary Iran, one always believes that the Arab Middle East had always been dominated by the three Non-Arab American allies; Iran under of the Shah, Turkey and Israel.

One thinks that those “neighborhood police stations’ were the guarantors of stability through their convergence, and at times contradictions, in the age of Cold War and oil. However, the Shah of Iran was deposed and the Anti-communist Cold War ended, but that didn’t mean that oil stopped becoming important nor that Russia and China were no longer threats.

One would say, that the rehabilitation of Iran and possibly turning it into a negotiations partner aims at keeping the third angle of the police stations triangle going, because non of the Arab countries, no matter how much they tried, could never replace Iran, because no Arab police station is permitted to emerge as a third angle.

Having said that, it would be beyond naive to think that the expansion of Iran’s power and influence happened by stealth or escaped the notice of the US and NATO.

As the butcher of Gaza, Netanyahu, address the UN, Israel has launched a massive military strike in Beirut. Mobilize the working class against the escalating US-Israeli war in the Middle East, backed by the Democrats & Republicans! Stop the genocide in Gaza! #Lebanon #StopTheWar pic.twitter.com/KJ4LZWLdmF
— Joseph Kishore (@jkishore) September 27, 2024

After after all Iran grew to become a Red Sea country through its influence on the Houthis in Yemen, a Mediterranean country through its influence in Syria as well Lebanon through Hezbullah and the major Gulf country through its supporters in Iraq.

In fact this Iranian domination of space is what has created a common space between all its long-arm organisations in the region.

Essentially, if we compare Iran to an octopus, all those various groups are its tentacles, and they all serve the purpose of Iran’s strategic interests, albeit not through a push-button approach, but through not taking any action which would not please their Persian master.

Of course, this puts Iran in a strong position to be a major player in the region and an inescapable negotiations partner for the US, which is also convenient for the Americans, in order to remind their Arab allies who is their protector in a region policed by Turkey, Israel and Iran.

Of course this takes us to the point of saying that, for all intents and purposes, for the Americans a trusted adversary is more important than distrusted friends, and that it would be absurd to think that all those long arms of Iran in the Arab world can be amputated by military means; they certainly can be weakened, but without the consent of Iran and without the right price, so long as it remains behind them, nothing much can change.

At this point, from what one can only see, is that no one in their right mind or otherwise, will permit a war to emerge in which Israel is pitted against Iran and the US as well as NATO putting all their weight behind Israel and forcing the Arabs to choose their camp.

That would be the scenario of the end of the world as we know it, or with major civil wars in the Arab countries controlled by the tentacles of Iran, and which no one wants.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France