Netanyahu: Ideologue, Pragmatist or a Proxy?

Dr Khairi Janbek

PARIS – When talking about the Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, we must not miss the point that in effect he is a politician, thus, he is both an ideologue and a pragmatist. He is an ideologue when he feels he can go all the way with brinkmanship and get away with it, and he is a pragmatist, when realizes that he should stop and talk. However, by and large that usually depends on the position of the USA primarily, and on the regional situation in the second degree.

He was a pragmatist, when he originally gave his implicit support to Hamas as a guardian of peace in Gaza, and the guarantor of border security with Israel, and he was an ideologue when he demanded that the PNA accepts that Israel is a Jewish state, and accept moreover, that any form of a Palestinian state ought to be demilitarized and just a guardian of the border with Israel.

https://twitter.com/LegitTargets/status/1847287962024747060

He was an ideologue when avenging the 7 October events and a pragmatist in letting the hostage crisis drag on. He chose to head a government in which he can present himself as the only one whom the world can talk to when compared to his extremist colleagues, through his masque of pragmatism, rather than go into a government with partners whom will make him look as the only ideologue among pragmatists.

Again, this Netanyahu dualism, be that the ideologue who has the freedom to do as he sees fit, or the pragmatist who gets to know his boundaries one cannot say is clear, at least for the moment. For all intents and purposes, the red apple of the so-called Abrahamic Accord, Saudi Arabia, remains illusive, as the Saudis have indicted in no uncertain terms, that any prospects of normalization are conditional on at least, reviving the two-state solution. But at the same time, Netanyahu still has working relationships with the UAE and Bahrain in the Gulf as well as Qatar.

As for the older cold peace partners, Jordan and Egypt, Netanyahu is content that at least the situation is stable as it could be.

Now, will Netanyahu be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat when it comes to Trump, or does he really feel that he can take Trump for granted? The current thought in the Middle East fluctuates between those two guesses. But in reality with a paradigm shift, perhaps we can see things clearer. For a start, we are currently living in the age of separation of economics and business from the world of politics, also the separation of interests from principled positions. This age is not created by either Netanyahu or Trump but it certainly suits their relationship fine.

One thing for certain, Netanyahu can rely on Trump’s support as an intransigent ideologue, for Israel is undoubtedly the advanced military post of the USA, but also as a pragmatist, he has to understand to what extent he can be a tool of US foreign interests especially that Trump is very much fond of the concept of proxies and does not like infringements on his business deals.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian historian based in Paris and the above opinion is written exclusively for crossfirearabia.com. 

Continue reading
Rabieh Assault is a Terrorist Attack – Spokesman Momani

Jordan’s Government Spokesman Mohammad Momani issued a strong condemnation, Sunday, of the armed assault against security forces in Amman’s Rabieh, categorizing it as a terrorist attack against officers in the line of duty, according to Petra.

The attack was near the Israeli Embassy in the Rabieh district that occurred in the early hours of Sunday morning.

Momani emphasized that Jordan’s security and stability remain an inviolable red line. “Any attempt to compromise national security or target our security personnel will be met with absolute resolve and the full extent of the law,” the minister declared, adding that perpetrators would face decisive legal consequences.

He revealed the assailant had prior criminal records involving drugs, stressing such actions stand universally condemned by the Jordanian public.

Addressing broader implications, Momani emphasized Jordan’s pivotal regional role, particularly in supporting Palestinian interests, noting that national security remains fundamental to these responsibilities.

The minister confirmed that investigations are proceeding to establish all relevant details and connections, with appropriate security and legal measures to follow based on the findings according to the Jordan news agency.

Shootout

Earlier Petra stated the  gunman who opened fire on a police patrol was killed in a shootout with security forces, the Public Security Directorate (PSD) reported.

According to a PSD statement, the incident unfolded after the suspect opened fire on a police patrol. Responding security units located the armed individual, who attempted to flee the scene.

The suspect subsequently engaged in a firefight with pursuing officers, prompting security forces to return fire in accordance with engagement protocols. The exchange resulted in the suspect’s death.

Three officers were injured during the operation and were transported to the hospital. Their condition is reported to be moderate. Investigations into the incident are ongoing.

Continue reading
Some Arab States Welcome ICC Decision…

Arab countries welcomed the decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to formally issue arrest warrants Thursday for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

The Iraqi government “values the courageous and just stance taken by the International Criminal Court in issuing arrest warrants against the head of the Zionist entity’s government and its former defense minister,” government spokesperson Basim al-Awadi said in a statement.

“This historic decision affirms that no matter how much oppression persists and tries to prevail, justice and truth will confront it and prevent it from dominating the world,” he added.

Al-Awadi described the decision as “a vindication for the blood of the innocent and martyrs who perished during the criminal (genocidal) war waged by the Zionist entity for more than a year against Gaza and Lebanon.”

He reiterated his country’s demand for an end to the Israeli onslaught and urged “all free nations to implement this decision by bringing the accused to the competent courts to hold them accountable for their blatant violations against humanity.”

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said the ICC’s decision “must be respected and implemented without selectivity,” Anadolu.

“This is a pivotal moment that requires immediate and effective international action to halt the Israeli aggression on Gaza,” Safadi added during a press conference with European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell.

The court’s decision is “a message to the entire international community emphasizing the necessity of stopping the massacres against the Palestinian people,” he added.

Algeria also praised the ICC’s verdict, describing it as “an important step and a tangible advancement toward ending decades of impunity and the evasion of accountability and punishment by the Israeli occupation.”

It emphasized that “the Israeli occupation has perpetrated crimes against the Palestinian people and against all the countries and peoples of the region.”

Israel has launched a genocidal war on the Gaza Strip following a cross-border attack by the Palestinian group Hamas in October last year, killing more than 44,000 people, most of them women and children, and injuring over 104,000.

The second year of genocide in Gaza has drawn growing international condemnation, with officials and institutions labeling the attacks and blocking of aid deliveries as a deliberate attempt to destroy a population.​​​​​​​

The ICC announced in a landmark move Thursday that it issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

The court’s Pre-Trial Chamber I said it “issued warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr. Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024, the day the Prosecution filed the applications for warrants of arrest.”

“The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water and medicine and medical supplies as well as fuel and electricity,” the decision said.

Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its deadly war on Gaza.

Continue reading
Trump’s Paradigm Shifts 

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. 

Continue reading
Jordan: United Kingdom Plan and Dashing The Chance for Peace 

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.

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. 

Continue reading