Posted By Marc Lynch
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 5:21 PM
Share
While I was in Jordan, King Abdullah gave a lengthy interview to Haaretz about the Israeli-Palestinian situation in which he warned that "We’re sliding back into the darkness." My conversations with more than two dozen Jordanian officials, political activists, journalists and analysts suggest that on this, at least, the King reflects a widespread Jordanian consensus. Jordanians are growing increasingly frustrated with the Obama team's approach, alarmed at Netanyahu's unpunished intransigence, and downright frantic about the trend in Jerusalem. If we don't start seeing progress soon, with stronger American leadership, then the "tinderbox" could explode.
It wasn't always like this. When I was last in Jordan about six months ago, I found a great deal of optimism over the appointment of George Mitchell and the high profile Obama gave to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. But now those hopes seem to have largely evaporated. The launch of Israeli-Palestinian talks which they had expected by June continue to drift in limbo, while Obama's failure to deliver on the settlement freeze has -- just as so many predicted -- eroded his credibility. How could the Americans have allowed Netanyahu to not only defy U.S. demands on settlements but to not even pay any significant price? Again and again, from all sectors of Jordanian political society, I heard the same refrain: Obama's heart is in the right place and we want him to succeed, but he's just not getting it done.
Jerusalem weighed particularly heavily in the Jordanian consciousness. I heard all kinds of dire warnings about how Israeli provocations there could suddenly spark an uncontrollable escalation back into Intifada. As the King put it, "we are seeing problems in Jerusalem that will directly destabilise not only the relationship with Jordan...but will also create a tinderbox that will have a major flashpoint throughout the Islamic world." Most Jordanians I talked to agreed.
While I was there I attended a demonstration focused on Jerusalem after Friday prayers at the Salah al-Din mosque close by the Prime Minister's office. It was quite small, to be honest (even keeping in mind that it was cross-scheduled with the parade celebrating Amman's 100th anniversary). But the large scale deployment of security forces across the street suggests that the regime was taking no chances. (Muslim Brotherhood leaders told me that they had led a much larger rally of their own out in Zarqa at the same time; I wasn't there, so can't say how that one went.)
There was also little optimism about a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation (and this was before the public exchange between Abbas and Meshaal which Daniel Levy wrote about for me this morning). Nobody thought that the profound gap in interests between the two parties could be bridged, particularly after the devastating impact of the PA's deferral of the Goldstone report on Abbas's popularity. Beyond that, with no meaningful peace talks in sight there was little reason for either side to make the painful concessions necessary -- whether on elections, on security sector reform, or on the existential issues of identity and commitment to negotiations.
Indeed, what I heard from a number of the more hawkish Muslim Brotherhood leaders suggests that at least some in Hamas see a greater interest in staying out. They generally admitted that Hamas faced tough conditions, with the blockade of Gaza and the escalating PA repression of its cadres in the West Bank. But that was secondary. The PA, by their argument, is in a death spiral. Talks with Netanyahu will inevitably fail, at which point Abu Mazen and the PA will no longer be able to keep up pretences. Signing on to such a PA would only compromise their own legitimacy and viability, alienating the vast mainstream of the Palestinian people without any commensurate benefits. Rather than be associated with the impending failure, they suggested, better to stay outside and wait for the fruits of that failure to fall into their lap.
So what should be done? The Jordanians who supported the peace process strongly urged Obama to quickly lay down an American plan, a comprehensive framework for negotiations with specific recommendations on the most sensitive and controversial points. The framework should build on previous agreements, not go back to the starting point and re-open previously agreed points. Given the severe weakness of the Palestinian negotiators, it would take American initiative to make sure that the talks started on acceptable grounds. And they didn't think it was a good idea for the US to wait for the "right time" to present such a plan, because at this point the right time might never come.
"Borders first", the idea du jour, would be a disaster. No Palestinian or Arab, I was told, could accept anything which deferred the refugee issue (presumably in perpetuity). Jordan in particular, of course, is deeply invested in some resolution of the refugee issue. While Jordanian officials seem satisfied with the assurances they've received from the United States that they rejected the perpetual Israeli "Jordan is Palestine" notion, at the popular level the fears that Israel will impose the final settlement of Palestinians in Jordan resonate deeply and permeate almost every aspect of Jordanian public discourse. And for the same reason, don't expect to see Jordanian troops playing a role in the West Bank.
I could go on, but this probably is enough to paint the picture. Jordanian officials and the public alike are deeply, profoundly worried about the course of Israeli-Palestinian relations. Worried whispering about (or eager anticipation of) the outbreak of a new Intifada was everywhere. Confidence in Obama's ability to deliver, especially with regard to Israel, has collapsed. But most still hope that it's not too late for Obama to reverse course. His words at the UN General Assembly rallied their spirits briefly. But it won't last absent clear progress towards resuming the talks based on a clear, mutually acceptable framework for negotiations. If that doesn't happen by the end of the year, then we could be staring at the abyss.
Where's the hopenchange? Haven't you heard Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize!
I know Daniel Levy has expressed some optimism that Mitchell is laying the groundwork for comprehensive negotiations, but is there any concrete, public evidence for this? Is anyone in Washington even whispering about it?
PS Tom Tomorrow nails Obama's biggest asset - and his greatest liability! Don don don dooooom: The Idea of Obama.
As far as the Palestinian question is concerned, Jordan's fate is to play a pivotal role. Jordan is linked to Palestine, historically, geographically, religiously and demographically. For those whom do not believe in fate, then all the final status issues between the Palestinians and Israelis have an impact on Jordan; issues like borders, water, Jerusalem and refugees.
Therefore, rather than keep worrying and remain frustrated, the current Jordanian government or any new one, will have to brace itself to the possibility of having to take decisions which can be unpopular with the Jordanian people. If the current status quo with Israel persists; a likely scenario so long as the current Israeli government remains in power, or even gets re-elected with the same configuration, the Jordanian government must take into consideration the possibility that, the PNA may collapse, and Hamas may also collapse, while at the same time, it will have to maintain its peace treaty with Israel, because there are international financial as well as economic committments undertaken towards Jordan as a result of the peace treaty with Israel.
However, if the peace negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel re-start, at one point or another, Jordan will have to triangulate the negotiations, because it really doesn't make any sense, to leave its strategic interests, to the mercy of what the Palestinians and Israelis will decide.
khairi janbek.paris/france
jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33
=== http://www.icfshop.com ===Our commitment,customer is God.
Welcome to --- http://www.icfshop.com ---- We are specialized in offering all kinds of top brand shoes, jeans, t-shirts, jacket, jerseys, watches, purses, handbags, belts, wallets , sunglasses and hats etc.
Accept paypal ,All the prices list on our website include shipping cost,insurance,tax etc..
$50 UGG BOOT, $30 nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike shox shoes,gucci shoes
$33 true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi jeans,affliction jeans, Laguna Beach Jeans
$16 ed hardy T-shirts,Coogi T-shirts,Christian Audigier T-shirts,Gucci T-shirts,Polo T-shirts.
$30 coach handbag,gucci handbag,prada handbag,chanel handbag,$15sunglasses,$9 caps.
http://www.icfshop.com
I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!
Positives and Negatives from Amman
On the one hand, it pays to listen to the Jordanian monarch because the Hashemite relationship to Israel is likely closer than the one either has with Egypt.
Jordan is a poor, ill founded country that has been in perpetual turmoil since it was awarded to the Hashemites after their second place finish with the al-Sauds in their fight for the Arabian penninsula.
Their status has not been enhanced by their relationship with the Palestinians, who make up the majority of Jordan's population.
Despite the Royal Family's ties with Israel, the nation, such as it is, remains wedded to the Arab world and the Palestinians. To that end, despite the piece of paper declaring peace with Israel, Jordan's government and citizenship act as Egypt's does in regards to the idea of real peace with Israel. Hence, not only the above comments about Jordan's concern over the ongoing conflict with Israel, but the recent foot stomping temper tantrum by the government about the recent dust up caused by the Israeli Arabs at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
The flip side to this issue is the repeated guarantee that whatever actions the Arabs take to shoot themselves in their collective feet, they will undoubtedly blame Israel and the United States for the ongoing problems. Case in point. Abdullah blames Obama for not being harsher with Israel over the issue of the West Bank, but barely a sentence later, we read how the Palestinians still are at each others' throats and cannot even come to terms with themselves, and more so, how it is better for HAMAS to be opposed to the PA.
And even more, we hear again about the demand for the Palestinian refugees to be taken in by Israel, a demand that remains D.O.A. to every Israeli across the political and cultural spectrum.
But yet, the only thing that can be done is as usual, blame Israel, and blame the U.S.
re-Positives and Negatives from Amman.
So, the creation of Jordan was an ill-concieved idea, while the creation of Israel is a well-concieved one?. Indeed, Jordan is a country poor in natural resources, but Israel is not dependent economically and militarily on the largess of the USA?. The status of the Middle East peace was not always as it is now. At the time of late Prime Minister Rabin, there was great hope and optimism, that finally there will be a Palestinian state, and Arab-Israeli comprehensive peace.
Do the Palestinian leaders have their share of the blame for why this hope didn't materialise?, yes they do, but then again Jordan does not have any relations with Hamas and continues to support Mr. Abbas on his efforts to pursue the peace negotiations. But when it comes to blaming Israel, it is neither just a Jordanian blame nor an Arab one to that effect. There are two UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338; binding, demanding an Israeli withdrawal from Arab occupied territories, which Israel incidentally, is one of the rare countries, allowed to get away in our day and age, with not implementing them.
One agrees with your good self, that no Israeli politician or individual would support the return of the Palestinian refugees, but let me remind here, that there is also, a UN General Assembly resolution; non-binding, 194 demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees. Therefore, the blame of Israel is not limited only to Jordan or the Arab world exclusively.
As for blaming the US, HM King Abdullah IInd. stated bluntly on his recent visit to Washington, that the Arab world should help President Obama in his peace efforts, His Majesty also, said that Israel has much to gain from peace, as it will not just get normalisation from the Arab world, but also from over 57 Islamic states. In any case, isn't it after all that, it was President Obama whom gave his committment to the creation of an independent Palestinian state?. So, if anyone holds him to his words, is contrued as blame?.
Regarding Jerusalem, Jordan will always react against any real or percieved threats towards the Muslim Holy Shrines. The Wadi Araba peace agreement with Israel, acknowledges in no unceratin terms, Jordan's supervision of the Holy Shrines. Therefore, the onus is on the Israeli government to uphold and respect its treaty obligations.
Jordan from the moment of its inception, has been a pluralist country, therefore, it really doesn't need to think of imposing this pluralism by a political decision. However, having said that, Jordan is also rightly concerned, as the largest host of displaced as well as Palestinian refugees, for the lack of ideas regarding the possible comprehensive solution to this problem
khairi janbek.paris/france
So, the creation of Jordan was an ill-concieved idea, while the creation of Israel is a well-concieved one?
He said nothing of the sort. Both were bad ideas, the latter being a nation-building and colonial exercise in the midst of an already-existing population, and the former being an artificially created government and army to reward a British client and create a stable regime in Transjordan.
Indeed, Jordan is a country poor in natural resources, but Israel is not dependent economically and militarily on the largess of the USA?.
Israel would be rougher off without US aid (particularly in the military sector), but it wouldn't kill them. They survived well enough before large amounts of US aid started arriving in the late 1970s.
a UN General Assembly resolution; non-binding, 194 demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees.
If it's non-binding, then why bother caring about it? Not that it would have probably made a difference if it was binding, but it just makes it even less meaningful than it was before.
However, having said that, Jordan is also rightly concerned, as the largest host of displaced as well as Palestinian refugees, for the lack of ideas regarding the possible comprehensive solution to this problem
That doesn't surprise me. They're a single coup away from being a de facto Palestinian state, considering how dominant the Palestinians are in terms of demographics. Hell, had the 1970 conflict in Jordan gone a different way (or had Syria intervened on the side of Arafat's group, as they were threatening to do), you'd have one now.
Well Mr./Ms. Brett, my first point is that, both, ill founded country and ill concieved idea are the same to my mind, if not pedantically to your good self. In any case, I don't feel that it is important how and what states were originally created, especially that the talk now is about the creation of another state; a Palesitnian one. After all, Britain was created by France, so what?.
Scondly, of course if the world cannot enforce binding decisions, it is unlikely to enforce non-binding ones, my point was in the contest that; despite the fact that no Israeli would accept the return of Palestinian refugees (a point I agreed with) it doesn't mean that the world does not acknowledge that there is a Palestinian refugees problem. Whether your good self wants to hear about it or not, or whether I mention it or not, does not change the fact that the international community recognises this refugee problem.GA 194.
Thirdly, US financial assistance to Israel, started in 1949, predominantly in the form of economic aid {95%} and remained so until 1965 [This is official aid and not private donations]during which aid to Israel averaged around 63 million Dollars. Military loans began in 1959, and grew significantly between 1966-1970 by which time military loans made up around 47% of the 102 million Dollars aid. From then on, your good self seems to be familiar with the issue.
Fourthly, the 1970 conflict in Jordan, is a huge subject and beyond the scope of our conversation. However, it must be stated that, at no time the Palestinian para-military groups; from right to left, ever shown or declared the intention that they want Jordan to be the homeland of the Palesitnian people, no more than the palestinians now want Jordan to be their alternative homeland. In 1970, the palestinian militias wanted to overthrow the Monarchy to have Jordan as the springboard for the so called liberation of Palestine.
Fifth, For your good self's information, Syria did intervene in the 1970 conflict on the side of the Palestinian military groups, and as a matter of fact, the Syrian army then, occupied Jordan's second largest city in the north; Irbid.
khairi janbek.paris/france
In any case, I don't feel that it is important how and what states were originally created, especially that the talk now is about the creation of another state; a Palesitnian one. After all, Britain was created by France, so what?.
I agree. If we're going to bicker over how states are created, then every state is going to look bad. Hell, I'm an American - our state was founded on the destruction of thousands of native American polities and the invasion of their land.
it doesn't mean that the world does not acknowledge that there is a Palestinian refugees problem. Whether your good self wants to hear about it or not, or whether I mention it or not, does not change the fact that the international community recognises this refugee problem.GA 194.
I don't dispute that the refugees are often in a tough spot, but I dispute their claim to have a right of return to their (probably non-existent at this point) homes in Israel. Particularly since most of the refugee population at this point consists of people who have never lived in Israel proper - I think calling them "refugees" is disingenuous. It'd be like calling the descendants of Cubans who fled to the US after Castro took over "refugees", as if their "natural home" is in Cuba simply by right of ethnicity.
That said, I agree that something should be done for them. I'm thinking more along the lines of compensation and payment for re-settlement, along with pressure on the states that have them to actually allow some of the people who have been born and living there for decades to integrate.
Thirdly, US financial assistance to Israel, started in 1949, predominantly in the form of economic aid {95%} and remained so until 1965 [This is official aid and not private donations]during which aid to Israel averaged around 63 million Dollars. Military loans began in 1959, and grew significantly between 1966-1970 by which time military loans made up around 47% of the 102 million Dollars aid. From then on, your good self seems to be familiar with the issue.
That's still not a great amount before the 1970s, so it's a stretch to claim they were dependent on it. They got more in terms of aid from France before the 1967 War than they did from the US.
Of course, the question is, if the aid were cut off, how would Israel react? What restraints would be on them if they think they're just going to be an isolated pariah state anyways?
Fourthly, the 1970 conflict in Jordan, is a huge subject and beyond the scope of our conversation. However, it must be stated that, at no time the Palestinian para-military groups; from right to left, ever shown or declared the intention that they want Jordan to be the homeland of the Palesitnian people, no more than the palestinians now want Jordan to be their alternative homeland.
I never said that any of them explicitly wanted to run Jordan into "the other homeland". I just said that if they did topple the government, and establish a government that was representative of the majority population, then it would be a de facto Palestinian-dominated state, seeing as how a majority of Jordan's citizens are of Palestinian origin (in the sense that they're the descendants of post-1949 refugees).
In 1970, the palestinian militias wanted to overthrow the Monarchy to have Jordan as the springboard for the so called liberation of Palestine.
Which would have had the side-effect of turning Jordan into a state dominated by Palestinians.
Fifth, For your good self's information, Syria did intervene in the 1970 conflict on the side of the Palestinian military groups, and as a matter of fact, the Syrian army then, occupied Jordan's second largest city in the north; Irbid.
I did not know that. Thanks for the information - it looks like Syrian help didn't do much good for the Palestinian militias in the end anyways.
I don't think Mr./Ms Brett we differ much on those issues. In the case of the refugees I was pointing out that their right of return was upheld by the international community, but I suppose,if a compensation mechanism can be established, for both hosting countries as well as refugees, perhaps an agreed solution can be found.
Indeed American assistance to Israel, increased with the reduction of the French assistance, nevertheless, in monetary terms with the value of the 1950 and 1960s money, the aid which Israel was getting is substantial enough, not to be able to do without. As for the current times, I mean, 3 billion Dollars of aid annually plus loan guarantees plus military assistance, I suppose, will make even the most developed country in the world bend its ears to listen to say the least.
As for the 1970 conflict, again it is a vast subject. However, here again, the Palestinian groups actually aimed at creating a government representative of the majority in the country; the Jordanians, and not the Palestinians. They had actually two Jordanian candidates to head the regime, according to the preferences of the left and right in the Palestinian movement. The regime in their minds was purely a Jordanian government willing to support the Palestinian armed struggle. On the question of majority/minority, there are really many conflicting numbers which serve political purposes. The truth of the matter is, a Palestinian or a Jordanian is someone whom chooses to declare to be either or even both irrespective of origin. Jordan has many ethnic minorities as well as Arab Christian minority, whom all seem to be in the "majority", supportive of the Hashemite leadership. Maybe Mrk Lynch can verify that perhaps as an honest outsider, whom had written many things on Jordan in his time.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Keep that misinformation going Mr. Blues. Jordan being poor is relative indicator. are you talking about individual wealth? National Resources? Human resources? Well then, let me enlighten your very outdated 'us vs them' thoroughly lacking information. I will do what most people on this site do, state statements and make it seem like fact, difference is if you ask I will duly cite my work. Perpetual turmoil... lets look at the spirit of the times jordan has been in ( this is off the top of my head). 1948-2009. Iraq fell thrice, Iran twice, Syria twice (if not mistaken), egypt once, lebanon lost count after 3, north african countries each at least once, somalia non-functional, kuwait twice, saudi arabia none, yemen non-functional. How many of each is not the point, but what is the point is Jordan is the most stable, therfore, not in turmoil. Check up its democracy index, economy index, and human index. Very close to Israel's.
As for your statement of the nation wedded to arab/palestinian cause, seriously where do you get your information? Over 200000 Israel jews visit Jordan openly on a yearly basis, compared to 3 million arabs (might be higher) but in ratio terms, very high. Not as Americans/Canadians/Russians/Europeans, but as Israel Jews. How do I Know, because they always manage to get lost in the desert (no pun intended, i am serious) and the Jordanian Police has to rescue them. They are avid outdoors men, which is commendable. Many a news article on it. As for Jordan throwing hissy fits about the temple mount, well the answer for that is simple. Jordan, Palestinian Authority, and Israel are all members of a treaty regarding the holy lands in Jerusalem, especially those under the authority of the Greek Orthodox Church. Remember when their Patriarch was ousted because he and the Church banker were selling church land to Israel? Well it turns out that no one side (jordan, PA, israel) can't do anything without the others agreeing on it. So israel has been doing some pretty unilateral action on those lands and others. All those problems Politically stem from this. Lets lay blame where blame is due. On both parties Israel and the Arabs, neither are angels. Also, the PA is feeling very stupid for delaying the Goldstein Vote, even though Obama asked them to, and i agree with Rothkopf when he says Bibi is having a hell of a good time (I wonder if Benjamin will just wait out Obama). The jordanians are feeling their Refugee/water/land/oil/terrorism/extremism/etc will not get solved soon, thereby impeding growth. If you think Jordan is still stuck in the 1980s and stagnated you are thoroughly mistaken. I hear they have internet now ;)
I don't know if your good self is refering to me Mr./Ms. Med as being Mr. Blues, but I do agree with the gist of your statement, especially that I lived and worked almost all my life in Jordan, and again just in case it is me, well, I did say poor in natural resources. Regarding the internet, just an update, Jordan had it in 1994.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Ask Jordanian officials to ask Obama to remove all settlers
Of course Jordanians are unhappy with Obama's do-nothing policy. So are most of the world, including most Americans. The US is caught in the clutches of the Hard-Line-Israel-Lobby and cannot "do" much. US Foreign Policy is not made to advance US interests but, rather, to advance the interests (not necessarily those of a majority of Israelis, either) of The Lobby. If Israeli/Palestinian "peace" is a US interest, as I suppose, then The Lobby is not defining US policy but frustrating it.
And making peace is not so easy, either. "Peace" is not well defined. Unless the US drafts the treaty and tells both sides to "sign here." To do so would be "arbitrary and capricious".
What would be easy (discounting The Lobby) would be for the US to point out to all the world that Israel's settlers are present in occupied territory illegally and, in consequence, to demand that all the 500,000 settlers be removed (repatriated). In, say, one year. This demand would not be arbitrary or capricious. It would merely seek to enforce international law and would not ask Israel to do anything that that Israel has any right to refuse to do. This will not bring about peace directly, and maybe not at all (like all US actions to date, by the way) but would bolster the Rule of Law and would improve the Palestinian human rights for so long as the occupation continues.
Let your interviewer ask Jordanians whether they would favor this approach and whether, indeed, the King would be willing to ask publicly for the removal of all settlers.
As far as one knows Mr. Belmont, the Jordanian position remains the same : " Two secure states, Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories, and DISMANTLING of SETTLEMENTS, two capitals in Jerusalem, and an agreed solution to the refugee issue". HM King Abdullah IInd. This position has been re-iterated publicly as well as privately to President Obama.
khairi janbek.paris/france
More Frustrations on the Way; Unless.
Now that Mr. abbas has backpaddled on the Goldstone Report, and seems that Fateh will sign today, the Palestinian reconciliation document, Hamas is sying that, it separates between the notions of reconciliation and the signing of the Palestinian unity document. I suppose this is the closest that Hamas has come to saying; it will sign the document. Good news for the Palestinian people?, one would say yes, but not for the anticipated increase in frustration level allround with the US and Israel.
With the looming US veto over the condemnation of Israel for war crimes in the UNHRC, frustration with the Obama administration will increase on popular level in Jordan as well as in the whole Arab world, but not necessarily for Fateh and Hamas. Abu Mazen will be able to say " I told you so from the beginning, and that's why I withdrew the report awaiting more support", and Hamas will be able to say" President Obama's peace initiative is just another American pipe dream".
Both parties can sit and congratulate themselves for the victory of the petty justifications of their respective positions, and carry on business as usual, the Palestinian infighting on how to implement the unity document, while waiting at the same time, which way the Iranian nuclear file will go; especially as far as Israel is concerned, and how will the Palesitnian scene look like after the elections. In the mean time, to hell with everything and everyone else who is not part of Fateh or Hamas, and the Arab governments will have to control the frustrations on their own territories.
However, here comes the role of "unless", President Obama manages to balance out, the US veto at the UNHRC {mind you still anticipated and hasn't happened yet}, with coming down like a ton of bricks on Bibi to re-start the peace negotiations with the Palestinians, and "unless" Bibi with or without pressure accepts to re-start the peace negotiaitons again just to give Abu Mazen something to hold on to for the Palestinian elections, I think both administrations; American as well as Israeli, will indicate that Fateh and Mr. Abbas are a spent force, Hamas as a terrorist organisation, and there is no chance of peace, let alone a Palestinian state, with both factions being around. Personally, in the event of such a scenario, I would advise the World Health Organisation, to start prescribing to Arab governments, mixing a cocktail of "Prozac and valium", to mix with the drinking water of their people.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Many Lynch blog posts focus on the same theme - Israel is primarily to blame for the problems in the Middle East.
Did you know it's illegal for a Jew to own a house in Jordan?
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132492
And yet nowhere does the writer note that maybe some of the ruling dicators concerns have to do with A) old fashioned anti-Semitism B) the fact that Jordan is more than 60 percent Palestinian already - maybe people will soon realize that there already is a Palestinian state...
After 1994, Jordanian property laws were ammended. Your good self's information, as well as that of your source, are way out of date as well as inaccurate. Since 1994, there is nothing in the Jordanian laws, which prohibits Israelis or any other foreign national, from buying property in Jordan.
khairi janbek.paris/france.
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(17)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE