The overzealous vassal

So when you wake up in the morning and you read something like this,

Jordan’s King Abdullah II yesterday told a delegation of Knesset members that “we are in the same boat, we have the same problem. We have the same enemies.” The king reiterated the comments a number of times, which those at the meeting said referred to Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Abdullah also emphasized that he spoke not only for Jordan but for a group of states in the region. The king asked at one point: “Do you want Iran on the banks of the Jordan?”

You seriously start wondering how come we arrived at having to read such radical statements. Saudi officials are anti-imperialist militants compared to this guy!

That is not it. Aparently King II has also suggested (he likes to give intelligent advices) that Palestinians refugee should settle in host countries (specifically Lebanon) against remuneration. Fortunately for us, he informed Israel of his plan. You seriously don’t need americans in the area with this guy around. He can just do the job for them and keep things tidy enough while they’re out conquering new spaces.

Advertisements

11 Replies to “The overzealous vassal”

  1. like father like son …

    however, we can’t wait before israelis and palestinians come to some deal before treating the palestinians in lebanon as human beings, and if their nationalization is the only way for that to happen, then so be it.

  2. of course nationalization or treating palestinians like citizens is a must. But that is not what King of Jordan and Israelis think of when they propose this option. There are several consequences (politically strategic) to nationalize the Palestinians like the partition of the country, creating spheres that are pro-israelis etc.

  3. you know, every decision lebanon takes – assuming of course it can take a decision – is going to benefit someone. in this particular example, it will most probably benefit israel. and the jordanian monarch is, with 99.9% certainty, not thinking of how such moves will benefit the palestinians, or hurt lebanon.

    that shouldn’t stop us from making their lives better …

    anyway (for the sake of transparency), i just brought this point up, even though it wasn’t the central idea of your post, because although i agree with the gist of what you wrote, there was a tint of sarcasm in your last few sentences. i may have been wrong.

  4. Again the condition of Palestinians in Lebanon should be a priority. and as you said, this entails a unified decision making something that does not exist and will not exist for some time.

    It is in this backdrop that what the king is proposing may actually harm the Palestinians at the end of the day. nationalizing the Palestinians today means partitioning the country. It does not mean at all that it will make their lives better. Actually Palestinians can stay Palestinians, have special papers etc. and still there are many steps that the Lebanese state can take for them to live a better life.

    Nationalization does not mean development or better life. So in this case, partitioning means possibly having low scale war, or armed clashes here and there. possibly it also means the disintegration of the Lebanese state. in this case, neither the Palestinians nor the Lebanese nor any dude in this country will feel better.

    My sarcasm and my posts are directed against a seemingly humanitarian action the king is taking that is in reality a big disruptive event that can affect the whole population including the Palestinians.

    Again to repeat this does not mean that the Palestinians should not be treated better. But if you open this file (why Palestinians stayed in this poor state), you’ll find a lot of ugly stuff, stuff that even emanate from Palestinian elites themselves. But let’s not go there.

  5. What’s funny is that I believe it was the PSP and HA that got together to get the ministerial decree on Palestinian work rights back in 2005.

    Anyone with insomnia is invited to read my paper on the subject … 🙂

  6. you’ll find a lot of ugly stuff

    that is for sure 🙂

    yeah, trad hamadeh was the man with the plan in 2005, although i’m not familiar with the psp’s role in that. does your paper have a title :)?

  7. can we see the paper D.? I’m interested in the role of the psp

    It is very interesting to see that those who were fighting for the Palestinian right to return most forcefully are the same people who were giving them more rights, i.e. Hizb.

    But bear in mind that what they did was to only give them on paper what they were already doing on the ground. So it was a symbolic gesture more than anything else.

  8. Yeah, we should be treating palestinians better, but – and I’m sorry if this comes out too brutal – I don’t see any government stupid enough to pretend it will help others when its own citizens are suffering like lebanese people are. So how do you suggest helping palestinians without putting their issues before the lebanese ones?
    Some of you also seem to be forgetting that the civil war started – in the minds of a lot people – with the palestinians. How do you deal with them, when you say “so be it”? Do you worry one second about how that would impact them and increase communautarism in the long run?
    Try to mingle with lebanese from different backgrounds, that should help you reconsider “that so be it” and the welfare of palestinians as well as lebanese.
    For God’s sakes…What I can sometimes read makes me wander if you’ve met some real people lately and whether you know if nationalization would help palestinians or make them be treated some more as cattle with the same calculations you were criticizing a few days ago.

  9. Try to mingle with lebanese from different backgrounds

    well sandrinou, what is my background? let’s start from there, before assuming i should mingle with others.

    anyways, all i’m talking about are basic human rights. if you are not willing to give them that for whatever reason you have, then that of course is your choice. i have made mine.

  10. i think sandrine’s point is that there is a risk that nationalizing the palestinians is going to increase sectarian strife.
    it echoes with my idea of playing with partitioning, something the US and Israel are very keen in seeing.

    But Sandrine you’re wrong when you say that we should take a look at how Lebanese are treated first. Palestinians living in camps are living in a far worth situation than Lebanese. It does not mean that Lebanese don’t suffer from basic lacks, but it pales in comparison to what the Palestinians are going through. So it is a must to give them a more decent way of living, at least give them special status if not nationalizing them.

    This uplifting of their human condition will not change anything in terms of sectarian tensions. The truth is that Palestinians stayed in this deplorable state just because it suited the interests of the major political players including palestinians.

    So in this sense manar is also making a point when she asks for better conditions for palestinians.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s