|
Glenn Reynolds continues to push the hypothesis that the current round of hostilities between Israel and the "Palestinians" will end in Jordan taking over the West Bank. Not going to happen. Probability zero. In 1948, Abdallah I (the current king's great-grandfather) seized the West Bank, which contained a far less radicalized population. Although this territory was envisioned by the UN to have been the core of a Palestinian Republic, Abdallah I annexed it to Jordan (up to then "Transjordan", in recognition of the face that it was supposed to be limited to the far side of the river) and began to seek a sub rosa understanding with Israel. He was assassinated for his pains in 1951 by a "Palestinian" activist. His son, Talal, was universally recognized in Jordan as unfit to rule, and Talal's 17-year-old, Hussein, was placed on the throne. In 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Jordan and seized the West Bank, which still contained nearly a million "Palestinian" refugees from the Israeli War of Independence (despite the Hashemites' claim to rule west of the Jordan, they had never attempted to re-settle these refugees). About 400,000 new refugees fled over the Jordan; the Trans-Jordanian region was already about 70% "Palestinian" (i.e., local, settled Arabs) in composition. Arafat quickly set his sights on rule over Jordan as the first step on the road to the conquest of Israel; by 1970, he and Hussein were battling it out in the "Black September" war which, despite Syrian intervention on the PLO's size, ended with Arafat and his thugs being ejected from Jordan. Why all this repetition of history, much or all of which may have before my readers were born? Quite simple (to my mind, at least). We'd be asking Abdallah II to take back a far more radicalized population, one whose terrorist endeavors are subsidized by Europe and by that part of the Arab world with any money, one which contains the very men and movements that murdered his great-grandfather and tried to overthrow his father. We'd be asking him to vastly increase a part of his population that views his rule with something between indifferent contempt and virulent hatred, against the will of the rest of the Arab world (which wasn't happy with Abdallah I's annexation of the West Bank). Whatever one's opinions of Abdallah II, it must be acknowledged that he is neither fool nor saint. He will not immolate himself on the pyre of "Palestinian" rights. Reynolds has suggested that the scenario before us is one in which Israel plays "bad cop", using military force to destroy the military and political strength of the intifada, whereas Jordan plays "good cop", offering the "Palestinians" succor and leadership afterwards. But the "Palestinians" have long since demonstrated that they do not want Hashemite leadership, and their material losses will quickly be made good by Sa'udi Arabia, Iraq, and the EU countries. Even if the scenario went awry, and Arafat or his successor were to overthrow the Hashemites, this would embolden them to seek the destruction of Israel from their new base of Jordan. This scenario is a non-starter. Of all the weird, wonderful, and horrible things that come out of the Middle East, this will not be one of them. John "Akatsukami" Braue Monday, April 22, 2002 |
|