Thousands in Jordan call for end of peace treaty with Israel
Be very careful with what you read regarding Jordan. In the JPOST article they said “hundreds” v Haaretz’s “thousands”. Also many said in thye headline, they burned the Israeli flag. Big deal. It happens so often its not even newsworthy but the main stream press sure likes pictures of it. I have to admit that better that than pictures of crying Palestinians. These protests are backed by the Muslim Brotherhood. These news reports never mention the Palestinians or their secular leadership. Its like they didn’t exist. Ted Belman
In series of nationwide protests, leftist and Islamist activists call to cut ties with Israel, burning Israeli flags and chanting ‘death, death to Israel.’
By DPA,
Thousands of Jordanians took to the streets on Friday demanding an end to the country’s 18-year-old Wadi Araba peace treaty with Israel.
In a series of nationwide protests, leftist and Islamist activists urged Amman to cut ties with Israel, burning Israeli flags and chanting “death, death to Israel” and “the people want an end to Wadi Araba.”
Protesters rallied in seven cities across the country, urging authorities to expel the Israeli ambassador from Amman, chanting “no to a Zionist embassy on our land.”
Protest organizers, including the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood and youth movements, said the demonstrations came as a direct response to King Abdullah’s recent nomination of Prime Minister Fayez Tarawneh, who served as a key figure in the 1994 Jordan-Israel peace process.
Various political and social groups have expressed outrage over comments recently made by Tarawneh indicating that, if given a second chance, he would still support the controversial peace treaty.
“This is a person who obviously does not respect the people’s will and his words are proof of how out of touch he is with average citizens,” Jamil Abu Baker, a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood, told dpa.
Popular opinion in Jordan is that the 1994 Wadi Araba treaty is a failure, with politicians and officials accusing Israel of not respecting its obligations under the pact, particularly regarding water sharing, Amman’s custodianship over holy sites in Jerusalem, and access to the Palestinian territories.
Friday marked a departure from activists’ demands for democratic reforms, the focus of the vast majority of the some 1,000 protests that have hit Jordan since the start of the so-called Arab Spring uprisings that were triggered in late 2010.
It’s all yours, Ted
Dear Sir/Madam: This is the price of treaty that hasn’t respect the people will. All what we have is a treaty between one party (Israelis and Israelis’ government) and another party (King regime without people). Since this is a unilateral agreement that doesn’t suffice the people demand, the Jordanian people didn’t agree about, and all what we can expect that to keep this treaty intact, the Israelis need to stick with King Abdullah regime and take the risk of him being dethroned soon.
King Abdullah II regime is not going to stay even if Israel, American, Europe, and Russia insist on keeping him governing Jordan, and due to economic reasons. Don’t wait until the change come and impose itself with limited options. Be proactive and move forward to change to real peace with the Palestinian.
It is all up to Israelis! Do you want real peace With the Palestinian or fake peace with King Abdullah II. You make the decision and go for it.
as usual the dumbclucks like the egyptian ones dont realise who the losers will be if they end the treaty!
in the case of jordan THEIR WATER COMES FROM ISRAEL under the peace treaty.
israel should turn off the water for aweek so thta the screaming muslim mobs realise it !
@ Raed Khammash:
Both options are unattractive, and your implied threats are laughable. All things considered we should stick with the King. You may depose and replace the little king and live peacefully with us or if not we will destroy you and drive any survivors eastwards. That is your choice. Don’t think anyone will help you or save you. The world hates you no less than they hate us especially your Arab brothers.
@ vhardman:
So did some minor territorial relinquishments which Israel acceded to.
Without the Treaty, those could come back as well.
Might give Israel an opportunity to retake TransJordan.
yamit82: Says:
Both options are unattractive, and your implied threats are laughable. All things considered we should stick with the King. You may depose and replace the little king and live peacefully with us or if not we will destroy you and drive any survivors eastwards. That is your choice. Don’t think anyone will help you or save you. The world hates you no less than they hate us especially your Arab brothers.@ <a href="#comment-
Dear Yamit82: There is nothing I said consdered threat, and it is all about truth and being honest. You have the choice to stay in status quo, and keep throwing missils on Hammas and they throw missels on you, or look for real peace with new Jordan is Palestine. We the Arab looking for real possible peace. Thanks.
@ Wallace Brand:
We Arab, and Palestinian urge Israel to retake Jordan. We will be so happy if Israel take invade Jordan. Go for it.
@ dweller:
@ dweller:
Dear Sir: Your comment is really threat to peace but not to treaty. Remember Wadi Araba treaty is outdated and easily can be replaced with better treaty for both sides, if the new government in Jordan become more democratic.
Cutting water on Jordanian people is possible, but it means war that will destroy everything. This is not good or viable alternative. Thank you.
My heart aches when I read things that come from the Middle East. It just looks to me that there will never be peace until Jesus Christ comes back, and I believe that time is closer than most of us realize. There is so much turmoil in our world, and the only answer is for Jesus Christ to return.
@ Raed Khammash:
My comment was not a ‘threat’ to peace OR to the treaty.
I merely made the factual observation that the yielding of territory was PART of the treaty
— and that therefore the former goes with the latter
since treaties are contractual, and therefore mutually conditional.
What is “outdated” about it? — Explain please.
Mrs. Nina M. Lawrence Said:
But we can’t wait until Jesus Christ come. Humanity has to take responsibility and do something about it, not just wait.
@ dweller:
My comment was not a ‘threat’ to peace OR to the treaty.
I merely made the factual observation that the yielding of territory was PART of the treaty
— and that therefore the former goes with the latter
since treaties are contractual, and therefore mutually conditional.
What is “outdated” about it? — Explain please.
dweller Said:
Dear dweller, all treaties and contracts can be changed and amended if the parties to the contract agree on such changes. My Understanding our objective is to have real peace not just treaties. We will promise to keep Wadi Araba enacted, unless the parties agree to modify the agreements to better serves the Israelis and the Palestinians. We are focusing on the peace not on the treaties. If we achieved new Jordan is Palestine, we might be able to achieve peace that will satisfies the Israelis and Palestinians. Why not focus on the interest of both parties not positions. This is the reason why most negotiations failed. Thank you.
@ Raed Khammash:
HOW do you propose to modify the Treaty? What modifications specifically do you regard as advisable?
In what way would those proposed modifications better serve Israelis & Palestinians?
dweller Said:
Dear Dweller: I have already answered your question but I will retype the answers for you:
HOW do you propose to modify the Treaty? I don’t propose to modify Wadi Araba treaty.
What modifications specifically do you regard as advisable? No modification from my side.
In what way would those proposed modifications better serve Israelis & Palestinians? I don’t know.
I am not the one can advise to change agreements between countries, but it will be the legistlative boody of the country.
Thank you.
@ Raed Khammash:
That being the case, why do you want it revised? What’s wrong with it?
Certainly, if Jordanians and Israel wanted more provisions to their mutual benefit, who would argue against it. But to say you want it changed suggests that it is bad for you in some way.
@ Raed Khammash:
What am I missing here?
You say the Treaty is “outdated.”
Yet you don’t propose to revise it.
I can understand if you do not wish to presume to speak for the people at large.
But surely, if you believe that Wadi Araba is not current, then you must have some ideas as to HOW it is outdated
— and what might improve it in such a way as to render it more timely.
Ted Belman Said:
Dear Mr. Ted Belman,
Believe me I didn’t mean to revise it, but I said if it was a problem for the parties to the contract they can work together to amend it. I said it is crucial to focus on the peace process not the treaty. I didn’t say we have to revise it. Secondly, I talked to Mr. Mudar Zahran and he told me that I was wrong is saying this. I am sorry, don’t shoot me because I made a mistake. Thank you
dweller Said: