Jordan Times
Sunday, October 24, 1999
Five years after signing of peace treaty:
Disappointments in Jordanian-Israeli ties still fuel anti-normalisation camp
By Amy Henderson and Dima Hamdan
AMMAN — No official or popular ceremony will mark the historic signing of Jordan's peace treaty with Israel on Oct. 26. Instead, ironically, the date is overshadowed by the pending announcement of a “blacklist” of individuals, companies and other institutions who have established “normal” relations with Israel.
The list will be the crowning achievement of the country's anti-normalisation movement and a reflection of disappointment and discontent that has grown, rather than subsided, with the nascent relationship.
Any Jordanian, regardless of political position, can recite a litany of dozens of disappointments in Jordan's new-found relationship with the Jewish state, and all have served to fuel the movement's fire: Continued Israeli oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza; the Israeli Mossad's encroachment on Jordanian sovereignty with its 1997 assassination attempt on Hamas politburo chief Khalid Misha'al; unimpressive trade levels with the West Bank, which for all practical purposes, remains a captive market to Israel owing, in part, to security measures and bureaucracy imposed at the border with the PNA, to name only a few.
Anti-normalisation activists hope that the “blacklist” would bring public shame on the personalities and entities listed by highlighting behaviour tantamount to treachery, as long as peace between the Palestinians and Israel remains at a standstill.
The movement is led by the Kingdom's 14 professional associations and 13 political opposition parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood. It is organised into committees and subcommittees that are present in each neighbourhood of every governorate.
But until now, it remains an unstudied entity. No one can say with any certainty how many Jordanians subscribe to the National Conference to Fight Normalisation (NCFN), which lumps together the aforementioned parties, along with “several” other civil institutions around the country.
But observers proffer that three factors have colluded in the last three years in particular, to give the anti-normalisation drive heightened visibility and volume, if not support, beginning with former Israeli hardline Premier Benyamin Netanyahu, who ground the peace process to a halt.
“He jacked the Palestinians around. In their hearts, people felt that Israel's goal was to continue her hegemony,” explained sociologist Musa Shteiwi. “Israel remains an occupier, giving credence to the anti-normalisation camp's arguments and courage to them to promote their view.”
“One also has to explore the relationship between Jordan and Israel, itself. The relationship was not on good terms for a long time, and Jordanians saw many instances in which even the late King Hussein showed his frustration with and criticism of [Israel], not only in her unwillingness to move the peace forward but in its desire to promote bilateral economic relations with Jordan. So the position of the government and the movement grew closer, although for different reasons, giving the movement more energy.”
And, a third argument holds that the anti-normalisation camp, reactionary in its nature, is simply responding to growing incidents of “normalisation” at the informal level.
“People have begun to take advantage of the opportunities,” says one political analyst. “There are no viable statistics, but many people sense this. Dealing is on the rise among economists, businesses, academics, tourism companies, etc., and the movement is reacting to this. So more visibility is maybe proportional to increased `normalisation.'”
Although Jordanians have legitimate grievances with Israel, their own government and the state of the peace process, no one can suggest, with conviction, to what extent the movement enjoys unexpressed support.
The governments of Jordan and Israel contend that the majority on both sides of the Jordan River supports the ongoing peace process, and by virtue, “normalisation.” They describe the supporters of peace as the “silent majority.”
“The fact is that all interactions [between Jordanians and Israelis] are stronger than the attempts to eliminate or stall these interactions,” Israeli Ambassador to Jordan Oded Eran told the Jordan Times. “Hundreds of Jordanians have been trained or have studied in Israel since the peace treaty. Hundreds of businessmen are doing business.
“I am concerned with the anti-normalisation movement, but in the near future, we'll see other aspects of normalisation carried out in culture, sports, etc.”
Although he concedes that there have been disappointments in the peace process, Israel, at least is satisfied with the pace of emerging relations.
“We are only dealing with four years of normal relations; the achievements, relatively, are satisfactory.”
His Majesty King Abdullah on two occasions has mentioned a “small problem with the minority of people who try to impose their views on the majority.”
But the movement claims it is the voice of the masses.
“We believe that we speak in the name of the majority,” says Ahmad Qadiri, chairman of the board of directors of the professional associations. “Because ordinary Jordanian citizens who were promised the fruits of peace have realised that those were just promises.
“There is a silent majority, and we believe this majority is against normalisation.”
Changing tactics
What is clear, says a prominent sociologist, is that the movement has become more “action oriented.”
Previously, the movement was mostly content to issue statements and slogans, he explains, “but recent incidents are important indicators that the camp is getting more action oriented and certainly, they are changing their tactics, making things very personal.”
Earlier this spring, Al Bilad Arabic weekly published on its front page a list of Jordanians who attended a party in commemoration of the 51st anniversary of the state of Israel, hosted at an Amman hotel by the Israeli embassy. This summer, the anti-normalisation movement targeted a manufacturer of air conditioners that exports to the Jewish state, and one professional syndicate published an advertisement in a local newspaper encouraging Jordanians to boycott Five Continents travel agency that sells tickets for the Israeli national carrier, El Al.
Opponents of the anti-normalisation movement complain that the blacklist has turned into a virtual witch hunt.
“This is something that can turn nasty, and people will get hurt in the process,” says Mitri Twal, general manager of Five Continents. “Do we want this to happen? Is this what we want for our country?”
The associations, with more than 80,000 members and dominated by leftists and Islamists, wield the greatest influence on the public by virtue of their bylaws that prohibit members from having any dealings with Israel. The penalty for the violation is expulsion from the associations to which Jordanian professionals are obliged by law to belong. The combination is a quagmire for all professionals who would consider contact with anything Israeli, and, observers believe it has obscured the true extent to which Jordanians support or reject `normalisation'.
In a sensational case that has made headlines around the world, three journalist are now facing expulsion from the Jordan Press Association for taking a trip to Israel in September. The incident is not the first.
The Constitution guarantees free expression, while legal scholars have argued that the treaty, ratified by parliament in early 1995, supersedes all law. The expulsion of a lawyer from the bar association in 1995 and challenged at the Higher Court of Justice was overturned, setting a precedent to cement the law. All factors are of little consequence to the anti-normalisation movement.
“We are talking here about a popular decision,” said a member of the Jordan Press Association Council, the entity moving to expel three journalists for a trip they took to Israel in September. “Normalisation is not about a decision of the state.”
Since the signing of the treaty, King Hussein intermittently threatened to end compulsory membership in the associations; a measure that would have broken the associations' stranglehold on members. But until now, the government has never followed through.
Analysts assert that recent governments have shied away from taking such a decision, likely to avoid escalating or renewing the crisis that existed between the government and the opposition over the Press and Publications Law and the Elections Law — both of which many believe were drafted to shore up the peace by silencing voices of opposition to the treaty and to enforce normalisation.
“It is difficult to meddle in the associations,” said one political analyst. “Opposition needs a voice, otherwise situations become explosive.”
Political analysts note that the movement's change in tactic has coincided with a major development in the peace process, the death of King Hussein, who along with his governments manoeuvred to pave the way for “normal” relations to take root.
“They now are testing the new leadership,” said one analyst, “to know how far they can take things.”
Just days after His Majesty King Abdullah told an American audience in the U.S. that he intended to “do something” about the movement upon his return to the country, President of the Jordan Dentists Association Ahmad Qadiri in an interview with the Jordan Times issued an open challenge to the “the government and the head of state to determine the size of the majority and the size of the minority through a public referendum and a direct and open dialogue.”
The silent majority
The silent majority, regardless of their political sentiment, are sandwiched between the strong ideologies of the anti-normalisation movement and a weak civil society, observers note.
The anti-normalisation camp follows two ideological lines; one which adheres to absolute intolerance of the existence of the Jewish state and another that believes “normalisation” between Arabs and Israelis can only transpire once peace is achieved according to internationally recognised U.N. resolutions. Those who do normalise, Shteiwi argues, are, by contrast, apolitical.
“They look at normalisation as a practical issue, not as an ideological one, and they don't care about the politics of the whole thing. They feel this process is going on, and they see a reality on the ground, not just at a political level.”
The criteria for `normalising' then becomes what can be achieved or gained, and they proceed according to that,” he says, and pursue their relations without regard to wider political issues.
The consequence, he says, is that those who do normalise do not speak out in support of those who are castigated for doing so simply because they do not involve themselves in political affairs. The same can be said for those who oppose normalisation, but do not regard themselves as part of a political apparatus that can influence its course.
Meanwhile, he says, civil organisations do not concern themselves with the issue.
“Jordan doesn't have organisations that are dedicated unconditionally to human rights,” Shteiwi says. “And it would be very costly for those that do exist to try and argue the case. No one can easily defend `normalisation' in light of what is happening, since there is now a consensus on the lack of change in Israeli policy and thinking.”