On June 6, 2012, Israel Supreme Court, gathering as the High Court of Justice, denied nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu’s petition to renounce his citizenship, saying that it wasn’t submitted through the appropriate channels. Sitting in Jerusalem, the Israel Supreme Court of Justice is an unusual law establishment. It usually operates as the highest appellate court in the country, but it features also a special operational mode as a court of first instance, called in Hebrew bagatz (acronym for High Court for Justice, not to be confounded with the formal name of the court: The High Court). In this instance, everybody under the jurisdiction of the court can initiate a process against the State of Israel, if he feels that one of his rights has been legitimately oppressed by the state. This can happen because Israel lacks a Constitution; thus, the Knesset can legislate laws that anywhere else would be considered illegitimate (for example, Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People). In other words, if the Knesset passes the Fatherland Law, a Christian Palestinian with Israeli citizenship may petition the High Court asking for the nullification of the law since it obviously discriminates against non-Jewish citizens. Thus, the court has the power of a regular high court and a constitutional court combined. Mordechai Vanunu appealed to this court asking his citizenship to be nullified.
I sat in jail, I was freed, and after 26 years they still won’t let me go, I want them to revoke my citizenship so that I can begin my life,” he said after the strange court ruling.
Double Bind and Vanunu
In May 2011, I published “What Israel Won’t Get: On Burger King and Vanunu,” after Mordechai Vanunu was returned to jail for a few months. “Shame on you, democracy,” he said on that opportunity and added that the Shin Bet will continue to torture him psychologically. Three central chapters in The Cross of Bethlehem II are dedicated to psychological torture methods, providing—probably for the first time ever—descriptions in accessible language on how is that achieved. One of the main tools used by states in order to achieve this evil goal is known as “Double Bind,” and is related to Vanunu’s claims and recent experiences.
In its narrow meaning, Double Bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in which an individual receives two or more conflicting messages, in which one message negates the other. A successful response to one message causes a failed answer to the other, so that the person will be automatically wrong regardless of response. The classical example is of an employer telling his employee to do a job, but doesn’t allow enough time for that. If the employee is in danger of losing the by questioning the situation, then the employee is in a Double Bind situation. This can be expanded into a whole range of daily situations. Look at the picture above; it was taken from the “Matrix.” A grandmotherly lady is offering cookies. At first sight, everything looks good and nice. Then, one notes that the cookies are shaped as Nazi Swastikas. This is disturbing, on the verge of being defined as horrific by some. There is a double bind, a double message implied in the event. The only target of this double message is to disturb the victim. This can be easily implemented by governmental organizations, effectively creating a torture that cannot be complained about in the type of courts existing nowadays.
In this context, Vanunu’s words quoted above:
“I was freed, and … they still won’t let me go,”
..get a new meaning. He is in a Double Bind torture illegitimately imposed by the Israeli government and its organizations.
Last month, Tim C.—a reader of this website and of deLiberation—put forward the concept of Diaspora Jews publicly renouncing their illegal “right of return” and giving it back to the Palestinians. deLiberation took up the call, creating on May 26 a page called “Transferring the Right Of Return.
I was approached by Tim, and deLiberation on the issue; this is easy to understand, after all I still am an Israeli citizen. Inadvertently, a potential Double Bind was created here towards the State of Israel. Poetical justice may be achieved, a counterweight to Israel’s immoral and criminal torture of Vanunu and others.
On the most basic level, I must say that renouncing the citizenship implies recognition of the State of Israel, a state that at best, can claim only to a very incomplete sovereignty (see Is Israel Sovereign?). That alone forces us to consider such a step carefully. With every renounce to the “Right of Return,” Israel would be able to claim “that person recognizes me.” Instead of giving such a gift to the Zionists, can we transform the situation into a Double Bind? Can we force the Israeli Administration to face an ambiguous situation in which no matter how it reacts, it would be wrong?
There are plenty of people in the world who fall under the categories defined by the Israeli Administration for having the “Right of Return.” Most of them have no interest in it, and are publicly inactive. They should publicly renounce to the Right of Return.
Then, using military terms, there are a few persons that are “force multipliers.” Due to their circumstances, they have additional public weight. Mordechai Vanunu is one of them. The son of Rabbi Meshulam and Shahar Hlinovski are two others. Rabbi Meshulam protested against the Israeli administration crimes against Yemenite Jews. His son managed to escape Israel after the protests, and is leading a quite vociferous campaign in Canada. Against all odds, one of the police officers sent to attack Meshulam became a refuge himself and has faced persecution also in Canada and Austria. I have also experienced violence by the State of Israel in several countries. Other Israeli refugees exist. As of now, we are spiky thorns in Israel’s flesh, hurting it with every move it attempts towards us. Agreed, we cause little damage. We are not weapons of mass destruction. However, we exist, and damage Israel’s false claim of being a democracy. If we renounce to our citizenship and to our Right of Return, we will lose the moral weight gained by being insiders to the monster. Israel will say: “bah, it’s just another goy speaking against us!” Why should we give Israel such a prize? I beg my Brother in Faith—Mordechai Vanunu—to stand firm despite his torture; we’ll have time to rejoice once we reach Celestial Jerusalem. Until then, we have the opportunity to force Israel to face its crimes. Until then, we will mutilate Zionist propaganda. This alone is worth one hundred years of solitude.
Let me end this article with a personal message to Mr. Netanyahu: “Here I am, being tortured by you, in La Paz, Bolivia. Can you stand in front of me as a man of honor and answer my claims? Can you justify your tortures towards your own citizens? Can you justify your claims of being the only democracy in the Middle East? I am here, Mr. Netanyahu, and I will keep tearing your flesh mercilessly until you recognize your own crimes and injustice.”
Originally published by Gillian Schutte on The South African Civil Society Information Service (sacsis.org.za) under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 South Africa License.
Picture credit: FEMEN protest in France courtesy of Wikimedia
Led by a former Commissioner for Women Affairs in the state, Chief Ronke Okusanya, more than 300 women, comprising the young and the elderly, took part in the protest over the delay in announcing the governorship candidate of the AC, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, as the winner of the governorship election.
A male commentator said:
We say we are in a democracy. In the ancient days, a monarch was rejected by a procession, and when all the women decide to go out naked, it means the situation had become unbearable.
He went on to say that when naked women took to the streets, the Monarch stood down without further ado, as this was a sign of no return.
In ancient Britain Lady Godiva is known to have used nudity after she pleaded with her husband to change his harsh governance practices over the people of Coventry. In response, he told her that he would lower his oppressive tolls if she would ride through the streets of the city naked.
She did and this ancient act of nudity led to a change for the better in the lives of the good people of Coventry. Some refer to this as the first act of naturism used as a statement of protest, in the West at least.
The many global revolutionary rumblings and uprisings over the past two years have given rise to a similar phenomenon, as manifestations of nakedness have appeared in the protest lines. Women protestors in particular, have made known their dissatisfaction with the status quo by ripping their tops off, exposing their breasts and sometimes stripping down completely.
Some will be quick to say that this is merely a Western thing afforded by the luxury that women living a more protected and privileged life have access to – but this does not seem to be the case, as naked protest has manifested the world over.
Only this month in Uganda, women protesting the arrest and physical abuse of Ingrid Turinawe, a leading female opposition politician, confronted the police with their tops ripped off and their breasts exposed. In a You Tube video the women say, “If it is breast they want, we’ll use our breasts,” before they defiantly gather outside the police office and demand an explanation for the pinching of the activist’s breasts when she was arrested. This act of defiance sparked media interest and created the pressure for an enquiry.
In the rise of the Arab Spring in 2011 the international focus was on the female Egyptian blogger, Aliaa Magda al-Mahdi after she posted naked pictures of herself on her blog in support of the Egyptian revolutionary movement and called for freedom of expression. Her action attracted the patriarchal fury of Egyptian and Arab Islamic moralists as well as secular members of her own political party and she was brutally assaulted in Tahrir Square after being recognized at a protest.
Later and in solidarity with her, a group of Israeli women holding a sign that proclaimed “Love Without Limits” bared their breasts publicly.
In Cambodia, recently women protesting forced evictions and housing backlogs also ripped off their tops in anger and desperation and were arrested. It is a rare act of defiance for women to tear off their shirts in this reserved society, a clear sign that they had reached the end of their tether.
The Occupy protests have also seen their fair share of nudity as women bare their breasts and use their naked bodies as anti-capitalism canvasses.
And let us not forget the first march on the Noord street taxi ranks, which saw black South African women rip off their shirts in defiance of the men who fought them when they marched onto the rank to demand that they keep their hands off women wearing mini skirts – this after a young woman was brutally abused by a group of men because she was wearing a short skirt.
But Perhaps most famous for Naked Protest is FEMEN, the Ukrainian feminist group. FEMEN has used a bare all strategy very effectively in global protest, mostly to give emphasis to international abuses of women’s rights. FEMEN activists use their bodies to make a feminist statement about the diminution of the female body to an object of lust and to highlight their message that women are not commodities.
Recently in France they stood in solidarity with Iranian women to protest the Islamic oppression of women in Paris.
Utilizing nakedness as a rebellion against detested and repressive social norms or government policies is not new. It’s been with us almost as long as clothing. However, recently it is enjoying a widespread resurgence, which goes to show that despite the collective neurosis around issues of nudity, globally, the stratagem continues to be both feasible and relevant.
Dismiss it; think of it as buffoonery or as playing into the hands of patriarchy. The fact remains that it is here, in our faces, naked female bodies being utilized by individuals, on their own terms, as protest canvasses and placards to speak against the status quo and protest the ongoing violence towards and ownership of women’s bodies – as well as a host of other transgressions against women.
I don’t see how this can be construed as anything other than the rumblings of a revolution based on the wild archetypal freedom that we carry in our human collective consciousness – a communal memory of a time before corporate abuse and environmental destruction, before pervasive violence towards women, before widespread rape and femicide, and before fundamentalist religion, enforced patriarchy and prudishness.
But what is it about feminine naked protest that is so destabilizing to conservative masculinity?
Is it that voluntary feminine nakedness speaks of absolute autonomy over one’s body – that it defies every severe norm that the church and patriarchy put in place when it decreed all native culture, whether paganism, pantheism or animism, profane (outside of the church). And given the control that is exerted over women through clothing, is this perhaps the most defiant and relevant performative political act for the current epoch: to rip off our clothes in total insubordination of this misogynistic stranglehold over our right to be ourselves, our right to our joy and our freedom of expression?
That women are stripping naked in an epoch where clothing and fashion hold so much sway is no coincidence either. In fact, clothes have become central to the patriarchal hold over women in general, whether through the fashion industry which makes demands on women to be childlike and underweight, to the enforcement of religious dress code, to the banning of dress code by one culture over another.
It is all about controlling a woman’s reality through her body and what it wears. Samhita, a blogger from Feministing, had this to say about the ban on veils in France:
Demanding women’s bodies should be covered or uncovered makes their bodies the ground on which battles of culture are fought. She is reduced to only her sex, objectified either in her being covered or in her being exposed. She becomes the stand-in symbol for either the past or the future, for religious anxiety and for nationalism
Could it be then that globally, women are hooking into an ancient primal archetype that harks back to a time when both clothing and nudity were not political, did not make women vulnerable – when women were not sexualized, commodified or judged according to a male dominated standard of beauty or morality? A time when they were not the scapegoats for masculine religious anxiety and nationalism? And in this call for a world that is kinder to women they are stripping off all the fetters that are imposed on them through clothing and patriarchal expectations.
I argue that naked protest is indeed the most radical act of protest one can perform with the female body. I see this contemporary nude protest phenomenon as the ultimate act of civil disobedience in opposition to global misogyny that is currently reaching an alarming all-time high. One only has to look at the war on women that was declared in the US this year, in a democracy, when the state of Texas decided to cut off reproductive and preventative health services to 130,000 low-income women to understand the unbridled nature of misogyny, even in countries that claim to be women-friendly.
Naked protest is an uprising born out of a reaction against the primary motive of the patriarchal belief that women need to be subdued and controlled. Thus when women protest naked, it subverts the patriarchal centrality to woman’s body, this implicit gaze of power, which dictates how a woman should or should not be dressed, how she should or should not give birth, fuck, dance, eat or be.
Naked protest seizes back the autonomy of the female body and becomes the expression of female power, sexuality and pleasure outside the male libidinal experience and economy. It is the ultimate act of defiance and it deconstructs the assumed fixed notion that the patriarchal man has the god-given role to objectify the world, reduce it to his own terms and speak in place of everything and everyone else – especially women.
Feminist writer and philosopher Helene Cixous said in her seminal text Laugh of the Medusa (1976) that through the theories of patriarchal discourse, women have become estranged from their bodies, made to believe that their bodies are incomplete, threatening and sometimes even filthy. She went on to say that because of this, female sexuality has been relegated to the margins.
Well now women are spilling out from those margins, many of them naked, and laying claim to their own bodies in total defiance of the stringent life-sucking rules and regulations that have been imposed on them for over two thousand years.
Nakedness is an unfettered and natural state of being. It speaks of wildness and freedom and celebration. It speaks of a time before patriarchy, before fundamentalist masculine religious authority, which deemed most natural human behaviour profane and thus excluded it from normalcy. So it was that women were banned from the church or the mosque or the synagogue along with cussing, sexuality, and nudity.
And since then women have been manipulated, repressed, controlled and very often brutalized because somewhere in the patriarchal unconscious women are deemed profane and substandard to men.
It is more than a distinct possibility that the feminine global consciousness is erupting in anger whilst reclaiming their right to jouissance and using this powerful combination of anger and pleasure to fuel a revolution.
This upsurge of naked protest clearly indicates that the lines are drawn and globally women are fed up with the monolith of patriarchy. A patriarchy that is so out of control that one billion women worldwide at any given time will experience rape or abuse in her lifetime.
Women are outraged and desperate enough to strip themselves naked in a world that has a brutal mind-set towards the female body. By participation in this collective mutiny they destabilize the world’s cultural norms and expectations around female nudity. And, as in ancient African practice, when women reach the stage where they use their nudity as a way to overturn a political order that no longer works for them – they mean business. This is just the beginning of a collective feminine uprising against the control, power, violence and abuse of women’s bodies. It is civil disobedience. It is revolution.
Beware when women strip themselves naked in protest. It means they have finally had enough.
Originally posted to the Palestinian Information Center
1967 – Palestinians crossing into Jordan
When Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967, I was ten years old. Then, I didn’t fully grasp what was happening to us. Arab radio stations transmitting from Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad had been galvanizing us into believing that Israel’s days were numbered and that Arab nationalism, which nearly replaced Islam as our de facto religion, would soon tear up the Zionist entity into smithereens. We virtually worshipped Gamal Abdul Nasser, the legendary Egyptian president, who became a God-like figure. It was far more abominable to curse the ultimate leader of Arab nationalism, than to curse the Almighty.
So you can imagine the gigantic shock and disappointment we suffered when all of our dreams were crushed, when all these charismatic leaders proved to be little men who excelled in rhetoric but failed utterly in the confrontation with Israel.
Four years before I was born, a great calamity had befallen my family. The Israeli army murdered three of my four paternal uncles, Hussein (28), Mahmoud (25), and Yousuf (23). The three, all simple and impoverished shepherds, were grazing their flock of sheep and goats near the village of Al-Burj along the so-called armistice line, 27 kilometres south-west of the West Bank town of Hebron. Together with my three uncles, a number of other relatives, including a woman, were also shot dead.
In fact, the Israelis not only nearly wiped out my entire family, but also seized our herd, upon which our total livelihood depended to a large extent. This calamity condemned us to a life of misery and abject poverty for many years to come. The Red Cross and the Red Crescent didn’t run active services in our region at that time, so we were left to endure our fate alone. I remember my late father telling me that the Jordanian government gave us two goats free of charge, as compensation for the tragedy. My family viewed this as a kind of insult added to injury.
Thus, my family had to live in a cave for 22 years. The misery, the suffering, the poverty and the harshness of daily living were conspicuous aspects of our life. Interestingly, to this day, the Israeli government has neither apologized for the crime, nor compensated us for our stolen property. Imagine how vociferously Jews would fulminate if they were in my shoes. None the less, these self-worshiping Zionists still have the Chutzpah to accuse their victims of being “anti-Semites.”
I don’t know when these Jews will say mea culpa to their Palestinian and other victims. Perhaps when kosher pigs fly!!
Well, I do realize that it is too premature, probably naïve, to even evoke such a question. After all, Israel is still murdering Palestinian children nearly on a daily basis.
Of course, our tragedy didn’t stop at losing three men and few other relatives killed and hundreds of sheep stolen by the Israeli government. Much more had been seized from us six years earlier, in 1948, including our farming land in al-Za’ak, in what is now Israel. We were not even allowed to retrieve our belongings, such as bed coverings, household utensils and probably some money that had been left prior to the expulsion at the hands of armed Jewish gangs.
Anybody who might have tried would have been shot on the spot. I know some people who had ventured to reach their former homes just across the border, only to be shot dead after having dug their graves.
The take-no-prisoners policy was consistent with the Israeli strategy of ‘cleansing the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants’ who constituted the vast majority of the population. To further effect this criminal policy, the various Israeli gangs, which came later to form the so-called Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), committed numerous wanton massacres against the Palestinians. Some of the most infamous massacres include Deir Yassin, Dawaymeh, Tantura, Lud and Qastal, but there were many others. The atrocities, carried out wilfully, knowingly and deliberately by the Jewish leadership, were aimed at terrorizing the Palestinians into leaving. The message was as clear as it was gruesome. “If you want to stay alive, you’ve got to leave.”
Israeli propaganda would tell the world later that the ‘Arab refugees’ left their homes willingly and were not forced into leaving by the Jews. Well, this is nothing short of fornication with truth, which reflects the brutal ugliness of the Zionist mentality.
Interestingly, the Zionists continue to shamelessly generate such big lies to deceive and mislead world public opinion. I strongly believe that Zionist Jews are God’s lying people, in addition to being the Nazis of our time. They lie as often as they breathe; they murder women, children and innocent men, and then concoct lies to justify or extenuate the horror of their crimes. Some Zionists would want us to believe that Jews don’t do any wrong. Even evil acts of murder, including mass murder, are kosher since non-Jews are not bona-fide human beings. Unfortunately, this diabolically racist view is not held merely by a small unrepresentative minority; it rather represents the norm than the exception, especially among Orthodox Jews, such as the national religious sector and the Haredeem. Some influential Jewish sects, such as Chabad, are even more nefarious in their perceptions of non-Jews than the Nazi perceptions of Jews.
Luckily, some Zionists have begun of late to recognize the ignominy of their actions, but without feeling shameful or remorseful about it in any genuine manner, or indeed, without giving the slightest indication that they would be willing to reverse or undo, as much as possible, the historical injustices they meted out to the Palestinian people.
Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami wrote in a book published in 2006 that:
“The reality on the ground was that of an Arab community in a state of terror, facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation and at times atrocities and massacres it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arab’s monument of grief and hatred.”
Under the Jordanian rule, the most important concern for the Jordanian authorities was loyalty to the King and his family. The King was nearly ‘God on earth’ and the entire country, including the media, the security forces and the people rotated around his figure. Hence, the claim often made that Jordan was a king with a country, rather than a country with a king, had a substantial degree of veracity.
Connections to the King and his Mukhabarat (or intelligence apparatus) and immediate coterie would automatically put one in a preferential position. Shouting “Ya’ish Jalalat al Malik” (Long Live The King), would give one an automatic certificate of good conduct. No wonder, it was a despotic regime based on sycophancy, favouritism, nepotism and cronyism.
The Jordanian regime never really made genuine efforts to push back recurrent Israeli incursions, forays and raids on Palestinian population centres in the West Bank, let alone liberate occupied Palestine. Indeed, the Commander-in-Chief of the Jordanian army in the late 1940s, when Israel was created, and up until March 1, 1956, was a British officer by the name of John Baggot Glubb who came to be known among Palestinians and East Jordanian Bedouins as Glubb Pasha, an honorary title. So, who in his right mind would have expected a British officer to fight the Jews on behalf of the Arabs?
As far as Palestinians were concerned, the most immediate priority for the Jordanian regime was to make sure that they and other Jordanians didn’t pose a threat to the survival, security and stability of the Hashemite monarchy. A Palestinian would get a six-month prison term if a bullet cartridge were found in his possession.
And as the Israelis would do later, the Jordanians enlisted the ‘Makhatir’ (clan notables) to inform on every gesture of opposition to or dissatisfaction with the Hashemite rule within their respective clans and areas. This in turn created a kind of police-state atmosphere all over the country.
Those free-minded Palestinians who insisted on voicing their conscience were persecuted and dumped into the notorious El-Jafr prison in eastern Jordan where they were often tortured savagely, even to death. I know of a person from my town (Dura) who was tortured to death for his affiliation with the Communist Party.
Torture is still practiced in Jordan with the knowledge, blessing and encouragement of the United States and Britain . Some of the so-called ‘terror suspects’ held by the CIA were secretly flown to Jordan in order to be ‘softened up’ by Jordanian interrogators.
In the mid1950s, the Jordanian security forces on several occasions shot and killed demonstrators who were protesting the pro-Western policies of the government and the regime’s failure and inability to stop recurrent Israeli attacks. Some of these demonstrators were affiliated with or instigated by the Ba’ath party and the Communists who openly called for overthrowing the monarchy.
As a counterbalance to the leftists, who were quite active especially in the West Bank, King Hussein allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to operate relatively freely. So it was a kind of divide-and-rule policy. The leftists would accuse the Brotherhood of being British agents and the Brotherhood would retort by accentuating the atheism of the Communists and Ba’athists. Hussein’s relations with the Brotherhood remained relatively stable until the final years of his life when he introduced the one-man-one-vote law, aimed primarily at reducing to the minimum the number of parliament seats the well-organized Islamists could win. Notwithstanding, the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Islamic Action Front, remains Jordan’s largest opposition party, despite government harassment and persecution.
The Muslim Brothers were not British agents or agents of any power. They wanted to create an Islamic state in accordance with the Sharia, or Islamic Law. In other words, their strategy and goals were diametrically incompatible with those of the Communists and the Ba’athists. Hence, the mutual sullen hostility.
However, to be honest, the Jordanian regime, especially with regard to how the state treated its citizens, was not as bad as other Arab regimes, e. g., Syria , Iraq and Egypt. In non-political and non-security matters, the rule of law was generally observed and applied. In general, an individual’s dignity was upheld as long as he or she didn’t criticize the regime or undermine the ‘security of the kingdom.’
More to the point, King Hussein was truly an astute leader. Far from behaving with vindictiveness and vengefulness toward his political opponents, even those who sought to assassinate him and overthrow his regime, The King nearly always pardoned them, showing magnanimity and gallantry unmatched in modern Arab history.
Despite its authoritarianism and despotism, the Jordanian regime never persecuted us in any way even remotely comparable to what the Nazi-like Israelis have been doing to us since 1967. The Jordanians never demolished our homes or bulldozed our farms or arrested our people for years without charge or trial as Israel has been doing to us. Yes, ‘wrongdoers’ were arrested and tried and often tortured, but their families wouldn’t be detained, their homes wouldn’t be bulldozed and their farms, orchards and olive groves wouldn’t be decimated as the Israelis routinely do. Jordan actually granted us full citizenship until the late King Hussein severed legal and administrative ties with the West Bank in 1988.
An outstanding exception occurred in 1970, during the so-called Black September events, when the Jordanian army battled with PLO guerrillas who The King claimed were planning to take over Jordan and end the monarchy. Some atrocities were committed during these confrontations and many people, Palestinians and Jordanians, were killed. Nonetheless, the ‘September events’ should be considered as a kind of anomaly in The King’s relations with the Palestinians.
In general, one can safely contend that there is no comparison between the Nazi-like Israeli occupation rule and the Jordanian era. The Jordanians were not really occupiers, they never behaved as occupiers. In many ways, The King was our king and the Kingdom was our kingdom. Yes, the regime was authoritarian and generally repressive, but, in all honesty, it cannot be compared to the Israelis whose barbarianism and savagery transcend reality.
Nonetheless, Jordan was (and still is) a weak kingdom, economically, politically and especially militarily. The Israeli army routinely carried out cross-border forays into the West Bank prior to 1967, murdering innocent Palestinian villagers, and the Jordanian army was generally too weak and two unequipped to repulse the Israeli incursions.
King Hussein must have calculated that maintaining a peaceable or even friendly modus vivendi with Israel was the best insurance policy for retaining his kingdom and the rule of his Hashemite dynasty. I think he was wrong in thinking this way. His non-hostility towards Israel didn’t prevent the Jewish state from pursuing its aggressive policies, which culminated in the occupation of the West Bank in 1967.
King Hussein did make a lot of contacts with Israel even before 1967. For example, on September 24, 1963 the director-general of the Israeli prime minister’s office, Yaacov Herzog, met the King in the London clinic of the King’s Jewish physician, Dr. Emmanuel Herbert.
Another meeting took place in Paris in 1965 and Israel was represented by Golda Meir, who was accompanied by Herzog.
It is also believed that Hussein had lots of contacts with the Israeli state through the alumni offices of Boston University.
Nuclear weapons are threatening global peace.
A leading research body concludes nuclear states are quite unwilling to disarm. The reports also refer to Israel’s nuclear arsenal and issue that so far hasn’t let any kind of International scrutiny.
On this edition of News Analysis we ask: how safe the world can be with more than 19000 nuclear weapons?
US President Barack Obama has once again voiced unwavering support for the Zionist regime, saying his administration is “more attentive to Israel than it is to the Palestinians.”
Obama made the comment while addressing a delegation of the US Orthodox Jewish community at the White House. He also pled with the audience not to doubt his fidelity to his Israeli allies.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Hisham Jaber, director of the Center for Middle East Studies, to hear his opinion on this issue.