Iran Responsible for Jordan Bombing?

The Jerusalem Post is reporting here that the Jordanians believe that Iran was responsible for the bombing of an Israeli diplomatic convoy last week.

The sources said the GID was investigating the possibility that the explosives used in the attack had been smuggled into the kingdom by Iranian diplomats.

The attack itself was apparently carried out by local al-Qaida supporters who received money and explosives from Iran, the sources said.

Analysis. The explosives were just as likely “imported” from Syria. King Abdullah II still has fond memories of the attempted El Queda poison gas event on New Year’s Eve a few years ago. If the Jordanian intelligence services lay this at Bashar’s feet, His Majesty will no doubt be suitably angered. I can’t think of a better way to drive Jordan into the undercover coalition to waste Iran.

Several months ago there was an advertised meeting of the intelligence chiefs of Egypt, Jordan and Israel. I said at that time that the senior planners would be meeting shortly thereafter. Although no public statements have been forthcoming about such meetings, my gut tells me they are ongoing.

The recent Saudi attempts at Palestinian factional peace making having been thwarted by Iran’s influence over Hamas, there is zero chance that their will be any kind of final status talks in the near future. The recent rocket and mortar attacks are perhaps a hint of what is to come. At the same time, as reported here earlier, the Houthi Rebellion is back on again. This the Saudis do not need. George Mitchell is spinning his wheels.

To what end are the Iranians throwing their weight around? One reason may be to convince the Arab governments not to provide aid to the Iranian revolutionaries.

The next post will contain the resignation statement of the Iranian Counsel to Norway. The recent resignations and requests for asylum by Iranian diplomats is not going over well in Tehran.

It may well have been for the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist. Even though the Iranians are blaming the Mossad and CIA, the Israelis and we get blamed for so much it is difficult to tell what we really did and what we are being scapegoated for. And the Iraqi elections are in March.

World Threats

Jordan's king warns Israel on Jerusalem 'red line'

Jordan's King Abdullah II warned Israel of "disastrous repercussions" if it crosses a "red line" on Jerusalem, in talks on Friday with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

"Jerusalem is a red line and any manipulation in this city would have disastrous repercussions on the security and stability of the region," he said, quoted in a palace statement.

Abdullah urged the international community, especially the European Union, "to act firmly against any Israeli measures aimed at changing the identity of the Holy City of Jerusalem and threaten the places of worship."

The fate of the Holy City, with sites sacred to Christians, Jews and Muslims, is one of the most sensitive issues in the decades-old Middle East conflict.

Israel captured east Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed it in a move not recognized by the international community. It considers the entire city to be its "eternal, indivisible" capital.

The Palestinians want to make eastern Jerusalem the city the capital of their promised state.

They are angry over encroachment there by Jewish settlers while accusing the Israeli-run municipality of making it virtually impossible for them to get permits for new homes or extending existing ones.

Zapatero was in Jordan on a regional tour aimed at advancing Middle East peace efforts that has taken him to the Palestinian territories, Israel and Syria. He travelled on to Lebanon.

Source: YNet

Palestinian Rights: A Warning

By Joel B. Pollak

A grave injustice is being committed against the Palestinian people -- perhaps among the greatest in their history. Thousands are being systematically robbed of their citizenship, made stateless once more by a hard-hearted government that pays lip service to peace and the two-state solution, but which seems determined to undermine both.

Israel? No -- the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the monarchy that occupied the West Bank from 1948 to 1967 and which has long had an uneasy relationship with its Palestinian majority. Now, cynically claiming that it has the Palestinians' best interests at heart, the regime of King Abdullah II has begun removing the citizenship of Palestinians with roots in the West Bank.

Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

The Jordanian policy is a clear violation of these fundamental rights. Thus far, it has been met with protest in Amman and mild complaint from the Jordanian media. Yet the rest of the world has been silent.

That includes the world's leading human rights organizations. As of this writing, the front page of Amnesty International's website features an appeal for Israel to cooperate with the UN's "independent" fact-finding mission on Gaza, but nothing on Jordan. Human Rights Watch, which recently bashed Israel for the benefit of donors in Saudi Arabia, has yet to react.

The official explanation given for the decision to revoke the citizenship of Jordanians of Palestinian origin is that Jordan wants to send a signal to the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu: Jordan will not allow Israel to "resettle" Palestinians in Jordan. Never mind that the people who are losing their citizenship were "resettled" in Jordan decades ago.

It seems probable that the real motive of the Jordanian decision is to entrench the control of the Hashemite monarchy to stave off demands for democratic reform. The rise of democracy in Iraq and the recent protests in the streets of Tehran have created new expectations that the region's autocrats are desperate to subdue.

So, too, with Jordan. Though it is among the more liberal Arab states and enjoys both peace with Israel and free trade with the U.S., the monarchy is fragile. Its decision to strip Palestinians of their citizenship puts the peace process at risk by creating the false expectation that Israel will absorb millions of Palestinians currently outside its borders. Yet that is a risk the monarchy seems prepared to take to protect itself.

The Kingdom's decision may be also regarded as a response to President Barack Obama's new Middle East policy. Emboldened by Obama's harsh approach to Israel and his meek support for democratic movements in the region, Jordan has taken the opportunity to restore "stability," using Palestinians once again as the political pawns of the Arab world.

Neither Obama nor Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- voluble in recent days on the need for Israeli concessions and "self-reflection" -- has criticized Jordan, though the U.S. has a great deal of leverage there. The Palestinian diaspora, so quick to protest when Israel defends itself against Hamas terror, is nowhere to be seen.

When Netanyahu appointed Avigdor Lieberman as his foreign minister, there was global alarm. Lieberman was already notorious for his radical and reprehensible suggestion in 2004 that Israel might one day strip its Arab citizens of their citizenship. Yet now Jordan has begun to do exactly that, and the world has encouraged it through stark indifference.

The issue ought to be an urgent priority for the UN Human Rights Council. Ironically, Jordan was re-elected to a seat on the council in May -- the same election that saw the U.S. join the council as well. If U.S. membership is to mean anything more than a legitimization of the council's anti-Israel bias, it must raise the issue of Palestinians in Jordan before the council's next session opens in September.

Until then, this episode serves as a reminder not only of the casual disregard of Palestinian human rights in the Arab world, and the anti-Israel bias of much of the human rights community, but also of the risks of subjecting American prerogatives to the judgment of international institutions run by countries that violate at home what they try to enforce abroad.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, prevents the government from depriving any American of his or her citizenship. Theoretically, Jordanian citizens enjoy constitutional rights of their own, but the Jordanian constitution begins its section on rights with a disclaimer: "Jordanian Nationality shall be defined by law."

For the Palestinians of Jordan, their country's leadership in the UN Human Rights Council and subscription to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are of little use or comfort against the arbitrary powers of their government and the passivity of the international community. As the U.S. takes its seat on the council, theirs is a sobering example, and a warning worth remembering.

Joel B. Pollak is a recent Harvard Law graduate and the author of Don't Tell Me Words Don't Matter: How Rhetoric Won the 2008 Presidential Election.

Source: American Thinker

Israel weighs peace with all Muslims

Abraham Rabinovich, Jerusalem | May 13, 2009

ISRAELI Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to explore the possibility of a comprehensive peace with the entire Muslim world, rather than just a narrow Israeli-Palestinian accord, when he has his first meeting with US President Barack Obama next week in Washington.

As reports surface this week that Arab leaders were looking to offer Israel a "57-state solution" involving peace with the entire Muslim world, Mr Netanyahu met Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and said the Jewish people wanted "harmonious relations" with the Muslim world.

"Israel yearns to reach peace with its Palestinian neighbours and with all the Arab nations," he said.

"We all live in this region and we are all the sons of Abraham."

The much-anticipated meeting between Mr Netanyahu and Mr Obama is expected to lay down the first clear marker on the direction of the Middle East peace process in the coming years.

Mr Obama has strongly indicated his intention to pursue the process vigorously and not to let it wither, as it has in recent years. He has also spoken approvingly of the Saudi-initiated Arab Peace Plan, which calls for Israel's withdrawal to the pre-Six Day War borders in return for peace with the Arab world, although he has not specifically endorsed all its provisions.

Mr Netanyahu has until now rejected several of its key provisions, including withdrawal from the Golan Heights, the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem. It is not clear how the two leaders will propose resolving these issues.

The London-based Arabic-language daily al-Quds al-Arabi reported last week that at Mr Obama's request, the Arab League was in the process of revising the peace plan to make it more amenable to Israel.

The revisions would reportedly stipulate that a future Palestinian state be demilitarised and, in a major concession, the Palestinians would forfeit the right of refugees to return to Israel proper.

Instead, some of the refugees would be resettled in the Palestinian state to be established on the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the rest would be absorbed in the Arab states where they are now dwelling.

Such changes would go a long way to softening Israeli reservations about the plan, but Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mussa denied the report yesterday, saying there would be "no sweetening" of the plan for Israel.

In an interview with The Times of London, Jordan's King Abdullah said the entire Muslim world, from Morocco to Indonesia, would recognise the Jewish state if it accepted the Arab peace plan.

"We are offering a third of the world to meet them with open arms," said the monarch, whose late father, King Hussein, signed a peace agreement with Israel in 1994. King Abdullah warned, however, that there could be another war within 18 months if Israel rejected the peace initiative.

Since the Oslo accords 15 years ago in which Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, headed by Yasser Arafat, began a fitful peace process, it has led only to dead-ends. Whether a regional approach can overcome this deadlock is a major question.

Mr Netanyahu's recent election appeared to mean a retreat from even the theoretical possibility of peace with the Palestinians because of his outright rejection of a two-state solution, in which an independent Palestinian state would exist alongside Israel. Instead, he suggested building up the Palestinian economy and its institutions to the point of self-government but not sovereignty.

It is considered possible, perhaps likely, that he will feel obliged in his meeting with Mr Obama to shift his position.

"He will have to clearly accept the two-state principle and commit himself to the civic, economic and security development of the Palestinian Authority," wrote analyst Gidi Grinstein in Ha'aretz yesterday.

Source: The Australian

King Abdullah warns Obama against delay on Middle East peace deal

Richard Beeston and Michael Binyon | May 11

THE United States is putting the final touches to a hugely ambitious peace plan for the Middle East, aimed at ending more than 60 years of conflict between Israel and the Arabs, according to Jordan's King Abdullah, who is helping to bring the parties together.

The Obama administration is pushing for a comprehensive peace agreement that would include settling Israel's conflict with the Palestinians and its territorial disputes with Syria and Lebanon, King Abdullah II told The Times.

Failure to reach agreement at this critical juncture would draw the world into a new Middle East war next year.

"If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months," the King said.

Details of the plan are likely to be thrashed out in a series of diplomatic moves this month, chief among them is President Obama's meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu, the right-wing Israeli Prime Minister, in Washington next week.

The initiative could form the centrepiece for Mr Obama's much-anticipated address to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4. A peace conference could then take place involving all the parties as early as July or August. Such an ambitious project has not been attempted since 1991, when the first Bush Administration assembled all the parties for a peace conference in Madrid.

"What we are talking about is not Israelis and Palestinians sitting at the table, but Israelis sitting with Palestinians, Israelis sitting with Syrians, Israelis sitting with Lebanese," said the King, who hatched the plan with Mr Obama in Washington last month. He added that if Mr Obama did not make good his promise for peace, then his credibility would evaporate overnight.

The Israeli Government has so far rejected any moves that would lead to a two-state solution, the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel, but the King insisted that what was being proposed was a "57-state solution", whereby the Arab and entire Muslim world would recognise the Jewish state as part of the deal.

"We are offering a third of the world to meet them with open arms," said the King. "The future is not the Jordan river or the Golan Heights or the Sinai, the future is Morocco in the Atlantic and Indonesia in the Pacific. That is the prize."

As an incentive to Israel to freeze the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, a key step in any peace process, Arab parties may offer incentives, such as the right for El Al, the Israeli airline, to fly over Arab air space and visas for Israeli tourists to Arab states.

Mr Netanyahu told the Israeli Cabinet, however, that he had no intention of leaving the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria in 1967.

Syria, which only last week was accused by Washington of being a state sponsor of terrorism, presents a huge challenge. The King, who is visiting Damascus today, insisted that the Syrians could be brought in from the cold.

Source: The Australian

Pope Benedict in Jordan stresses deep respect for Islam

May 09

POPE Benedict XVI underlined his "deep respect" for Islam yesterday in Jordan, on his first trip as pontiff to an Arab state, and stressed that religious freedom is a fundamental human right.

He also called the church a spiritual force that could contribute to progress in bringing about peace in the Middle East.

Speaking after a red carpet welcome from King Abdullah II and Queen Rania at Queen Alia Airport as he began his eight-day tour of the Holy Land amid strict security, the pope said he came to Jordan "as a pilgrim."

He said his visit "gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam."

The pope also called religious freedom "a fundamental human right."

"It is my fervent hope and prayer that respect for the inalienable rights and dignity of every man and woman will come to be increasingly affirmed and defended, not only throughout the Middle East, but in every part of the world," he said.

En route to Amman, the pope told journalists that inter-faith dialogue is "very important for peace and so that everyone can follow the tenets of their faith."

The church "is not a political force but a spiritual force which can contribute to the progress of the peace process" in the Middle East, he said.

Queen Rania said in a message posted on the Internet social network Twitter: "Just listened to Pope's speech. Our region so needs a message of Peace." Her office said she registered on http://twitter.com/QueenRania to mark the visit.

Jordan's opposition Islamic Action Front party said earlier this week the pope was not welcome unless he apologised for remarks he made in 2006, which it says targeted Islam.

In a speech the pope had quoted a mediaeval Christian emperor who criticised some teachings of the Prophet Mohammed as "evil and inhuman." He apologised later for the "unfortunate misunderstanding."

Welcoming the pope, King Abdullah urged an expansion of Christian-Muslim dialogue to dispel "divisions."

The monarch stressed the "importance of co-existence and harmony between Muslim and Christian," and warned that "voices of provocation, ambitious ideologies of division, threaten unspeakable suffering."

"We welcome your commitment to dispel the misconceptions and divisions that have harmed relations between Christians and Muslims... It is my hope that together we can expand the dialogue we have opened," the king said.

Benedict's first stop was the Regina Pacis centre for the handicapped in Amman where the crowd sang songs in Arabic and chanted "benvenuto," the Italian for "welcome."

"Friends, unlike the pilgrims of old, I do not come bearing gifts or offerings. I come simply with an intention, a hope, to pray for the precious gift of unity and peace, most specifically for the Middle East," the pope said.

Christians in Jordan number around 200,000 of a total population of about six million.
Benedict sees his first Holy Land trip as pontiff as a pilgrimage.

"I come to Jordan as a pilgrim, to venerate holy places that have played such an important part in some of the key events of Biblical history," he said.

After Jordan he will visit Israel on Monday, and will also go to Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday. More ...

Source: The Australian

Jordan rolls out red carpet for Pope Benedict

By Ahmad Khatib | May 08

POPE Benedict XVI arrived in Jordan today on his first visit as pontiff to an Arab state, kicking off an eight-day Holy Land pilgrimage fraught with religious and political challenges.

King Abdullah II and his wife Queen Rania were waiting to give a red carpet welcome to the pontiff at Amman's Queen Alia airport, where hundreds of Christians, many sporting T-shirts bearing the portraits of the king and the pope, had also gathered.

Jordan's elite royal guard and army forces were posted along the road to the airport, 30 kilometres south of the capital, where the pontiff was later to travel for the first stop on a crowded itinerary, a visit to the Regina Pacis centre for the handicapped in Amman.

The capital itself was festooned with Jordanian and Vatican flags while television stations ran live coverage of the arrival.

Benedict, who has said he is going as a "pilgrim of peace", is to divide his visit between Jordan and Israel, with a stop in Bethlehem, in the occupied West Bank, on Wednesday.

But while the pope has described his first trip as pope to the Holy Land as a spiritual pilgrimage, there are also high political and diplomatic stakes.

Some political and religious groups in the region have already made it clear that they expect more than platitudes from the 82-year-old head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.

In Jordan, where Christians number around 200,00 of a total population of about six million, the opposition Islamic Action Front party again said the pope was not welcome unless he apologised for remarks he made in 2006, which they say targeted Islam.

"What we want is a change in his policies, so that it is in harmony with the teachings of Jesus about love, peace, justice, equality and condemnations of crimes and Zionist terrorism," party chief Zaki Bani Rsheid said.

In the speech in question, the pope quoted a medieval Christian emperor who criticised some teachings of the Prophet Mohammed as "evil and inhuman".

He subsequently apologised for the "unfortunate misunderstanding".

Bani Rsheid said Muslims were expecting a fresh apology from the pope.

"We will not organise any demonstration to denounce the pope's visit but we stick to our ... demand that the Jordanian government requests his apology," he added.

Jordan's Latin Church has urged Islamists to participate in welcoming the pope, saying they should "not be on the margin of this important event".

Benedict is to pay a courtesy call on the king and queen at their royal palace in Huseinyeh west of the capital later today.

Tomorrow he will follow in the footsteps of John Paul II in 2000 with a stop in Mount Nebo, where the Bible says God showed the Promised Land to Moses.

On Sunday he will celebrate mass at the Amman International Stadium, where he will bless around 2,000 Jordanian children.

The pontiff concludes his visit to the kingdom with a prayer at Wadi Kharrar on the east bank of the River Jordan, where many Christians believe Jesus was baptised, before leaving for Tel Aviv on Monday morning.

Israel too is expected to roll out the red carpet for Benedict, counting on the visit to help rebuild its image following its December-January offensive against the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas that killed more than 1400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.

Source: The Australian

A Heartfelt Appeal to His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan

April 7, 2008

His Majesty King Abdullah II
Royal Hashemite Court
Amman
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Dear King Abdullah:

On this, the one year anniversary of the young Kurdish girl Du’a Khalil Aswad’s tragic video-recorded stoning at the hands of men who misguidedly believe she had sullied her family’s honor, I wish to make a public appeal to you to overturn the three Jordanian penal code articles that allow similarly brutal and unjust incidents to occur in Jordan, yet be treated as mere misdemeanors in the eyes of the state. Lest you think I have jumped the gun by not writing to you privately, please be assured that I have, in writing, on two different occasions in 2006, but I did not receive a response.

According to United Nations estimates, Jordan has one of the highest per-capita “honor” killings rates in the world. At the same time, as you are aware, it has on multiple occasions in late 1999 and early 2000 attempted to overturn Article 340 of the Jordanian penal code, one of three penal code articles that offer leniency to the perpetrators of “honor” killings, though one that has rarely, if ever, been used. You and the appointed Upper House of Parliament favored repeal; however, the elected Lower House of Parliament (i.e., the Chamber of Deputies) did not.

I first learned about all this in the summer of 2000 by watching a broadcast report about these crimes by Ms. Sheila MacVicar of, at the time, ABC News. In her report, Ms. MacVicar stood in front of the Jweideh Correctional Centre in Jordan and explained that the women behind her, who as I recall were dangling out the prison windows trying to capture the attention of the viewers, were all warehoused in the prison because they were at risk for “honor” killings but there are no women’s shelters in Jordan to safeguard them. So they lived in the prison, under protective custody, while the people who posed the risk to them walked free.

In the summer of 2003, I traveled to Jordan, in large part to speak with subject matter experts and to learn more about this issue. When I asked why Articles 97, 98, and 340 have not been overturned, I was told variously there is a lack of political will, the people do not want it, the people are not ready for it, the timing is not right, or there are too many cultural/religious/social barriers. As a businessperson, I wanted to see hard data to support these assertions, but I found none. It seemed as though the reasons provided were simply the conventional wisdom, but I have learned in three decades of professional life that the accepted view is often unsupported by empirical evidence. And that is why many corporations pay millions and millions of dollars for information.

I returned to the States and continued to research the “honor” killings situation. I examined what other countries facing this problem have done to address it. According to United Nations estimates, Pakistan has the highest absolute number of “honor” killings per annum, believed to be between 800 and 1,000. It passed promising legislation criminalizing them, though, to date, enforcement has been disappointingly lax. And so, it seems, at least so far, the laws lack teeth. In 2005, the Turkish government, in an overhaul of its penal code aimed at complying with European Union norms, also strengthened the penalties for perpetrators of “honor” killings, making them punishable by as much as life in prison. However, there remains on the books a penal code article that permits reductions of sentences for crimes that are considered provoked, and this loophole is being utilized in some “honor” killings cases. In addition, a hideous new phenomenon called “honor” suicide was borne. Rather than murder and risk a stiff sentence, in some cases, the perpetrators now force their victims to kill themselves. Just when one thinks it could not possibly get any uglier, this unintended consequence surfaces.

Why, I thought, could not Jordan outdo both? A second visit to Jordan in the fall of 2004 only reinforced my initial impressions of Jordan as a relatively enlightened country in the region. Why could not it become the first nation in the world to combine the continuing efforts of the activists, the attorneys, and the journalists with the techniques of modern marketing to overturn the penal code articles and to change attitudes, opinions, beliefs, and, most crucially, behaviors about “honor” killings? Progress and success in Jordan could serve as an inspiration and a model for other countries where these crimes are committed, such as Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Libya, Morocco, The Netherlands, Pakistan, Palestine, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda, and the United Kingdom. It could also demonstrate the value of using social marketing as a “best practice” for addressing and resolving other social problems within Jordan.

Unable to exorcise these thoughts from my mind, in October 2005 I returned to Jordan with a donated laptop computer and a personal bank account topped off with sufficient funds to conduct the empirical marketing research that precedes any professionally-conducted social marketing campaign. Using feedback from informal focus groups, I designed a fairly lengthy questionnaire to gather data—scientifically and systematically—about Jordanians’ media consumption habits, about their attitudes, opinions, and beliefs about “honor” killings, about their personal familiarity with them, and about their demographics. I pre-tested the questionnaire, tweaked it, then traveled to 21 cities, towns, villages, and refugee camps throughout the country conducting in-depth, face-to-face personal interviews with Jordanian citizens age 18 and older. People from all segments of society participated and were represented—male and female, employed and unemployed, educated and uneducated, young and old, rich and poor, Muslim and Christian, East Bank Jordanian and West Bank Jordanian, nomadic and sedentary, urban and rural. To all, I continue to be deeply grateful for the cooperation, the honesty, and, in many cases, the almost heart-breaking hospitality and kindness.

When I finished gathering and analyzing the data, I found that the people in the sample overwhelmingly support overturning Articles 97, 98, and 340 of the Jordanian penal code. It is not even a close call. It appears that the people are far ahead of the legislation and (dare I say?) the leadership on this issue. The news is good—most people do know right from wrong.

When asked if “honor” killings are morally just, 94.5% of the survey respondents said no (3% were neutral and 2.5% said yes). One respondent went so far as to equate “honor” killings with terrorism. Even among the few respondents who replied affirmatively to this question, there was strong support for codifying into law the specific behaviors that a victim must engage in before a successful “honor” killings defense can be had (80% agreement) and for clearly placing the onus of proof on the defendant that one or more of these behaviors was engaged in (100% consensus).

When asked whether "honor" killings should be punished the same as other murders, 87% said yes (3.5% were neutral and 9.5% said no). If anything, the extent to which the survey respondents agreed with this statement is understated. About 25% of the way through the administration of the survey, one of the respondents who replied negatively to this question added that he did so because he believes "honor" killings should be punished more harshly than other murders. Up until then, it had not occurred to me that respondents might reply negatively for that reason and not because they favor leniency. So, thereafter, each respondent who initially disagreed with this question was probed for his/her reasons. Many of the respondents who were surveyed after that expressed a desire to see the perpetrators of "honor" killings receive the death penalty. One respondent even went so far as to say, ""Honor" killers should be decapitated at Hadrian's Arch [in Jerash, Jordan], in front of people. I will personally oversee the event."

When asked if the perpetrators of "honor" killings deserve to be treated with leniency, 95.5% said no (2% were neutral and 2.5% said yes). Again, many of the survey respondents favor the death penalty for perpetrators of "honor" killings.

When asked if the victims of "honor" killings deserve what they get, 86% said no (7.5% were neutral and 6.5% said yes). A number of the survey respondents who either were neutral or responded affirmatively had quite nuanced explanations for their reply to this question. A recurring one was some variation of "yes, if the victim is married; no, if s/he is single, but then s/he should receive [variously] 80 or 100 lashes."

When asked whether there is any honor in "honor" killings, 89.5% said no (8% were neutral and 2.5% said yes). One male survey respondent added, a woman's "honor does not reside in the lower body."

When asked if the penal code articles that offer leniency for "honor" killings will ever be overturned, 66.5% said yes (11.5% were neutral and 22% said no). Many who responded negatively to this question added that they hoped they were wrong. A number of the survey respondents even speculated as to what the time frame will be for overturning the three penal code articles, and it ranged from "Queen Rania [already] overturned them" to "it will take centuries."

And when asked whether they support stiffening the penalties for "honor" killings, 89% said yes (3.5% were neutral and 7.5% said no). One respondent stated, "If I were king, I'd execute every person who murders." Others noted that, if the relevant penal code articles were overturned, even the people who purport to believe in "honor" killings would be relieved because finally the peer and the social pressures would be removed.

And should you wonder whether my results might be statistical flukes, even though they were attained using standard scientific methodology, there is corroborating regional data. In an online referendum on "honor" killings conducted by Dubai-based Al Arabiya News Channel (www.alarabiya.net), 63.0% of the respondents stated that they believe these crimes are not justified, that they are unsupportable by any religion or law (24.7% were neutral and 12.3% indicated that they are sometimes warranted to eradicate bad influences and people from society).

In the face of this much support, it does not seem prudent to invest large sums in developing and implementing a social marketing campaign in Jordan for this issue, though plenty of data were gathered that would assist in such an effort. But marketing is expensive, and it just is not warranted in this instance.

Nonetheless, there remains a continued need for efforts to educate people in general and women in particular about their rights and the limits of them. In my research, compared to their male counterparts, the female respondents were both less likely to know that "honor" killings in Jordan are not punished as ordinary murders and less likely to be aware of "honor" killings that have occurred within their extended families. And these differences between the genders were highly statistically significant.

Similarly, there is an important role for both parents and religious leaders to play. Twenty-one-and-a-half percent of the survey respondents believe that Islam requires that sexually promiscuous behaviors be cleansed through "honor" killings, while another 2% are unsure. The experts and the imams I have consulted tell me this is absolutely not the case. In the sample, parents and religion/religious leaders (in that order) were named by the respondents as exerting the strongest influence on their attitudes, opinions, and beliefs about "honor" killings. And so it is crucial that they discuss "honor" killings, ensure that any miseducation and misinformation be corrected, and offer better means of addressing this issue.

Although it was outside the scope of both my research and my skill set to attempt to estimate the number of "honor" killings that have taken place in Jordan, because I sought to analyze what impact it might have on their responses to other questions, the survey respondents were asked about their personal familiarity with "honor" killings. Thirty-three percent of the survey respondents reported that they personally know someone who has been threatened with an "honor" killing. Indeed, one of the respondents herself had been threatened. Twenty-seven-and-a-half percent said that they personally knew a victim, while 27% stated that they personally know a perpetrator. Four percent confessed that an "honor" killing has occurred in their extended family, while 1% claimed that one has occurred in their nuclear family. Quite a few of the survey respondents know of multiple cases. These figures lead a reasonable person to believe that the number of "honor" killings in Jordan is vastly underestimated.

So what is the bottom line? The conventional wisdom is wrong. Generalizing from the survey sample to the wider population, there is not much justification or support for continuing to offer legal leniency to the perpetrators of "honor" killings.

And so I appeal to you, Your Majesty, to revisit this issue, to do so post haste since human lives are hanging in the balance, and to overturn Articles 97, 98, and 340 of the Jordanian penal code. And, while you are at it, please remove the 10-year statute of limitations for these crimes. Bring the laws into alignment with the hopes and the wishes of the people, be sure to enforce them, and leave no loopholes. Act as though it were the lives of your wife, your daughters, your mother, and your sisters at stake for, in the broader context, it is. If the Lower House of Parliament will not support such a move, use your power of Royal Decree to make it so. Or, if that is too unilateral and unacceptable a move, use your influence and leadership skills and the traditional Arab methods of consultation, collaboration, and consensus building to bring the naysayers over to your, the Senate's, and the public's side on this issue. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that your royal subjects will support you and be rightly proud of Jordan's moral leadership on this issue. Other leaders struggling with this problem in their countries will envy your success and seek to replicate it in their own lands. The international community will applaud you. The timing is right, perhaps even overdue. "Honor" killings are against the tenets of Islam, in opposition to at least 17 international human rights conventions on which Jordan is a signatory, and inconsistent with the Jordanian constitution. Please correct this problem and ensure that there is justice for all the Jordanian Du'a Khalil Aswads, as well as a bright future and a network of safehouses and shelters for the people who are at risk. Jordan is a beautiful country with many traditions of which it can rightly be very proud. Your subjects deserve to be heard and to live outside the umbrella of fear created by the daily possibility of sudden, violent death. Show the rest of the world that it can be done—because truly it can—and show them how to do it. Please.

Respectfully,

Ellen R. Sheeley

Ellen R. Sheeley is the author of "Reclaiming Honor in Jordan: A National Public Opinion Survey on "Honor" Killings."
Copyright © 2008 by Ellen R. Sheeley. All rights reserved.

[Source: http://www.redroom.com/blog/ellen-r-sheeley/the-dishonor-killing-dua-khalil-aswad]