Almost half of boys and one in five girls in Jordan’s capital city, Amman, believe that killing a woman who has “dishonored,” or shamed, her family is justifiable, a study of teenagers’ attitudes published Thursday revealed.
A third of all teenagers involved in the study by researchers at Britain’s Cambridge University advocated so-called honor murders.
Exclusive: How my brother tried to kill me in ‘honor attack’
A key finding was that support for honor crimes was not connected to religious beliefs, but is far more likely in adolescent boys with low education backgrounds from traditional families.
Professor Manuel Eisner and Cambridge graduate student Lana Ghuneim interviewed more than 850 teenagers, with an average age of 15, for the study, published in the journal Aggressive Behavior.
Disappearance, then discovery leads to ‘honor killing’ outrage
Mom: Son’s accused killer ‘snapped’
Honor crimes can include physical assaults, rape, acid attacks and disfigurement, as well as murder.
They can be triggered by a range of acts thought to bring shame on the family, from premarital sex to adultery to pregnancy outside marriage, or even contact by the woman with a man who is not a relation.
NATO approved their deployment to Turkey in December
Jordan, which shares borders with war-torn Syria, said on Sunday it is in talks with “friendly countries” to deploy Patriot missiles on its territory after a similar move by Turkey.
“Jordan wishes to deploy Patriot missile batteries in order to boost its defence capabilities and help protect the country,” Information Minister Mohammad Momani told a news conference.
“We are currently at the stage of talks with friendly states,” said Momani, who is also government spokesman, declining to elaborate.
A NATO source told AFP last week that four batteries of Patriot missiles have arrived in Turkey as part of a mission by the alliance to protect the Turkish border from any spillover of the conflict in neighbouring Syria.
NATO approved their deployment in December, saying the use of ballistic missiles by the Syrian regime posed a threat to Turkey.
Jordan, home to more than 500,000 Syrian refugees, has similar concerns as Turkey.
I have just finished a book I had found at the Pikes Peak Library District called “Origins of a Catastrophe.” The book was written by the last ambassador to Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmerman. In it I have learned a great deal, and had some thoughts about it and its message, along with what it could mean to the future.
The big lesson out of this was exactly how Yugoslavia broke apart and why, along with with actors responsible for it. The biggest actor in terms of responsibility was Milosevic. A duplicitous, double talking slime, he publicly pushed for a united Yugoslavia, while at the same time disenfranchising and marginalizing non-Serbians.
As for the initial cause of the spiral out of control, it would ironically be the last part of the fallout solved, Kosovo. Kosovo had been unstable for some time, having never found a good equilibrium point during the existence of Yugoslavia, shifting between Anti-Serb sentiments to Anti-Albanian sentiments a few times during the Cold War. However, Milosevic took it to heights unheard of in the region since the Albanian Genocide in 1913. That particular incident resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, possibly over 100,000, and the loss of over half of Albania to Serbia and Greece, along with predation against Albanians by those two that continued to the present day (Continued hostility against Albanians in Kosovo and the Presevo Valley in Serbia’s case, and a continued push for disproportionate rights for ethnic Greeks in Albania by Greece), along with the retaliatory antagonism against Montenegro in the form of a joint Albanian-Croat venture of having a Nuclear Reactor at the Albanian-Montenegrin Border.
However, to get back on track, Milosevic was not the only player in this tragedy. In addition, we have the governments of Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia. Slovenia is guilty in terms of getting the ball rolling. In the paraphrased words of Zimmerman, a self-absorption on the part of the Slovenian Government in becoming independent and totally in line with the west left the other 20 million Yugoslavians on a road through hell that continues today. Croatia, largely thanks to Tudjman, become obsessed about imposing ethnic dominance over all areas of Serbia, and taking the parts of Bosnia dominated by Croatians. And Serbia got wrapped up in the Greater Serbia Project, in essence wanting to unify all Serbians in the region under one state.
It should be noted that, for all the antagonism between Milosevic and Tudgman, they have several traits in common. For one, they made a plan to split Bosnia between themselves, making the accusation the Muslims were fanatical Islamists who would created a haven for terror, and must not be allowed self-determination. Most of you have heard this argument before. In fact, this argument is today now used by US Republicans about Muslims in the US at large. I will get back to this later. In addition, I think an argument could be made to Milosevic and Tudjman to be classified literally as fascists, as defined by promotion of Hyper-Nationalism and loyalty to the state, in addition to actions that were Nazi-esque.
This tragedy also has some good guys, albeit they were simply underpowered considering the demagogues they were facing. For example, we have the last Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, Ante Markovic, an ethnic Croat and a reformer looking to both westernize Yugoslavia and keep it together. In the end, the actions of Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia stymied his efforts to the point of failure. You also had the Presidents of both Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kiro Gligorov and Alija Izetbegovic. The Presidents of these two republics became activists for the continuation of the Yugoslavian experiment, largely as a result of knowing how much they stood to lose.
While Gligorov has a largely clean record, Izetbegovic is largely rougher. During WWII, he was part of the Young Muslims group in Bosnia, which later divided between the SS Handschar Division, and the Tito’s Partisans. Izetbegovic served 3 years in prison as a result of this after the War. There is a Social Context to this. First off, the Nazis exploited a completely real and justified feeling among Bosnians of being constantly persecuted. It should also be noted that the Nazi’s recruiting goals fell well short among the Bosnians, and were forced to allow in a large number of Croats to fill out the division. In addition, the Unit had an extraordinary attrition rate, as people defected or mutinied, especially in a very notable case while in training in the town of Villefranche-de-Rouergue in the South of France. In addition, Izetbegovic put on a treatise in regards to Islam and the State in 1970, which was highly controversial in its pan-Islamism and assertion that Islamic Institutions must hold power in the Muslim World.
While he certainly went too far in calling for what sounds like a hyper-conservative Caliphate to unite the entire Muslim World (something that hasn’t happened since the collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate in 750 CE), he seemed to be greatly different in dealing with Bosnia itself, and with the neighbors in Western Europe and North America. For one, he had a deep appreciation for Christian Culture, and only reluctantly went for Independence when the seccession of Croatia and Slovenia would cause Bosnia to go to the un-tender mercies of a thuggish Serbia. In the following war however, we did get a proper view of the man when forced to enact policies, rather than commentate. During the War, he and is party acted very competently and tolerantly, being quite willing to take a compromise that left the Bosnians very little land, giving concessions to the Croatian faction, and holding the distinction of being the least dirty faction of the very, very dirty Bosnian War. In fact, the dominant party at the time, his party, the Party of Democratic Action, have the distinction of not having major organized persecution of Croats and Serbs, in addition to continuing protection of Serbian Orthodox and Catholic Churches within their domain, as compared the destruction of a staggering 800+ mosques at the hands of the Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs. In addition, Bosnia at the time made serious efforts to reign in the mujaheddin supporting them doing investigations into war crimes committed by them, along with stripping mujaheddin of citizenship they obtained during the war in the decade following it. Bosnia was in summary, the only reasonably good actor in the Bosnian War, between the fascist Serbia and Croatia.
However, the US, and especially Europe, hold some responsibility in regards to the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the wars thereafter. The US was not nearly as forceful to getting people to the negotiating table to keep the multi-ethnic state together, and Germany outright pushed for the fragmentation, though the neighboring Netherlands attempted to support Markovic and his reforms as much as possible. A ceasefire was later obtained within a year or so for the Croatian War of Independence, with led to the Republic of Serbian Krajina, which would later be liquidated, along with most of the Serbs, in Operation Storm in 1995. However, Europe and the US were much more reticent to aid Bosnia, though the UN, for its incompetence, did remarkably well in making sure that the many indigent and homeless Bosnians did not die as a result of the elements, if not being able to protect them from the barbaric mass murder and organized mass rape of the Serbs. Part of this reticence was likely a result of prejudice. While we came forward for Croatia reasonably quickly, we did not for Bosnia. It took 3 years for a US-led intervention to occur. In Zimmerman’s estimation at the time, this cost an extra 100,000 lives. I would posit that Europe and the US felt more cultural affinity for the Catholic Croatians than the Muslim Bosnians. In addition, there was something of a moral cowardice in terms of action from the Bush and Clinton Administrations, and the Pentagon. All were afraid of potential casualties from an intervention, and the Pentagon frequently shot down proposals for support. In fact, this would cause Zimmerman to retire in 1994, after frustration with the Government. There were however, actors in favor of intervention. The 2 that come most to mind are Senators Dole and Biden. In the end, they would manage to gradually change the game, and intervention would later occur, though much too late.
In regards to Kosovo, unlike Bosnia, their had been not history of inter-ethnic co-operation, namely as a result of the Serbian aggression at the beginning of the last century. This resulted in a see-saw of discrimination between the Albanians and the Serbs. By 80’s, as stated earlier, the discrimination was heavily against the Albanians. However, contrary to propaganda, they did not start violent. That would not happen until 1998. Until then, they were led by a peaceful, gandhi-esque figure named Ibrahim Rugova, who abhorred violence, and would go on to become Kosovo’s first President. An odd fellow, he was known to give out samples from his rock collection as gifts, with size of the crystal serving as an indicator of how Rugova felt about the outcome of the meeting. This led to the odd circumstance of Diplomats comparing the size of their stones.
But I digress. By 1998 however, militants became more prominent, and started attacks. Milosevic would use this as a pretense for a final solution, to push the Albanians out of Kosovo by Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide. The world was much quicker to deal with the problem this time, and only 10,000 died, and most Albanian Kosovars were able to return within a few years. This would rupture any chance of reconciliation. Kosovo would become independent in 2008.
Which leads us to today. What will the next several years hold for this region. For one, many of the neighbors of Serbia will likely join NATO, with Albania and Croatia only being the first 2. This will likely serve to isolate the Serbian State. However, their is trouble on the horizon. For one, the government of Serbia is now less by Serbian Radical Party, which is radical nationalist and promotes the fusion of Republika Srpska and Serbia. This is compounded by the fact that Ethnic Croats and Ethnic Bosnians can not return to the areas they were purged from by the Republika Srpska in 1990’s. There have been a very large number of attacks against those attempting to return, with no attempt by the Serb Democratic Party to stop this. In addition, the Serb Democratic Party is still spewing anti-Muslim crud nearly 20 years on from the war. In addition, a recent crisis has started in Vojvodina, with the autonomous province under the control of another party rather than the Serbian Radical Party. As a result, just like in the 80’s the Serbian Government is claiming persecution, and trying to yank away as much of the autonomy as possible.
To be blunt, we are likely to have another spate of Balkan Wars in my lifetime. It will likely revolve around the continued existence of the Serbian Puppet Republika Srpska and Vojvodina’s continued autonomy. As a result, the US does need to prepare for this. For one, the US and the NATO needs to push for the abolition of Republika Srpska, and the repatriation of the ethnically cleansed and their descendants to these areas. We must also prepare for the fact that any war will likely have to be much harsher. The US and its allies must prepare for the coming follow-up to this.
And now you wonder, “how does this affect Syria?” Well, this is a little involved. Syria has now been in Civil War for 2 years, claiming the lives of at least 120,000 Syrians, plus 528 foreign nationals, including Palestinians. There is a very real threat that the different groups will attempt Ethnic Cleansing, namely Al-Qaeda influenced fanatics cleansing and murdering secular and moderate Sunnis, and Alawites and Christians in general. In addition, the Alawites may attempt to form a little state-let in the Latakia region, pushing out Sunnis. This also affects Iraq, largely because of a recent revolt by some Sunnis in Iraq against attempts by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to take as much power from the Sunnis as possible. If we aren’t careful, the entire region of the Bilād ash-Shām (the area between the Mediterranean Sea, Turkey, the Arabian Peninsula, and Iran) could turn into an inferno. Any intervention here will have to go big or go home. Unlike Libya, there are no outright good guys to support, with the exception of the runt of the litter, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. To be very explicit on this, an intervention in Syria will look a lot less like Bosnia and Libya, and more like Kosovo and Iraq. But, given the consequences of not intervening, this poison pill may be less costly in the long run. It may be worth considering reconsidering having a Greater Syrian State under Jordan.
And as for the disturbing anti-Muslim rhetoric now coming out of the Republican Party, it bears some distinct similarities to the rhetoric used formerly by Milosevic and Tudjman. Namely, they both made the assertion that all Muslims are extremist, and that they need to be denied a voice, along with trying to promote persecution (both there and here under the guise of anti-terrorism), and among those like Bachmann and Gellar, outright trying to get physical persecution as well. The Republican Party is trying to turn the US into Serbia, with the requisite persecution of Muslims included. This must be resisted, for the sake of the 7-10 million Muslims in the US, including myself and major number of converts.
President Obama on Friday said “a line has been crossed” in Syria but cautioned that more “direct evidence” is needed to confirm a chemical weapons attack.
Speaking alongside King Abdullah of Jordan in the Oval Office, Obama said that the United States was working with countries like Jordan to obtain more evidence and confirmation of a potential chemical attack by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces.
“To use weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line in terms of international norms and laws. … That’s going to be a game changer,” Obama said.
Obama did not say whether his “red line” regarding chemical weapons use had been crossed by the Assad regime, but he said “a line had been crossed” when tens of thousands of Syrians had been killed by government forces in the two-year conflict.
“Knowing that there’s chemical weapons in Syria doesn’t tell us when they were used or how they were used,” he said. “We ourselves will be putting a lot of resources on this.”
White House officials have said that no decisions are being made about the next steps the Obama administration would take in Syria until evidence of a chemical attack is corroborated.
Demonstrators gathered in downtown Amman today, April 26, following afternoon prayers to protest the sending of American troops to Jordan.
“No Americans in our country,” blared the voice of one young man over a set of speakers in the back of a pickup truck. The crowd repeated the chant as another stepped up to the microphone, calling out, “We reject the American army’s presence in Jordan!”
The United States announced on April 17 that it would deploy up to 200 US troops to Jordan’s northern border with Syria to potentially help secure chemical weapons or deal with possible spillover from Syria.
The demonstrators congregated in two marches, both assembling after Friday prayers at King Hussein mosque in downtown Amman before proceeding in opposition directions.
Of the marchers that walked toward the Royal Court, some carried signs that read, “No to the presence of American forces in Jordan,” while different chants praised the strength of the Jordanian army. The protesters were a mix of young and old participants, mostly men, though some women were present.
Raheel Saleem, a student at the University of Jordan and a member of Harak Shababi, a youth movement, said that the protest was intended to send a message to Jordan’s King Abdullah that “we don’t agree” with having US troops on Jordanian soil. Nor did they agree with “Americans having their hands in Syrian affairs,” she said.
Farouq Arar, a political activist at the march, agreed, adding that Jordanians would not accept the United States striking Syria the way it did Iraq.
Hacker group threatens to attack Jordanian sites if they are not released immediately.
Jordanian security forces arrested several youths who are suspected of attacking Israeli internet sites as part of the large scale cyber attack on Israel declared by the group called Anonymous.
In response, Anonymous threatened to attack Jordanian internet sites. The group demanded the activists’ immediate release.
A Facebook group called “The Third Intifada - Jordan” boasted that 100,000 Israeli internet sites had been disabled.
“Today we invade their internet sites and their electronic fortresses, and tomorrow we will attack them in their homes, which were established upon our land and which robbed us of our rights,” the group wrote.
An intriguing, in-depth interview with King Abdullah by Jeffrey Goldberg.
Amid the social and political transformations reshaping the Middle East, can King Abdullah II, the region’s most pro-American Arab leader, liberalize Jordan, modernize its economy, and save his kingdom from capture by Islamist radicals?
It is still, on occasion, good to be the king.
It is not necessarily good to be the king of a Middle Eastern country that is bereft of oil; nor is it necessarily so wonderful to be the king during the turmoil and uncertainty of the Arab Spring. It is certainly not good to be the king when the mystique that once enveloped your throne is evaporating.
But when a squadron of Black Hawk helicopters is reserved for your use, and when you are the type of king who finds release from the pressures of monarchy by piloting those Black Hawks up and down the length of your sand-covered kingdom—then it is still good to be the king. […]
He seems in many ways to be a contradiction—an Arab king who happens to be a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, evangelizing for liberal, secular, democratic rule. But Abdullah, now nearly a decade and a half into his reign, is, in his own conception, a political and economic reformer. He says he understands that the Hashemite throne, and perhaps Jordan itself, will not survive the coming decades if he does not move his country briskly toward modernity.
It is a small miracle, of course, that he is still in power at all. He has survived the first wave of the Arab Spring revolutions, which have so far claimed the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, and will almost inevitably claim the Syrian president as well. But he has been roughed up in the process.
Geography has cursed Jordan. To Abdullah’s north is the charnel house of Syria, a failed state in the making. To his east is Iraq’s bloody Anbar province. Saudi Arabia, ruled by the superannuated princes of the House of Saud, the ancient rivals of the Hashemites, sits to his southeast. To his west are the obstreperous Israelis, as well as the disputatious Palestinians. Al‑Qaeda wants to kill him. The Iranian regime doesn’t like him very much either, especially since he denounced, in 2004, what he saw as a rising, Iranian-led “Shia crescent” looming over the Middle East. His country is broke, dependent on the United States, the International Monetary Fund, and haughty gulf Arabs to cover its budget. (The IMF recently forced fuel-price hikes that have intensified the domestic resentment directed at the throne.) […]
The United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, said yesterday that more than half a million Syrian refugees were either registered or awaiting registration in the region.
The civil war has driven hundreds of thousands of Syrians into neighbouring countries. Lebanon is now host to 154,387 registered Syrian refugees, Jordan has 142,664, Turkey 136,319, Iraq 65,449 and North Africa 11,740, the UNHCR said in Geneva.
In addition, there are more than 1.5 million Syrians who fled violence for safer areas within the country.
Large numbers of Syrians have also crossed into neighbouring countries but have not yet registered for refugee status and assistance, it said. These include about 100,000 in Jordan, 70,000 each in both Turkey and Egypt and tens of thousands in Lebanon, it said, citing government estimates.
While the demonstrators that have mobbed the streets of Amman for two weeks now are demanding the overthrown of King Abdullah — a criminal offense in Jordan — it’s not the demand for democracy that sparked their protests. Instead, thousands of Jordanians have been spurred to act by a more basic issue: the rising price of gas after the government withdrew its subsidies.
Jordanians are hardly alone in their anger. Governments across the world are attempting to wean their citizens off subsidized fossil fuels —a critical issue which environmentalists say is a big contributor to the output of carbon gases that contribute to global warming, and which have even more immediately burdened public finances the world over by an estimated total of $523 billion last year — a 30% increase over the previous year. “In a lot of emerging and developing countries you see fuel subsidies, where the government is picking up the tab,” says Helen Mountford, deputy director of the environmental directorate for the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, in Paris, which represents the world’s biggest economies. “In many cases it has been put in place to help support the poor.”
For decades, the price paid at the gas pump for most of the world’s drivers has had little relationship to the true cost of fuel. Massive government subsidies have allowed millions of consumers to pay a token amount, in some places mere pennies per gallon. Jordanians, as it turns out, pay about $3.33 a gallon for gas, but in oil-rich Venezuela, the price for premium gas is just 9 cents a gallon, while in Saudi Arabia it is 61 cents, according to Bloomberg rankings. Such subsidies have long been a key prop in the political survival strategies of authoritarian governments, while even in more democratic countries fuel subsidies have become an untouchable entitlement.
But fuel subsidies are becoming increasingly untenable as governments face mounting budget deficits in a weakening global economy, amid oil prices that have remained above $100 a barrel since 2010. Jordan lifted subsidies in order to secure a $2 billion IMF loan in the face of a $3.2 billion shortfall in a budget that devotes $2.3 billion annually to subsidizing fuel and other basics.
The Middle East and North Africa suffer from water shortages and pump millions of liters a day from ancient aquifers. But the water contains high levels of naturally-occurring radioactive contamination. Experts fear this will increase the cancer risk for millions of people.
True masters of water management once lived in the desert of what is now Jordan. It took the Nabataeans only a few decades to carve the city of Petra out of sandstone cliffs. In addition to crafting now world-famous decorative tomb facades, they built a sophisticated system of water pipes and cisterns, which made it possible for the city to exist in the dry wilderness in the first place — more than 2,000 years ago.
Today trucks rumble through Jordan to supply the population with drinking water. The water sloshing back and forth in their tanks is often thousands of years old, pumped from fossil groundwater reservoirs that filled up when the region wasn’t as dry. Millions of cubic meters of water are now being pumped from such aquifers every day in the Middle East and North Africa. The next hydraulic engineering project is currently underway in Jordan, at a cost of $1.1 billion (€850 million). Starting in the spring of 2013, about 100 million cubic meters a year will be pumped out of the Disi aquifer in the country’s south, in addition to the 60 million cubic meters a year already being taken from the aquifer today. The water will then be pumped through pipelines to the capital Amman, some 325 kilometers (203 miles) away.
But radiation experts warn of an invisible danger. Tests have revealed that the water contains high levels of naturally occurring radioactivity, with samples exhibiting radiation levels well above World Health Organization (WHO) radiation guidelines. The health risk doesn’t just affect Jordan, but virtually all of the countries in the Middle East and North Africa