Thursday, August 31, 2006

Jordanian 'Axis of Evil'

This is the axis of evil that the Jordanian government is fighting right now:

The Society of the Muslim Brothers
Union of Professional Associations

Hamas: Why is the government dealing with the Palestinian president and it is ignoring the Palestinian governemt whereas at the same time it is dealing with the Lebanese government and ignoring the Lebanese president.

Nobody knows why the government is doing this to a legal democtratic government that was elected by the people, and on the other hand it is dealing with the Iraqi government that was assigned by the american army.

The Society of the Muslim Brothers: Let the people decide and judge the three MP by voting for/out.
The Society of the Muslim Brothers is the biggest party in Jordan (wheather you like it or not but this is a fact) and the biggest party in the arabic world.
Although The Society of the Muslim Brothers in Jordan had this unique relation with the governments through out Jordanian history, because the Jordanian Society of the Muslim Brothers has never used offensive methods in dealing with any polical situation, but with this attitude I think that the government is encourging them to behave in a different way.

It seems like the government is trying to take revenge from the The Society of the Muslim Brothers due to standing by Hamas in Hamas's case, that's why the government has imprisoned three of the Society's parliament members.

Union of Professional Associations : Why is the government trying to destroy one of the biggest institutions serving both the community and the nation.
With a parliament such as the one we have, Associations are the real voice of people and the real representitves of them and in spite of that all the governments (or at least the previous one) are trying to destroy this institution.


Anonymous Nas said...

ON HAMAS: jordan treats palestine differently from lebanon because they are two different country. lebanon is the one to the north.

in any case hamas has shunned jordan since it was accussed of storing weapons on jordanian soil and plotted to attack. it was asked to come to jordan to review the evidence and defend itself and it refused (out of pride according to them) and this is the cold-shoulder situation we're in now.

the iraqi government was voted in and not assigned by the americans. millions of iraqis voted. we can blame america for mostly everything else but the iraqi government was voted in.

ON THE IAF: the muslim brotherhood has been aggressive in the past and has only recently been reformed in jordan to be the political entity that it is. the IAF is the political party, the Muslim brotherhood as you keep refering to them is a social entity. The IAF is the biggest party in parliament but this is only because people have not yet started to voted strictly with parties and parties have not yet come together. The IAF has only 17 seats in parliament and the balance can easily be overthrown in the next elections.

As for revenge. The government didnt go to zarqawis funeral and call him a "martyr" and praise his name. The government didnt go to zarqawis funeral and insult the memory of 60 actual martyrs whom he killed. The IAF has never had a clear stance when it comes to politics. One day it supports terrorism and the next day it condemns it.

ON UNIONS: unions were made to be political entities when political parties were outlawed. now that political parties have returned and are being encouraged to form there is no need for unions to practice politics. in fact unions should not be practicing politics in the first place. it's not their job. their job is to protect their respective members and labour markets just like unions do in all democratic socities. its up to political parties to deal with politics.

associations and unions are far from being the voice of anything but themselves. and i speak from experience as my relatives have headed up several of them in the past. parliament is not in great shape but it is a closer representation of the people's voice for sure.

24 August, 2006 16:06  
Blogger ABOUD said...

Do you really believe that Hamas would ever think of making any attacks in Jordan!!!!

What government can be elected when the the country is under occupation, do you think that any anti-ameircan candidate would have had any chance to win.

Do you really think that the Muslim brotherhood had ever used violence like the way in Egypt.
Man some parties used to say that they are the government's puppet because they have always refused to face the government.

When things are being more expensive everyday, when people are dying out of hunger, then those Unions have to move. The Unions must protect their members. Is this politics or not?
So they are practicing polotics.

Poltics is in our everyday life.

Who's is ruling in England?
It is the Labour party!!!

27 August, 2006 12:25  
Anonymous Nas said...

would hamas ever think of attacking jordan? of course, this isnt something new. there were plans for it in the 90s after the peace agreement. the idea is not to attack jordanian targets but foreign targets on jordanian soil. that being said, they never denied it a few months ago. they had the oppertunity to come to jordan and refute the evidence that was presented to abbas and PA officials, but they didn't.

iraq is under occupation but so is palestine. so should we say that the iraqi government is illegitimate and so is the palestinian government? and by the way there are many anti-american candidates who did win! whether the elections were fair and honest is another story but millions of iraqis all over the world went out to vote and we cant ignore that.

those people who call the brotherhood as a puppet of the government are ignorant to the reality or would prefer that they do use violence like in Egypt. the IAF is the biggest opposition to the government.

ya aboud these unions and associations are for their members. engineers, doctors, architects. these people are not dying of hunger, they are professionals. this is who the unions have authority over (legally and constitutionally). it is the political parties that should represent the people and if we want any form of democratic reform in the country we should at least have every entity doing the job it was meant to do. if you want us to go back to the way it was then its like having the lion act like a monkey and the monkey acting like a lion.

unions cannot and should not practice politics. it was wrong to allow them to do so in the first place but the government used them as a pressure valve while the parties were banned. unions look after their card-carrying members, fighting for their rights, wages, etc etc. they dont get to dictate the country's public policies, only influence them. this is how it's done in a democratic country and the fact that jordan made this move is telling of that. otherwise they would've just left the status quo.

the labour party is a political party not a union. there's a big difference.

27 August, 2006 18:41  
Blogger ABOUD said...

Hamas's base rule which differentiates it from Fateh was "Not to use their weopons against anybody but Israel"

Wheather they came to Jordan or didn't nothing would have changed, that's why they refused to come.

Palestine is under occupations, but there was a lot of difference between the elections that was carried out in Iraq and that in Palestine.
Not all the Palestinians city were under occupation, most of the cities where the elections were carried out were governed by the Palestinians. Unlike Iraq, where the whole issue was supervised and managed by the American Army.

The Labour party is a polical party, but the main supporters for this party are the unions.
In fact this party represents the unions.

You can not differentiate between politics and daily life of the people. War, peace, alliance..etc., will effect people's life.

With such a government and a paraliament that represnet no one, then I think that unions are somehow the real voice of the people.

28 August, 2006 09:22  
Anonymous Nas said...

aboud, if hamas was innocent, and let us assume it was, why not take the oppertunity to come to jordan and point out the jordanian government's "lies" for everyone to see. it would've been a media tsunami that could have benefited them and only them, and allowed them to deliver the knock out blow to the government's "lies". in fact a lot of people were backing their position on the issue until they refused to come and it began to raise questions as to whether there might actually be some evidence. then the fatah and PA came and hamas refused a second invitation.

the iraqi elections were managed by iraqis and other international organizations. and a significant portion of those who voted, and i mean by the millions, are iraqis who are now forced to live in jordan, america, canada, etc. i would say they may have even be the majority. this doesnt mean america is the good guy now bringing "freedom" to iraq, but we cant ignore the fact that there were free elections and people voted for their representitives. no one held a gun to anyone's head. iraqis for the most part did not stage a boycott. even the sunnis for the most part voted while still fighting. if america wanted to put a puppet regime it would've done so from the get go, and technically they did when they first came. and truth be told most of those that won the elections won on the platform of being anti-american!

of course the main supporters of the labour party is the labour unions. every political party has its social base of supporters. the democrats in the US for example depend on labour unions and teacher unions and the environmental lobbey. lobbeys, unions, associations...all of them are courted by parties for financial support, political support and electoral support (votes and money). but they themselves dont form the policy because they are not the party. they can only influence it in exchange for support. that's how it works. that's how it should work. by suggesting we go back to unions retaining political power is like telling ju7a to scratch his left ear with his right hand.

like it or not we voted in our parliament. the government while appointed, is not soverign. it cannot pass a law or even remain in power without the say so of the parliament and therefore the people (in theory). in essence the people we vote for are the ones who represent us not unions. the engineer or medical or what have you union does not represent me or the farmer in kerak or the poor guy begging in swefieh. they represent their own constituents and no one else. thats how unions operate.

i am not against unions, but they should do their job and leave the politiking to the parties. we can argue the parties are not doing a good job but these changes have only happened in the past 1.5 years and are attempting to rectify the situation we had going for over a decade. but at least now we can call a circle a circle and a square a square. i dont know why there's so much complaint this issue, from a political perspective this move is probably on the list of positive things the government has actually done in the last few years and that list is a short one. it is the one major sign of political reform to come. otherwise there would be no reason to do it all.

you is just have functioning political parties and politically stronger unions in the same country! the interests of the people are not served at all. it is an abuse of powers. when you open the door to unions to behave freely then lobbeys, associations, and industries are to follow. imagine our politics being dictated by the interests of the pharamcutical or tabacco industry and lobbyests. so im glad they threw done the road block and opened a better road.

29 August, 2006 02:37  
Blogger ABOUD said...

Nas, don't you see that it is more than a coincidence that this case was popped on the same day that the palestinian forign minister was going to arrive to Jordan, and that the jordanian government refused to welcome him.

Sunnis did not participate in Iraqi's election.
Who is the anti-american????!!!
Quoting Bush on Al Jaafari's visit to the white house:The Prime Minister is a great Iraqi patriot, he's a friend of liberty, he's a strong partner for peace and freedom.

Quoting Al Maliki:Thank you Mr. President for your invitation. I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to the men and women of the United States armed forces who so selflessly liberated us from Saddam's evil regime.

What parliament is this, that the government can jail 2 of its members for political reasons?!!

The government is trying to finish any political role for the unions, not even as a lobbey that can have a role in what's going on.

30 August, 2006 02:27  
Anonymous Nas said...

they refused to welcome him because of this plot. if they wanted to cut off all ties they would've done so without the excuse of a plot or weapon smuggling. it's not that difficult. it would've even been easier for the government. they told them to come to review the evidence twice and they refused.

of course sunnis participated. they even called off all resistance to go and vote, mainly because they did not want to be left out of any elections that saw an increase in shia strength. i am talking about the last elections not the first one that was boycotted. as for anti-american candidates, I don't know them by name, there were hundreds of people running that even the iraqis that went to vote didnt know them by name. but at the time it was widely reported that many of them ran on the desire to see american troop withdrawal. It was discussed at length in the media. as for jaafari and maliki, i dont like them and perhaps they were "installed", irregardless..there were free elections and millions of people voted, that cant be ignored. we may not like the outcome but there were free elections.

the government didnt jail the iaf mps, the courts did, state and appeal. and they didnt randomly pick them off the street, they supported terrorism against their own people. i disagree with the verdict but it doesnt excuse the crime. the idea that it was done for political reasons is absurd. parliament was out of session and the king has the power to dissolve it which he could've just as easily done. two empty seats on the iaf side of the aisle is not going to make a difference, they were not in the majority. had they been in the majority and had the removal of these two mps resulted in them becoming a minority then I would see the political reason. but 17 seats being reduced to 15 out of 110 is not going to make any political impact.

unions should not have any political role. unions are not supposed to have a political roles. in the long run they will remain power brokers when it comes to lobbeying, the government can't stop that and there's no sign that it wants to. they simply stripped them of whatever political power they had prior to political parties and shifted it back to those parties. it's that simple.

01 September, 2006 01:21  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home