Jordan sends ambassador to Iraq

August 18, 2006 | Category: Around the world, Uncategorized

Jordan has become the first Arab state to send a fully accredited ambassador to Iraq, a major display of political support for the U.S.-backed government in the face of past kidnapping-slayings of Muslim diplomats.

Ambassador Ahmed al-Lozi presented his credentials Thursday to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani [source]

Perhaps not the right time for this ..but will there ever be a good time? Rebuilding Iraq should be taken seriously…this is a positive step!

13 Comments

Hamzeh N.
on August 18th, 2006
1
Like you said this is a positive move and I’m actually surprised that it has taken so long for any country to send ambassadors into Iraq!

Hopefully Ahmad Al-Lozi is going to do a good job meeting with the key Sunni and Shia leaders in the Iraqi parliament and listen to any concerns or hopes that they have when it comes to the Iraqi Jordanian relationship. Iraq used to be Jordan’s number one economic trade partner and I think it will be important for that strong economic relationship to come back. And hopefully he’ll work on making things easier for Jordanians who have businesses that are currently stuck in Iraq due to security or border issues.

I think it’s a necessary positive step and I don’t think there’s a bad time for it.
Rihab
on August 18th, 2006
2
Hmmm.. first Jordan annoys the Shiites by talking about the danger of a “Shiite crescent”. Then they aggravate them even more by saying that what Hizbolla did in Lebanon was a gamble. A month has just passed since then, and they decide to send an ambassador to Iraq when a day doesn’t go by without Sunni/Shiite blood being spilled.

Now, the Egyptians sent an ambassador in 2005 (which technically makes them the first Arab state to send an ambassador to Iraq), who got killed before he got a chance to present his credentials - and of course back then you didn’t have the current situation in Lebanon, yet he still got killed a few weeks after arriving in Iraq.

Jordan’s gonna get it’s cheap oil anyway so they could have waited a bit longer for the region to calm down a bit (or maybe it was Uncle Sam who couldn’t). Anyway, let’s hope this doesn’t turn out to be a “miscalculated adventure”.
Nas
on August 20th, 2006
3
Rihab, what hizballah did was indeed a gamble by all defintions, even Nasrallah as he claimed did not expect the Irsaeli reaction so King Abdullah was stating the obvious. also jordan is the first arab nation to have an ambassador in iraq; you dont get to be an ambassador unless the credentials are presented and accepted (if we want to be technical about it).

as for the oil. i think the fact that jordan hosts the most number of people fleeing the war on iraq who are loaded on SUVs, cheap oil seems to be a fair trade after having to raise the prices several times since 2003.
Rihab
on August 20th, 2006
4
Nas, for that to be the first thing to come out of the jordanian king didn’t exactly help the situation in Lebanon. The Israelis even kept saying it during the war, “this war is supported by everyone even the Arabs”. So even if it were truly a gamble, I don’t understand the need there was to make such a statement. As an Arab head of state, the first thing that should have come out of him was a condemnation of what Israel was doing not an indirect condemnation of Hizbolla.

Why do Jordanians always sound so annoyed about hosting their Arab “brethren”?? I remember, after the Gulf war, my parents were making a choice about whether they should choose Jordan or Egypt as a move out of Kuwait. Initially, my mum chose Jordan, she got the visa but the lady in the embassy was quite rude, in fact so rude that when my mum came back, she looked at my dad and said, “We’re not putting our money there, we’re going to Egypt”, and we did, very glad that we did too. So instead of making it sound like Iraqis owe it to you, to give you cheap oil, perhaps you should also think of how their money contributes to your economy - that as well as their cheap oil, which I’m sure is used for more than fueling their SUVs.
Nas
on August 20th, 2006
5
Rihab, actually the first the King did was condemn Israel. Soon after Nasrallah said on TV he did not expect the Israel reaction. Followed by the King saying Hizballah took a risk. Followed by the most vocal condemnation of Israel than all of the Arab leaders put together in these past 2 months or so.

Im not annoyed, I’m glad so many Iraqis chose to come to Jordan. But dont act like we’re stealing their oil. Also dont generalise based on the fact that your mum was refused a visa that therefore all Jordanians are annoyed with Iraqis. Jordan has done more for it’s Arab brethern than most Arab states so keep that in mind the next time you want to belittle the country for its efforts.
Hamzeh N.
on August 20th, 2006
6
As an Arab head of state, the first thing that should have come out of him was a condemnation of what Israel was doing.

Actually, that was exactly what he did in the very first statement he made regarding the conflict, but the media chose to focus on his criticism of Hizballah which didn’t even come close to the language of condemnations. And as Naseem said, King Abdallah was the most vocal Arab leader in the entire period of the conflict against Israel’s aggression.
Rihab
on August 20th, 2006
7
Nas, re-read what I wrote - my mum was not refused a visa - she GOT the visa and CHOSE not to go because the initial point of contact was not encouraging.

I’m not generalising, I’m aware that there are many lovely Jordanian people some of whom are close friends of mine. However, your words suggested that the Iraqis should give you oil since you have their citizens in your country, which doesn’t exactly sound like you’re “glad” to have them there.

I’m not acting like you’re stealing their oil (wow, so many accusations in ur reply), I said you’re getting cheap oil, which you are and you’re gonna get it whether or not you have your ambassador there, so what’s the point of having an ambassador in Iraq when they’re at the brink of (if not already in) a civil war, especially when there are people in Iraq that would like to kill the Jordanian ambassador as they did with the Egyptian one?

And NO, Jordan did not do more for its Arab brethren than any other Arab country, especially when we extend our memory to the earlier half of the previous century. Jordan wasn’t even deemed an influential Arab country until it signed a peace treaty with Israel. Yeah, sure, the majority of your population is made up of Palestinians but then again, before the British created Transjordan, it was considered Palestinian territory, so it’s not really like they’re guests.

As for King Abdullah’s comments, as far as I’m aware what came out first was condemnation of Hizbolla’s miscalculated adventure, and that didn’t come until a couple of days of silence - same happened with the Egyptians and Saudis. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that condemnation of Israel came first, and condemnation of Hizbolla came second. What was the need for it?? All it did, was undermine Hizbolla when it was the only force resisting the Israeli aggression. Furthermore, as I said before, the Israelis used the comments of the Jordanian, Egyptian and Saudi leaderships to strengthen their case.

Hamzeh - Last paragraph deals with your point.
Nas
on August 20th, 2006
8
it was not an accusation it was an observation of the stance you took in your initial comment. i did not suggest jordan is entitled to get oil from iraq because iraqis live in jordan (they are not citizens as you say). why not have an ambassador in iraq? if the largest number of iraqis are in jordan, including so many businessmen and organizations that have set up to rebuild iraq, why shouldn’t there be an embassy in operation to facilitate investments (to say the least).

jordan is not palestine and transjordan was never considered palestinian territory; it does not belong to palestinians. it has taken in palestinian refugees by the thousands many times, as well as from kuwait as well as iraqis from iraq when most if not all arab nations close their borders.

the condemnation of Israel came first, check the news reports. secondly there was no condemnation of hizballah it was a criticism of hizballah putting lebanon at risk which was true; it’s also called stating the obvious. israel will use any arguement it wants to support its own cause and drive the arab street mad. calling hizballah adventurist is not a green light for israel to bomb the crap out of lebanon. this is only true in the delluded minds of zionists or pro-zionists.
Rihab
on August 21st, 2006
9
No, that was not the stance I took in my first comment, that was how you interpretted my stance - and I still don’t see how getting cheap oil can be read to mean steal oil. However, why have an ambassador in a country that’s in complete chaos and where there’s a constant high risk of him getting killed? But whatever, your ambassador not mine, I just don’t think it’s good timing.

Transjordan was part of the area the British referred to as Palestine, and originally Transjordan was just a generic term that referred to the area of Palestine, east of the Jordan River (Transjordan… Across the Jordan). The reason that term was used, was to refer to the area of Palestine that would not be part of, what was proposed to be the Jewish national homeland.

86. This Order in Council shall not apply to such parts of the territory comprised in Palestine to the east of The Jordan and The Dead Sea as shall be defined by order of the High Commissioner. Subject to the Provisions of Article 25 Of The Mandate, The High Commissioner may make such provision for the administration of any territories so defined as aforesaid as with the approval of the Secretary of State may be prescribed.

(Mandate of Palestine, Palestine Order in League of Nations Council, 10th August 1922)

The above is a quote from the Palestine Order from the League of Nations Council and as you can see it clearly refers to the area as Palestine, making no reference to Transjordan but instead describes it as “the territory comprised in Palestine to the east of the Jordan and the Dead Sea”. It wasn’t until after the above memorandum was presented to the League of Nations and approved that borders were drawn out for Transjordan and then the British installed the Hashemites as its leaders, as a concillation after the promises made to them (in return for the Arab Revolt they led against the Ottomans) were not fulfilled, which eventually led to them losing el-Hejaz to Al-Saud and Syria to the French.. Of course there was also the broken promises of the Faisal-Weizmann agreement, where Faisal ibn Hussein agreed to establishing a Jewish homeland in “Palestine” provided that the Arabs gained their independence (independence apparently meant being king of the Arabs, since he never complained about broken promises until he was expelled from his Syrian throne by the French… but then 5mths after his letter of complaint he was made king of Iraq and a couple of years later his brother, king Abdullah I, made king of Transjordan/Jordan - the 2 brothers were, of course, the leaders of the aforementioned revolt)… and that’s the early history of Jordan and the Hashemites in a nutshell.

On your final point… so if it’s called stating the obvious, and knowing that Israel will “use any argument it wants to support its own cause”… again, what’s the point of stating it - the criticism of Hizbolla??
Kerr
on August 24th, 2006
10
Jordan has and always benefited out of others miseries.
1948, Palestine 1967 Palestine, 1980’s Lebanon; 1990’s Gulf war; 2003 Iraq War; 2007 Syria?
Osaid
on August 26th, 2006
11
Not to forget , KErr, that those misries were brought to about by Israel and its supporter, the United States ! Keep this in mind.
kerr
on August 30th, 2006
12
We can not continue blaming israel and the US for our misries. Yeah they are contriuting factors, but we play a role in it. Regarding the regime in Jordan, some one must read many Patriotic Jordanians what they have to say.
Rihab
on September 1st, 2006
13
I agree with Kerr that we cannot place full blame on Israel and the U.S, it must be noted that part of the Arab problem is the fact that they don’t serve their mutual benefits but serve their own benefits even if it is to the detriment of others.

Here is an article back from the early days of the war on Iraq that may be of interest to some.