The reopening of the Naseeb-Jaber border crossing offers an opportunity to address the pressing political, economic, and humanitarian challenges confronting Jordan.
As naval, air, and ground units from Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE conduct war games in western Egypt this month, many speculate that this could represent the birth of the so-called “Arab NATO.”
King Abdullah’s decision to cancel a 25 year land lease to Israel is likely to exacerbate long-simmering tensions between the two nations and challenge the cold peace that has been in place since 1994.
Despite the absence of a public and formal account of what transpired during the meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin in Helsinki on Jul. 16, it seems that there is at least tacit agreement that effectively endorses the Syrian regime’s takeover of southern Syria and limits Iranian presence in Syrian areas near the Jordanian and Israeli borders.
Two major events in the past few weeks have come into play regarding the future of a de-escalation zone in southern Syria from a Jordanian perspective. The first was the Western coalition’s missile strike on April 13 against Syrian regime positions in retaliation for an alleged chemical attack in the besieged Eastern Ghouta that took place on April 7.
Unlike the celebratory reception he received in Israel, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence’s visit to Jordan on Jan. 22 was low-key and short. There was no touring of the kingdom’s historical sites and no interaction with the Jordanian parliament. At the popular level, public opinion was mobilized against the visit. On a cold and rainy day, three days before Pence’s arrival, a handful of Jordanians held a protest in front of the U.S.
Read the full analysis, co-authored by Hardin Lang and Alia Awadallah, on the Center for American Progress.
This month’s decision by Jordan’s biggest centrist party, the National Current Party (N.C.P.), to disband has been described by pundits as tantamount to issuing a formal death certificate to political parties in the kingdom. But the demise of the N.C.P. has barely raised an eyebrow among ordinary Jordanians, the majority of whom are busy making ends meet amid an economic crunch and widespread political apathy.
Non-refoulement is a well-recognized principle of customary international law that forbids the forced deportation of refugees and asylum seekers to their country of origin. This essay discusses the increasingly common practice of refoulement in Jordan and the circumstances in which this development is taking place.
Jordan’s conspicuous silence over the unexpected trilateral rapprochement involving Hamas, Egypt, and former Fatah strongman Mohammad Dahlan does not mean that Amman is not keeping a close eye on recent developments. It is an unusual partnership that brings together once bitter foes, especially in the case of Dahlan and Hamas.
If it’s tough enough for media pundits to keep up with President Donald Trump’s flip-flopping on domestic politics, then the task of reading the president’s stand on key foreign issues is even more difficult. Jordan, one of America’s closest Middle Eastern partners, has been trying to cope with Trump’s sudden swerves on Syria, Israel-Palestine, and the war on ISIS. At times, the usually reserved Jordanian diplomacy was taken off-guard, forced to recalibrate, and even walk back on certain positions as a result of the president’s rhetoric.
In this week’s Monday Briefing, MEI experts Paul Salem, Yousef Munayyer, and Randa Slim provide analysis on recent and upcoming events including the meeting between Egyptian President Sisi and President Trump, the upcoming meeting between President Trump and Jordan’s King Abdullah, and the Trump administration’s adoption of Obama-era policies in Syria.
President Donald Trump’s refusal to endorse the two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has irked one close ally—Jordan. During King Abdullah’s visit to Washington in early February, Trump and other officials restated continued U.S. military and economic support for the kingdom. The king had outlined the dangers of moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and underlined the need for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
This essay is not about the Syrians who have fled their homes or those who are unable to leave despite the barrel bombs. Nor is it about Syrian refugees who are caught in limbo in neighboring countries, those that took perilous journeys to Europe by boat, or those who face rejection in the “land(s) of the free.” Instead, this essay is about the witnesses — those closest to Syrian refugees and those farthest away. It juxtaposes images produced for consumption by Western audiences with reflections of Jordanian humanitarian aid workers.
This essay examines the place of Syrian men in the refugee response, with a focus on the situation in Jordan. It questions the prevailing understandings of vulnerability, and outlines how the assumption that women and children are ‘the most vulnerable’ affects the distribution of aid and services. The essay demonstrates that, contrary to the perceptions of many in the humanitarian sector, work with refugee men is not only necessary, but can be extremely successful. Syrian men can be vulnerable too.