الثلاثاء، 21 مايو، 2013

نحو موقف أخلاقي من الأزمة السورية

يجب ان نصنف ما يحصل في سوريا تصنيفا صحيحا لكي نفهم كيف تكون ردة الفعل الملائمة حياله. 
سوريا قبل الثورة لم تكن في وضع عادي ولم تكن دولة ديمقراطية وحرة ثم جاءت الثورة لتفسدهاً 

سوريا كانت دولة قمعية تسيطر عليها عائلة بنت حولها حزب هدفه الرئيس البقاء في السلطة والحيلولة دون إجراء أي إصلاحات حقيقية. 

ثم جاءت الثورة السورية لتنفجر معها كل الصراعات داخل المجتمع السوري من صراعات طائفية وطبقية واثنين والقادم أخطر. 

ثم بدأ الأسد بالقتل لإعادة الاستقرار وتحولت الثورة الى ثورة مسلحة.  

كل عدة الأخطاء حصلت قبل الثورة واليوم يقتتل السوريون على جبهات متعددة ولأهداف مختلفة ودخل العنصر الأجنبي ومعه أجندة غير سورية واختلط الحابل بالنابل. 
اليوم نجد العرب منقسمون في نصرة جهة ضد أخرى في سوريا بناءً على اعتبارات طائفية غير آبهين بأسباب القتال لان القتال وخطر والإبادة لا يسمح لاحد ان يجلس قاضياً في أسباب الصراع أو كيفية إيقاف القتل. كل القوى الإقليمية والمحلية تساند النظام السوري أو مقاتلي المعارضة بدرجات مختلفة. 

ما هو الموقف العقلاني من هذا الصراع؟ 

الموقف الأخلاقي هو ان نشجب كل من يلجأ للعنف في سوريا خارج نطاق الدفاع عن النفس. وبذلك يكون تشجيع الجيش الحر أو قوات النظام حين تقوم بالهجوم على الآخرين في موقف غير دفاعي غير مسموح أخلاقيا. 
إذن الحكم على من على حق وباطل يعتمد على أسلوب تصرف القوى المتحاربة. كل من يقوم بعمل غير دفاعي هو مخطئ لان المشكلة السورية لن تحل بمزيد من القتل. 
بناءاً على ذلك الموقف الإقليمي الذي يساعد على إطالة المعارك وتزويد المتقاتلين بأسلحة للقضاء على الآخر غير أخلاقي. 
النقطة الأخيرة هي شرعية الجيش السوري. الجيش السوري الآن فاقد للشرعية لان النظام فاقد للشرعية ومع ذلك فان هذا لا يعني ان السوريين الذين يناصرون نظام الأسد ليس لهم حقوق سياسية وإنسانية. 


الأربعاء، 8 مايو، 2013

كيفية سقوط النظام

نظام الأردن لا يختلف عن الأنظمة العربية التي سقطت في أسلوب الحكم أو أسلوب السقوط رغم تفاوت درجة القمع من نظام إلى آخر.

الربيع العربي عبارة عن عملية متكاملة تنتهي دائماً بإسقاط النظام لان عوامل الدفع نحو إسقاط النظام واحدة في كل الدول العربية.

العملية تبدأ بشعور المواطن ان زحزحة النظام عن الحكم غير ممكنة بالطرق السلمية بسبب تمترس الحاكم أو الطبقة الحاكمة في السلطة.

هذا الشعور مصحوب بشعور ان الحاكم مستعد ان يفعل ويقول أي شيئ للإبقاء على كرسي الحكم مما يولد إحساس عميق لدى المواطن ان النظام ليس له إلا أولوية واحدة وهي الحكم وهذا يقود إلى اليقين ان كل تحركات النظام هي مناورات لا يُقصد منها الإصلاح بل شراء الوقت.

في هذه المرحلة المستفحلة من الشك بنية النظام تزداد المطالبات الإصلاحية وتكون واقعية و غير واقعية لان الهدف منها إثبات ان النظام يراوغ.

في وجه المطالب المتزايدة والمتفاقمة وغير الواقعية وغير الممكن تحقيقها يدخل الشعب في دوامة التشاؤم والإحباط من جدية النظام في تلبية الطلبات وتبدأ معركة توجيه اللوم للنظام على كل خطيئة اقتصادية أو سياسية ويبدأ النظام بالغرق أمام الأمواج العاتية من المطالب والإحباط والتشاؤم. أظن ان نظام الأردن يمر الآن بهذه المرحلة.

ما سيحصل بعد هذه المرحلة هو ان النظام يفقد المبادرة بعين المقربين والموالين تحت فقدان القليل المتبقي للنظام من القدرة على المناورة. هذه المرحلة ستشهد تخلي المقربين من النظام عنه لانه لن يكون بمقدوره محاباة الموالاة قليلة العدد على حساب الشعب الذي يصرخ من تفاقم الفساد والمحاباة.
عندما يبدأ النظام بخسارة الموالين المقربين لخوفه من الاستمرار بمحاباتهم يغضبون لأنهم يرون أنهم كأشد الموالين لم يعودوا يتمتعوا بأي ميزات بل ان النظام يحاول اوضاء اعتى المعارضين مما يثير اشمئزاز الموالاة لانها ترى في هذا التصرف خيانة من النظام للحفاظ على نفسه.

بعد بلوغ مرحلة عدم قدرة النظام على الإبقاء على الموالاة بالعطايا والرشوة وغيرها تبدأ مرحلة السقوط السريع لان خسارة النظام للموالاة تعزز مزاعم المعارضة ان النظام غير مرضي عنه من أي طائفة أو فئة في المجتمع.

في هذه المرحلة يصبح النظام فاقد للسيطرة والمبادرة ويصبح عرضة للهجوم بدون وجود حماية من الأمن والجيش مما يجعل ردة فعل الحرس الخاص مبالغ فيها وتقود إلى القتل غير المبرر وهذا يعرض الحاكم إلى الخطر الجسدي أو القتل ما لم يقوم الجيش باعتقاله وتقديمه قربانا لإرضاء الثوار.
هذا هو سيناريو سقوط كافة الأنظمة العربية غير الديمقراطية وتختلف التفاصيل وتطول أو تقصر المراحل ولكن النتيجة واحدة.

الأحد، 5 مايو، 2013

الإسلام منا براء

الانقسام الطائفي في العالم العربي حقيقة واقعة يحاول الجميع إنكار خطورتها لانها تفضح وهم الإنسان العربي أمام نفسه.
العراق هي المثال الصارخ على الطائفية بأبعادها التاريخية التي ما زالت تفعل فعلها في واقع حياة كل مواطن عراقي.
مئات الآلاف يخرجون للتظاهر بحماسة واستمرارية ليس لها مثيل يدفعهم الخوف من الحكومة التي يظنون أنها تناصبهم العداء وتعمل لخدمة طائفة على حساب طائفة.

في سوريا الخوف وعدم الثقة والكره والقمع هي سمة العلاقة بين الطائفة السنية والعلوية وهي علاقة متوترة تاريخياً.

السعودية والبحرين ولبنان وغيرها من الدول تحكم العلاقة فيها بين الطوائف معايير توازن القوة والخوف وعدم الثقة والتكفير الضمني للآخر وإنكار عقيدته بل وإنكار وجوده.

حتى الأماكن التي لا يوجد فيها سنة أو شيعة تجد السمة الغالبة عليها هي العداء لعقيدة السني أو الشيعي لان منهجية الشك والتكفير سائدة وتقوم على مبدأ تخوين الآخر والشك بصدق تدينه.

أن السرطان الطائفي والفرقة بين السنة والشيعة مسئولة عن تدمير العالم العربي وتخلفه في الماضي والحاضر والمستقبل ما لم نحكم العقل ونبدأ بالتغيير.

الأوطان ستضيع ما دام السني والشيعي يظن أن الآخر عميل ومنافق وغير صادق في حبه للإسلام.

التفاهم ألسني الشيعي هو أولى الأوليات ولكننا لا نريد أن نوقف نزف الجرح بين السنة والشيعة ونكذب على بعضنا بالقول أننا كلتا مسلمون رغم خلافاتنا.

ان من يتسابقون لذبح بعضهم البعض ليسوا سنة ولا شيعة بل منهم الإسلام براء.
ا

الأربعاء، 6 مارس، 2013

Has the Arab Spring come to Jordan? Lecture


Has the Arab Spring come to Jordan?


Syria crisis must be resolved peacefully


Egypt far from political tranquility


Militants wreak havoc in Syria


Dialogue only way out of Syria conflict


Interview: West loses control of militants


عبدالله النسور مزعج

الدكتور عبدالله النسور يلعب دوراً مزعجاً في المرحلة الراهنة ويضع نفسه وسط صراع محتدم بين قوى الشعب التحررية من جهة وبين نظام الاردن وطبقته الفاسدة الذين نهبوا الاردن وخربوه لخدمة مصالحهم الذاتية.

دوره مزعج لانه يعطي النظام الغطاء السياسي والستارة التي يستخدمها للاختباء من السخط الشعبي على ملك ونظام وطبقة خذلت الاردن.

عبدالله النسور مزعج لانه لم يكن مع الحرامية واليوم انبرى لمسح الزفر الذي خلفته عمليات الخصخصة التي تم بموجبها نهب موارد الاردنيين وتسجيلها باسم النظام تحت أسماء وشراكات استراتيجية.

الأربعاء، 6 فبراير، 2013

التماس مواطن للتحقيق مع عبدالله بن حسين بتهم فساد

السادة أعضاء مجلس النواب الاردني السابع عشر الكرام،

اهنئكم بمناسبة وصولكم الى البرلمان الاردني رغم اعتراضي على القانون الذي أتى بكم الى المجلس وما صاحبه من شراء الكثير منكم لذمم الناخبين للوصول الى الكرسي الذي لا تستحقونه ولكن بما أنكم وصلتم فإنني أطالبكم القيام بواجبكم الذي كان من المفروض لبرلمان شرعي منتخب بشكل عادل ليمثل كافة أطياف الشعب الاردني القيام به الا وهو مساءلة عبدالله بن الحسين القائم بأعمال ملك الاردن.

لقد ثبت لدي بعد البحث والتحري والتقصي ان عبدالله الثاني متورط بقضايا فساد تمتد من الاحتيال على الدولة لبيع أملاكها والتربح من سعرها الى كافة أنواع الأنشطة التجارية التي يبدو جليا ان الملك متورط فيها بقضايا فساد عن طريق أنسباء وأصدقاء مقربين.

على الرغم الأدلة الدامغة المتواجدة والتي تشير بوضوح الى تورط الملك في الفساد بشكليه المباشر وغير المباشر الا أننا كمواطنين لا تستطيع مقاضاة المدعو عبدالله بن حسين لان الدستور الاردني يحميه من المساءلة القانونية.

أطالب كمواطن اردني مجلسكم الموقر بالتحقيق بجرائم المدعو عبدالله بن حسين القائم بأعمال ملك الاردن وإصدار حكم بخلعه من الحكم لان الأدلة واضحة جداً ولا تحتاج الا لضمير وشجاعة كافيتين من مجلسكم.

لقد وعدتم في حملاتكم الانتخابية بملاحقة الفاسدين والحمد لله ان الفاسد الأكبر في حال التحقيق بفساده والتصويت على خلعه ستكون اول خطوة واهم خطوة في القبض على كبار الفاسدين الذين يحتمون به.

اشكر لكم النظر في هذا الأمر على وجه السرعة لان الأدلة دامغة ولن تحتاج اكثر من جلسة واحدة.

وفقكم الله لتكونوا رجالاً

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله

الثلاثاء، 5 فبراير، 2013

فساد عبدالله الثاني وتجارة السلاح




نيويورك تايمز تنشر "The Man Behind Gingrich’s Money"

في مقال لصحيفة النيويورك تايمز المنشور في 28/1/2012 تحت عنوان
"من هو الرجل الذي يقف خلف اموال جينغرتش" , تبدأ الحكاية في عام 1999, بعد تسلم العاهل الاردني عبدالله الثاني لمهامه كملك بعد وفاة والده الحسين بن طلال.
تقول الصحيفة ان " كانت الرحلة التي قام بها اعضاء من الكونجرس الامريكي للشرق الاوسط بحشد ودعم من البليونير شيلدون اديلسون, كانت من المفترض ان تكون للقاء الملك الجديد في الاردن, ولكن يبدو ان مرافقهم " السيد شيلدون, كانت له اجندات اكثر تعقيدا, فعندما كان اعضاء الكونجرس يستمتعون بحفل الاستقبال الذي اعده القصر الاردني, ذهب السيد شيلدون برفقة مساعده ليختلي بالعاهل الاردني في غرفة مجاورة " حسب شهادة للسيد شيلدون في المحكمة" ويقول شيلدون عن هذا اللقاء, انه كان لقاء وديا وكان الملك الجديد يستمع بادب كبير, ويضيف ان علاقته بالعائلة الملكية في الاردن هي ليست جديدة, فقد كان عبدالله الثاني يشعر بالامتنان اتجاهي فقد كنت قد قدمت طائرتي الخاصة ابان علاج الراحل حسين لاستخدامها من قبل العائلة الملكية".

يقول السيد شيلدون في شهادته في المحكمة, انه عرض مشروع " سوبر كازينو " على العاهل الاردني ليتم بناؤه على ضفاف البحر الميت على الحدود الاردنية الاسرائيلية, تحت اسم " مملكة البحر الميت" , ويضيف شيلدون ان المباحثات لم تكن نهائية وذلك لخشيته من ردود افعال جراء بناء كازينو يمتلكه اليهود على اراض عربية".

شيلدون اديلسون لم يكن صاحب شهرة كبيرة في ذاك الوقت, فاعماله انحصرت في مجال المنتجعات السياحية والكازينوهات, فهو يملك عدة كازينوهات في لاس فيغاس الامريكية, وكان نشاطه السياسي محصورا بدعم الدولة الاسرائيلية على المستوى الامريكي فقط. ولكن وحسب تقرير النيويورك تايمز الامريكية فان هذه الويارة ومشروع الكازينو خلق من السيد شيلدون شخصية مؤثرة في السياسة الدولية. ومن المعروف عن السيد شيلدون تطرفه حيال قضايا اسرائيل فهو من اشد اعداء مفاوضات السلام الفلسطينية الاسرائيلية وحل الدولتين.

لقاء عبدالله الثاني ومحمد شاهين ابراهيم.
عندما توفي الملك حسين, قامت زوجته " ليزا الحلبي " المعروفة بأسم نور, بالاستيلاء على جميع اموال زوجها الراحل او على الاقل ما كان مسجلا بأسمه في الغرب " القوانين في الغرب تعطي الزوجة الحق لتكون الوريث الوحيد بعد وفاة الزوج" , وهذا الواقع ترك عبدالله الثاني بلا اموال تقريبا, فبدأت رحلته في البحث عن اية اموال غير معروفة او غير مسجلة باسم الراحل الحسين ولم تستولي عليها ليزا الحلبي, وقادته خطاه ليلتقي بالمدعو محمد شاهين ابراهيم.

من هو محمد شاهين؟
محمد ابراهيم شاهين ولد عام 1954, وبدأ حياته المهنية في عالم المال والاستثمار عام 1972, ووصل الى قمة الهرم عام 1990, يدير عدة شركات استثمارية جميعها تندرج تحت مظلة الشركة الام " مجموعة هلال الواحة العالمية" (Oasis Crescent Global Group) وهي تملك عدة شركات في مجالات استثمارية متعددة, منها شركات اعمار " حصلت على عدة عقود في مشروع اعادة اعمار العراق, تقوم الشركة بشكل رئيسي على مستثمرين لا يرغبون في ظهور اسمائهم على اية شركة او استثمارات, وتمتعت الشركة بثقة عالية بين هذه الفئة من المستثمرين, وهي على الاغلب من الفاسدين الحكوميين وخصوصا في الدول العربية.

وتطور نشاط الشركة في العقد الاخير ليشمل عدة صناعات تقوم الشركة بالاستثمار بها ومنها تجارة الاسلحة, ولهذا الغرض قامت الشركة بانشاء فروع لها في جنوب افريقيا يتولى ادارتها السيد محمد شاهين شخصيا.

محمد شاهين ابراهيم وعلاقته بالسيد شيلدون اديلسون.
في عام 2000 قرر السيد شيلدون توسيع نشاطه في مجال الكازينوهات خارج حدود الولايات المتحدة, فكان احد خياراته هي بناء كازينوهات في جنوب افريقيا, فنالت شركة اواسيس التي يرأسها السيد محمد ابراهيم عطاء بناء الكازينو لحساب السيد شيلدون, وهكذا تم التعارف...
السيد شيلدون له اسبقيات عديدة في قضايا فساد حكومي في الولايات المتحدة وقضايا غسيل اموال, ولم تكن اخرها قضية الرشاوي لمشؤولين حكوميين في الصين. " الرابط اسفل الصفخة".

وهنا بدأ التعاون بين شيلدون و محمد شاهين في جنوب افريقيا, فكان التقاء المصالح هو دافع قوي للصداقة, محمد شاهين يقدم الغطاء لعمليات الفساد والرشاوي التي يقدمها السيد شيلدون لمسؤولين في جنوب افريقيا وغيرها من الدول, بالاضافة الى عمليات غسيل الاموال التي تتبعها. وفي المقابل يحصل محمد شاهين على عمولات كبيرة لقيامه بهذا الدور ويتم تسهيل اعماله الاخرى من خلال شيلدون.

السيد شيلدون قام بدعوة العاهل الاردني لزيارة جنوب افريقيا والاطلاع على مشروع كازينو " ساند ماكو ريزورت" هناك, والذي اتهت اعمال البناء فيه في شهر ايار 2004, وحضر عبدالله الثاني حفل الافتتاح.

الحل لمشكلة ملكية اليهود لكازينو على اراضي الاردن.
كان اللقاء الاول الذي جمع هؤلاء الثلاثة ( عبدالله الثاني, شيلدون, ومحمد شاهين), في جنوب افريقيا عام 2002, وهنا وجد ثلاثتهم الحل لمعضلة ان يكون كازينو الاردن بملكية يهودية, فكان الاتفاق ان يتم بناء المشروع تحت اسم شركة اواسيس, وتم احضار شخص رابع هو شوان الملا " مستثمر بريطاني من اصل كردي" كان يقدم خدمات للسيد محمد شاهين في استثماراته وغطاء لبعض الاستثمارات الضبابية, لتتم الصفقة بهذا الترتيب وتحت اسم شوان الملا وغطاء شركة اواسيس.

تجارة السلاح:
في بدايات حكم عبدالله الثاني " اول ثلاث او اربع سنوات" كانت تجارة السلاح في الاردن من خلال شركة " كادبي" التي يمتلكها عبدالله الثاني تتم على مستويات بسيطة حيث كان وسطائها هم " الشخص اللبناني" وهو تاجر سلاح معروف في جنوب امريكا والروسي الذي تم القاء القبض عليه من قبل السلطات الامريكية وتاجر اخر في جنوب امريكا قمنا بالكتابة عنهم في سلسلة مقالات " كادبي اكبر قضية فساد في الاردن". ولن اطيل في الكتابة عنهم هنا.

بمساعدة شيلدون ومحمد شاهين تم توسيع تجارة السلاح التي يقوم بها عبدالله الثاني وتبدأ مرحلة جديدة هي تطوير السلاح الجنوب افريقي في شركة كادبي واعادة بيعه في السوق السوداء, واصبحت معظم هذه العمليات تتم من خلال جنوب افريقا....



The trip to Jordan by a group of United States congressmen was supposed to be a chance for them to meet the newly crowned King Abdullah II. But their tour guide had a more complicated agenda.
Roslan Rahman/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who is from Israel, have given $17 million in support of Newt Gingrich in recent years.
Sam Morris/Las Vegas Sun, via Associated Press
Sheldon Adelson, right, showed a model of the Venetian, his Las Vegas hotel, to a visiting Russian official, Mikhail Shvydkoi, in 2000.
Gali Tibbon/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Sheldon Adelson, left, met with President Shimon Peres of Israel after giving the charity Birthright Israel nearly $30 million in 2007.
The guide was Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas casino magnate who helped underwrite trips to the Middle East to win support for Israel in Congress. On this occasion in 1999, as the lawmakers enjoyed a reception at the Royal Palace in Amman, Mr. Adelson and an aide retreated to a private room with the king.
There, the king listened politely as Mr. Adelson sat on a sofa and paged through his proposal for a gambling resort on the Jordan-Israel border to be called the Red Sea Kingdom.
“This was shortly after his father, King Hussein, died, and he was grateful to me,” Mr. Adelson explained later in court testimony, recalling that he had lent his plane when the ailing monarch sought treatment in the United States. “So they remembered.”
The proposal never went anywhere — Mr. Adelson later said he had feared that a Jewish-owned casino on Arab land “would have been blown to smithereens.” But his impromptu pitch to the Jordanian king highlights the boldness, if not audacity, that has propelled Mr. Adelson into the ranks of the world’s richest men and transformed him into a powerful behind-the-scenes player in American and international politics.
Those qualities may also help explain why Mr. Adelson, 78, has decided to throw his wealth behind what had once seemed to be the unlikely presidential aspirations of Newt Gingrich. Now, in no small measure because of Mr. Adelson’s deep pockets, Mr. Gingrich is locked in a struggle with Mitt Romney heading into Florida’s Republican primary on Tuesday.
Mr. Adelson, by some estimates worth as much as $22 billion, presides over a global empire of casinos, hotels and convention centers whose centerpiece is the Venetian in Las Vegas, an exuberant monument to excess with canals, singing gondoliers and acres of slot machines. That fortune is a wellspring of financial support for Mr. Gingrich, who has benefited from $17 million in political contributions from Mr. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, in recent years, including $10 million in the last few weeks that went to a “super PAC” supporting him.
The question of what motivates Mr. Adelson’s singular generosity toward the former House speaker has emerged front and center in the campaign. People who know him say his affinity for Mr. Gingrich stems from a devotion to Israel as well as loyalty to a friend. A fervent Zionist who opposes any territorial compromise to make way for a Palestinianstate, Mr. Adelson has long been enamored of Mr. Gingrich’s full-throated defense of Israel.
In December at an event in Israel for a charity he supports, Mr. Adelson made a point of endorsing Mr. Gingrich’s assertion that the Palestinians have no historic claim to a homeland.
“Read the history of those who call themselves Palestinians and you will hear why Gingrich said recently that the Palestinians are an invented people,” Mr. Adelson said at the event for Birthright Israel, which takes young Jews on trips there.
Mr. Adelson is hardly a household name. He avoids the limelight and rarely speaks to the press, remaining something of an enigma. He declined to be interviewed for this article, but he and his wife issued a statement saying friendship and loyalty are “our motivation for helping Newt.”
Through interviews and a review of Mr. Adelson’s testimony in legal disputes with former associates, a portrait emerges of a formidable and determined striver who lifted himself out of childhood penury in working-class Boston. He has a sentimental streak — on one of his first trips to Israel, he wore the shoes of his late father, a cabdriver from Lithuania who was never able to visit there — and he has given hundreds of millions of dollars to Jewish causes, medical research and injured veterans.
But his rise has not been without controversy. The Justice Department is investigating accusations by a former casino executive that Mr. Adelson’s operations in Macao may have violated federal laws banning corrupt payments to foreign officials. Also, a Chinese businessman accused Mr. Adelson of reneging on an agreement to share profits from the Macao project.
Mr. Adelson also has a reputation for irascibility and has left a trail of angry former business associates. Even his two sons sued him at one point, accusing him of cheating them, though they lost. He filed a libel suit against a Las Vegas newspaper columnist, John L. Smith, who eventually had to declare bankruptcy, and he waged a bitter court battle with a former employee whom he accused of spreading lies about him.
Nevertheless, his concern for his image was apparent in a deposition he gave in a court case, which also hints at the risk for Mr. Gingrich in accepting so much financial help from Mr. Adelson.
Complaining that negative things said about him were winding up in news articles, Mr. Adelson said his charitable donations had “been rejected a couple of times” because of the bad publicity: “Nobody ever says in such an article: ‘Oh, he’s a very nice guy. He helps old ladies across the street. He pets dogs behind the ears. He’s a hugely charitable person. He gives away hundreds of millions of dollars.’ ”
Early Ambition
Mr. Adelson likes to recount how his first business breakthrough came when, at age 12, he bought a newsstand in downtown Boston, eventually parlaying his earnings into a brief teenage career operating candy machines.
After high school, he had stints working as a mortgage banker, running a business packaging toiletries for hotels and operating a charter travel company. But he hit the jackpot with a computer trade show, Comdex, which he started in Las Vegas in 1979. Comdex became the signature annual event for the computer industry, attracting more than 200,000 visitors at its peak.
Jason Chudnofsky, who knew Mr. Adelson growing up in Dorchester, Mass., and became chief executive at Comdex, said his friend always had outsize ambition. He recalled Mr. Adelson’s telling him decades ago that one day they would be “talking to ministers” and heads of state.
“He was thinking big even back then,” Mr. Chudnofsky said.
Big thinking led Mr. Adelson to set his sights on a project that would transform both the Las Vegas casino trade and his own life in ways that seem to have surprised everybody but him.
In 1988, Mr. Adelson and his partners bought the historic Sands Hotel and Casino and built a convention center to accommodate their thriving trade show. Eight years later, after they sold Comdex for $862 million, Mr. Adelson used his profits on a risky new venture: tearing down the aging Sands and spending $1.5 billion to develop a lavish hotel and casino modeled after Venice.
Accepted wisdom had it that building both a hotel-casino and a convention center was a money loser. Mr. Adelson proved otherwise. As his reputation as a successful developer grew, he explored opportunities for overseas expansion. But his attempts to build a casino in Israel met resistance despite his connections, according to court records.
“I went to see the chief rabbi,” Mr. Adelson testified in 2009 in a lawsuit he brought against a former employee. “There was no chance the religious bodies were going to allow a casino in Israel.”
He turned his attention to Asia. China in 1999 reclaimed the former Portuguese colony of Macao, and a few years later ended a casino monopoly that had existed for many years. Mr. Adelson’s company, the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, bid for one of the licenses offered by the Chinese and won, leading to the opening of the $240 million Macao Sands in 2004.
The resort was so successful that its first-year profits exceeded the cost of the project, according to industry analysts. Mr. Adelson, who was also building a casino in Singapore, was riding high. But with so much money on the line, disputes arose with former associates looking for a share of the profits.
He was sued by a Hong Kong businessman, Richard Suen, who said he had been promised a “success fee” for introducing Mr. Adelson and his team to Chinese officials. A jury awarded Mr. Suen $44 million, but the award was overturned on appeal and the case sent back for a retrial, which is still pending.
In his suit, Mr. Suen asserted that while visiting Beijing in 2001, Mr. Adelson had been asked to use his influence in Congress to derail a human rights resolution that Chinese officials feared could complicate their bid to host the Olympic Games. Mr. Adelson acknowledged calling several congressmen, including Tom DeLay, who was the House majority whip at the time, but he and Mr. DeLay denied undermining the bill, which died in committee.
Still, a Sands executive testified that he had relayed a message to the Chinese taking credit for it.
The most damaging accusations have been made by a former Sands executive, Steve Jacobs, who sued after being fired in 2010. He alleges that he was pressed to exert “improper leverage” with Macao government officials to get approvals needed by the company, which Sands officials have denied. His assertions are now the subject of the federal investigation.
Passion for Israel
When Mr. Adelson appeared at the Birthright event in December and spoke approvingly of Mr. Gingrich, he had earned his place on the stage by virtue of his donations to the organization — more than $100 million in all.
He is also the single largest donor to Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial and museum, with gifts totaling $50 million. Mr. Adelson’s generosity to Jewish causes is especially striking given that for most of his life he was relatively uninvolved in that world.
Mr. Adelson’s business partners in his early days at Comdex were all much more active in Jewish affairs. But friends say Mr. Adelson experienced something of an awakening after his first visit to Israel in 1988, when he was in his mid-50s.
“He fell in love with the country,” said Ted Cutler, an early business partner.
This coincided with his divorce from his first wife, Sandra. Not long after his trip, he encountered a friend, Sara Aronson, at a Boston restaurant. Mr. Adelson talked excitedly of Israel and mentioned that he was interested in meeting Israeli women, Ms. Aronson recalled.
Ms. Aronson introduced him to her best friend, Dr. Miriam Ochshorn, a divorced physician from Israel in her 40s who was completing a fellowship in addiction medicine at Rockefeller University in New York. As it turned out, Mr. Adelson’s two sons from his previous marriage both struggled with drugs. One would die in 2005.
After the couple married in 1991, Mr. Adelson’s visits to Israel became so frequent that he told friends he was contemplating settling there. His increasing wealth gave him the means to make a lasting imprint on causes important to him and his wife, including the establishment of drug treatment centers in the United States and Israel.
He also became one of the biggest donors to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby, and joined its executive committee.
Friends point out that his staunch Zionist beliefs are consistent with his take-no-prisoners personality. They also said the views of his wife, who had lived through so much tumult in Israel, including the 1967 war, undoubtedly helped shape his.
Over time, Mr. Adelson made his conservative views felt not only within the committee, but also in Israel. He started a free daily newspaper in 2007, Israel Hayom, that is widely viewed as supportive of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a close friend who shares his hawkish outlook.
Ehud Olmert, who was prime minister from 2006 to 2009, got a taste of the newspaper’s treatment of politicians who fall short of Mr. Adelson’s expectations. He and Mr. Adelson had been friendly, he said, but grew distant after Mr. Olmert tried to negotiate a two-state solution with Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority.
“Once, after I was already prime minister, he asked to come see me with his wife, Miri,” Mr. Olmert recalled in a telephone interview. “He already had his newspaper, and every day it attacked me viciously.
“Toward the end of our meeting, I asked him, ‘Aren’t you ashamed of what your paper is doing to the prime minister?’ ” Mr. Olmert said, referring to himself. “He said, ‘I don’t read Hebrew.’ And Miri said, ‘I do, and I must tell you that we are very aggressive against him.’ ”
Mr. Olmert added that he had heard from senior American officials that Mr. Adelson had advocated firing Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state and getting rid of Mr. Olmert because both were “betraying Israel.”
Shared Conservatism
As Mr. Adelson was experiencing his awakening on Israel, Mr. Gingrich was ascending the Republican ranks. He was also endearing himself to stalwart supporters of Israel.
In early 1995, newly elected as speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich caused a stir when he called for moving the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He later backed legislation endorsing the move. It was at a reception celebrating the measure that Mr. Gingrich first met Mr. Adelson, according to an associate of Mr. Adelson.
From then on, Mr. Adelson was among a cadre of pro-Israel advocates with whom Mr. Gingrich had regular interactions. The casino magnate also frequently lent his Gulfstream jet to Mr. Gingrich for cross-country trips, a former Gingrich adviser recalled.
Beyond Israel, the two men shared a conservative philosophy on matters important to Mr. Adelson’s businesses, including limiting the ability of labor unions to deduct money from members’ paychecks for political activities.
Mr. Gingrich also backed legislation sought by casino owners in 1998 to preserve tax deductions beneficial to the industry. That same year, Mr. Adelson hosted a Republican fund-raiser at one of his Las Vegas venues, headlined by Mr. Gingrich, and donated $300,000 to the party for the midterm elections.
Getting Involved
In 2006, when Mr. Gingrich began laying the groundwork for a possible run for the presidency, Mr. Adelson provided $1 million in seed money for his political committee, American Solutions for Winning the Future. Mr. Adelson donated an additional $2 million the next year; his contributions to the group have totaled more than $7 million.
During the 2008 election cycle, Mr. Adelson became recognized as a top-tier donor to the right and a moneyed villain to the left. He was the primary financier of a conservative nonprofit group, Freedom’s Watch, which trumpeted plans to spend as much as $200 million on the presidential election. Those plans, however, fizzled as internal problems paralyzed the organization, with Mr. Adelson micromanaging the group’s efforts, Republican operatives familiar with the organization said at the time. The group still spent about $30 million through early 2008, almost all of which came from Mr. Adelson, according to the operatives.
Today, the Venetian and the adjoining Sands Convention Center have become default destinations for Republican events in Las Vegas.
“I call it the Republican headquarters on the Strip,” said Jon Ralston, the political columnist for The Las Vegas Sun.
The Venetian will also be the official headquarters hotel for Saturday’s Nevada presidential caucuses. And in deference to observant Jews, the Clark County Republican Committee has scheduled a special caucus on Saturday night at the Adelson Educational Campus, a Jewish school financed by the Adelsons, six hours after the rest of the state is done caucusing.
When it came time to picking sides for this year’s Republican presidential nomination, Mr. Adelson made clear to friends early on that if Mr. Gingrich decided to run, he would back him. When Mr. Gingrich’s campaign faltered, friends who supported other candidates put pressure on Mr. Adelson to stay out of the race.
Nevertheless, Mr. Adelson made an initial $5 million contribution to Winning Our Future, a pro-Gingrich super PAC, before the South Carolina primary, which proved pivotal in Mr. Gingrich’s victory there.
Fred Zeidman, a Texas energy executive active in Jewish and Republican circles, said he talked to Mr. Adelson early last week, before it became public that Mrs. Adelson, 66, had also donated $5 million to the super PAC. Mr. Adelson told his friend that he was going to give more money and seemed to signal that he was willing to keep it flowing.
“I think what he’s trying to say is, ‘Newt ain’t going away, and I’m going to make sure of it,’ ” Mr. Zeidman said.
Reporting was contributed by Adam Nagourney from Las Vegas, Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner from Israel, and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: February 5, 2012
Because of an editing error, an article last Sunday about the casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, a major financial supporter of Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign, referred incorrectly to testimony by an executive from Mr. Adelson’s company, Las Vegas Sands Corporation. The executive testified that he himself relayed a message to the Chinese, taking credit for derailing a human rights resolution in Congress; the executive did not say that Mr. Adelson relayed the message.

الخميس، 31 يناير، 2013

سيناريو الثورة في الاردن

من المبكر التكهن بمسار اي ثورة ولكن طرح سيناريوهات محتملة في المشهد الاردني يعطي كل طرف الوقت الكافي لدراسة خياراته ضمن معطيات الوضع الاردني وهي:

١. عدم الرضا عن المسار السياسي للبلد آخذ في الاتساع وليس الانحسار. نبرة الانتقاد وشدته والتركيز على الملك بدلاً من الحكومة او مصطلح النظام الفضفاض كلها دلائل تشير الى ان الوضع يتفاقم. دخل على خط المعارضة للنظام عناصر شبابية في الاردن والأعداد تتزايد والنبرة تشتاد حدة. هذا الزخم سيترجم الى أعداد أكبر في التظاهرات والاحتجاجات.

٢. دخل على خط المعارضة الحادة مثقفين من أبناء العشائر من حملة الشهادات العليا والوزن العشائري. وهذا تطور بارز حيث ان ابن العشيرة المثقف كلمته مسموعة.

٣. غض البصر من قبل المخابرات على النشاط التنظيمي للحراك مؤشر جديد حيث ان التنسيقيات لا تتعرض الى مضايقة في التخطيط والتنفيذ بسبب تعليمات بعدم تأجيج الشارع بعد نتيجة الانتخابات وعدم استفزاز الشارع قبل تموضع مجلس التواب كذراع فاعل في عملية الإصلاح.

هنظام الاردن الان في موقف حساس لان ترك المعارضة تسرح وتمرح بغرض الإيعاز للجميع ان مرحلة جديدة من الانفراج السياسي بدأت سيتم الاستفادة منه كمساحة إضافية للتجييش والتأجيج.

الخيار الثاني هو الضغط على التنسيقيات لردعها عن تأجيج الشارع وهذا سيعطي الانطباع ان البلد عاد الى مربع الصفر وان المجلس الحديد صوري لانه لم يغير المشهد السياسي.

وعليه فان الاردن دخل في أجواء الربيع العربي ببطء شديد ولكن بقدم ثابتة لان الناس استنفذت الخيارات الإصلاحية بقيادة الملك واحدا تلو الآخر دون تغيير ملموس على الوضع الاقتصادي الذي ازداد سوءاً او السياسي الذي دخل في مرحلة فقدان آلامل بالنظام والملك على وجه التحديد.

الثلاثاء، 29 يناير، 2013

إياك ان تقول: "إحنا أحسن من غيرنا"

"الحمد لله احنا أحسن من غيرنا" يرددها السحيجة والطبيلة كلما سمعوا أحدا يقول ان "نظام الاردن فاسد" وهذا دليل على ضعف في قدرات التفكير النقدي لديهم.

دعني أبين للطبيلة الخطا المنطقي في مثل هذا القول ليوفروا على انفسهم نقاشات عقيمة ويحتفظوا ببعض الكرامة البشرية.

إذا اكتشفت ان المرأة التي تحبها لها ماض غير مشرف وكذبت عليك بخصوصه فما هو رد الفعل الطبيعي:

ا. ان تقول الحمد لله أنها اشرف من الباغية المعروفة شوشو وتستمر في حبها

ب. ان تطردها من بيتك لأنها كاذبة وخائنة

إذا أجبت بألف فانت سحيج وطبيل وعبيط لأنه بإمكانك ان تحصل على الأفضل ولكنك رضيت بالأمر الواقع وهذا ما تفعله حين تقول "الحمد لله احنا أحسن من غيرنا" وتقبل بنظام خائن

إذا أجبت بباء فانت حر لأنك ترفض الأمر الواقع لانه خطأ وغش وكذب.

المرة القادمة حين يقول لك احد الأحرار "لازم نغير النظام لانه فاسد" فإياك ان تقول "بظل أحسن من غيره" لكي لا تتهم بشرفك.

هناك حالة واحدة يمكنك ان تقول "الحمد لله احنا أحسن من غيرنا" وهي إذا ضرب الاردن زلزال واصبح كل سكان الاردن مقعدين فيمكنك إذا ان تقول " الحمد لله احنا أحسن من غيرنا" لأن السورييين ضربهم زلزال أكبر وهم لا يقدرون الا على الزحف.

الملك حسين وعلاقته بال CIA

اوكونيل هو عميل ال CIA الذي كتب كتاباً عنوانه مستشار الملك وهو كتاب خطير كشف فيه علاقة الملك حسين مع ال CIA. هذا الكتاب اصبح مهما الان بسبب الأحداث الدائرة في الاردن لانه يساعدنا في فهم حكم الهاشميين.

اوكونال أرسلته ال CIA في سنة ١٩٥٨ ليساعد الملك في التغلب على المعارضة ضد الملك والتي كان الهامها من نظام الرئيس عبد الناصر حسب وصف الكاتب

أرسلت ال CIA عميلها بيتر الذي حقق مع منظمي الانقلاب ضد الملك حسين وحصل على اعتراف من المتهمين.

طلب اوكانال ان يكون العميل الرئيسي في المنطقة ويكون مقره عمان بسبب علاقته مع الملك حسين حيث أمضى وقته في تجنيد عملاء CIA محليين واستمر بهذه العلاقة حتى بعد عودته لواشنطن حيث اشترى له الملك منزلاً وكان ممثله الشخصي في واشنطن.

يقول اوكانال ان الأمير حسن حاول إقناع الملك حسين بعدم مناصرة صدام حسين في حرب الخليج ولكنه فشل لان الملك ظن ان صدام كان سينتصر.

يتحدث اوكانال عن انتظاره على الشاطئ بينما كان الملك حسين يلتقي مع قولدامايير رئيسة وزراء اسرائيل في جزيرة صغيرة قرب ميناء العقبة.

كما يتحدث اوكانال عن وضع مخدر في شراب الملك حسين من قبل الممثلة ليندا كريسشيان وابنتها الساقطة المعروفة بالسيكسبوت.

يتحدث اوكانال عن دفع ال CIA مبلغ ٨٠٠ ألف دولار سنويا لحماية عائلة الملك حسين خلال تواجدهم في واشنطن ومبلغ ١٥ ألف دولار في بداية علاقة ال CIA بالملك لتدريب المخابرات الأردنية.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2011/0912/book/book_deatkinejones_kings.html



Editor’s note: In a new approach to this section, we are using two reviews of a single book to provide different, sometimes similar but also conflicting, perspectives of a fascinating memoire.
King’s Counsel: Two Perspectives
Reviewed by Norvell "Tex" DeAtkine and David T. Jones 
Jack O’Connell with Vernon Loeb, King’s Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, W.W.Norton and Company, New York, New York, 2011. ISBN 978-0-393-06334-9. 752 pp. $35.00 (hardcover.)
Probably no other work of recent vintage has been so revealing of the intricacies and imponderables of the byzantine world of Middle Eastern politics as this book. In a book written by an ex-CIA “spy” (as the author refers to himself), it is never quite clear what has been left out as a result of the CIA rules, but plenty in this book remains to provoke heated discussion. That it has not yet done so puzzles the reviewer. After all, to claim, as the author does, that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger actively encouraged the Egyptians to launch the 1973 war on the Israelis or to admit that the author provided King Hussein with U.S. intelligence that the Israelis were about to attack Egypt in 1967 –- information the King relayed to Nasser who apparently disregarded it--seems rather startling. Perhaps the Middle East, with all the recent unhappy U.S. involvement there, has simply outworn public interest.
The author is a throwback to the type of personality who transferred from the OSS to the CIA following World War II. Athletic, scholarly with a law degree from Notre Dame and with good connections in the Washington area, he typifies a generational type much less found today -- someone who ditches an assured career path for an often dangerous and a much less remunerative one. This reviewer overlapped with O’Connell’s tenure at the Amman Embassy and while I seldom saw or had dealings with him, his reputation was that of the consummate professional. He was always unflappable, self-effacing and never put himself in the spotlight. Within the embassy it was assumed, with good reason, that King Hussein kept O’Connell in the decision-making process.
When this reviewer arrived in Jordan in the summer of 1970, Mr. O’Connell constituted the leadership of the embassy. The King had declared the previous ambassador as persona non grata and turmoil characterized the leadership inside the embassy and political situation outside. Palestinian gunmen controlled most of Amman, making life for U.S. embassy personnel hazardous, culminating in the murder, in front of his family, of the assistant Army Attaché. The author’s depiction of those days is accurate and immensely readable.
O’Connell first became acquainted with the King in 1958 when the Agency sent him to help the King ferret out the anti-regime plotters. Made up mostly of army officers, many from prominent families, they were to carry out an Egyptian–inspired anti-regime coup and put Jordan firmly into the pan-Arabist Abdul Nasser coalition. The King was having a difficult time providing the proof necessary to convince the people that it was indeed a plot and not just a ploy to get rid of potential political opposition. After some period of time spent fruitlessly trying to elicit confessions, the Agency sent an expert interrogator, an ex-Polish nobleman who came into the CIA during WWII, known only as “Peter.” By use of a skillfully concocted story, the interrogator broke one plotter and the whole web unraveled.
For several years after that, O’Connell was assigned to Beirut and there relates many anecdotes about the spy world at that time, with all the notable personalities -- Kim Philby, Miles Copeland, Kermit Roosevelt, and Bill Eveland, a previous station chief who was said to have run Lebanon out of the Lebanese President’s office. O’Connell ruminates about the various CIA engineered coups of that era, mostly unsuccessful and concludes, “covert wars are a contradiction in terms.” The meat of this section of the book, however, is O’Connell’s philosophy on recruiting local agents, including the importance of finding a principal agent “who knows everyone in town” and the use of the polygraph to establish his reliability. It is less cloak and dagger than just common sense, human understanding, and a bit of intuition.
The main part of the book begins in 1963 when O’Connell overcame initial objections by the U.S. Ambassador to his being assigned as station chief in Amman, which begins the author’s long association with Jordan and particularly King Hussein. This association continues long after O’Connell leaves the CIA and becomes the King’s personal representative in Washington, to the extent of buying him and Princess Muna homes there.
In his generally hagiographic portrait of the King, O’Connell points to the King’s decision in 1967 to support Abdul Nasser’s threat of armed force against Israel, putting his forces under incompetent Egyptian leadership, as one of Hussein’s greatest mistakes. It led to the loss of the West Bank portion of Jordan and the influx of many thousands of Palestinian refugees. Many of the following chapters of the book are devoted to the Palestinian problem, and the King’s involvement in the futile negotiations attempting to find a settlement. O’Connell comes down hard on Israel, basically laying out the case that while Israel was willing to give up the Sinai, and deal with Syria on Golan, the West Bank contains a religious element that goes well beyond security requirements. He presents his personal insight on the many “missed opportunities” for a settlement. In his view Israeli intransigence and U.S. facilitation and support for the Israelis are the primary reason for failure.
As the author states, “For the risks the King took in his search for peace, he was betrayed by both the Israelis and Americans.” By inference it is also clear that his fellow Arabs also continually betrayed the King. A prime example of this is the notorious 1967 “Khartoum Resolution,” a secret agreement made at the Arab summit, in which the then chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Ahmad Shuqeri, announced that the Arabs had agreed on no negotiation, no recognition, and no peace with the Israelis. The Israelis have used this since as displaying the futility of negotiations with the Arabs. In fact, according to O’Connell, a CIA translation of the final agreement depicted the Arab position as much more malleable. That being the case, the obvious question would be why the various Arab governments have not chosen to correct the record. The answer is just as obvious as the question. The recent “wiki leaks” and the “Arab Spring” have made it very clear that Arab rulers rarely tell their people the truth, especially about their attitude toward the Palestinian issue. It remains the Arab rulers’ antidote to domestic unrest although, as seen recently in Syria, it has lost some of its efficacy.
Arab betrayal of the King was graphically on display in the 1970 conflict between the Jordanian Army and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a conflict that widened into a civil war between the Palestinian community in Jordan and the East Bank Jordanians. The King was ostracized by most of his fellow Arab rulers and constantly betrayed by Yasser Arafat, who concluded numerous “cease fires” with no intention of keeping them. Again O’Connell, who distrusted Arafat, felt that Hussein delayed moving against the Palestinian organization because he tried to avoid a bloodbath but also because he trusted the word of Arafat. He was pushed into a showdown with the PLO by his army, which was outraged by PLO hubris and watching on the sidelines as the Palestinians gradually took control of large sections of Amman. The conflict was bloody, and raged on much longer than expected. Few, including most of the Near East analysts in the CIA, expected the King to prevail, particularly when the Syrians intervened with armored units, dressed in Palestinian Liberation Army colors. The Syrian threat was eliminated by the Jordanian air force, enjoying a “turkey shoot” of the Syrian tanks on the northern Jordanian desert, while uncontested by the Syrian air force. The author assessed this as being a calculation on the part of the commander, Hafez al Assad, that the intervention would fail and he would pick up the pieces and take over Syria. It was also true that the Israelis, through other country channels, made it clear that the Israeli air force would shoot down Syrian planes over Jordan.
In addition, an Iraqi armored division, which had been sitting in Jordan since the 1967 war, was expected by many to intervene to support the PLO. It did not, and quite unexpectedly began withdrawing toward the Iraqi border. Many observers then and since have been mystified by the Iraqi withdrawal. The author explains it as the consequence of an elaborate hoax created by the Jordanian chief of Intelligence, a former Iraqi Ba’thi, who convinced the Iraqi commanders that a U.S. airborne drop was to be made near the Jordanian-Iraqi border, cutting off the Iraqis from their bases and supplies. It may also have had something to do with a rather cordial relationship between Saddam Hussein and King Hussein, something the author later comments on in assessing Jordan’s lack of participation in the wars against Iraq. Stating, as the author does, that the U. S. did nothing to shore up the Hussein regime during the 1970 Palestinian crisis, is wrong. Air Force pilots bringing in heavily laden C-141’s, delivered a significant amount of ammunition and other supplies to an unimproved desert airstrip for an ammunition-starved Jordanian army. After the 1971 crisis O’Connell departed Jordan and shortly thereafter left the CIA, and as part of a law firm became King Hussein’s personal representative in Washington.
The rest of the book is the author’s impressions, drawing on conversations with CIA and Foreign Service officials, of the U.S. role in various peace negotiations after the Arab-Israeli war of 1973 and the Iraqi wars. Generally O’Connell deemed them lost opportunities; and gross miscalculations, again because of Israeli intransigence, a record of broken U.S. promises and a profound ignorance of the region, which was typified by U.S. trust in opportunists such as Ahmad Chalabi.
King Hussein found himself on the wrong side of the first Gulf war, walking a tightrope in that many of his top officials were involved in arms shipments to the Iraqis. As O’Connell states, many of the pro-Iraqi officials were of the impression that Saddam would win the showdown, influencing the King to stand aside, even though his brother, Prince Hassan, tried hard to convince him otherwise.
In the latter portion of the book O’Connell fires a lot of shotgun blasts that do little to enhance the value of his book. He opines that the first war with Iraq was unnecessary, in that Saddam was a man with whom we could have dealt. “If we had only given Saddam the respect he craved.” The second war was entered into despite “having no evidence” of weapons of mass destruction. Several years after the fact we know this, but at the time it was not the assessments of most Western intelligence including the CIA Also his many references to “neocons” a term that has been politicized out of meaning, serves no useful purpose.
The reviewer found some of his judgments rather naïve-- especially for an old CIA hand living in a world of deception and deceit. He advocated, for example, a peace solution in which all the Arab countries would guarantee to recognize Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. To believe that all the unstable Arab regimes would agree to abide by a piece of paper, especially a peace with Israel, seems otherworldly. Moreover, his idea that the Palestinian problem should be resolved through an international court system seems Pollyannaish to the extreme, given the respect most Middle Eastern regimes have for international sanctions or agreements.
The book is full of amusing anecdotes about his encounters with various U.S. officials as well as stories about the King. O’Connell recounts his time waiting on the beach while the King partied with Golda Meir and other Israelis on a small island in the Gulf of Aqaba. Another is the episode when the King had his drink laced with LSD by the Hollywood actress Linda Christian, and her “sexpot” daughter.
The author died before publication of the book, and his co-author, a Washington Post journalist, could have done a much better job editing, organizing and tightening the narrative.
-Norvell “Tex” DeAtkine
For 40 years, Jack O'Connell was the epitome of the CIA agent--even after he left the Agency—as one of those who “kept the secrets.” A Middle East specialist, O'Connell rose to senior rank as acting chief of the Near East Division of the Directorate of Operations before leaving in 1972 to practice law in Washington for the next generation. However, his primary cachet throughout this period was his unique level of intimacy with and trust accorded to him by Jordanian King Hussein. From the time they met in 1958 until Hussein's death in 1999, they bonded; Hussein trusted him absolutely, relied upon him, and (largely) took his advice.
After a tour in Beirut, O'Connell operated as station chief in Amman between 1963-71 during a dangerous and dramatic era. Subsequently, after retiring from the CIA, in 1972, O'Connell became Hussein's lawyer and de facto personal lobbyist/consultant in Washington. He continued that role with Hussein’s successor, King Abdullah (whom he had known as a child and playmate of his children).
O'Connell contends that, inspired by Hussein's wishes, he wrote the book to tell the "truth" of the convoluted and often bitter events in the Middle East over the past generation. Perhaps. But if so, it demonstrates that there are as many "truths" regarding the Middle East as there are descriptions of the "elephant" by the proverbial four blind men.
But what you do have with King’s Counsel is a relatively rare item in Western publication: a comprehensive pro-Palestinian/pro-Arab/Israel-skeptical account by a doubtless biased but none-the-less intimately knowledgeable and connected senior USG official. That O’Connell was also a senior intelligence officer provides a further dimension of insight. O’Connell knew not only all of the State Department reporting/analysis on the area but also all of the clandestine connections and insights. He was closely associated with all of the senior CIA officials of this period. And his generation long experience with Jordan and unique association with Hussein made him the “go to” man in dealing with king/country.
In the process, O’Connell provides fascinating detail on
• How the 1967 war unfolded, including his conclusion that the Israeli attack on the spy ship Liberty was “not an accident”;
• The many efforts to implement UN Resolution 242 and lever the Israelis to withdraw from occupied territory;
• The Palestinian-Arafat PLO uprising in 1970 and how it was crushed by the Jordanian army;
• The origins of the 1973 war which O’Connell believes was instigated by Henry Kissinger so “the United States could negotiate a cease-fire and begin a process which would remove Egypt as an enemy of Israel”;
• The machinations of USG relations with Saddam Hussein before and after the 1991 war, along with his judgment that Saddam had legitimate complaints against Kuwait; and
• The variety of contact and operations regarding Iraq/Hussein during the run up to the 2003 Gulf War, which he believes was unnecessary and counterproductive. Indeed, he comments that if Saddam had managed to assassinate one “pompous little man” (Ahmed Chalabi), the likelihood the U.S. would have invaded Iraq would have been much lower.
And there are a variety of titillating gossip column type items, including how an “aging actress” spiked Hussein’s drink with LSD, and O’Connell secured emergency medical assistance from Athens, and how he encountered British intelligence officer/spy Kim Philby immediately before he defected to Moscow. Or a misplaced U.S. briefing book in which our dismissive assessment of the King reached Hussein’s hands—with predictably negative effect. Likewise, O’Connell recounts a number of “tradecraft” events including efforts (some successful) to bug the Soviet embassy, including bugs in the legs of the Soviet ambassador’s desk, along with allusions to comprehensive taping of private Arab meetings.
He is biting in his assessments of other USG officials, such as describing UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg as a “little bantam rooster...with a Napoleon complex.” But U.S. Mideast negotiator Dennis Ross puzzled him. How could the Clinton Administration have retained him when “everything he had been involved in over the years had been a failure”? O’Connell concluded that Ross epitomized “bureaucratic efficiency. He was—and still is—a very efficient civil servant.”
But what most mars the King’s Counsel account is how totally O’Connell is an in-the-bag apologist for Hussein. Moreover, there are oddities: $15,000 per month paid directly to Hussein initially to help him fund the Jordanian intelligence service; and an annual $800,000 CIA-funded contract to provide security/protection to Hussein’s children when they were living in Washington. Or a (second hand) 50-foot yacht purchased for Hussein to provide a mechanism for the royal family to escape if necessary. Although artfully explained away by O’Connell, the magnitude of the resources provided to Hussein made it difficult to argue that he was not a bought-and-paid-for CIA asset. And it also raises implicitly the question of the extent of the CIA payroll elsewhere in the region.
Nevertheless, for O’Connell, Hussein was the patient, mannerly, controlled “adult” in the region—and constantly disrespected, overlooked, and even betrayed regardless of how effectively/persistently he presented arguments and logic for Jordanian interests. No matter how he tried, Hussein was never able to overcome his catastrophic error in the 1967 war of subordinating Jordanian forces to Egyptian command and then going to war with Israel. O’Connell admits this error, but claims that Hussein was misled by Nasser and could have done his share just by moving troops to the border, but not fighting. The consequence, however, was the loss of the “crown jewels” of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. For the rest of his life, Hussein sought fruitlessly to build on the ostensible language of UN Resolution 242 regarding return of occupied territory for “peace”—but Israel was never going to surrender tangibles such as an undivided Jerusalem and historic territory in the West Bank for an abstraction such as peace.
Thus for a supposed realist such as O’Connell, he continues to insist that the Arabs/Jordan should emphasize the legalities of their case against Israel: the illegal (according to UN Res 242) occupation of the West Bank/East Jerusalem; the illegal Israeli construction of housing/settlements in the area; the refusal to permit refugees to return to their homes. He is also disingenuous in proclaiming the virtues of the 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by 22 Arab states—the proclamation in effect is no more than a demand that Israel withdraw from all occupied territories and accede to other traditional Arab requirements (refugee right of return) in exchange for peace. This is pound your head against a separation barrier logic in the hope that the wall will crack before your head does. Perhaps, trained as a lawyer and given a bad case, O’Connell chooses to emphasize the hopeful law rather than the hopeless facts.
-David Jones

authorDavid T. Jones is a retired State Department Senior Foreign Service Career Officer and a frequent contributor to American Diplomacy. During a career that spanned over 30 years, he concentrated on politico-military issues, serving inter alia as a POLAD for the Army Chief of Staff. He is coauthor of Uneasy Neighbor(u)rs, a study of American-Canadian bilateral concerns and has published several hundred articles, columns, and reviews on U.S.-Canadian bilateral issues and general foreign policy.