Jordan -1 I have thousands of pictures that tell the story of my long career in journalism. But one of the dearest pictures to my heart is my photograph with King Hussein, Rest in Peace, who wrote on the picture the following dedication: To my dear brother Jihad el-Khazen, with sincere love, deep appreciation, and best wishes 1973-1995. I shall tell the story behind this picture tomorrow. I started with it today as my prelude to revisiting my article on the ‘Jordanian Tribal Leaders' statement' addressed to King Abdullah II, and which caused a controversy that I did not expect at all; to the extent that the comments posted on the article exceeded one thousand, or twice as the previous record, which was set by the number of comments posted on my article published during the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006, after I declared my withdrawal of my recognition of the state of Israel. Today I shall explain and put the subject to rights. I am not a champion of causes and it is not in my nature to be fervent. My overwhelming quality is rather that of extreme caution, and I usually think about something once, twice and even ten times, and yet may not do anything in the end. This time, I read a news story about a statement issued by tribal figures. I was bewildered by the information contained therein, and I asked the editing secretary to obtain the text of the statement for me. I read the text, and I found it to be even worse than the brief report I read about it. However, I was still in doubt, and so I asked the secretary for the text again, but from a different source this time. The secretary returned to me with a new text that was identical to the previous one. Since the computer printer notes the date when a document is printed, I ended up with having two texts of the statement, one dated 10/2/2011 and another dated 11/2/2011. Since I live in London, I keep all documents used in my articles, so I can present them in case of any controversy. My article on the statement included both facts and opinions. In truth, the factual information I quoted from the statement are absolutely correct, and I refuse to simply discuss them; in fact, the statement included what was even worse than what I published. By contrast, opinion is a right to those who express it, and it is sacred in England, where I live. I can say about any statement published by Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, that it is ignorant, ill-advised or vile. Nevertheless, I will not be stubborn, and perhaps it is my duty to tackle a Jordanian subject in a Jordanian language, not that of Britain. It might also be my responsibility to prefer reproach to an attack with the weapon of words. And if there are a thousand messages, with 90 percent being against me, then it is a necessity that I take them seriously. I alone take responsibility for the article, but do not backtrack on my opinion. Instead, I shall attempt to explain and conciliate. For six months now, no one in Jordan has contacted me, be it an official or a friend of any kind, except a dear brother who recently underwent two surgeries in London before returning to Amman. Last week, I called him but did not manage to find him. I felt worried, so I contacted a common friend whom the readers know. The friend is Brother Taher Masri, who reassured me that our common friend is at the hospital for tests. I was also supposed to meet Jordanian officials in Davos. However, they were all absent this year, and the last time I saw Queen Rania was 13 months ago in Davos. But I neither saw her nor king this time, or any person in the Royal Court, for over a year, for that matter. After I published my article, Brother Taher contacted me, expressed his displeasure and disapproval, and asked me to rectify the situation, and so here I am trying to do just that. The majority of tribesmen who objected to what I wrote defended the tribes and their traditions, and expressed their support for the signatories of the statement, for tribal considerations of course. They also reaffirmed their allegiance to the King and the Hashemite dynasty. However, if they are indeed loyal to the King, then they cannot support the signatories of the statement, who threatened the King six times in the statement with a fate similar to the one seen in Tunis and Cairo, and insulted Queen Rania in a shameful manner. Do they want King Abdullah II to end up as a refugee in Jeddah? The messages also said that I railed against the tribes. I absolutely reject this claim because I did not attack the tribes, and said instead that they are the backbone of Jordan, and that they are known for their magnanimity, morality, politeness and civility. I attacked the signatories of the statement, and differentiated between them and the tribes, which did not appoint them as their designated spokesmen. This means that I attacked 36 men, not the three million tribesmen in their totality. The last paragraph in my article, like all those that preceded it, was entirely about those thirty-sex men. I said that they were wandering Arabs, and quoted the Quran on wandering Arabs. But perhaps it was best to keep away from talking about tribes, and to quote instead another verse, which is, “If a Fasiq (rebellious evil) person comes to you with news, verify it lest you harm people in ignorance …” Another point was mentioned in the messages and comments, which is that I attacked the women or the daughters of the tribes, as I referred to names such as Bas'aa and Jarweh. What was strange is that, among who those criticized my references to these names, were women who declared that they are proud of those traditional names. About this, I say: never ever. I did not attack the women or the daughters, who are our people, but the men, because it is fathers who choose such names for their daughters, not the girls themselves. And yet, I encounter all these messages and mistakes, and I think about how this came to happen. Since I do not accept for myself to say that I am right while hundreds of readers are wrong, then I say that I should have been more careful, and should have spoken with the Jordanian public in its language not mine, especially as I am fluent in both. I shall continue with this subject tomorrow. [email protected]
