Editor’s Note: Jay Nordlinger attended the World Economic Forum on the Middle East last week. It took place by the Dead Sea in Jordan. Below is the first installment of his journal.
Another May, another Mideast jamboree — brought to you by the World Economic Forum, the Davos people. In January, they have their big world convocation in Switzerland. But then they have these “regional meetings.” And the Middle East meeting began after 9/11, when Middle Eastern matters seemed especially urgent. This meeting alternates between Jordan, on the Dead Sea, and Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt — which is on the Red Sea.
And for years, I’ve told the same joke: Better Dead than Red, or better Red than Dead?
Well, they’re both good, and this year we’re Dead: in Jordan, about an hour from Amman. Israel is across the sea (or lake, if you prefer). Will this meeting ever be held in Israel? Um . . . don’t wait up nights.
Begin with the flight — my flight from JFK in New York to Queen Alia International in Amman. I can’t help thinking of Mark Steyn. It’s natural to think of Mark Steyn, isn’t it? In this particular case, I’m thinking of demography, and all the arguments Mark has made over the years. He speaks about “demographic energy”: and this is not coming from Westerners.
On my Royal Jordanian flight are many, many children. I believe half the passengers are under ten. Seriously. Parents have brought along three children, four children, five children, more. And I find myself thinking, “My, what large families.” But, when I was growing up — in good old America — that was pretty unremarkable, routine. Now there’s one child, or two if you’re really, really fecund and reckless. And these Middle Eastern families seem: large. “It’s all relative,” as the saying goes (and in this case there’s a double meaning, I guess).
Whenever I am on a “Third World flight” — impolite term — I notice this: children. On the flights within the U.S. I take, children are almost a novelty. Same with flights to and from Europe. But whenever I wander beyond those regions: kid-o-rama.
This cannot be without consequences, can it? Whether you regard them as good or bad: It cannot be without consequences. For more, please consult Mark Steyn.
Of course, the differences in numbers of children can be seen all the more once you’re on the ground somewhere. You may remember a journal I wrote last year, from India, and about India. One of the delights of such a trip is: the presence of children, in great numbers, and laughy, sparkling-eyed, charming children too. Even in squalor. (Pardon the stereotype, but it is quite true.)
I must acknowledge that, if I took a flight from, say, Milwaukee to Orlando, in late June, I would see a fair number of children: lil’ Disney-goers.
On the New York-Amman flight, I sit next to a Palestinian man, about 32, I should say. He lives in Bucks County, Pa. (A favorite getaway for New Yorkers who want some non-urban scenery.) He is from Hebron, and is returning for two months to see his children. At the end of this flight, he of course asks me to come be his guest, in Hebron.
I use the phrase “of course,” because such a gesture is habitual in the Middle East. I have often said, “Arab hospitality” is not a mere cliché. Of course, there are rules for accepting hospitality.
In any case, many of us have long been enamored of the Middle East, in particular Arab society — enamored, dismayed, and repelled at the same time. This region is like a drug, for many. And not all of them “go native,” à la St. John Philby, and more recent, unbalanced others.
On Royal Jordanian, they give you a health form, to fill out and present to an official — white-coated, it will transpire — upon landing. The form is touching in that the English words are misspelled — almost uniformly. Including “Hashemite Kingdom,” which is rendered “Hashemiie Kingdom.” This is amusing in part because the king’s English — that is to say, King Abdullah II’s English — is about as polished as you can get.
British “public” schools, plus Deerfield, plus Oxford, will do that to you.
King Abdullah has been in the news of late, insisting on a two-state solution between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and insisting that this be accomplished very, very fast. In fact, he is warning of war if this is not accomplished in a year or year and a half.
Our David Pryce-Jones had a comment on his blog (and his full entry is here):
The two-state solution is . . . an anachronism. The failure of the Oslo accords and the character of Yasser Arafat killed the whole idea. The one conceivable move at present is to return to pre-1967 conditions, and for Egypt to have the Gaza Strip and Jordan the West Bank. The snags involved might be surmountable. But right on cue, here comes King Abdullah of Jordan to say at the top of his voice that Israel and the Palestinians must make peace immediately, and failure to do so means a war within a year or 18 months. No responsible leader should hold out such a threat — but let that pass, the king doesn’t really mean it. Palestinians already compose three-quarters of his population, and he is fearful of acquiring the West Bank and a couple of million more. The threat of imminent war is a way of issuing a caution, “If the Israelis won’t have the Palestinians, I’m not having them either; get them off my back.” In other words, he’s anticipating that whatever Obama ordains won’t work out, and he’s not the only one to be doing so.
CONTINUED 1 2 Next >
