NEWS ANALYSIS King Hussein’s death leaves immense void in Middle East

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 (JTA) — The death of Jordan’s King Hussein has created an immense void in the Middle East at a critical time for Israel, the Palestinians and, of course, Jordan. Virtually overnight Jordan has lost the only leader it has known since the Lyndon Johnson administration. Hussein’s certain death from cancer, combined with his decision last month to sack his brother and former heir Prince Hassan, has created uncertainty and concern among many Middle East diplomats and analysts. “Without King Hussein and Prince Hassan, Jordan loses the two most forward-thinking Jordanians on the issue of peace,” said Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “Filling this gap will be tough.” Hussein, 63, who has occupied the Jordanian throne since 1952, returned from the United States last month and in a surprise move removed his brother and appointed his son Abdullah, now 37, heir to the throne. Hassan had held the title of crown prince for 34 years. Along with the throne, Abdullah has inherited an unpopular peace accord with Israel and an unstable domestic economy. Nonetheless, many Israelis believe that Jordan will continue on the path Hussein set. “Jordan has never been just a one-man show,” said Asher Susser, senior fellow at Tel Aviv University’s Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies. Hussein “leaves Jordan a country with an institutional foundation capable of maintaining itself. His departure does not mean the destabilization of the Jordanian state,” he said. But others believe Hussein’s loss “poses a challenge to the stability of Jordan as well as to the Arab-Israeli peace process,” said Joseph Nevo, professor of Middle East history at the University of Haifa. “Abdullah may find it a trying task to follow the footprints of his father.” Who rules Jordan and in what matter is of immense importance for the region. Israel’s longest border is with Jordan, which acts as a strategic buffer with hostile states. In addition, Hussein’s charisma and skills were central to breaking many impasses in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In its last major military conflict with Jordan, Israel seized the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1967. Since then, Hussein followed a more pragmatic path, which culminated in the 1994 peace agreement with Israel. Indicative of the importance Israel places on its relations with Jordan, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon were to visit with Abdullah this weekend. The meeting was canceled. Instead, Netanyahu planned to attend the king’s funeral service Monday. “King Hussein was not a consensus-builder on the issue of the peace process — he was a trail-blazer,” Satloff said. He cited as an example Hussein’s decision to ignore the unanimous advice of his advisers to enter a “fortress Jordan” mind set after the Israel and the Palestinians singed their 1993 Oslo peace agreement. Abdullah has his work cut out for him, analysts say. “Unless a very high bar is set now on peacemaking and normalization with Israel, then it is sure to be lowered with the passage of time,” Satloff said. Hussein, who ruled Jordan for almost all of Israel’s existence as a modern state, forged a warm bond with many Israelis. “For many, Hussein symbolized the way things could be, and not the way they are,” columnist Chemi Shalev wrote Friday in the Israeli daily Ma’ariv. “When the need arose, he stood by us, just as we enlisted him to help him in dire times. He was a walking advertisement for the benefits of peace,” Shalev wrote. “We are used to saying that we did not choose our neighbors. But even if it were our choice, we would have pointed to King Hussein as a desirable neighbor in our shared building,” he wrote. While little is known about Abdullah, he has played a positive role in the peace process from the sidelines, and no one has suggested he will change his father’s course. “A positive role is one thing. A driving, iconoclastic role is something else,” Satloff said. Abdullah is expected to ascend to the throne without incident. But over time he is likely to be tested by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, Syrian President Hafez Assad and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. “How Abdullah meets those tests will determine how these three, and others in the region, view him for quite some time,” Satloff said. Abdullah, as the head of Jordan’s armed forces has had much experience in dealing with world leaders. He is one of only a handful of people to meet with Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi, Assad and Iraq’s Hussein. In a sign of probable stability for Jordan, Kuwait is said to be on the verge of restoring diplomatic ties that were suspended after Hussein back Iraq during the Gulf War. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are also expected to expand economic ties and may send aid. Israeli military leaders have quietly developed good relations with Abdullah. While the Palestinian leadership is less familiar with him, he is well-liked in the community, in part because he married a prominent Palestinian woman. In addition, Abdullah had no role in the bitter fighting between Jordanian forces and Palestinian guerrillas in 1980. Abdullah has already met with U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and is a known commodity at the Pentagon, where, as head of the military, he has met on numerous occasions with top U.S. military officials. But Washington and Jerusalem were still lamenting that all their work developing relations with Hassan was thrown out the window last month. Washington insiders expect President Clinton to give Vice President Al Gore the responsibility of developing close relations with Abdullah. But for now the big question is what Abdullah will do in the short term. “The bottom line is that Jordan has enduring interests which any new king would pursue,” Satloff said. The question is how he pursues them. “King Hussein has always lived by the axiom: Deal with today’s problems today, tomorrow’s problems tomorrow. For a country in Jordan’s position,” Satloff said, “this appears to be good policy. What remains to be seen is whether a new king can live by it, too.”