Attack at Orthodox church in Karak

An attack on an Orthodox church in Karak last Friday resulted in nine deaths. The three suspects belong to a family from the region, as does the police chief tasked with arresting them. In this historic bastion of the Hashemite monarchy, tribal solidarities, which constitute one of the foundations of the Jordanian state, are today facing Islamic radicalization.

Details of the attack

The attack occurred on Friday, October 23, when three armed men opened fire on people gathered for funerals at the Greek-Orthodox Saint-George church in the village of Hammoud, near Karak, south of Jordan. The attack resulted in nine deaths and 34 injuries. After three days of searches, security forces located the suspects on Monday morning in an abandoned house. Refusing to surrender, they opened fire on the police before being injured and arrested.

Identification of the suspects

The head of public security, General Obeidallah al-Maaytah, identified the suspects as Hazza Zaidan Mohammed, his brother Mishal, and their brother-in-law Ahmad Sami Hussein. The three men belong to the same family and live in the region. According to authorities, Hazza is believed to have organized the attack. No organization has claimed responsibility, but all three adhere to an extremist Islamic ideology known as takfirism, which considers those who do not share its beliefs as infidels.

Tribal connections and reactions

The suspects' family belongs to the al-Thneibat, one of the major Muslim tribes in Karak. Among its members is Mohammad Thneibat, former vice-premier and minister of education, currently president of Jordan Phosphate Mines Company, the country's main company specializing in extracting phosphate from the Dead Sea and manufacturing fertilizers. No direct family relationship has been established with the suspects, but representatives of the al-Thneibat tribe condemned the massacre, recalled their historical ties with the al-Halasa Christian community to which the victims belong, and reaffirmed their loyalty to King Abdallah II.

Historical Christian presence in Karak

The al-Halasa are also deeply rooted in the region. They are among the ancient Christian clans of Karak, whose presence is documented long before the establishment of Jordan. In 1812, Swiss traveler Johann Ludwig Burckhardt recorded approximately 150 Christian families and 400 Muslim families in the area. These Arab Christians, originally mostly Orthodox, were not a foreign population protected by Muslim tribes but actors within the tribal system, with their lands, herds, commercial activities, notables, and alliances. They participated, like other Karak families, in the construction of Transjordan and the political life of the Hashemite kingdom.

Community reactions and tribal solidarity

The reactions of the two communities are not only due to solidarity or compassion. In a society where tribal affiliation still holds considerable weight, they aim to prevent the crime of three individuals from becoming an issue between two communities. The monarchy plays the role of arbiter, while local notables strive to preserve the ties upon which part of Jordanian social order rests.

Tribal ties in law enforcement

Another detail merits attention. The head of the police carries a name associated with Karak, that of the Maaytah, one of the tribal families in this region. The men who attacked the church and the one leading the forces tasked with arresting them come from the same territory. This is not merely a geographical coincidence. Karak belongs to the historical heart of Transjordan, the part of the kingdom where the Hashemite monarchy recruited much of its support and servants.

Origins of the Hashemite monarchy

To understand this history, one must go back to 1921. At that time, there was no yet Jordan. In the east of the Jordan River, cities, villages, and tribes lived under fragile local authorities after the disappearance of the Ottoman Empire. Karak is one of the centers of this territory. Built around its medieval fortress, the city dominates the plateaus east of the Dead Sea. One of the major pilgrimage routes to Mecca passes nearby. And the tribes of the region have long known how to monetize their ability to "ensure the safety of caravans" with the Ottoman authorities, whose prestige depended notably on the smooth running of the annual pilgrimage. Karak thus has its notables, its great families, its networks of solidarity and a tradition of autonomy that does not date back to the arrival of the British.

Formation of the Hashemite state

It is in this country that Abdallah, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, leader of the Arab revolt against the Ottomans during World War I, arrives. Originally from the Hejaz, Abdallah belongs to the Hashemite dynasty, which claims descent from the Prophet Muhammad. But he is foreign to the society he aims to govern. His religious and dynastic prestige is not enough. He needs alliances and resources.

Alliances with local elites

He finds in the great families of Transjordan indispensable interlocutors. In Karak, the Majali, the Maaytah, and other lineages possess a local authority that the new emir cannot ignore. The Hashemite power gradually integrates these elites into its institutions, offers them functions, and relies on their networks to administer the territory. This alliance does not happen in a day or without conflicts. It nonetheless constitutes one of the bases of the new state.

British support and the mandate

Abdallah also has a decisive advantage. The British are looking for a solution for the territories between Palestine and Iraq. In March 1921, Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, holds a conference in Cairo aimed at organizing British possessions in the Middle East. He then meets Abdallah in Jerusalem and accepts supporting his installation at the head of Transjordan. This territory located east of the Jordan River will be included in the perimeter of the British mandate over Palestine, intended notably for the establishment of a Jewish national home in accordance with the Balfour Declaration.

Legal framework for the emirate

In April, a first government is formed in Amman. The political decision of Churchill receives a legal framework in 1922. The mandate for Palestine, approved by the League of Nations, provides in article 25 the possibility of excluding Transjordan from certain of its provisions. Then the League of Nations approves the British decision to exclude the application of the provisions relating to the Jewish national home and Transjordan is thus administered separately, under the authority of Emir Abdallah and the British tutelage (and funding).

Formation of the Arab Legion

The emirate, which will become a kingdom in 1946, is thus born from a compromise between three forces. A dynasty from the Hejaz, an imperial power that provides protection and money, and local elites that give it a social base. And the Arab Legion becomes the instrument of this construction.

Role of the Arab Legion

Created under British patronage, then developed notably by John Bagot Glubb, known as Glubb Pasha, it recruits largely from the tribal populations of Transjordan. Military service offers regular salaries, careers, and a direct relationship with the central power. In return, the sovereign has an army whose officers and soldiers are linked to the survival of the monarchy. Loyalty to the Crown becomes also a family affair.

Karak's contribution to the Arab Legion

Karak provides several of its figures to this organization. The Majali family is an example. Habis al-Majali, born in Karak, becomes one of the great Jordanian officers of the 20th century. He commands forces of the Arab Legion during the 1948 war, then occupies the highest military functions of the kingdom. His cousin Hazza al-Majali, Prime Minister, is assassinated in 1960 in an attack in Amman. Another member of the family, Abdel Salam al-Majali, will lead the government at the time of the signing of the peace treaty with Israel in 1994.

Security roles and tribal ties

The Maaytah illustrate other paths to power and are present in the security institutions, as shown today by General Obeidallah al-Maaytah. This system is not only based on personal loyalty. Families provide recruits, cadres, and local relays. The state distributes jobs, promotions, markets, and protections. Notables serve as intermediaries between their communities and the palace. A nomination can strengthen the prestige of a lineage. Conversely, a conflict with the authorities can have consequences for an entire family network. The Jordanian monarchy is a modern state, but it still functions partly through these ancient relationships.

Radicalization within tribal regions

However, one must not imagine a homogeneous tribal bloc. This same region has produced circles radically hostile to the political order it contributes to supporting. The phenomenon is not new. In December 2016, armed men attack security forces in Karak before taking refuge in the city's castle. The operation, claimed by the Islamic State, causes the death of police and civilians, including a Canadian tourist. The kingdom then discovers that one of its historical military recruitment territories is also a battlefield for jihadists.

Significance of the Hammoud attack

This is precisely what makes the Hammoud attack worrying. The three suspects are not foreign fighters coming from Syria or Iraq. They are Jordanians from the region. They attacked compatriots gathered for funerals. Their victims belong to a community integrated into the tribal system and local history. And it is the security forces from the same society that were charged with arresting them.

Clash of identities in Karak

Two Jordans thus clash in Karak. One considers the monarchy as the framework of its political existence, accepts religious coexistence, and finds in the state opportunities for social advancement. The other rejects this order in the name of a radical interpretation of Islam, belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood, or Palestinian national sentiment. But it would be misleading to simply oppose loyal tribes to radicalized individuals. Loyalties do not automatically pass from father to son. The same social environment can produce an officer and a terrorist adversary of the state.

Monarch's challenges and resilience

The monarchy has already gone through several crises that threatened its existence. Becoming king in 1952 at seventeen, Hussein must quickly face the rise of Arab nationalism, the influence of Nasser, and the agitation of part of the Palestinian population in the West Bank, then under Jordanian sovereignty. In December 1955, demonstrations against adherence to the Baghdad Pact cause the fall of the al-Majali government. In March 1956, Hussein dismisses Glubb Pasha, the British commander of the Arab Legion, to assert his independence. In April 1957, a crisis with nationalist officers, including Chief of Staff Ali Abou Nuwar, threatens his power directly. Hussein asserts himself through the loyalty of part of the army and Western support. Israel, which fears the arrival of a Nasserist regime in Amman, shares this interest, without intervening directly.

International support during crises

The following year, after the bloody overthrow of the Iraqi monarchy, Hussein asks for British help. London sends paratroopers to Jordan and Israel finally authorizes their planes to cross its airspace. The decision comes after initial tensions around the overflight and an American diplomatic intervention. This indirect cooperation contributes to the protection of the regime.

1970 crisis and external support

The most well-known crisis occurs in September 1970. The armed Palestinian organizations, strengthened after the 1967 war, openly challenge the authority of King Hussein. The confrontations degenerate into a civil war. Syria intervenes militarily in the north of the kingdom. The Jordanian army, whose most loyal units are largely recruited from Transjordanians, plays a decisive role. But the king also benefits from external support. Israel, which has maintained secret contacts with him for years, does not want to see Jordan fall under the control of the Palestinian organizations or Syria. In coordination with the Americans, the Israelis mobilize forces and consider an intervention against the Syrian troops. This threat contributes to dissuading Damascus from continuing its offensive. The Jordanian army gradually reclaims control of the country.

Hashemite security and regional alliances

These episodes reveal another pillar of Hashemite security. During the Cold War, Israel and Jordan, despite their official state of war, belong to the regional apparatus of the West. Israel is a military partner of the United States. The Jordanian monarchy, supported first by London and then by Washington, constitutes a bulwark against Arab revolutionary movements and Soviet influence. Their interests do not always coincide, but they share a concern: to prevent a hostile regime from establishing itself in Amman.

Secret cooperation with Israel

The relationship remains secret for decades. Hussein meets Israeli leaders even as the two countries are officially enemies. On September 25, 1973, he personally warns Golda Meir, during a secret meeting near Tel Aviv, of an Arab attack risk, without knowing the date. The 1994 peace treaty gives a public form to this cooperation. Since then, the security of the border, intelligence exchanges, water, and Palestinian issues maintain a strategic relationship whose diplomatic crises do not eliminate the necessity.

Jordan's strategic importance today

Today, the stability of Jordan remains a major interest for Israel and the United States. The kingdom controls a long border with Israel and the West Bank, hosts a significant population of Palestinian origin, and occupies a geographical position between Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Its destabilization would have consequences far beyond its borders.

Legacy and challenges of the Hashemite system

The Karak attack reminds us that the Hashemite system has relied for a century on a combination of local alliances, security institutions, and foreign protections rather than on a nation in the contemporary sense of the term. It has resisted Arab nationalism under Nasser and Palestinian uprisings, and today it faces a far more daunting challenge of Islamic radicalization within the very communities that helped build the kingdom.