The Jordanian dilemma after the war

         

Marwan Muasher

A whole year has passed since the Israeli war on Gaza, during which Israel has crossed all humanitarian, political and military boundaries.
The Israeli Prime Minister does not seem to have any clear strategy other than staying in power for as long as possible. After Israel's assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, Netanyahu's popularity seems to be on the rise, which strengthens his ability to remain in power today. It is also not unlikely that he will seek to prolong the war for another reason, which is his unwillingness to give Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris any positive role in stopping the war and his preference to wait for the results of the US elections over Trump. If he wins, he will deal with him better than the Democrats, even with Biden's blatant support for Israel and providing it with all the weapons it needs to perpetuate the war.
But the war will end one way or another at some point. Post-war Jordan will face a major dilemma in terms of its approach to the future relationship with Israel. Official Jordan used a previously convincing justification in its promotion of signing a peace treaty with Israel to its citizens. This justification was that signing the treaty forced Israel to recognize the Jordanian state and Jordanian borders, which would bury the notion of an alternative homeland, which in practice meant emptying the Palestinian land of its population and claiming the existence of a Palestinian state in Jordan and not on Palestinian soil. Jordan even insisted on including in the treaty an explicit text against any attempt at mass displacement of the population (i.e. from the Palestinian territories to Jordan).
In addition, after Netanyahu and the extreme right came to power, the official Jordanian position was that Israel's stubborn position on the peace process did not represent the end of the road, and that Netanyahu would leave power at some point, and that Jordan should wait until a more flexible and balanced Israeli prime minister comes, which would allow for the resumption of talks with Israel about ways to end the occupation and establish a Palestinian state.

The crossroads that Jordan will face is of great importance, which calls for a serious national dialogue about the future of the Jordanian-Israeli relationship.

The Israeli war on Gaza has greatly weakened both of these justifications. It has become clear that one of Israel’s main goals in the war is to get rid of as many Palestinians as possible in Gaza, either by direct killing or by making Gaza uninhabitable after Israel has destroyed all the necessities of life in the Strip, from road networks, electricity and water to schools, hospitals and places of worship. In addition, Israeli settlers in the West Bank continue to attack Palestinian population centers, with the support of the Israeli army, in blatant attempts to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, in preparation for creating or taking advantage of conditions that allow for displacement.
The second argument, which was hoping for the arrival of an Israeli prime minister with whom Jordan could reach an understanding regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state, also fell, especially after the Israeli Knesset passed a law last July, with the approval of all the main Israeli parties, both pro- and anti-Israel, against the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The current division in Israel is only between those who support Netanyahu and those who oppose Netanyahu. As for the Palestinian issue, there is a near-unanimous Israeli rejection of a Palestinian state. This stubborn Israeli popular and official position is not expected to change. Israeli society has been increasingly radicalized for more than twenty years, and there is no significant Israeli popular critical mass calling for peace, neither now nor in the foreseeable future.
Accordingly, Jordan faces a real dilemma in the post-war period. Resuming economic and security cooperation with Israel would expose the government to a direct confrontation with an angry and hostile public opinion, and would give Israel the impression that Jordan is not serious in its opposition to Israeli policies. Continuing Jordan’s current position, which is ahead of other Arab countries in terms of its harsh criticism of Israel, would expose it to serious pressure from the United States and others.
Hence, the outcome of the Jordanian elections is extremely important. Instead of being a stark expression of where Jordanian public opinion stands, the Jordanian decision-maker can use this outcome to resist any external pressures that Jordan may be exposed to.
The crossroads that Jordan will face is of great importance, which calls for a serious national dialogue on the future of the Jordanian-Israeli relationship. While the cancellation of the peace treaty may not be on the table for several reasons, studying the remaining options and choosing the best of them is a national necessity, because it is clear that returning to the status quo between Jordan and Israel before October 7 of last year is neither possible nor acceptable.

Former Jordanian Foreign Minister

A good and factual article by Mr. Muasher, it could as well transcribe to other Arab countries of the region.....           As usual, my many thanks to all for following and reading.