By Ted Belman
I recently suggested Israel should terminate the Oslo Accords and deal with the violence that diplomatically and otherwise ensues.
That would bring us to the pre-Oslo days, which, by the way, was a time of good relations between the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria and Israelis. The Oslo Accords introduce the PLO terrorists into Israel at the behest of the Pres Clinton. Thereafter, Israelis were subjected to one intifada after another and daily acts of terror.
I expect, In the coming weeks, King Abdullah II of Jordan will abdicate and Mudar Zahran will be installed as the leader of Jordan.
In the vacuum created by the termination of Oslo, Israel could strike a new deal with Jordan under his leadership, the terms of which are already worked out in the main. See Trump’s Deal of the Century a.k.a The Jordan Option.
In essence
- All Palestinians would be given full Jordanian citizenship and
- invited to emigrate to Jordan.
- Area A would be confederated with Jordan under some kind of confederation with Jordan.
- Area A would then be administered jointly by both Jordan and Israel.
- Israel would be free to extend sovereignty over the rest.
- Gazans would be offered a confederation with either Jordan or Egypt.
- UNRWA would be terminated
- All refugees would be incentivized to emigrate to Jordan to get the benefits UNRWA had provided them
You may wonder how How the Jordan Option will Impact Israel. To know, read this article.
Such an arrangement is totally compliant with the Reagan Plan which Pres. Reagan set out in this speech:
I want to make the American position clearly understood: the purpose of this transition period is the peaceful and orderly transfer of domestic authority from Israel to the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. At the same time, such a transfer must not interfere with Israel’s security requirements.
Beyond the transition period, as we look to the future of the West Bank and Gaza, it is clear to me that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian state in those territories. Nor is it achievable on the basis of Israeli sovereignty or permanent control over the West Bank and Gaza.
So the United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel.
There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace.
We base our approach squarely on the principle that the Arab-Israeli conflict should be resolved through the negotiations involving an exchange of territory for peace. This exchange is enshrined in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which is, in turn, incorporated in all its parts in the Camp David agreements. U.N. Resolution 242 remains wholly valid as the foundation-stone of America’s Middle East peace effort.
It is the United States’ position that – in return for peace – the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza.
When the border is negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected by the extent of true peace and normalization and the security arrangements offered in return.
Finally, we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations.
In the course of the negotiations to come, the United States will support positions that seem to us fair and reasonable compromises and likely to promote a sound agreement. We will also put forward our own detailed proposals when we believe they can be helpful. And, make no mistake, the United States will oppose any proposal -from any party and at any point in the negotiating process – that threatens the security of Israel. America’s commitment to the security of Israel is ironclad. And I might add, so is mine.
Forty years later, The Reagan Plan will be followed in the Jordan Option.
Thus the Arab/Israeli conflict will be ended.
More thoughts on the RP.
The RP predated Jordan transferring its rights to negotiate to the PLO. To my mind, such rights were not transferable. This decision was backed by the Arab League and the US.
Jordan would have been hard pressed to make their claim that it was entitled to the west Bank. After all it already had 78% of the original Mandate. But if the issue becomes the creation of a new entity for the Palestinians, who could argue with that? Israel could but she is greatly outnumbered.
The RP said:
Why did he say “and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel.” Res 242 did not say this. Everything was to be negotiated. So Reagan’s position is very heavy handed . He was trying to support the Palestinians just as Carter did before him.
His remark “that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan”. This morphed into “confederation with.”
The JO essentially goes back to the time when Jordan alone had the right to negotiate. That’s what Mudar purports to do.
The New Jordan has no interest in expanding its borders. But what Mudar is intending is that he becomes the leader off all Palestinians. He wants to be the father of a new nation with Jordan as their home.
Mudar rightly believes that the more he helps Israel solve her problems with the Palestinians, the more Israel will help Jordan solve her problems with the economy. He is right in this.
The Jordan Option stands on its own two feet. It is entirely independent of the Reagan Plan. So why did I link the two? I reasoned that with the termination of Oslo as a mistake, then we are back to square one and that is the Reagan Plan. That’s where we were before Oslo was forced on us. Yes Peres took the initiative after he saw the handwriting on the wall at Madrid. He thought he would end up with a better deal for Israel if he initiated it on his terms. That may have been true before the US forced Arafat and his 40,000 terrorists on us.
It wasn’t necessary to link it but I thought we could claim the JO to be according to the RP, it would give it more legitimacy in the eyes of the State Department. Assuming it needed such legitimacy. I don’t think it does. The benefits of the JO to both Israel and Jordan speak for themselves..
Anyway, that was my thought process.
Question: And what does Jordan get out of merely leasing these areas. How will Zahran sell this to his people?
@Peloni How dialectical of you.
Brilliant coordination leading towards a meaningful peace for the parties on either side of the Jordan River!
It is amazing the strength which might be achieved by mixing two completely separate concepts together where the end result is labeled as a composite, which is often seen to be stronger and more durable than either element employed in isolation. The composite of the Reagan Plan with the Jordan Option represents what could only be described as a highly favorable improvement on what Reagan had originally presumed would be the result of his peace initiative.
I have to admit that I was always a very great adversary to the Reagan Initiative, or Reagan Plan, though I had forgotten it til Sebastien raised it some months back. My primary objections were that it held Jerusalem as a carrot to draw Israel into ceding land to a very hostile Jordan. This is a pretty unmistakable expectation by Reagan, I believe. However, when we combine the construct of the Jordan Option within the framework of the Reagan Plan, it renders the Reagan Plan as a brilliant path towards a workable peace with an allied Jordan. The result of this composite ignores whatever Reagan intended in the final negotiations, as the final negotiations are to be settled by the parties, and that would be between a Right Wing Israeli govt and Mudar’s Jordanian govt.
Whereas Reagan foresaw the final status negotiations being related to land transfers, what will come from the Jordan Option-Reagan Plan Composite will be based around logistics of economy, trade and travel. The complementary supports which these two peace initiatives offer each other when joined together are so applicable that it is almost as if the Reagan Plan had been developed to be implemented following the successful implementation of the Jordan Option, despite history describing the genesis of this momentous pathway towards peace quite differently.