T. Belman. This was written over a month ago by a former MK. I disagree with her on a number of her observations. I believe that King Hussein is the problem and not the solution.
By Ksenia Svetlova, The Media Line 05/13/2022
Israelis and Jordanians no longer hide their willingness to cooperate, but King Abdullah’s complex internal situation and mounting tensions at Al-Aqsa Mosque may impede rapprochement.
Relations between Israel and Jordan have experienced a rebirth over the past year. After the exit from office of former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, under whose leadership relations with the Hashemite monarchy were strained and sometimes hostile, the two sides have rediscovered each other, like a couple that falls in love again after years of mutual acrimony. The Jordanians no longer hide their willingness to cooperate with Israel on a variety of topics, such as a joint food program, renewable energy, the struggle against radical Islam, preventing arms smuggling, and stabilizing the Palestinian territories.
The reciprocal effects of Jerusalem’s renewed relationship with Amman and its new ties with the normalization states remain to be seen. This is an important aspect of the normalization process because a significant connection to Jordan gives the Abraham Accords geopolitical depth. However, the situation in Jordan is complex. King Abdullah avoided sending his foreign minister to the Negev Summit in March to avoid antagonizing domestic opponents. Instead, he headed to Ramallah to calm simmering unrest there. Israel understood his decision.
Israel values Abdullah’s mediation because Jordan is the custodian of Jerusalem’s Muslim holy sites. Both sides hoped that quiet diplomacy in Amman would prevent violence around Al Aqsa Mosque and in the West Bank during Ramadan, Passover, and Easter.
Last year, when violence erupted around Al Aqsa, thousands of Jordanians took to the streets (some reaching the Israeli border) and demanded that their government sever diplomatic relations with Israel. The king did not surrender but he is clearly concerned about the deterioration of the security situation in the Palestinian territories. Senior Jordanian and Israeli officials held many meetings in a bid to forge understanding and cooperation and prevent further upheaval.
This year, the violence again quickly escalated at Al-Aqsa; despite improved relations, Jordanians harshly criticized Israel for allowing the upheaval. The parliament demanded the expulsion of Israel’s ambassador and demonstrators in Amman called for breaking ties with Israel. Jordanian officials made highly critical statements to appease the protestors. But all sides understood that when the situation in Jerusalem will be back to normal, bilateral cooperation will be back on track.
Just three years ago, when then-US President Donald Trump unveiled his “deal of the century,” Jordanians felt cheated and excluded. In their view, Israel had hatched a plot against them with US cooperation. News spread that under the plan, control of the holy sites would pass from Jordan to Saudi Arabia. Then came the Abraham Accords. The Jordanians were not thrilled. They feared that the kingdom’s special position as a bridge between Israel and the Arab world was being eroded and that the agreements could harm both the Palestinians and them.
Unlike Israel’s new partners – the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco – Jordan is unable to disconnect from events in the West Bank. The shared history, family ties, involvement in internal politics, and the issue of the Muslim holy places bind together the Jordanians and Palestinians. Upheaval in Al-Aqsa, a regime change in Ramallah, or any other shock would damage the Hashemite monarchy but would hardly be felt in the Gulf region. This is where the main difference lies between the Jordanian and Gulf states’ attitudes toward Israel.
The changing of the guard at the White House and in the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office offered an opportunity for enhanced, coordinated conduct of Israel, Jordan, the Palestinians, and the Gulf states. Israel improved its relationship with Amman, sought to ease the distrust between the two sides, and displayed an unusual willingness to cooperate. Simultaneously, for the first time since the signing of the Abraham Accords, Israel is allowing Jordan to enjoy the fruits of normalization by promoting economic projects that pay off for all parties. Thus, in November 2021, Israel, Jordan, and the UAE signed a trilateral agreement in which Israel would purchase 600 megawatts of “green” electricity from the Jordanians (produced with Emirati assistance) and in return would consider the export of 200 million cubic meters of desalinated water to Jordan.
Once the hackneyed, damaging slogan “Jordan is Palestine” was no longer being heard in Jerusalem or Washington, Jordan renewed its status as an important partner of the US in the fight against radical Islam. US President Joe Biden even transferred a US military base from Qatar to Jordan. And a positive change occurred in Amman toward the Abraham Accords and the possibility of upgrading cooperation with Israel. Had Israel focused solely on promoting relations with its three new partners, it would have excluded Jordan and Egypt, advancing the accords within a vacuum, disconnected from a complex regional reality in which developments are intertwined.
Embracing the Jordanians has great significance for easing Palestinian unrest. The dire economic situation in Jordan corresponds with the deterioration of security in the Palestinian territories. The smuggling of weapons from Jordan is also related to the activities of radical Islamic organizations on both sides of the border. Israel must continue to bring Jordan closer and work with it to calm the region and improve the situation in the PA. In this context, signatories of the Abraham Accords can play an important role in driving economic processes with Israel in Jordan and the PA. Jordan is a critical connection between the regional normalization process and the Palestinian sphere. Prosperity and flourishing of Israeli-Arab relations in the Gulf and North Africa must also benefit the Palestinians.
The romance between Israel and Jordan must not be allowed to die out. Israeli politicians are enthusiastic about immediate gains deriving from the improved ties and are less aware of the Sisyphean work of diplomats and intermediaries, carried out without fanfare. Amman is also looking at the political upheaval rocking the Bennett-Lapid government and hoping the storm will not damage the delicate fabric of relations created over the past year. At the same time, the political and economic embrace of Jordan cannot lead to long-term, stable results without a change in the hostile Jordanian public attitude toward Israel. Despite the great political warming, at the level of civil society – in Jordan and the Palestinian Authority – relations with Israel remain frozen. Hostility remains intact and has perhaps even grown.
Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority must consider this. The stability and resilience of relations also depend on the ability to change the public narrative in Jordan itself. As political relations flourish while the backyard burns with rage, prospects of an internal explosion increase. Intergenerational change also makes the issue urgent. While the older generation of Palestinians and Jordanians is working to preserve the status quo, the younger generation has given up and moved into a more hostile, combative position. Only significant progress in the political field vis-à-vis the Palestinians and confidence-building measures could improve the atmosphere on both sides of the Jordan River.
Former MK Ksenia Svetlova is director of Mitvim Institute’s Program for Israel-Middle East Relations.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/355022
Enough! They must go.
Hi, Peloni
I don’t agree with your historical arguments, but you have explained your point — that your use of “sham”, etc. represented a purely Israeli view, and not an Islamic one.
The Hashemite rulers of Jordan, to my knowledge, originally were Zaidi Shi’ites but converted to become Shaf’i Sunnis under the Mamelukes and Ottomans. I don’t know which school the Jordanian monarchy supports today: They seem to give equal support to the Hanafi (dominant in Turkey, Central Asia and India) and Shaf’i schools. They supplied the Sharifs of Mecca, a prestigious position in Islam
The Saudis ruled a desert dynasty in the Najd, making incursions into more important areas such as the Oil Coast of modern Saudi Arabia. They came to power VERY recently (1922) in Mecca, ousting the Hashemites when the British withdrew their support. Their local power came from a deal with the extremist Hanbali Muslims who have stirred up the Taliban, ISIS and other terrorist groups of today. I consider them more the product of Western foreign influence than the Jordanian Hashemites, because the roots of their strength came not in their dynastic history, but in the British lust for oil.
I don’t consider any Muslim group to be morally superior to any other. They are the enemies of God’s people, be they Christian or Jewish.
PELONI describes the situation to a “T”, (whatever a “T” is)
The article itself shows us clearly why the writer is a “former” MK. She should also, after this magnificent production, be a “former” article writer.
@Michael
Religious correctness, no, these words were not intended to reference anything in that context.
They weren’t a reproach upon their religious correctness, but the role as a partner in peace. Abdullah is an unfaithful partner, his breaches of trust are well beyond any forgiveness(the meaning of salvation that was indicated), and his dynasty is well a sham, initiated by foreign influence of Britain, continued by support of Sunni nations, and most recently supported by Iran.
Indeed the Hashemites were appointed their dynasty, to act as a fiscally cheap local proxy for Britain to lord over a land for which they held no connection, and no influence before being installed by Britain as Britain’s local lackey. Their management of economics and military affairs has left them in dire straits, always the captured pawn pursuing the agenda of others. At one point, their security was left to be rescued by Israel, while their ability to balance their books have routinely been due to the gifts of some vested third party. They were installed by foreigners, with their first army controlled by foreigners, their economy extensively subsidized by foreigners, and all of this is still true today. I think the term sham dynasty does describe it well, and if you were to use a different term, well I really am at a loss to think of a better choice than to reference it as I have.
I believe you will find the relationship of the house of Saud far less artificially constructed and far more self sufficient and far more independent. Frankly, I do not see much similarities in a comparison between the two dynasties.
Unfaithful? Salvation? Sham?
It seems odd to me, for a Jew to be analyzing the religious correctness of a Muslim. Since when are the Jews experts at the nuances of Islam? I honestly know little of the difference between a Hanafi and a Safi’i Muslim; nor can I see how the Hashemites are less legitimate than, say, the Saudis. Do you have some expertise in these areas?
The desire to persist with this Hashemite regime would suggest the author suffers from some severe form of Stockholm syndrome, where a patient develops a dependency for those who abuse, betray and harm them. Indeed this is clearly evidenced by the author’s recollection of just a few of the more recent abuses shared between the current ruler of Jordan and her Israeli neighbor. Her deep confusion does seem somewhat beyond explanation as she champions Abdullah’s role in quelling Arab violence and deepening the Abraham Accords, despite the fact Abdullah accelerated the Arab violence and his Iranian support is a direct contest to the Abraham Accords.
The real yearning to maintain a connection with this latest version of Abdullah would only be to achieve the position of continuing to hold fast to a status quo that has too long failed every test of fidelity and consistency. Indeed, as the mirage of immobility of the status quo is held in focus, the sand slips effortlessly from beneath all those involved. Put aside the delusional fantasies of the status quo and inspect the true dilemma that Abdullah’s actions paint for Israel’s future. Maintaining a connection with this brigand king would only serve to empower him to once again wield his influence against those with whom he has any connection.
Indeed, the long line of betrayals by this short line of kings is well exemplified in their dealings with Israel and others to such an extent that the current member of the ruling family, while seeking out some untapped source of goodwill that he had yet to betray, found himself prostrating before the mullahs and then prostrating before the Shia sites of worship, doing so as king of a Sunni nation, thus completing his betrayals even to his own people.
Hence, the significance that could be gained in having a partner in peace should not lead us to become delusionally self-deceptive about the character and nature of those with whom we are negotiating. The fruits to be gained by a true alliance with this Iranian pawn would be undermined with the reality that the fruit would be rotted from the inside out, simply due to the false nature and unfaithful obsessions of this too well corrupted king, who is well beyond any salvation, and undeserving of any notion of romance by anyone in Israel.
Put an end to this sham dynasty of shame that has only served to fill this family’s pockets while abusing all of those foolish enough to be drawn to any connection with them. If anyone could deny this fact, it surely could not be Israel, having been the first to feel that betrayal so acutely nearly a century ago.
Self-contradictory and shortsighted article