A whole year has passed since the Israeli war on Gaza, during which Israel has crossed all humanitarian, political and military lines.
It does not seem that the Israeli Prime Minister has any clear strategy other than remaining in power for as long as possible. After Israel assassinated Hezbollah Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah, Netanyahu’s popularity seems to be on the rise, which boosts 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 part in stopping the war and he prefers to wait for the results of the US elections to see whether Trump wins, as Trump 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 sustain the war.
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 justification that seemed convincing in the past in the context of it promoting the signing of a peace treaty with Israel to its citizens. This justification was that signing the treaty forced Israel to recognise the Jordanian state and the Jordanian borders, which would kill the notion of an alternative homeland, which practically means emptying the Palestinian land of its population and claiming the existence of a Palestinian state in Jordan rather than on Palestinian soil. Jordan even insisted on including an explicit text in the treaty 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 was not 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 to power, allowing for the resumption of talks with Israel about ways to end the Occupation and establish a Palestinian State.
Image of Amman by Heike Hartmann from Pixabay
The Israeli war on Gaza has greatly weakened these two justifications. It has become clear that one of Israel’s main goals of the war is to get rid of as many Palestinians as possible in Gaza, either by directly killing them or by making Gaza an uninhabitable place after Israel destroyed all the needs of life in the Strip, including road, electricity and water networks, schools, hospitals and places of worship. Moreover, Israeli settlers in the West Bank continue to attack Palestinian population centres, 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 would allow for their displacement.
The second argument, which was the hope for an Israeli prime minister with whom Jordan could reach an understanding regarding the establishment of a Palestinian State coming to power, has also collapsed, especially after the Israeli Knesset passed a law last July, with the approval of all major Israeli parties, including the opposition, against the establishment of a Palestinian State.
The current division in Israel is only between those who support Netanyahu and those against Netanyahu, but with regards to the Palestinian issue, there is almost an Israeli consensus on rejecting the Palestinian State. This stubborn Israeli popular and official position is not expected to change, as Israeli society has been increasingly radicalised in the past twenty years, and there is no significant Israeli popular critical mass calling for peace, neither now nor in the foreseeable future.
Hence, Jordan faces a real dilemma in the post-war period. Resuming economic and security cooperation with Israel will expose the government to a direct confrontation with an angry and rejecting public opinion and will give Israel the impression that Jordan is not serious in its opposition to Israeli policies. However, continuing with the current Jordanian position, which is ahead of other Arab countries in terms of its harsh criticism of Israel, will expose it to serious pressure from the US and others.
Therefore, the outcome of the Jordanian elections is extremely important. Rather than just being a stark expression of where the Jordanian public opinion stands, the Jordanian decision-maker can use these results to resist any external pressures that Jordan may be exposed to.
The crossroads that Jordan will face is of great importance, and it calls for a serious national dialogue about the future of the Jordanian-Israeli relationship. While cancelling the peace treaty may not be on the table for several reasons, examining the remaining options and choosing the best of them is a national need because it is clear that returning to the status quo between Jordan and Israel before 7 October is neither possible nor acceptable.
This article appeared in Arabic in Al Quds on 7 October, 2024.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
Marwan Muasher is vice president for studies at Carnegie, where he oversees research in Washington and Beirut on the Middle East. Muasher served as foreign minister (2002–2004) and deputy prime minister (2004–2005) of Jordan, and his career has spanned the areas of diplomacy, development, civil society, and communications.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved