On the anniversary of “Wadi Araba”… 4 options before Jordan to confront the annexation of the West Bank | policy

Al Jazeera Net correspondents

Oman- Thirty-one years after the signing of the “Wadi Araba” peace treaty between Jordan and Israel on October 26, 1994, the agreement returns to the political debate in Amman, amid profound regional transformations and the growth of expansionist Israeli policies.

The plans of the Israeli right to annex parts of the occupied West Bank do not appear to be just a passing political whim – according to observers – but rather a strategic project that threatens the security of the Kingdom and opens the door to radical changes in the shape of the region, which makes the anniversary of “Wadi Araba” an occasion burdened by Jordanian security, political, economic and social calculations.

The unilateral Israeli steps towards the West Bank also raised fundamental questions about the feasibility of the Wadi Araba Treaty and its place in the Jordanian national security system, turning the anniversary of the signing into a station for review and cold political assessment of a peace equation that has become more fragile than ever before.

The Jordan Valley – which is the natural western extension of the Kingdom – represents a strategic depth and a sensitive security barrier separating it from the West Bank, and any Israeli step to impose sovereignty over it means – according to analysts – converting the eastern borders of occupied Palestine into permanent borders of the occupying state, which Amman considers a direct violation of its national security and a clear violation of the terms and spirit of the treaty.

Existential risk

In turn, former Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Mamdouh al-Abadi considered the annexation of the West Bank an “existential danger” and a “political earthquake” that threatens the Jordanian state and the Palestinian cause together, calling in his speech to the official Al Jazeera Net Jordan for a decisive response that goes beyond the limits of diplomatic statements.

He said, “The West Bank issue is crucial for Jordan, and any Israeli annexation would be worse than the 1948 catastrophe and the 1967 catastrophe combined,” noting that “the agreement was not canceled by Jordan, but rather by Israel 20 years ago, when it renounced its obligations and did not show them any respect, whether from Netanyahu or the Israeli opposition that sees the West Bank as part of the Land of Israel.”

The Jordanian minister asserts that the time has come to “radically reconsider the relationship with Israel, sever diplomatic relations and close the crossings if necessary,” indicating that the peace agreement has turned into a piece of paper torn by the occupation, and we must “tear it even more if this rejected Israeli approach continues.”

Official audio

For his part, an informed Jordanian government source said that Amman “rejects any unilateral Israeli step to annex the West Bank or impose sovereignty over it,” considering in his interview with Al Jazeera Net that “the Israeli step is a violation of international law and undermines the two-state solution and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.”

The source added, “Jordan is committed to defending its national interests and Palestinian rights in all international forums.”

In a legal reading, international law expert Anis Qassem believes that the Israeli annexation of the West Bank and the Jordan Valley, especially in light of the statements of Israeli officials, constitutes a direct and blatant violation of the provisions of the Wadi Araba Agreement, especially the clause that prevents forced population movement within the influence of either party.

war #Gaza.. How does the anniversary of the “Wadi Araba” agreement pass in Jordan?

the details: pic.twitter.com/bVzxFLtyms

– Aljazeera.net • Al Jazeera Net (@AJArabicnet) October 26, 2023

Speaking to Al Jazeera Net, Qassem considers that any forced displacement of Palestinians towards Jordan is a “declaration of war” that requires a decisive response from Jordan in accordance with international law.

He warned that the danger is not limited to the law, but extends to “the possibility of reshaping the demographic reality by partially or completely transferring the Palestinian population to Jordan, which is a scenario that requires maximum political and security vigilance.”

Targeting Jordan

The Decision Kitchen in Amman realizes that any open confrontation with Israel may open sensitive political and economic fronts, but at the same time it does not have the luxury of silence. Therefore, analysts propose a set of practical options, the most prominent of which are:

• Intensifying diplomatic action in the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the International Court of Justice to criminalize any illegal annexation step.
• Prepare a national emergency plan to confront potential repercussions, including any new waves of displacement or changes to borders.
• Coordinating positions with Arab countries to exert unified regional pressure on Tel Aviv.
• Reviewing forms of cooperation with Israel to ensure that it does not benefit from the treaty while violating its political essence.

In turn, the director of the Jerusalem Center for Political Studies, Oraib Rantawi, believes that Jordan will be “the most affected by any Israeli annexation,” explaining in his interview with Al Jazeera Net that “the West Bank constitutes the historical and geographical bridge with the Kingdom, and any change in its legal or demographic status will directly affect Jordanian security, the borders, and the Hashemite custodianship of the holy sites.”

Al-Rantawi adds, “Imposing Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank means practically overthrowing the two-state solution, and dragging Jordan into facing serious demographic and security consequences,” stressing that “what is happening in Israel reflects a societal drift toward declaring the Jewishness of the state, and denying the right of the Palestinians to establish their state between the river and the sea.”

Observers believe that Jordan is now required to re-evaluate its relationship with Israel according to the balance of national interest, without compromising on its international obligations, but with the realization that the new reality in the West Bank may change the equations on which the treaty was founded.