On the list of possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, somewhere between “fully independent Palestinian state on PA territory” and “Jordan is Palestine” falls a hybrid of the two: “Jordanian-Palestinian confederation.” Longtime Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab writes in the Atlantic that the idea seems to be experiencing something of a revival. Most notably, Mahmoud Abbas himself has reportedly suggested its consideration.
A Jordanian-Palestinian confederation in some ways is a relic of the past, before a fully independent Palestinian state was regarded as the consensus solution to the conflict. Kuttab notes that since the Palestinians’ unilateral declaration at the United Nations gave them symbolic recognition, Abbas may be open to the idea of a confederation, in which a state of Palestine would be technically independent but Jordan would play a role in maintaining security and probably—though this hasn’t been spelled out—in the Palestinian state’s general foreign affairs portfolio. But the idea is less realistic than it may seem. Kuttab, unfortunately, doesn’t discuss why that is. He writes:
While it is unclear if Jordan will ever end up having any sovereign role in the West Bank, support for a greater role for Jordan in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will no doubt increase in the coming months and years if the current decline of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority continues. The one determining factor in all of the discussions will have to come from the Israeli side, which has yet to decide whether it will relinquish sovereignty over the areas occupied in 1967 to any Arab party, whether it be Palestinian or Jordanian.
In fact, that is not case. The Israeli government has publicly committed itself to the notion of two states for two peoples, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said repeatedly he doesn’t want to “rule over” the Palestinians. The popularity of “Jordan is Palestine” among Israeli military personalities and even some on the right shows that many Israelis are certainly willing to “relinquish sovereignty” over much of the West Bank (and Gaza, which they have already done) if they feel secure in doing so. But the Arab world—now that’s a different story.
Arab states in the Middle East, especially those near the Palestinian territories, have never made any secret of their opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Diplomatically, they have torpedoed the process every chance they’ve had. And the closer the two sides get, or the more time they spend in negotiations, the less money Arab states tend to offer the Palestinian Authority to keep it afloat. At times, the West is lucky if the Arab states even let Abbas negotiate.
In the summer of 2008, as the U.S. tried to re-engage in the peace process, the Washington Post reported that Arab states were not delivering the aid they pledged to the Palestinian Authority. More troubling was why: when the terrorist entity Hamas left the PA unity government (I use the term “unity” loosely here), the checks stopped coming. The Arab states were sabotaging the peace process by funding radical terrorist elements that opposed peace and supported continuous terrorism against Israel, while refusing to support the more moderate elements of the Palestinian Authority. That was under the Bush administration, but almost exactly three years later the Obama administration faced the same problem when it noticed that Arab aid to the Palestinians had fallen more than 80 percent in a two-year span.
States like Qatar continue to undermine the PA and Abbas by flooding Hamas-run Gaza with cash while leaving the PA to beg for scraps. (The Saudis aren’t much better in this department.)
The other problem for a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation is that while the Palestinians would have a technically independent state, they would surely have some restrictions that they have always balked at. Israeli negotiators have said repeatedly that the Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized and that the IDF would still play a role in security there, including approving the use of Palestinian airspace. A Jordanian-Palestinian confederation would likely have similar Palestinian restrictions, with Jordan playing a larger role than Israel on some of these issues.
And finally, there is another reason Jordan is unlikely to want to join such a confederation. What if the Palestinians decided they didn’t want Jordanian military personnel on their new state’s territory after a few years? Would the Jordanians fight an armed uprising against their military installations? Would they risk re-occupying and absorbing the Palestinians on the West Bank? Once Abbas is gone, would an agreement he signed on behalf of the Palestinians be worth the paper on which it was written?
The fact remains that Arab states do not want the creation of a Palestinian state, and, unlike with regard to Israel, the international community doesn’t much pressure them to take a more proactive approach, despite both Jordan’s and Egypt’s obvious role bringing about the current situation by repeatedly launching wars of annihilation against the Jewish state. An Arab world that played a constructive role in the conflict would be a first.
Just as in 1947, 1948 and before, it's not about rights for the Arabs of what used to be the Palestine Mandate; it's about making sure the Jews do not have a state and are kept subservient, with no legally protected rights, existing at the sufferance of the Arabs.
Excellent article. It appears that a humanitarian movement of most of the Judea/Samaria Arabs to parts of neighboring Arab states would solve the problem. Humanitarian in the sense that substantial compensation would go along with the largely voluntary movement. Voluntary in the sense that the alternative to a somewhat luxurious change of residence would be poverty. The 'luxury' would be provided by the West and oil rich Muslims. Something not afforded to the millions moved during and after WWII and other wars. The Arab 'donations' need not be voluntary.
One would have expected that in a pro-Israel blog the Jordanian Arab invented term "West Bank" concocted to advance the insidious campaign against Jewish claims to Judea and Samaria would never be used. Instead Commentary chooses to both disappoint its readers and advance the Arabs' semantic struggle. Perhaps in the future Seth Mandel could try boosting his pro-Israel street "cred" by using the appropriate historical terms Judea and Samaria instead of lazily falling back on Orwellian Arab terminology. And if Mandel is unwilling, then Editor Tobin should insist upon it!
Yes, exactly. It is also quite dissapointing that the politically correct view of the opinionators at Commentary continue to ascribe to the 3 state solution, giving legitimacy to eh imported Hashemite monarchy of 'Jordan', which sits on 75% of the Palestine Mandate, leaving the Jews and non Hashemites to contest each other for eternity over the remaining 25%. n nAs if Gaza and the 'West Bank' could ever support a viable state that could exist independently of Israel. n nSooner or later, whether it be by old age, a bullet to the head, or insurrection, the Hashemite Monarchy of Jordan will fall, and the majority 'Palestinians' will rule. What then? 2 'Palestinian' States on 85% of the Palestine Mandate, and a wasp waist Jewish state clinging to the coast? n nCome on Seth, get a clue.
sorry, the new liberal media will write about anything palestinian before they realize that what happens to Syria, Iraq, and Kurdistan will have far more impact on the future of Jordan.
I like the article, but you leave out one possibility. Jordan has been terrified since the Arab Spring (and indeed since long before that – there's a reason Jordan butchered thousands of Palestinians in 1970 during what became known as Black September) that their government will be overthrown in a similar fashion to Tunisia and Egypt. With a 75% Palestinian population, it's clear who would be running the country if they had real elections. Once that happens, a confederation is a totally different story. In fact, it could be a single country with the West Bank part demilitarized, not unlike Egypt not allowed to have a major military presence in Sinai.
Nonsense. A Jordanian-Palestinian confederation is the ONLY option. Not necessarily good but the best of bad choices. nThe Arabs want this to go away now, finally. And at the moment the biggest threats come from inside the countries not Israel. nIsrael is wealthy and technically superior to the Arab states. Arabs can always get lucky and inflict lots of casualties on Israel, but what happens the next day? In the days of austerity no one wants to keep throwing money down a bottomless pit. nSenseless wars caused by provocations such as rockets shot at civilians just cause a fortune in damages and don't advance anything. If Hamas had behaved like an adult years ago they'd be better off now. nFinally Arabs have realized the conflict is worse than the road to nowhere.
um, because the monarchy isn' t nuts? I suggest the movie "body of lies" as an alternate take on the susceptibility of the Hashemite regime to the cruel winds of fortune. Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe and Mark Strong are xclnt. Didn't the PLO try insurrection already? They had their heads handed to them. Kuwait didn't hesitate to expel the entire Palestinian serving class. I"ll take long odds on any Palestinian -Jordan matchup and place my bets on the king and the Beduin. But where is anyone getting the idea that Jordan wants a confederation with a Palestine? Why on earth? From where they sit, let the Palestinians not already on Jordan's plate be the world' problem or Israel's or nobody's. One Black September is enough.
Well the idea is OUT there and has been reported as discussed between the leaders of both countries, so you are WRONG on that point. nAnd unfortunately one black september and 2 intifadas are enough, but the problem is still here. n