Jordan and Palestine are bracing themselves for Israel’s fifth election in
just over three years, slated for November 1. Beyond Israel itself, these two
countries are arguably most affected by the outcome and subsequent shifts in
domestic politics. Taking primacy are Jordanian and Palestinian concerns over
the future prospect of a two-state solution, given that trends show the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict is no longer a key issue for the Israeli
electorate (having been considerably eclipsed by other issues such as the
country’s Jewish identity).
اضافة اعلان
The 15-year tenure of former Israeli prime minister
Benjamin Netanyahu (1996-1999 and 2009-2022) wreaked havoc on both
Jordanian-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli relations. It also marked a
significant turning point in Israel’s domestic politics, with direct
implications for both countries. Netanyahu’s prime ministership further
undermined the existing fragility of peace treaties concluded by his
predecessors. In the absence of anything more binding, these treaties largely
relied on the expectation of future Israeli leaders continuing to exhibit
goodwill and be reliable peace partners.
During Netanyahu’s tenure, settlements expanded,
changing facts on the ground and consequently diminishing the likelihood of a
future contiguous Palestinian state; there were attempts to change the
demography of Jerusalem; and there were attempts to undermine Jordanian
custodianship of Muslim and Christian Holy Sites in the West Bank (enshrined in
Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel).
Were Netanyahu to be re-elected, Jordan and
Palestine would likely be concerned he would continue his program of unilateral
action on the above issues. Of likely high concern would be irreversible acts
such as the annexation of Palestinian territory, effectively eliminating the
possibility of a two-state solution and a collapse of relations. Such a
scenario could lead to an uprising in Palestinian territories, potentially
undermining the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority and endangering
regional stability.
Were Netanyahu to be re-elected, Jordan and Palestine would likely be concerned he would continue his program of unilateral action on the above issues. Of likely high concern would be irreversible acts such as the annexation of Palestinian territory, effectively eliminating the possibility of a two-state solution and a collapse of relations.
For the Jordanian government, the absence of
Palestinian-Israeli peace would raise serious questions about the future of the
Jordanian-Israeli peace deal, which has long been a source of domestic
contention.
This electoral outcome could potentially also have
destabilizing impacts on Jordan, considering over two million, internationally
recognized, Palestinian refugees reside in the country. One Jordanian writer
recently proposed that Jordan was well-within its legal rights under its treaty
with Israel to consider Israeli annexation of territory in the Jordan Valley an
act of war, and seek international arbitration accordingly.
Netanyahu’s tenure also introduced new features to
Israeli politics, which amplified Jordanian and Palestinian concerns.
Netanyahu’s approach, which has been described as unabashed opportunism,
one-upmanship, and transactional horse-trading, led to a fragmentation and
polarization of Israel’s political landscape.
If re-elected, and if he again adopts a zero-sum
approach, it is likely he would have no reservations adopting policies and
taking actions that would weaken Jordan and Palestine, and even those of his
country, as long as it serves his political ambition.
Netanyahu’s disregard for institutional norms and
rules and consensus building also led to a consolidation of decision makers
within his immediate circle, resulting in a fewer number of influential
interlocutors with whom Jordan and Palestine could engage.
A false touting of a “security first” approach also
effectively discarded any policy options that sought accommodation with the
Palestinians and reinforced the false belief that occupation could be
perpetuated indefinitely. For Jordan and Palestine, this meant little room for
diplomacy, given Israeli unwillingness to acknowledge that the only viable
solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was a political one.
Netanyahu’s approach, which has been described as unabashed opportunism, one-upmanship, and transactional horse-trading, led to a fragmentation and polarization of Israel’s political landscape.
The danger is that the trends put in motion by
Netanyahu would make it difficult for anyone other than a populist to succeed
in such a political landscape.
The alternative, a loose and fragile coalition, like
Naftali Bennet’s short-lived “anyone-but-Netanyahu” government, also has
implications for Jordan and Palestine, because revolving door prime ministers
leading razor-thin majority governments tend not to have the necessary
authority or longevity to address critical issues such as the two-state solution.
With less than a month until the election, and while
it is still too early to call, Jordan and Palestine seem to have a clear
preference for anyone but Netanyahu. Should a worst-case scenario materialize,
with Netanyahu securing re-election, Jordan and Palestine will likely find
reassurance and relief in the fact that the Biden administration shares many of
their misgivings about him, dating back to the Obama era, and can work together
with other partners to at least minimize his damage.
If another candidate emerges victorious, the hope is
that the incumbent might continue to seek stability in relations and inch
toward progress in the establishment of an independent Palestinian state,
however distant and insurmountable the odds now appear.
Nasser bin Nasser is founder and CEO of Ambit Advisory.
This article
first appeared in the Near East Policy Forum.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
