By Labib Kamhawi
Recent statements by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman lack credibility and do not seem to reflect a real change in Israel’s stated or hidden policies, expressed through various other official avenues.
His acknowledgement that Jordan is not Palestine came about, it seems, through pressure exerted by Jordan, which has a peace treaty with Israel, and Jordan’s many friends in Israel and abroad. In fact, we are not talking here about policies or a change in policy, but “maneuvers” being used by Israel to the extent that its credibility has dropped to zero.
This is reflected in the general atmosphere in the region, which has soured to the degree that King Abdullah II of Jordan, despite his personal commitment to the peace process, has expressed pessimism regarding the future of that process, particularly between the Palestinians and Israelis.
It is clear that the major players managing the peace process are not able to reach a peace agreement acceptable to Israel or to Palestinians, creating a huge political gap that is affecting most countries in the region. The last elections in Israel brought us the Israeli right and far right, placing the parties involved in the peace process in an era of political deadlock characterized by the construction of settlements, the siege of the occupied territories, and the criminal policies of killing Palestinian civilians, whether in military operations or assassinations.
If Israel stopped all these practices, parties would continue to live with the paradox that, despite the desire to end the political stalemate, the status quo would remain — either because this rightist Israeli government does not want peace, or because the Palestinian Authority has been unable to obtain the minimum required and acceptable to Palestinians.
Israel’s right-wing policies and its officials’ repeated references to Jordan as an alternative homeland for Palestinians (the “Jordan option”) and the only possible solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict have raised Jordan’s concerns. Although Jordan is linked to Israel by their peace treaty, which has resulted in Israel’s respect for the Jordanian border and sovereignty over its land and people, the Israeli right-wing government seems ready to ignore its treaty obligations. This has strengthened Jordan’s uncertainty about the real intentions of Israel’s right-wing government, and strengthened the camp opposed to the peace treaty in Jordan.
This has created problems for the Jordanian regime, especially in light of a clear evolution in popular hostility to Israel, resulting from its negative attitudes toward peace with the Palestinians. There have been increasing demands in Jordan, expressed in the parliament, to abolish the treaty with Israel. These have converged with those of the Jordanian street and the political parties, among them the Islamic Action Front, calling for the abolition of the peace treaty, until Israel stops its offensive support for “Jordan is Palestine”. Given these developments, the king has been under increasing pressure to deal with this growing triangle around him, represented on one side by the possibility of the cancelation of an international and regional treaty, on another side by Israel’s offensive position, and on a third side by public pressure to act by withdrawing the ambassador to Israel and canceling the treaty.
Jordan’s monarch has not yet found his way out of this conundrum over the issue of the alternative homeland, even after strengthening his political alliance with the Palestinian Authority, in particular its president Mahmoud Abbas. The recent visit of the Jordanian monarch to Ramallah in the West Bank was carried out in this context: to confirm that Palestine is Palestine, and Jordan is Jordan. It appears that the last statement of Lieberman asserting that “Jordan is not Palestine” was also in the same vein and meant to calm the discussion.
This statement, intended to correct extremely stupid policies and attitudes devoid of logic, doesn’t seem, however, to reflect a change in the intentions of the extreme Israeli right on this subject. In fact, such a commitment should not come from the foreign minister, who is known for his senseless political positions, but from the Israeli Knesset itself.
This is what must be sought by Jordanian officials as minimum acceptable collateral if the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel is to have any credibility at all. The Palestinian Authority rejects any solution that does not lead to an independent Palestinian state on the lands of historic Palestine occupied in 1967. It, too, faces a dilemma in that this compromise does not enjoy unanimous Palestinian support.
It is the reckless political positions of the Israeli right-wing government that has brought Jordan and the Palestinian Authority together to confront this threat of the alternative homeland. Heedless policies have strengthened the anti-peace camp, which is now being used as a red herring by Israel to buy time and change the demographic reality in the Palestinian territories.
I wonder: if Palestinians used a slogan similar to that raised by the Israeli right, insisting that “Palestine is not Israel,” what would be the position of Avigdor Lieberman and Binyamin Netanyahu on this and the Palestinians who wielded it?
Labib Kamhawi is a political analyst in Amman. This commentary is published by DAILY NEWS EGYPT in collaboration with bitterlemons-international.org.
