The impact and ramifications of Israel's catastrophic
attack on Gaza are enormous and beyond imagination. Israel's colonial
activities extend throughout historic Palestine, including Al-Aqsa and beyond.
And if there is one party, aside from the Palestinians, where the consequences
of such a confrontation will be felt the most, it is unquestionably Jordan.
اضافة اعلان
Geographic closeness, along with strong political and
cultural participation in the Palestinian cause, leaves Jordan vulnerable to
the detrimental impact of the ongoing fighting in Gaza as well as the
ramifications of the Palestinian-Israeli war as a whole. Jordanians and
Palestinians have vast and profound political, social, and cultural ties,
making their fates nearly identical. Furthermore, the complicated nature of
Palestinian-Israeli relations means that their geopolitical ramifications are
far-reaching and unpleasant for everyone involved.
Numerous prominent players, including major global and
regional powers, are involved in this century-long struggle and, by extension,
in the growth of Jordan's complicated relationship with Palestine. Many of
these stakeholders have attempted to influence and guide this connection in a
specific direction and manner that would fit their own objectives. Regardless
of how external parties attempt to affect the Jordanian-Palestinian
relationship, two truths are known and have remained consistent. Firstly, attempts
to completely separate the two entities have consistently failed. Secondly,
Jordan, in particular, cannot completely insulate itself from the ongoing
conflict in and over Palestine and its implications. These two facts speak
volumes, and they significantly impact the people on both banks of the Jordan
River. Practically everyone in Jordan is feeling the effects of Israel's
genocidal, barbaric war on Gaza and the Palestinian people throughout historic
Palestine. That is why the country's leadership is caught between a rock and a
hard place, whether by decision or circumstance.
“Jordanians and Palestinians have vast and profound political, social, and cultural ties, making their fates nearly identical.”
Jordan’s relations with Hamas and Israel are incredibly
complex and loaded with both threats and opportunities. And the nature of such
relationships makes maintaining them a challenging endeavor. Jordan’s stride,
in one way, quickly elicits unfavorable reactions from the opposing side,
notwithstanding the lack of symmetry. In theory, Jordan has sought a stable and
mutually beneficial relationship with Israel at the cost of public support.
However, the latter rarely responds. Its answer to Jordan's many friendly
initiatives is either indifference, desire for more, threats, or all of the
above. Israeli officials do not attempt to conceal their covetous aspirations
on Jordanian territory, and Israeli spokespersons never hesitate to embarrass
the Jordanian administration whenever the opportunity arises. Naturally,
Jordanians find Israelis' aggressive behavior irritating and humiliating,
especially when their government fails to respond adequately to the Israeli
side's dominating attitude.
In the case of Hamas, the situation is reversed.
According to its leaders, the resistance movement has no ill intent toward
Jordan. However, the Jordanian government sees the movement as a possible
security burden, at least under certain conditions.
In exchange, Jordanians hold a completely different
posture than their government regarding both Hamas and Israel. While Jordanians
regard Israel as an existential threat, their perception of Hamas ranges from a
natural ally to a private nuisance, politically.
This complex and confusing political situation
involving these two enemies should be evaluated from the perspective of history
and politics, which are constantly changing. Jordan's government may lose favor
with both actors if it continues on its current path of seeing Israel as a
friendly neighbor while viewing Hamas as a security threat and refusing to
recognize it. To many Jordanians, this position appears unusual. Two
antagonists, one of whom is said to have profound social, cultural, and moral
ties to the Jordanian people, are engaged in a heroic struggle against an
occupying power, the other of which is deemed an existential threat by the
Jordanians.
Jordan's leadership must understand that there is no
permanent friend or adversary, only permanent interests. And now the issue
arises: where do Jordan's best interests lie? To address this question, a few
critical aspects should be considered.
The first is to consider the regional and worldwide
political landscapes. No country's national interests are immune to external
influences. Global and regional imperatives continue to shape governments'
behavior and influence their decisions, particularly in small and middle-sized
states like Jordan. Second, is making decisions that determine a country's
national interests. Such processes in a democratic country differ significantly
from those under a centralized or absolute monarchy.
In the first case, a pluralistic approach is typically
used, in which a variety of societal centers of power participate in the
formulation of the nation's national interests, resulting in societal
priorities taking precedence in leadership's political choices, whereas in the
second case, the interests of the ruling elite or the absolute monarch usually
reign supreme. Third, and less effective, is the country's foreign policy.
Small and middle-sized states are more likely to form political alliances, if
not entanglements, with significant powers. Such relationships may become
burdensome for the leaders of such regimes, who can forego obligations to a
senior ally only at a crucial political cost, sometimes even at the risk of
life.
The ongoing conflict in Gaza, combined with the
evolving global balance of power, has substantially altered the game's regional
and international rules. Hamas has taken on an entirely new form. Similarly,
the globe is witnessing a new global order morphing into multipolar one. And
Israel is revealed to be increasingly weak and lawless. Furthermore, October 7
exposed how much the US and other Western powers support Israel's existence, as
well as its political and military supremacy in the area.
Regarding Hamas' attitude against Israel, the Jordanian
state had previously seen it as a political liability, prompting the expulsion
of several notable Jordanians due to their affiliation with the organization's
senior leadership. Both issues, Hamas' Islamic doctrine and its armed
resistance to Israel, have sparked severe complaints from both Israel and the
US government. Jordan's dealings with Hamas are highly sensitive due to its
long-standing peace pact with Israel and strategic partnership with the US.
“ Israeli officials do not attempt to conceal their covetous aspirations on Jordanian territory, and Israeli spokespersons never hesitate to embarrass the Jordanian administration whenever the opportunity arises.”
However, due to changes in the political landscape,
both regionally and worldwide, these concerns and others related to them should
be examined and evaluated through an entirely new lens. Hamas' main base is
currently located in Gaza. Its leadership and actions are wholly established
and oriented against the occupying authority and its allies. Since its
inception, Hamas has not taken any steps that could be interpreted as a desire
to export or crusade for an Islamic or militant agenda outside of ancient Palestine,
nor has it engaged in any militant actions against any state other than Israel.
And, for the time being, it has little interest, or even motivation, in
instigating or launching confrontation with anyone other than its principal
rival, Israel. This is a highly essential piece of information as it
demonstrates that Hamas is not an ideological organization in and of itself but
rather a resistance group with an Islamic orientation that emphasizes the jihad
factor, regardless of its membership's religious affiliation. In actuality, the
organization's existence stems from Israel's prolonged occupation of Palestine,
its illegal and harsh treatment of Palestinians, and the Judaization of Islamic
sites, particularly Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Simultaneously, Israel's threats to Jordan have shifted
from intermittent and disguised to brazenly evident. Israeli leaders are no
longer hiding their covetous ambitions against Jordanian sovereignty and
territory. Israeli authorities, both current and former, have publicly
exhibited a hostile attitude. Despite Israel's dangers to Jordan's territorial
integrity and political independence, other threats are also more severe and
real. They are the result of both ongoing attempts to expel Palestinians from
their homeland and purposeful and open actions and plans aimed at completely
eradicating Palestinian national existence. Alternatively, they risk losing
their national identity in their own country. Such an illegal and aggressive
route poses a more significant threat and anxiety to Jordan's people and
administration.
“Since its inception, Hamas has not taken any steps that could be interpreted as a desire to export or crusade for an Islamic or militant agenda outside of ancient Palestine, nor has it engaged in any militant actions against any state other than Israel.”
Regarding the suggestion that Hamas could be regarded
as a potential security risk to the Jordanian regime, there has been no valid
evidence to support such a claim in the past, let alone now that the movement
is facing severe challenges and difficulties. The current war with Israel will
most likely cause enough trouble in the territory of Palestine for any serious
Palestinian institution or group to seek outside enemies.
The Israeli threats against Hamas and the whole
Palestinian resistance organization, as well as other targets in the region,
are enough to keep not only Palestinians, but all Arabs engaged for centuries.
Regarding Jordan-US relations, the Kingdom should
reassess such a relationship to set it on a more balanced and steady path. What
is commonly referred to as a strategic partnership between the two states could
be anything other than a strategic partnership in the eyes of most Jordanians.
However, a comprehensive investigation of this link is not possible in this
brief paper. However, this much-talked-about camaraderie survives mainly at the
official and, to a lesser extent, academic levels in both countries. The warmth
that typically characterizes these ties cannot be sensed at the public level.
On the contrary, most Jordanians do not share their leaders' enthusiasm for
such a strong relationship with the US.
Run deep and high among regular Jordanians. While a
small number of people in Jordan's political and economic strata perceive the
relationship with the US as a comfy cushion, many others see it as a cage.
Widespread hatred of the more than half-century-long affair between Amman and
Washington stems from various issues. However, the most significant
difficulties in this ostensibly long and stable relationship between the
Hashemite family and Western powers, particularly the US, stem from
circumstances outside the scope of Jordan-US relations.
While successive US administrations have provided
Jordan with what the US considers generous financial assistance and credible
political support, many Jordanians believe that Washington's global and
regional policies would be more detrimental to Jordan in the long run.
Furthermore, Jordanians, both officials and the general public, should discard
the mentality of a beneficiary-benevolent relationship that pervades their
contacts with the US. The political benefits of the US' relationship with
Jordan greatly outweigh its allegedly extensive financial and political support
for the latter. However, this cost-benefit analysis for the two partners must
provide the complete picture. Contrary to how this relationship is viewed
publicly in Amman, two significant issues have led many in the country to see a
partnership with the US as more of a cage than a cushion for Jordan.
“there is broad hostility between the West, and the US in particular, toward Islam and the Arab world, a belief so widespread among Arabs that no amount of financial contributions, successful diplomacy, or innovative public relations operations could change it.”
Full US favoritism in favor of Israel renders US
support for Jordan hollow, if not counterproductive. The US is determined to
maintain Israel's political and military dominance in the Middle East. Given
Israel's expansionist and aggressive actions, such a US posture ultimately has
negative ramifications for Jordan in more than one way.
Furthermore, this encompassing connection will likely
decrease Amman's margin of maneuverability, if not constraining its freedom of
action, when Jordan's critical national interests require it to deviate from
the US-defined course of action. A minor and dependent state can only break
away from a powerful benefactor at its own cost. Furthermore, this intricate
relationship has two structural disadvantages for tiny states. One is
developing a false sense of security for the junior partners, while the other results
in a state of dependence on the patron.
Second, there is broad hostility between the West, and
the US in particular, toward Islam and the Arab world, a belief so widespread
among Arabs that no amount of financial contributions, successful diplomacy, or
innovative public relations operations could change it. And if there were any
residual concerns regarding such prejudice toward Israel on the one hand and
hostility toward Islam and the Arab country on the other, the US and Western
nations' respective stances on the eve of October 7 have put an end to it.
For these reasons, Washington has failed to capture the
hearts and minds of ordinary Jordanians. In a nutshell, the majority of
Jordanians, like the majority of Arabs, feel that the West, in general, and the
US, in particular, are the source of the bulk of their anguish and problems,
including internal political difficulties. Right or wrong, such a perception
has become widely held in Jordan.
Naturally, such a negative attitude among most
Jordanians does not bode well for an effective and stable relationship between
the leadership and the people.
So, it is evident what the geopolitical plan will look like in the next 20–30 years. The most significant challenges to both Jordan and Palestinians will primarily come from Israel, in one form or another. Of course, the US has no obligation to help a weak friend who is in danger from a stronger one! One cannot assume that it is in the US' interest to resist such Israeli self-aggrandizement in a strategically soft Arab environment where other regional countries may be fighting for the same thing. The Jordanians and Palestinians will bear the brunt of the Western-Israeli onslaught politically, militarily, and economically.
Anyway, it remains troublesome if militant Israel gains
the upper hand in the current war in Gaza. If Hamas and the Palestinian
resistance movement are defeated throughout historic Palestine, Jordan will
most likely be the next target of extreme right-wing Israeli zealots; nothing
short of a strong, united Jordan and a practical Jordanian-Palestinian
resistance front would be a credible force to deter belligerent Israel from
attempting to test Jordan's steadfastness. Jordanian and Palestinian authorities
should prioritize establishing such a strong front.
Good intentions and peaceful tendencies would be
ineffective in dealing with a dominant Israel. Hungry predators will not
entertain gentle requests for coexistence from weak creatures in the vast
jungle that the earth has recently become. Those who believe the US will rush
to their aid should keep in mind that safeguarding Jordan from other
irredentist regional countries is one thing, but protecting it from Israel is
quite another. All Arab nations should immediately consider a robust regional
and international coalition-building strategy.
As a result, the actual and first realistic step in a
much-needed unified Arab collective self-defense strategy is not to abandon
more Palestinian resistance movements to face Israel's deadly war machine, but
to be aware of the negative ramifications of allowing Israel to rule over Gaza
and the rest of the Palestinian territories. Of course, the Palestinian leaders
should be at the forefront of this effort, facing this awful crisis together.
The first step for the leaderships of all Palestinian parties should be to
abandon their current stance of reacting to what Israel and Western powers
would dangle in front of them through the US Foreign Secretary, Antony Blinken,
i.e. another bitter bait in the way of the imaginary process of the promised
'Palestinian state' that will be devoid of any state tributes! Arab and
Palestinian leaders should look Blinken in the eyes and tell him that Gaza and
its resistance are not a bargaining tool.
Hamas and the Palestinian resistance remain strong, and
their compelling military performance should not be negotiable or a fallback
position for Arab diplomacy in the ongoing conversations amongst Arab
interlocutors.
Disclaimer:
Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Jordan News' point of view.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
