The much-awaited “deal of the century,” a supposed peace deal between Israel and Palestine, has been delayed and disparaged as biased towards Israel to the detriment of Palestinians.

Though it’s true that leaks regarding various drafts of the deal involve softening but not ending the military occupation of the West Bank, the biggest loser from the deal may not be Palestine: it could very well be Jordan, which has a massive Palestinian population but has been sidelined from negotiations.

The government has been re-shuffled and purged, an ongoing political crackdown is underway, and protests against the deal fill the streets near the U.S. Embassy. Jordan’s government is hunkering down in anxious anticipation of the deal, and preparing for the worst.

For Jordan, the government’s legitimacy is on the line.

Built from a complicated socio-political arrangement between Jordan’s tribes, Palestinians, ideational/religious symbolism and good relations with the international community, the government’s mandate has taken decades to solidify into its current form.

The deal of the century threatens these aspects of its legitimacy, pitting Palestinians and tribes against one another, threatening to strip Jordan of its custodianship of Jerusalem’s Old City and alienating Jordan in the international realm as its neighbors seem more concerned with building a partnership with the U.S. and Israel than securing the rights of Palestinians.

Even if the deal is rejected and cannot be implemented, the process itself has already thrown Jordan in political turmoil as its social contract quakes.

Unsettling the Jordanian/Palestinian Balance

The relationship between the kingdom’s Palestinians and Jordanians is complex; layered by decades of shifts, new generations and refugee influxes. But one basic, defining factor outlines their different socio-political places: Palestinians dominate the private sphere, while Jordanians can almost exclusive access to the public sphere.

Official and accurate censuses on Jordan’s population are hard to come by, but by most accounts, Palestinians make up a plurality or an outright majority of the country’s population.

Despite this, it is the kingdom’s Jordanian population that wields the most political power of any bloc in the country thanks to the tribes, which initially acquiesced to the monarchy after Jordan’s independence in 1946. The Hashemite family, who currently rule Jordan but for centuries controlled vast territories (including Mecca and Medina, in what is today Saudi Arabia), have strived to maintain good relations with the country’s tribes.

The Fayez and Bani Hasan tribes, for example, are two of the most powerful, with Fayez tribesmen leading several of Jordan’s ministries and maintaining a strong presence in its Parliament while the Bani Hasan tribe is likely the country’s largest. Both have recently shown their ability to exert direct pressure on the King, bypassing official political means to do so.

More broadly, Jordanians, especially with ties to powerful tribes, can gain stable employment in the country’s ministries and directorates or in the police or armed forces. Palestinians on the other hand, by and large, are not able to join the public sector, and thus find employment in private enterprises.

The government’s careful political balance between the tribes and Palestinians is the result of decades of trial and error, teeter-tottering between both and struggling to pacify one while not giving the other disproportionate power so as to upset the other side.

The deal of the century threatens to break this fragile order.

Leaks from the deal show the Palestinian right of return will not be granted, dealing a huge blow to the decades-long struggle for Palestinians to return to their ancestral land.

“What we’re seeing from the plan is that it will blow up the Palestinians,” one Arab official explained to Reuters of the deal. “The plan doesn’t give justice to the Palestinians.”

“The Palestinian cause is being liquidated—no Jerusalem (as capital), no right of return for refugees, no sovereign state. That is why this American project is dangerous,” another senior Palestinian leader said.

Jordan has resisted fully integrating Palestinians into the political system, holding out the hope that a future right of return and two-state solution would give them statehood. But without this hope, Palestinians in Jordan may understand that their only option for political representation and securing civil rights will be to pressure Jordan to integrate them as political equals to Jordanians.

This threatens the hold Jordan’s tribes has on reins of power, and by extension, the careful set of tribal loyalties the monarchy has cultivated.

The King and the Custodianship

One of the most important positions the Hashemite family has internationally is its custodianship over Jerusalem’s Old City, the heart of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The custodianship gives the Hashemite family an important place in the umma, the global Muslim community, and provides Jordan a practical role in Israeli/Palestinian peace negotiations including the deal of the century. By maintaining administrative power over the Old City and the holy sites therein, Jordan has a strong voice in determining the status of Jerusalem.

Jordan’s current King Abdullah II called the custodianship his country’s “red line” not to be crossed.

During a recent speech in Jordan’s Zarqa Governorate, the King publicly acknowledged that outside forces are pressuring him to relinquish that custodianship in the context of the deal of the century; a pressure the King is so far rejecting.

“I will never change my position toward Jerusalem in my life,” Abdullah said in his speech. “All my people are with me.”

Israeli politicians and analysts have suggested that Saudi Arabia is quietly seeking to replace Jordan as the custodian of the Old City, effectively giving Saudi a monopoly over Islam’s holiest cites: Mecca, Medina and the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

With that custodianship, Saudi would be given an even more outsized role in talks with Israel, and Jordan would be sidelined.

Moreover, the Hashemite family which has used its custodianship to signify its care for the Palestinian cause, would have to answer to millions of disempowered Palestinians powerlessly observing their chance for recognition disappear.

Saudi Arabia would likely not champion the Palestinian cause as stringently as Jordan has. Saudi’s crown prince even told Palestinians to accept the terms outlined in an eventual deal or “shut up.”

Jordan’s Lonely Place with Palestine

Jordan is one of the few Arab countries that can not afford to abide by the deal of the century and survive in-tact.

Unlike Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who both prioritize economic and security promises and have thus positioned themselves inside the Israeli/U.S. camp, Jordan is tied to the status of Palestine and Palestinians. Jordan has been forced to reject the trademark political project Trump has undertaken.

This has alienated Jordan from its two main allies: the U.S. and Saudi.

The pro-Israeli bias of the deal of the century is driving a wedge between Jordan and its allies, which may be forcing the kingdom to flirt with subtle re-alignments to protect itself.

This presents Russia with an opportunity to expand its regional influence in the Middle East and build a partnership with Jordan.

Russia appears to be quietly expanding its economic and political footprint inside Jordan, and Jordan has gladly accepted the solidarity Russia brings in denounces Israel’s expansion in the Golan Heights and violent activity in Gaza.

But even if Russia comes to Jordan’s aid on the international stage, it cannot make up for the powerful roles Saudi and the U.S. have had in granting Jordan a place in the global community.

Currently, the deal of the century is facing indefinite delays, as the latest election in Israel failed to produce a government. But Jordan is already on the losing end of the deal, even if it is never unveiled.

Absent a deal, Saudi could still oust Jordan from its custodianship and the U.S. could still back Israel to annex portions of the West Bank much to Jordan’s chagrin.

Jordan’s economy is faltering and the King is reportedly purging elements of his government that were pushing for Jordan to accept the deal.

Jordan is on the edge.

Original source

Source: https://www.eurasiareview.com/07062019-how-jordan-is-endangered-by-the-deal-of-the-century-analysis/

The post How Jordan Is Endangered By The Deal Of The Century – Analysis first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

There has been more talk recently from the Palestinians, Israelis and Jordanians about the option of a confederation as an alternative to the two-state solution in light of the political impasse reached between Ramallah and Tel Aviv. So what are the true positions of the three governments on this option, the chances of this being achieved on the ground, the official reactions of these countries, and public opinion on the matter?

Palestinian-Israeli relations have reached an unprecedented political stalemate because of the stalled negotiations between them since 2014. This may have prompted Palestinians to think outside the box or refer back to old talk of a confederation with the Hashemite Kingdom.

Such a confederation aims to establish one state for two peoples after the Palestinian state is established on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. This single state will have two capitals — Jerusalem for the Palestinians and Amman for the Jordanians — as well as a central judicial authority and joint armed forces led by the Jordanian monarch. It will also include a central council of ministers and parliament elected by both nations, while both will be allowed to move freely between the two areas.

In recent months, the Palestinian and Israeli media have been busy talking about a confederation in an attempt to find alternatives that take Palestinians out of the political impasse. According to Israeli academic and political circles, a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation is suitable given the political circumstances, with US President Donald Trump trying to revive the proposal. Israel is also trying to strengthen this option by restoring Jordanian control of parts of the West Bank, which is favourable for the Zionist state.

READ: Jordan to carry out aid projects in support of Palestinian refugees

The current Israeli assessment is positive because the Palestinian Authority cannot stay in the West Bank without financial support from the US and Israeli security. The PA will not succeed in finding alternatives to the generous US aid, so it may be appropriate for Trump’s aides to resume their efforts towards confederation.

The Israelis reject the two-state solution and believe that the Palestinian confederation with Jordan may be the best choice for themselves because it kills several birds with one stone. For a start, it spares Israel from the responsibility of managing the affairs of millions of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, with the PA’s reduced financial resources. It also means that the two-state solution is no longer feasible, which reinforces the opinion of the Israeli right-wing that the “two states” route is dead and buried. The current US approach, remember, rarely addresses the two-state solution as it moves towards greater, but still limited, autonomy for the Palestinians.

What’s more, Israel’s talk of Egyptian guardianship over Gaza becomes more credible, perhaps by transferring Egypt’s administrative and security responsibility for the territory, even if the parties themselves continue to reject it, at least in public.

Confederation also revives the old Israeli right-wing suggestion of the “alternative homeland” of Jordan, about which Amman has many reservations. There are Israeli predictions which surface from time to time that King Abdullah II will the last Jordanian monarch from the Hashemites.

Finally, a Palestine-Jordan confederation will preserve security in the West Bank given that the Jordanian security forces will maintain calm on the border with Israel that has lasted for decades. This is a win-win situation for Israel, as Jordan will be responsible for preventing resistance operations within the West Bank over issues of conflict, including settlements, the status of Jerusalem and borders.

This is not simply a subject of discussion within research and academic circles; the US administration has also proposed it to the Palestinians, according to PA President Mahmoud Abbas. The idea was presented as a single sovereign state — Jordan — that would be expanded to include an additional autonomous territory called the West Bank, although the Palestinians have reservations about this.

What it all means is that the idea of a confederation between Jordan and Palestine has returned to the agenda, so we could see the conflict resolved in a creative and innovative manner. This is despite the fact that concessions over the territories involved will be necessary if the proposal is to be viable.

The current Israeli election campaign is throwing up suggested programmes for alternatives to the current way of managing the occupied territories. One of these is to return at least part of the West Bank to Jordanian guardianship due to the failure of the Palestinians and Israelis to reach a solution. For a confederation to come into being, though, will require Israel to evacuate its troops and citizens from the Palestinian areas.

This Israeli proposal would mean that the Palestinians will become the demographic majority in the Hashemite Kingdom, which the Jordanians fear and are likely to reject out of hand. In any case, Amman will argue, the Palestinians have the legitimate right to establish their own independent state, although this does not mean that the Jordanians are open to any option which comes in a single package, under Washington’s auspices.

READ: Jordan denies pregnant Palestinian woman access to West Bank

Moreover, the four-way Israel-Palestine-Jordan-US discussion about a confederation suggests that the two-state solution has been taken off the table altogether. Although none of the parties has agreed as yet, it could be a serious alternative, and an important step for the future, even though the element of trust between the concerned parties is very weak. Israel believes that a Jordan-Palestine confederation can be implemented gradually by creating a network of cooperation across civil society which will be sufficient to create mutual trust and thus pressure on the Jordanians to be the Palestinians’ elder sibling.

Washington is preparing to announce the details of the “deal of the century” in the coming weeks, and views the confederation option as an important one, despite the fact that Jordan is not exactly rushing to embrace it with open arms, not least because of the potential for the Kingdom to be de-stabilized. There are clearly many questions and not so many clear answers, causing some important circles within Jordan to fear for their national identity within a confederation. Such concern is understandable, perhaps, when we look at the demographics: Jordan currently hosts 2.2 million Palestinian refugees, out of its total population of 9.5 million, meaning that only 6.6 million are indigenous Jordanians. Add around 3 million Palestinians from the West Bank and Jerusalem, and the nature of the Kingdom as “Jordan” could start to change into a de facto “Palestinian State”.

According to the latest opinion polls, the Palestinians welcome the idea of a confederation with Jordan and see it as an appropriate way out of their predicament. They have historical relations and family ties with the Jordanians, so a confederation may be an acceptable way to be rid of the Israeli occupation.

There is constant communication between the officials in Amman and Ramallah, with respected and prominent Palestinian figures going to the Jordanian capital to meet with senior officials. These individuals openly support the idea of confederation and show great loyalty to the Hashemites.

Nevertheless, there are legal difficulties. A confederation would require a referendum among Palestinians within Palestine and in the diaspora; this would be hard to conduct freely and fairly given the distribution of the Palestinians around the world. The institutions that would probably be expected to conduct the referendum, such as the PLO executive committee, are not constitutional because they were formed without being elected democratically by the Palestinians, so that is an obstacle. Furthermore, a confederation would bestow legitimacy on the Israeli settlements, while the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their land will be off the agenda forever.

The resultant “Palestinian state” in the West Bank will be made up of demilitarized cantons lacking in contiguity; it will not be a fully-fledged sovereign state. Israel will thus evade the legal burdens of occupation and any possibility of it being called to account for its crimes against the Palestinians.

We are entitled to ask why there is growing Palestinian support for confederation with Jordan. It may be because the Palestinians have lost all hope of having an independent state and no longer have much trust in the PA after witnessing its successive political failures in its dealings with Israel. Jordan may also be seen as their gateway to the world, bypassing the tools of the occupation which have kept them behind the hated Apartheid Wall and endless military checkpoints. All things considered, a Palestine-Jordan Confederation is becoming a very real possibility.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190218-a-palestine-jordan-confederation-is-becoming-a-very-real-possibility/

The post A Palestine-Jordan Confederation is becoming a very real possibility first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.