Confederation - of Four (4); Israel, Jordan, West Bank, & Gaza

Submitted by Robert (United States), Sep 6, 2018 at 11:00

Dear Daniel Pipes,

CONFEDERATION?

You've had this idea for a while - of (Part of) the West Bank "going" to Jordan. Here is the latest state of affairs on the ground related to this view:

"Is Jordan Palestine?"
"It is in the interest of Israel, America, Europe and pro-Western Arab states' that Jordan continue to be stable and secure. Abdullah has provided stability in the face of regional upheaval."
By Douglas Bloomfield; September 5, 2018

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Is-Jordan-Palestine-566608

The fact is (as you know) 70% of Jordanians are "Palestinians" - which means that they moved to (Trans-)Jordan sometime during and after 1946-1948, from the "Eastern" part of Mandatory Palestine (now Israel). Some are citizens of Jordan, others Refugees. As a result, the 30% who are "indigenous" feel that they are the "real" Jordanians. This means that Jordan is inherently UNSUSTAINABLE if discrimination and resentment continue, as these do to this. But this isn't, or shouldn't, be Israel's problem.

The arrangements which require focus are only the areas where Israel seeks to continue to "Settle in" within "Civil War Palestine" (Judea and Samaria). The rest appears to be a possible Fait Accompli by Israel. Here's what I mean:

(1) Egypt is already negotiation with the "Muslim Brotherhood" Hamas of Gaza, and Abbas of the PA in the West Bank. So the relationship between these three should by handled by them - unless Israel objects to a proposed provision.

(2) Jordan is already in a relation with Israel through its Peace Treaty, and Jordan is by treaty responsible for the Noble Sanctuary.

(3) With Trump having stopped the funding of UNWRA, the status of the 5 Million alleged Palestinian Refugees is now more or less "settled" (pun intended) since they are physically in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.

It seems like the situation isn't Military (requiring "Victory" by Israel), but Diplomatic, where Trump could possibly execute the "Deal of the Century." It is to be noted that the Regional Powers have no longer a real interest in the fate of the Palestinians, in fact, we should recall the Arab position that was initiated by Saudi Arabia years ago for recognition of Israel: (a) 1967 Armistice lines, (b) Jerusalem, and (c) Refugees.

Regarding issue (a), let me remind you of the "the" dispute in the UN Security Council whereby Israel was finally effectively NOT required to withdraw from "all" the Disputed Territories when the Final Draft deliberately omitted the word "the" over which the Soviet Union debated strongly in favor of inclusion. So this condition has been met, except for the exact Israeli incorporation.

Regarding (b), the USA has taken that condition off the table by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's Capital. It is (Holocaust) Europe (EU) which is "dragging its tail." However, as have observed,there are emerging European "Civilizational" political parties, especially in the East, which naturally will recognize Zionism as the legitimate Nationalism of the Jews. Regarding Britain, it has exited the EU, and Jeremy Corbyn's Labor party has adopted the Universal definition of Antisemitism which recognizes the deligitimation of Zionism as Anti-Semitic. How does your word "Victory" on behalf of Israel work in this context? Not that well I'm afraid, because what's required is Hasbara and Diplomacy, rather than War.

Regarding (c), Trump is brilliant by the standards of Realpolitik in having shifted the responsibility in funding the ("Eternal") Palestinian Refugee Status to the rest of the World,which has forgotten that especially years prior (in 1945) the Holocaust ended, and Herzl's dream of a Jewish State in 1896 was realized as a necessity because Jews were not accepted, but murdered, wherever they were in someone else's State, Homeland, Country,or Nation.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".