Jordan enclave in West Bank could be Trump's "two-state" solution

[Published 3 October 2018]

Creating another Palestinian Arab state — in addition to Jordan - has been seemingly consigned to the garbage bin of history following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s CNN interview on 28 September.

President Trump had just told Netanyahu on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly:

“I like two-state solution. I like two-state solution. That’s what I think works best. I don’t even have to speak to anybody, that’s my feeling.”

When asked if he was prepared to commit to a two-state solution - Netanyahu told his CNN interviewer:

“I’ve discovered that if you use labels you are not going to get very far because different people mean different things when they say “states”. So rather than talk about labels, I like to talk about substance”

Questioned on what he would like to see - Netanyahu replied:

“What I would like to see is that the Palestinians will have all the powers to govern themselves and not all the powers that will threaten us. What that means is that in the tiny area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — it’s all about 50 kilometres wide — that’s where the Palestinians live and the Israelis live — in that area under any peace agreement or without a peace agreement — Israel has to have the dominant power, the military power, overriding security power ...”

Netanyahu then stressed:

“Israel has to have the overriding security, not the UN, not Canadian Mounties, not — I don’t know — Austrian or Australian forces — Israeli forces have to have the security control, otherwise, that place will be taken over by Islamist terrorists, either Daesh, ISIS or Hamas or Iran, all of the above, and that’s my condition.”

Trump’s upcoming peace plan slated for release in 2-4 months needs to deal with Netanyahu’s concerns if it is to win Israel’s backing.

Israel’s security demands would best be satisfied by part of the West Bank being reunified with Jordan to create a Jordanian enclave in the West Bank — with the remainder of the West Bank being annexed by Israel.

This solution would enable Israel to:

1. Control access and egress between the West Bank and Jordan

2. Maintain security control for the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea

3.Ensure the enclave be demilitarized and remain demilitarized

The enclave’s residents would acquire Jordanian citizenship. Jordanian law would apply in the enclave — which could be divided into any number of electoral divisions whose residents would choose their representatives to sit in the Jordanian Parliament.

The PLO has already rejected Trump’s peace plan — sight unseen — opening the door for Jordan — at peace with Israel since signing their 1994 Peace Treaty - to fill the negotiating void necessary to create this Jordanian enclave.

Israel’s former Foreign Minister Moshe Arens presciently stated on January 11, 1989:

“Jordan is a Palestinian state. And it is with Jordan that we must decide where the border will run…. Should the border follow the Jordan River, as it does today, or should it be west of the Jordan, as the Jordanians would like?”

I would suggest therefore that, when it comes to talking about territory there is only one negotiating party acceptable to the government of Israel. That party is the existing Palestinian state of Jordan.”

Creating a Jordanian enclave in the West Bank with Israel annexing the remainder could be - in Trump’s own words:

“the ultimate deal…as a deal maker, I’d like to do … the deal that can’t be made. And do it for humanity’s sake.”

Don’t underestimate Trump’s deal-making ability to end what he himself has called “the war that never ends”.


Author’s note:The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

Return of the Jordanian Option

Asaf Romirowsky's article "Revisiting the Jordanian Option" elicited the following response "Return of the Jordanian Option" on 23 April 2011.

The international community needs to get serious on the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank,East Jerusalem and Gaza.

If the Palestinian Authority is not prepared to get its act together with Hamas and accept sovereignty in the 95% offered to be ceded by Israel (with a land swap of Israeli sovereign territory for that remaining 5%) - then Jordan should be invited to negotiate with Israel on restoring as far as is now possible the status quo that existed at 5 June 1967 within the framework of their 1994 Peace Treaty.

It seems the sensible way to go in an attempt to avoid escalating conflict.

The only thing preventing it happening is the acute embarrassment and loss of face that would be suffered by the United Nations and its member states after pursuing the two-state solution for the last 17 years. Surely by now it must be obvious to them all that such a solution will never be capable of coming to fruition.

If I had to choose between saving Jewish and Arab lives OR eating humble pie - I know which one I would choose.

*************************************************************************************
Return of the Jordanian Option

Because the Palestinian Arabs have perpetually refused to end hostilities with the Jews through accepting a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one, some Israeli Knesset officials are revisiting the Jordanian option.

Amid the unrest now sweeping the Middle East, Israeli government and security officials are quietly discussing an unusual strategy that would pass the Palestinians’ political future off to Jordan. With the odds of a negotiated two-state solution at an all-time low, former Defense Minister Moshe Arens, Knesset Member Arieh Eldad, and Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin resurrected the “Jordan is Palestine” model for regional peace.

Israeli officials fear that a Palestinian Intifada could break out on both sides of the Jordan River, and they seek to make it as much a Jordanian problem as an Israeli one.

Although anti-Zionist radicals of the sort that frequent Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and the UK Guardian look upon the Jordanian option with extreme distaste because it means the resolution of the conflict, that is not Israel's problem.

Nor is it mine, of course.

The fact is that Jordan comprises about 77 percent of British mandated Palestine and the Palestinians represent something like 75 percent of the population of that country. This means that Jordan is, essentially, "Palestine."

As a long-time supporter of the two-state solution it is more than a little disappointing that oppressed and occupied Palestinians absolutely refuse to end their oppression and occupation by accepting a state for themselves in peace next to Israel.

It's just very unusual. In the long history of human oppression, I have never heard of any oppressed people who refuse to give up their oppression until their conditions are met.

It's remarkable, in fact.

From early in the twentieth century until today the Palestinians, and before them the Arabs of the British mandate, have never accepted the partition plan and have never accepted a Jewish state on any part of formerly Muslim controlled land. For reasons having to do with extreme, Koranically-sanctioned, hatred toward Jews, as well as the requirements of the Sharia, the Arabs have consistently refused acceptance of Israel as the Jewish state.

As anyone who reads this blog knows my stance is to respect the Palestinians by respecting their decision. Their decision is "no." For almost a hundred years their position has consistently been "no."

No negotiations. No recognition. No peace.

These are the three famous "nos" of Khartoum, issued by the Arab League immediately following the "humiliating" Arab defeat in the 6 Day War, and there is very little, if anything, to indicate that they are not still in effect.

That being the case we need to accept the fact that "no means no." And since "no means no," since the Palestinians have consistently refused to end the conflict via a negotiated settlement, Israel needs to resolve the conflict in a manner that does not depend on a negotiated settlement. One way to do that, the way that I have generally supported, is for Israel to declare its final borders on the western side of the Jordan river and then move the IDF behind those borders.

That represents one potential resolution, but the Jordanian option represents another possibility. Given that its population is three-quarters Palestinian, it makes sense to declare Jordan the Palestinian state, with an annexation of much of the western bank of the river.

At the moment only a relatively small proportion of Israelis see the Jordanian option as viable, but given the circumstances of perpetual Palestinian intransigence and refusal to accept a state for themselves, it's an option that Israel should explore. What's needed is for Israel to come up with the incentives necessary to bring the Jordanian government into agreement.

This will certainly not be easy, but what's there to lose?

Besides, as PLO executive Zuheir Mohsen acknowledged:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Heck, they'd barely even need to modify their flags.

Revisiting the Jordan Option

The following article appeared on Y Net on 23 April 2011.

Jordan's involvement in resolving the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem continues to be more likely as the two-state solution continues to go nowhere.

***********************************************************************************

Revisiting the Jordan option

Op-ed: With hopes fading for two-state solution, ‘Jordan is Palestine’ option may be best alternative

Asaf Romirowsky
Published: 04.23.11, 14:21 / Israel Opinion

Amid the unrest now sweeping the Middle East, Israeli government and security officials are quietly discussing an unusual strategy that would pass the Palestinians’ political future off to Jordan. With the odds of a negotiated two-state solution at an all-time low, former Defense Minister Moshe Arens, Knesset Member Arieh Eldad, and Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin resurrected the “Jordan is Palestine” model for regional peace.

Israeli officials fear that a Palestinian Intifada could break out on both sides of the Jordan River, and they seek to make it as much a Jordanian problem as an Israeli one.

In February, Human Rights Watch, the world’s self-proclaimed defender of minority rights, produced a 60-page report entitled, “Stateless Again: Palestinian-Origin Jordanians Deprived of their Nationality.” The paper details how Jordan deprives its Palestinian citizens of West Bank origins their basic rights, such education and healthcare. The report received scant attention back then. But the problem of Jordanian Palestinians, amidst growing unrest in the Hashemite Kingdom, has put the issue back on the front burner.

Israeli analysts worry that if the Jordanian government is to become more representative, it is possible that the country’s 72% Palestinian population could effectively take control. Jordan, in effect, could become “Palestine.”

The notion of a Palestinian controlled polity in Jordan is not new. From the war of Israeli independence in 1948 through the Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli politicians on the Left and Right advanced a policy of “Jordan is Palestine.” While defending Israel from Arab aggression, they proposed that Jordan become the Palestinian homeland. Israeli officials proposed various scenarios for a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation that fused the East Bank and West Bank of the Jordan River under one administration.

However, it is not as simple as that. Dan Schueftan, author of A Jordanian Option, correctly noted in 1986 that such an arrangement would be dependent on Israeli-Jordanian relations and how the two parties view potential threats from the Palestinian populations in their midst.

Inseparable security needs

To be sure, in the years after the Six-Day War, the Jordanian monarchy was wary of the Palestinians. Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat challenged the sovereignty of the country in 1970. After that, the kingdom had blocked the flow of Palestinians from the West Bank into the East Bank in order to preserve the kingdom’s Hashemite political structure. To a certain extent, the Jordanians renounced all claims to the West Bank in 1988, backed the creation of the Palestinian Authority in the early 1990s, and then made peace with Israel in 1994 in an attempt to prevent further flooding of Palestinians into their country.


To a certain extent Jerusalem has long looked to the Hashemite monarchy to maintain stability and security on both sides of the river. Both Amman and Jerusalem, in fact, recognize that their security needs are inseparable. Jordan has benefited from the periods of relative quiet and prosperity in Israel. Accordingly, Jordanian security forces have been increasingly involved in the West Bank, where they conduct joint training sessions with Palestinian forces. It has been a win-win-win situation for Jordan, Israel and the Palestinians.

The problem now is that Jordan’s traditional power centers are unhappy with the rise of Palestinian influence in the country. Tribal leaders resent Jordan’s Queen Rania, born in Kuwait to a family with roots in the West Bank, for her vocal advocacy of the Palestinian cause. In fact, 36 tribal leaders recently published their objections to Rania’s position, fearing that it will accelerate a slow Palestinian takeover of the kingdom.

With hopes fading for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this seemingly far-flung notion may become the last, best option. The problem is that it could embolden Palestinian radical groups, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, which derive much of their power from disillusioned Palestinians in the West and East Banks. With the rise of such groups in Jordan, the peace agreement between Amman and Jerusalem would be in peril.

Nevertheless, as uncomfortable as it might be for Palestinians, Israelis and Jordanians to admit, the Jordanian option might be the best one they have.

Asaf Romirowsky is an adjunct scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former liaison officer from the Israeli Defense Forces to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

A Mandate for Peace - 2004

[Published February 2004]

Madrid, Oslo and the Road Map have capped a disastrous 13 years of international diplomacy trying to find an Arab partner, other than Jordan, to negotiate the sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza with Israel.

One wonders how long this mindless process will be allowed to continue.

Death, injury and human suffering by both Jews and Arabs seem to be the only tangible results from this non-stop diplomacy as both sides struggle to assert sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza - an area of land comprising just 6% of the territory once called Palestine administered by Great Britain from 1920 to 1948 pursuant to the Mandate for Palestine created by the League of Nations.

The Mandate came into being at the time of the distribution of former Turkish lands conquered by the victorious allied countries in World War I. The only competing claims were those of Jewish nationalism and Arab nationalism.

The territorial allocation made to the Arabs was more than 100 times greater in area and hundreds of times richer than the area of Palestine mandated for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

The Mandate was the legally binding expression of the International Community of Nations. The Mandate continues to have important legal ramifications until this very day, because of the provisions of Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, - something that has been consistently overlooked and ignored by the world body and its members.

The Mandate document expressed some very important principles, including.

1.recognition of the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for "reconstituting" their national home in that country;

2.the creation for the first time of an identifiable territory called "Palestine" with defined territorial boundaries which incorporated Israel, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), Gaza and Transjordan (today's State of Jordan).

3.safeguarding the civil and religious rights (but not any political rights as none were intended to be conferred) of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine;

4.facilitating Jewish immigration and encouraging "close settlement by Jews on the lands, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes" (Article 6);

All this might have been ancient history but for the occurrence of six subsequent events, which could result in the Mandate now being resurrected onto the current political stage to break the deadlock that currently exists.

The first two events were the birth of the United Nations in 1945 and the demise of the League of Nations in 1946.

Transjordan, which comprised 75% of the Mandate for Palestine, was granted its independence in 1946 at the last session before the League of Nations was dissolved. Although originally designated as part of the proposed site for the Jewish National Home, not one Jew then or until today lives or is allowed to live in this part of former Palestine.

The remaining 25% of Palestine, however, still remained under the League of Nations Mandates System, as did a number of other territories around the world.

To deal with these continuing Mandates, Article 80 was introduced into the United Nations Charter.

Article 80 provided that nothing in the International Trusteeship System set up under the United Nations Charter should be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing International Instruments to which members of the United Nations might respectively be parties.

In 1950 the International Court of Justice in an advisory opinion on South West Africa (1950 I.C.J.Reports 128) decided that the substantive obligations of the Mandate over that territory continued in force despite the dissolution of the League of Nations. The Court affirmed that these obligations remained the essence of "the sacred trust of civilization" despite the dissolution of the League of Nations.

The ramifications of this case as applied to the Mandate for Palestine, are, of course, highly significant

The third event of crucial importance was the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, which attempted to resolve the issue of sovereignty in the remaining 25% of Palestine then still subject to the Mandate. The proposal was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs.

This led to the fourth crucial event, the Israeli War of Independence in 1948, when against six invading Arab armies, Israel was left in sovereign control of present day Israel, whilst Transjordan obtained control of Judea and Samaria, and Egypt gained control of Gaza.

In 1950, Transjordan renamed itself Jordan, and also renamed Judea and Samaria - the West Bank. Jordan then attempted to annex the West Bank but only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation. Egypt was content to administer Gaza and not seek to annex it.

Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza, comprising a mere 6% of the original Mandate, were therefore the only territories of the Mandate in which sovereignty remained unallocated between Arabs and Jews after 1948. Israel was then internationally recognised as the sovereign authority in 19%, and Jordan as the sovereign authority in 75%, of the original Mandate.

However, by virtue of Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, the terms of the Mandate for Palestine were still alive and kicking in relation to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza, where sovereignty still remained unallocated to anyone.

The fifth event of significance occurred in 1967 when Israel gained control of Judea and Samaria, (the West Bank) and Gaza as a result of the 6-Day War. Jews then began settling in these areas as they were permitted to do under Article 6 of the Mandate, in some cases returning to places from where they had been driven out in the 1948 War.

The sixth event of significance was the signing of the Peace treaty between Israel and Jordan in 1994.

This has not been achieved in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, despite the best and worthy endeavours of a succession of American Presidents, British Prime Ministers, United Nations Secretaries General and other talented European and world dignitaries.

These six events and the Mandate itself have become of the utmost importance in 2004 because one can glean from them the following -

1.Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza are not "occupied Arab lands" but are in fact areas of the Mandate which are still to be dealt with in accordance with the "sacred trust of civilisation" declared by the League of Nations and preserved by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

2.All Jewish settlements presently established in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza accord with the objectives of the Mandate which encouraged close settlement of these areas by the Jews. They are not illegal in International Law;

3. There are already two successor sovereign States in the territory formerly called "Palestine". One is the Jewish State of Israel and the other is the Arab State of Jordan. Together they exercise sovereignty in 94% of the Mandate area.

4.It is only in the remaining 6% of the Mandate - Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza - that sovereignty remains undetermined and the terms of the Mandate uncompleted;

Jordan and Israel, the two sovereign successor States at peace with each other for the last 10 years, are obviously the most appropriate partners to negotiate the sovereignty of this small parcel of land wedged in between their respective countries, and to determine the future of both the Jewish and Arab populations residing in those areas.

With goodwill and mutual respect, not one resident of those areas, be he Jew or Arab, would have to move from his present home.

Such negotiations would have very real prospects of success because they would be predicated on firm historic, geographic and demographic bases. Ethnically there is no difference between Arabs living on the west side of the Jordan River and those on the east side. Jordan can, and should, speak for and govern all of them.

Madrid, Oslo and the Road Map possessed none of these attributes and the results have now become plain for all to see.

Former Israeli Minister of Defence and Israeli Ambassador to Washington, Moshe Arens, has described it better than anyone, - a border dispute involving the redrawing of the boundary line between Jordan and Israel.

Jordan renounced all claims to these areas in 1988. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that it could now have a change of heart, following the descent into chaos that it has been witnessing on its own doorstep over the last 2 years in particular.

International support in the shape of financial, military, and diplomatic assistance would help Jordan make this brave decision and give a real boost to efforts to end the 125 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine.

The sooner Jordan and Israel are brought together to revisit the Mandate's clear and unambiguous terms and to implement its provisions to final completion in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza, the sooner justice will be done to both the Jewish and Arab inhabitants of former Palestine.

Jordan's mission would be a noble one in the search for peace. Those who could help bring about the opening of negotiations between Jordan and Israel over this small piece of real estate with possibly a confederation between them at the end of those negotiations, would find their efforts far more rewarded than the authors of so many plans that have hardly left the drawing board before being consigned to historical oblivion.