Twenty-five years ago today, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Jordan's King Hussein concluded a series of secret meetings in London by drafting a document aimed at jumpstarting the moribund Arab-Israeli peace process. The London Agreement called for the convening of an international peace conference that would be followed by bilateral negotiations. We will never know if these negotiations would have led to a peace settlement because the agreement reached by the two veteran statesmen was ultimately scrapped by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. What we do know is that Israel paid dearly for Shamir's obstinacy. The lessons from this debacle are relevant today as the Jordanians have taken the initiative, once again, in reviving the peace process.
The London Agreement would have served the interests of Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians. Israel would have negotiated a peace deal with a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, rather than with the more militant PLO. The Jordanians would have won back territories they lost to Israel in the 1967 war. And the Palestinians could have rid themselves of the burdens associated with Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The document's basic principles -- that all parties must accept UN Resolutions 242 and 338, and renounce violence and terrorism -- are today widely accepted as the basis for any peace agreement.
Fearing that an international conference would push Israel into a corner, however, Shamir torpedoed the Peres-Hussein agreement. Shamir's decision turned out to be short-sighted. That December, the first Intifada erupted in the occupied territories, leading to widespread violence in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem. Seven months later, on July 31, 1988, King Hussein announced that he was severing all administrative and legal ties to the West Bank, signaling an end to Jordan's formal role in Israeli-Palestinian talks. Within four years, Shamir found himself at the very international conference he had feared, but under terms less favorable for Israel. Shamir's successor, Yitzhak Rabin, was left to conduct negotiations with the mercurial PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, in place of King Hussein.
Although Israel today enjoys peace with Jordan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to fester and, once again, Jordan is attempting to breathe life into the peace process. In January, the Jordanians hosted preliminary talks in Amman and have since been trying to get the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. Yet, just as his father's efforts were rejected by Shamir a generation ago, King Abdullah's initiative has thus far received a tepid response -- this time, by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his counterpart, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Five rounds of exploratory talks have produced little progress. The Palestinians are refusing to return to the talks until Israel freezes settlement activity, releases Fatah-affiliated prisoners, and agrees to a return to the pre-1967 lines as the basis for negotiations. Beyond rejecting these pre-conditions, the Netanyahu government is threatening to exit negotiations entirely if Abbas' Fatah party and his rival Hamas resume their reconciliation talks. Meanwhile, Israel's focus on Iran has effectively relegated peacemaking to the backburner.
The Jordanians have been promoting these talks for good reason. With a sizable Palestinian population, King Abdullah is concerned about Jordan's stability given the revolutions sweeping the region. Renewed violence in the West Bank in the form of a third Intifada could easily spill over the Jordan River and create existential problems for Amman. A new Intifada would also be disastrous for Israelis and Palestinians, fewer and fewer of whom believe that a two-state solution is viable.
The Israelis and Palestinians are squandering yet another opportunity in spite of favorable conditions. Netanyahu currently faces the most moderate and pragmatic Palestinian leadership in history, one that is committed to a path of nonviolence and to a two-state solution. For his part, Abbas faces an Israeli interlocutor who heads the most stable Israeli government in decades, one which would likely be able to sell a deal to the Israeli public if a deal can be reached.
As decades of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have shown, talks are no guarantee for success. The absence of talks, however, is likely to prove worse. Just as the collapse of the London Agreement resulted in the first Intifada and the removal of Jordan's moderate King Hussein from the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, the failure of Jordan's current initiative may give way to renewed bloodshed and the replacement of Israel's moderate Palestinian peace partner with a more extremist leadership dominated by Hamas. With both sides growing more skeptical by the day about whether a two-state solution is possible, a third Intifada may be only the harbinger for what could yet come to pass.
This article was originally published in the Hebrew version of Haaretz.
Dr. Josef Olmert: Thomas Friedman, the Singapore Model, and the Palestinians
George Bisharat: A One-State Solution for Israel and Palestine
Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek: For a Just and Lasting Peace in God's Land
But one that has a real chance of injecting life into the peace negotiations And make Jordan a an international leader.
Here it is:
When Israelis and Palestinians reach an agreement, Jordan will contribute 1,000 square kilometers of border land to the future Palestinian state.
To help their brothers in Islam and to atone for 2 decades of annexation and occupation of Palestine 1948-1967).
Occupied from whom?!
Before Israel, West Bank belonged to Jordan before that to British and Ottoman Turks.
Which previous owner do you prefer?
The King of Jordan is following this same path. He is trying to keep his little kingdom, and avoid his responsibility for the residents of the west bank, which were once ruled by Jordan. It's time to incentivize Jordan to reattach the West Bank. Then the Palestinians/Jordanians can have their state and everyone can move on.
As for the population of Israel, the majority are descendants of people who fled Arab dictatorships, not Europe. Unlike the Arabs, however, Israel resettles people fleeing war, it doesn't lock them up for decades to be used as pawns. Something you and your Arab friends appear to support.
Until Israel agrees, there is no point in starting negotiations.
How can one recognize Israel's "right to exist within her own borders" when nobody knows what those borders are?
http://english.dohainstitute.org/Home/Details?entityID=5ea4b31b-155d-4a9f-8f4d-a5b428135cd5&resourceId=505e1e35-107a-4022-9c65-fd5c5786f174#4
There is a very good reason why neither Israelis nor Palestinian Arabs trust the Hashemite monarch: this Saudi dynasty is not part of the solution -- it's part of the problem. The Hashemite rulers are the reason why "Jordan" (plus the predominantly Arab areas of West Bank, plus Gaza) is not "Palestine".
After all, it is undeniable that:
- Palestinian Arabs constitute by far the major ethnic component of Jordan's population;
- There's absolutely no ethnic, linguistic or cultural difference between Palestinian Arabs inhabiting either bank of the Jordan River;
- Historically, there's never been a "Jordanian nation" (nor a "Palestinian Arab nation"). The Kingdom of Jordan is a contraption manufactured by British colonial interests in 1922, with the only purpose of establishing a British-friendly entity & finding a throne for the Hashemites -- a pro-British Saudi family.
- The West Bank was part of Jordan between 1949 & 1967; the vast majority of population accepted that union. West Bank Arabs were granted Jordanian citizenship & happily applied for Jordanian passports.
To those interested in a solution, there's a clear & feasible one: territorial compromise allowing full political rights for Palestinian Arabs in their own united country (whether they wish to call it "Jordan" or "Palestine" is their decision). Palestinian Arabs whose place of residence will place them within the Jewish state should have the option of choosing Palestinian/Jordanian citizenship while retaining rights of residence in Israel.
"The Kingdom of Jordan is a contraption manufactured by British colonial interests in 1922,"
Guess what.... So was |$rae|, not so long ago....
I did not say that "the $@ud royal dynasty, but to say they are an impediment to |$rae|'s goals". I said that the Hashemite dynasty (which originates from Hijaz, today's Saudi Arabia) is an impediment to a united Palestinian Arab state. I'm not at all sure such a state would be in Israel's best interest. Given the amount of anti-Israel hostility in the Arab world (the result of decades of brainwashing) Israel would probably prefer a weaker neighbor. A small & demilitarized Palestinian Arab state in between Jordan and Israel would be the best situation from Israel's point of view.
Israel was not manufactured by the Brits. The Jewish people populated that state 2000 years ago. They never ceased longing for it. The mass return to it started in the 19th century, when the place was still ruled by the Ottomans. And Israel ultimately got its independence AGAINST British wishes.
Actually, there were some 1.5 million Palestinians who accepted it -- 1 on the East Bank and 500,000 in the West Bank. All of whom gladly accepted "Jordanian" citizenship and applied for Jordanian passports.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1844214.stm
Your post contains a lie.
1) The essence of the Arab Israeli conflict is NOT land but rather the very fact that Israel, the independent nation-state of the Jewish people, by RIGHT is, exists on ANY parcel of land between the Jordan River and the Med. Sea, contrary to Islamic - not Christian or Druze religions, mind you!!
2) By law, international law, after the legal 1921/22 partition of "Palestine" - a territory, never a nationality or a state, mind you!! - between Arabs and Jews, 77% of the territory, located east of the Jordan River was handed over to the Arabs while only 23% of it, located between the Jordan River to the Med. Sea, was assigned to the Jews.
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.pdf
The only legal basis for reconciliation between Arab and Jew, between the Muslim-Arab world, local and regional, and the independent nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel, is through this wonderful tool: UN Security Council Resolution, 242, of Nov. 1967. 242 was designed for this purpose by diplomats, historians and jurists, passed unanimously through the Security Council and subsequently accepted by all parties to the conflict. Furthermore, it served successfully in reaching an accommodation of peaceful coexistence between Egypt and Israel and between Jordan and Israel, and has been the solid basis for all other peace talks.
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/10/resolution_242.htm
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/10/Resolution-242.pdf
It is important to highlight the fact that 242, while calling upon the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to retreat from "territories" captured during the defensive Six Day War of 1967, doesn't expect Israel to do so from "all" or "the" territories. Israel, of course, has accomplished this demand by 242 several decades ago. Also, the IDF is not to retreat to any particular lines but rather to "secure and recognized boundaries", to be decided by the warring parties.
Furthermore, 242 true to international law, doesn't call for the setting up of an additional state between the Jordan River and the Med. Sea, nor does 242 even make use of concepts such as "Palestinians" or "Palestine".
The Palestinian Authority want millions of Palestinians to flood into Israel so Jews are a minority and Israel is no longer Israel and can be turned into Palestine.
Until these things change, Israel can't make peace with them. And some Jews building some apartment buildings on some empty hilltop somewhere is not a factor.