Nermeen Murad
The 15th anniversary of Jordan’s Wadi Araba peace agreement with Israel came and went without much fanfare from either country. Israel, under its current leadership, can hardly be described as a peace-loving state, and Jordan is faced with the dilemma of maintaining its moderate foreign policy whilst recognizing that Israel has had no dilemma over obliterating the rights of millions of Palestinians who continue to be kept under its illegal and brutal occupation.
Israelis, over the past 15 years, have consistently voted in leaders mandated with walking away from any peace agreements with the Arabs, in a clear expression of an Israeli mindset that rejects steps to put an end to occupation and expansionist policies. The Arabs, despite the absence of any credible elections, have also been able to make their voices heard, rejecting any more peaceful overtures to Israel whilst it continues a policy of occupation and subjugation of the Palestinians.
If this were a marriage, it would have already ended in divorce - or more accurately in this case - annulment.
Last week, I attended the ceremony launch a compilation of academic papers published in a book titled “The Middle East - Peace by Piece”, which reviewed the successes and failure of the Middle East peace process. The book is edited by Dr Hassan Barari and funded by Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Amman.
I have yet to read all the papers in the book and comment on their content with any intelligence, but the speakers at the launch ceremony provided some thought-provoking ideas.
Achim Vogt, resident director of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, underlined the need for what he described as the six Cs: commitment, charisma, compromise, conviction, communication and courage, and toyed with a seventh: creativity.
Barari arrived at the conclusion that Jordan stands to be the single most adversely affected party in the region if a Palestinian state is not created and asked what Jordan’s strategy is if the two-state concept for peace does not materialize. Columnist Jamil Nimri debated whether Jordan made a mistake signing a treaty with Israel 15 years ago and discussed the state of political affairs at the time that contributed to that strategic decision.
Former prime minister and ambassador to Israel Marouf Al Bakhit addressed the ceremony with a few test balloons that I believe require open discussion and debate. Here are his proposals: the U.S. is qualified to be a mediator for peace in the Middle East, but it is burdened by that role and therefore should assume it only as part of a larger group of mediating states; final status negotiations should begin immediately to reach agreement on the “end game”; Israeli settlement policies and Arab “violence” should not be allowed to become the subject of negotiations - instead, there is need to “change the debate” and recognize that Israeli occupation is the issue; the Palestinian leadership has collectively failed to fulfill and deliver on its responsibility towards the Palestinian people; Arab states should take the decision and apply to the UN for an end to the Israeli occupation and the appointment of the UN as the provisional power in Palestine during the transition from an occupied people to a viable state.
Bakhit may not be the only politician who is asking for a revision of the formula for Middle East stability. The old formula has been built on some accepted phraseology from the 1980s and 90s that may not be so easy to erase: the U.S., as the only credible and impartial mediator (a demand not a reflection of the facts), confidence-building measures (building Israel’s confidence not that of the Arabs), Jericho and Gaza first (a piece here and piece there), the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (i.e., not Jordan and not the Arab League). It can be noticed that Bakhit has no faith in Israel joining a viable and successful peace process or contributing to Arab stability.
But what I would like to place on the table for revision along with the above is this fear - articulated by the Jordanian speakers - that Jordan’s stability or permanence is contingent on a resolution of the Palestinian problem within the borders of the West Bank. I believe that repeating these fears and vocalizing them not only serves the champions of “no change” in Jordan but also gives unfounded credence to the threats of the Israeli far right to the viability of the Jordan option. And while it is clear that the only acceptable solution to the Palestinian problem is one within Palestinian lands to the West of the River Jordan, it certainly serves no national or international strategic purpose to keep alluding to another possibility.
As an advocate of peace and coexistence, I would have liked to say “Happy anniversary” on this occasion, but having said the above, it might be more apt to say “Time to wake up and change.”
*Published by THE JORDAN TIMES on Nov. 2, 2009 |
