Prof. Laith Kamal Nassrawin*
Hebrew press sources reported that His Majesty King Abdullah II bin Al Hussein has refused to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, unless a set of predetermined conditions related to the current situation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is met. During these critical times in the region, Jordan's stance of refusing to meet Israeli officials expresses a deep understanding of its strengths based on international law, and a recognition of the weakness of the other side.
Jordan's stance against the occupying entity is not measured by traditional standards of strength, but by its leadership's ability to employ international legitimacy in facing the grave violations carried out by the occupying government, along with the extensive network of relationships it has successfully built on both regional and global levels. Over decades, Jordan has established itself as a reliable partner in the region, and as a state respected in influential capitals, alongside the relationships it maintains with active Arab capitals. This position grants Jordan the ability to harness the rules of international law and United Nations resolutions to enhance its political posture against the state entity.
This stance gains additional strength from a legal perspective of equal importance, manifested by the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel, which imposes a series of mutual obligations. The actions of the occupying government in Palestinian territories, including policies of annexation, displacement, and ongoing violations of the historical and legal status in Jerusalem, not only constitute a breach of the rules of public international law but also a clear violation of the peace treaty agreements, especially those concerning the principle of good neighborliness and respect for the supreme interests of both states. This violation provides Jordan with an increased legal basis in confronting the current Israeli government and strengthens the legitimacy of its political and diplomatic stances, being a defense of existing contractual obligations, not merely a transient political position.
Consequently, when Jordan conditions any political meeting with the occupying government on stopping annexation procedures, preventing the displacement of Palestinians, committing to the path of the Palestinian state, and preserving the historical status in Jerusalem, it is not setting new terms for negotiation but rather relying on agreements made between the two states, and on the rules of international law and United Nations resolutions, in addition to judgments issued by international judicial bodies that cannot be overlooked at this stage.
The robustness of Jordan's position is further reinforced by the international isolation endured by the state entity since the October 2023 events. Since that date, and the subsequent political and military developments, Israel has gradually entered a stage of declining international standing, with escalating criticisms of its behavior in Palestinian territories, and erosion of its image even among some of its traditional allies.
Among the most prominent aspects of this isolation in its regional environment, tensions with the Arab Gulf states have escalated due to repeated Iranian attacks on their territories, linked to the repercussions of aggressive Zionist-American policies in the region. This has deepened the rift between Israel and these states, weakening its ability to maintain stable relationships with its Arab surroundings.
In the same vein, the provocative decisions that the current government's ministers compete in issuing have complicated the scenario, instead of containing this isolation and dealing with it with political astuteness. Sometimes Israeli officials boast about displaying maps with expansionist implications that provoke neighboring countries, and at other times, they celebrate the enactment of legislation that reinforces the aggressive nature of this entity, the latest being the law imposing death sentences on Palestinian prisoners. These steps reflect a reckless political direction that drives towards further estrangement with international law and deepens its isolation rather than alleviating it.
In light of these details, the increasing Israeli urgency to open channels with significant regional parties, particularly Jordan, can be understood. Netanyahu's meeting with a significant international figure like His Majesty in Amman carries not only a diplomatic character but represents an attempt to break the image of isolation and show that Israel is still able to connect with pivotal countries in the region. When international pressures on Israel increase, and its leadership needs an external political achievement, Jordan can raise the ceiling of its conditions, based on legal legitimacy and international and Arab support.
Conversely, this Jordanian refusal is seen as a form of investment in the moment, and an employment of international law to impose a different political equation on the ground. Between these two paths, it becomes clear that real strength is not merely condensed into traditional tools of pressure but manifests in the ability to adequately adhere to international legality and use international law as an effective tool in conflict management, despite its lack of real enforcement means.
* Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Jordan
[email protected]
