I think this idea has been floated many times before, and is probably the best and most practical solution, but unfortunately Jordanians don't want any part of owning the mess that is Palestine, especially since it would mean Palestinian terrorists now becoming just as willing to target leaders and civilians in Amman as they were those in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
That is the normative Jordanian position, but there are dissenting voices (eg, former Crown Prince Hassan bin Talal, quoted in the article). Currently, Jordan doesn't want to be seen as betraying the Palestinian cause by opposing Palestinian independence. But a Jordanian-Palestinian union could be positioned as the fulfillment of the Palestinian cause, not its betrayal. Palestinians would be granted political representation in the Hashemite Kingdom, rule by fellow Arabs, and freedom from Israeli control. At the cost of abandoning anti-Israel irredentism, they would be gaining even more land via a merger with Jordan, without losing their current territories.
The Hashemites would inherit a security risk, but they would also accrue advantages: more land, more people, more prestige. The West, Israel, and regional Arab countries could provide security assistance. After all, Egypt and the Gulf states are already enemies of the Muslim Brotherhood; they would be happy to help crush resistance from its Palestinian branch, Hamas, in the name of Palestine itself. Sure, Palestinian terrorists could target the Hashemite regime, but they'd be attacking Arabs, not Jews, and would find a less sympathetic audience in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Jordan already has a majority Palestinian population; would increasing that majority, especially if coupled with increased foreign aid, be so radical?
Arabs attacking Arabs have had no problem finding a sympathetic audience in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Didn’t Hamas throw hundreds of Fatah members off rooftops, and then proceed to raise billions in funding from Iran, Qatar and even the UN?
No, the prestige Jordanians could expect from “fulfilling” the Palestinian statehood cause would not be worth the cost that would be permanently theirs if they absorb into their borders those thousands of citizens obsessed with revenge, whose true aspiration is to throw all the Jews in the sea.
Even worse, those violent and revanchist elements could eventually organize, overthrow the monarchy and take over the entire Jordanian state apparatus and its firepower, creating a whole new massive threat to Israel and further destabilizing the region.
As you said in a great article last year, Palestinians always seem to be “saddled with the worst allies imaginable”. Jordan seems too smart to want to join the confederacy of dunces.
My point about Arabs attacking Arabs is that the narrative would change if Hamas attacked the Hashemite regime instead of Israel. Rather than being "the resistance" fighting the infidel, Hamas would shift to being a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood trying to seize an Arab country. In Egypt, for example, Sisi cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood with the support of Gulf countries. A similar dynamic could play out in the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine. Yes, Iran would back Hamas and other terrorist groups, but both Iran and Hamas have been significantly weakened by Israel, while without the excuse of "the occupation," Saudi Arabia and like-minded countries would be freer to openly join Israel and the Hashemites in an anti-Iranian, anti-Islamist alliance.
Yes, incorporating the Palestinians poses a security risk to Jordan. But again, the Hashemites would have the backing of regional powers (Saudi Arabia could openly ally with Israel in this scenario) and the West. Additionally, Jordan has proven it can maintain internal stability and peace with Israel despite its Palestinian majority. Revanchist Palestinians are a threat to anyone who rules them. But in the end, someone has to rule them, and a Western-oriented Arab king is the best option available. I appreciate your shoutout to my previous article, but my goal with this plan is not for Jordan to join the confederacy of dunces but for the Palestinians to be corralled into better partnerships: with the pro-stability, Israel-accepting (if not always with great affection) kings of the Arab world instead of Iran.
Most West Bank settlers (77%) live west of the security barrier, close to the Green Line, and could remain in Israel if land swaps are negotiated. Around 150,000 settlers live deeper in the West Bank and could be presented with the option to either become Jordanian-Palestinian citizens or relocate to Israel (with government compensation, as was the case when Israel withdrew from Gaza). It would be messy, but better than the alternatives.
I don't see expelling Palestinians to Jordan as a practical option for the reasons outlined in the article. It would endanger the Abraham Accords and Israel's earlier peace treaties with Arab countries, it would supercharge the BDS movement and Western anti-Zionism in general, and it could very well spark an internal Arab uprising (as well as Jewish civil discontent) in Israel itself. Jordan could be persuaded to absorb Palestinian land and people (as it has previously done); it wouldn't want to take in the people alone.
I wonder whether you have cause and effect backwards. Did monarchy induce stability, or did the states that were stable for other reasons retain monarchy by not having revolutions. You can ask a similar question about Jordan -- if it had retained most of the West Bank by making peace with Israel after either 1948 or 1967 would it still be a monarchy or would it have had a revolution and have at best an uneasy truce with Israel?
Those are fair questions. Historically, pan-Arab nationalists opposed and, in some cases, toppled Middle East monarchies. But pan-Arabism is essentially a spent force in the Middle East, particularly given the recent fall of the last Ba'ath dictator in Syria. The remaining Arab monarchies have thus proven their resilience by outlasting their main ideological rival in the region, while also largely taming or suppressing Islamism and weathering the Arab Spring.
Stability-seeking Saudi Arabia is now the leader of the Sunni Arab world, not revolutionary Nasserite Egypt, so we are dealing with changed circumstances compared to 1967. The Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and three Arab monarchies (Bahrain, UAE, Morocco), and are still in effect despite the current war in Gaza. So while the union of Jordan and the Palestinian Territories would pose a security risk to the Hashemite monarchy, there is reason to be optimistic that the rising royal tide could overcome opposition.
A large state with a small exclave is more appealing than a small state with a small exclave. Theoretically, Gaza could also be joined to Egypt, but Gazans identify as Palestinians and would likely prefer to be part of the same political union as the West Bank.
By uniting with Jordan, the Palestinians could also get something very, very important: Specifically additional *Lebensraum*. Seriously. Gaza is overpopulated as Hell, for instance, and while the Jordan Valley could provide some *Lebensraum*, Jordan could presumably provide a lot more of it.
Palestinians could exercise their "right of return" in Jordan (ie, East Palestine) and found a New Al-Quds, New Jaffa, etc. Why be boxed in by outdated Sykes-Picot boundaries?
I just don’t see a merger happening. A better option would be giving Palestine to a younger Hashemite son or brother of the king (I didn’t Google to see if king hussein has a brother).
The Hashemites in Jordan already have their own power base and army, so could tame (or crush) dissent as needed. But if you drop in a family member to rule the Palestinians separately, that family member could quickly be deposed.
I think this idea has been floated many times before, and is probably the best and most practical solution, but unfortunately Jordanians don't want any part of owning the mess that is Palestine, especially since it would mean Palestinian terrorists now becoming just as willing to target leaders and civilians in Amman as they were those in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
That is the normative Jordanian position, but there are dissenting voices (eg, former Crown Prince Hassan bin Talal, quoted in the article). Currently, Jordan doesn't want to be seen as betraying the Palestinian cause by opposing Palestinian independence. But a Jordanian-Palestinian union could be positioned as the fulfillment of the Palestinian cause, not its betrayal. Palestinians would be granted political representation in the Hashemite Kingdom, rule by fellow Arabs, and freedom from Israeli control. At the cost of abandoning anti-Israel irredentism, they would be gaining even more land via a merger with Jordan, without losing their current territories.
The Hashemites would inherit a security risk, but they would also accrue advantages: more land, more people, more prestige. The West, Israel, and regional Arab countries could provide security assistance. After all, Egypt and the Gulf states are already enemies of the Muslim Brotherhood; they would be happy to help crush resistance from its Palestinian branch, Hamas, in the name of Palestine itself. Sure, Palestinian terrorists could target the Hashemite regime, but they'd be attacking Arabs, not Jews, and would find a less sympathetic audience in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Jordan already has a majority Palestinian population; would increasing that majority, especially if coupled with increased foreign aid, be so radical?
Arabs attacking Arabs have had no problem finding a sympathetic audience in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Didn’t Hamas throw hundreds of Fatah members off rooftops, and then proceed to raise billions in funding from Iran, Qatar and even the UN?
No, the prestige Jordanians could expect from “fulfilling” the Palestinian statehood cause would not be worth the cost that would be permanently theirs if they absorb into their borders those thousands of citizens obsessed with revenge, whose true aspiration is to throw all the Jews in the sea.
Even worse, those violent and revanchist elements could eventually organize, overthrow the monarchy and take over the entire Jordanian state apparatus and its firepower, creating a whole new massive threat to Israel and further destabilizing the region.
As you said in a great article last year, Palestinians always seem to be “saddled with the worst allies imaginable”. Jordan seems too smart to want to join the confederacy of dunces.
My point about Arabs attacking Arabs is that the narrative would change if Hamas attacked the Hashemite regime instead of Israel. Rather than being "the resistance" fighting the infidel, Hamas would shift to being a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood trying to seize an Arab country. In Egypt, for example, Sisi cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood with the support of Gulf countries. A similar dynamic could play out in the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine. Yes, Iran would back Hamas and other terrorist groups, but both Iran and Hamas have been significantly weakened by Israel, while without the excuse of "the occupation," Saudi Arabia and like-minded countries would be freer to openly join Israel and the Hashemites in an anti-Iranian, anti-Islamist alliance.
Yes, incorporating the Palestinians poses a security risk to Jordan. But again, the Hashemites would have the backing of regional powers (Saudi Arabia could openly ally with Israel in this scenario) and the West. Additionally, Jordan has proven it can maintain internal stability and peace with Israel despite its Palestinian majority. Revanchist Palestinians are a threat to anyone who rules them. But in the end, someone has to rule them, and a Western-oriented Arab king is the best option available. I appreciate your shoutout to my previous article, but my goal with this plan is not for Jordan to join the confederacy of dunces but for the Palestinians to be corralled into better partnerships: with the pro-stability, Israel-accepting (if not always with great affection) kings of the Arab world instead of Iran.
Should bribe Jordan to do this, but also Israel practical annexation of much of the West Bank makes this tricky
Expelling Palestinians to Jordan remains underrated
Most West Bank settlers (77%) live west of the security barrier, close to the Green Line, and could remain in Israel if land swaps are negotiated. Around 150,000 settlers live deeper in the West Bank and could be presented with the option to either become Jordanian-Palestinian citizens or relocate to Israel (with government compensation, as was the case when Israel withdrew from Gaza). It would be messy, but better than the alternatives.
I don't see expelling Palestinians to Jordan as a practical option for the reasons outlined in the article. It would endanger the Abraham Accords and Israel's earlier peace treaties with Arab countries, it would supercharge the BDS movement and Western anti-Zionism in general, and it could very well spark an internal Arab uprising (as well as Jewish civil discontent) in Israel itself. Jordan could be persuaded to absorb Palestinian land and people (as it has previously done); it wouldn't want to take in the people alone.
I wonder whether you have cause and effect backwards. Did monarchy induce stability, or did the states that were stable for other reasons retain monarchy by not having revolutions. You can ask a similar question about Jordan -- if it had retained most of the West Bank by making peace with Israel after either 1948 or 1967 would it still be a monarchy or would it have had a revolution and have at best an uneasy truce with Israel?
Those are fair questions. Historically, pan-Arab nationalists opposed and, in some cases, toppled Middle East monarchies. But pan-Arabism is essentially a spent force in the Middle East, particularly given the recent fall of the last Ba'ath dictator in Syria. The remaining Arab monarchies have thus proven their resilience by outlasting their main ideological rival in the region, while also largely taming or suppressing Islamism and weathering the Arab Spring.
Stability-seeking Saudi Arabia is now the leader of the Sunni Arab world, not revolutionary Nasserite Egypt, so we are dealing with changed circumstances compared to 1967. The Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and three Arab monarchies (Bahrain, UAE, Morocco), and are still in effect despite the current war in Gaza. So while the union of Jordan and the Palestinian Territories would pose a security risk to the Hashemite monarchy, there is reason to be optimistic that the rising royal tide could overcome opposition.
If Gaza is to be part of this state, would the Arabs agree to a non-contiguous state? Seems unlikely to me.
A large state with a small exclave is more appealing than a small state with a small exclave. Theoretically, Gaza could also be joined to Egypt, but Gazans identify as Palestinians and would likely prefer to be part of the same political union as the West Bank.
I take your point, but it's hard not to think of East Prussia. That went just great. /s
On the other hand, the Kaliningrad Oblast has not sparked any wars (yet...).
By uniting with Jordan, the Palestinians could also get something very, very important: Specifically additional *Lebensraum*. Seriously. Gaza is overpopulated as Hell, for instance, and while the Jordan Valley could provide some *Lebensraum*, Jordan could presumably provide a lot more of it.
Palestinians could exercise their "right of return" in Jordan (ie, East Palestine) and found a New Al-Quds, New Jaffa, etc. Why be boxed in by outdated Sykes-Picot boundaries?
Yep, absolutely. Plus, they can even get the eastern, Arab part of the real Al-Quds, no?
Let a hundred Quds bloom.
They could even unite with Syria afterwards to fulfill the post-WWI dream of a Greater Syria, no?
The Hashemites did briefly rule Syria in 1920, so they have a claim to the now-vacant throne.
They also ruled the Hejaz.
I just don’t see a merger happening. A better option would be giving Palestine to a younger Hashemite son or brother of the king (I didn’t Google to see if king hussein has a brother).
The Hashemites in Jordan already have their own power base and army, so could tame (or crush) dissent as needed. But if you drop in a family member to rule the Palestinians separately, that family member could quickly be deposed.