In the last few days it was revealed that Israel, Iran, Russia, and Syria apparently have been performing some intricate negotiations via adjoining rooms (an amusing detail, at least to me) in a Jordanian hotel, on who-gets-to-fight-where-or-else in Syria (see, eg, Times Israel).
Who knows how much is true, but in this Jerusalem Post article, the following throwaway line stopped me:
Israel’s peace treaty with Jordan includes an Israeli umbrella of defense, which provides for Israeli military action should Jordan be threatened.
Does anyone have any info on that?
That Israel does act as an ally in Jordanian military endeavors, when it’s interests are involved, is unquestionable. But by treaty?
My guess is that the Jordanians may have felt they were sticking their necks out when signing the peace treaty, in that they were alienating many other Arab nations in the region. So the defense commitment may have been an attempt to take that off the table. In addition, it would obviously be in Israel’s interest to keep the regime which made the treaty in power as opposed to one which might reneg on it.
I think the question comes from the assumption that an Arab nation would not wish to be seen to have formal relationships such as a defensive treaty with Israel.
If it does, this simply goes to show how the lip service once paid to Arab unity has worn away.
Here (pdf) is the treaty, I think. I don’t see such a broad security guarantee in it. Rather, the treaty seems to call for a series of negative obligations, i.e., things that both countries agree not to do. It looks to me like both countries agree to refrain from hostile actions against one another either directly or via proxy, and to work together to combat terrorism. I do not see any affirmative obligations to guarantee the other’s security against outside attack.