"Comprehensive mideast peace plan"

Great Debates
1

In

2

Crap. My computer doesn’t like me. Actual OP to follow shortly, once I write it.

3

OK. Here we go.

In this thread, Sam Stone mentions the following:

Just to clarify, Sam, in what sense do you mean “return” to Jordan? Like, all the people just pick up and move (I assume this is not what you’re talking about), or the West Bank becomes a part of Jordan? Do you have a cite so we can have a common frame of reference?

In any event, what do people think about this idea in general? Here’s my take: neither sense will have much support among the Palestinians or among any other Arab state but Jordan. The reason for the first one is rather obvious: telling people to pick up and leave is generally not a good way to foster cooperation. The second, though, is still pretty flawed, for the following reasons:

  1. The Arab League recognized something like 15 years ago that the PLO was the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and the Jordanians gave up their claim of representation willingly, though it took a while.
  2. The 1970 Civil War is still a deeply scarring event for the Palestinians and for the Jordanians as well. There’s a deep tension between the two to this day.
  3. More generally, West Bankers and East Bankers are two distinct peoples. Remembering that most Palestinians now live in Jordan, but that the Hashemite monarchy has its power base among East Bankers, I don’t know that they’d like to absorb a large number of natural regime opponents, dividing their country even more. This might not offset the power and economy advantages gained, but it will still be a factor.
  4. From a realpolitik perspective, no other Arab state will be willing to see Jordan gain that much power. Syria’s interests, for one, lie squarely in a Palestinian state and not in Jordanian control of the West Bank. To maintain Arab unity, the US will have to seek something else.

Further, I don’t think from an Arab/Israeli point of view that this “solves” anything: you still have the problems of territory, settlements, Jerusalem, water… the terms of negotiation are still there, and debatable. As well, any Palestinian population integrated into Jordan will not be too pleased if Jordan makes more compromises on these issues than the PA would have been willing to do, exacerbating the problems of future tensions within Jordan.

So, to everyone: Do you think that the Jordan idea is a good one? How do you think that the resolution of the Iraq situation can be linked to Middle East peace in general?

-Ulterior

4

To be honest, I don’t trust sweeping solutions. Rearranging countries and installing leaders and enticing populations to move does not sound like an easy thing to do. I’m guessing it would probably wind up like the mess the end of colonialism made in the first place.

I don’t think the idea is to forcibly relocate Palestinians or put a gun to the Jordanians. I don’t know that the Palestinians want to move anywhere. I see it more as the U.S. possibly providing positive incentives like economic aid and defense security pacts to try and stabilize the region and allow some form of rapproachment between the various sides. I think this is mostly a neo-con idea, and I’m not even sure how popular it is among them. I’ve read a few editorials along these lines in the conservative press.