October 27th 2024.
It's been three decades since the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty was signed. This treaty was a significant step in ending 46 long years of war between the two nations. The 1990s were a period of great symbolism and hope for the Middle East, with the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 being a major event. However, behind the hope and promise of this treaty, there was also tension and resistance from both sides.
Now, thirty years later, the Middle East is once again embroiled in conflict. Relations between Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran are at an all-time low following the October 7 attacks. From the relative peace of the 1990s to the possibility of all-out war, it's important to reflect on the lessons that can be learned from the past.
But first, what exactly was the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty? This treaty, along with the Oslo Accords, allowed Jordan to establish formal diplomatic relations with Israel. It was a significant step towards peace in the region, making Jordan the second Arab country after Egypt to do so.
Fawaz Gerges, a professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and an expert in Middle Eastern affairs, spoke to Metro about the significance of the peace treaty. He pointed out that while it was a major step in ending the war, the outcome has not been entirely positive. In fact, the treaty weakened the Palestinian quest for self-determination and an independent state. It also undermined the ability of other Arab states, particularly Syria, to confront Israel militarily in order to recover their occupied lands.
Sir John Jenkins, a former diplomat and an associate fellow at the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, also shared his insights with Metro. He explained that the treaty deepened the divide between Middle Eastern nations, with some accepting the new status quo while others remained intransigent. This signaled the emergence of a new Arab grouping, one that prioritized peace over endless confrontation.
So, what did the treaty mean to different Middle Eastern nations? The signing of the treaty between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein of Jordan was a symbolic and impressive event. It was attended by US President Bill Clinton and watched by 5,000 guests, broadcasted to the world on TV. However, many Palestinians were angered and disappointed by the peace deal, feeling that their grievances were not addressed. They made up 60% of Jordan's population and felt like they were not getting a fair deal.
The treaty resulted in an exchange of territory between Israel and Jordan, with the border conforming to geographical landmarks. It also opened the way for cooperation in various areas such as trade, tourism, transport links, water resources, and environmental protection. However, it also meant that Israel now had its longest land border, raising concerns for its security.
It was this feeling of being left out and not getting a fair deal that led to a breakdown in the future, spearheaded by Iran. With the collapse of the Arab state system, Iran saw an opportunity to champion the Palestinian cause and support groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. This created the "axis of resistance" that posed a threat to regional stability.
Extremist groups, such as Hamas, were also opposed to the treaty and did everything in their power to disrupt the peace process. Just eight days before the treaty was signed, they carried out a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, killing 22 people. They accused President Clinton of double standards and vowed to continue their campaign of violence.
But it wasn't just extremist groups causing tension. In 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli extremist for signing the Oslo Accords, another major step towards peace.
So, what lessons can be learned from this treaty? Professor Gerges believes that for Israel, a lasting peace cannot be achieved without granting the Palestinians self-determination and ending the occupation of their lands. The current top-down relations with Arab regimes will not bring security and peace. Instead, genuine reconciliation between the two direct antagonists is needed.
Sir John Jenkins also emphasized the importance of resolving the Palestinian issue for sustained peace in the region. He noted that in the 1990s, there was a chance to cement a settlement, but it was not achieved. Now, as Israeli opinion has become more right-wing and the region is engulfed in political violence, it's clear that it was the best chance for peace. He also pointed out how Lebanon has become a victim of the wider political violence, with Iran using groups like Hezbollah to colonize the country from within.
In conclusion, the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty was a significant event in the history of the Middle East. It symbolized hope and promise, but also revealed underlying tensions and resistance. Thirty years later, the region is still grappling with conflict and it's important to reflect on the lessons that can be learned from this treaty. Genuine reconciliation, addressing the Palestinian issue, and ending the occupation are key to achieving lasting peace and security for all nations involved.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
