Tag: Jordan

  • Will Jordan Be Forced to Take in Gazans Under Trump’s Plan?

    Will Jordan Be Forced to Take in Gazans Under Trump’s Plan?

    Donald Trump unveiled his Gaza plan, presenting it as a mutually beneficial solution for the United States, Israel, and the people of Gaza. The proposal envisions improved living conditions for Gazans, greater security for Israel, increased aid to countries that accept displaced Gazans, and potential U.S. influence over Gaza’s strategic coastline. Trump’s plan has provoked diverse reactions. It has gained support from the far right and found unexpected backing in some social media circles beyond traditional conservative groups, but it continues to face significant opposition, particularly from leftists and Muslim communities.

    Despite its seeming feasibility, a critical question remains: who will accept the displaced Gazans? Many are unlikely to leave, as their connection to Gaza is driven not only by survival but also by deep religious and ideological ties. Even with calls for Islamic solidarity, many Muslim-majority nations have been hesitant to take in large numbers of Gazans. Trump is unlikely to pressure wealthy Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Qatar, as maintaining strong business ties with them is a priority. This narrows the options to Egypt and Jordan, both of which have long standing relationships with Washington and a history of accepting Palestinian refugees in exchange for substantial American aid.

    Jordan, however, emerges as the more likely candidate due to its monarchy, which offers greater political flexibility compared to Egypt’s republic. If Trump’s plan proceeds, Jordan may once again find itself under significant pressure to accommodate displaced Palestinians.

    Donald Trump has pressured Jordan’s King Abdullah to accept Palestinians who would be permanently displaced under his proposal—a plan the Jordanian monarch has firmly rejected. Standing alongside King Abdullah at the White House, Trump made it clear he would not waver on his vision, which involves relocating Gaza’s war-weary residents and transforming the devastated territory into a high-end coastal destination modeled after the Riviera of the Middle East.

    For Jordan, however, the proposal presents a serious challenge. The country already hosts more than two million Palestinian refugees within its population of 11 million, a demographic reality that has long been a source of political sensitivity. Accepting more refugees would further alter Jordan’s demographics, intensify internal tensions, and risk fueling a resurgence of extremism. Moreover, Jordanian leaders recognize that agreeing to such a plan would effectively eliminate the possibility of a free Palestine, a cause the kingdom has consistently supported.

    King Abdullah reaffirmed Jordan’s steadfast opposition to the displacement of Palestinians, both in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, which borders his country. He emphasized that the Arab world remains united on this issue, insisting that efforts should focus on rebuilding Gaza without forcing its residents to leave and on addressing the region’s escalating humanitarian crisis.

    Despite King Abdullah’s opposition, Trump remained confident that Jordan and Egypt would ultimately agree to host displaced Gazans. He suggested that both nations, dependent on U.S. economic and military aid, would be inclined to cooperate. Trump stated that he expected land in Jordan and Egypt to be allocated for resettling Gazans, with the possibility of additional locations being considered. He maintained that once negotiations were finalized, a suitable place would be secured where displaced Palestinians could live safely and comfortably.

    However, while Trump mentioned both Jordan and Egypt, Jordan would be more vulnerable if he decided to take action. Unlike Egypt, which holds strategic importance due to the Suez Canal and its broader regional influence, Jordan carries less geopolitical weight despite its border with Israel and the presence of U.S. military bases. If Washington were to impose economic pressure, such as trade restrictions or an embargo, Jordan would likely face greater hardship than Egypt.

    Although Trump has previously suggested the possibility of withholding aid to Jordan, he maintained that U.S. financial support was not being used as leverage. He stressed that Washington contributes significantly to Jordan’s economy but argued that exerting pressure was unnecessary, expressing confidence that diplomatic negotiations would ultimately yield a favorable outcome.

    However, Jordan will undoubtedly face pressure, making King Abdullah the first Arab leader to meet with Trump since the Gaza plan was announced. He has consistently opposed any efforts to annex land or forcibly displace Palestinians. While the meeting between the two leaders remained cordial, Trump’s remarks about Gaza heightened tensions, given Jordan’s sensitivity to the Palestinian right of return—a longstanding issue tied to the displacement of Palestinians during the 1948 war that led to Israel’s creation.

    At one point, Trump seemed to nudge King Abdullah toward accepting Palestinians from Gaza, subtly suggesting that Jordan take on the responsibility. The king, however, remained steadfast, emphasizing that he would prioritize Jordan’s interests above all. Rejecting the notion of mass displacement, he offered a more measured response—Jordan would take in 2,000 sick children from Gaza for medical treatment, a humanitarian gesture that Trump acknowledged. With his usual forthrightness, Trump framed the conversation as one of mutual advantage, underscoring the importance of finding a solution that would benefit all parties. The proposal that Jordan might house displaced Palestinians, accompanied by the quiet promise of additional U.S. aid, lingered in the air, a tacit expectation yet to be fully voiced.

    Jordan, a kingdom long dependent on U.S. financial support, receives $1.72 billion annually, a lifeline funding essential sectors from education and public infrastructure to critical water security initiatives. Yet, recent cuts—$770 million in aid from USAID—have begun to fray the fabric of its economy. These funds, despite their political strings, are crucial to Jordan’s stability and survival. Given this fragile equilibrium, it’s clear that, in the days ahead, Jordan will once again find itself torn between economic necessity and geopolitical pressure, with Washington holding the reins of aid and influence firmly in its grasp.

  • Jordan Embraces Islamic Politics

    Jordan Embraces Islamic Politics

    Jordan, a constitutional monarchy known for suppressing political voices and its peculiar parliamentary voting system, held elections on Tuesday under a new electoral law to elect members of the lower house. These elections took place amid heightened political tensions due to Israel’s war on Gaza and a challenging economic environment marked by high unemployment – issues that were not fully addressed by the kingdom. As the results emerge, it appears that the country, which has long suppressed Islamic politics, is witnessing a resurgence of such influence. Jordan’s Islamist opposition party has topped the parliamentary elections, although it fell short of securing a majority, according to official results.

    The Islamic Action Front (IAF), the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, secured 31 out of 138 seats in the Parliament, tripling its representation in the House of Representatives, according to the country’s election commission on Wednesday. This result is historic for the Islamists, marking their largest representation since 1989, when they won 22 of the 80 parliamentary seats. In the previous Parliament, elected in 2020, the IAF held 10 seats, and in the 2016 legislature, they had 16. The election results are seen as reflecting a broad desire for change among voters, many of whom were not necessarily Islamists but were frustrated with the old political order and wanted a shift. The Muslim Brotherhood, which combines Islamic values with democratic principles, gained influence during the Arab Spring and operates as a transnational Sunni Islamic organization. However, it is labeled a terrorist group in countries such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Russia. Its growing role in Jordan’s political scene could lead to friction with the Kingdom, which is wary of closer ties with Israel.

    During the ongoing war, Jordan has sought to navigate a delicate political balance by maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel and intervening in Iran’s retaliatory attack in April, when it shot down missiles that flew over its territory. This position has sparked considerable anger among many Jordanians, particularly those who are descendants of Palestinians displaced during the Nakba and the 1967 war. Official results released on Wednesday reflect this frustration, showing a boost in support for political factions critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

    In Jordan, the King exerts substantial influence over the country’s governance. He has the power to sign, execute, or veto laws, as well as to suspend or dissolve Parliament and alter the length of its sessions. Despite attempts to improve the democratic process following the Arab Spring and waves of protests, Jordan’s political system remains highly centralized. The 2022 electoral law was designed to bolster the role of political parties, but the Parliament is expected to continue being dominated by tribal and pro-government factions. This new law introduces a significant change by allocating 41 seats to over 30 licensed, predominantly pro-government parties. Jordan’s voting system still favors sparsely populated tribal and provincial regions over densely populated urban areas, where Jordanians of Palestinian descent – often supporters of Islamist groups – are concentrated. Although more than two-thirds of Jordanians reside in cities, these areas are allocated less than a third of the parliamentary seats.

    Recent electoral reforms have lowered the candidacy age from 30 to 25 and implemented a mixed proportional representation system for the 138-seat Parliament. Voters now cast two ballots: one for lists in 18 local districts competing for 97 seats, and another for political parties in the national district, which has 41 seats. The system also includes 12 reserved seats for Christian, Circassian, and Chechen minorities, as well as 18 seats for women. Future elections are anticipated to increase the proportion of seats in the national district, potentially facilitating the formation of parliamentary coalitions.

    Many Jordanians believe that a passive Parliament filled with pro-government deputies is ineffective in driving change. However, this election is significant as it represents a modest step in the democratization process initiated after long protests. Turnout among Jordan’s 5.1 million eligible voters in Tuesday’s election was low, at 32.25%, a slight increase from 29% in the 2020 election. Despite this, the election is pivotal in Jordan’s history, as it will shape the country’s future democratization efforts, its stance on Palestine, and potentially revive the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world. Thus, Jordan’s election holds considerable significance for the region.

  • What is Jordan’s role in the latest Arab-Israeli conflict?

    What is Jordan’s role in the latest Arab-Israeli conflict?

    As civilians in Gaza receive warnings and reports emerge of Israel preparing for more offensives, the reactions from Arab countries that have historically fought with Israel, such as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, are interesting to watch. Jordan, the country with the longest border with Israel, and Egypt, now in a treaty with Israel, have no interest in further conflict and have become good neighbors, like Saudi Arabia. Lebanon and Syria are expected to be drawn into war soon due to the increased presence of Islamic terrorist organizations sympathetic to Gaza and their domestic collapses. Since the October 7 Hamas attack in Israel and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza, few regional states have faced challenges as acute as Jordan, with its substantial Palestinian-origin population and prominent roles within the Arab and Muslim world. Once fiercely fighting Israel for Muslim solidarity, Jordan now appears to have understood its limitations in war, despite ongoing protests amid tight government control. As regional war tensions escalate with the potential involvement of Lebanon and Syria, can Jordan remain a friend of Israel or stay neutral?

    As casualties have mounted in Gaza, outrage in Jordan, as elsewhere in the Muslim populated countries, has grown. Regular Friday protests, after the prayer,  led by the kingdom’s Islamists, have brought participants close to the rare act of publicly criticizing King Abdullah, who has ruled Jordan since 1999. Though Jordan is relatively liberal compared to many other states in the region, reports noted that the “Regime’s red lines” on what can be published without repercussions have tightened “Dramatically” since the war began. In the first month of the conflict, at least 1,000 protesters were detained in the capital city, Amman, particularly at demonstrations near the Israeli embassy, which some tried to storm. People are angry not only at Israel’s actions in Gaza and Jordan’s inaction but also at the perception that Jordan is aiding Israel and the United States for economic gains, betraying Islam and Palestine. Jordan, with US assistance, shot down many of the more than 300 Iranian missiles and drones launched at targets in Israel as they flew over the kingdom. Officials stated that Jordan was defending its sovereignty and keeping its population of 12 million safe, but it is evident this was in the interest of the United States. Though lauded by Western powers, the kingdom’s actions have led to accusations at home that it was protecting Israel.

    The King and the Jordanian government are amidst numerous pressures from different directions. The kingdom now navigates a “Tricky balancing act” as King Abdullah II and his advisers skillfully juggle the demands of citizens calling for tough action and punishment in the Gaza war, alongside the kingdom’s close ties to Washington and a 30-year-old peace treaty with Israel. King Abdullah has made statements and repeatedly called for international action to halt the conflict in Gaza, accusing Israel of war crimes, while Queen Rania has criticized the West’s “Complicity”. The kingdom’s diplomats have proposed multiple plans for governing Gaza, and its military has opened field hospitals in the territory and airdropped aid. In Amman’s corridors of power, debates are ongoing over whether the relationship with the US, which has thousands of troops in Jordan and provides $1.5 billion in economic aid annually, should be downgraded or reinforced. However, it is clear that Jordan is not capable of exerting enough pressure on the US to influence Israel, given its economic reliance on these countries. Interestingly, unlike in previous times, the absence of a unifying leader in the Arab world means Jordan must navigate these challenges alone. Therefore, it remains to be seen if the government is merely making statements to appease the dissatisfied populace.

    Jordan consistently followed an anti-Zionist policy between 1948 and 1994 and both countries clashed on several occasions before 1994. In 1994, Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty that normalized relations and resolved territorial disputes, including water sharing. The treaty resolved land and water issues and encouraged extensive cooperation in tourism and trade. Following the agreement, Israel and Jordan opened their borders, establishing several crossings that facilitated travel for tourists, businessmen, and workers between the two countries.

    However, there have been several disputes between the two governments even after the treaty, and the public has not fully trusted each other. Now, Jordan faces a dilemma: If the war escalates to a regional level or if Israel’s actions in Gaza intensify, it is certain that the people will not obey the government, or the government will be forced to act. However, they know well that they are not capable of fighting without Arab unity as before, which makes them realize they cannot engage in conflict. A fight would have devastating effects on the country, which lacks the resources like other Arab nations. Definitely, tough times lie ahead for Jordan.