Recent diplomatic statements made by Mazen Al-Qadi have further increased already existing tensions in the region by calling attention to comments made previously by the United States diplomatic mission to Israel as an example of a “clear provocation” that will certainly undermine the rule of international law and jeopardize the stability of the region. In response to these comments, Jordan‘s Parliament passed a resolution condemning them and asking that diplomatic representations come from the rule of law instead of inflammatory language.
Al-Qadi restated that Jordan has always considered that the West Bank and Gaza are central to the establishment of the two-state solution and warned lawmakers that statements issued by external actors could lead to the spread of extremism and negatively impact efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict. He also emphasized again that the Parliament is completely behind King Abdullah II in protecting Jordan’s national interest and sovereignty, and he stressed how much Jordan’s monarchy historically impacts the future politics of Jerusalem as well as the rights of Palestinians.
To understand Jordan’s sensitivity on these issues requires some insight into how history has shaped Jordan’s relationships with both Palestine and Israel and how Jordan has developed a unique commitment to the religious trust it has in safeguarding sites of essential importance to the Muslim faith.
Jordan’s Hashemite monarchy has historically played a vital role as custodian over some of the most important Islamic holy sites located throughout Jerusalem. The royal court describes the Hashemite custodial role as both religious and diplomatic and cites this as an important reason why the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel established a formal peace treaty in 1994 that formalized the unique relationship between the two nations.
Jordan’s historical relationship with Israel and the religious significance of Jerusalem’s holy sites to Jordan explain Jordanian sensitivity to the subject of territory and sovereignty, which are important factors in how the Jordanian government responds to statements made by the Palestinians or the Israelis regarding territorial integrity and sovereignty
Analysts point out that this episode demonstrates two larger truths: first, words spoken by senior diplomats (heads of state) can carry an immense amount of political weight and influence, regardless of how short or complimentary those words are; second, effective management of the impact of those verbal statements must take place with all parties exercising restraint. The parliamentary response from Jordan’s parliament was to object to the statement by issuing a call for compliance with international law and exhibiting due diplomatic caution—and providing a reminder to the region that responsible diplomacy is an essential prerequisite for deterring the escalation of hostilities.
At this moment, there are unified voices in the Arab world advocating for peace through calm dialogue and within available legal structures. Both institutions have a vested interest in creating an ultimate solution to the current crisis by communicating in a manner that is based on established protocols rather than through violent acts. After advancing the mutual understanding of each other’s cultures, the next step is to build on the existing good relationship and develop positive actions that create a mutually supportive environment, allowing individuals from both sides to trust each other. Additionally, it is essential to ensure that the rights and security of all groups, along with their religious sensitivities, are respected and protected during any negotiations for a two-state solution.
