Statements of the Jordanian Minister on the ‘One State’ Solution

In an interview with the Guardian on Tuesday 21 July 2020, Jordanian prime minister Omar Razzaz said that with the sign of the ailing status of the decades-old two-state formulation, Jordan could view the creation of a single Palestinian-Israeli state favourably provided it gave equal rights to both peoples. He added: “But let’s work together on a one-state democratic solution. That, I think, we will look at very favourably. But closing one and wishful thinking about the other is just self-deception.” He then addressed the occupiers by saying:” Short of that, if we’re not going towards a two-state solution, let us know what we’re going towards, what kind of one-state solution we’re going towards.” (Washington Post 20/07/2020)

After his statements had caused widespread controversy in Jordan, he was forced to comment further by saying: “Jordan will not absorb transfers of Palestinians. Jordan will not become ‘the’ Palestine, as the Israeli extreme right wishes. And Jordan will not give up its custodianship over [holy Muslim and Christian sites in] Jerusalem. These three are clear for us.” Arabweekly 22/07/2020)

In fact, the statements of Razzaz reflect the scale of weakness and the crisis the regime is facing, as well as the lack of prospects for the formulas that would spare the regime a popular backlash, such as the one-state formula proposed by Razzaz. This formula may ease the apprehensions of the opposition, especially the patriotic movement that rejects the notion of resettling of the Palestinians and giving them political rights. Hence, the formula is nothing but a cry for help and a trial balloon, which was preceded by a similar statement by former prime minister Fayez Tarawneh who is close to the palace and one of the senior negotiators of the Wadi Araba peace treaty who had played down the serious impact of Israel’s plans to annex the Palestinian side of the Jordan Valley.

On the other hand, the Jordanian regime is seeking a justification to absolve itself of blame and an excuse to justify its submission to the dictates of the US and the intended usurpation of Israel with respect to the alternative homeland. This is because it realises that the government’s only choice is unacceptable to Israel and that the vision of Netanyahu and his cabinet is confined to the solution of the “alternative homeland” through a constitutional monarchy which will accommodate the Palestinian constituent in the two banks and a joint administration of the West Bank residents with the Palestinian Authority without any sovereignty on the land.

It is not true that the statements of Razzaz were an attempt to divulge and diffuse the scarecrow of the “demographic threat” and the “apartheid” of the one-state solution as some individuals wish to justify because his standpoint was positive towards it and he even flirted with the idea in the hope its echo would reach the US administration and the “Israeli” public opinion, knowing that he has never proposed any solution to tackle the file the Palestinian refugees in Jordan; and this indicates that the end result of Trump’s deal have been accepted beforehand; this deal will eventually result in the alternative homeland and renders these statements a mere cry for help, a trial balloon and an attempt to bide time and hope for the return of the Democrats to power in the US. This should not come as a surprise since Omar Razzaz is the prodigy of the international institutions that oversee US interests such as the Carnegie Foundation and the World Bank, as per the statement of former deputy prime minister, Mamdouh al Abadi, to Arabi21.com on Tuesday 21 July 2020. Razzaz shares the same vision of the one-state solution with former foreign minister and member of the Carnegie Institute, Marwan al-Muasher, who, for his part, stated in the past that the two-state solution was dead in the water and did not rule out the one-state solution. The two-state solution has effectively been abandoned by the Trump administration in favour of the alternative homeland, which is one of the proposals on the table and agreed upon between the Republicans and the Democrats, with some differences over a few details and on the style according to which the regimes of the region should be dealt with.

The option of the alternative homeland tallies with the beliefs of the influential Evangelical movement within the deep state and it is compatible with the US intellectual and political moods and the prevalent international and Middle-Eastern circumstances; relying on the Democrats is no longer fruitful apart from delaying Netanyahu whose appetite has been whetted by the conservative Republicans, unlike the times of Clinton and Obama, and even George Bush Sr who exerted pressure on the Likud and brought them to the negotiating table at Madrid.

The Obama administration offered through Gen. John Allen a security vision based on tackling “Israeli” security fears via metal detectors, drones, satellites, technological devices and foreign troops, including US troops, along the Jordan river. Obama, for his part, refused, at the end of his tenure, to veto a Security Council resolution on Jewish settlements in the West Bank in an attempt to dissuade Netanyahu from imposing his vision on the solution.

Joe Biden is expected, if he wins the elections, to bank on combining the results achieved by Donald Trump with the vision of Gen. Allen and proposing them as a compromise alternative to annexing the Jordan Valley in order to save the Arab rulers from embarrassment and dissipates “Israeli” security fears. However, this scenario remains unlikely even if Biden were to win the elections due to Netanyahu’s intransigence and his aversion to the two-state and the one-state solutions. Netanyahu’s domestic alliances with those who believe in the Torahic vision, coupled with his personal ambition, make it impossible for him to accept anything but the solution of the alternative homeland.

According to the opportune turbulent facts on the Arab camp which is scurrying to enter into an alliance with “Israel” and offer Palestine as a sacrificial lamb in exchange for the rulers’ continuance in power, such as the clash between the palace in Jordan with its traditional backer, namely the tribes, the intelligence services’ lukewarm relationship with the king and his family, the collusion of a team from the state’s institutions to leak the scandals of the palace, liberal elites and corrupt leaderships usually exploited by the palace to effectuate the recipes of the IMF and the World Bank, in addition to the king’s eagerness to bequeath the throne to his son Prince Hassan, all this constitutes an encouraging environment for Netanyahu to impose his vision for the alternative homeland.

Hence, the statements of Razzaz cannot be interpreted as a slip of the tongue or as innocent intentions; in addition to being a trial balloon, a cry for help and time biding, they are also a smokescreen to obscure the vision of the masses in Jordan and prevent them from discerning the steps undertaken by the regime vis-à-vis the plan of Donald Trump.

Copyright © LCIR 2020