After the Oslo accords, the 'Jordan Option'

I recently suggested that Israel should terminate the Oslo Accords and deal with the violence that diplomatically and otherwise will ensue.

That would bring us to the pre-Oslo days, which, by the way, was a time of good relations between the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria and Israelis.

The Oslo Accords introduced PLO terrorists into Israel at the behest of President Clinton.

Thereafter, Israelis were subjected to one intifada after another and daily acts of terror.

I expect, in the coming weeks, that King Abdullah II of Jordan will abdicate and Mudar Zahran will be installed as the new leader of Jordan.

In the vacuum created by the termination of Oslo accords, Israel could strike a new deal with Jordan under Zahran's leadership, the terms of which are already worked out in the main. (See Trump’s Deal of the Century a.k.a. The Jordan Option.)

In essence:

  1. All Palestinians would be given full Jordanian citizenship and
  2. invited to emigrate to Jordan. 
  3. Area A would be confederated with Jordan under some kind of confederation with Jordan.  
  4. Area A would then be administered jointly by both Jordan and Israel.
  5. Israel would be free to extend sovereignty over the rest.
  6. Gazans would be offered a confederation with either Jordan or Egypt.
  7. UNRWA would be terminated
  8. All refugees would be incentivized to emigrate to Jordan to get the benefits UNRWA had provided them

You may wonder how How the Jordan Option will Impact Israel.  To know, read the article at that link.

Such an arrangement is totally compliant with the Reagan Plan which President Reagan set out in this speech:

I want to make the American position clearly understood: the purpose of this transition period is the peaceful and orderly transfer of domestic authority from Israel to the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. At the same time, such a transfer must not interfere with Israel’s security requirements.

Beyond the transition period, as we look to the future of the West Bank and Gaza, it is clear to me that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian state in those territories. Nor is it achievable on the basis of Israeli sovereignty or permanent control over the West Bank and Gaza.

So the United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel.

There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace.

We base our approach squarely on the principle that the Arab-Israeli conflict should be resolved through the negotiations involving an exchange of territory for peace. This exchange is enshrined in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which is, in turn, incorporated in all its parts in the Camp David agreements. U.N. Resolution 242 remains wholly valid as the foundation-stone of America’s Middle East peace effort.

It is the United States’ position that – in return for peace – the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza.

When the border is negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected by the extent of true peace and normalization and the security arrangements offered in return.

Finally, we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations.

In the course of the negotiations to come, the United States will support positions that seem to us fair and reasonable compromises and likely to promote a sound agreement. We will also put forward our own detailed proposals when we believe they can be helpful. And, make no mistake, the United States will oppose any proposal -from any party and at any point in the negotiating process – that threatens the security of Israel. America’s commitment to the security of Israel is ironclad. And I might add, so is mine.

Forty years later, the Reagan Plan will be followed by the Jordan Option.

Thus the Arab/Israeli conflict will be ended.

Image: Library of Congress, via Picryl // public domain

If you experience technical problems, please write to