Executive Summary

While international recognition of Palestinian statehood has expanded and legal frameworks rejecting settlement expansion, annexation, and forced displacement have become increasingly prominent, developments on the ground continue to move in the opposite direction, undermining the material conditions necessary for the establishment of a Palestinian state. The current phase is therefore characterized by a growing foundation of international legitimacy alongside limited enforcement capacity. Against this backdrop, this position paper examines the defining challenges of the present situation through a balanced and evidence-informed analytical approach.

Key Findings

- Changes in Israeli governments do not automatically translate into policy changes. A fundamental distinction exists between changes in political leadership and substantive changes in the underlying political project guiding government policies.

- The events of October 7 have reinforced security as a dominant consideration in Israeli political consciousness, narrowing the space for political compromise and increasing the political costs associated with moderate discourse.

- The United States plays an influential but not independently decisive role. Its ability to exert pressure is shaped by domestic political considerations and strategic interests that constrain the extent of its intervention.

- International recognition produces tangible outcomes only when linked to clearly defined objectives, a sound legal foundation, and coordinated action among states capable of implementing and enforcing relevant measures.

- Forced displacement, Jerusalem, and Palestinian statehood constitute interconnected issues that directly affect Jordan's national security, making the costs of continued inaction cumulative rather than temporary.

- Strategic realism requires distinguishing established facts from analytical assessments, and political rhetoric from actual policy decisions, while developing scenario-based strategic assessments supported by multiple monitoring indicators.

First: Introduction — A Phase Extending Beyond the Boundaries of Confrontation

The Palestinian question stands at a critical juncture whose implications extend beyond the boundaries of direct confrontation, affecting the future of Palestinian statehood, the nature of regional power balances, and the capacity of the international system to uphold international law and protect fundamental rights. These developments also have direct implications for Jordan's national security. With the continuation of the war and its repercussions, the escalation of Israeli policies related to settlement expansion, annexation, and forced displacement, and the diminishing practical prospects for a negotiated settlement, the central question is no longer confined to how the conflict can be contained or its consequences mitigated. Rather, it concerns the capacity to alter the trajectory that perpetuates the conflict and prevent the realities imposed on the ground from becoming irreversible political and geographical arrangements.

The fundamental challenge lies in the widening gap between the legal and political frameworks affirming Palestinian rights and developments on the ground that undermine the possibility of translating those rights into a viable political settlement. Despite the recognition of Palestine by more than 140 countries and the growing international opposition to settlement expansion, annexation, and forced displacement, the capacity to translate these positions into effective political pressure remains uncertain. The challenge, therefore, shifts from mobilizing international support to identifying the mechanisms through which such support can become an effective instrument for changing political behavior, rather than remaining confined to diplomatic statements and declarations.

This paper approaches these issues as interconnected components of a broader political and strategic landscape rather than as separate matters. Within this framework, the calculations of major international powers intersect with domestic transformations in Israel, divisions within the Arab world, and efforts to reshape the political geography of the Palestinian territories and their surrounding region. Methodologically, the paper adopts a threefold distinction between established facts, analytical assessments, and potential scenarios. Its objective is not to predict the definitive outcome of the conflict, but rather to develop an analytical perspective that accommodates multiple possible trajectories.

The paper follows a progressively structured analytical framework. It begins by examining Israel's domestic political environment and its political and constitutional foundations, before addressing the American factor and the regional diplomatic landscape. It then considers developments on the ground, the international legal framework, and the broader Arab and Palestinian political environment. The analysis subsequently examines the implications of the Jordanian King's address to the United Nations General Assembly and the consequences of these developments for Jordan. Finally, it presents potential scenarios, monitoring indicators, and strategic conclusions.

Guiding Question: What can transform international legitimacy from an established political asset into an effective force capable of changing realities on the ground?

Second: Israel's Domestic Political Landscape — Changing Leadership, Persistent Policies

Can the Ballot Box Change the State's Political Trajectory, or Does It Reproduce the Same Approach Under Different Leadership?

The Upcoming Elections: A Referendum on Political Priorities Rather Than Personalities

The significance of Israel's forthcoming elections extends beyond competition among political parties or the possibility of new leaders emerging while others lose influence. These elections raise fundamental questions concerning the nature of Israel's political project, society's perceptions of security and stability, the acceptable limits of military force, and the future of relations with Palestinians and Israel's regional environment. Accordingly, the most pressing question is whether Israeli voters will reconsider the political approach pursued by successive governments or grant a renewed mandate for the continuation of existing policies, even if political figures, electoral slogans, and governing alliances change.

An adequate assessment of the Israeli political landscape cannot be reduced to the personality of the prime minister or the composition of the governing coalition. Although political institutions, parties, and parliamentary blocs remain important elements of analysis, they do not independently explain deeper transformations within society. A more comprehensive understanding requires examining the outcomes of existing policies, how these outcomes are presented to the public as national achievements or security guarantees, and how they influence voters' perceptions of the state's future and regional position. Within this context, particular attention should be given to developments that the Israeli right portrays as strategic achievements, including the fragmentation or weakening of certain Arab centers of power and changes in the regional balance of power surrounding Israel. These considerations raise questions about how voters may assess the overall consequences of such developments.

Consequently, the central issue is not simply whether Israeli society will penalize a particular government for its failures or grant it another opportunity to govern. Rather, it concerns whether the underlying criteria by which political performance is evaluated have themselves changed.

If security remains the dominant consideration shaping electoral preferences, criticism directed at the government may not necessarily translate into a fundamental change in strategic policy. Conversely, if the costs of existing policies, including the instability and prolonged risks they generate, become decisive factors in political evaluations, a different space for public and political debate may emerge.

In either case, any conclusions regarding the orientation of Israeli society must remain grounded in electoral evidence and the documented positions of political actors. A change in government should not automatically be interpreted as a transformation in Israel's approach toward the Palestinians or as an indication that meaningful opportunities for a political settlement will necessarily reemerge.

After October 7: Security as the Defining Framework of Political Consciousness

The events of October 7 marked a turning point in reshaping political discourse within Israel. Israeli society has become increasingly influenced by perceptions of fear, threat, and retaliation, creating an environment that has constrained the ability of political movements, including those opposed to the governing right-wing coalition, to adopt positions that diverge from the prevailing public sentiment that emerged in the aftermath of these events. According to this interpretation, political competition between the right and left, or among rival political parties, does not necessarily translate into fundamental differences in approaches to security-related issues, as long as these issues remain governed by a restrictive political and social consensus.

In this context, it is essential to distinguish between security as a legitimate need of any society and security as an open-ended justification for expanding military operations, obstructing political settlements, or treating Palestinian rights as a permanent source of threat. Following October 7, Israeli political discourse has increasingly relied on the concept of "security necessity," portraying military actions and regional escalation as unavoidable responses dictated by circumstances, leaving limited room for opposition or negotiation. This discourse is directed not primarily toward the international community, but toward the Israeli domestic audience, reinforcing a narrative that the state faces continuous threats and that the expanded use of military force is an indispensable response to safeguarding its security.

The danger inherent in this reasoning is that it may transform the "security exception" into a permanent rule, making the continuation of conflict an integral component of the very definition of security, rather than treating security as a pathway toward ending the conflict and addressing its underlying causes. When every proposed settlement is portrayed as a risk, every political concession as a threat, and every demand for rights as a security challenge, the space available for political solutions contracts, and the continuation of confrontation increasingly becomes a policy objective in itself.

The Rightward Shift and the Crisis of Representation

The consolidation of right-wing political forces in Israel cannot be explained solely by electoral outcomes, the personality of the prime minister, or the coalitions formed around the government. The issue extends beyond the transfer of power between political parties and is connected to cumulative social and political transformations over several decades that have reshaped voters' priorities and perceptions of security, peace, and relations with Palestinians.

Successive waves of immigration from the former Soviet Union since the 1990s, alongside other political and electoral developments, are among the factors that have altered the environment in which Israeli political parties operate. Nevertheless, determining the precise influence of each factor would require a separate analysis grounded in electoral and sociological data.

This rightward shift has been reflected in the declining influence of political forces historically associated with the peace process. The Labor Party, which previously enjoyed substantial parliamentary representation, experienced a significant reduction in its political presence, while other movements associated with earlier peace agreements also lost influence. Consequently, expectations that a resurgence of the Israeli left would necessarily produce a fundamental reorientation of policy toward Palestinians can no longer be regarded as assured, particularly in light of changes in party competition and voting patterns.

Furthermore, significant aspects of Israel's intense partisan divisions concern the nature of its political system, the powers of state institutions, the role of the judiciary, and the boundaries between executive and legislative authority. These divisions are not necessarily accompanied by equally substantial disagreements concerning the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. It is therefore essential to distinguish between opposition to a particular government and the existence of a political alternative offering a fundamentally different approach toward Palestinians.

Nevertheless, this assessment does not imply that Israeli society constitutes a homogeneous political bloc moving inevitably in a single direction. Voting preferences are shaped by multiple factors, including security, economic conditions, identity, religion, political leadership, and developments in the conflict. Political crises may strengthen hardline forces during one period while generating broader opposition to their policies during another.

Accordingly, the rise of the Israeli right should be understood as a political trend requiring continuous examination and monitoring, rather than as an irreversible trajectory. The central argument is that prospects for peace depend on the capacity of political parties to build a public constituency that perceives a negotiated settlement as a political and security benefit, rather than as a concession that threatens the state.

The Constitutional and Electoral Structure: How Institutional Rules Shape Political Outcomes

Israel does not have a single, unified written constitution in the conventional sense. Instead, its constitutional system is based on a collection of Basic Laws that regulate public authorities, certain fundamental rights, and institutional structures. This arrangement is historically connected to debates surrounding the establishment of Israel, particularly those concerning its national identity and the relationship between its religious character and democratic system. However, this issue requires a precise legal distinction: the absence of a constitution consolidated into a single document does not imply the absence of a constitutional framework. Similarly, the existence of Basic Laws does not, in itself, resolve all the complexities surrounding the relationship between religion and the state or between the principle of equality and the state's national character. Rather, Israel's constitutional system has evolved through successive constitutional and legislative arrangements, rather than through a single founding document that definitively resolves these disputes.

Elections are conducted through a closed-list proportional representation system, under which voters cast their ballots for political party lists rather than individual candidates. Parliamentary seats are allocated according to electoral results and applicable electoral rules, while candidates obtain seats according to their predetermined positions on the respective lists. The voting age is 18, whereas eligibility to stand for election to the Knesset generally requires candidates to be at least 21 years old, subject to applicable legal conditions and exceptions. This electoral mechanism gives political parties a central role in selecting candidates, formulating political programs, and establishing alliances. It also makes the formation of a government dependent on the ability to secure sufficient parliamentary support.

This institutional structure produces significant political consequences. A party holding relatively few parliamentary seats may exercise influence disproportionate to its electoral size if its participation becomes essential to forming a governing coalition. Conversely, larger parties may be compelled to make political or programmatic concessions to preserve coalition stability. Accordingly, electoral outcomes cannot be understood solely through the number of votes received or seats obtained. They must also be assessed in terms of each party's position in government formation negotiations and its capacity to influence the government's political agenda and policy orientations.

Although a multiparty coalition system enables the representation of diverse political orientations, it may also grant considerable bargaining power to more hardline parties when their parliamentary support is decisive in securing a governing majority. Under such circumstances, a party's position within the coalition can become an instrument of influence over fundamental policy issues, including settlement expansion, annexation, security, and the future of political negotiations, even when that party does not command majority public support.

Key Conclusion: Identifying the party that wins the largest number of seats is insufficient to understand the future direction of Israeli politics. The coalition partners it requires, the conditions they impose, and their influence over decisions concerning settlements, annexation, and security are no less important than the electoral outcome itself.

Government Formation Scenarios: Alternative Leadership Figures and the Limits of Political Change

Analytical assessments have raised the possibility of an Israeli government emerging that could present itself internationally as more willing to pursue a political settlement. Such a development would not necessarily reflect a fundamental transformation in the positions of its constituent parties, but might instead arise from electoral and political calculations and Israel's perceived need to address the repercussions of its policies on relations with international and regional powers. This assessment rests on the observation that governments facing significant pressure may seek to restructure their alliances or adjust their political discourse in an effort to balance the requirements of domestic political survival with the need to improve their international standing.

Within this context, Gadi Eisenkot has emerged as a potential political figure, given his military and security background and experience in addressing sensitive strategic issues. Nevertheless, military experience does not necessarily translate into possession of a comprehensive political project. Transitioning from a security institution to the leadership of a governing coalition requires the ability to build alliances, manage partisan contradictions, and formulate implementable policies within a highly polarized political environment.

Avigdor Lieberman is another figure whose name arises in discussions of government formation, particularly in scenarios where establishing a stable coalition requires the participation of additional political forces. His political experience and ability to navigate Israel's party system are relevant considerations. However, political experience does not necessarily imply the adoption of a more accommodating approach toward Palestinian rights. An assessment of his potential role must therefore be grounded in his actual political positions rather than merely his prospective place in coalition negotiations.

Other potential coalition arrangements are also relevant. One scenario involves the establishment of a national unity government comprising political forces from different orientations while excluding Arab parties and the most hardline right-wing movements, with the objective of ensuring governmental stability and reducing external pressure. A second scenario involves a broader coalition that includes Arab political parties represented in the Knesset, potentially enabling the government to present itself to the international community as better positioned to engage in a political process.

Both scenarios remain hypothetical. Their realization would depend on electoral outcomes, the positions adopted by political parties, conditions for participation, and the willingness of potential coalition partners to agree on a common governing program. Even if either scenario materialized, it would not automatically signify a change in Israeli policies toward Palestinians. The significance of any party's participation should be assessed according to its actual ability to influence government decisions, rather than its symbolic implications alone.

A fundamental paradox emerges in this context. Political figures with security backgrounds may possess greater credibility in addressing public concerns regarding regional threats, yet they must still demonstrate their ability to confront political challenges that extend beyond the management of immediate security risks. Foremost among these are the future of the Palestinians, the parameters of a political settlement, and the nature of Israel's relations with Arab states.

Accordingly, the seriousness of any political transformation must be evaluated through the distinction between a change in political presentation and a change in substantive policy. The inclusion of references to Palestinian statehood in electoral discourse does not necessarily mean that its establishment has become an agreed political objective. Such references may instead reflect attempts to respond to external pressure or the strategic use of the Palestinian question in competition over government formation.

There is, therefore, a fundamental difference between placing the Palestinian question on the electoral agenda and adopting a clearly defined political framework addressing the borders of a Palestinian state, its sovereignty, and the rights of its people.

 

Security and Religious Discourses: Narrowing the Space for Political Settlement

Israeli security discourse is grounded in the concept of security necessity, while religious discourse draws upon exclusive interpretations of territorial and historical entitlements. The combination of these two discourses serves a purpose that extends beyond justifying existing policies, as it undermines the possibility of distinguishing between negotiable security demands and claims presented as absolute, non-negotiable rights. When territorial claims are framed as exclusive religious entitlements, while Palestinian rights are portrayed as security threats, the question of how much political space remains for a negotiated settlement becomes fundamental.

A political settlement presupposes recognition of two parties possessing legitimate national rights and interests that cannot be disregarded, as well as the existence of a political framework within which arrangements capable of ensuring both security and rights can be negotiated. However, when religious references or security considerations are employed to deny recognition of Palestinian rights, the political process risks becoming a merely procedural framework incapable of addressing the underlying causes of the conflict.

This helps explain concerns regarding the absence of meaningful indicators of a commitment to ending the conflict, as opposed to merely managing it in ways that allow successive crises to recur without achieving a sustainable settlement.

A rigorous assessment also requires distinguishing between messages directed toward the international community and those intended to shape Israeli domestic public opinion. When political positions are primarily formulated to address domestic audiences, external influence remains limited unless diplomatic pressure is accompanied by political instruments capable of altering strategic calculations.

Accordingly, Israeli political discourse should be treated as an indicator requiring analysis within its broader political and institutional context, rather than as a collection of media statements detached from actual policies.

Third: The American Factor and the Regional Political Landscape — The Limits of External Leverage

To What Extent Can Washington Reshape Israeli Strategic Calculations, and What Connects Normalization to a Political Settlement?

Washington: Domestic Political Calculations Define the Limits of Pressure

Expectations of a fundamental transformation in US policy toward Israel encounter domestic political considerations that cannot be overlooked. Conservative evangelical groups constitute part of President Donald Trump's political support base, and religious considerations play a role in shaping the attitudes of segments of this constituency toward Israel. Alongside broader political and strategic interests, these factors constrain the likelihood of decisive American pressure capable of compelling the Israeli government to change its course on fundamental issues.

Differences between Washington and Tel Aviv do not necessarily translate into the capacity or willingness to exert effective pressure. Disagreements over specific policy details do not automatically indicate differences concerning the foundations of the bilateral relationship or the extent of pressure that Washington is prepared to exercise.

A central question therefore remains: What considerations might motivate the US administration to alter its position when significant elements of its domestic political constituency perceive no compelling need for such a change?

Furthermore, the emergence of political currents that are increasingly critical of Israeli policies within certain segments of American society, alongside potential shifts in political calculations resulting from a change in administration, could influence the pace or scope of particular Israeli policies. Nevertheless, such developments would not necessarily enable Washington, acting alone, to fundamentally transform the nature of Israel's political project.

The extent of American influence ultimately depends on the instruments employed, the administration's willingness to bear the political costs associated with exerting pressure, and the capacity of Israeli political actors to maneuver around or resist external demands.

Fourth: Developments on the Ground — A Geography Being Reshaped

Have developments on the ground moved beyond threats toward the dismantling of the material foundations of a Palestinian state?

The West Bank: From Security Escalation to the Erosion of the Material Foundations of Statehood

An analysis of developments in the West Bank suggests that they extend beyond what can be characterized as security escalation or a wave of settler violence, pointing instead to a broader trajectory involving forcible displacement and the de facto annexation of territory. These developments may progressively undermine the geographical foundations necessary for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

The importance of this distinction lies in the fact that treating settler violence as a series of isolated incidents may obscure its cumulative impact on Palestinians' daily lives and their ability to remain on their land. Conversely, examining such violence within the broader context of territorial control, settlement expansion, and restrictions on movement and geographical connectivity provides a more comprehensive understanding of its implications for the future of a political settlement. In this sense, developments should be assessed according to their cumulative trajectory rather than each measure considered in isolation.

Area C occupies a central position in this discussion. The expansion of Israeli territorial control, combined with the increasing isolation of Palestinian communities from one another, could produce a situation in which Palestinian areas become disconnected "islands," lacking the geographical continuity necessary to exercise sovereignty, manage resources, facilitate movement, and pursue economic development.

The establishment of a state depends not only on political recognition or the existence of local institutions within population centers, but also on a geographical territory that enables the exercise of sovereignty, the connection of cities and towns, the management of natural resources, the development of infrastructure, and the movement of people and goods.

If policies that deepen territorial fragmentation and restrict Palestinian access to land continue, the gap between the legal recognition of Palestinian statehood and the practical possibility of establishing a viable state will widen.

At the same time, methodological caution is essential. Figures circulated regarding the proportion of land seized or subjected to expropriation measures require independent verification, with precise identification of the relevant timeframes and geographical boundaries. It is also necessary to distinguish between decisions and legislation concerning annexation and their actual implementation and territorial scope, as each stage carries distinct legal and political implications.

Similarly, the assertion that current developments have made the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible represents a deeply pessimistic strategic assessment rather than an established fact. Future outcomes remain contingent upon political, legal, and on-the-ground developments, as well as the capacity of relevant actors to halt measures that undermine prospects for a political settlement.

Such methodological caution does not diminish the significance of the central question: What happens when international recognition of Palestinian statehood continues to expand while developments on the ground progressively diminish the geographical foundations necessary for its realization?

Displacement: From Overt Coercion to "Creeping Displacement"

Displacement should not be understood exclusively as the direct expulsion of populations under immediate threat. It may also occur gradually through conditions that make everyday life increasingly unsustainable, undermine the foundations necessary for communities to remain in place, and intensify humanitarian, economic, and security pressures.

This pattern may be described as "creeping displacement," a concept that shifts the analysis from viewing displacement as an isolated event to examining it as a potential consequence of broader political and territorial transformations.

As territorial control expands, prospects for Palestinian statehood diminish, and the possibility of establishing a clear political horizon erodes, the need to monitor policies and developments that may contribute to gradual demographic or geographical changes becomes increasingly urgent.

Nevertheless, characterizing any particular movement of people as part of a deliberate displacement plan requires credible supporting evidence. It would be methodologically inappropriate to assume that every instance of migration or individual departure has the same implications or forms part of a single coordinated process.

Furthermore, this issue extends beyond the current Israeli government or the political position of its prime minister. It is connected to broader trends in Israeli policy and the absence of sufficient domestic political consensus around the establishment of a Palestinian state as an achievable objective. Consequently, such a trajectory could continue despite changes in political leadership if the underlying framework governing Israeli approaches to the Palestinian question remains substantially unchanged.

Jerusalem and the Hashemite Custodianship

Jerusalem occupies a central position in this political and strategic equation because of its connection to the Hashemite Custodianship and the religious and historical significance of its Islamic and Christian holy sites.

The analysis identifies a relationship between the escalation of incursions and measures affecting the city and the diminishing prospects for political de-escalation. The continuation of these developments’ places Jordan before direct national and diplomatic responsibilities.

Within this framework, protecting the historical and legal status quo at the holy sites cannot be separated from defending Palestinian rights or from efforts to prevent unilateral measures from becoming established realities that may prove difficult to reverse.

Southern Syria and Gaza: Extensions of the Geopolitical Landscape

Concerns surrounding the direction of Israeli regional policy are linked to the continued Israeli military presence in parts of southern Syria, the possibility of annexing areas of the West Bank, and ongoing pressures associated with displacement. These developments are interpreted as potential indicators of efforts to expand territorial control and strengthen influence within the surrounding regional environment.

With regard to southern Syria specifically, some analytical assessments have raised the possibility that Israel may seek to facilitate the establishment of a separate Druze entity, a scenario associated with its continued military presence and the expansion of its control in areas near Mount Hermon and Suwayda.

The significance of these developments for Jordan lies in the possibility that any lasting transformation in the structure of territorial control in southern Syria could generate new political and security challenges, affecting regional arrangements and the strategic calculations of neighboring countries.

Addressing these developments requires careful political and field monitoring, a clear distinction between existing military activities and hypothetical scenarios, and an assessment of their implications for border security and the future stability of Syria.

These concerns also intersect with the question of displacement in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Declining prospects for a political settlement, expanding territorial control, and deteriorating living conditions may interact to create an increasingly coercive environment for Palestinians.

Key Conclusion

The trajectory of developments in the West Bank should be assessed through their cumulative consequences rather than isolated incidents. The decisive question is whether the realities progressively taking shape on the ground preserve the material and geographical conditions necessary for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

Fifth: The International Legal Framework — From the Capital of Legitimacy to the Economics of Enforcement

Why Have International Recognitions and Resolutions Failed to Generate Effective Pressure, and What Is Required to Translate Them into Enforceable Measures?

International Recognition: Legitimacy That Has Yet to Produce Change on the Ground

What has actually changed on the ground following the recognition of Palestine by more than 140 countries? Have these recognitions succeeded in influencing Israeli conduct or prompting the government to reconsider its policies toward the Palestinian territories, or have their practical effects remained limited in the face of continuing developments on the ground?

These questions are not intended to diminish the political or legal significance of international recognition. Rather, they highlight the gap between affirming rights through diplomatic discourse and possessing the instruments necessary to translate those rights into tangible political realities.

Recognition of statehood constitutes a political acknowledgment of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and the establishment of their own state, while strengthening the international standing of the Palestinian cause. However, recognition does not automatically bring an end to occupation, halt settlement expansion, or compel a party opposing a settlement to accept one.

This underscores the need for a subsequent phase that moves beyond mobilizing international recognition toward the effective use of economic, political, diplomatic, and legal instruments available to states to influence Israeli policies.

International recognition acquires its full strategic value when incorporated into a broader framework linking international legitimacy to accountability and establishing consequences for violations of international law. Accordingly, the accumulated diplomatic capital should be assessed not merely by the number of states that have extended recognition, but by its effectiveness in changing realities on the ground.

International Law: Distinguishing Between Sources of Legal Obligations

The central legal challenge concerns an enforcement gap rather than a legal vacuum. The crisis does not primarily stem from the absence of international legal norms or the lack of clarity surrounding all international obligations. Rather, it lies in the distance between the existence of these norms and the capacity to ensure their observance and enforcement.

Distinguishing between different sources of international legal obligations allows for the development of a more precise legal argument. United Nations Security Council resolutions vary in their nature and legal effects depending on their content and the legal basis upon which they are adopted. United Nations General Assembly resolutions perform important political and legal functions, although they do not all possess the same degree of binding authority. Advisory opinions issued by the International Court of Justice provide authoritative legal interpretations of considerable significance, but differ in their procedural nature from judgments delivered in contentious cases between states.

The issue is also connected to the Charter of the United Nations and the measures it establishes for maintaining international peace and security.

Article 41 addresses measures that do not involve the use of armed force, including the interruption of economic relations, means of communication, and diplomatic relations.

Article 42, meanwhile, concerns measures that may involve the use of force if the Security Council considers that the measures provided for under Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved insufficient.

Other provisions, including Articles 40, 43, and 44, address different aspects of Security Council procedures and arrangements associated with implementing its decisions.

However, the existence of these provisions does not mean that individual states are automatically authorized to undertake all the measures they prescribe independently. Their application depends on the nature of the measure concerned, the relevant legal authority, and the circumstances under which it is adopted.

Sanctions and Isolation: From General Appeals to Specific Instruments

The Jordanian King's address to the United Nations General Assembly highlighted instruments available to the international community to encourage Israel to accept a political settlement, including sanctions, asset freezes, restrictions, and diplomatic isolation.

The significance of this approach lies in its capacity to move the discussion beyond general appeals for respect for international law toward a more specific examination of available enforcement mechanisms. It raises the question of whether states are prepared to employ instruments they have previously utilized in other international crises when they determined that a state's conduct warranted measures extending beyond political condemnation.

In this context, a distinction emerges between two levels of measures: targeted actions addressing specific activities associated with settlements, and broader sanctions that may directly affect Israeli sectors, institutions, or economic interests.

Each category has its own legal and political scope, costs, consequences, and affected stakeholders. The prospects for establishing international consensus also vary according to the measures under consideration.

Certain initiatives undertaken by groups of states have focused on goods and services associated with Israeli settlements. Such measures represent an initial approach toward holding settlement-related economic activities accountable rather than treating them as commercial activities detached from their legal and political context.

Nevertheless, identifying the states involved, the nature and scope of their measures, and the timing of their implementation requires independent verification before any list can be adopted as a definitive representation of official government policies.

Although calls for sanctions have expanded, their effectiveness remains dependent on the clarity of their legal basis, the identification of the authority empowered to adopt them, their scope, and their proportionality to the objectives they seek to achieve.

Sanctions that are not linked to clearly defined demands, or that lack sufficient international coordination, may have limited effects. Conversely, measures grounded in a clear legal framework, coordinated among influential actors, and accompanied by measurable indicators can strengthen diplomacy's capacity to influence political conduct.

Such options may take several forms, including targeted national measures addressing specific activities, coordinated actions undertaken by groups of states, or mechanisms pursued through competent international institutions.

These approaches differ in their respective legal foundations, political and economic costs, and potential effectiveness in generating tangible outcomes.

Sixth: The Arab and Palestinian Political Environment — Available Capabilities, Absent Coordination

Where Does the Palestinian Question Stand Among Arab Priorities, and What Are the Limits of Building Collective Pressure?

Arab Divisions and Multiple Regional Crises

Divisions within the Arab world affect the region's capacity to formulate a collective position regarding current developments. Disagreements among states, accompanied by divergent assessments of threats, alliances, and strategic priorities, make it increasingly difficult to establish political coalitions capable of exerting coherent and sustained pressure.

These divisions have become more complex in the aftermath of the conflict involving Iran, further limiting prospects for developing a unified Arab approach.

In addition, the multiplicity of regional crises, the intensification of internal conflicts, and declining stability in several countries have fragmented Arab political attention and dispersed resources and efforts across simultaneous challenges. The crises in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, and elsewhere are not merely isolated challenges; their consequences intersect with the ability of Arab states to develop collective positions on shared strategic issues, foremost among them the Palestinian question.

This does not mean that the Palestinian question has lost its political or moral significance, nor does it suggest that all Arab actors have abandoned it. Rather, the fundamental challenge concerns the capacity of Arab states to translate the centrality of the Palestinian cause in political discourse into a coordinated program of action that clearly defines priorities, instruments, and responsibilities.

Possessing substantial political, economic, and geographical resources does not automatically translate into collective influence without a sufficient degree of coordination regarding objectives and mechanisms.

Several areas offer potential opportunities for common action, including opposition to displacement, support for Palestinian rights, preservation of religious holy sites, prevention of further regional escalation, and strengthening diplomatic initiatives aimed at limiting the imposition of unilateral realities on the ground.

Nevertheless, the effectiveness of such coordination remains contingent upon clear political will and the ability of participating states to manage their differences without allowing them to become permanent obstacles to shared interests.

The effectiveness of sanctions and diplomatic isolation is also closely connected to this coordination. As cooperation expands, the relative cost of collective measures for each participating state may decrease, while the potential to influence the strategic calculations of the targeted actor may increase. Conversely, unilateral initiatives may produce limited effects or impose political and economic burdens exceeding the capacity of individual states to sustain them.

This raises a broader question concerning the nature of the Arab collective political project itself: Is it primarily oriented toward managing existing crises and mitigating their consequences, or does it seek to develop a relatively independent Arab capacity to influence regional and international decision-making?

At the same time, restoring Arab political effectiveness does not imply overlooking domestic crises or underestimating their complexity. The weakening of national institutions, fragmentation of state structures, and expansion of internal conflicts constrain states' capacity to exercise external influence.

Consequently, the stability and institutional resilience of Arab states are directly connected to their ability to defend and advance their shared strategic interests.

The Palestinian Predicament: The Palestinian Authority, Leadership, and Instruments of Political Action

The establishment of the Palestinian Authority represented a significant transformation in the management of the Palestinian question. The Palestinian national movement transitioned from a phase in which its political and resistance activities were largely organized through structures operating outside the occupied territories to a situation in which the Palestinian Authority operates under constraints imposed by occupation and restrictions on resources, movement, and revenues.

According to this assessment, the Palestinian Authority, within the political framework established following the peace agreements, has been unable to develop an independent political capacity sufficient to advance a process leading to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state. Meanwhile, Israel has continued expanding its territorial control and consolidating realities on the ground that constrain the prospects for a political solution.

The Palestinian challenge is therefore twofold: persistent pressures on the ground, on the one hand, and the declining effectiveness of political and regional instruments capable of counterbalancing those pressures, on the other.

Against this backdrop, Palestinian leadership and the renewal of political strategies and instruments assume central importance. The continuation of the status quo, without leadership renewal or the development of more effective mechanisms of political influence, weakens the capacity to generate a different political reality capable of exerting pressure toward ending the occupation and realizing Palestinian national rights.

Furthermore, any Jordanian strategic approach to the Palestinian question is inseparable from the Palestinians' own capacity to formulate an effective political project and from the existence of a supportive regional and international environment. Such an environment must extend beyond merely managing the crisis and mitigating its consequences toward addressing its structural causes.

Seventh: The King's Address to the United Nations — An Analysis of Its Implications

Does King Abdullah II's Address Establish the Foundations for a New Jordanian Approach, or Does It Merely Elevate the Level of Political Assessment?

The significance of His Majesty King Abdullah II's address to the United Nations General Assembly extends beyond articulating Jordan's position on Israeli policies. It encompasses the fundamental questions raised regarding the international community's responsibility, the limitations of merely managing the conflict, and the necessity of employing available political, legal, and economic instruments to bring about tangible change.

The political significance of any address is generally assessed by its capacity to influence positions and policies rather than by its rhetorical strength or the extent to which it expresses anger and frustration. Accordingly, the discussion shifts from the content of the address itself toward its potential implications for reassessing diplomatic approaches, reevaluating instruments of influence, and establishing a clearer definition of international responsibilities.

An analytical reading of the address allows for the identification of three central and interconnected messages that extend beyond political condemnation:

1. The nature of developments in the West Bank: Rejecting the reduction of these developments to security escalation or settler violence and instead examining them as a process of forcible displacement and de facto annexation that progressively undermines the geographical foundations of a Palestinian state.

2. The limitations of relying on changes in Israeli governments: Moving beyond an explanation that attributes the failure of political settlement efforts primarily to the personality of the prime minister and toward questioning the absence of an Israeli government willing to accept a settlement based on Palestinian statehood. The approach that associated the political impasse with Benjamin Netanyahu and anticipated that his departure from office would create opportunities for an alternative leadership has become increasingly difficult to sustain in light of continuing annexation and settlement policies and the declining influence of political forces historically associated with the peace process.

3. The responsibility of the international community: Moving from managing the conflict toward actively pursuing its resolution through the political, legal, and economic instruments available to international actors.

The significance of these messages lies in their interconnectedness. Characterizing developments on the ground as annexation and displacement necessitates reconsidering the assumptions underlying prospects for a political settlement.

Similarly, questioning the willingness of Israeli governments to accept Palestinian statehood requires reassessing the effectiveness of waiting for internal political change within Israel.

At the same time, holding the international community responsible for the continued management of the conflict redirects attention toward the instruments available to international actors and their willingness to employ them, rather than repeatedly issuing general appeals for peace.

In this sense, the address can be interpreted as marking a shift from warning against Israeli policies to questioning the political and international environment that enables their continuation.

Translating These Implications into Potential Courses of Action

Should political developments and assessments of Jordan's national interests lead toward the formulation of a new Jordanian approach, it could encompass four complementary courses of action:

1. Linking diplomacy to measurable outcomes: These could include preventing displacement, halting annexation, protecting the Palestinian population's continued presence on its land, and preserving the geographical and political foundations necessary for Palestinian statehood. This approach would require distinguishing between diplomatic initiatives that generate primarily symbolic gains and measures capable of producing tangible changes in existing policies.

2. Expanding international coordination on available instruments: This would involve identifying measures that could be undertaken at both national and collective levels, clarifying their legal foundations, and building coalitions capable of implementing and monitoring them. Potential measures could include reviewing certain aspects of bilateral cooperation, adopting targeted measures concerning settlement-related activities, and intensifying diplomatic and legal engagement within international institutions.

3. Adopting clear indicators for assessing changes in Israeli policies: Such indicators could include positions on annexation and settlement expansion, willingness to accept Palestinian statehood, compliance with international law, and decisions implemented on the ground. This would help prevent changes in political rhetoric from being mistaken for substantive changes in political conduct.

4. Strengthening Arab coordination around shared interests: This would involve distributing responsibilities and burdens among participating states, thereby reducing the likelihood that countries acting individually would face political or economic pressures disproportionate to the potential outcomes of their initiatives.

Eighth: Jordan — The Risk Landscape and the Cost Equation

Why Do the Repercussions of the Conflict Extend Beyond Palestine to Affect Jordan’s National Security?

The Threefold Threat: Displacement, Jerusalem, and Palestinian Statehood

Jordan is politically, geographically, and historically connected to the Palestinian question and bears responsibilities related to protecting its national interests, upholding the Hashemite Custodianship over the holy sites, and advocating a political settlement that guarantees Palestinian rights. From this perspective, developments in Israeli policies cannot be regarded as external events affecting Jordanian national security only indirectly.

Three interconnected issues are particularly relevant to Jordan's national interests, each reinforcing the implications of the others:

1. Displacement: The principal danger lies in the possibility that its consequences could extend to Jordan through border-related pressures or attempts to redefine the Palestinian question at the expense of Palestinians' right to remain on their land and establish their own state. Opposition to displacement therefore constitutes an essential component of protecting national stability and preventing the imposition of new demographic and geographical realities that could alter the nature of the conflict and transfer its consequences to Jordan.

2. Jerusalem: The escalation of measures affecting Jerusalem and its holy sites places Jordan before direct national and diplomatic responsibilities, linking the protection of the existing status quo to the defense of Palestinian rights.

3. Palestinian Statehood: From this perspective, the establishment of a Palestinian state represents a fundamental component of any sustainable framework for regional stability and for protecting Jordan against attempts to transfer the consequences of the conflict onto its territory or redefine the Palestinian question in ways that undermine the rights of the Palestinian people. Consequently, any decline in the prospects for a political settlement increases Jordan's strategic vulnerability, as the absence of a political horizon may create opportunities for approaches that seek to externalize the crisis rather than resolve it.

The Cost Equation: Between the Costs of Action and the Costs of Waiting

Jordan faces a delicate equation in assessing the costs associated with its available policy options.

On the one hand, adopting a more assertive approach toward Israel could impose political, economic, and diplomatic burdens that the Kingdom may find difficult to bear independently, given disparities in state capabilities, the complexities of international relations, and Jordan's interconnected network of interests and alliances.

On the other hand, continued reluctance to undertake measures capable of producing meaningful influence may generate greater long-term costs if developments threatening Jordanian interests persist and further diminish the prospects for a political settlement.

The issue therefore extends beyond calculating immediate gains and losses to what may be described as the cumulative strategic cost. A state may avoid political or economic confrontation in the short term, only to face considerably more difficult circumstances later if concerning policies continue without effective instruments for influencing them.

Conversely, unilateral measures that disregard existing power balances or the limits of national capacity could expose the state to burdens disproportionate to their potential outcomes.

The central consideration, therefore, concerns burden-sharing. The broader the coordination with Arab states and the international community, the greater the opportunities to reduce the costs borne by individual actors and move from fragmented national responses toward collective action based on clearly defined objectives.

Strengthening Domestic Resilience

Strengthening domestic resilience is not confined to security considerations. National capacity to respond to risks is also closely connected to economic stability, institutional effectiveness, clarity of public communication, the availability of accurate information, and the ability to counter misinformation, rumors, and polarization.

It also requires building national consensus around strategic issues affecting Jordan's future, foremost among them rejecting displacement, protecting Palestinian rights, and safeguarding national interests and sovereignty.

A cohesive domestic environment strengthens the state's capacity to manage external pressures, reduces opportunities for external crises to generate internal divisions, and provides a foundation for maintaining foreign policy within clearly defined national priorities.

At the same time, regardless of the effectiveness of its institutions, Jordan cannot independently address all potential repercussions. This makes domestic resilience closely interconnected with Arab and international partnerships.

Strategic Realism: Firm Principles and Flexible Instruments

Strategic realism requires assessing power balances as they exist, understanding the factors shaping the behavior of different actors, and identifying areas where influence can realistically be exercised. It does not, however, imply accepting existing policies as inevitable or regarding them as permanently unchangeable.

This approach entails combining firmness in principles—rejecting displacement, defending Jerusalem, and upholding the Palestinian people's right to statehood—with flexibility in selecting diplomatic and political instruments that serve these objectives.

It also requires distinguishing between what can reasonably be anticipated and what can be empirically established. Assessments concerning the outcomes of Israeli elections, Washington's willingness to exert pressure, displacement trends, and the prospects for forming Arab coalitions remain contingent possibilities requiring continuous monitoring.

Strategic analysis does not mean treating the most pessimistic scenario as an inevitable outcome. Overestimating risks may lead to inaccurate conclusions, just as underestimating them may delay necessary responses.

A more balanced approach therefore involves periodic strategic assessments grounded in reliable information, the examination of alternative scenarios, and the identification of indicators that would necessitate reviewing policies or adjusting priorities.

On this basis, Jordanian decision-making should not become dependent on expectations regarding the outcomes of Israeli or American elections. Such elections may create opportunities and may produce governments adopting more or less hardline policies, but they offer no advance guarantees concerning the future of the conflict.

The priority remains a policy grounded in enduring national interests, capable of capitalizing on political developments when genuine opportunities emerge, while retaining practical alternatives when anticipated changes do not materialize.

Key Conclusion: The strategic value of pessimistic assessments lies in their capacity to transform the most serious potential scenarios into practical questions concerning preparedness and available options, rather than into definitive judgments that foreclose analysis or negate the possibility of political and diplomatic action.

Ninth: Scenarios and Monitoring Indicators

The following table presents four analytical scenarios. They are not intended as predictions, nor should they be assumed to occur sequentially or to be mutually exclusive. Multiple scenarios may emerge simultaneously or overlap.

Their purpose is to enable decision-makers to associate each potential development with observable indicators and assess its implications for Jordan.

Scenario	Description	Monitoring Indicators	Implications for Jordan
Change in Political Leadership Without Substantive Policy Change	Formation of a more broadly representative government, or one less dependent on the most hardline political factions, adopting more flexible discourse toward the international community without fundamentally changing existing policies.	Absence of a clear commitment to Palestinian statehood; continuation of settlement expansion and annexation; changes in political rhetoric without corresponding decisions or actions on the ground.	Superficial improvement in the diplomatic environment without addressing the underlying causes of the conflict; risk of mistaking changes in discourse for changes in actual conduct.
Conditional Substantive Transformation	Formation of a governing coalition adopting a clear political program concerning ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state, while demonstrating willingness to bear the associated domestic political costs.	Explicit positions on annexation and settlement expansion; tangible decisions and measures on the ground; monitoring mechanisms and demonstrated commitment to international law.	A potential diplomatic and negotiating opportunity that would require clearly defined objectives, measurable indicators, and Arab and international coordination to consolidate progress.
Entrenchment of the Right-Wing Political Trajectory	Continued influence of hardline orientations within political parties, state institutions, and public opinion, even if political leadership changes.	New legislation and policy decisions; declining influence of political forces supporting a negotiated settlement; dominance of security and religious discourse in public debate.	Continued pressure on the West Bank and Jerusalem; accumulation of territorial and political realities; increasing strategic costs associated with waiting.
Acceleration of Developments on the Ground	Expansion of de facto annexation, intensification of creeping displacement, and changes in the structure of territorial control in southern Syria.	Transition from legislative measures to practical implementation; restrictions on movement and geographical connectivity; growing pressures on living conditions; changes in territorial control in southern Syria.	Potential border-related, demographic, and political pressures on Jordan, alongside emerging security challenges along its northern borders.

 

Tenth: Strategic Conclusions

The preceding sections reveal a recurring strategic dilemma: the widening gap between international recognition of Palestinian rights and the capacity to protect those rights on the ground; the continuation of calls for a political settlement alongside developments that undermine its foundations; and the availability of international instruments of influence that have not been employed sufficiently to alter the calculations of the parties concerned. Four principal conclusions can be drawn from these interconnected dynamics:

- Shifting the test from legitimacy to enforcement: The central challenge no longer concerns solely the legitimacy of Palestinian claims, but also the international community's capacity to enforce the rights associated with them. The Palestinian cause has accumulated significant diplomatic and legal capital, yet its practical impact remains limited unless translated into concrete measures that protect rights on the ground and constrain annexation and settlement expansion.

- Distinguishing between the identity of a government and the future of a political settlement: Electoral change may create political opportunities, but it does not guarantee a transformation in fundamental policy positions. Accordingly, any Israeli government should be assessed on the basis of its decisions, actions, and willingness to pursue a genuine political settlement, rather than its rhetoric or expectations associated with the personalities of its leaders.

- The costs of managing the conflict without addressing its underlying causes: The continuation of this approach may consolidate realities that make a political settlement increasingly difficult. Geographical changes in the West Bank, pressures threatening the continued Palestinian presence on the land, and diminishing territorial connectivity are factors that increase the costs of addressing the conflict as time passes.

- Combining diplomacy with the capacity to exert influence: Protecting Jordanian national interests requires sustained international diplomatic engagement, stronger Arab coordination, the development of legal and political instruments, improved risk assessment, the strengthening of domestic resilience, and the preservation of clearly defined national priorities.

These conclusions point to three priority directions for any future approach.

The first is to develop an international pressure strategy with clearly defined objectives, linking diplomatic, economic, and legal measures to specific forms of conduct that need to be changed, supported by monitoring mechanisms and measurable indicators.

The second is to establish a continuous Jordanian strategic assessment of Israeli and regional developments, grounded in multiple scenarios and explicitly distinguishing between changes in government and substantive changes in policy.

The third is to strengthen collective Arab action and domestic resilience in ways that distribute responsibilities and burdens while ensuring that external diplomatic engagement is supported by a national and institutional foundation capable of managing pressure.

The overall analysis raises three questions that do not provide definitive answers about the future of the conflict, but require a more rigorous reassessment of the policies, instruments, and assumptions that have shaped approaches to it:

What is the value of continuing to pursue the same approaches if realities on the ground are changing in a direction contrary to the objectives of a political settlement?

What is the significance of international recognition if it is not accompanied by measures capable of protecting the very rights being recognized?

To what extent can political change in Israeli governments be relied upon if fundamental policies do not change sufficiently?

Ultimately, the future is not predetermined, and the most dangerous scenarios are not inevitable. Avoiding them, however, requires moving beyond identifying and assessing risks toward developing an effective capacity to influence the course of events.

The real test lies neither in the number of states recognizing Palestine, nor in the identity of the next Israeli government, nor in the strength of statements issued by major international powers. Rather, it lies in the ability to bring about meaningful changes in the realities that shape and perpetuate the conflict.

A political settlement cannot be achieved merely by declaring a desire for one. International legitimacy does not automatically translate into changes on the ground, and political pressure cannot become effective unless it is linked to clearly defined objectives and the political will to implement them.

Between repeatedly managing crises and allowing the consolidation of realities that become increasingly difficult to reverse, the responsibility of the coming phase becomes clear: to move from waiting for change to creating the conditions necessary to bring it about.

Concluding Statement

The distinction between managing a conflict and actively working to end it is the distinction between temporarily containing the consequences of a crisis and establishing a political process capable of addressing its underlying causes. Upon this distinction depend regional stability, the protection of Palestinian rights, and the safeguarding of Jordanian national interests.

Methodological Note and Verification Considerations

This position paper draws upon political, strategic, and legal analyses. Sections addressing political figures, potential scenarios, and strategic assessments have been formulated as possibilities and analytical interpretations rather than established or conclusively verified facts.

Issued by Jordanian Masarat for Development and Progress