jordan pulse -
By Dr. Mahmoud Awad Al-Dabbas
I carefully read the final communiqué issued by the Arab foreign ministers, who met in Cairo on Saturday (February 1, 2025) at the invitation of the Arab League, with representatives from six Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar). I read it multiple times, searching for any mention of Jordan’s political efforts on the international stage before the Gaza war ended, as well as its humanitarian role through sustained aid efforts during the conflict. I also looked for any indication of Jordan’s future role in supporting the Palestinian cause. I found none of that—nothing at all.
Stunned, I reread the final communiqué a second time, then a third, then a fourth, and finally a fifth. Yet, each reading yielded the same answer: Jordan’s efforts were entirely absent. Politically, this was deeply disappointing.
In contrast, the statement explicitly thanked Egypt, Qatar, and the United States for their roles in securing the ceasefire and facilitating the exchange of prisoners and detainees between Israel and Palestine. It also outlined future responsibilities for Arab states: Egypt will host an international conference for Gaza’s reconstruction, while Saudi Arabia, in partnership with France, will hold an international conference on the two-state solution. In other words, Saudi Arabia took the political lead, while Egypt assumed the economic role.
This final communiqué can be assessed from two perspectives: the broader Arab nationalist view and the Jordanian national interest. From the Arab nationalist standpoint, the statement aligns with Jordan’s aspirations, as it prioritizes the Palestinian cause—ensuring the ceasefire holds, humanitarian aid continues, Gaza is rebuilt, UNRWA remains operational, forced displacement is rejected, the Palestinian Authority regains control of Gaza, and the establishment of a Palestinian state is reaffirmed.
However, from a Jordanian national perspective, the statement is a bitter pill to swallow. It completely ignores Jordan’s exceptional role—both at the leadership and popular levels—in shaping global public opinion against the Gaza war, which was widely seen as genocide. Jordan’s international efforts made it easier for mediators to push for a ceasefire, as they had global backing, even from Israel’s allies. Yet, in the end, only the mediators were acknowledged, and Jordan’s contribution went unrecognized.
The second painful omission is Jordan’s exclusion from any future role. Despite being geographically and historically tied to the Palestinian cause—just as Egypt is to Gaza—Jordan was not assigned any responsibility in the post-war phase, while other Arab states were.
This leads to pressing questions: What was Jordan’s foreign minister doing when the final wording of the statement was being agreed upon? How did such an experienced diplomat, well-versed in media affairs, allow Jordan to be completely left out? Does this mean that our Arab counterparts do not see Jordan’s efforts before the ceasefire agreement? Or that they do not consider Jordan relevant in shaping the future of Palestine, despite its deep historical and security ties to the West Bank? Jordan suffers the most from any instability there, yet it was overlooked entirely.
This omission is a grave injustice to Jordan and a clear attempt to sideline it politically. It suggests that Jordan’s role is merely to support others in taking the lead, even though its natural place is at the forefront of the Palestinian cause.
Finally, I urge the foreign minister—who worked tirelessly on the international stage during the war—to explain why Jordan was excluded from the final communiqué. We need to understand how our Arab counterparts view Jordan’s stance on Palestine: is it merely an internal Jordanian discourse, or is it a position truly acknowledged by the Arab world?