jordan pulse -

Dr. Mahmoud Awad Al-Dabbas Al-Dabbas

Last night, sleep was neither easy nor restful. The reason was a nightmare—Trump—that appeared to us in our waking hours and continued its presence in our dreams. Many of us spent parts of the night following Trump’s statements before and during his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. His remarks were extremely harsh on both Jordan and Palestine. The decision is clear: to empty its dignity of its inhabitants and rebuild it anew—a process that will take years. This move will be preceded by the migration of its residents to Jordan, Egypt, and other countries. It is worth emphasizing that the word “no” can be directed at former US President Biden, not at Trump; this latter point serves as a very harsh preemptive message to both Jordan and Egypt. Trump's statements last night have effectively become an American-Israeli agreement, and the possibility of retracting them has grown exceedingly slim. Gaza cannot be rebuilt until its residents have left, and the terms of the American-Israeli agreement will serve as the reference point for Trump’s subsequent meetings with several Arab heads of state. Accordingly, those future meetings will focus solely on implementing what was agreed upon in the first agreement (the American-Israeli one).

In an article a couple of days ago, I had anticipated that Trump’s statements would be less severe and rigid, leading me to believe there might be a loophole we could exploit. This loophole might have allowed us to reduce American support for Israel and, in doing so, prevent the United States from adhering to a unilateral Israeli vision—a move that could have reopened political dialogue regarding viable solutions. However, Trump’s statements last night have closed off any such opportunity, reducing our role, from the American perspective, to that of mere execution.

Given this increasingly rigid mentality in Trump—reinforced day by day by his tightening grip on the decision-making institutions of the United States at various levels—a pressing question now arises: is there any justification left for going to Washington and meeting with Trump, who intends his meetings with Jordan and Egypt not for dialogue but solely to implement what he has agreed upon with Israel? Thus, the more precise and boldly political and national question is: can we consider postponing the visit to Washington until further notice? My point is that going at this time would mean a guaranteed political loss—whether it results from a divergence between the King’s statements and Trump’s (which would an avoidable distance between them for future reasons) or from our making overly calm statements while Trump remains inflexible, which would also have very harsh consequences.

In conclusion, we may hear additional American statements today, Wednesday, further supporting Israel on issues concerning the West Bank, which will only widen the gap between Jordan and America. Once again, the question arises: could postponing the visit be the political response from Jordan? It is important to note that such a step, if taken, will have both advantages and disadvantages. This reinforces the legal maxim that “the lesser harm should be inflicted to avert the greater harm.” May God protect Jordan. May God protect the King.