This country can solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all.
If the old two-state solution is dead, but the Palestinians can’t expel the Israelis, Israel can’t expel the Palestinians, and the status quo is untenable, then we need bolder alternatives.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
This is a guest essay by Ben Koan, who writes the newsletter, “The Thousand-Year View.”
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
“The River Jordan, it is true, marks a line of delimitation between Western and Eastern Palestine; but it is practically impossible to say where the latter ends and the Arabian desert begins.” — 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
“This Arab country belongs to all, Jordanians and Palestinians alike. When we say Palestinians we mean every Palestinian throughout the world, provided he is Palestinian by loyalty and affinity.” — King Hussein of Jordan, 1972
“We are, after all, twin brothers, Palestine and Jordan.” — Yasser Arafat, President of the Palestinian Authority, 1999
Western countries like France, Australia, Canada, and the UK have now recognized a Palestinian state.
But as legal scholar Guglielmo Verdirame noted, “Palestine” lacks the basic prerequisites of statehood, including defined territory and effective government.1 Does it include all of the West Bank and Gaza, even though previous statehood negotiations involved land swaps? Does it include Israel proper (minus its citizens), as most Palestinians would like? Is it ruled by the Palestinian Authority (the wildly corrupt government in parts of the West Bank) or Hamas, which is still nominally in charge of Gaza? Why not recognize two Palestinian states, one for each territory?
This line of questioning points to the fundamentally unserious, symbolic nature of premature statehood recognition. But it also points to issues that need to be resolved if there is ever to be some measure of stability and peace in the Holy Land. As U.S. President Donald Trump once correctly noted, “If you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country.”
“Palestine” has no borders, so it isn’t a country. But Israel’s borders are also inchoate. The unresolved status of the Palestinian Territories is a sieve.
Fortunately, there is an alternative political authority for the Palestinians, one with a proven track record of effective governance: the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Jordan itself was initially part of the British Mandate for Palestine. Even the term “West Bank” refers to Jordan, which is the corresponding “East Bank” of the Jordan River. The Jordanians controlled the West Bank following Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, and formally annexed the territory in 1950.
In 1954, Jordan granted full citizenship to Palestinians residing in the West Bank, as well as to Palestinian refugees who had migrated to Jordan proper. This is in stark contrast to other Arab countries like Syria and Lebanon, where Palestinians are denied citizenship under the delusional assumption that they will one day march back into Israel.
Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel after the Jordanians foolishly joined the 1967 Six-Day War. However, Jordan only officially gave up its claim to the territory in 1988, in deference to longtime Palestinian leader (and mega-terrorist) Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization. Even still, at least half of Jordanian citizens are of Palestinian descent, giving Jordan a demographic as well as historical claim to the title of Palestinian state.
Why not make it official by reclaiming the West Bank (plus Gaza, which was formerly controlled by Egypt) and becoming the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine? The West Bank could be renamed Western Palestine, while Jordan could become Eastern Palestine, as it has de facto been.
The strongest Israeli argument against Palestinian statehood is based on security. Israel fully withdrew both its military and citizens from Gaza in 2005.
After winning elections in 2006, Hamas seized Gaza from the Palestinian Authority in 2007, turning the Strip into a terror base for indiscriminate attacks against Israel. For many Israelis, the October 7th massacre was final proof that any Palestinian state would only be a launching pad for irredentist aggression.
In the West Bank, Hamas is more popular than the Fatah party that dominates the Palestinian Authority, which itself has a history of terrorism against Israel. At Israel’s narrowest point, the country is only about nine miles wide from the West Bank to the Mediterranean Sea, with major population centers near the coast. Israelis rightly worry that, absent their military presence, the West Bank would become a larger, more existentially dangerous version of Gaza.
Would an independent “Palestine” be willing and able to curtail Hamas? Perhaps if it were headed by the Hashemite rulers of Jordan. After all, Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty in 1994, are both American allies, and share a mostly quiet border. Jordan has formally banned the Muslim Brotherhood, ideological kin to Hamas; shot down Iranian rockets aimed at Israel; and expelled Palestine Liberation Organization terrorists in the 1970-1971 Black September conflict. Aren’t three decades of peace (plus surreptitious cooperation before that) a good indication that Jordan can be trusted?
Of course, a Jordan that includes the West Bank and Gaza would have a larger Palestinian population, many of them radicalized. Although the West, Israel, and friendly Arab nations could provide the Hashemites with security and financial backing, there is a chance that Palestinian extremists could overthrow the monarchy and use their newly won territory to attack Israel.
Fortunately for Israel, it has defeated Jordan in previous wars and could certainly do so again. The 1979 Egypt–Israel peace treaty made Israeli withdrawal from Sinai (conquered in the Six-Day War) contingent on Egyptian military restrictions backed by multinational monitoring. Similar terms could be applied to the West Bank and Gaza.
Moreover, the appearance of legitimacy matters. A Palestinian state attacking Israel — absent arguments about occupation, settlements, and apartheid — would be a clear-cut case of unprovoked aggression for most of the civilized world. The greatest security threat to Israel isn’t conquest by the feckless Palestinians; it’s a loss of American support due to isolationist sentiment on the Right and pro-Palestinian sympathy on the Left. By separating itself from the Palestinians and seizing the moral high ground, Israel could at least regain a measure of support from the center-Left, if not fanatical anti-Zionists.
A settlement of the Palestinian issue would also open the door to an expansion of the Abraham Accords, most notably to a normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia. Greater regional integration would make Israel less reliant on America in the first place, which would consequently increase its support (or at least mitigate a growing hostility) among the “America First” Right.
Besides the Israeli security argument, there is also the religious-nationalist case for holding on to the Palestinian Territories. Namely, that the West Bank and Gaza were historically Jewish and are religiously part of the Holy Land. But in the Iron Age, Gaza was home to the Philistines, ancient rivals of the Israelites, from whom the term “Palestine” is derived.
Though Gaza has a long, if fragmented, Jewish history, it was only intermittently ruled by Jews and never the core of an Israelite or Judean polity. Religiously, Gaza isn’t even universally considered part of the Land of Israel, and lacks major Jewish holy sites.
The West Bank (or, to use the Biblical nomenclature, Judea and Samaria) is a different story. This land is indeed holy and historically significant to Jews. Political borders do not always — cannot always, due to the nature of conflicting claims — line up with a nation’s ideal territory. Israelis can visit Jordan today as tourists, and should likewise be guaranteed the right to visit “Western Palestine” as pilgrims.
As for Israeli settlers, most could remain in Israel through negotiated land swaps, others could be evacuated in exchange for compensation, while a minority might choose to take their chances and become Jewish Palestinians. In his Jordanian–Palestinian confederation proposal, billionaire businessman Hasan Ismaik even suggests that Jewish settlers be granted a quota in Jordan’s parliament.
What’s in it for Jordan?
First, it’s worth recalling that Jordan, like “Palestine,” was never historically a distinct country. Following World War I, the British carved British Mandate Palestine out of the Ottoman Empire, and then Jordan (at the time, Transjordan) out of the Mandate. Transjordan was awarded to the Arabian Hashemite dynasty for their service during the “Great” Arab Revolt, though British army officer T. E. Lawrence played a larger role and probably should’ve been given the kingdom instead.
Palestinian and Jordanian Arabs speak the same language (Levantine Arabic), practice the same religions (mostly Sunni Islam, with a Christian minority), and are ethnographically indistinguishable. Between the time of the Crusader states (1099–1291 CE) and the mid-20th century, they’ve also always been under the same imperial authority. Uniting Jordanians and Palestinians in a single state would therefore be a return to the historical norm.
By reclaiming sovereignty over the West Bank, the Hashemites would gain more land and subjects (many highly educated), which monarchs generally find desirable. They’d also win access to the Mediterranean Sea via the Gaza exclave, which would be a lifeline for their mostly landlocked nation. While Jordan’s rulers are currently loath to reinsert themselves directly into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they’d likely be willing to do so as part of a regional agreement in partnership with Palestinians.
The most fanatical Palestinian irredentists will never relinquish their dream of seizing all of Israel. But a substantial number of pragmatists may welcome a seriously presented alternative to the current hopelessness of their national cause. In order to capitalize on Palestinian pride, the unified state should be framed not as the Jordanian annexation of “Palestine,” but as the formation of a “Greater Palestine.”
Ideally, per Saudi analyst Ali Shihabi’s proposal, it would indeed be called the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine, but Ismaik’s Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Palestine option is also acceptable if unwieldy.2 Most important is that “Palestine” be included in the name of the country, so that a critical mass of Palestinians feel that their national aspirations have been fulfilled.
Jordan’s king is already the custodian of Jerusalem’s Muslim and Christian holy sites (and married to a Palestinian), but should also formally adopt the title King of Palestine. Palestinian refugees elsewhere in the Arab world should be granted citizenship in the kingdom, thus universally ending Palestinian statelessness.
Jordan isn’t exactly a democracy, but neither is the Palestinian Authority-run West Bank (let alone Gaza under Hamas rule). By joining up with Jordan, Palestinians would achieve parliamentary representation, the accoutrements of statehood, and, perhaps most significantly from their perspective, rule by fellow Arabs instead of Jews. They’d also have a state much larger than Israel, rather than two rumps barely visible on a map, so plenty of land with which to exercise their so-called “right of return.”
The key to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to think outside the box of historically contingent, imperially drawn Sykes–Picot borders. Contra common usage, there is no coherent “historic Palestine” (except, perhaps, Gaza). The ancient Greeks used “Palestine” to refer to the land of the Philistines (whom they knew as a fellow Aegean-origin people) in Gaza and Israel’s adjacent coastal strip.
Subsequent to the Philistines’ 6th-century BCE disappearance, “Palestine” was a vague geographic expression, only given political form when the Romans renamed Judea following multiple idiotic Jewish revolts. “Palestine” was never an independent nation, and, for most of the region’s Muslim history, wasn’t even the name of a distinct province.
Yet, thanks to British mapmaking and a peculiar dialectic with Zionism, an Arab population now identifies as Palestinian — and their cause has acquired religious salience within the Arab and Muslim worlds, as well as the global Left. If the old two-state solution is dead, but the Palestinians can’t expel the Israelis, Israel can’t expel the Palestinians, and the status quo is untenable, then we need bolder alternatives.
Rob Malley and Hussein Agha, an American and a Palestinian involved in previous peace negotiations, have recently floated the old-new idea of a Palestinian confederation with Jordan. Per Agha, “What we have here is a biblical conflict. Biblical conflict needs prophets. It does not need diplomats.”
Accordingly, as Isaiah once foretold, may all nations stream to Mount Zion to walk in the paths of the Lord, including the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine.
“UK’s Palestine recognition plan is legally incoherent.” UnHerd.
“The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine.” Al Arabiya English.
Your reasoning is a tidy Liberal minded argument which will not hold up to the bitter reality of the Region. The Arabs of Gaza and Judea and Samaria want to ERASE Israel. They would Absolutely do so if given a State-entity to re-arm with. Here in London we have monitored The re-formation of The Nazi Party, and they are now in Alliance with Hamas. Legally, countries who have status at the U.N. have the right to armies, whether or not lying Arab politicians renounced this right in the short term. This would ABSOLUTELY be used to continue the Nazi and the Arab war of Genocide against The Jewish People. Thus State entity for the Arabs of Gaza CAN NOW NO LONGER BE. Ever. Sad, but just so. Get used to this as fact.
This is an interesting idea, but Dan is right about the likely ultimate outcome.
The “Palestinians” would never accept your notion of the “right of return,” because that makes zero sense. The land they want to “return” to is Israel, period. And they *were* once there. They left voluntarily, which they refuse to admit, but it actually was there. It’s not land per se that they want, it’s *that specific* land only.
Giving up the entire “West Bank” should never be considered an option by Israel, and likely would not be. It would render the country indefensible.
Jordan, regardless of the actual name, is highly unlikely to grant equal citizenship to the Jewish settlers, and the Palestinians would be even less inclined to do so. They are Muslim countries, and that is just simply not how Islam operates. You need to learn about how the Koran mandates treating anyone who refuses to convert to Islam - “infidels”, aka “kafirs,” - and about taqqiya and tawriya. *
At best* they would be regarded as “dhimmies” (second class citizens), required to pay a very high tax called “jizya,” and be limited in how they would be allowed to practice their religion.
Still, I like the creativity of your thinking, and I agree that a new, outside-the-box solution might be the only viable option.