Retired Ambassador Ziad Kh. Majali

When Netanyahu, three weeks ago, invoked the spirit of Jabotinsky, not from thin air but from the depths of his convictions, and spoke of the dream of Greater Israel, a vision that imagines among other things the erasure of Jordan’s Hashemite national identity, I chose at that moment to hold back my reaction. I declined several television interviews. My decision was not only because my faith in peace is absolute and goes beyond this current chapter of extreme right-wing Israeli rule, no matter how long its noise and destructiveness may last. My conviction is rooted in the principles of human relations that the international community agreed upon in 1945 to guide global affairs and form the basis of international law.

But there was another reason. From my long observation of Netanyahu, since his days as Israel’s permanent representative in New York, and my knowledge of his mindset, which is no longer a mystery to anyone, I sensed that he was setting a trap with several objectives. Chief among them was provoking anger in Jordanian and Arab public opinion, adding fuel to the outrage already caused by what is happening in Gaza, where the most basic rules of international humanitarian law are being violated. His message to Washington, once again, is that Israel is “surrounded by enemies,” even those who have signed peace treaties with it.

It is important to clarify that Crown Prince Hussein’s call to reinstate national service came well before Netanyahu’s reckless remarks. That call was made in good faith, aimed at strengthening Jordanian youth, deepening their bond with their homeland, and shaping resilient characters capable of resisting negative influences, whether deliberate or unintentional, especially in an era where communication technologies and social media know no borders.

I must also emphasize that I do not fault friends who expressed their anger at Netanyahu’s provocation in television interviews and articles. Such reactions are natural responses to Israeli extremism. What matters most is understanding the purpose behind such provocations and the Likud trap they represent.

After my initial silence, I returned to writing because a friend, someone who believes in peace, in its inevitability, and in the historical lesson that the Palestinian people will ultimately achieve their rights as other nations have won their independence, urged me to speak. He reminded me that our media and political discourse should be directed at Israeli public opinion, which within their democracy is the only force capable of removing this extreme right wing from power. The concern, however, is that Israel’s political center, both right and left, is being deliberately targeted by Zionist extremism ahead of the coming elections.

Looking at the political scene in Israel and the United States brings me back to two warnings issued by His Majesty King Abdullah II. The first, at the end of 2023, was his early caution that military operations would expand if ceasefire efforts failed. That is exactly what happened: the armed conflict reached Iran, violated Lebanese sovereignty, and whetted Israeli extremism’s appetite for Syrian territory. The second was in His Majesty’s recent speech before the European Parliament, where he warned of the collapse of the international moral order, the very foundation of global consensus on international law since 1945.

Young generations in Europe and the United States seem to understand the dangers of erasing moral and human values between states and peoples, and the risks of triggering dirty wars that threaten human civilization. Yet, unfortunately, their governments have not translated this awareness into real policy at decision-making levels.

Netanyahu’s practical error has been evident since 1996: pursuing a policy, both publicly and in secret, to gradually weaken the Palestinian Authority after the gains of the Oslo Accords. His mindset and ideological roots are incompatible with the very idea of Palestinians’ inalienable rights. It is not necessary to revisit in detail the grim harvest of right-wing Israeli policies over the past three decades, foremost among them the erasure of a culture of peace among new Israeli generations. But as always, every action has its reaction.

The sin that compounds this error lies not only in the blood of innocent children in Gaza, or in the suffering of prisoners, hostages, and the hungry who long for bread instead of starving to death. The greater danger is the push toward a zero-sum equation, convincing Israeli public opinion that its security can only be guaranteed by force and perpetual conflict, not by peace with its neighbors, especially the Palestinians.

So as not to dwell too long on established truths, let me be clear about my conviction: the decision, in line with Israeli democracy, will soon rest with the Israeli voter. The question before them is simple. Do you want a government that keeps Israel in endless conflict, potentially against more than two billion Muslims? Or do you want Israel’s strength to lie in justice, law, and respect for others?

The message of peace that Israeli voters could send by choosing a leadership that believes in peace, grounded in international law and capable of reviving the will for peace initiated by the late Yitzhak Rabin, would be the most powerful message the Palestinian people could receive. It would help heal some of their wounds, especially if it brought a glimmer of light at the end of this dark tunnel.

Equally important is the fact that, although American voters focus mainly on domestic issues, the current strain on the international order, with its economic consequences even before its security ones, combined with the backlash against extreme right-wing Israeli policies in Gaza, could well reshape the U.S. Congress after the next midterm elections.

I will not lose hope in peace. I cannot respect myself or my humanity if I submit to the will of those who champion war and destruction. And I will never respect extremists, wherever they may be.