Jawad Anani

Hyman Roth, a character in The Godfather franchise, stands as one of the most complex figures in Francis Ford Coppola’s epic. Played by Lee Strasberg, Roth’s character is brought to life with the depth of Strasberg’s method acting. Strasberg, alongside Elia Kazan, co-founded the Lee Strasberg Institute for Theater and Film, profoundly influencing the craft of acting in American cinema.

In The Godfather Part II (1974), Michael Corleone travels to Cuba to meet Roth, who repeatedly declares, “I am dying,” even as he secretly clings to the hope that he might live forever. On a Havana hotel rooftop, a group of gangsters gathers to celebrate Roth’s birthday. They share a cake shaped like the map of Cuba, with each mob representative taking their slice, a moment that underscores Roth’s territorial control—his ambitions manifest as he divides what he has conquered.

Eventually, after discovering Roth’s plot to have him killed, Michael Corleone, the Godfather, succeeds in eliminating his adversary. Roth meets his end in Ben-Gurion Airport, where, just before his death, he insists he is a Jewish man returning to Israel to live as a law-abiding, God-fearing citizen. Roth’s final moments, filled with contradictions, reveal how he is both aware of his inevitable decline and resistant to it, clinging to his power and identity even as he faces its loss.

The situation in Palestine, much like Roth’s divided ambitions, is often treated as a commodity to be carved up, an issue manipulated by geopolitical actors, notably under the influence of figures like Jared Kushner and President Trump. The territory of historic Palestine is seen by some as a “cake” to be divided, with 78 per cent considered insufficient for Israel, leaving only 22 per cent for the Palestinians. However, if 78 per cent is inadequate, then what chance do the Palestinians have of securing a viable future with the remaining 22 per cent? In response to this, Israeli prime minister Netanyahu has suggested a solution: annex significant portions of the West Bank, offer a small piece of land to Palestinians, and eliminate the so-called “excess” Palestinian population. Those who remain risk being labeled as terrorists and killed. This approach echoes the logic of a brutal power struggle, where the weaker party’s existence is rendered expendable.

To implement such a strategy, Jordan must be coerced into compliance, Arab nations must suppress Palestinian resistance, and the stage must be set for a grand war against Iran, cloaked as an attempt to halt the Islamic Republic’s ambitions. But Jordan will not yield. It will not allow the forced migration of Palestinians from the West Bank to the East Bank, nor will it accept any attempt to erase its sovereignty. A forced exodus would be an act of aggression, one that would break the solemn peace accords between Jordan and Israel, agreements that are foundational to stability.

Jordan’s refusal is not merely political; it is a matter of national identity. The land, the people, and the borders of Jordan are not to be reshaped by foreign designs. The Treaty of Peace signed in 1994 between Jordan and Israel was a beacon of diplomacy, a promise of coexistence and security. To abandon this agreement would be to undermine the very foundations of peace. The Treaty of Peace between Jordan and Israel, co-signed by President Bill Clinton, was a monumental step toward harmony. Its significance cannot be overstated: it was an international acknowledgment of Jordan’s role as a stabilizing force. The US must not abandon its commitments to peace, as doing so would signal a troubling disregard for stability.

Jordan, as a strategic partner of the US and NATO, has hosted military bases critical to American interests. In return, this military presence is meant to safeguard Jordan’s sovereignty. King Abdullah's statement, made during his first visit to President Biden, emphasised Jordan’s self-reliance in resolving its challenges without outside interference. This declaration, welcomed globally, reaffirms Jordan’s pivotal role in maintaining peace and stability.

Despite the peace treaties, prime minister Netanyahu’s aggressive stance toward Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq continues to exacerbate tensions. His government’s hawkish policies, including airstrikes and military escalation, threaten to destabilize Jordan and undermine the fragile peace. If Israel continues down this path, it risks undoing years of diplomatic work and causing the breakdown of normalization efforts with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

The possibility of a war between Israel and Iran looms larger by the day. As Trita Parsi notes in Losing an Enemy, Israel and Iran’s adversarial relationship has historically benefited both at the expense of Arab nations. However, recent crises, ranging from Gaza to Syria, are pushing these two powers closer to direct conflict, with dangerous implications for all involved. If war breaks out between Israel and Iran, Israel will require more than just the usual support from the US and its allies; it will demand direct military intervention. While President-elect Trump’s threats of sanctions and diplomatic strategies seek to isolate Iran, Netanyahu’s government seems to seek something far more aggressive, potentially leading to catastrophic consequences.

For stability to prevail, the biggest spoiler of peace -the current Israeli administration- must go and get replaced by one that is committed to justice, equity, and the peaceful coexistence of all its neighbors. As Trita Parsi argues, this is not just about ending military conflict; it’s about dismantling the system that exploits conflict for political gain. The path forward lies not in perpetuating enmity, but in fostering dialogue and understanding, prioritising reconciliation and fairness as the foundation of lasting peace.