The Karakal Battalion during its first winter training session, held in an open area in Southern Israel. Image: Israel Defense Forces/Public Domain

Self-reliance has always been a pillar of Israel’s national security ethos. Yet opponents of Israeli sovereignty in the sparsely-populated Jordan Valley seek to downplay regional strategic threats to the Jewish state, arguing that foreign security forces could substitute for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

Given past instances, however, Israel understandably is hesitant to trust anyone other than itself to maintain peace along any of its frontiers, let alone the strategically crucial Jordan Valley.

Israeli sovereignty in the Valley is critical to prevent the buildup of covert rocket and anti-tank arsenals in the West Bank, as Hamas has set up in Gaza. It is also vital for stopping terrorists from infiltrating the Jordan-West Bank border and executing attacks from the hills of Judea and Samaria into Israel’s coastal heartland.

These considerations help explain why the 2014 Israeli-Palestinian peace proposal by former Secretary of State John Kerry and retired General John Allen failed, given it raised deep concerns within Israel’s defense establishment.

Among other things, the still-classified “Allen Plan” would reportedly have relied on joint patrols of American soldiers, US-trained Palestinians, and IDF troops – all coordinated with Jordan’s military, to secure the Valley, the ultimate goal being full removal of the IDF.

International Troops in Israel

Capable as American troops are, Israel would have good reasons not to rely on them. The American public is trending away from foreign entanglements, often mislabeled “endless wars.”

The Pentagon is currently eyeing withdrawal of the long-standing American peacekeeping mission to monitor Israel’s border with Egypt. In the current political climate, such sentiments would certainly extend to any American mission securing the Jordan Valley.

Beyond the Allen Plan, it’s also unlikely that international peacekeepers would be motivated, equipped, or supplied with real-time intel to replace the IDF as a guarantor of Israel’s borders. Indeed, historically such foreign units have been unsuccessful or unreliable providing security along Israel’s other frontiers.

Following the 1956 Suez Crisis, the UN deployed armed peacekeeping forces to Sinai. However, they departed as soon as Egypt demanded their exit in May 1967, and weeks later, the Six-Day War erupted.

First Lebanon War

Third-party forces proved equally incapable of bringing stability before, during, and after the First Lebanon War. In the late 1970s, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) began launching terror attacks against Israel from southern Lebanon, prompting the IDF to enter Lebanon. In response, the UN established the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which ultimately failed to push the violent PLO out of southern Lebanon. Attacks on Israel continued, leading to Israel’s first Lebanon War in 1982.

During this period, another peacekeeping contingent, known as the Multinational Forces (MNF), was sent to southern Lebanon. On October 23, 1983, the US Marine barracks of the MNF were bombed by Hezbollah, killing 241 American servicemen – the deadliest single-day death toll for the Marines since World War II. Within five months, the MNF withdrew.

After the Second Lebanon War in 2006, the pattern of failure repeated itself in Lebanon. UNIFIL was given a stronger mandate, including helping disarm Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Yet nearly 14 years later, Hezbollah is far stronger and more capable than it was in 2006 and now boasts an arsenal of up to 150,000 rockets and missiles aimed at Israel.

International Forces in Gaza

The basing of international observers in Gaza was similarly ineffective. In 2005, the European Union sent observers to the Rafah Crossing between Gaza and Egypt to limit the cross-border movement of Hamas terrorists and weaponry. But after announcing a “temporary suspension of operations” once Hamas captured Gaza in 2007, the mission abruptly departed and has never returned.

Most recently, the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) – stationed in the Golan Heights on Israel’s Syrian border since 1974 – left the region as Syrian rebel forces and an ISIS affiliate staked out areas near the border and even attacked observers.

UNDOF only returned in August 2018 after Russian and Syrian forces reassumed control over the border region. But now, according to Israeli reports, Iran and its proxies, including Hezbollah, have appeared within the disengagement zone.

The overwhelming takeaway is that reliance on forces other than the IDF to maintain permanent stability on Israel’s long, strategically vital eastern flank is untenable. As a former IDF general has stated, if anything threatens the safety of foreign forces, “No state will accept having its soldiers endanger their lives in place of Israeli soldiers.”

Charles Perkins is the Director for U.S.-Israel Security Policy at JINSA.

Originally published in The Defense Post

The post Israeli Sovereignty Over the Jordan Valley is Critical appeared first on JINSA.

JINSA thanks the Rose Project of the Jewish Federation of Orange County for organizing this important discussion.

The post Watch: JINSA President and CEO Michael Makovsky on Israeli Sovereignty/Jordan Valley (JFed of Orange County Webinar) appeared first on JINSA.

iStock.com/ Credit:HisWondrousWorks

While there has been much debate over Jerusalem’s possible decision to apply Israeli law to the Jordan Valley, the move’s underlying security imperative is not often recognized. As a retired Israeli major general, I believe that Israeli sovereignty over the valley is critical to Israel’s ability to defend itself by itself. The benefits outweigh the potential costs, and the move would not preclude a future agreement with the Palestinians.

Israel faces myriad security threats. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has amassed an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles, while the Assad regime, Iranian forces, and Shiite militias have solidified their hold over Syria. ISIS remains active in the Sinai, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are entrenched in the Gaza Strip, and extremist cells are routinely uncovered in the West Bank. Iran proudly broadcasts its violent opposition to Israel’s existence while continuing to develop its nuclear capability and ballistic missiles.

IDF MG (ret.) Yaacov Ayish is a former Israeli Defense Attaché to the United States and Canada, and former head of the IDF General Staff Operations Branch. He is Senior Vice President for Israeli Affairs at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA).

Originally published in RealClearWorld

The post Israel’s Security Imperatives in the Jordan Valley appeared first on JINSA.

Though applying Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley poses some risk to Israel’s relations with Jordan, it is unlikely that Jordan will gain much from jeopardizing its productive partnerships with both Israel and the United States.

When discussing Israeli-Jordanian relations, it’s important to note that there is a sizeable gap between how Jordan postures itself publicly vis-a-vis Israel in order to placate its Palestinian population and how it conducts itself privately in its relations with the Jewish state. Jordan has benefited considerably from the fact it is one of just two Arab nations to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel.

Cooperation between Jordan and Israel was formalized in a peace treaty just over 25 years ago. However, as a consequence of the treaty’s nod towards normalization, informal relations between the two powers have become particularly poignant within the military, intelligence, and economic realms.

Indeed, on an informal level, Jordan benefits substantially from the Israeli Defense Forces’ presence in the Jordan Valley, a condition that would only be solidified by Israel’s application of sovereignty. Israeli security forces undoubtedly stop terrorists and weaponry from reaching Islamist terror cells in parts of Jordan’s former West Bank which remain under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority. Indeed, Jordan’s “Black September” in 1970, in which Syrian-backed Palestinian militants known as fedayeen attacked the Hashemite monarchy, remains a testament to the unresolved tensions over the East Bank of the Jordan River. Indeed, permanent Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley would ensure one safe border for the Hashemite Kingdom, a benefit it certainly lacks on its Syrian and Iraqi frontiers.

Furthermore, the peace treaty, which some argue may be collateral damage, also ensures that the Hashemite kingdom maintains its religious foothold within the Arab world. King Abdullah II has benefited domestically from Jordan remaining custodian of Jerusalem’s Muslim and Christian holy sites, a position he has referred to as a “red line” for his country. It is unlikely Abdullah would grant the Palestinian cause primacy over Jordan’s custodianship over Muslim holy sites.

Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel allows for beneficial economic arrangements between the two nations, as well. In 2016, Jordan and a US-Israeli consortium signed a gas export contract which allows natural gas from Israel’s offshore natural gas field Leviathan to enter Jordan. The Jordanian government has stated previously that the contract is expected to result in at least $500 million annually in savings and that it may help decrease the government’s perennial budget deficit. In addition to natural gas, Israel also provides Jordan with water, to the tune of 50 million cubic meters per year.

If King Abdullah II were to elevate his anger over Israel’s application of sovereignty and walk away from the peace treaty, doing so could possibly complicate Jordan’s relationship with the U.S. Given the rise in regional threats, ranging from Iran to ISIS, remaining in the US-Israeli security fold is more critical than ever. In addition, the U.S. provides Jordan with not only stationed troops but somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion in economic assistance every year. Such aid accounts for 18% of the Jordanian government’s revenue in 2020.

In short, from both an economic and security standpoint, Jordan cannot afford unstable relations with either Israel or the U.S. For all the concerns over Jordan’s reaction to Israel exercising sovereignty over the Jordan Valley, recalling what Jordan gains from normalization with Israel (and by extension, the U.S.) is important in assessing the Hashemite Kingdom’s enthusiasm for retaliatory measures. Indeed, even following the application of sovereignty, Jordan will depend on its relations with Israel, which include strategic benefits, natural resources, and a stable border for a kingdom all too familiar with jihadist rebels. In fact, the permanence of Israeli forces in the valley would undoubtedly strengthen the kingdom and further incentivize military cooperation with Israel, which has proven mutually beneficial for both Israel and Jordan in the long term.

Originally published in Washington Examiner

The post Jordan Will Gain Nothing From Confrontation Against Israel appeared first on JINSA.

Featuring the report’s authors and advisors:

Michael Makovsky, PhD
President & CEO

Steven Rosen
Senior Fellow, Gemunder Center for Defense & Strategy

IDF MG (ret.) Yaakov Amidror
Distinguished Fellow, Gemunder Center for Defense & Strategy

IDF MG (ret.) Yaacov Ayish
Senior Vice President for Israeli Affairs

The post Watch Webinar on JINSA’s New Report “Best Line of Defense: The Case for Israeli Sovereignty” appeared first on JINSA.

While Netanyahu supporters say the annexation will solidify Israel’s sovereignty and harden its security barrier against terrorism and Iranian aggression, critics say it will ruin any chance of lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace and undermine delicate relations Israel has built with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states in recent years.

Jordan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and the Saudis have all come out firmly against it, a reality that may explain the Trump administration’s indecision on the issue during recent weeks, despite having appeared to be fully behind it earlier this year.

Palestinian leaders have long hoped the West Bank, which was captured by Israel from Jordan in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, would form a major part of a future Palestinian state, with east Jerusalem as its capital.

Several European nations are threatening sanctions against Israel if Mr. Netanyahu moves ahead with annexation.

Some analysts say they won’t be surprised if he proceeds, knowing that President Trump will back him, and that the moment for such backing could soon be lost if Mr. Trump does not win re-election later this year.

“Annexation by Israel of the hunks of the West Bank is, unfortunately, the logical next step in a long trajectory of occupation and settlement,” says Joshua Landis, who heads the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma.

“A long line of United States presidents has been out-maneuvered by Israeli prime ministers to bring us to this point,” Mr. Landis told The Washington Times over the weekend, adding that while Palestinians may be wronged, predictions of impending regional doom are overblown.

“I do not believe that annexation will unleash a world of hell across the region. Most Arabs feel hopeless about the Palestinian cause, fearing that it is already lost,” Mr. Landis said. “Israel has become so strong, moved so many of its citizens onto Palestinian land, and the Arabs so weak and divided, that Arabs despair that the annexation can be stopped.”

In order to win re-election back in March, Mr. Netanyahu vowed to right-wing Israeli political blocs that he would go forward with a major annexation by July 1.

His vow came months after the Trump administration had rolled out a new roadmap to Middle East peace that said Washington was preparing to recognize Israeli control over major portions of the West Bank. While the Trump plan suggested Israel would eventually have U.S. backing to absorb Jewish settlements across the West Bank, as well several fertile areas of the Jordan River valley near the border with Jordan, administration officials said the exact territorial contours for annexation were still being analyzed.

As of late last week, the administration was seen to be divided on the matter. A senior White House official said on condition of anonymity Thursday that there was still “no final decision” on the next steps for implementing the administration’s roadmap for Middle East peace.

Arab outrage

Jordan has been particularly critical of the annexation drive. Amman has issued a warning against any Israeli “annexation of Palestinian lands” and called for a return to 1967 borders with a new Palestinian state encompassing the entire West Bank.

There are concerns that Jordan may respond by suspending a $10 billion gas deal that currently lets Israeli natural gas flow into Jordanian power plants for electricity generation. According to Reuters, the deal between Jordan’s state-owned utility and a U.S.-Israeli consortium led by Texas-based Noble Energy has been in place since 2016.

There is also outrage from key Gulf Arabs such as Saudi Arabiaand the United Arab Emirates.

The Saudis and Emiratis have been on a gradual path toward diplomatic normalization with Israel in recent years and both have been key to the Trump administration’s wider Israeli-Palestinian peace roadmap that has called for a $50 billion economic program for Palestinians paid for by the wealthy Gulf Arab nations.

If Mr. Netanyahu moves forward with annexations in July, it will “destroy any prospect for peace,” Ahmed Aboul Ghet, who heads the 22-member Arab League, said in remarks last week during a U.N. Security Council video conference.

“The possible move by the Israeli government to annex parts of the occupied Palestinian territory would constitute, if implemented, a serious threat to regional stability,” Mr. Ghet added, according to the publication Asharq Alawsat.

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres offered a similar assessment, asserting that “we are at a watershed moment,” and that “if implemented, annexation would constitute a most serious violation of international law, grievously harm the prospect of a two-state solution and undercut the possibilities of a renewal of [Israeli-Palestinian peace] negotiations.”

“I call on the Israeli government to abandon its annexation plans,” Mr. Guterres said.

United Arab Emirates (UAE) Minister of State Yousef Al-Otaiba went further, penning last week a first-ever op-ed by a top Gulf Arab diplomat for an Israeli newspaper and suggesting that the delicate effort by Israel to achieve normalization with Gulf Arab powers could be in jeopardy.

“Recently, Israeli leaders have promoted excited talk about normalization of relations with the United Arab Emirates and other Arab states,” Mr. Otaiba, who is also the UAE’s ambassador to the United States, wrote in the op-ed published in Hebrew by the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

“But Israeli plans for annexation and talk of normalization are a contradiction,” he wrote.

Israeli sovereignty

Some analysts argue the Gulf Arabs are insincere in their warnings and that the frustration is running high among some in the region against the Palestinian Authority (PA) for its recent refusals to negotiate with Israel or the Trump administration — essentially setting the stage for an aggressive Israeli annexation move.

Jonathan H. Ferziger, a writer and researcher who covered the Middle East for more than 20 years for Bloomberg News and UPI, argues that Mr. Netanyahu has ample evidence to suspect that Israel’s new friends in the Persian Gulf are “bluffing.”

“The UAE, as well as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, is highly invested in Trump’s ‘Peace to Prosperity’ plan, which the Palestinians summarily rejected,” Mr. Ferziger argued in an article published Friday by Foreign Policy, adding that the empathy such nations once had for PA leader Mahmoud Abbas “is dissipating.”

“Otaiba himself was present at the White House in January when Trump released the [administration’s Middle East peace] proposal, which includes both establishing a demilitarized Palestinian state and allowing Israel’s annexation of the Jordan Valley and other territory where its settlements sit.”

Neoconservative backers of Israel, meanwhile, say annexation will be worth the risks.

The Jewish Institute for National Security of America argued in a statement circulated Friday that “it would serve as a defensive buffer protecting Israel against attacks from the east and allowing it to hold back the region’s growing disorder and especially Iran’s aggression, thereby advancing U.S. national security interests.”

For his part, Mr. Landis told The Times that “even if there is no large outburst of protest or violence in the Arab World due to the announcement of annexation, the injustice and continued occupation that it will inflict on Palestinians will surely take its toll.”

“The region will remain in a state of turmoil and enmity against the Jewish state and America for decades to come as the Arab World watches the drip-drip of ongoing Palestinian ruination,” he said.

By Guy Taylor

Originally Published in Washington Times

The post Washington Times: “Benjamin Netanyahu Maintaining Vow to Annex West Bank Land by July 1” appeared first on JINSA.

Berkowitz, who arrived in Israel on Friday, together with US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman and other senior administration officials, will continue the discussions held last week at the White House. In the wake of those deliberations, it appeared the Trump administration was leaning toward allowing Israel to pursue its sovereignty bid, as promised by President Donald Trump within the framework of the peace plan he unveiled some six months ago.

Due to the sensitivity of the sovereignty issue and its ramifications, a decision is still forthcoming on the scope of the sovereignty bid and the names of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria the final plan will include. On both the American and Israeli sides, officials are exploring various roadmaps, including fully implementing sovereignty in 30% of the territory, in one or perhaps multiple phases. There are also questions surrounding the Jordan Valley, which on one hand enjoys Israeli consensus in terms of sovereignty, but could damage relations with Jordan. Another proposal being discussed is applying sovereignty in the more remote Jewish outposts, while others believe Israel should first apply sovereignty in the large settlement blocs, over which there is a national consensus.

In the meantime, the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security of America issued a position statement over the weekend calling for Israeli sovereignty in the Jordan Valley.

JINSA researchers believe that despite the short-term tensions likely to arise from Israel’s sovereignty bid, in the long-term Israeli sovereignty in the Jordan Valley will bolster US national security.

“The [Jordan] Valley’s depth creates a formidable barrier and provides a far more defensible and natural boundary than the so-called Green Line, or pre-1967 line,” said the authors of a recent report titled “Best Line of Defense: The Case for Israeli Sovereignty in the Jordan Valley.”

Israeli sovereignty will also serve to protect Jordan and the Palestinian Authority from the real possibility of a Hamas coup in Judea and Samaria, similar to the situation in Gaza.

JINSA President and CEO Michael Makovsky told Israel Hayom that he understands Jordan’s concerns about Israeli sovereignty in the Jordan Valley but insists an opportunity has emerged that must be capitalized on, and that it benefits Jordan as well.

“It’s important for Jordan that Israel receive permanent control of the Jordan Valley because control and sovereignty give a country’s security forces freedom of action. The status quo can also change for the worse from Jordan’s perspective, if a plan is adopted – which almost happened – that includes an Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley and reliance on technological tools [to maintain security]. Hence if you think in the long term, it’s also good for Jordan that Israel receives sovereignty over the Jordan Valley. Because it’s impossible to know whether another American administration will ever agree to such a move, the current opportunity must be exploited,” Makovsky said.

By Ariel Kahana

Originally published in Israel Hayom

The post Israel Hayom: “American, Israeli Teams Reconvene to Discuss Scope of Sovereignty bid” appeared first on JINSA.

“We believe that this is an opportune time to enshrine Israel’s permanent control of the Jordan Valley, and the strategic benefits for Israel, Jordan and the United States outweigh any real but ultimately temporary costs,” JINSA President and CEO Michael Makovsky said.

The report urges US decision makers to support such a move, saying, “it would serve as a defensive buffer protecting Israel against attacks from the east and allowing it to hold back the region’s growing disorder and especially Iran’s aggression, thereby advancing US national security interests.”

The report added that “It would provide a far more defensible boundary than the so-called Green Line, or pre-1967 line, especially in the current geostrategic context of an increasingly violent and unpredictable Middle East.”

JINSA added that Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley would help protect Jordan and the Palestinian Authority “from the real possibility that Hamas could overthrow the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank – as it did in Gaza in 2007.”

“The report addresses the risks of such a historic move, taking seriously the objections made by Jordan, European governments, and others,” JINSA said in a statement. “Yet given the benefits to regional stability and American interests, any costs are likely short-term, the report concludes.”

Earlier this week, seven Republican senators called on US President Donald Trump to support Israel extending its laws to parts of the West Bank.

American recognition of Israel applying sovereignty is “critical to locking in the progress your administration has made reversing the Obama-Biden legacy, restoring the US-Israel relationship and establishing a realistic basis for peace,” the letter reads.

The letter’s signatories were Senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, Kevin Cramer, Thom Tillis, Cindy Hyde-Smith, John Barrasso and Joni Ernst.

By Omri Nahmias

Originally published in Jerusalem Post

The post Jerusalem Post: “JINSA Urges US Support of Israeli Sovereignty over the Jordan Valley” appeared first on JINSA.

The post Elder of Ziyon: “Josh Block on Extending Sovereignty Over the Jordan Valley” appeared first on JINSA.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons – Guillaume Paumier, CC-BY https://guillaumepaumier.com/

As the debate over whether or not Israel should apply sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria intensifies as the proposed July timeline for instituting the decision approaches, a new report by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) says that the extension of Israeli sovereignty in the Jordan Valley would actually “advance” U.S. national security interests.

“Our conclusion is that the Jordan Valley is of immense strategic importance to Israel’s security, Jordan’s security and to the stability of the Middle East, particularly amid the changes in the region over the last seven or eight years,” said Josh Block, a senior fellow at JINSA.

Block told JNS that as America is pulling back from the region, Israel is being required to step up, and that Israeli control over the Jordan Valley would be “essential” for both its security and U.S. national interests.

Furthermore, Block said that the muted global reactions to other controversial moves, such as moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018 and recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights in 2019, suggest that the gains for the two democracies will likely outweigh the risks.

“The value of the move and the benefit outweighs the costs,” he said.

Under U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan to ameliorate the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Jewish state can begin to consider applying sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria, as well as the Jordan Valley, as early as July 1.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has strongly backed the Trump plan, has signaled that he is considering going ahead with applying sovereignty—or existing law—to some 30 percent of Judea and Samaria that is already under Israeli control as per the Oslo Accords. However, debate and discussion among Israeli and U.S. officials remain ongoing. Many key allies of Israel, including those countries in the European Union, the Arab world and even U.S. Democrats have expressed criticism of the move.

‘A formidable barrier’

In its one-page report, JINSA avoids the political debate, and instead focuses on the strategic implications for Israel and the United States. It concentrates on applying sovereignty to the Jordan Valley, not other areas of Judea and Samaria, such as large settlement blocs or smaller Jewish communities.

According to JINSA, the rationale for Israel to apply Israeli law to the Jordan Valley is “purely strategic,” based on the threats from Iran, the geostrategic importance of the Jordan Valley, and threats to Jordan and the Palestinian Authority from terror groups such as Hamas.

“The Valley’s depth creates a formidable barrier and provides a far more defensible boundary than the so-called Green Line, or pre-1967 line, especially in the current geostrategic context of an increasingly violent and unpredictable Middle East,” states the report.

Israel gained control over the Jordan Valley in the 1967 Six-Day War. Many Israeli leaders have long supported a plan to retain control over the Jordan Valley in any peace agreement, viewing it as strategically important to protect the Jewish state’s eastern flank. The Jordan Valley lies in “Area C” of the West Bank under the Oslo Accords, where Israel retains full civilian and military control.

Furthermore, the report also downplays international objections to Israel’s sovereignty plan, especially from Arab allies such as Jordan or the Arab Gulf states.

“Despite opposition voiced by Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and some Gulf Arab states, the convergence of their interests with Israel against Iran and Sunni Islamic extremism, and thus their warming ties, are too vital to countenance a full break over Israeli policy in the Valley,” reads the JINSA report.

This week, Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, who has a very close relationship with Netanyahu, visited Jordan, where he met with King Abdullah to discuss the sovereignty issue.

On several occasions, Abdullah has warned of “massive conflict” if Israel went ahead with its plans, and has even threatened to downgrade or nix its peace treaty with Israel.

Block dismissed these threats from Jordan, arguing that “nobody wants Israel on that border more than the king of Jordan. Nobody wants a radicalized Palestinian state.”

Indeed, despite the protestations by Abdullah, Jordan relies heavily on Israel to help with intelligence gathering, security coordination and natural resources such as natural gas and desalinated fresh water.

“The U.S. and Israel are heavily invested in Jordan’s stability,” said Block, noting the threats the country faces from domestic and foreign terror groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State (ISIS) to large refugee populations it hosts.

Similarly, Block pointed out that the protests from some in the Arab Gulf states have been overblown and there are signs that emerging allies, such as the United Arab Emirates, would not alter its warming ties with Israel over the sovereignty issue.

“The interests of Israel and the Gulf Arab states don’t change based on these extensions of sovereignty,” he said.

Despite the strategic importance, recent Israeli media reports have suggested that Israel would forgo extending sovereignty to the Jordan Valley in favor of three major settlement blocs. While this may be due to Jordanian objections, the issue of the Jordan Valley has long appeared to be a consensus issue within Israel. Ahead of Israel’s September 2019 election, Netanyahu indicated that the first region he would extend sovereignty over would be the Jordan Valley.

Netanyahu’s former chief political rival and now coalition partner, Defense Minister Benny Gantz, has also voiced support for extending sovereignty over the Jordan Valley.

While concern remains over the international objections to the sovereignty plan, as well as other pressing issues—namely, the ongoing coronavirus pandemic that has affected the Middle East along with other major areas in the world—Block said that the strategic environment for Israel to apply sovereignty, especially in the Jordan Valley, has never been more important.

“One of things you have seen is the dramatic changes of the security status and balance of the region,” he explained. “As Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons, as Islamic groups have changed the balance of power in the region and the Arab spring has created a very different and very threatening situation where the stability of nation-states can’t be taken for granted.”

The Trump Mideast peace plan is “different from how both Republican and Democrat administrations have approached this issue in the past,” said Block, arguing that Israel needs to seize on the opportunity of current administration’s plan.

The security situation, he emphasized, “would be enhanced by Israel’s move.”

By Sean Savage

Published in Cleveland Jewish News

The post Cleveland Jewish News: “Jewish Think Tank Urges US to Support Israeli Sovereignty in Jordan Valley” appeared first on JINSA.