The landmark peace treaty that changed the face of the Middle East

The Israel-Jordan peace treaty of 1994 was symbolic in ending 46 years of war between the two nations.

Like much of the 1990s, including the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 – this was a period of symbolism and hope for the Middle East.

But behind the hope this treaty presented for relations between Israel and Jordan, there was tension and resistance to it from those in both countries.

Thirty years later the Middle East is gripped in conflict and relations between Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Iran are at an all-time low since the October 7 attacks.

From the relative peace of the 1990s, to a period now where all-out war could be possible – how can the Middle East learn from the past?

What was the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty?

The Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation (PLO), which established a peace process between Israel and Jordan, allowed Jordan to sign a formal peace treaty with its neighbour.

The 1994 peace treaty meant Jordan was the second Arab country after Egypt to establish diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv.     

Fawaz Gerges is a Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics (LSE) and is a specialist in international relations of the Middle East and Arab-Israeli conflict.

He told that while the treaty was an important shift in ending the war, the outcome is not all positive.

‘The 1994 peace deal between Jordan and Israel weakened the Palestinian quest for self-determination and an independent state of their own,’ he revealed.

‘The deal also undermined the ability of other Arab states, particularly Syria, to confront Israel militarily in order to recover their occupied lands.’

Meanwhile, former diplomat Sir John Jenkins, an associate fellow of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, told it pitted Middle Eastern nations against one another.

‘It signalled Jordanian acceptance of this new acquis – as it seemed at the time – and its rejection of those – like Syria – who remained intransigent,’ he said.

‘It showed that a new Arab grouping was emerging of those who wanted peace rather than endless confrontation. This included Egypt and the Gulf states.’

What did the treaty mean to different Middle Eastern nations?

The treaty itself was symbolically impressive – signed by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein of Jordan at a desert area of Wadi Araba on the Israeli-Jordanian border.

It was also attended by US President Bill Clinton and watched by 5,000 guests and relayed to the world on TV.

But many Palestinians, who made up 60% of Jordan’s population, were angered and shocked by the peace deal which they believe failed to address their grievances.

The treaty meant Israel and Jordan agreed to exchange territory and make the border conform to geographical landmarks.

It opened the way for co-operation in trade, tourism, transport links, water resources and environmental protection and secured Israel’s longest land border.

It was this feeling that Palestinians felt like they were not getting a good deal for themselves that Professor Gerges believes spurred on a future breakdown – spearheaded by Iran.

He said: ‘The collapse of the Arab state system with the exception of Egypt and Jordan from the Israel-Palestine conflict provided revolutionary Iran with an opportunity to champion the Palestinian cause.

‘By forsaking the Palestinians, the Arab states unwittingly allowed Iran to fill this power vacuum as well as support local resistance groups like Hezbollah and Hamas proxies that came to be known as the ‘axis of resistance’.

How did extremist groups react to the treaty?

While the Oslo Accords were agreed upon, groups were doing everything in their power to disrupt the peace process.

Just eight days before the Israel-Jordan peace treaty was agreed, Hamas was responsible for a suicide bomb in Tel Aviv which killed 22 people.

The group also accused President Clinton of double-standards and vowed to continue its campaign of violence ‘anywhere in the world’.

But it wasn’t just Hamas causing tension because Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli extremist in 1995 for signing the Oslo Accords.

What lessons can Middle Eastern countries learn from the treaty?

So what lessons can countries in the Middle East learn from this and what is the way forward for this region marred in conflict?

Professor Gerges said: ‘One of the big lessons for Israel is that without granting Palestinian self-determination and ending its occupation of Palestinian lands, its top-down relations with the Arab regimes won’t bring either security and peace.

‘A lasting peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict requires genuine reconciliation between the two direct antagonists.

‘Despite this formal peace treaty, Jordan remains deeply opposed to normalisation of relations with Israel. Thirty years after, there is cold peace, not warm embrace of Israel in either Jordan or Egypt.’

Sir Jenkins added that nations including Lebanon have become victim to the wider political violence that has engulfed the region.

He said: ‘Palestine isn’t the root cause of the region’s problems but it is the key to any sustained effort to resolve them. Israel had a chance to cement a settlement in the 1990s.

‘It’s not clear whether this could have been achieved even under Rabin: he wanted Palestinian self-determination that fell short of complete statehood, particularly on security matters. But it was the best chance we ever had.

‘That has only become more apparent in the 30 years since then – as Israeli opinion under the pressure of the second intifada, political violence and the rise of Hamas moved ever more rightwards.

‘Lebanon is a victim of all this, not least as the Palestinian issue gave Iran a chance to colonise the Lebanese state from within through Hezbollah.

‘Lebanon is now a hostage in the struggle between Iran and Israel.‘

Professor Gerges also noted how support for Hamas has skyrocketed in Jordan since the October 7 attacks – threatening to destabalise the nation. 

He added: ‘The way forward is very clear – peace and security for Israel and peace and security for the Palestinians.

‘That means ending Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and granting the Palestinians self-determination, which automatically undermines Iran’s ability to meddle in Palestinian affairs.’

.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.