The Limited View from the Amman Summit
INSS Insight No. 630, November 16, 2014
Oded Eran .
http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=8079

SUMMARY: The hastily-arranged summit in Amman on November 13, 2014 produced
the desired – albeit short term – benefits. King Abdullah appeared to be a
voice of responsibility and moderation in an otherwise tense, hostile, and
volatile region. He reemphasized his role as custodian of the Islamic holy
sites in Jerusalem, a reliable partner of the United States, and a key ally
in the battle against ISIS. However, the results of the summit should be
seen as tenuous and temporary. Lip service was paid to efforts to resume a
peace process, and attempts to deal with a single issue such as the Temple
Mount in the absence of a broader framework may prove insufficient. The
summit was therefore a noble effort to calm the situation on a very limited
issue, and Prime Minister Netanyahu may not have had much choice in deciding
whether to attend. Nonetheless, there is still a need to look at the clouds
gathering over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The hastily-arranged summit in Amman on November 13, 2014 may have given the
participants some instant gratification. In the long run, however, it will
join the long list of similar summits in Aqaba, Jordan, Sharm al-Sheikh,
Egypt, Washington, DC, and elsewhere that ended with no lasting impact.

The host, King Abdullah II of Jordan, needed the summit to continue the
pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu to take steps to reduce the tensions in
Jerusalem, particularly in the Temple Mount / Haram a-Sharif area. Jordan
had already recalled its ambassador from Israel, and King Abdullah himself
issued some unusually harsh statements. The summit produced the desired –
albeit short term – benefits. The King appeared to be a voice of
responsibility and moderation in an otherwise tense, hostile, and volatile
region. He reemphasized his role as custodian of the Islamic holy sites in
Jerusalem, a reliable partner of the United States, and a key ally in the
battle against ISIS. The guest of honor at the summit, Secretary of State
Kerry, used the event to regain the perception of his country's role as
actively engaged in the three major issues of the current Middle East: the
battle against ISIS, the negotiations with Iran on the future of its nuclear
program, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The participants who were not
present, Palestinian President Abbas (who met Kerry in Amman before the
summit) and Egyptian President el-Sisi (who was reached by phone during the
summit) scored small, trivial gains in their efforts to wrestle with
domestic problems and political rivals. Abbas agreed to "reduce the
rhetoric" (as Secretary Kerry said in his press conference immediately
following the summit), and el-Sisi said he was prepared "to do whatever I
can in order to advance the cause of peace between Israelis and
Palestinians." Neither case suggests a major or concrete concession or
commitment.

The third guest present at the trilateral summit, Prime Minister Netanyahu,
was “left to pay the bill.” In their joint press conference after the
summit, Kerry and his Jordanian counterpart, Nasser Judeh, repeatedly
referred to "firm commitments," "constructive steps," and "specific and
practical actions" that all parties involved were willing to make. It is
clear, though, that the onus was and will be put on Israel. Kerry and Judeh
refused to stipulate what measures were expected, but presumably they
included permission for all Arabs to pray at Haram a-Sharif (and not limit
the visitors to specific age groups) and prevention of politically oriented
actions by certain Israelis such as visits covered by the press. For
Netanyahu, repeating the statement in Amman he had made earlier that Israel
is committed to maintain the status quo on the Temple Mount may prove to be
the easier commitment. Ordering the Israeli police to block the access to
Israeli politicians, some from his own party, to the Temple Mount maybe
prove more difficult and politically costly, especially with the buzz about
earlier than scheduled general elections in Israel.

The declared purpose of the summit was to deescalate the situation on the
Temple Mount, but did Prime Minister Netanyahu make any commitment to build
housing units in suburbs of Jerusalem? If so, then clearly his political
troubles at home will increase. And even if he did not make such a
commitment, any new Israeli action in this respect will incite the other
parties and prompt accusations that Israel is undermining the efforts to
restore calm on the Temple Mount.

The understandings of the Amman summit are also problematic from Israel’s
point of view because it is not clear, for example, whether the Palestinian
efforts to gain a Security Council resolution will continue – and if a
reference to East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state
will be incorporated in the draft and final text, if adopted.

Not clear in this respect is what role Jordan will assume as a member of the
Security Council. Furthermore, it is not clear how the US will respond to
the various versions of a draft resolution submitted to the Security
Council. Thus, Netanyahu may emerge as the only one asked to take concrete
steps while all the other participants at the summit, present or not, exited
with vague and immeasurable commitments only. The fact that he was received
in an Arab capital and spoke to the King of Jordan, the President of Egypt,
and the US Secretary of State on the other major problems of the region will
buy him very few points in his political campaigns expected at home.

The results of the summit in Amman should therefore be seen as tenuous and
temporary. Any group of Palestinians or Israeli Arabs can easily provoke a
situation that will nullify these results. Lip service was paid in Amman to
efforts to resume a peace process, and attempts to deal with a single issue
such as the Temple Mount, sensitive as it is, in the absence of a broader
framework may prove insufficient. The summit was therefore a noble effort to
calm the situation on a very limited issue and Prime Minister Netanyahu may
not have had much choice in deciding whether to attend, but there is still a
need to look at the clouds gathering over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.