Diplomacy must not endanger Jordan’s stability

When US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee suggested in an interview last week that it would be “fine” if Israel were to take all the land apparently promised to it in the Bible, the remark did not merely echo across the broader Middle East. It carried particular resonance — and risk — for Jordan.

Jordan is not a distant observer of territorial rhetoric. It is a front-line state whose stability is directly linked to the future of the West Bank and the wider Palestinian question. Any suggestion that expansive territorial claims could be legitimized strikes at the core of Jordan’s national security architecture.

Amman’s custodianship over Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem is not symbolic diplomacy, it is a foundational pillar of Jordan’s regional role and domestic legitimacy. The Hashemite kingdom’s historical and legal responsibilities in Jerusalem, affirmed in its peace treaty with Israel, are intertwined with its internal stability. When senior foreign officials appear to endorse maximalist territorial narratives, especially those framed in scriptural geography, it places immediate pressure on Jordan’s delicate balancing act.

Jordan’s demographic reality intensifies this sensitivity. A significant portion of its population is of Palestinian origin. Any perception that the West Bank’s status could be fundamentally altered — through annexation or the erosion of prospects for a political settlement — inevitably reverberates inside Jordan. Public sentiment hardens. Political discourse sharpens. The social equilibrium that Jordan has carefully maintained becomes more fragile.

Any perception that the West Bank’s status could be fundamentally altered inevitably reverberates inside Jordan

Hani Hazaimeh

This is not abstract geopolitics. The collapse of a viable political horizon for Palestinians raises long-standing fears within Jordan about displacement pressures and the specter — however unfounded officially — of alternative homeland narratives. Even rhetorical gestures that appear to normalize expansive territorial acquisition can inflame these anxieties. For a country that has repeatedly absorbed regional shocks — from Iraq, Syria and beyond — strategic ambiguity on West Bank sovereignty is not theoretical. It is destabilizing.

Jordan’s leadership has consistently positioned itself as a stabilizing force, advocating a negotiated two-state solution grounded in international law. That position is not ideological, it is existential. The preservation of recognized borders and a political process is essential to safeguarding Jordan’s internal cohesion and external security environment.

When an ambassador speaks, he does so as an accredited representative of his government. In a volatile region, that matters. Words that appear to legitimize unilateral expansion, even if later described as hyperbole, narrow diplomatic space and complicate the efforts of partners like Jordan that rely on clarity and restraint from major powers.

The timing compounds the risk. The war in Gaza has already intensified public anger across Arab societies. In Jordan, demonstrations have reflected deep frustration over civilian suffering and stalled diplomacy. In such an atmosphere, rhetorical signals that seem to validate maximalist territorial visions are not parsed academically. They are absorbed emotionally and politically.

Order is sustained not only through treaties and military balances, but through language that reinforces predictability

Hani Hazaimeh

Jordan’s stability has long been a cornerstone of regional order. It hosts millions of refugees, maintains critical security coordination and serves as a buffer against wider escalation. Undermining confidence in the durability of the West Bank’s political framework indirectly undermines Jordan’s security calculus. Stability in Amman is inseparable from stability in the Occupied Territories.

Diplomatic discourse in this context must be measured with exceptional precision. The Middle East does not suffer from a shortage of incendiary narratives. What it requires is the disciplined reaffirmation of sovereignty, negotiated settlement and respect for established legal frameworks. Any deviation — particularly from influential external actors — can recalibrate regional perceptions in ways that place disproportionate strain on states like Jordan.

International order is sustained not only through treaties and military balances, but through language that reinforces predictability. For Jordan, predictability regarding the status of the West Bank and Jerusalem is a strategic necessity. When that predictability is called into question, even rhetorically, the ripple effects extend well beyond diplomatic headlines.

Jordan has invested decades in preserving internal cohesion while navigating external turbulence. It cannot afford rhetorical shocks that embolden territorial maximalism or blur the line between theological narrative and modern state sovereignty.

At a moment when the region is already confronting war, humanitarian crisis and political polarization, responsible diplomacy must prioritize the security of front-line states. For Jordan, stability is not an abstract ideal. It is the foundation on which regional equilibrium rests. Words that unsettle that foundation — however casually delivered — carry consequences far beyond the interview studio.

• Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh