Taher Al-Masry’s Memoirs: Jordanian-Palestinian Agreement Angered Hafez al-Assad

US President Ronald Reagan receives Al-Masry at the White House.
US President Ronald Reagan receives Al-Masry at the White House.
TT

Taher Al-Masry’s Memoirs: Jordanian-Palestinian Agreement Angered Hafez al-Assad

US President Ronald Reagan receives Al-Masry at the White House.
US President Ronald Reagan receives Al-Masry at the White House.

Asharq Al-Awsat publishes excerpts from the memoirs of former Jordanian Prime Minister Taher Al-Masry, for which he chose the title, “Al-Haqiqa Baydaa (The Truth is White), reveals information and events in Jordan’s political history since 1973 and his clash with those in power.

Taher Al-Masry, a Jordanian of Palestinian origin, was known for his adherence to a comprehensive national identity, and formed a bridge in the relationship between the two countries.

He was appointed minister in 1973, then an ambassador to major capitals, and he later assumed the position of minister of foreign affairs in the 1980s. He was elected deputy in parliament in 1989. Al-Masry was appointed prime minister in 1991 and parliament speaker in 1993. He assumed the presidency of the Senate in 2009.

Asharq Al-Awsat chose excerpts from his book, which presented a detailed account of the opportunity to rebuild the relationship between late King Hussein and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its leader Yasser Arafat in 1984.

He touched on the efforts to formulate a Jordanian-Palestinian agreement, with Arab support, that would pave the way for an international peace conference.

During that period, in which he was minister of foreign affairs, Al-Masry explains the historical framework of the agreement, and its failure for reasons related to differences within the organization. He talks about the Jordanian decision to dismantle the legal and administrative link with the West Bank after the Algiers summit in 1988, a move that Al-Masry opposed, warning against harming the unity between the two brotherly peoples.

Al-Masry recounts: “When Ahmed Obeidat was assigned to form the cabinet in January 1984, to succeed Mudar Badran’s government, King Hussein’s politically flexible and far-reaching vision was looking for opportunities to improve the country’s situation and prepare for the challenges posed by regional circumstances. […] I would like to point out here that the King’s vision is based on the fact that Jordan and Palestine are the countries that are more concerned with solving the Palestinian issue, and if harmony, coordination or agreement is achieved between them, it will facilitate the unification of an Arab position towards the negotiations.”

“At that time, the convening of the 17th Palestinian National Council conference in Amman was a first and preliminary step for what would happen next, and I think that Ahmed Obeidat did not value the importance of that picture. The exit of the PLO from Beirut in 1982 was of paramount importance to Jordan, especially with the ‘displacement’ of PLO leader Yasser Arafat among the Arab capitals. His instability generated bitterness for the Palestinian leadership, and affected the morale of the Palestinians. King Hussein saw the opportunity to save Yasser Arafat, who was in dire need of convening the Palestinian National Council in order to organize the affairs of the organization, and confirm its legitimacy and presence on the Palestinian political and national scene.”

Al-Masry said Arafat agreed without hesitation, which angered Syria. Hafez al-Assad tried to prevent the convening of the council by making threats and offering incentives.

Nonetheless, the conference was held in Amman from Nov. 22-29, 1984, in the presence of the Jordanian monarch at the opening session.

In parallel, Syria was rallying its ground forces on the northern Jordanian border, threatening military action against the country.

According to Al-Masry’s memoirs, King Hussein began to take new steps towards a Jordanian-Palestinian agreement, which he was convinced was the cornerstone for reaching the international conference. He relied on King Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al Saud’s project calling for the settlement of the Palestinian issue, which was announced during the second Fez Summit.

“King Hussein was keen on informing Saudi Arabia of his first steps regarding the agreement. Marwan al-Qasim was in charge of communicating with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal. […] King Hussein’s goal behind obtaining Saudi Arabia’s clear and public support for this agreement was to strengthen the Jordanian and Palestinian positions, and for King Fahd to persuade the administration of President Ronald Reagan of the new Jordanian strategy.

“After the convening of the Palestinian National Council and King Hussein’s success in this important step, the features of the Jordanian-Palestinian agreement began to crystallize, but involved several disagreements before reaching its final form. Arafat put his initials on it on Feb. 11, 1985, claiming that he wanted to seek the opinion of the Palestinian leadership. He left for Kuwait and did not return to Amman.”

According to Al-Masry, the text of the agreement, before its amendment, included five clauses:

1- Land for peace, as stated in United Nations resolutions, including Security Council resolutions;

2- The right of self-determination for the Palestinian people;

3- Solving the Palestinian refugee problem according to United Nations resolutions;

4- Solving the Palestinian issue in all its aspects;

5- On this basis, peace negotiations take place in the light of an international conference, attended by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and all parties to the conflict, including the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, within a joint (Jordanian-Palestinian) delegation.

“An agreement was reached on that day (Feb. 11, 1985) on the text and content, and Prince Saud Al-Faisal was contacted and informed of its details. […] News circulated about differences within the Palestinian leadership over some of the wording in the text. Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) supported the agreement, while Farouk Qaddoumi was against it. A few weeks after the signing ceremony, influential Palestinian leaders announced their rejection of the agreement.”

Consequently, Al-Masry said Arafat dispatched three people from the leadership: Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad), Mahmoud Abbas, and Abdul Razzaq Al-Yahya, to discuss the agreement with the Jordanias. As a result, two clauses were amended.

Al-Masry recalled how Syria strongly opposed and denounced the agreement. Damascus believed that it transferred the Palestinian “card” from Syria’s hands to Jordan’s, and that Amman wanted to “kidnap” the PLO to become supportive of its policies, to thus seek negotiations with the United States and Israel to permanently distance itself from Damascus, which could weaken Syria’s negotiating position.

On the international level, the Soviet Union was also opposed to this agreement. According to Al-Masry, Moscow believed that Jordan was exploiting the difficult Palestinian circumstances that followed the organization’s exit from Beirut in 1982 and its repercussions, “to encourage Yasser Arafat to transfer the rifle from the shoulder of the Soviet Union and the socialist system to the shoulder of the United States.”

Moscow’s analysis prompted it to declare war on the agreement. The battle erupted inside the PLO Executive Committee, which witnessed stormy quarrels between supporters and opponents. Fahd al-Qawasmi paid his life for that.

“King Hussein and the palace officials dealt with the PLO to reach the Jordanian-Palestinian arrangement, and at that time I was more involved in this file than Ahmed Obeidat, but I kept him informed of the developments, as I was the only participant from the Council of Ministers in the relevant discussions,” said Al-Masry.

“After the resignation of the Obeidat government, we completed our duty with the government of Zaid Al-Rifai in promoting the Jordanian-Palestinian understanding. We went with a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to Algeria, then Rome, Paris and London.”

The Jordanian diplomat continued: “I carried royal messages about the goals of the Jordanian-Palestinian agreement to the Arab Gulf states, and asked them to support it and understand its reasons, so I went to Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, southern and northern Yemen, and the UAE.”



Gaza War Resonates But Has Global Diplomacy Shifted One Year On?

Internally displaced Palestinians walk in a street in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, 25 September 2024. EPA/MOHAMMED SABER
Internally displaced Palestinians walk in a street in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, 25 September 2024. EPA/MOHAMMED SABER
TT

Gaza War Resonates But Has Global Diplomacy Shifted One Year On?

Internally displaced Palestinians walk in a street in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, 25 September 2024. EPA/MOHAMMED SABER
Internally displaced Palestinians walk in a street in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, 25 September 2024. EPA/MOHAMMED SABER

A year after the October 7 attack that sparked war in Gaza, diplomacy has failed to produce a ceasefire and the world watches on as the death toll mounts.
Fears of war engulfing the wider region have soared as exchanges of fire have escalated between Israel and Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.
Over the past year, South Africa has taken Israel to court and some European governments have drawn Israeli anger by recognizing the State of Palestine, but analysts say only a radical change in US policy can stop the conflict, AFP said.
Here is a breakdown:
How has the war resonated?
Palestinian militant group Hamas carried out an unprecedented attack against Israel on October 7, resulting in the deaths of 1,205 people on the Israeli side, most of them civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli official figures, which includes hostages killed in captivity.
Out of 251 people taken hostage that day, 97 are still being held inside Gaza, including 33 the Israeli military says are dead.
Israel's retaliatory military campaign in Gaza has killed more than 41,000 Palestinians, a majority of them civilians, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory.
To the north, Israeli air strikes killed at least 558 people in Lebanon on Monday in the country's deadliest day of violence since the 1975-1990 civil war, the health ministry said.
Around the world, the conflict has had a polarizing effect, generating passionate support for both sides.
"This war has considerably deepened fracture lines," said analyst Karim Bitar.
"What is happening today in Lebanon only compounds this."
For many people, especially in countries which experienced colonial rule, the West's perceived failure to defend the human rights of Palestinians had exposed its "hypocrisy", he said.
In the Arab world, "there is this idea that all great principles fly out the window when it comes to Israel and that the West remains consumed by guilt" from World War II and the Holocaust.
Palestinian historian and diplomat Elias Sanbar said that the West had given the Israelis a "carte-blanche of impunity" for decades, ever since the creation of Israel in 1948.
But today "it will be much harder to show unconditional support to Israel", he said.
Has international law prevailed?
South Africa in December brought a case before the International Court of Justice, arguing the war in Gaza breached the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, an accusation Israel has strongly denied.
Colombia, Libya, Spain, Mexico, Türkiye and Chile have since joined the case.
Analyst Rym Momtaz said the ICJ proceedings against Israel were "unprecedented".
"International law is taking over the issue," she said.
In May, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court sought arrest warrants against top Hamas leaders -- but also Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister -- on suspicion of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Since October 7, violence against Palestinians has also flared in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, where far-right parties in the governing coalition have championed a quickening expansion of Israeli settlements, regarded as illegal under international law.
At least 680 Palestinians have been killed in the territory by Israeli troops or settlers, according to the Palestinian health ministry.
UN member states have adopted a non-binding resolution to formally demand an end to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories within 12 months.
But Israeli historian and diplomat Elie Barnavi said his country "doesn't care" about what the so-called global South thinks.
Is European support for Israel waning?
Some European governments have taken a stance.
Slovenia, Spain, Ireland and Norway have recognized the State of Palestine, drawing retaliatory moves from Israel.
The European Union has implemented sanctions against "extremist" settlers, and EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has called for more against some far-right members of the Israeli government.
The United Kingdom has suspended 30 of 350 arms exports licenses for Israel.
Barnavi noted a "real shift in the attitude of Europeans towards Israel", but said it was "insufficient".
Zeenat Adam, of the Afro-Middle East Centre in South Africa, said the UK arms exports suspension was "minuscule".
"The recent 'recognition' by European states of Palestine is mere lip-service," she added.
In the end, said Sanbar, countries in Europe largely still supported Israel, even if "a sort of embarrassment" at times triggered statements of concern.
"It's simply not enough," he said.
What of the United States?
All eyes are instead on Israel's main ally the United States, which has pushed for a ceasefire but kept up its military aid to Israel.
"If the United States does not change their stance, there will be no change," said Momtaz.
"There has been no real fraying of US military support to Israel. Yet it's that support that is crucial and makes all the difference," she said.
The Israeli defense ministry said on Thursday it had secured a new $8.7 billion US aid package to support the country's ongoing military efforts, including upgrading air defense systems.
Momtaz said it was not clear that the US presidential election in November would change anything, regardless of whether the winner was Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.
"There has been no sign that a Trump or Harris administration would be ready to use US leverage, the only efficient means to help both parties stop this war," she said.
Bitar said that among US voters, the Jewish community and young progressive Democrats were more openly distancing themselves from Israel, but that might only have a political impact in 10 to 15 years' time.
No end in sight?
The Gaza war has revived talk of a so-called "two-state solution" of Israeli and Palestinian states living in peace side by side, but that goal seems today more unattainable than ever.
For too many years, the international community "promised a two-state solution without doing anything to end the occupation, to end settlements to make a Palestinian state viable," Bitar said.
"Many believe the train has left the station, that it's perhaps already too late," Bitar said.
Barnavi said there was "no other solution", though it would involve dismantling most settlements in the West Bank.
"It would imply a lot of violence, including a period of civil war in Israel," he said.
Sanbar said: "Never have the two sides been so distanced from each other. I don't know what could bring them closer."