Conference Summaries
/ Israel and Jordan
Farah Bdour on the Endurance of the Jordan–Israel Peace and the Future of the Region
In the lead-up to Mitvim’s annual conference, held on November 13, 2025, Farah Bdour—a Jordanian expert on foreign policy and Israel–Jordan relations—offered a wide-ranging reflection on Israel’s place in a rapidly changing regional landscape.
Her remarks focused on two interconnected themes: the enduring resilience of the Jordan–Israel peace treaty, and a growing strategic divergence between Israel’s security-driven approach and the diplomacy-centered strategy of Arab and Gulf states.
Beyond the Myth of a “Cold Peace”
Bdour opened by challenging one of the most persistent clichés in discussions of Israel–Jordan relations: the notion of a “cold peace.” Thirty-one years after the signing of the peace treaty, she argued, its survival alone refutes the idea that it was imposed from above or sustained without genuine shared interests.
“This is not a peace defined by temperature,” Bdour contended, but rather by endurance. Tested repeatedly by regional upheavals and domestic pressures on both
sides, the treaty remains anchored in strategic clarity. It continues to serve the vital interests of both states—something made especially evident over the past two
turbulent years.
She framed the treaty alongside another formative moment: the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Together, she suggested, these two events form twin pillars of a shared narrative—one born of courage, the other of loss—both rooted in a universal human desire for security and prosperity.
Despite rising polarization and louder voices of rejection on both sides, Bdour identified signs of resilience and hope. In Israel, she pointed to the renewed mass commemorations of Rabin’s assassination, marked by a notable presence of young Israelis rediscovering the complexity of his legacy. In Jordan, she emphasized the role of a “silent majority” that continues to view peace not as a symbolic relic, but as a pragmatic safeguard of Jordan’s national interests.
Still, she cautioned against complacency. The treaty’s future, Bdour stressed, depends on political courage and on the willingness of both societies to protect what was bravely initiated more than three decades ago.
A Regional Paradox: Security Versus Diplomacy
Turning to the broader Middle East, Bdour described a stark paradox: the region holds enormous potential for a new strategic order, yet is simultaneously pulled toward fragmentation by competing power logics.
At the heart of this tension, she argued, lie two distinct centers of gravity. Israel is shaping the emerging security landscape, while Arab and Gulf states are defining the region’s diplomatic trajectory. Whether these two spheres converge or collide will largely determine whether the Middle East moves toward integration or more
profound instability.
Since October 7, Bdour observed, Israel’s regional actions—from Lebanon to Iran—have reflected a doctrine she termed “coercive sequencing”: neutralizing threats, decapitating leadership networks, and imposing new red lines through force.
This approach, she argued, is not merely tactical but deeply psychological—shaped by trauma and rooted in the conviction that Israel must never depend on external partners for its security.
April 12: Coordination—and Its Limits
Recent events, however, exposed both the reach and the fragility of this worldview. The Iranian missile and drone attack of April 12 was successfully intercepted by a Middle East air defense network coordinated under U.S. Central Command. Bdour described this response as unprecedented—a prototype of a “Middle Eastern NATO” demonstrating that collective defense is not only possible, but highly effective when threats are shared.
Yet the success also revealed a deeper reality: Israel’s air defenses would likely have been overwhelmed without Arab airspace cooperation and U.S. ammunition supplies.
Dependence, she argued, was not erased by strength—it was merely exposed. The subsequent Israeli strike in Doha, Bdour warned, ruptured the fragile trust and momentum generated by that moment of collective security. What could have marked a turning point toward sustained coordination instead became a collapse of
confidence.
The Gulf States as the Diplomatic Center of Gravity
While Israel has shaped the security map, Bdour noted, Gulf states have increasingly become the region’s diplomatic anchor. Their strategy prioritizes stability, economic diversification, and insulation from regional conflict.
In the aftermath of the Gaza war, Gulf diplomacy was re-centered around legitimacy. States revived the Arab Peace Initiative, re-linked normalization with Israel to
Palestinian statehood, and positioned themselves as indispensable partners in any future reconstruction process.
At the same time, Bdour emphasized a central fear driving Gulf calculations: entrapment. There is deep concern that Israel’s unilateral, kinetic strategy could ignite broader conflicts—endangering populations, economies, and even state survival. This fear places Gulf diplomacy on a collision course with Israel’s militarized
unilateralism.
A Narrow Window for Convergence
Despite these tensions, Bdour concluded on a cautiously hopeful note. Iran’s weakened proxy network, she argued, has created a rare opportunity for a new regional security compact—one capable of constraining not only Iran, but also non-state actors such as al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Such an order, however, would require integrating defense coordination with diplomatic frameworks. The greatest danger, Bdour warned, is structural: security and diplomacy remain evolving in isolation, even as Iran and its allies seek to rebuild their capabilities.
If this divergence hardens into rivalry—if unilateral Israeli actions continue to undermine Arab diplomatic efforts—the region risks becoming fragmented, heavily armed, and deeply mistrustful. Ironically, such an outcome would ultimately serve Iran and its proxies.
Convergence, however, remains possible. If Israel tempers its doctrine of coercion, and if Gulf states embed diplomacy within a framework of shared defense, Bdour argued, the Middle East could shift decisively—from reactive defense to proactive stability.
The session concluded with a shared hope that future regional engagement will unfold under political conditions that reflect a genuine commitment to cooperation, shared security, and long-term prosperity.
