Jordan and UK reaffirm strong ties during talks between politicians in Amman
During a meeting with a visiting British delegation from the Coalition for Global Prosperity's Future Leaders Programme, MP Dina Basheer, chairperson of Jordan's Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, described the relationship between the nations as historic and strategic, and emphasized the importance of continued collaboration, the Jordan News Agency reported.
The discussions focused in particular on regional developments, during which Basheer reaffirmed Jordan's firm support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the only path to long-term stability in the Middle East.
She called for an immediate end to the war in Gaza, and greater international efforts to ease the humanitarian suffering of civilians caught up in the conflict in the territory.
Basheer also highlighted the role King Abdullah of Jordan has played as an advocate for peace through his diplomatic engagement at both the regional and global levels. She stressed the importance of Hashemite custodianship over Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem as a cornerstone of Jordan's position on the future of the city. She also cited the continuing delivery of humanitarian assistance from Jordan to Gaza by land and air as a key element of its regional activities.
The British delegates praised Jordan's contributions to regional stability and commended the nation for hosting large numbers of Syrian refugees, despite ongoing domestic economic pressures, and for its its enduring humanitarian leadership. They also expressed their appreciation for the strength of its ties with the UK.
The Coalition for Global Prosperity's Future Leaders Programme is an initiative that aims to help prospective parliamentary candidates in the UK develop the knowledge and connections they need to effectively address foreign policy issues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
UK Foreign Office under pressure over unreleased Gaza genocide risk assessment
LONDON: The UK's Foreign Office is under growing pressure after it emerged it failed to publish a 2024 internal assessment that reportedly found no serious risk of genocide in Gaza, and refused to say whether a new assessment has since been carried out. Amnesty International filed a freedom of information request in June to obtain a copy the document and ask whether any reassessment has taken place amid the escalating violence in the territory. After receiving no response within the specified time frame for such requests, Amnesty lodged a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office, The Guardian reported on Friday. The government has come under fire for what critics describe as a contradictory stance, and calls for transparency are mounting. While ministers have insisted that only international courts can determine whether or not genocide is taking place, they told a domestic court, during a recent case brought by human rights group Al-Haq, that officials had reviewed the issue and found 'Israel's actions and statements did not create such a risk.' Extracts from the unpublished 2024 assessment were disclosed in court. One part stated: 'No evidence has been seen that Israel is deliberately targeting civilian women or children. There is also evidence of Israel making efforts to limit incidental harm to civilians.' Another said: 'There is no evidence of a high-level strategic decision, passed down through military chains of command, like that which was in evidence for the massacre and deportations at Srebrenica that were found in the Bosnian genocide case to constitute genocide (the ICJ's only finding of genocide to date),' referring to the International Court of Justice. The document reportedly concluded that Israel's conduct could be 'reasonably explained as a legitimate military campaign waged as part of an intensive armed conflict in a densely populated urban area,' and also cited the use of human shields by Hamas. However, Amnesty argued that parts of the assessment appear to be outdated, and said the government might have updated its conclusions without disclosing them. Kristyan Benedict of Amnesty said: 'The government's refusal to engage with us on this raises the suspicion that the government has made a further genocide assessment, and it is likely to be different from the 2024 claim that there was no serious risk of a genocide.' More than 60 MPs wrote to the Foreign Office in May urging it to publish any updated assessments regarding the risk of genocide in Gaza. The debate comes amid growing international concern about developments in the territory, with some legal experts and Israeli nongovernmental organizations accusing Israeli authorities of showing genocidal intent. On Friday, Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey described Israel's latest plan, to occupy Gaza City and displace tens of thousands of Palestinians, as 'ethnic cleansing.'
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Saudi deputy foreign minister receives Chinese ambassador
RIYADH: Saudi Arabia's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Waleed bin Abdulkarim Elkhereiji met with China's ambassador to the Kingdom, Chang Hua, in Riyadh on Thursday. Both parties reviewed Saudi-Chinese relations, explored ways to further strengthen and develop them in line with the aspirations of their respective countries, and discussed many topics of mutual interest.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Statehood offers a brighter future for Palestinians — and Israelis
Western countries' recognition of Palestinian statehood is like a London bus — you wait ages for one and then three come along at once. It still baffles me why this has taken 45 years since the now nearly forgotten Venice Declaration of 1980, in which the nine member states of the European Community, the forerunner of the EU, recognized the right of Palestinian self-determination, and then an horrific war during which, slowly and with hesitant steps, a number of member states have taken this step. The most recent change of heart has seen France, the UK, Malta, and Portugal, in addition to Canada, expressing their intention to recognize a Palestinian state. Historically, they are very much behind the curve, as by now 147 out of the 193 members of the UN have already recognized Palestinian statehood. But this is better late than never, especially as France, the UK, and Canada are the first G7 members to do so. In the case of the first two, they are also permanent members of the UN Security Council, leaving the US isolated in its rejection of such a move. This makes it more than just a symbolic gesture, but a significant message from major international powers, especially if it signals proactive involvement in advancing a peace process. The question that should be asked is not why more countries are currently recognizing Palestinians statehood, but why it has taken them so long, lagging behind the rest of the world? Long before the horrific events of the past 22 months, the process of bringing peace between Israelis and Palestinians based on a two-state solution was stuck, a complete and utter stalemate. Since the US Secretary of State John Kerry's peace initiative collapsed in 2014, almost every single development has been detrimental to ending the conflict, and it now needs a game-changer to prompt new thinking on how to restart negotiations that will conclude a deal on a two-state solution. Most of the world, including those who have not recognized a Palestinian state, agrees that the only viable solution to this never-ending conflict is of two states, Israel and Palestine, coexisting peacefully side by side. Since the Madrid process in 1991 and the Oslo Accords two years later, the working assumption was that recognition of a Palestinian state would be the outcome of successful peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians that were supposed to be completed after an interim period of five years. However, this has never materialized. Instead, in the intervening years, what has emerged, by design and by default, are conditions unfavorable to such an outcome, while those who oppose it have gained the upper hand, mainly by using coercion. The international community increasingly took a bystander's position regarding this conflict and, tragically, let it slide to where it is at this moment in time. Recognizing a Palestinian state now means reversing the order of, first, resolving all the outstanding issues between the two sides, including borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, security arrangements, and other bilateral and multilateral issues, and then international recognition of a Palestinian state. What was supposed to become an incentive to successfully conclude peace negotiations has become an obstacle. It has underlined the asymmetry in the power relations between Israel and the Palestinians, and their utter mutual distrust, leading to unrealistic expectations on both sides. On the Israeli side, sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously, too many decision-makers have not entirely come to terms with accepting a Palestinian state next door, whether for ideological or security reasons; on the Palestinian side, on the rare occasions that Israeli leaders have been ready to accept a Palestinian state, they have felt short-changed by the terms of the agreement, or have got cold feet. The question that should be asked is not why more countries are currently recognizing Palestinians statehood, but why it has taken them so long, lagging behind the rest of the world? Yossi Mekelberg International recognition of a Palestinian state is not the silver bullet for achieving the two-state solution, but it is an important step for the international community to reiterate that this is a conflict between two sovereign entities, albeit one still not fully formed, that have equal rights to self-determination, but also equal responsibility to bring to an end the conflict between them. It would have had more impact if the decision to recognize Palestinian statehood by France, UK, and Canada had been announced jointly. Nevertheless, events have still generated a certain momentum that could see more countries following them between now and the actual declaration of recognition due to take place at the General Assembly in New York in September. Additionally, declaring such a recognition from the podium of the General Assembly provides it with the highest level of legitimacy short of ultimate recognition by the Security Council, something that is still being blocked by Washington. However, the regrettable lack of enthusiasm for this move, or the fear of a US response, has somehow led the UK and Canada to diverge from France's approach of unconditionally recognizing Palestinian statehood. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that the UK will recognize a Palestinian state in September, unless Israel 'takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agrees to a ceasefire and commits to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution,' and this includes allowing the UN to restart the supply of aid, and making clear that there will be no annexations in the West Bank. It was obvious that Israel would not accept these conditions; however, it put a negative twist on the issue by presenting recognition as some sort of punishment of Israel, not as a positive and necessary decision to change the dynamic between the two antagonists. Canada's Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has said that his country's recognition depends on democratic reforms of the Palestinian Authority and on elections being held next year without Hamas. The timeline is somewhat problematic, as this can hardly be done in a meaningful manner in a matter of few weeks. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately rebuked the suggestion, as one would expect, and claimed that to recognize Palestine as a state was to reward Hamas and terrorism. This argument does not hold water, as the Arab League has also called for the disarming of Hamas. This is about empowering the moderates of both sides to work together for a brighter future for Israelis and Palestinians. Netanyahu would have responded in the very same way had this recognition taken place before Oct. 7, with his constant unsubstantiated whinging that any criticism of Israel or support for Palestinians' right to self-determination is anti-Israeli and antisemitic, and hence should not be taken seriously. However, recognition is not the 'be all and end all' for solving this conflict, but one important step toward peace in the Middle East which, if followed through with a concerted international commitment to initiate a meaningful peace with clear objectives and deadlines, might just change the course of the history of this conflict. • Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg
