{"title":"The Land for Peace Message Between Israel and Jordan: The Case of Baqura and Ghamr","authors":"Glen Segell","doi":"10.1177/23477989231219310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Israel has reached historic agreements in its sought-after objective of recognition—each unique. There is a similarity between agreements between Israel and neighboring states. These agreements were with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994). In both these, land for peace was an element. That is a legalistic interpretation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 adopted on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Arab–Israeli War of 1967. There are two arguments on the land for peace concept. One is that there were more historical and significant reasons for peace than land. The other is that every millimeter of land is significant and not overlooked. Looking at both, this article examines the agreement with Jordan, focusing on two small farmland areas in the border areas referred to as Baqura and Ghamr in Arabic and Naharayim and Tzofar in Hebrew. The agreement was a land lease for 25 years (1994–2019). It could have been extended after that, yet Jordan called for its return, which Israel accepted. This is examined under four headings: Where did the land come from? The Israel–Jordan peace treaty; legal viewpoint; and private ownership versus state sovereignty. The take-out from such a message of land for peace examination is to bear the findings in mind for future agreements with Israel on how much land for peace, where, how, and why. The bottom line is that strong leadership and issues other than land may be more important in achieving a peace treaty, yet land for peace is a strong message.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23477989231219310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Israel has reached historic agreements in its sought-after objective of recognition—each unique. There is a similarity between agreements between Israel and neighboring states. These agreements were with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994). In both these, land for peace was an element. That is a legalistic interpretation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 adopted on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Arab–Israeli War of 1967. There are two arguments on the land for peace concept. One is that there were more historical and significant reasons for peace than land. The other is that every millimeter of land is significant and not overlooked. Looking at both, this article examines the agreement with Jordan, focusing on two small farmland areas in the border areas referred to as Baqura and Ghamr in Arabic and Naharayim and Tzofar in Hebrew. The agreement was a land lease for 25 years (1994–2019). It could have been extended after that, yet Jordan called for its return, which Israel accepted. This is examined under four headings: Where did the land come from? The Israel–Jordan peace treaty; legal viewpoint; and private ownership versus state sovereignty. The take-out from such a message of land for peace examination is to bear the findings in mind for future agreements with Israel on how much land for peace, where, how, and why. The bottom line is that strong leadership and issues other than land may be more important in achieving a peace treaty, yet land for peace is a strong message.