Dr. Alan Baker, who co-authored the peace agreement, states that the threat of the Hashemite kingdom is legally invalid and unreasonable in practice. Aggression against its sovereignty "

• Jordan's King Abdullah with Netanyahu and Abu Mazen // Photo: AFP

The Kingdom of Jordan has no legal capacity to cancel the peace agreement unless it goes to war with Israel. So says Dr. Alan Baker, who co-authored the agreement as Attorney General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  

"The peace relations between the two countries are set out in Article 2 of the peace treaty and include mutual recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of either party. A peace treaty has no expiry date and cannot be revoked except by an act of aggression or declaration of war by one of the parties, Cancellation of the very essence of the agreement. " 

According to Baker, who is among foreign ministry officials and served, among other things, as Israel's ambassador to Canada, "it is highly doubtful that Jordan has any interest in taking such a step, especially in light of the fact that an Israeli unilateral measure of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria does not constitute an act of aggression against its sovereignty or territorial integrity." . Furthermore, since Jordan ruled Judea and Samaria in 1948-1967, the peace agreement explicitly states that it does not apply in these areas. "The Parties, in Article 3 of the peace treaty, have removed the status of the territories of Judea from the same provisions dealing with the delineation of the territorial border between the two countries. Therefore, Jordan cannot claim that applying sovereignty to Israel in the Judea and Samaria will be a breach of the peace contract and a cause for its repeal. 

In the political aspect, Baker adds that Jordan has a lot to lose from canceling the agreement and in fact it is a step of real self-harm. "Other components of peace relations are, in fact, central and essential interests of Jordan, such as water distribution arrangements, economic-commercial relations, Jordan's special and historic role in holy places to Jerusalem, freedom of navigation and access to Israeli ports, freedom of flight over Israeli territory to reach points in Europe "Eliminating these components would harm Jordan's vital interests and could undermine its stability," the position paper states. Baker, who is currently a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Center, emphasizes that the agreement also establishes a mechanism before him "the parties are obliged to settle disputes in relation to the implementation or interpretation of the contract, through negotiation, settlement or arbitration."

In the meantime, a source close to the Jordanian royal court says the king's statements about "clash with Israel" were primarily intended to please the Jordanian public opinion, which is mostly Palestinian. According to the Jordanian body involved in the two-state relationship, the Jordanian army is satisfied with the long-standing cooperation with the IDF on the joint border and in no way would he like to see on the border with Palestinian forces. He added that the Jordanian government knows that the Palestinians cannot be trusted and that they are blessed with moves that will strengthen Israel, at the expense of the PA, but neither he nor others in Jordan can publicly express their views for fear of reactions from extremists or the authorities. "To say such things is to cross a red line that may end in prison."

The Jordanian added that as long as Israel is opposed to the sovereignty move, then he and his colleagues, "can not be more Israelis than the Israelis themselves. If Israeli officials speak out against Trump's vision and steps, and even meet with the king and explain to him that Israel is not behaving correctly - what do you expect the king Say "?!.