According to a published report, the US would push the Israelis to halt construction of settlements in the Palestinian territories and recognise East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state. In turn, Palestinians will be asked to recognise the “Jewish state” and end claim on the right of return of refugees. All this under the umbrella of the two-state solution based on the 1949 armistice lines.  Moreover, the approach would recommend land swaps to account for Israeli settlements built since 1967.

The new, strongest, element in such attempt is the American wish to turn this plan to a UN resolution supported by all members of United Nations Security Council, which would outline the roadmap of a deal between Israelis and Palestinians. Many observers believe that Obama’s attempt aims at offering a blueprint for future Israeli-Palestinian talks to placate the critics of Obama’s two-term foreign policy. Other initiatives could include a presidential speech and a joint statement from the Middle East Quartet, an international group comprising the US, the UN, the EU and Russia. Politically, this step would pose a real risk if the new resolution comes to replace Resolution 242 and become the main reference for any peace negotiations without, as expected, enjoying popular consensus.

Moreover, giving up the right of return in such ambiguous way will lead to internal disputes in countries with most Palestinian refugees, like Lebanon and Jordan. However, both countries have been passing through a period of preparation for such scenario during the Syrian crisis, with both receiving huge numbers of Syrian refugees and obliged to deal with them as social components not refugees, so this logically would automatically solve the whole issue of the Palestinian refugees. A further risk consists in the recognition of a “Jewish state”, which, in the sectarian atmosphere that dominates the region, would officially inaugurate the new phase in this area based on religious and ethnic criteria.

The recognition of a “Jewish state” would make it impossible to face the strong wave of sectarianism that can be confronted only by the concept of a secular state. This proposal represents a real challenge for Jordan at all levels: demography, economy, security, identity and politics.  On the other hand, many points of this proposal make it impossible for anyone to negotiate on behalf of Jordanians and Palestinians, especially in regard to the refugees’ right of return. Obama’s attempt does not appear to be a practical path to a long-term solution, but to open the door wide to questions about the expected role of the countries that will be mostly affected, especially Jordan.