Many observers have objected to the Abraham Accords that were signed between Israel and various Arab states, each for their own reasons. I myself staunchly oppose these agreements because they were signed in a context of severe national setbacks. Some states signed them for little reason other than to please the hegemonic American power, which insists on integrating Israel into the Arab world through oppression and exploitation.

In this context, there is little point in researching and scrutinizing the deals’ benefits—if indeed they exist—or their many disadvantages. Instead, this study examines the Wadi Araba Treaty signed by Israel and Jordan on October 26, 1994. This was an international treaty that went through standard constitutional channels and was ratified by the passing of laws in both Jordan and Israel. It led to an exchange of ambassadors on December 11, 1994, and a copy of the agreement was provided to the secretary-general of the United Nations for registration, in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations. This gave the agreement legal status as a binding international treaty, meaning that any breach of its major obligations would entail international repercussions for the violating party.

The treaty is a recognition of the “Status Quo,” and accordingly, this discussion of the treaty’s provisions takes place without forgetting that East Jerusalem is considered an occupied territory in practice and under international law. Several international resolutions confirm this description, notably the ruling of the International Court of Justice in 2004, which considers it “occupied territory” where neither side may alter its status quo.

Before examining the provisions of the Wadi Araba Treaty, it is worth recalling former Jordanian King Hussein bin Talal’s speech on July 31, 1988, in which he announced the disengagement between the eastern and western banks of the Jordan River. Shortly afterwards, the Jordanian government issued “instructions” bringing this decision into effect, yet these were never published in Jordan’s official gazette or in any daily newspaper. To this day, the king’s speech remains a mere royal speech, and was never turned into law. Nor did the “instructions” take on any legal status. Still, mention of the speech is essential for the discussion that follows.