Guaranteeing the right of self-determination for Palestinians is crucial for breaking the deadlock in the Middle East, according to a prominent member of the Jordanian royal family who has long been involved in regional peace negotiations.

“In times of chaos, new opportunities arise,” Prince Hassan bin Talal, the former crown prince and younger brother of the late King Hussein, told The Asahi Shimbun in an exclusive interview in Tokyo. “Recognizing and seizing these opportunities requires wisdom and forward thinking.”

He said, “The point that we made very clearly and still make is that it is only the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people that should handle the future on the basis of justice.”

Jordan holds the key to stability in the Middle East, where chaos continues amid a cycle of violence.

The kingdom has granted citizenship to Palestinian refugees, who now account for more than 30 percent of its population. Amman has taken a pro-U.S. stance and has diplomatic relations with neighboring Israel.

Edited excerpts from the interview follow:

* * *

Question: Israel’s violence against Palestinian territories, including the Gaza Strip, has escalated to levels unprecedented in decades. Why?

Hassan bin Talal: The treatment of Palestinians since Oct. 7 last year reminds me of the word “necropolitics,” or politics of death. This is where people don’t matter. It is a recipe for (Israel) securing the wealth of the region.

If we’re all in the purpose of land grabbing, there is a weaker and a stronger party. Power will never make peace on its own.

There is not so much cutting a Gordian Knot. It is (Palestinians) accepting that we’ve had domicide, infanticide and, some people say, genocide.

Q: Donald Trump, who takes an extremely pro-Israeli stance, has been re-elected as U.S. president. What changes do you expect?

A: I would agree to the concept of decisive steps being taken to break the Middle East deadlock. I suspect that it is worth saying that in times of chaos, new opportunities arise.

Recognizing and seizing these opportunities requires wisdom and forward thinking.

The point that we made very clearly and still make is that it is only the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people that should handle the future on the basis of justice.

But there have been suggestions in Israel and the United States that Israel’s sovereignty should be extended to occupied territories. They are fundamentally different from views of people within the region.

We are traveling in a polarity of parallel narratives, which do not necessarily meet.

Q: Trump plans to appoint as ambassador to Israel someone who believes that the West Bank, a Palestinian territory, should be annexed by Israel. What would happen if the West Bank were annexed?

A: A majority of Palestinians there would get pushed into Lebanon. It would lead to a new war because people of different religious sects live in the country.

In Jordan, there are about 1.5 million Syrian refugees and about 300,000 Iraqi refugees (as a result of the Iraq War and a civil war in Syria).

Jordan is not a repository for population, but demography is unintentionally changing.

Q: Under the first Trump administration, the U.S.-mediated Abraham Accords of 2020 led to Israel establishing diplomatic relations with the other Gulf and Arab countries. What do you think about U.S. involvement in the Middle East?

A: There is a justification that these accords are in keeping with ending the war.

But (I believe) they are not ending the causes for the war and the conflict, not ending the occupation, but turning the region into some kind of an industrial, touristic magnet for the world (through exchanges between Israel and Arab countries).

Many U.S. bases were established in different parts of the world for an anti-communist purpose.

Today, everything is anti-Islamist. The United States spent trillions of dollars to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan but left the country after 20 years.

My question is why (the United States) is always fighting against somebody or something?

Q: What kind of future does the Middle East have?

A: There is a proposal to divide the area into three groups: cantons with Palestinian majority, cantons with Jewish majority and mixed cantons.

It is supported by a former prime minister and a former foreign minister who are against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

There was a similar proposal in 1948 (when Israel was founded).

The current Middle East is a result of fragmentation based on the Sykes-Picot Agreement (a secret agreement that Britain, France and Russia concluded in 1916 on a partition of the Ottoman Empire).

So-called sovereign countries today are born through the splintering, or balkanization.

In 1919 (a year after the end of World War I), there was no Palestine question, no Jewish question.

A regional realignment plan with ethnic cantons is based on plurality and respect for other parties.

Q: Is it a different vision from the 1993 Oslo Accords, in which Palestine and Israel sought to co-exist as two states through Norway’s mediation?

A: The region’s future needs to be discussed by people who have a conceptual grasp of what needs to be done.

The Oslo approach was not all wrong, but in the Oslo approach, they basically did not understand the differences over resources.

For example, water is so scarce in our region that it absolutely has to be agreed on the basis of robust data.

Q: You have advocated for the Greater Levant Union initiative. Is it an Arab version of the European Union?

A: The EU started with coal and steel (the European Coal and Steel Community). Why cannot the Arab region start with water and energy?

We need a multilateral approach whereby it is clear that this region is tired of war and demands stability.

A regional version of the U.N. Regional Economic and Social Council (which coordinates economic and social issues among member countries) is necessary.

To arrive at good governance, you need everybody and make their proposals to the international community, rather than the international community telling us what to do.

If you want to rationalize (U.S.) sales of weapons to Israel or the Gulf, cut back on those weapons.

What is needed today is to maintain security, whereby you invest in improving the quality of prosperity and life, or the right to live in these areas (like Gaza) that are facing devastating famine.

Q: Are you concerned about Israel using nuclear weapons?

A: I think I’m justified in fearing. If a warhead landing anywhere near us is carrying a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon, we are going to be destroyed, just as we’re talking here.

A commitment to mutually assured survival, instead of mutually assured destruction, is the beginning of any positive initiative that we would like to see in our region and in the world.

Q: It has been pointed out that if Iran goes nuclear, other Middle East countries may also equip themselves with nuclear arms. Have you ever considered a nuclear option?

A: Definitely not in Jordan. We have a nuclear program for peaceful purposes, for electrification.

If a proliferation of nuclear armament occurs in the Middle East, it will be a sure recipe for “dirty bombs” for terrorism. Someone has to put a cap on this at some stage.

Q: Jordan’s royal family is directly descended from the Prophet Muhammad. In the West, Islam is mistakenly associated with terrorism, violence and instability. What is your view?

A: Traders from the Arabian Peninsula passed through the Strait of Malacca, part of the Maritime Silk Road (in Southeast Asia). Malacca means an encounter.

Muslims traveled to East Asia not in a black ship (which forced Japan to open to foreign countries), but for commerce and trade.

The golden rule, whether it is Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Muslim, says the same thing: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

If you believe that religion should not be politicized, weaponized or militarized, it is benevolent, outgoing and philanthropic.

In Islam, the concept of peace is directed both within the (Muslim) community of Ummah and toward the rest of humanity.

POST-INTERVIEW COMMENTARY

Jordan is a constitutional monarchy, but the royal family is directly involved in diplomacy and national security.

Prince Hassan has been involved in the Middle East peace process for many years as the crown prince and prince.

How does the “witness to history” see the current situation and future of the Middle East on the eve of Trump’s return to the White House?

In the interview, he said new opportunities arise in times of chaos. It is difficult to understand this statement without taking a look at the turbulent history of the Middle East.

The Oslo Accords, which aim to establish a Palestinian state, were signed after Iraq and Israel came close to a full-scale war during the Gulf War.

With that agreement effectively crumbling, Prince Hassan apparently suggested that it is time to seek a new framework for coexistence with the remaining peacemakers in Israel.

Both Netanyahu, Israel’s hard-line prime minister, and Trump, who supports him, will eventually leave the political arena.

What is the “wisdom and forward thinking” Prince Hassan said are required in doing so?

He also referred to the right of self-determination of people in the region, multilateralism to avoid intervention of major powers and the need to avoid nuclear dominoes.

None of these can be achieved overnight. But regional stability cannot be achieved without a fundamental solution to the conflict.

Prince Hassan also said, “We need a ‘United Peoples,’ not only the United Nations.”

The concept is similar to “human security,” which was advocated by Sadako Ogata, former U.N. high commissioner for refugees, who was close to him.

Japan has strengthened its relations with Israel, a pro-U.S. country, while relying on oil from Arab nations.

How Tokyo will relate to the region is being questioned once again.