Following a visit by Defence Minister Yisrael Katz to the Jordan Valley in early March, Israel announced its renewed intention to construct a wall stretching 425 kilometres with Jordan.

Israel claims that the barrier, estimated to cost $1.5 billion, will prevent smuggling, infiltration, and Iranian “intervention” and “terrorism.” 

To consolidate control over the area, Katz stated that Israel would also build settlements along the wall. The move has provoked angry responses from Jordanian officials, who see it as an assault on their country’s sovereignty.

Jordan’s Foreign Minister, Ayman Safadi, described the Israeli claims of terrorism and infiltration as “fabricated lies” to cover up Israel's aggression on Gaza and violation of international law.

Analysts see a deliberate Israeli ploy to portray Jordan as the villain.

“Israel deliberately portrays the border with Jordan as a permanent security threat,” Areej Jaber, Palestinian affairs specialist, tells TRT World.

Accusations of weapons smuggling and alleged Iranian infiltration, she says, are pretexts for an organised campaign to depict Jordan as unstable and “compromised.” 

According to Jaber, this narrative allows Tel Aviv to marginalise Jordan’s role in Jerusalem and politically encircle it, preventing any meaningful involvement in the Palestinian issue. 

The idea of building a barrier along the Jordanian border dates back more than two decades, but it lay dormant until Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revived it in 2018, claiming the wall would prevent “infiltration of refugees from Africa” and stressing that sealing the eastern frontier was necessary “to preserve the Jewish character of the state.”

In November 2024, the Israeli government announced the start of preliminary work, including environmental surveys and the installation of surveillance systems along the border.

Renewed aggression for total control?

The recent announcement comes amid an intensifying crackdown across the occupied West Bank. 

Launched in January, Israel’s Operation Iron Wall has targeted Palestinian communities throughout the territories, devastating refugee camps in the north of the West Bank. 

Last September, a gunman from Jordan killed three Israeli civilians at the Allenby Bridge—also known as the King Hussein Bridge—on the border crossing in the occupied West Bank. 

The attack reignited calls for a “security fence” as part of a broader plan to annex the West Bank and the Jordan Valley, transforming what many consider a temporary occupation into a permanent reality, according to a report by the Vision Center for Political Development. 

Geopolitical analysts argue that the project seeks to undermine the two-state solution, and redraw the region’s political geography by isolating the occupied West Bank. They say it imposes irreversible facts on the ground, even threatening the 1994 Jordan-Israel peace agreement.

“The Israeli occupation describes the border fence with Jordan as ‘fragile’ in order to replace it with a concrete wall like the one along its border with Egypt,” says Jaber. This doctrine, she explains, stems from a Zionist ideology of absolute fortification, which is intended to shield the occupying power from the “cold peace” with Jordan. The approach, she states, contrasts with its warmer ties to the Gulf states.

Israel's future borders would extend beyond Jordan River — minister

Far-right Bezalel Smotrich claims Jerusalem would eventually extend to Damascus in Syria, in line with 'Greater Israel' ideology.

🔗

“It’s an attempt to redraw political borders, transforming them from

‘Jordanian-Palestinian’ to ‘Israeli-Jordanian,’ to undermine any vision for a Palestinian state,” Jaber adds. 

With global attention focused on Gaza, Israel is imposing a fait accompli, she says, warning that 2025 could be the year Tel Aviv formally annexes the Jordan Valley and asserts total control over the occupied West Bank, entrenching a long-term colonial reality. 

However, political analyst Amer Al-Sabayleh offers a different perspective. He does not necessarily interpret the wall as “an escalation” with Jordan, noting that the stated motivations are not overtly hostile. “Israel says this is a security measure,” he tells TRT World. 

“Israel wants to secure its borders, prevent infiltration, and weapons smuggling, all of which are also issues Jordan is confronting,” he says. “Why then should Jordan oppose the wall if it’s for security, not hostility?” Al-Sabayleh adds. 

Against Palestinian contiguity

Military and political analyst Saleh Al-Sharrab Al-Abadi offers a different interpretation.

“The Israeli wall is not just a security measure,” he tells TRT World. “It is a strategic project to separate the West Bank geographically and politically, killing the idea of a contiguous Palestinian state and preparing the ground for the displacement of Palestinians through spatial restriction.”

Such isolation, he says, will sever economic and social ties between the West Bank and Jordan, enhancing Israeli control by imposing a new settlement reality.

According to Al-Abadi the barrier would cut Palestinians off from Jordan, which he describes as their last breathing space and first line of defence. 

“This could develop into an overt forced displacement of Palestinians tantamount to a declaration of war on Jordan,” he says, criticising the “regional and international silence” surrounding the project. 

“The wall is a form of racism and puts an end to Jordan’s historical role protecting Palestinian rights,” he adds. 

Socially, the open border between Jordan and the West Bank enables Palestinians to access essential services such as education and healthcare in Jordan. The access has been vital due to the fragmentation and restrictions of the occupation in the Palestinian territories.  

Politically, Jordan functions as a stabilising force and a land bridge in the region. Cooperative border management has historically enhanced mutual security and trust between neighbouring states. Academic research suggests that regional peace is more likely when borders are managed collaboratively, rather than through unilateral restrictions.

According to a 2024 United Nations report, an open border between Jordan and the West Bank is essential for economic development, social wellbeing, and regional stability.

Ramifications on the peace treaty

The 1994 Jordan-Israel Peace Agreement formally ended hostilities and recognised Jordan’s special custodial role in the Muslim holy sites of Jerusalem. Crucially, the treaty was predicated on the assumption of a two-state solution, aligning with the framework established in the 1993 Oslo Accords. 

Jordan saw the agreement as a mechanism to advance Palestinian statehood and counter Israeli narratives that “Jordan is Palestine”, an existential threat to Jordan’s national identity and security. 

“The Jordanian-Israeli peace agreement only exists in name, so that Jordan could maintain its role in reaching a resolution for Palestine,” says Jaber. “The relationship between Jordan and the Israeli occupation is at its lowest point,” says Jaber. 

 She adds that repeated Israeli violations—especially the wall—have led the Jordanian Parliament to reconsider the treaty, since any perceived encroachment on Jordanian territory could be interpreted as a declaration of war. 

The recent developments, including Israel’s open opposition to Palestinian statehood, have strained the treaty. Despite this, Jordan remains committed, viewing the agreement as key to regional stability and the Palestinian cause. 

“Building such a wall constitutes a direct breach of the agreement,” adds Al-Abadi, noting that the treaty does not allow for the construction of a physical barrier between the two countries, but rather calls for securing borders with patrols. 

He warns that the wall could be used to shift the demarcation lines, as happened in the West Bank, thereby weakening Jordanian leverage and threatening the Hashemite custodianship over Jerusalem’s Islamic holy sites. 

“This is a direct threat to regional security and Jordanian sovereignty,” he says. He emphasises the need for swift political and legal action, including engaging the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, forging a unified Jordanian-Palestinian front, and applying coordinated media and diplomatic pressure at both regional and international levels. 

“Jordan must preserve its sovereignty and stop Israel from imposing new facts on the ground,” Al-Abadi says. “We must mobilise powerful members of the Security Council to confront this project.”

This piece was published in collaboration with Egab.