On August 19, 2025, Amman became the stage for significant diplomatic engagement as Jordan’s King Abdullah II welcomed Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, reaffirming Jordan’s unwavering support for Lebanon’s security and sovereignty. The meeting, attended by Crown Prince Al Hussein bin Abdullah II and Jordanian Prime Minister Jafar Hassan, underscored the urgency of regional cooperation and the deepening crisis in the Middle East, especially as violence and humanitarian suffering continue to escalate in Gaza and the West Bank.
According to the Jordanian news agency Petra, King Abdullah II did not mince words in emphasizing Jordan’s readiness to expand cooperation with Lebanon across all sectors, with a particular focus on economic collaboration. The King called for sustained coordination among Arab countries to foster regional stability—a theme that has only grown more urgent in light of recent events.
Jordan’s support for its neighbors extended beyond Lebanon. King Abdullah II highlighted that Syria’s security and stability remain a shared priority for the region. He expressed strong backing for Syrian efforts to preserve sovereignty and ensure the safety of its citizens, a stance that reflects the intricate web of alliances and interests shaping Middle Eastern politics.
Yet, it was the ongoing war in Gaza that dominated much of the discussion. King Abdullah II reiterated his call for an immediate ceasefire and for increased humanitarian aid to alleviate what he described as a “catastrophe” in the Gaza Strip. His position was unequivocal: Jordan fully rejects Israeli plans to expand control in the West Bank and the region at large. The King’s words echoed the mounting frustration and concern felt across the Arab world as the humanitarian crisis deepens and prospects for peace appear increasingly remote.
Later that day, Prime Minister Salam and his Jordanian counterpart, Jafar Hassan, announced the convening of the Jordanian-Lebanese Joint Higher Committee later this year. The committee, they revealed, will prioritize cooperation in trade, transportation, and energy—sectors vital to both countries’ economic resilience amid ongoing instability. The decision signaled a renewed commitment to practical, mutually beneficial engagement, even as the shadow of conflict looms large.
But the diplomatic overtures were accompanied by sharp criticism of Israeli policies. Responding directly to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vocal support for the vision of a “Greater Israel,” Hassan offered a pointed rebuttal. “The reality does not reflect the illusion of a so-called Greater Israel, but rather an outcast, isolated Israel besieged regionally and internationally as a result of its policies of brutality and extremism,” Hassan stated, as reported by Petra. His remarks captured the growing sentiment among Arab leaders that Israel’s current trajectory is deepening its isolation and fueling regional instability.
Hassan went further, warning against proposals and visions aimed at perpetuating the war indefinitely—proposals he likened to the “delusions” of a Greater Israel promoted by extremist politicians. He underscored that such policies only serve to fuel hatred and perpetuate violence, declaring, “The peoples of the region and the world will not forgive the massacres taking place.”
Jordan’s condemnation of Israeli actions was not limited to rhetoric. Hassan called for a full implementation of ceasefire agreements and an immediate halt to Israeli attacks on Lebanon. He urged intensified efforts to end the war in Gaza, halt escalating Israeli operations in the West Bank, and prevent a wider regional escalation. Hassan placed the blame for the collapse of the relief system in Gaza squarely on Israel, stating, “We are facing a tragedy we witness daily in Gaza, where starvation, killing, and massacres are taking place. All crossings must be opened immediately to allow aid to reach our people and children in Gaza.”
These official statements and diplomatic moves unfolded against a backdrop of heated debate within Lebanon about the dangers of normalization with Israel. On the same day, an opinion piece published by Middle East Monitor addressed Lebanese Christians directly, warning that normalization is not just a political or ideological choice, but one that carries existential risks for Lebanon’s national unity.
The opinion article traced the roots of the so-called “Zionist project,” arguing that Israel’s ambitions have historically extended beyond the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine to include territorial expansion into southern Lebanon. The piece cited numerous reports documenting Israeli plans to annex Lebanese territories, destabilize borders through “agricultural settlements,” and foment civil strife by emphasizing sectarian identities over a unified Lebanese national identity.
According to the author, these tactics are designed to fragment Lebanon into weak, rival religious entities, making the country more vulnerable to external manipulation and internal conflict. The article drew a stark comparison to Sudan, where colonial powers exploited identity divisions, ultimately fueling civil wars and secession. The author warned that accepting Israel’s legitimacy could render Christians in Lebanon a targeted minority, referencing the exodus of Palestinian Christians as evidence that occupation—not protection—drives Christian emigration from the region.
“Israel cannot accept peace in Lebanon because democracy is contrary to its ideology,” the late Patriarch Sfeir was quoted as saying, underscoring the deep mistrust felt by many Lebanese Christians toward Israeli intentions. The article rejected the argument that normalization with Israel would bring economic benefits, pointing out that the Gulf countries’ prosperity is rooted in oil wealth and small populations, not their relations with Israel. Moreover, the author argued, Gulf regimes lack real sovereignty and are characterized by authoritarianism and repression—hardly a model for Lebanon to emulate.
The opinion piece called on Lebanese citizens, particularly Christians, to resist the drive toward normalization and instead strengthen internal unity based on citizenship rather than religious affiliation. It advocated for a theological discourse that frames occupation as a fundamental injustice, depriving people of freedom, dignity, and the ability to live securely in their homeland. The author urged churches and civil society to educate the youth and promote a narrative of unity and resistance to occupation.
These debates are not merely academic. As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza intensifies and regional tensions threaten to spill over into Lebanon and beyond, the questions of sovereignty, identity, and resistance have become matters of survival. Both the diplomatic engagement in Amman and the impassioned arguments within Lebanon reflect a region at a crossroads—one where the stakes could not be higher for ordinary citizens and leaders alike.
As the dust settles on a day of high-level meetings and heated public discourse, the path forward remains fraught with uncertainty. What is clear, however, is that the choices made in the coming months—about war and peace, unity and division, resistance and normalization—will shape the destiny of Lebanon and the broader Middle East for years to come.