In my last blog, I discussed the possibility that the future Princess Kate Middleton was Jewish. That conclusion was found to be false, but there are plenty of other royals out there who have political connections, or lack thereof, to Israel. I was particularly curious about Queen Rania of Jordan, whose parents are Palestinian. Rania has been praised as a forward-thinking model for Arab women everywhere. I wondered what her attitude toward Israel would be.
Recently, Rania wrote a children’s book in which two girls, one Muslim and one non-Muslim, bond over their different sandwiches. However, Rania rejected the option of translating the book into Hebrew. Wouldn’t such a translation fulfill the message that kids should accept everyone, no matter their race or religion?
Does this refusal point to a larger anti-Israel agenda on Rania’s part? In an interview with Diane Sawyer, Rania said that peace between Israel and Palestine was necessary; she didn’t seem to advocate for one side or the other, but said that a compromise must be reached. However, Rania continued to espouse an end to the Israeli “occupation”; she didn’t specify whether she meant an Israeli occupation of what she considered to be Palestinian territories or the possibility of an Israeli occupation of the entire country.
However, Rania noted, “The only way for Israel to achieve a sense of security is for it to be accepted and accepting in the region. And the end to occupation, giving the Palestinians their right to statehood and freedom to the people at the end of the day, that’s what’s going to get Israel — the security.” This statement seems to imply that she doesn’t mind an Israeli presence, so long as the Palestinians get something out of it — namely, a state of their own. She doesn’t advocate eliminating Israel, so long as it gives up certain things.
As far as compromises go, that seems more reasonable than a lot of ideas that have been put forth. At least she’s not saying that Israel has to be pushed into the sea or wiped off the map. Rania seems to acknowledge the necessity of peace and admitted Israel’s right to exist, so long as there is an accompanying Palestinian state.
However, the ambiguity of her statement “That’s what’s going to get Israel — the security” leaves much to be desired. Is she hinting at Israel’s downfall? Or is she just saying that the situation must be resolved from both ends?
