However, the climax of the royal speech was when he held the international community and international institutions responsible for the ongoing war crimes committed by Israel, without absolving Israel of responsibility for its actions. His Majesty focused on the fact that whoever allows Israel to repeat crimes without punishment sends it a message to continue its crimes without fear of retribution—a retribution that the King clearly defined as the sanctions imposed on terrorist states or those supporting terrorism, because Israel is a state of terror, not a state of peace.
In this context, His Majesty posed a question to the international system that tests its legitimacy: What remains of international law if its application differs from one case to another? And what is the value of international resolutions if they ultimately remain ink on paper?
The true value of these two questions is that they are practical and political. His Majesty is telling the largest international institution, from its own podium, that its power stems from its moral legitimacy, which was later embodied in agreements and protocols, and that the legitimacy it relies upon is beginning to crumble, and it is crumbling along with it. He noted that superficial cosmetic attempts, such as artificial updates to the Security Council, for example, are no longer sufficient.
His Majesty was clear in holding the international community responsible for the state of affairs regarding the Palestinian cause when he said that "inaction is a choice." He emphasized that the political tools to punish Israel exist, from sanctions and asset freezes to embargoes and diplomatic isolation, stressing that the question is not whether the tools are available, but why they are not used when it comes to the violations of international law committed by Israel.
The speech also carried a message of no less importance: that the war in Palestine is not a religious war between Islam and other religions. The King emphasized the protection of Christians and their heritage in the region, and the protection of Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, in a message that rejects reducing the conflict to a confrontation between followers of religions.
Rather, it is a struggle over the right of Palestinians, Muslims and Christians alike, to enjoy the same rights enjoyed by others.
In his speech, His Majesty rejected treating Gaza and the West Bank as separate files. The King believes that the destruction occurring in the Strip and the settlement expansion, land confiscation, and displacement occurring in the West Bank all point in one direction: changing the reality on the ground to make the establishment of a viable Palestinian state more difficult. This means that any talk of a ceasefire without addressing the future of the West Bank and Gaza together may practically mean postponing the conflict rather than resolving it.
Despite the decisive tone of the royal speech, His Majesty did not close the door to diplomacy, affirming that Jordan is "a country the world can rely on," and that it is ready for dialogue with everyone and to work with all who seek peace. However, Jordan draws a clear line between adhering to diplomacy and compromising on values and principles, which His Majesty emphasized when he said that Jordan's commitment to diplomacy should not be understood as weakness.
From Palestine, the speech moved to Syria, where the King linked developments in its south to Jordanian national security. His Majesty considered any threat to the northern borders or water security a direct threat to Jordan's national security, and that in such a case, Jordan would use all available means to defend itself. This is a clear message that Jordan does not relinquish its rights, nor does it view the region's crises as separate files, but rather as repercussions connected to its own security and national interests.
The importance of the speech lies in the way it brought the files together under a single idea: that what the world chooses to pay attention to and what it chooses to ignore is a political stance that shapes the future.
The question remains: will this attention turn into action, and will the international system succeed in the credibility test and its ability to apply the principles it speaks about?
