Between Coordination and Dependency: Responding to Amos Yadlin’s Claims on Egypt and Jordan

In recent weeks, reports have resurfaced quoting former Israeli Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin, suggesting that the Egyptian and Jordanian armies “do not move without Israel’s approval.” While the claim has gained traction on social media, closer scrutiny reveals that such assertions lack direct evidence and risk distorting the reality of regional military relations.

The Alleged Statement

According to circulating commentary, Yadlin supposedly argued that both Egypt and Jordan operate under Israeli directives. Yet, a careful review of his documented speeches and interviews in Hebrew-language outlets — such as Yedioth Ahronoth, Maariv, and Channel 12 — shows no explicit statement of this kind. Instead, his analyses have consistently focused on the dynamics of regional security coordination, especially regarding Gaza, Sinai, and the West Bank.

Coordination vs. Subordination

Military and intelligence coordination between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan is not new. It stems from binding peace treaties (Camp David 1979 and Wadi Araba 1994) and subsequent security arrangements. Coordination includes information sharing, border monitoring, and joint mechanisms to address terrorism and smuggling.

However, experts caution that coordination should not be equated with dependency.

• Egypt retains full sovereignty over its military decisions, particularly concerning the Sinai, where it has negotiated periodic arrangements with Israel to deploy additional forces.

• Jordan maintains independent defense policy, though it cooperates with Israel on counterterrorism and border security.

As Israeli analyst Shlomo Brom noted, “Security coordination reflects shared interests, not subordination.”

Official Records and Rebuttals

Israeli archival material, including think-tank publications from the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) where Yadlin once served, shows his emphasis on “shared stability” rather than control. Egyptian and Jordanian officials have also repeatedly rejected the idea of external tutelage over their armed forces.

Indeed, the Egyptian army has engaged in wide-ranging operations in Sinai without Israeli approval, though with subsequent notification under treaty frameworks. Similarly, Jordan has independently managed its borders with Syria and Iraq in ways that at times contradicted Israeli preferences.

Media Responsibility

The spread of unverified claims underscores a broader challenge: distinguishing between factual reporting and politically motivated spin. Presenting coordination as dependency risks undermining the credibility of Arab institutions and exaggerating Israeli leverage.

Amos Yadlin’s public record does not support the claim that Egypt and Jordan’s armies “take orders” from Israel. What exists is a complex but pragmatic security coordination — one that reflects treaties, shared threats, and regional realities, but falls far short of subordination. For Arab audiences, the lesson is clear: critical scrutiny of sources is essential to avoid amplifying narratives that weaken trust in national sovereignty.