MEDIA REACTION ON TERRORISM IN JORDAN AND THE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 AMMAN 008955

SIPDIS

STATE FOR NEA/ARN, NEA/PA, NEA/AIA, INR/NESA, R/MR,
I/GNEA, B/BXN, B/BRN, NEA/PPD, NEA/IPA FOR ALTERMAN
USAID/ANE/MEA
LONDON FOR TSOU

E.O. 12958: N/A

TAGS: KMDR JO
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON TERRORISM IN JORDAN AND THE
SECRETARY OF STATE'S VISIT TO THE REGION

SIPDIS

Summary

-- Jordan's print and electronic media over the past
week was almost exclusively dedicated to reporting on
the aftermath of the November 9 attacks on three
hotels in Amman. Local newspapers were dominated with
reports and editorial commentaries condemning the
Amman attacks and Al-Qaeda as a terrorist
organization.

Editorial Commentary on SecState Visit to Region

-- "Standing with them instead of thwarting their
efforts"

Daily columnist Tarek Masarweh writes on the back page
of the semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai
(11/17): "The U.S. Secretary of State has succeeded
in putting an end to the state of deadlock brought
forth by the Israeli government over the issues of
opening the Rafah crossing, the Gaza crossing into the
West Bank, the port and, to a point, the airport....
We say to the Palestinian opposition: one cannot
consider an Israeli observation camera in Rafah an
incomplete state of independence; after all, the
Palestinian state has not yet been established and has
not yet become independent for its independence to be
incomplete. Let keep in mind that the withdrawal of
the occupation forces came about as a result of
negotiations and international mediation and not as a
result of armed force. Let us also keep in mind that
Gaza today is part of the political, security and
economic arrangements and that it is part of the
Palestinian state that is going to be established, and
so everything now is being done through negotiations
and international mediation leading to the independent
state, halting settlements, opening crossings and
revitalizing the economic life of the worn-out
Palestinian people.... We do not know the wisdom
behind weakening the Palestinian Authority by pushing
it into a conflict with the occupation forces, instead
of supporting and standing by it in its battle."

-- "The crossings agreement: a step forward"

Daily columnist Ali Safadi writes on the op-ed page of
the center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(11/17): "The Palestinian and Israeli parties would
not have been able to reach an agreement on opening
the Gaza crossings without the involvement of a third
party.... Despite Hamas' rejection of the crossings
agreement, it is better than the current situation and
it is a practical step towards revitalizing the
negotiations between the Palestinians and the
Israelis. As Rice said, it could change people's
lives on both sides to the better. In addition, it is
a vital agreement for the Palestinian economy,
allowing the Palestinians for the first time to
control their borders. Achieving bilateral agreements
within the framework of the comprehensive settlement
between the Palestinians and the Israelis cannot be
achieved alone. It requires serious mediation and
sponsorship and major efforts on the part of the
international community, particularly the United
States. The U.S. administration has taken its first
practical step in this direction and it must now
continue its efforts in order to achieve its vision
for the peace settlement, namely establishing two
independent states, Palestine and Israel, living side
by side in security peace. If the U.S. administration
has the determination and the will, it can make that
happen, just like the U.S. Secretary of State
succeeded in achieving the crossings agreement."

-- "Union with whom?"

Chief Editor Taher Udwan writes on the back-page of
the independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-
Yawm (11/16): "Succeeding in opening the Rafah
crossing or not, U.S. Secretary Condoleezza Rice is no
longer a partner in the making of peace, but a
mediator. Every one in this world has succumbed to
the will of General Sharon to make the peace process
with the Palestinians a unilateral solution that does
not acknowledge the other party. This in itself is
not a marginal issue but rather a turn back to Zionist
fundamentalism that does not acknowledge the presence
of the Palestinian people, let alone establishing a
Palestinian state. The diminution of the peace
process into mediated negotiations to open the Rafah
crossing personifies the reality to which the
Palestinian issue and even the Arab region reached.
The theories of comprehensive peace and peace for
generations to come have shriveled and shrunk into
feeble bargains that lead to silly and petty
solutions. A few days ago, I met a Palestinian from
the West Bank and a dialogue ensued about the future
of the Palestinians during which reference was made to
suggestions made by Dr. Abdul Salam Majali [former
Jordanian PM] about a Jordanian-Palestinian
confederacy. The Palestinian from the West Bank
responded by wondering: uniting with whom? There is no
longer a West Bank, because it has been engulfed by
the settlements, the wall and the united Jerusalem....
This is the opinion of one regular Palestinian citizen
living under the occupation. It expresses the status
quo and presents the scene with no make-up and no
slogans. Truly, with whom do we unite in the West
Bank? I know that Dr. Majali was always striving to
eliminate the ghost of the alternative homeland in
Jordan ... but I believe that fears of this ghost
should not drive us away, even for a second, from
working hard and persistently on resolving the
Palestinian issue in a just manner, that is
establishing an independent Palestinian state with
June 4 border and Jerusalem as the capital and
resolving the refugee issue.... We know it is
difficult to achieve this just and correct objective
under the current Arab status, but patience is better
than making a fatal mistake.... Under this
humiliating Arab situation, it would be a mistake to
be overtaken by solutions at the expense of the
Palestinian issue, its people, land, sovereignty and
rights, or at the expense of Jordan, it own people,
sovereignty and rights."

-- "Condoleezza Rice in Amman and Tel Aviv"

Daily columnist Yaser Abu Hilaleh writes on the op-ed
page of the independent, centrist Arabic daily Al-
Ghad: "The Americans scatter flowers on Jordanians
and Al-Qaeda scatters them with blood. This is the
image that was relayed by the swarming media in front
of the Radisson-SAS hotel. The remarks made by the
U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, were very
well picked. Although she had arrived from a harsh
political round of talks between the Palestinians and
the Israelis about the Rafah crossing, Rice avoided
making any political reference in her remarks and did
not answer the media's questions, but rather focused
on the human side: solidarity with the dead, fighting
against the killer. When the Americans are quite
skilled in winning military battles and losing media
battles, here they have won the media battle.
Condoleezza Rice's stand reminds us of Al-Waleed bin
Talal's stand in New York following the 9/11 attacks,
when he donated millions and accompanied them with
political sermons. The Americans then were not
interested in hearing these sermons and so rejected
the sermons and the millions. Rice did not speak
about any political issue related to the region or to
Jordan, but settled with offering condolences."

Editorial Commentary on Terrorism in Jordan

-- "The end of the justification and acquittal
approach"

Daily columnist Jamil Nimri writes on the back-page of
the independent, centrist Arabic daily Al-Ghad
(11/17): "The previous empathy with Al-Qaeda did not
mean that the Jordanian people are extremists and
support violence or terrorism... [Yesterday's IPSOS
opinion] poll showed that the absolute majority of
Jordanians does support peaceful means to effect
change. The matter simply is that the majority of the
citizens, who are very much influenced by what goes on
in Iraq and Palestine, were showing empathy with those
seemingly more brave and defiant in the face of the
enemies who have humiliated the nation a great deal.
The problem is that the majority of the people did not
have the correct idea about the agenda of this trend
that presented itself as a Jihadist trend representing
Islam and the will of the nation.... The largest part
of the blame, however, falls on political figures and
writers who turned a blind eye to the reality of this
trend's project for Arab and Muslim societies, and who
did so under the pretext of maintaining public support
against the 'enemies of the nation', and thus came
desperate justification for attacks against civilians
as being the fruit of foreign aggression! And, in
worst-case scenarios, when it was impossible to
justify an operation, the enemies would be held
responsible by claiming that they want to distort the
image of resistance and Jihad! Yes, this extremist
trend has won political and media coverage that
contributed to maintaining its popularity, be it by
justifying some of its actions or acquitting it of
others."

-- "About accusing Tel Aviv and others of what
happening"

Daily columnist Mahmoud Rimawi writes on the op-ed
page of the semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-
Rai (11/17): " Attributing the latest criminal
explosions in Amman to Israel and others deserves a
closer look. For one thing, there is a level of
wishful thinking that such atrocities were managed and
executed by Israeli parties. One finds oneself
sharing wishes that no Arab or Muslim party had
anything to do with planning for and executing these
crimes. But this wishful thinking does not change
anything, especially since those responsible declared
their responsibility. A second thing is that the
style by which these crimes were committed and the
chosen targets and their timing clearly bear the
imprints of the party that declared responsibility. A
third thing is that, although the Israeli occupation
does commit all forms of atrocities, including the
demolition of homes and the killing of children,
suicide operations are not its style. The same goes
for the United States that does not need to pass the
Greater Middle East project through the gates of a
hotel! The fourth thing is that leveling such
baseless accusations only serves Israel and the
extremist American circles. Why? Because when
accusations are leveled haphazardly and wrongfully,
they could be used by those parties who perpetrated
such crimes to cast doubt on actual crimes committed
by them. So, when it is easy for some of us to level
accusations arbitrarily only to turn out later that
they are superficial and silly accusations, it becomes
easy for the enemies to use this superficiality to
claim that the crimes committed in reality by the
enemies are simply made up fabrications or at best
exaggerated stories. The Israelis are expert in
employing other people's mistakes to their
advantage.... We do not need to attribute the Amman
terrorist explosions to the Israelis or others in
order to harm their reputation. The actions of these
parties speak for themselves in Palestine and
elsewhere, but there are mistakes that our own people
make that need to be acknowledged and rectified."

-- "Terrorism yielded counter results"

Daily columnist Fahd Fanek writes on the back-page of
the semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai
(11/17): "In the past twenty five years, the age of
modern terrorism, no terrorist action has managed to
achieve the aspired results. Terrorism in Afghanistan
that had managed to oust the Soviets did not establish
a progressive and democratic regime, but rather
brought the Taliban gangs to power only to establish a
regime that is much worse that the Communist regime.
Destroying the WTO towers in New York and the killing
of three thousand civilians led to the destruction of
Bin Laden's bases in Afghanistan and made of him a
wanted fugitive. Occupying Iraq by the Anglo-American
forces did not turn Iraq into a fried of the west, but
rather into an incubator for terrorism. The political
assassinations committed by the Syrian nationalist
party in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan led to dissolving
of the party and eliminating its chances as an
organization with a future.... In Jordan, some
sources claimed that there is a percentage of
Jordanians that sympathizes with Al-Qaeda and Zarqawi
in defiance of the American occupation of Iraq. If
this was true before the Amman terrorist attacks, this
sympathy has now turned into condemnation and
denunciation. Who could sympathize with them after
their evil action? Al-Qaeda's actions in Iraq do not
count as part of the resistance against the
occupation. They kill innocent Iraqi civilians by the
numbers, which only serves the occupation and
tarnishes the image of legitimate resistance. When we
try to figure out the losers and the winners from the
ugly hotels attacks, we find the opposite of what the
terrorists wanted: the first winner is the leadership
and the security apparatus around which the people
rallied, and the first loser is Abu Mos'ab's terrorist
organization itself."

-- "New laws for combating terrorism: legitimate
concern, but..."

Daily columnist Fahd Kheetan writes on page two of the
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm
(11/17): "Unofficial information indicates that the
government is preparing eight new temporary law to
face up to the security and legal requirements that
ensued following the November 9 terrorist attacks....
The proposed draft laws have not yet been announced
but the opposition has already voiced its concern that
passing such laws could restrict freedoms and punish
anyone who supports the resistance in Palestine and
Iraq. The concerns of the opposition are legitimate
but too early. After the attacks, the King clearly
said that the Amman terrorist attacks will not turn us
into a police state. Opposite these assurances about
the future of freedoms in Jordan, sufficient security
and political measures must be adopted to guarantee
that those heinous actions would not be repeated....
The political and national response to terrorism
requires bold decisions that entrench the path towards
democratic change. The people who stood as one in the
face of terrorism deserve to have a better place in
the political process. With participation, loyalty
and belonging are strengthened. On the other hand, we
want an explicit and balanced stand from the
opposition, particularly the Islamic opposition,
distinguishing between the resistance and terrorism.
Condemning the terrorist attack in Amman for instance
must be accompanied by a direct and clear condemnation
of Al-Qaeda organization as a terrorist organization
and of its line of thinking and actions in Iraq,
Madrid, London and Amman. This matter must not be
ignored because it is not subject to partitioning. A
clear stand like that vis--vis Al-Qaeda would put the
opposition and the Islamists in a stronger position
when they demand the government of a clear stand on,
say, the Iraqi people's right to resist the American-
British occupation and the Palestinians' right to
resistance."

-- "Who is responsible?!"

Former Minister of Information Saleh Qallab writes on
the back-page of the semi-official, influential Arabic
daily Al-Rai (11/16): "It is not true at all that the
American occupation is the reason that Jordan was
targeted, although we do reject and condemn this
occupation and demand its speedy end. The Jordanian
hotels that were targeted last Wednesday were targeted
in 2000 and that was when Saddam Hussein was still
moving about in his many fancy palaces and when there
were no American soldiers in Iraq.... holding the
American occupation in Iraq responsible for the crime
against the hotels is a mere justification for what
happened, and shifts away condemnation for these
terrorists who killed our children and our women.
There is no debate that the American occupation is one
of the main reasons behind the terrorism that is
bleeding Iraq.... But for this occupation to be the
cause of the attacks on the three hotels last
Wednesday, that would be as good as justifying what
happened, conspiring with the terrorists who
perpetrated this heinous crime, and eliminating their
condemnation."
HALE