MEDIA REACTION ON LEBANON

UNCLAS AMMAN 005498

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
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A

TAGS: KMDR JO

SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON LEBANON

Editorial Commentary

-- "New birth at the hands of the Israeli army!"

Chief Editor Taher Odwan writes on the back-page of independent,
mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm (07/23): "What is happening
in Lebanon today and what happens and continues to happen in Iraq
are not labor pains, because birth means life. It is rather ominous
and an unprecedented humanitarian disaster. What new Middle East is
Rice talking about other than this legendary destruction and
devastation? Does the path towards the new Middle East only go
through the removal of neighborhoods, the destruction of cities, and
taking countries and peoples hundreds of years backward?! The
Americans refuse to learn from their mistakes in Iraq. They are
running forward by resurrecting life in slogans that were proven to
be a failure and that have brought nothing but the absence of
security, stability and the spread of a culture of warring and
massacres. The Bush administration had the illusion that if it
occupied Iraq, it will be able to control the entire Middle East and
place in the service of American-Zionist interests to be torn and
weakened. But this illusion fell through because of the Iraqi
resistance and also because of the vacuum created by the occupation.
Today, the U.S. administration has the same illusions. It is
dreaming about achieving, through the Israeli army what the American
army failed to achieve in Iraq. And now start the ominous scenarios
and the ideas of the 'princes of darkness' for a new Middle East,
achieved by annihilating the Lebanese and destroying Lebanon. Yet,
the mistake that this administration is making is much bigger than
that committed in Iraq, because its tool, Israel and the Israeli
army, is exactly what makes its Middle East projects so
suspicious."

-- "Rice the 'midwife' is coming!"

Columnist Jawad Bashiti writes on the op-ed page of independent,
mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm (07/23): "Today, the
'midwife', U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, arrives. After
all, the 'new Middle East' is about to be born.... Rice the midwife
comes with a group of solutions for the problems of the three
captured Israeli soldiers and Shab'a farms that allow the Israeli
'cesarean' operation to deliver the 'new Middle East'. According to
Rice, the issue of the prisoner Gilad Shalit must be resolved in
isolation of the issue of the other two Israeli soldiers captured by
Hizbollah. As for the problem of Shab'a farms, it can be solved by
transferring control over it to an international entity, thus
nullifying the justification for the 'resistance' in Lebanon, and
thus making it possible to resolve the biggest problem, namely
Hizbollah, by implementing what has not been implemented of the
Security Resolution 1559."

-- "Bush's foolishness embarrasses his Arab allies and threatens the
security and stability of the region"

Columnist Rana Sabbagh writes on the op-ed page of independent,
mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm (07/23): "God help
America's friends in the Arab world who are losing face, credibility
and popularity day in and day out ever since George Bush was elected
President of the United States six years ago.... These friend
governments are now stuck in the corner and are in distress. They
suffer from campaigns that question their patriotism, and even more,
are sworn against for their failure to express people's anger at
America's policies and those of its main ally, Israel, and at the
inability of the Arab regimes to put an end to the humiliation and
degradation that is affecting the entire Arab world.... Bush and
Rice forget that the internal tension, the military adventures, and
the half political solutions that the Middle East is suffering from
are the outcome of America's new policies that ally with Israel and
appease Iran; policies that are based on deficient and wrong
information and strategic analyses, lacking understanding of the
reality of Arab societies, not listening to the advice and warnings
of allies, and not wanting to start a direct dialogue with countries
and parties that are involved in everything that is going on,
starting with Iran and Syria and ending with Hizbollah and Hamas.
Bush seems to not understand yet that political Islam and armed
resistance groups have now become the most growing and most popular
political and social sector of political life in all the countries
of the region, and that most of this is the result of the
irresponsible policies of his administration in the Middle East.
Bush must understand that the aspired stability will not happen in
the Middle East unless the Arab Israeli conflict, which has existed
since 1948, is resolved on the basis of international legitimacy,

justice, equality and righteousness. Hizbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda,
and other will otherwise continue to flourish and expand at the
expense of realism and logic."

-- "Condi is coming to the region, so how can we receive her in a
civilized way?"

Columnist Bater Wardam writes on the inside page of center-left,
influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour (07/23): "Condi is not going to
listen to the voice of reason. In fact, she is not coming to the
region to listen but rather to impose her convictions on the Arab
world and give Israel more time to achieve a military and political
victory that will not be achieved; more time that will only yield
more Lebanese martyrs and more destruction of the
infra-structure.... Condi comes to the region while we read in the
New York Times that the American army is currently sending smart
bombs to the Israeli army to be used in the aggression against
Lebanon. This means that the United States and Mrs. Condi are
active participants in the war on Lebanon and in killing the
Lebanese people. What do we do to welcome Condi in a civilized
manner that proves that we are a people of dignity and honor and not
necessarily terrorists? Could there be clear Jordanian and Arab
reactions to the American bias without the use of violence, burning
flags and threats? I am referring here to the Jordanian civil
society and not the government, just to be clear. I am talking
about a group of ideals that could be implemented within the context
of the peaceful struggle.... The Parliament can begin a move
against the American Senate that had voted in favor of supporting
Israel two days ago.... The associations and union can do a lot.
The Engineers Association for instance can boycott any Jordanian
engineering cooperation with American engineering companies, and the
same can be done by the other associations. The Lawyers Association
can ease up its focus on supporting Saddam Hussein and move on to
building international lawsuits against the American policies in
international arenas.... The media can do a great deal. The Press
Association must boycott any coordination with the American Embassy
even if that includes 'free of charge training courses'. This means
boycotting the new project that USAID is implementing to develop the
Jordanian media. It also includes rejecting all invitations to
field visits to the United States on which dozens of Jordanian
journalists have gone before. The national and pan-Arab stance
deserves the sacrifice. It is also possible to boycott all press
conferences for American officials in Jordan, even it is Condi
herself.... The civil society organizations play an important role
because they are the voice of the society ... and they all have the
ability to rally supporters. These organizations must adopt a clear
stance about boycotting the activities of USAID and the American
Embassy and refuse to deal with any of the USAID-supported projects.
This would in reality represent a very important stand because it
proves the ability of these organizations to sacrifice and to be a
voice of the society instead of just institutions looking for
funding from any source.... All of us in Jordan can, without
waiting for the government, do undertake some steps that may on
their own be small but together they would be huge; peaceful and
civilized steps that will achieve a great deal of dignity and
self-respect for us."

-- "Rice in the region; which way will she go?"

Columnist Oraib Rantawi writes on the op-ed page of center-left,
influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour (07/23): "I believe there are
two ways for Rice to deal with the crisis. The first will be an
extension to the U.S. arrogant and hardline approach that has
characterized the American conduct in the region and led to the
destruction of Iraq. The second is the approach of diplomacy and
politics that could establish an exit out of the dangerous standoff
that faces Lebanon and the entire region. The arrogance approach is
based on the option of force and on the logic of 'squashing'
Hizbollah, which is in itself an approach already in trouble,
because, even it succeeds in pushing Hizbollah 10-20 kilometers
north, it will only establish a new era of internal Lebanese
conflict. After all, who will disarm Hizbollah, and more
importantly, who will take away Hizbollah's Shiite majority? Policy
and diplomacy on the other hand propose a comprehensive handling of
all aspects of the Lebanese crisis. Washington today has an
appropriate point of entry to put close the issue of the Lebanese
prisoners in return for the two captured soldiers. It also has the
opportunity to end the issue of Shab'a farms and remove the last
justification for Syria's presence in Lebanon.... If this political
option is supplemented by a 'deal' on the Palestinian track, then
Rice will have succeeded in putting out burning fires in the region,
even after the destruction of Gaza, Nablus, Beirut and Ba'albek.
Otherwise, Washington will have walked in Bremer's shoes in Iraq,
and destruction will prevail. The administration will have repeated
the failures and sins committed in Iraq, and the entire region, not
just Iraq and Lebanon, will have entered the age of destructive
chaos and conflicts that will burn everything including the
interests of Washington and Israel."

-- "Rice, these are the roots of the problem"

Columnist Yaser Abu Hilaleh writes on the op-ed page of centrist,
independent Arabic daily Al-Ghad (07/23): "It is ironic what U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said about resolving the roots

SIPDIS
of the problem in parallel to building the 'new Middle East',
because her remarks came at a time that does not tolerate such crude
and arrogant delivery of teachings and instructions.... Condoleezza
Rice must realize that the roots of the problem are in Tel Aviv and
not in Beirut or Damascus or Tehran, and there is no point of trying
to convince the people of the Arab and Muslim world of other than
that.... How many Osama Bin Ladens will be born from these scenes
of destruction! In the search for the roots of the problem, do you
remember, Condi, September 16? It is the day when militias, in
collusion with Sharon, committed the massacres of Sabra and Shatila,
killing the same number of people as those killed in the 9/11
attacks. But these people are bugs and mere statistics while your
victims are human beings and not just numbers. These days, the
victims are the terrorists and the criminals are the peace heroes.
The roots of the problem go beyond that. Abdel Nasser stood against
you and the Arab people supported him, not because they are against
market economy and university credit hours system. They stood by
him because you were with Israel. The people supported Khomeini,
putting aside all national and sectarian differences with Iran,
because he stood against you and you stood by Israel.... People
stood with Saddam because he stood against Israel and against you.
And today, they will stand with Lahhoud, with Bashar Assad, with
Khamin'i and before that with Hassan Nasrallah and Khaled
Mish'al.... The root of the problem is Palestine.... Excuse me
Condi but you know nothing about the roots of the problem."

-- "A new Middle East or new Nazism?"

Columnist Mahmoud Rimawi writes on the op-ed page of semi-official,
influential Arabic daily Al-Rai (07/23): "Let us note the features
of the new Middle East as promised by [the U.S.] Secretary. First
is the expansion of the American and Israeli attack against
countries and armies to include societies and people.... Second is
the resurrection of a new Nazism that undertakes extermination and
extinction campaigns on pretexts of religion and race.... Third,
Washington stands fiercely against the establishment of peace in the
Middle East ... and the Republican administration will use the rest
of its term in office to perform the role of the secretariat for the
Olmert government and will search for all pretexts to deprive the
people of this region of freedom, peace, dignity and security....
This is the new Middle East that Condoleezza Rice was selected to
pronounce."

-- "Clearly defining root cause"

Centrist, elite English daily Jordan Times (07/23) editorializes:
"An immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hizbollah holds out only
'false promise,' US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said
yesterday. Accordingly, she said, there can be no return to what she
called the 'status quo.' Perhaps Rice would like to try and explain
why that is so to the relatives of the nearly 350 Lebanese civilians
killed in the brutal Israeli onslaught so far.... Perhaps, too,
Rice would like to explain herself to the relatives of the nearly 20
Israeli civilians who have been killed in the Hizbollah reaction.
The fact is Washington has given a green light to Israel to continue
a military onslaught that can be described in no other terms but
bloodthirsty, disproportionate and outrageous. Given the fact that
the US could have reined in Israel, and could have done so almost
immediately, the US administration must bear some of the
responsibility for the tragic events that have transpired. If the
US indeed holds all human life to be valuable, surely there can be
no higher immediate priority than to immediately seek an end to the
fighting that has killed so many innocent people.... A ceasefire is
the primary and immediate humanitarian goal and should be pursued
for humanitarian reasons. Nothing more, nothing less. On the other
hand, Rice does make a good point when she says that 'root causes'
need to be addressed. Unfortunately, in her reading, those root
causes begin with Hizbollah and end in Tehran via Damascus, neatly
bypassing Israel. Once again, the US is willfully omitting a
crucial factor. Israel is the only country in the Middle East (apart
from the US, of course) that is belligerently and illegally
occupying territory belonging to others.... If Rice wants to talk
about root causes, then perhaps she should include a clear and
unyielding formula for how the world can once and for all put an end
to the nearly 40-year occupation of Arab land by Israel. Then, and
only then, can Israel and the US talk about self-defense. Before
those occupations end, Israel will always be the aggressor."
HALE