Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06AMMAN6351
2006-08-21 09:38:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Amman
how-toVZCZCXYZ0000 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHAM #6351/01 2330938 ZNR UUUUU ZZH O 210938Z AUG 06 FM AMEMBASSY AMMAN TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3305 RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC IMMEDIATE RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC IMMEDIATE RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK IMMEDIATE 0419 RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS IMMEDIATE 1346 RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE RUMICEA/USCINCCENT MACDILL AFB FL//CCPA// IMMEDIATE
UNCLAS AMMAN 006351
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
-- "The Jordanian policy faces new options"
Columnist Fahd Khitan writes on the inside page of independent,
mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm (08/21): "Among the
fallout from the Lebanon war is the devolvement of the alliance
between Cairo and Riyadh on one hand and Damascus on the other....
Most analysts argue that the three-party alliance still exists, but
with one change which is Syria's replacement by Jordan.... Jordan
had always aspired to build a new Arab stand in the region.... The
problem with the Jordanian move is that it essentially wanted to
form an Arab front in the face of the Iranian influence in the
region. Recent events in Lebanon however blew that policy away for
two main reasons. The first is that the Arab people, including the
Jordanians, did not look at the Iranian threat to the region as
being imminent compared to their view of the United States and
Israel that are seen as the number one enemy. The second is that
the America-backed Israeli barbaric aggression against Lebanon has
embarrassed the moderate regimes and exposed the fragility of their
alliance with America. With these developments, the question that
begs itself about the new project alliance is against whom will the
new alliance rise: Israel and AMERICA on one hand or Iran on the
other? The Jordanian policy kitchen has not answered the question
yet and it is in continuous debate.... What are the Arab moderates
planning to do in face of the American disregard for their
interests? How can moderate countries like Jordan and Egypt stand
with Washington in its conflict with Iran when the former is
completely ignoring their proposals for the peace process with
Israel? How far can the three Arab countries take their dispute with
Washington? Jordan, on the official level, does not expect a core
change in the U.S. administration's policy vis-`-vis the central
conflict in the region.... Very frustrating expectations then and a
losing bet from the word go vis-`-vis the possibility of changing
the U.S. administration's biased stand in favor of Israel. This
means that more pressure on the moderate regimes that are no longer
able to justify their alliance with Washington. In the Jordanian
political kitchen, and probably for the first time even, we are
hearing about a new debate regarding handling the changes. There is
a viewpoint that believes that the United States is not concerned
with the angry and desperate Arab public opinion and that Washington
has nothing to lose since its reputation and image is already in the
mud. Yet, the moderate regimes are not willing to suffer more
losses that could do away with the bases of their existence just for
the sake of Washington and Israel. What is required then is
building a new policy and a new vision for the future of the 'dead'
peace process that would be away as much as possible from the
American stand. But this entails certain fallout for which
preparations must be made from now, as this fallout might affect at
a later stage economic interests and American assistance....
Building a new Arab stand in the face of Washington cannot be
founded on a single party of limited resources. It requires an
expanded alliance that starts with Amman, Cairo and Riyadh. So are
the three capital cities ready to adopt a new strategy or does the
alliance with Washington take precedence over everything else?"
-- "Can the Hizbollah experience be generalized?"
Columnist Jamil Nimri writes on the back-page of centrist,
independent Arabic daily Al-Ghad (08/21): "Hizbollah's performance
flabbergasted the public and made Nasrallah the most popular
leaders. It was the issue of Shebaa farms and the prisoners that
concerned the Arab people, but rather the defiance of Israel and
standing up to it with dignity and equality. The reasonable
conclusion was that reining Israel is possible and the experience of
the resistance provided an alternative model that could be
generalized. Many parties will hold on to this simplified
conclusion, but looking deeper into the matter, we find that the
experience is not subject to generalization. It would be a form of
illusion and dream, and not just because the [Arab] regimes would
not go back to the age of confrontations, but also because the
Israeli failure is linked to specific circumstances relevant to the
Lebanese situation.... Once this fact is faced, one could begin to
speak about the real and possible investment of the Israeli failure.
It has been confirmed that force does not resolve the conflict in
the manner that Israel wants and that imposition and submission only
prolongs the conflict and suffering. The real alternative is going
back to balanced settlements that preserve the rights and the
dignity of people."
-- "A united front"
Centrist elite English daily Jordan Times editorial (08/18) opines:
"No doubt the just-ended war in Lebanon and the continuing Israeli
incursions deep into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are providing
the additional impetus for the Palestinian leadership to get
together and try to forge ahead with their nation- building process.
There are growing fears that once Israel disengages completely from
Lebanon in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1701, it
will move more forcefully than ever against the Palestinian people
in the occupied territories. Much time has been already wasted by
internal conflicts between Fateh, the mainstream Palestinian
faction, and Hamas, now controlling the Palestinian government. It
is high time that the two sides put their differences aside. The
Palestinians have endured hardship for much longer than any other
Arab people, including the Lebanese. They deserve to live normally
and with security on their own national soil without any form of
occupation by Israel. The Israeli government can be expected to talk
more sense with the Palestinian leadership once the Palestinians
enjoy a viable unity government. As long as the Palestinians stay
divided, Israel can afford to play one side against the other in a
bid to postpone the difficult decisions that have to be made in
order to arrive at a peace treaty between the two sides.... Now is
the time for both Hamas and Fateh to get their act together for the
interests of their people. The Gaza meetings are only the beginning
of a long and determined process to give the Palestinian people what
they deserve most - a united Palestinian front in the face of the
dangers that loom on the horizon."
HALE
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
-- "The Jordanian policy faces new options"
Columnist Fahd Khitan writes on the inside page of independent,
mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm (08/21): "Among the
fallout from the Lebanon war is the devolvement of the alliance
between Cairo and Riyadh on one hand and Damascus on the other....
Most analysts argue that the three-party alliance still exists, but
with one change which is Syria's replacement by Jordan.... Jordan
had always aspired to build a new Arab stand in the region.... The
problem with the Jordanian move is that it essentially wanted to
form an Arab front in the face of the Iranian influence in the
region. Recent events in Lebanon however blew that policy away for
two main reasons. The first is that the Arab people, including the
Jordanians, did not look at the Iranian threat to the region as
being imminent compared to their view of the United States and
Israel that are seen as the number one enemy. The second is that
the America-backed Israeli barbaric aggression against Lebanon has
embarrassed the moderate regimes and exposed the fragility of their
alliance with America. With these developments, the question that
begs itself about the new project alliance is against whom will the
new alliance rise: Israel and AMERICA on one hand or Iran on the
other? The Jordanian policy kitchen has not answered the question
yet and it is in continuous debate.... What are the Arab moderates
planning to do in face of the American disregard for their
interests? How can moderate countries like Jordan and Egypt stand
with Washington in its conflict with Iran when the former is
completely ignoring their proposals for the peace process with
Israel? How far can the three Arab countries take their dispute with
Washington? Jordan, on the official level, does not expect a core
change in the U.S. administration's policy vis-`-vis the central
conflict in the region.... Very frustrating expectations then and a
losing bet from the word go vis-`-vis the possibility of changing
the U.S. administration's biased stand in favor of Israel. This
means that more pressure on the moderate regimes that are no longer
able to justify their alliance with Washington. In the Jordanian
political kitchen, and probably for the first time even, we are
hearing about a new debate regarding handling the changes. There is
a viewpoint that believes that the United States is not concerned
with the angry and desperate Arab public opinion and that Washington
has nothing to lose since its reputation and image is already in the
mud. Yet, the moderate regimes are not willing to suffer more
losses that could do away with the bases of their existence just for
the sake of Washington and Israel. What is required then is
building a new policy and a new vision for the future of the 'dead'
peace process that would be away as much as possible from the
American stand. But this entails certain fallout for which
preparations must be made from now, as this fallout might affect at
a later stage economic interests and American assistance....
Building a new Arab stand in the face of Washington cannot be
founded on a single party of limited resources. It requires an
expanded alliance that starts with Amman, Cairo and Riyadh. So are
the three capital cities ready to adopt a new strategy or does the
alliance with Washington take precedence over everything else?"
-- "Can the Hizbollah experience be generalized?"
Columnist Jamil Nimri writes on the back-page of centrist,
independent Arabic daily Al-Ghad (08/21): "Hizbollah's performance
flabbergasted the public and made Nasrallah the most popular
leaders. It was the issue of Shebaa farms and the prisoners that
concerned the Arab people, but rather the defiance of Israel and
standing up to it with dignity and equality. The reasonable
conclusion was that reining Israel is possible and the experience of
the resistance provided an alternative model that could be
generalized. Many parties will hold on to this simplified
conclusion, but looking deeper into the matter, we find that the
experience is not subject to generalization. It would be a form of
illusion and dream, and not just because the [Arab] regimes would
not go back to the age of confrontations, but also because the
Israeli failure is linked to specific circumstances relevant to the
Lebanese situation.... Once this fact is faced, one could begin to
speak about the real and possible investment of the Israeli failure.
It has been confirmed that force does not resolve the conflict in
the manner that Israel wants and that imposition and submission only
prolongs the conflict and suffering. The real alternative is going
back to balanced settlements that preserve the rights and the
dignity of people."
-- "A united front"
Centrist elite English daily Jordan Times editorial (08/18) opines:
"No doubt the just-ended war in Lebanon and the continuing Israeli
incursions deep into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are providing
the additional impetus for the Palestinian leadership to get
together and try to forge ahead with their nation- building process.
There are growing fears that once Israel disengages completely from
Lebanon in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1701, it
will move more forcefully than ever against the Palestinian people
in the occupied territories. Much time has been already wasted by
internal conflicts between Fateh, the mainstream Palestinian
faction, and Hamas, now controlling the Palestinian government. It
is high time that the two sides put their differences aside. The
Palestinians have endured hardship for much longer than any other
Arab people, including the Lebanese. They deserve to live normally
and with security on their own national soil without any form of
occupation by Israel. The Israeli government can be expected to talk
more sense with the Palestinian leadership once the Palestinians
enjoy a viable unity government. As long as the Palestinians stay
divided, Israel can afford to play one side against the other in a
bid to postpone the difficult decisions that have to be made in
order to arrive at a peace treaty between the two sides.... Now is
the time for both Hamas and Fateh to get their act together for the
interests of their people. The Gaza meetings are only the beginning
of a long and determined process to give the Palestinian people what
they deserve most - a united Palestinian front in the face of the
dangers that loom on the horizon."
HALE