MEDIA REACTION ON LEBANON

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