US embassy cable - 05AMMAN8955

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, Amman Hotel Bombing 
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