US embassy cable - 03AMMAN245

UNCLAS AMMAN 000245 
 
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 GOLDRICH 
PARIS FOR O'FRIEL 
USCINCCENT//CCPA, USCENTCOM REAR MACDILL AFB FL 
STATE PASS TO AID 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
 
TAGS: KMDR JO 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON IRAQ AND THE PALESTINIAN 
"TRANSFER" 
 
                        Summary 
 
-- Lead story in all papers today, January 13, are 
highlights of King Abdullah's remarks during an 
interview with the Jordan News Agency, in which he 
addressed numerous domestic and international issues. 
In addition to stating that parliamentary elections 
would be held by June 2003, the King warned of the 
negative repercussions of a war on Iraq, stating that 
such a war would complicate finding a solution to the 
Palestinian issue. 
 
             Editorial Commentary on Iraq 
 
-- "Will Saddam go away?" 
 
Chief Editor Taher Udwan writes on the back page of 
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm 
(01/13):  "Saddam Hussein's ousting from power will 
prevent the war.  This is the conclusion of the new 
media and political campaign that is accompanying the 
build-up of armies in the region.  And so, the 
importance of inspections as the conclusive factor for 
whether war will be launched is slowly subsiding.  The 
U.S. Secretary of State was very clear when he said 
that the war is not dependent on inspectors' reports. 
Placing Saddam's ousting as a condition for preventing 
the war is a definite signal that the possible war has 
become the next unavoidable war.  Those who know the 
Iraqi President and who have followed his life and his 
rule know that he his not a person who would accept 
such a decision." 
 
  Editorial Commentary on the Palestinian "Transfer" 
 
-- "Transfer, as an Israeli policy" 
 
Columnist Fahd Fanek writes on the op-ed page of 
centrist, influential among the elite English daily 
Jordan Times (01/13):  "These days, the highway 
between Israel's Ben-Gurion Airport and the city of 
Jerusalem is festooned with political placards and 
posters.  One of them says: `transfer means peace and 
security'.  Such overtly racist slogans are not being 
met with the derision they deserve from the Israeli 
public; neither do the authorities attempt to remove 
them.  `Transfer' (of native Palestinians out of the 
West Bank and Gaza Strip to neighboring Arab 
countries, chiefly Jordan) has gained respectability; 
it has become the stated policy of Israeli's far 
right, while moderates are scared to speak out against 
it.  Yet, Israeli officials must realize that 
`transfer' is not a practical option; neither is the 
perpetuation of the current state of affairs with the 
Palestinians.  The next Israeli government must act 
radically to break out of the impasse.  In order to do 
that, Israel has three options only: a two-state 
solution, annexation of the West Bank and Gaza; and 
`transfer'.  Bush has apparently understood how 
difficult a situation this is.  That is why he 
proposed a half solution; he publicly asked the 
Palestinians to replace Arafat, but failed to make a 
similar overt demand of the Israelis regarding Sharon. 
When Bush described Sharon as a `man of peace', he did 
that half-mockingly.  The American President was 
confident that his listeners were smart enough to 
understand that he meant the exact opposite of what he 
said.  Time is of the essence.  The general election 
is almost upon us and to win, Sharon only needs a few 
more Palestinian attacks inside the Green Line." 
GNEHM