This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 AMMAN 000701 
 
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 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
 
TAGS: KMDR JO
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON IRAQ AND MIDDLE EAST 
 
 
                        Summary 
 
-- Lead story in all papers today, January 27, focuses 
on King Abdullah's announcement of a new initiative to 
implement political decentralization in Jordan. 
Another lead story highlights the "bloody day" for the 
U.S. in Iraq with a death toll of 36 US troops.  Front 
pages of all papers also highlight the resumption of 
diplomatic talks between the Palestinians and the 
Israelis. 
 
                 Editorial Commentary 
 
-- "Where did Bush go wrong?" 
 
Former Minister of Information and columnist Saleh 
Qallab writes on the back-page of semi-official, 
influential Arabic daily Al-Rai (01/27):  "This is a 
question that the U.S. President should ask himself, 
now that he assumes the position on top of the pyramid 
of responsibility for another four years and while 
Iraqis head for the ballot boxes as if they are being 
taken to the execution arena..  All those on whom the 
U.S. President depended were either ignorant and 
stupid or perhaps working on behalf of others at the 
expense of the interests of their own country..  All 
Iraqis agree that the days that followed the victory 
in the war and the fall of the regime were promising.. 
So what happened and why did the situation turn upside 
down?  What happened is that Bremer drowned himself in 
some deadly sins.  In addition to dissolving the Iraqi 
state, army, security forces, intelligence forces and 
border control and antagonizing anyone with any sort 
of connection with the former regime, Bremer could not 
rein in the U.S. army, which turned in a matter of 
days from being liberation forces bringing democracy 
and human rights into occupation forces killing, 
stealing and torturing.  The people whom President 
Bush delegated to handle Iraq committed a crime 
against their president and their country when they, 
in turn, depended on middlemen who pushed them deeper 
into the Iraqi quagmire.  Those on whom the President 
depended dealt with a country of numerous and 
dangerous complexities in a nave and superficial 
manner.  They tried to bypass transitional stages and 
move directly from a totalitarian and oppressive 
system to the chaos of democracy and public freedoms, 
thus creating the results we see today: a situation 
very difficult to handle." 
 
-- "Questions that need answers" 
 
Daily columnist Mohammad Amayreh writes on the op-ed 
page of semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai 
(01/27):  "Only a few days before the Iraqi elections, 
it is clear that resistance operations against the 
American occupation forces and the allied forces are 
escalating..  The Iraqis do not conceal their concern 
about the effect of these elections on their country's 
unity, sovereignty and independence, particularly when 
the elections law allows Jewish Iraqis to take part in 
them.  Holding the Iraqi elections under circumstances 
marked by lacking security and absence of effective 
political authority tends to characterize these 
elections by a lack of integrity, which in turn casts 
doubt on the results..  How much will the elections be 
representative of the Iraqi people?  To what level can 
they be considered honest, fair and free of foreign 
interventions?  How successful will the resistance be 
on one hand and the terrorist groups on the other in 
influencing the elections or its results?  These are 
questions that we cannot answer now, and we will have 
to wait for the answer to come from the Iraqi people 
on election day." 
 
-- "Iraq and the booby-trapped elections!" 
 
Daily columnist Ibrahim Absi writes on the op-ed page 
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour 
(01/27):  "Even if we assume that the Iraqi elections 
achieve the `happy ending' that the U.S. 
administration and interim Iraqi government dream of, 
what could the results of these elections be?  Could 
the elections yield a democratically elected Iraqi 
government that dares to say it is the sole legitimate 
representative of all the races and sects of the Iraqi 
people?  Would this government be capable of making 
independent and sovereign decisions that respond to 
the needs and aspirations of the Iraqi people?  Would 
this government be able to rebuild Iraq and breathe 
life into the Iraqi state institutions?  Would this 
government be able to provide security and put a stop 
to the chaos, violence, kidnappings and murder in the 
Iraqi cities?  How would this `democratically' elected 
government be able to maintain the national unity of 
the people when it does not represent all the 
spectrums of the Iraqi people?  And when the interim 
Iraqi government along with the U.S. administration 
and the U.S. army were unable to bring Iraq out of its 
tragic situation to this day, would it be possible for 
the elected Iraqi government to save the Iraqi people? 
No matter how optimistic and good intentioned it is, 
the elected Iraqi government will not be able to bring 
back normal life to Iraq and the Iraqi people..  Going 
back to the original question: what could the results 
be, the answer, simply and clearly, is: another Iraqi 
government that follows the U.S. occupation without 
the right to make sovereign and independent decisions, 
but rather decisions that are in line with America's 
wishes, dictates, interests and colonialist 
aspirations in Iraq.  The most dangerous result of the 
elections would be the withdrawal or retreat of the 
American army from the Iraqi cities into agreed-upon 
American basis within Iraq, leaving the cities subject 
to ethnic struggles, eventually leading to Iraq's 
division under American custodianship, just as Israel 
had dreamed of and just as Washington had planned for 
right from the beginning." 
 
-- "More to mark time" 
 
Daily columnist Mahmoud Rimawi writes on the op-ed 
page of semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai 
901/27):  "U.S. Assistant Secretary of State William 
Burns started another tour of the region..  One is 
likely to rule out the possibility that Burns' tour 
would yield concrete results, with the exception of 
some cordial talk and positive statements, since the 
Republican administration does not have a project 
based on international legitimacy to implement peace 
on the ground, and since this old-new administration 
has given a free hand to Sharon..  What will Burns 
then talk about?  He will speak of calm, conducting 
reforms in the Palestinian institutions, easing the 
suffering of people.  Right.  But for what?  Most 
likely, it is to continue to mark time and prolonging 
the life of the colonialist and military occupation." 
 
-- "America and Israel address the Arab mind" 
 
Daily columnist Fahd Fanek writes on the back-page of 
semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai 
(01/27):  "Is it true that the neo-conservatives and 
extremist right-wing who have control in Washington 
and Tel Aviv do not care about the opinions of people 
who criticize America and Israel?  To say that the neo- 
conservatives, who are ruling in Washington and Tel 
Aviv, are not responsive to international and Arab 
public opinion would be true.  Yet, this does not mean 
that they do not care about international or Arab 
public opinion or that they do not seek to improve 
America's image in the eyes of the world and the 
Arabs.  The proof of that is that they spend hundreds 
of millions of dollars on media outlets that address 
the people of the world in their own languages, most 
significantly of which are the American Al-Hurra TV 
and Radio Sawa and the Israeli Radio.  Did these 
American and Israeli media outlets succeed in 
attracting the Arab people?  This is a big question, 
but the certain thing is that media in itself does not 
create facts, but tries to polish them and set them 
forth.  The reality of American and Israeli behavior 
in Iraq and Palestine is ugly and an image the media 
is unable to twist convincingly." 
 
-- "In memory of the victims" 
 
Columnist Su'oud Qubailat writes on the op-ed page of 
independent Arabic daily Al-Ghad (01/27):  "Israel 
marks the holocaust at Auschwitz with a display of 
blackmail and show-off, presenting itself as the sole 
legitimate representative for the victims and 
completely ignoring the fact that other people 
suffered as well..  Many researchers have exposed the 
falseness of Israel's `sympathy' towards the victims.. 
Moreover, the holocaust was one of the false 
justifications used by the Zionist Movement and the 
imperialist West to establish Israel in Palestine, and 
later became the most effective method to blackmail 
Germany..  The people in Tel Aviv and various western 
capitals mark the memory of the victims of Auschwitz 
and they do so with the backdrop of the bombings of 
Palestinian and Iraqi cities and the shouts of the 
tortured in American prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo 
and in Zionist prisons in Palestine..  While the 
Zionists and the West cry over the victims of the 
holocaust, the entire world, watching what they are 
doing to the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Afghanis, 
etc., does not believe these false emotions and is 
disgusted by all this hypocrisy." 
HALE