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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 006751 
 
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 MIDDLE EAST 
 
                        Summary 
 
-- Lead story in all papers today, August 22, 
continues to be the aftermath of the August 19 rocket 
attacks in Aqaba and ongoing investigations.  Another 
lead story reports on developments related to Israel's 
withdrawal from Gaza. 
 
                 Editorial Commentary 
 
-- "The American Middle Ages" 
 
Daily columnist Nahed Hattar writes on the back-page 
of independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al- 
Yawm (08/22):  "The United States is leaning towards 
accepting the establishment of a kind of a religious 
state in Iraq.  The Americans who are in a hurry to 
leave the Iraqi quagmire are ready to abandon their 
ideological objectives in return for maintaining the 
minimum level of control over their interests in this 
beleaguered country..  One must note, however, that 
the `religious state' goes against the very essence of 
Iraq's being.  It is no wonder that the modern and 
independent Iraq has moved, always, towards 
secularism.  This multi-ethnic country has always 
sought to guarantee first its unity and second its 
independence from regional powers, thus keeping it far 
away from the reaches of the Wahhabism of the Sunni 
Arabian Peninsula and from the Iranian Shiites.  What 
the Americans invaders did was that they broke the 
Iraqi national status and handed Iraq over to Al-Qaeda 
and the Mullahs of Iran. 
 
-- "No major incident without `but'" 
 
Under the penname of Abu Yazan, daily columnist Urayb 
Rintawi writes on the op-ed page of center-left, 
influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour (08/22):  "It is 
the right of any citizen or group of people to express 
their opinion honestly about the government's domestic 
and foreign policy.  It is their right to criticize 
Jordan's stand vis--vis Iraq and to call for 
punishing the United States and to putting an end to 
the normalization of relations with it.  It is even 
their right to criticize economic and social policies 
and to blame the faltering political reform process. 
But it is no one's right to list these demands or 
criticisms at the end of a statement or article that 
deals with the crime (ie: the attack in Aqaba) that 
just targeted Jordan's security and stability and the 
safety of its people.  No one has the right to provide 
terrorism and terrorists with pretexts and 
justifications..  Rejecting and condemning what 
happened in Aqaba is a duty without the shadow of a 
doubt.  Resorting to the use of `but' here would only 
open the doors wide to the devil's work, and there are 
many devils around waiting at every crossroads in the 
life of this disturbed and ever-changing region." 
 
-- "At the threshold of a new era" 
 
Daily columnist and former Minister of Information 
Saleh Qallab writes on the back-page of semi-official, 
influential Arabic daily Al-Rai (08/22):  "What 
happened in Aqaba last Friday should convince those 
who are hesitant that Jordan is being targeted and 
that its survival and steadfastness in this dirty war 
requires considering security the top priority.. 
Democracy does not mean chaos and hurting the state, 
and it definitely does not mean targeting the security 
forces.  Democracy is a responsibility first and 
foremost, and anyone raising the flag of democracy 
with the aim of hurting the state or targeting the 
image of the security forces is as good as the 
terrorist who raises God's flag, slaughters women, 
children, and innocent people, and burns and destroys 
property.  The situation in Jordan cannot remain the 
same after what happened in Aqaba.  Jordan has entered 
a new era.  This must not be understood as call for 
backtracking from democracy, but rather as a call for 
democracy to be exercised properly and not to be used 
as means to glorify terrorism and promote it." 
 
-- "The Iraqi constitution and scheduling the 
withdrawal" 
 
Columnist Khaled Mahadin writes on the op-ed page of 
semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai 
(08/22):  "The Iraqi constitution is not being written 
by this committee whose members were elected amidst 
the boycott of a major and influential part of the 
Iraqi people.  It is being written by the status quo 
and what is happening outside of the meeting halls. 
If there are terrorists who stand against the 
political process, as the Iraqi government says, and 
if there are militants who do not want this process to 
succeed, as Washington and London say, then no one can 
claim that these terrorists merit any respect, but it 
would be a grave mistake to claim that these 
terrorists are not playing a role.  The American and 
British withdrawal from Iraq is a matter of time.  The 
timetable for their withdrawal will not be set by a 
military or political entity in Washington and London, 
because history has taught us that the owners of the 
land and the rights are the ones who set the timetable 
of the withdrawal of forces that invade their 
countries." 
HENZEL