VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHAM #6351/01 2330938
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 210938Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY AMMAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3305
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK IMMEDIATE 0419
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS IMMEDIATE 1346
RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUMICEA/USCINCCENT MACDILL AFB FL//CCPA// IMMEDIATE

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