VZCZCXRO3143
PP RUEHROV
DE RUEHAM #0155/01 0160553
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 160553Z JAN 08
FM AMEMBASSY AMMAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1504
INFO RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 AMMAN 000155 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR NEA/ELA, NEA/PPD, IIP/GNEA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: JO KPAO KMDR
SUBJECT: JORDANIAN MEDIA REACTION TO THE PRESIDENT'S VISIT 
 
 
¶1. (U) SUMMARY. Jordanian press commentary has focused this past 
week on President Bush's visit to the region and his meetings with 
Arab and Israeli leaders.  Opinions in Jordanian editorials were 
mixed.  While there was praise for the symbolism of the President's 
visit, particularly to the West Bank, as a step forward, most 
columnists expressed the need for tangible change to the status quo, 
and lamented the perceived U.S. "bias" in favor of Israel on the 
core issues.  Columnists generally agreed that a viable peace cannot 
be established without greater American "pressure" on Israel. 
Headlines on the front pages of the major dailies were generally 
neutral in tone, and most major newspapers carried positive 
statements by the GOJ regarding telephone conversations between the 
President and King Abdullah regarding the Arab-Israeli peace 
process.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. (U) Editorial Commentary. 
 
--"Collapse of the Palestinian State Project Under the American 
Vision" 
 
The masthead editorial in the January 12 edition of the 
pro-government, pro-Palestinian Arabic daily "Ad-Dustour" criticized 
the visit: "The U.S. President's visit to the area caused a state of 
strong pessimism, as the U.S. administration unveiled its 
Palestinian State project, as it wants it and sees it, through the 
establishment of a Palestinian State, while practically speaking, 
the majority of the settlements remain, the right to return is 
demolished, and Israel is recognized as a Jewish state...  The U.S. 
President's statements are very dangerous, and reveal the headlines 
of the U.S.-Israeli project, which the Palestinian Authority.... 
Who is going to be able to give up the right to return, and who 
would be able to shift the right to return from the original place 
to an alternative one, from the 1948 Palestine to the West Bank. Who 
has the right to create a smaller homeland in front of the big one?! 
 It is most likely that the peace process will collapse in the next 
few months, and it is clear that Israel today has two choices only: 
the first is to clean up Israel from the other on an ethnic and 
religious basis, and to implement the project mentioned 
previously... or it [Israel] would isolate the West Bank and prevent 
the establishment of a Palestinian State and continue the occupation 
of Jerusalem, looking for a legal and political loophole to push the 
1948 Palestinians for immigration outside their lands." 
 
--"Commitment Needed" 
 
The small-circulation, elite English daily "Jordan Times" 
editorialized on January 13:  "U.S. President George W. Bush's visit 
to Israel and Palestine achieved little tangible progress, but 
cemented U.S. positions on certain key issues.  It is clear to most 
in the region that Washington does not feel bound by the 1967 
borders as anything other than a guideline, and that 'necessary' 
adjustments, in the America view, have to be made.  It is clear that 
the issue of Palestinian refugees cannot, according to Washington, 
be solved by adhering to their right of return to the land they were 
forcefully expelled from, but rather must be solved in the context 
of international compensation and a "return" to a future Palestinian 
state.  It is also clear that the U.S. is, above all, committed to 
Israel's security, but it wants to see settlement outposts removed 
and sees, like everybody else, that contiguity of the territory of a 
Palestinian state is vital....  Of more immediate concern is the 
effect of these positions on the Palestinian Authority (PA), led by 
Mahmoud Abbas.... The PA's impressive Reform and Development Plan 
that was presented to donors in Paris makes one thing abundantly 
clear: If Israeli-imposed closures in the West Bank do not end, no 
amount of generosity will see the creation of viable institutions or 
a viable economy.  And that way leads to absolute disaster.  The 
status quo simply does not cut it. It [the status quo] undermines 
every effort the PA makes (in addition to amounting to criminal 
collective punishment by an occupying power; in clear contravention 
to Geneva resolutions) and undermines negotiations between the 
Israelis and Palestinians.  Bush missed an excellent chance to 
actually move the process forward. If it is not simply to grind to a 
halt, the U.S. needs to show much greater commitment, not only to 
its own position, but to international law as well." 
 
--"Encouraging" 
 
Columnist Walid M. Sadi wrote on January 13 in the "Jordan Times" 
that he considered the President's visit to the region 
"encouraging."  Sadi wrote: "The inside story [of the visit] could 
be more promising and revealing.  For starters, most probably Bush 
expressed to the two leaders [Olmert and Abbas] his exasperation 
with the protracted peace process, and wants the two sides to be 
more forthcoming in their peace talks.  No more foot dragging, could 
be the warning issued by Bush to the two leaders.  No more excuses 
for delaying major decisions, could be another stern warning from 
the U.S. president.  The two leaders Bush met during his working 
visit must have got, therefore, the clear message that he is fed up 
with the pace of the peace process.  Not less important is the 
possibility that the confidential talks held by Bush with the two 
leaders contained more substance than disclosed in public during the 
 
AMMAN 00000155  002 OF 003 
 
 
press conferences.  And when all is said and done, there is no doubt 
that the symbolism of Bush's trip to the Palestinian territories 
cannot be underestimated.  The visit to the heartland of the 
Palestinian territories is tantamount to a recognition of the 
Palestinians as a people with a legitimate quest for statehood and 
independence. This is, after all, the first time ever that a U.S. 
president has visited the West Bank in modern times.  It is also 
noteworthy that the press conference held with Abbas ended on an 
upbeat note. Bush said he is sure that a Palestinian state will 
emerge, and a peace treaty between the Palestinians and Israelis 
will be concluded during his term in office. These are very 
comforting and promising words and their realization indeed brings 
peace to the Palestinians and Israelis alike.  Bush's second visit 
to Israel and the West Bank, planned for April, is a show of 
determination to follow through with his initiative to attain peace 
between Israel and the Palestinians before the end of his term at 
the White House." 
 
--"The Important Thing After Insulting" 
 
Columnist Saleh Gallab wrote in the leading, government-owned Arabic 
daily broadsheet "Al Rai" on January 15 that observers should find 
what he described as a "middle ground" when looking to the 
President's visit to the region and its outcomes.  "The U.S. 
President George Bush deserves more than insult for being an Israeli 
lover and strategic ally... the answer for the Americans' question 
to the Arabs 'Why do you hate us?' is: 'Because you hate us.' [But] 
when Bush announced while standing between Shimon Perez and Ehud 
Olmert that Israelis occupy others' lands and they have to withdraw 
from others' land and that the settlements must stop, the 
establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state that lives side by 
side with Israel is inevitable. The Palestinians and the Arabs... 
must encourage the U.S. President and any future President to make 
such steps in this direction.  There is no way to change the current 
status of the (more than strategic and more than divine) ties 
between Israel and U.S. administration, and any U.S. administration, 
in a very short time.  This needs generations of struggle and 
requires a change among the Arabs, hence it is not right to turn our 
back to the conflict and keep on insulting Bush." 
 
--"Secular Palestine to Confront the Jewish Israel" 
 
Senior columnist Nahed Hattar called for a "new Arab strategy" in 
response to the visit in the January 13 edition of the independent, 
opposition Arabic daily "Al-Arab Al-Yawn."  "After the American 
admission that Israel is a Jewish state, we can say that all the 
legends that established the peace process on the Palestinian side 
have completely collapsed... with 'Jewish Israel' we are confronting 
a solid ideological belief that is outside the negotiations process. 
 We are then at the right moment to establish a new basis for the 
Arab-Israeli conflict.  This basis needs a new strategic vision of 
the Arab and Palestinian leaderships.  For confronting the new 
Israeli strategy, we need to produce a new Arab strategy, and I see 
this strategy's main points as the following: First, establishing a 
'secular Palestinian state' that would stand in the face of the 
'Jewish state in Israel.'  Second, this strategy would stress the 
political and peaceful struggle by the Palestinian society, one 
which has international support and is consistent with international 
traditions in fighting discrimination.  Third, if the Palestinian 
authorities do not follow this option then the Arab world's 
authorization to the Palestinian Authority to manage the 
negotiations that tackle refugee issues, security, and borders will 
be withdrawn." 
 
--"Bush's Divine Vision: A Gift to the Extremism Axis and a Painful 
Slap to the Arab Ally" 
 
Independent journalist Rana Sabbagh struck a more critical note in a 
January 13 piece in "Al-Arab Al-Yawm."  "President George Bush's 
tour in the Palestinian lands and Israel has made things clear in 
connection to his desire to impose peace and establish the basis for 
a 'Palestinian state of some kind' while taking care of Israel's 
interest even if this would hurt U.S. Arab allies who are committed 
to peace as the only strategy... Thank God, the presidential visit 
took place because it ended the illusion of peace by any value 
resulting from the Annapolis conference... which was under the 
sponsorship of one man who wants to introduce himself as the awaited 
peace leader before the end of his term in 12 months.  To achieve 
Bush's promise, the U.S. administration will move within the 2004 
letter of guarantees to then Prime Minister Sharon, which Jordan has 
criticized strongly." 
 
--"The End of Dividing Arabs into Moderate and Extremists" 
 
Columnist Jamal Tahat in the independent, pro-business Arabic daily 
"Al Ghad" wrote on January 14:  "The U.S. logic in its relations 
with the Arab countries has led to the dividing of these countries 
into moderates and extremists. This division reflected the Cold War 
coalitions. After the end of the Cold War, the world maintained the 
map of regional power relations, which was drafted during the Cold 
War era. The September 11, 2001 events, the occupation of Iraq, and 
 
AMMAN 00000155  003 OF 003 
 
 
the results of the Israeli aggression against Lebanon in 2006 led to 
what might be called the beginning of efforts to clean up the 
world's view regarding the region from the remnants of Cold War 
logic.  These shifts should stop Jordanian attempts to talk about 
two Arab camps (moderates and extremists). It is possible to say 
that continuing this kind of debate will leave Jordan a hostage to 
one regional power, and prevent our foreign policy from serving 
national Jordanian interests in an objective way.  Insisting on the 
dividing logic between the extremist Arabs and the moderate ones is 
a reflection of a disabled diplomatic institution in responding to 
changes." 
 
HALE