Earlier this month, a diplomatic spat broke out between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic when Jordan’s King Abdallah II told CNN that the borders between Syria and Iraq were too porous. The comments, in context, implied Syrian facilitation of terrorist infiltration to Iraq to fight the US and allied forces in the country.
A commentator in London’s Arabic, Saudi Arabian-backed Al-Hayat newspaper commented on the simmering tensions: “It is not in the best interest of either Syria or Jordan to destabilize their relations, especially in light of the developments taking place in neighboring Iraq. Syria does not need any more disputes, as it is already under the spotlight due to accusations by Washington that it harbors terror groups and continues to interfere in Iraq.” On the one hand, the article suggested that Bashar Al-Assad consider the Jordanian statements as “friendly advice,” while on the other hand it criticized the Jordanian press for its attacks on Syria. The Al-Hayat columnist analyzed the pubic dispute, writing that Damascus was hoping that the United States will fail “miserably” in Iraq, while Amman was “betting” on Washington’s success.
Meanwhile, the Al-Rai newspaper from Jordan took a clear position for Arab solidarity. The “bonds between the leaders and the people of the two countries are too strong to allow a slight difference of opinion to break these historical ties. The solid links between the two sides are much stronger than newspaper commentaries issued from Syria and Jordan,” the daily declared.
Another Jordanian newspaper, Al-Arab Al-Yawm defended its king in the dispute: “Syrian press and the Lebanese As-Safir newspaper, which is close to Syria, committed a grave mistake when they reported that the statements made by his majesty King Abdullah II to CNN reflected Jordan’s position,” the paper said. The king “was referring to what is being said in Washington with regard to the problem of the Syrian-Iraqi border, not the Jordanian position on the issue.” The Syrian presentation, however, was not an innocent mistake, the editorial claimed, writing, “Those in the Syrian press who are waging a campaign against Jordan deliberately ignored this fact.”
Furthermore, referring to Syrian press counterattacks on their own newspaper, the Al-Arab Al-Yawm editors defended themselves by saying, “accusing Al-Arab al-Yawm and its writers of having supported past peace agreements with Israel is ridiculous not only to us, but to all Jordanian and Arab readers of Al-Arab al-Yawm, who have, throughout the years, known it to be a pan-Arab newspaper that resists normalization and thus has suffered a great deal.”
In conclusion, the editorial said, “We regret this unjust campaign by the Syrian press against Jordan, and we hope our colleagues will seek objectivity and truth in what they write, away from distorting the image of Jordan, which historically shares Syria’s concerns and aspirations.”
Echoing these latter sentiments, Jordanian Prime Minister, Faisal Al-Fayez told the Kuwaiti Al-Rai Al-Aam newspaper that the political, economic, and commercial relations between the Syria and Jordan are good.
A commentator in London’s Arabic, Saudi Arabian-backed Al-Hayat newspaper commented on the simmering tensions: “It is not in the best interest of either Syria or Jordan to destabilize their relations, especially in light of the developments taking place in neighboring Iraq. Syria does not need any more disputes, as it is already under the spotlight due to accusations by Washington that it harbors terror groups and continues to interfere in Iraq.” On the one hand, the article suggested that Bashar Al-Assad consider the Jordanian statements as “friendly advice,” while on the other hand it criticized the Jordanian press for its attacks on Syria. The Al-Hayat columnist analyzed the pubic dispute, writing that Damascus was hoping that the United States will fail “miserably” in Iraq, while Amman was “betting” on Washington’s success.
Meanwhile, the Al-Rai newspaper from Jordan took a clear position for Arab solidarity. The “bonds between the leaders and the people of the two countries are too strong to allow a slight difference of opinion to break these historical ties. The solid links between the two sides are much stronger than newspaper commentaries issued from Syria and Jordan,” the daily declared.
Another Jordanian newspaper, Al-Arab Al-Yawm defended its king in the dispute: “Syrian press and the Lebanese As-Safir newspaper, which is close to Syria, committed a grave mistake when they reported that the statements made by his majesty King Abdullah II to CNN reflected Jordan’s position,” the paper said. The king “was referring to what is being said in Washington with regard to the problem of the Syrian-Iraqi border, not the Jordanian position on the issue.” The Syrian presentation, however, was not an innocent mistake, the editorial claimed, writing, “Those in the Syrian press who are waging a campaign against Jordan deliberately ignored this fact.”
Furthermore, referring to Syrian press counterattacks on their own newspaper, the Al-Arab Al-Yawm editors defended themselves by saying, “accusing Al-Arab al-Yawm and its writers of having supported past peace agreements with Israel is ridiculous not only to us, but to all Jordanian and Arab readers of Al-Arab al-Yawm, who have, throughout the years, known it to be a pan-Arab newspaper that resists normalization and thus has suffered a great deal.”
In conclusion, the editorial said, “We regret this unjust campaign by the Syrian press against Jordan, and we hope our colleagues will seek objectivity and truth in what they write, away from distorting the image of Jordan, which historically shares Syria’s concerns and aspirations.”
Echoing these latter sentiments, Jordanian Prime Minister, Faisal Al-Fayez told the Kuwaiti Al-Rai Al-Aam newspaper that the political, economic, and commercial relations between the Syria and Jordan are good.