Again, since I’ve actually seen the Israeli memo to the Jordanian government, I stand by my previous statement reaffirming Jordan’s solid diplomatic victory.
As unexpected as it is of the Israeli government, they agreed to meet Jordan’s three demands regarding the Israeli Embassy incident in Amman, which ended with the murder of two Jordanian citizens.
The Israelis also agreed to Jordan’s demand to address the case of judge Raed Zuaitar’s murder, back in 2014.
For some reason, the fact that I have seen this memo has stirred quite a fuss in the media. So much that one particular hashtag swept over Twitter, which roughly translates to “#What_Jumana_Saw” just as my Sunday article came out, about the Israeli apology memo.
The public’s reaction to that fact that I —again— have seen the memo, ranged from questioning to outright rejection, sarcasm and even senseless allegation. However, nothing can undo the fact that I have, indeed, as a journalist and a columnist, seen it myself.
Some criticised me for publishing the details of the memo, others demanded I publish the entire thing. Either way, it is obvious that they have no clue what the journalist’s job really is.
The entirety of our premise is based —above all— on the factual.
Yes, I have seen the memo, and that is a fact. Subsequently, it is part of my job as a journalist and my duty to convey the truth to my readers as it is, that I do so, without hesitation.
The truth is that having seen this memo only means that I have done my duty and stuck to the standards of my newspaper; to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. On the other hand, I chose not to disclose the entire memo, for the same professional reason, which is to protect my source.
Abiding by the principles of professionalism in journalism comes at a cost. In many cases, professional news outlets have to balance between the backing up information with creditable sources and the guarantees extended to these sources, including anonymity and protection. Without the ability to maintain a reliable source’s anonymity, when needed, a newspaper loses its credibility.
In return a professional newspaper offers something else; an accumulative currency over time, based on trust. And not once has AlGhad communicated misguided information. Not once have we at AlGhad, myself included, presented our readers with false information. Honestly, this ought to be enough.
Nonetheless, tweeters have expressed their disbelief in the information I have presented, regarding the memo, last Sunday, in my article. So, I’m going to repeat to all of you what I saw and read myself in the memo.
First, the Israeli government explicitly expressed their regrets and conveyed their apologies to Jordan for the murders of Jawawdeh, Hamarneh and Zuaitar.
Second, the Israeli government has agreed to enforce the law until the murderer stands trial.
Third, the Israeli government have compensated the families of the three victims, in total, with a five-million-dollar indemnity.
Notably, the value of the compensation was not mentioned in the memo. But AlGhad confirmed this particular piece of information through its sources close to members of the victims’ families, as well as sources with the government.
Now, back to the topic of the debate on social media: did Israel apologise? Yes, they did!
To reinforce this positive, I have contacted international laws expert Dr Anis Qassim and shared with him the contents of the memo. I asked him, explicitly, for his professional and legal opinion.
In return, Dr Qssim confirmed, indeed, that the memo, entails an explicit apology. He also added that Israel has met two of Jordan’s terms, pending the enforcement of the law.
Additionally, he said that Israel’s pledge to uphold the law obligates the state of occupation, necessarily, to meet Jordan’s terms. Should they fail to, Jordan has a legal document at hand that allows for the prosecution of Israel before the International Court, for breaking their pledges to the Jordanian government.
However, judging on whether or not the Israelis abide by their pledge to meet Jordan’s third demand, which is to prosecute the murderer, needs time.
Should the Israelis break their commitment this term, Jordan will have the legal justification to expose their failure to honour their pledge.
That said, the fact that Jordanians are actively engaged in a matter of such public significance is a healthy sign. Their engagement, make no mistake, is important, as they are social media activists and are only but expected to follow up on issues of interest and debate them.
As happy as I am to see so many Jordanians take interest in this matter, it would be beneficial for all of us if they would just remind themselves, at the end of the day, that they are not journalists!
This article is an edited translation of the Arabic version, published by AlGhad.
