An interview published this week by The Guardian serves as a reminder of what journalism should not be about.
The interview, granted by Jordanian Prime Minister Omar Razzaz to the Guardian’s Michael Safi and Jassar al-Tahat in Amman, led with the statement that Razzaz could view positively a “one-state democratic solution.”
While the words of statesmen and politicians are significant and newsworthy, the absence of any serious, probing questions over the course of the almost-900 word interview reveals a lack of inclination to honestly convey Razzaz’s intentions to an international audience.
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
Razzaz’s words are interesting because Jordan and Israel have formed a significant and reliable strategic understanding since forging peace together in 1994. For over 25 years, it has been the Jordanian understanding that peace with Israel is the foundation for stability and prosperity. Meanwhile, successive Israeli governments regard Jordan as a vital buffer against threats from further afield.
As such, Jordan has ensured that Israel’s eastern border remains safe, even as conflicts in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq have led to an influx of immigrants to Jordan. It has also prevented foreign armies from entering its territory, as Syria has allowed Iranian soldiers inside its territory.
Anyone at all familiar with the realities of the Middle East knows that Israel is not going to allow itself to be dissolved into a binational state. After millennia of living as a minority in countries around the world, including many Middle Eastern countries, Zionism took root as a national liberation movement with the aim of guaranteeing Jewish people self-determination. Equally, aware of the benefits reaped by partnering with a strong Israel, Jordan is highly unlikely to desire the dissolution of its ally.
Taken in context, the declaration by the Jordanian Prime Minister that he is indeed willing to entertain such a possibility deserves more thorough parsing – but Guardian journalists instead seem to take Razzaz at his word and leave it there, rather than taking one of two options: a) either stating that Jordan’s dependence on a strong Israel means that this is highly unlikely, or b) by following up and asking probing questions.
The Israeli-Jordanian peace is one of the few stable things in the Middle East over the last two decades. But it is not to be taken for granted, though. With the Middle East a constantly shifting landscape, where would Jordan be left if it had no strategic partner in Israel? Indeed, what would become of the Jews in the Holy Land if Israel were to be dismantled? And what would Jordan’s relationship with the resulting country to arise in a theoretical “democratic, one-state solution” be like?
Instead, by
that
An aware, responsible journalist would ask
any sign of upheaval between
