AKEED, Wasfi Khushman

Official silence opened the door wide to speculation and inaccurate news, which has largely characterized press coverage of what happened in the perimeter of the Israeli Embassy in the capital, Amman, last Sunday. The official Jordanian story was absent from the event that was followed by the local and international press, besides being strongly present on social media platforms. Because of the absence of the Jordanian story, the official Israeli version of the incident reigned supreme on the pages of the media internationally, and even locally.

Two Jordanian citizens died on Sunday, 23 July, when an Israeli security man opened fire on them while they were inside an annex of the Israeli Embassy in Amman. No government official made any statement within the next 48 hours that followed the incident. Meanwhile, the first statement by the Public Security Directorate (PSD) was issued hours after the incident (Sunday evening). It was followed by the announcement of the death of the second Jordanian citizen. On the evening of the following day, a second security statement was issued, speaking about "continuing" the investigations. Then, a third security statement was issued, announcing the end of the investigations and referring the case to the office of the attorney general.

In spite of the criminal nature of the incident, the place of the incident, the nationality of the shooter, and the tense political situation due to the crisis in Jerusalem and the Israeli measures at Al-Aqsa Mosque gave the embassy incident an accelerating political and media dimension. However, official media failed to keep up with it.

Local Media Confusion

Since the first moment of the leakage of the news to reporters, confusion had been apparent in press reporting. In light of the official silence, media outlets and platforms started reporting false information, citing anonymous sources, which spoke about an attempt to assassinate the Israeli ambassador in Amman. They then announced the killing of an Israeli person. Some of them even exaggerated the number of the alleged dead persons, making it seven.

Likewise, there was confusion concerning the family name, age, and nationality of the first Jordanian victim; whether or not he had used an instrument in his brawl with the Israeli employee; whether the instrument was a knife or screwdriver; and whether the brawl between the two parties had erupted at the beginning of the encounter or at its end. The confusion also involved the reasons for the fight; how serious the injury of the Israeli was; the identity of the second dead person; and the conflicting accounts about the place of the incident and whether it was inside the embassy building, in an annex, or in its perimeter. 

In their initial coverage, media outlets did not focus on the fact that the dead person, Mohammed Jawawdeh, was a child, according to Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted by a United Nations General Assembly resolution in 1989. Jordan ratified the Convention in 1991. Some of them later used the term "juvenile" when reporting on the repercussions of the case.

To quench their thirst for information, some media outlets sought information from anonymous security and government sources, let alone statements by the father and uncle of the first victim although they were not present when the incident occurred. They also covered reactions by the parents of the two victims, while other media outlets reported details of the incident, quoting Israeli officials and Israeli media after lifting the ban on publishing imposed by military censors there. 

The media considered as pro-government was satisfied with the statements issued by the PSD, but failed to keep up with the event as it should have. This generated fury, which was clear in articles and comments posted by social media users on their personal pages.

Flow of Information: Jordan Versus Israel

The situation was different on the other side of the border. The Israeli military censor imposed a ban on circulating any information regarding what happened at the embassy in Amman. All media outlets, including social media, observed this as noticed by the Jordanian Media Credibility Monitor (AKEED) and confirmed by journalist Ayman Hneiti, expert on Israeli affairs. The ban continued throughout the night and was lifted at 6 am local time. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement in Arabic, English, and Hebrew, in which it narrated the details of the event, from its viewpoint, and the efforts made by Netanyahu to contain its effects.

The Foreign Ministry statement, which was carried by Israeli, international, and local media outlets, as well as social media platforms, answered all the questions raised by the media although it contained what serves Israeli propaganda. The AKEED Monitor observed that the commitment by Israeli media outlets to the ban imposed by the "military censor" did not prevent it, as soon as the ban was lifted, from publishing the Foreign Ministry statement, along with criticism of "the right-wing policies" embraced by the Israeli prime minister. This is in addition to criticizing the ban on publishing, which "deprived Israelis of knowing what is happening at the embassy" through social media platforms and on TV and radio shows, which was confirmed by Hneiti.

The Monitor also observed that some Israeli media outlets added details, which, on the surface, conflict with some details in the Foreign Ministry statement, but they serve Israeli propaganda, such as the claim that the second victim, Bashar Hamarneh, died of stabbing by the first victim, and not by the bullets of the Israeli staffer.

Afterward, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the outset of a news conference with Georgian Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili about his efforts in following the incident at the embassy and contacting the Jordanian side in this connection.

Coinciding with the last press release issued by the Jordanian PSD, and after some media outlets carried a report claiming that Jordan had "refused" to hand over the killer to the Israelis, Ofir Gendelman, spokesperson of the Israeli prime minister to the Arab media, announced the return of the entire embassy staff, including the security man. He supported his statements by releasing the recording of a telephone call between Netanyahu and Ambassador Einat Schlein and the security man, whom he referred to as Ziv, before meeting them the next day in Jerusalem.

Journalist Ayman Hneiti, who is specialized in Israeli affairs, avoids comparing the media in both Jordan and Israel. The balance tilts in favor of the latter, given the presence of "a media arsenal committed to journalistic, professional, and national controls." The Israeli media depends on official parties, which keep up with everything that would support public policy in Israel. This is the responsibility of military censorship, which added social media platforms to its jurisdiction.

Hneiti confirmed to AKEED that the ban on publishing gave Israeli officials "enough time to coordinate their positions and come up with a scenario for the incident." This is clear in that the Foreign Ministry statement coincided with a verbal attack launched by Israelis on Jordan. Hneiti said that the Israeli media insisted on linking the embassy incident to the crisis at Al-Aqsa mosque, with some calling for escalation and others calling for de-escalation with Jordan.

According to Hneiti, Netanyahu took advantage of the return of the Israeli Embassy staff, including the security man, to strengthen his status in Israeli internal politics.

Although some press reports suggested that there were deals linking the release of the embassy staff to reducing tensions at Al-Aqsa Mosque, both Jordan and Israel have denied any deals between the two countries.

Criticism of Official Silence

During and after the incident, local media outlets were not satisfied with the absence of an official story of the incident. Some of them criticized "official failure to handle such cases," which resonated well with legislative leaders who criticized the government position, saying that "it failed to live up to the event and its major repercussions."

Also, a statement by Interior Minister Ghaleb Zoubi during a session by the Lower House of Parliament on Tuesday morning was carried by news sites and social media platforms amid criticism of his characterization of what Jawawdeh did as "a criminal act." This caused the circle of criticism to expand and encompass the entire official position.

In his first appearance 48 hours after the embassy incident, Dr. Mohammed Momani, minister of state for media affairs and official spokesman for the government, defended the absence of the official viewpoint by saying that "accuracy is preferred to speed." Some journalists did not accept that.

Speaking at a joint news conference with Ayman Safadi, minister of foreign affairs and expatriates, and Bishr Khasawneh, minister of state for legal affairs, Momani presented Jordan"s official view of what happened at the Israeli Embassy and the measures taken by the government to protect the rights of the two dead Jordanians.

In an interview with CNN on Tuesday evening, Safadi confirmed that the embassy incident was completely separate from the crisis at Al-Aqsa Mosque. He said that what happened was "a criminal attack," as established by investigations. He added that a fight, whose causes are still unknown, occurred at an apartment rented by the Israeli Embassy between the Israeli person and two Jordanian young men, in the presence of the Jordanian landlord. The Israeli opened fire, killing two Jordanians, one of them a 17-year-old boy.  

Safadi explained that the shooter enjoyed diplomatic immunity. "When we started the investigations, and out of commitment to international law, we contacted the Israelis, who agreed to let us take his statement. He then returned to his country."

The minister of foreign affairs and expatriates stressed that "Jordan did what it should, in agreement with international law, and now Israel should do the same thing." Safadi criticized the Israeli reaction to the embassy incident, describing it as "absurd." He said that Israel "tried to portray things as if the ambassador and the suspect were under siege, and that they were liberated and celebrated as heroes coming home. It is a criminal case. Jordan acted legally and morally. Israel is supposed to act similarly and to stop its provocative behavior and distortion of facts." This criticism was published by Israeli newspapers as expressing Jordanian anger.

The AKEED Monitor contacted several journalists to know the truth about the absence of Jordan"s official viewpoint from the media coverage of the embassy incident. Suleiman Khalidi, bureau chief of Reuters News Agency in Amman, said that he had learned about the incident from the agency"s bureau in Jerusalem. However, he could not obtain an "official Jordanian position," adding that "we had nothing but police statements." Khalidi said that he had tried to obtain the government"s position toward Jordan"s "refusal" to hand over the Israeli employee, but he could not reach an official source.

He added that the agency bureau in Jerusalem had followed the incident after lifting the Israeli ban on publishing. The news story carried by the agency did not contain the Jordanian viewpoint.

Journalist Mohammad Ersan, chief editor of Al-Balad Radio and correspondent of the newspaper Arabi21, said that he could not obtain official statements. He added that the absence of the official story opened the door to analyses that were not based on reliable sources, especially since the nature of the incident dictated that journalists wait for official information "because official agencies are the only ones that have correct information in such incidents." In light of concealing it, journalists had to depend on anonymous sources whose statements cannot be verified.

Ersan recalled the confusion that accompanied previous incidents, such as the Kerak attack, when the absence of official sources promoted rumors. He noted that the embassy incident forced citizens to turn to Israeli media.

Abdullah Kafaween, correspondent of France 24 TV, and Mohammed Sukkar, correspondent of Sawa Radio, also confirmed that they had tried repeatedly to contact government sources, but in vain. They said that scarcity of official information caused confusion in the two organizations. Sukkar said that Jordan"s official reaction was important, but it was not issued. This made me send a general news item without details.

Vienna Convention

Local media outlets had not referred to the Vienna Convention before the Israeli Foreign Ministry included it in its statement on the next morning of the incident. In spite of this, the document was not highlighted and its mention in local news items remained without follow-up, with the exception of one site, which listed the articles of the convention translated into Arabic.

According to Wikipedia, the Vienna Convention organizes diplomatic relations between countries and specifies the privileges of diplomatic missions in a way that enables diplomats to perform their functions without fear. The Convention was adopted by the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities held in Vienna, Austria, on 18 April 1961.  

Ghassan Jundi, professor of public international law at the Faculty of Law in the University of Jordan, said that the Vienna Convention might not apply to the Israeli Embassy guard since he is a security man, and not a diplomat, unless the Protocol Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been informed that he was within the diplomatic staff of the embassy. AKEED confirmed that the Israeli security man was registered as a diplomat as part of the embassy staff.

He added that the diplomatic immunity granted to embassy staff enables them to perform their work, and not to carry out illegal acts. Answering a question on whether murder is part of actions that are not covered by diplomatic immunity, according to Article 31 of the Convention, Jundi denied this, saying that the intended actions had to do with buying property, writing a will, etc.

Despite what Jundi said in his analysis, the Jordanian Penal Code and its amendments is clear in that "its provisions shall not apply to staff of the diplomatic corps and foreign consuls as long as they enjoy immunity, which is granted to them by public international law," according to Article 11.  

Besides, the AKEED Monitor looked at a legal study on the judicial immunity of diplomats, which confirms the principle of absolute diplomatic immunity, referring to precedents, such as the accidental killing by the Austrian ambassador in Belgrade of his French counterpart on 6 November 1976. Yugoslav courts at the time only condemned the Austrian state. The study also included a murder committed by the charge d"affaires of a foreign embassy in Belgium in 1906. The Belgian authorities were unable to detain the killer except after obtaining the approval of the accredited state.