From Karak, where the terrorist crime has left behind pain and difficult questions, a wave of Arab, regional and international condemnation has emerged, carrying a clear message rejecting terrorism and the targeting of innocent people, while affirming solidarity with Jordan in confronting a crime that threatens the security and peace of society.
These positions were not merely statements condemning a painful incident or expressions of sympathy. They carried a deeper message: targeting an individual is an assault on society as a whole, while protecting Jordan, its security and stability is an issue whose importance extends beyond its borders.
Political and strategic experts, speaking separately to Al-Ghad, said the convergence of Arab, regional and international positions reveals two interconnected dimensions. The first is humanitarian, rooted in rejecting violence, terrorism and violations of the sanctity of life and worship. The second is strategic, reflecting an understanding of the importance of Jordan’s stability in a region beset by crises and conflicts, where security threats are interconnected and their consequences cross borders.
Amid the pain caused by the crime and the international condemnation that followed, the message goes beyond sympathy for the victims to affirming Jordanians’ right to live in safety and coexist peacefully, while rejecting anything that could spread fear or sow division within society.
According to the experts, the significance of this solidarity lies not only in its timing or broad scope, but also in the messages it carries. It combines a humanitarian commitment to the victims with a political and strategic recognition that safeguarding Jordan’s security and national unity is an important part of regional stability.
This makes it necessary for condemnation not to remain limited to words, but to translate into practical cooperation in confronting terrorism, cutting off its sources and countering extremist ideology, thereby protecting people and preventing tragedies from being exploited to threaten societies and their stability.
Experts noted that the convergence of Arab and international positions reflects an understanding of the nature of the threat and the importance of protecting coexistence and national unity in Jordan, which has faced the repercussions of successive regional crises over the years.
They stressed that solidarity cannot be complete through condolences and condemnation alone. Its true value emerges when it develops into practical cooperation in combating terrorism, exchanging information, cutting off sources of extremism and confronting incitement, while respecting the law and ensuring justice.
The experts said that between the pain of the victims and messages of support, the positions of solidarity carry two complementary meanings: a humanitarian one that rejects the crime and upholds people’s right to safety, and a strategic one that recognizes Jordan’s stability and the cohesion of its domestic front as important elements of regional stability.
Solidarity and Its Significance
Dr. Khaled Shneikat, president of the Jordanian Association for Political Science, said Arab and international condemnation of the Karak crime reflected a rejection of violence, terrorism and attacks against Jordanian society.
He stressed that the similarity in the content of statements issued by different countries demonstrates an understanding of the nature and seriousness of the crime and the threat it poses to the social fabric, coexistence and stability in the Kingdom.
Shneikat noted that the brutality of the crime prompted expressions of solidarity with Jordan, focusing on rejecting attacks against the country and emphasizing the need to protect its security and stability.
He explained that these positions went beyond condemning the terrorist act itself and reflected an awareness of the potential impact such crimes can have on social cohesion, particularly since Jordan, in his view, has not experienced violence on the scale witnessed in some neighboring countries.
In this context, Shneikat stressed that solidarity with Jordan forms part of a broader rejection of terrorism and attacks against societies. He noted that the Kingdom has a record of regional and international efforts to combat terrorism and was a member of the international coalition against ISIS, which was launched in 2014.
He said this role helped strengthen Jordan’s position within regional and international efforts to confront terrorism, explaining the significance of the expressions of solidarity it receives when subjected to a terrorist attack.
He also pointed out that Jordan’s stability is a recurring theme in statements by foreign leaders visiting the Kingdom, with repeated calls to protect its security and preserve its stability.
From this perspective, Arab and international positions rejecting the Karak crime go beyond direct condemnation to affirm opposition to any attempts to destabilize Jordan or undermine its national unity.
Statements and a Clear Message
Shneikat stressed that the central message conveyed by these statements is that targeting Jordan is unacceptable and that protecting its security and stability is a priority in confronting terrorist threats.
He said regional and international positions have focused on “protecting security and stability inside Jordan and rejecting any attempts to destabilize the country or undermine national unity,” reflecting an understanding of the importance of maintaining the cohesion of Jordanian society and its ability to confront challenges.
According to Shneikat’s assessment, solidarity with Jordan therefore combines a humanitarian position rejecting crime, violence and attacks against society with a political position highlighting the importance of the Kingdom’s stability and national unity.
The condemnation, he said, is not limited to the crime itself, but also extends to rejecting the threats it may pose to social coexistence and any attempts to undermine Jordan’s security and stability.
Breaking Down the Scene
Military and strategic analyst Dr. Nidal Abu Zaid said understanding the Karak crime and the expressions of solidarity that followed requires examining the incident across three main dimensions: strategic, tactical and operational.
Such an approach, he said, helps explain the background and objectives of the incident while providing a clearer understanding of the security challenges Jordan has faced amid continuing regional turmoil.
At the strategic level, Abu Zaid explained that Jordan’s geopolitical position has made it vulnerable to the effects of crises in surrounding areas, including Syria, Iraq and the occupied Palestinian territories.
The repercussions of these crises, he said, have extended beyond politics to affect the Kingdom’s internal security environment.
He cited the 2005 Amman bombings and other attempts and attacks linked to the spillover of regional conflicts, arguing that developments in the region can have direct repercussions on Jordan’s security environment.
He stressed that understanding this background requires viewing terrorism as a phenomenon that feeds on surrounding crises and conflicts. This places Jordan before challenges that go beyond direct security confrontation to include countering extremist ideas and organizations seeking to exploit regional instability to pursue objectives inside the Kingdom.
At the tactical level, Abu Zaid believes one possible objective of the attack was to target Jordanian social cohesion and weaken the country’s internal front.
He stressed that such an objective runs counter to the nature of Jordanian society and its history of coexistence and cohesion, noting that “Jordan’s history has not recorded a terrorist attack or any Muslim-Christian confrontation,” underscoring the importance of preserving the social fabric against attempts to create division.
He added that, in his assessment, the objective of the attack was to “split Jordanian society,” but that objective was not achieved. The official and public response from the earliest moments demonstrated Jordan’s ability to absorb the repercussions of the incident and strengthen internal cohesion.
Solidarity with the Kingdom is therefore significant as a humanitarian response to the crime and a message rejecting attacks against civilians and threats to community security. At the same time, it reflects an understanding of the importance of keeping Jordan stable and cohesive in a region facing repeated crises.
The Importance of Jordanian Stability
In Abu Zaid’s view, international solidarity cannot be separated from its political and security significance. Supporting Jordan in confronting terrorism goes beyond expressing condemnation to emphasizing the need to protect its stability and preserve its social unity.
Given the Kingdom’s geopolitical position and its direct exposure to regional turmoil, its stability is important not only for Jordan itself but also for the surrounding regional environment.
Regarding the operational dimension and counterterrorism efforts, Abu Zaid said dealing with such incidents should not be limited to pursuing the perpetrators or uncovering details of the operation. It should also extend to cutting off the ideological and organizational sources of terrorism.
He explained that what is known in counterterrorism studies as the “strategy of savagery” requires addressing the environment that allows extremist ideology to grow and spread, including rhetoric that justifies, supports or incites violence.
He stressed that “eradicating radical extremist rhetoric” and confronting its various forms of support, regardless of the parties behind it, are essential components of counterterrorism efforts and of limiting extremist groups’ ability to recruit individuals and direct them toward violence.
From this perspective, Abu Zaid links direct security operations with efforts to address the ideological roots that could lead to similar attacks in the future.
Regarding the timing of the announcement of details surrounding the operation, Abu Zaid suggested that the delay may have been linked to investigative requirements and efforts to complete the different threads of the case, as part of a broader approach aimed at addressing the sources of threats rather than merely dealing with their immediate consequences.
He noted that Jordan’s security experiences, whether involving ISIS or other extremist groups, demonstrate the extent to which regional instability can affect the Kingdom’s security.
Therefore, confronting terrorism requires, alongside security measures, addressing extremist rhetoric, cutting off its sources and preventing surrounding conflicts from being exploited to target Jordan’s internal security.
According to this assessment, solidarity with Jordan following the Karak crime carries two complementary meanings: a humanitarian one expressed through condemnation of the crime and rejection of attacks against society, and a strategic one reflecting the importance of preserving the Kingdom’s stability and internal cohesion amid a regional environment in which Jordan’s security and stability are an important component of regional stability.
Citizenship Is Indivisible
Security and strategic expert Dr. Bashir Al-Daajeh said Arab and international messages of solidarity with Jordan following the Karak crime went beyond condemnation and condolences.
They expressed a humanitarian position rejecting attacks against innocent people and violations of their right to security and freedom of worship, while also reflecting an understanding of the importance of the Kingdom’s stability in a regional environment marked by interconnected conflicts and security challenges.
Al-Daajeh said the danger of the crime is not limited to its victims, but extends to the possibility of spreading fear, provoking division and undermining religious and social coexistence.
He stressed that targeting citizens from any component of society constitutes an attack on Jordanian society as a whole, emphasizing that “citizenship is indivisible, and security cannot be selective.”
He noted that preserving national unity is a fundamental pillar in preventing terrorism from turning pain into sectarian strife and shock into a crisis of trust among members of society.
At the strategic level, he explained that Jordan’s importance is closely linked to its geographical position and role in a region facing successive crises, making the preservation of its stability an interest that extends beyond its borders to the wider region.
Solidarity with the Kingdom therefore reflects not only sympathy with the victims of the crime, but also the need to protect its security, institutions and social cohesion against threats whose repercussions may extend beyond the country’s borders.
Cooperation in Combating Terrorism
Al-Daajeh stressed that the true value of international solidarity lies in moving from statements of condemnation to practical cooperation in combating terrorism, including intelligence sharing, pursuing financing and recruitment networks, and confronting cross-border incitement and extremism.
He also emphasized that the response should not be limited to pursuing the perpetrators, but must include cutting off the sources of extremist ideology, strengthening security preparedness and countering rumors and misinformation, preventing the crime from being exploited to spread fear and division.
He explained that terrorism seeks to produce consequences that extend beyond the crime itself: “fear after the bullet, doubt after the shock, and division after the grief.”
This makes protecting social cohesion an integral part of national security.
In this sense, solidarity with Jordan carries two complementary meanings: a humanitarian one based on rejecting the crime and defending people’s right to safety and freedom of worship, and a strategic one emphasizing that the Kingdom’s stability and national unity are important components of regional security.
Confronting terrorism, he concluded, requires an international partnership that goes beyond sympathy toward practical joint action.
Source: Al-Ghad
