Amman — His Majesty King Abdullah II’s remark, “We will show them,” was not merely a reaction to a crime or an expression of anger at a difficult moment. Rather, it reflected Jordan’s approach to confronting terrorism, based on firmness in addressing threats, protecting society, and preventing extremist groups from imposing their agendas on the state or undermining its stability.
Over the past two decades, Jordan has faced successive waves of terrorist attacks and plots targeting its security. The Kingdom has not treated these challenges as isolated incidents, but as an evolving threat requiring the development of security and intelligence capabilities, enhanced military readiness, expanded international cooperation, and efforts to protect national cohesion from attempts to fuel incitement and division.
Against this backdrop, the King’s remarks during his visit to Karak following the attack on St. George’s Church in Hamoud village underscored that the state would not relent in pursuing those responsible for the assault. However, the significance of the position extends beyond the incident itself, highlighting the nature of Jordan’s confrontation with terrorism and the state’s ability to combine security deterrence with the preservation of social stability.
A Long Experience With an Evolving Threat
The Amman bombings on November 9, 2005, marked a turning point in Jordan’s awareness of the dangers of terrorism. Three hotels in the capital were targeted, killing around 60 people and injuring hundreds. The attacks demonstrated that extremist organizations were willing to target civilians and public places to cause maximum fear and disruption.
Since then, the challenge has extended beyond responding to attacks inside the Kingdom to monitoring extremist networks, uncovering cells, foiling plots before they are carried out, and dealing with the repercussions of regional conflicts that have provided armed groups with environments conducive to growth and movement.
These threats prompted Jordan to strengthen its intelligence-gathering and analysis capabilities, improve coordination among relevant agencies, and expand cooperation with partner countries in confronting terrorist organizations. Preventive action has become a key element of national security, as success in confronting terrorism is measured not only by the speed of the response after an attack, but also by the state’s ability to prevent attacks from occurring in the first place.
These efforts have also been linked to King Abdullah II’s political role. In his international positions, the King has stressed the need to confront terrorism and extremism without reducing the threat to any particular region, given their ability to cross borders and target different societies. Jordan’s position has also included calls to address the conditions exploited by extremist groups, without this serving as a justification for violence or exempting its perpetrators from responsibility.
2016: A Multi-Front Test
Events in 2016 highlighted the scale of the challenges facing the Kingdom. In March of that year, security forces carried out an operation against an armed cell in Irbid, killing seven of its members. In June, an attack targeted an office affiliated with the General Intelligence Department in Baqa’a, while a Jordanian military position near Rukban was attacked by a vehicle laden with explosives. In December, Karak witnessed armed attacks and security clashes that claimed the lives of security personnel and civilians, including a Canadian tourist.
The circumstances and objectives of these incidents differed, but together they demonstrated the multiple forms of the threat, ranging from armed cells operating inside cities to attacks linked to a turbulent regional environment. They also showed that protecting Jordan requires constant vigilance and the ability to move from dealing with a specific threat to assessing a broader network of potential risks.
Within this framework, security and intelligence agencies played a key role in tracking cells, pursuing suspects and foiling plots, while the armed forces continued to protect the borders and respond to external threats. The effectiveness of these efforts remains dependent on their ability to combine accurate intelligence, rapid action and institutional coordination, while adhering to the law and ensuring accountability.
The importance of this experience lies in demonstrating that terrorism cannot be confronted through a single measure or temporary response. It requires an integrated system that evolves as the threat changes. As extremist organizations modify their methods, the need grows to update surveillance and analysis tools, strengthen protection measures for civilian sites and improve institutions’ ability to identify threats at an early stage.
From Fuheis and Salt to Countering Extremism in Cities
In August 2018, an explosive device targeted a security patrol in the Fuheis area, followed by the pursuit and raid of an armed cell in the city of Salt. These events again demonstrated that the threat is not confined to borders or conflict zones, but can emerge within cities, requiring precise intelligence work and the ability to identify cells before they carry out further attacks.
These episodes also highlighted the importance of not limiting the response to security measures alone. Pursuing those involved and disrupting their ability to carry out attacks is essential, but prevention also requires confronting extremist and inciting rhetoric, countering efforts to recruit individuals into militant groups, and strengthening trust between society and state institutions.
This does not mean that extremism can be explained by a single factor or that community prevention can replace security efforts. Rather, the two tracks complement each other. Specialized institutions are responsible for identifying threats and pursuing perpetrators, while educational, religious and media institutions, as well as society as a whole, have a broader responsibility to reject hate speech and oppose attempts to legitimize violence.
Muath Al-Kasasbeh: When the Confrontation Crossed Borders
The capture of Jordanian pilot Muath Al-Kasasbeh by ISIS in December 2014, followed by the group’s announcement that it had burned him to death in February 2015, was one of the darkest moments in Jordan’s confrontation with terrorism. The organization sought to turn the crime into a means of intimidating and pressuring Jordan because of its participation in international efforts against the group.
Jordan responded with measures that included airstrikes against ISIS positions as part of the “Martyr Muath” operation, while continuing efforts to protect the Kingdom’s security. The episode demonstrated that terrorist threats do not stop at state borders and that protecting national security may require confronting sources of danger beyond the country, using the available means and capabilities.
The experience highlights the importance of integrating political decision-making, military capabilities and international cooperation. It also demonstrates that extremist organizations seek to use brutal violence to weaken the resolve of states, while an effective response seeks to prevent them from achieving their objectives, protect society from their repercussions and deny them the ability to impose their agendas through fear.
“We Will Show Them”: Firmness Alone Is Not Enough
Against this backdrop, King Abdullah II’s remark following the attack on St. George’s Church in Hamoud village takes on significance beyond the incident itself. Targeting a place of worship during a funeral ceremony places a responsibility on the state to protect citizens and safeguard their right to practice their faith safely. At the same time, it requires the crime to be investigated accurately, without prejudging the findings or drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about those responsible.
The first step is to establish the circumstances of the attack, identify those responsible based on evidence, pursue them and bring them before the courts. The second is to review security measures protecting civilian sites and places of worship and identify areas that can be improved to prevent similar crimes, while continuing proactive intelligence efforts.
Equally important is protecting society from the repercussions that terrorism seeks to create. An attack on a church does not concern Christians alone, just as an attack on a mosque does not concern Muslims alone. Protecting places of worship and safeguarding citizens’ right to security and equal citizenship are shared national responsibilities.
This underscores the importance of preventing the crime from becoming an opportunity for incitement or sweeping accusations. Terrorism relies on fear, suspicion and attempts to create divisions among society’s different components. Defeating those objectives therefore requires enforcing the law, confronting hate speech and maintaining trust between citizens and state institutions.
The King’s Role and the State’s Responsibility
The King plays a central role during times of crisis, not only by expressing firm positions, but also by directing institutions to address threats and translating those positions into concrete measures and results. King Abdullah II’s positions on terrorism have consistently emphasized protecting Jordan, rejecting extremism and strengthening international cooperation, while highlighting the importance of religious and social coexistence in confronting attempts to create division.
However, the value of firmness is ultimately measured by what it achieves on the ground. Strong royal statements must be translated into uncovering the truth, holding those responsible accountable, strengthening preventive measures and working to prevent similar attacks from recurring. Effective counterterrorism efforts also require continued development of the capabilities of specialized institutions, review of weaknesses and assessment of measures based on their results.
This responsibility cannot be separated from the role of society. The state provides protection and enforces the law, but social cohesion represents a broad line of defense against attempts to exploit religious and social differences. The stronger the cohesion among Jordanians, the less ability extremist organizations have to turn crimes into tools of division.
The phrase “We will show them” sums up a firm position, but translating that firmness into results requires sustained institutional action combining deterrence and prevention, accountability and protection of society. Jordan, which has confronted the Amman bombings, armed-cell operations and threats from extremist organizations beyond its borders, has extensive experience in dealing with terrorism. Maintaining the effectiveness of that experience, however, requires continuous review of tools and policies and keeping pace with the changing nature of threats.
Ultimately, Jordan’s success in confronting terrorism is not measured only by the number of attacks it has dealt with, but by its ability to prevent them from recurring, pursue those responsible, protect citizens and preserve social unity. Firmness protects the state when it is grounded in the law, deterrence achieves its purpose when combined with prevention, and the unity of Jordanians remains a key element in defeating every attempt to spread fear and division.
Source: Al-Ghad
