Karak terrorism... between security efficiency and the necessity of drying up the sources of extremism

However, the events of Karak call for a reading that goes beyond the crime itself, to what Jordan has faced over decades of threats to its security and stability, and what some of these threats may carry in terms of attempts to undermine its national fabric.

Jordanian societal cohesion, based on historical ties, shared values, and a deeply rooted heritage of coexistence, has remained one of the state's most important sources of strength. What is required is not addressing divisions we assume exist, but protecting this national gain from attempts to target it.

Risks are not limited to terrorism and religious extremism; regional conflicts may open the door to political and ideological polarizations, or attempts to employ cross-border stances and loyalties to serve the interests of external powers.

Jordan, by virtue of its location and close connection to the Palestinian cause, is inevitably affected by the repercussions of Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian territories, and the legitimate popular and political positions they provoke. It also monitors the effects of regional competition, including the extensions of Iranian influence in Iraq and Lebanon, and the transformations witnessed by Syria after the fall of the Assad regime and the decline of that influence.

The region's experiences have shown how ideological loyalties linked to the outside can turn into tools for polarization and influence on national decision-making. However, recalling these experiences does not mean assuming the existence of similar divisions in Jordan, or questioning the patriotism of those with different stances, especially legitimate solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Political and intellectual pluralism is an inherent right, and the danger does not lie in differing opinions, but in attempts to subjugate the national will to external interests, or to exploit differences to incite violence and undermine state institutions.

In this context, the performance shown by the government in dealing with the crisis deserves to be positively noted. The follow-up by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Interior, and security leaderships reflected a clear presence of the executive authority and its institutions.

I see this as an encouraging institutional practice that deserves to be built upon; a strong state is managed by constitutional authorities that bear their responsibilities, not by overlapping powers or individual interpretations, provided that the final judgment on performance remains linked to the results of the investigation and review.

However, the most important question goes beyond dealing with the incident: How do we prevent extremism before it turns into terrorism, and how do we protect national cohesion from attempts at polarization and influence?

Here, the recent Royal directives gain their importance. His Majesty King Abdullah II emphasized, while chairing a National Security Council meeting following the crime, the necessity of conducting a comprehensive security review, and reviewing policies to combat extremist thought and dry up its sources within a systematic plan, in coordination with religious authorities.

These directives are consistent with an extended royal vision that sees confronting extremism not as a security responsibility alone, but as an intellectual, cultural, and social battle, embodied in important Jordanian initiatives, most notably the Amman Message.

Combating extremism requires the integration of the efforts of education, awqaf, culture, youth, media, religious institutions, and civil society.

Hence, I believe the time has come to develop a specialized national institutional framework to coordinate efforts for the prevention of extremism and the promotion of societal cohesion, within a clear and measurable strategy.

The National Security Council can be built upon as a strategic umbrella, without creating institutions with competing powers. What is required is a specialized mechanism of a civilian, intellectual, and educational nature, which undertakes coordination, follow-up, and evaluation, while security agencies and existing institutions retain their jurisdictions, and in accordance with constitutional and legal frameworks.

Most importantly, the work of this mechanism should begin with an independent national scientific study that measures the spread of extremist ideas, their sources, and the nourishing factors behind them, evaluates the effectiveness of existing policies, and examines potential risks to national cohesion, including incitement and external influence attempts, while respecting rights and freedoms and clearly distinguishing between legitimate political disagreement and violent extremism.

For what we do not measure, we cannot manage, and it is not enough to infer the success of combating extremism by the number of terrorist incidents alone.

In Jordan, where coexistence forms an essential pillar of national identity, an assault on a house of worship is an assault on Jordanian society as a whole, and on the values that bring its people together.

The success of the security agencies in pursuing terrorism does not absolve us of the responsibility of confronting the ideas that produce it, nor of protecting national cohesion from attempts to undermine it, regardless of its sources.

Jordan's strength does not lie in its ability to prevent every risk, for that is impossible, but rather in the efficiency of its security agencies, the maturity of its constitutional institutions, the immunity of its society, and the independence of its national decision. A strong state is not the one that does not face crises, but the one that learns from them, and turns their lessons into policies that protect its future.