Karak and its Syrian aftermath: Jordan’s unity in the face of terrorism
The terrorist crime that targeted Hmoud Church in Al-Karak on October 23 was not merely an assault on the worshippers and those attending a funeral; it struck the collective conscience of all Jordanians, subjecting the security and cohesion of society to a painful test. From a strategic perspective, the targeting of a religious site can be understood as an attempt to shift the violence from the bodies of the victims to the relationships between citizens-transforming grief into mutual fear. Yet, the Jordanian response moved in the opposite direction: the tragedy became an occasion to reaffirm a shared sense of belonging, rejecting any attempt by terrorism to define Jordanians through divisions they themselves reject.
The public response was both swift and profound. Jordanians rushed to donate blood, and hospitals were crowded with people eager to offer something tangible to save the wounded. The Jordan News Agency (Petra) reported that, within just a few hours, approximately 220,000 milliliters of blood had been donated. Behind this figure lies a greater national truth: that the life of a Jordanian is the responsibility of their fellow citizen, and that religious differences are, in this context, non-existent. When a Muslim extends his arm to save his Christian brother, the blood itself becomes a living expression of a single nation-national unity embodied in a humanitarian act that transcends mere speeches and slogans.
This message was further reinforced by the presence of both official and public figures. The visits by official representatives and figures from all segments of Jordanian society to those affected underscored that the state stands by its citizens in times of suffering, and that protecting their lives and dignity is a responsibility that allows for no discrimination. This response is significant because it combines compassion with resolve: comforting families, caring for the wounded, and pursuing those responsible. Successfully confronting terrorism requires a state capable of enforcing the law, as well as a society capable of preventing such crimes from escalating into internal strife among its various components.
However, the domestic dimension of this crime does not negate its regional security implications. On October 26, Jordan announced that it had carried out airstrikes against sites in southern Syria, which it identified as being linked to terrorist groups connected to the perpetrators of the attack. This account warrants close attention as further investigations and official statements emerge.
These developments bring the dilemma of southern Syria back to the forefront for Jordan; borders do not effectively separate the security of two states when armed networks can exploit weak border control, the proliferation of weapons, and established smuggling routes. Jordanian concerns predated the political transformation in Syria and have persisted ever since-for instance, in March 2025, it was announced that an infiltration attempt by armed smugglers had been thwarted, with authorities seizing narcotics and weapons. This continuity reveals that a mere change in power is insufficient to dismantle networks that have built up their interests and capabilities over years of conflict.
To address these threats, Jordan has opted for communication and coordination. In January 2025, the two sides agreed to establish a joint security committee tasked with securing the border, combating the smuggling of weapons and narcotics, and preventing the resurgence of ISIS. A more precise question concerns the extent to which these understandings can yield sustainable results, as well as the potential gap between political commitments and control on the ground-a gap that requires both attention and accountability, grounded in clear information.
Furthermore, the discrepancy between the Jordanian and Syrian accounts regarding coordination for the recent strikes-compounded by Syrian reports of civilian casualties-makes direct communication and verification an urgent necessity. Safeguarding Jordan’s security requires precise intelligence, disciplined targeting, the protection of civilians, and the closure of spaces exploited by armed groups. It is in the mutual interest of both nations to prevent any friction from disrupting cooperation; a breakdown in relations would only provide further opportunities for networks of violence and smuggling. Both countries require actionable and measurable steps that go beyond mere meetings and statements.
Alongside this security dimension, there is the significance of the image of Jordan presented to the world through interviews conducted by American media personality Tucker Carlson. An episode focusing on Christians in the Holy Land—filmed at the Baptism Site (Al-Maghtas)-was released on February 4, 2026 (U.S. time). It featured Bishop Hosam Naoum, the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, and Saad Muasher, Chairman of the Jordan Ahli Bank. The segment offered a glimpse into the Jordanian experience through firsthand accounts, challenging the stereotypes that often reduce the entire region to a narrative of religious conflict.
Muasher spoke of his sense of belonging and equality, affirming that he had never personally experienced discrimination because of his Christian faith. He linked the flourishing of the Christian community to the presence of rights, stability, and the leadership of the Hashemite monarchy. Bishop Naoum expressed his sense of comfort and freedom in Jordan, while Carlson remarked on the care shown toward holy sites. The strength of these accounts lies in their portrayal of Jordanian Christians as authentic citizens and partners within society. They serve as significant testimonies to the personal experiences of those who shared them-without, however, being transformed into an absolute judgment that would negate the ongoing need to strengthen rights and participation for all citizens.
The significance of this presence is amplified by the scale of Carlson’s audience; as of October, he had approximately 17.9 million followers on X and 5.78 million subscribers on YouTube, in addition to millions more across other platforms. This reach provides an opportunity to highlight the model of Muslim-Christian coexistence in Jordan and to challenge prevailing stereotypes about the region. In this context, one might consider the possibility that actors hostile to Jordan’s stability-such as extremist, 'takfiri' terrorist groups-could seek to tarnish this image and undermine national cohesion, potentially acting in coordination with or under the direction of Israel.
Such an agenda involving planning, guidance, and funding-would serve the clear interest of damaging the image of Jordanian social harmony between Christians and Muslims. More importantly, the solidarity shown by Jordanians-including the act of donating blood for the victims-effectively thwarted any attempt to exploit the crime to incite sectarian strife. It demonstrated that a shared national identity is far stronger than any effort to transform religious differences into a rift that could tear society apart.
Furthermore, the targeting of Jordan’s national cohesion could be viewed as a potential attempt to leverage unrest to serve an Israeli objective: diverting attention away from the crimes and violations occurring in Gaza and the West Bank, while entangling Jordan in internal challenges that drain its focus and political and diplomatic efforts. Manufactured crises-regardless of their origin-create opportunities to weaken regional solidarity and distract from the suffering of the Palestinian people. The most effective Jordanian response remains the strengthening of national unity, the thwarting of incitement, and the continued defense of Palestinian rights-ensuring that this crime cannot be exploited to destabilize Jordan’s position or undermine its internal cohesion.
In the face of attempts to capitalize on this crime, Jordan can simultaneously protect its domestic front and uphold its supportive role toward Palestine. It does so by relying on the solidarity and awareness of its citizens, refusing to let terrorism distract from national priorities or allow religious diversity to become a gateway for strife and division among its people.
What is required today is to transform solidarity into a sustainable practice: supporting the families of the victims and the injured, enhancing the protection of places of worship, confronting incitement, and developing border cooperation rooted in mutual responsibility. The perpetrators of this crime sought to inflict pain-perhaps betting that it would erode national trust-but the Jordanian people provided their answer by standing together and sharing the duty of rescue. From Karak, Jordan’s message is reinforced: it is a state that protects its citizens, a society that preserves its bonds of goodwill, and a nation that unites its people in life, destiny, and responsibility-confronting terrorism with awareness, cohesion, and justice.
Hasan Dajah is professor of strategic studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
The terrorist crime that targeted Hmoud Church in Al-Karak on October 23 was not merely an assault on the worshippers and those attending a funeral; it struck the collective conscience of all Jordanians, subjecting the security and cohesion of society to a painful test. From a strategic perspective, the targeting of a religious site can be understood as an attempt to shift the violence from the bodies of the victims to the relationships between citizens-transforming grief into mutual fear. Yet, the Jordanian response moved in the opposite direction: the tragedy became an occasion to reaffirm a shared sense of belonging, rejecting any attempt by terrorism to define Jordanians through divisions they themselves reject.
The public response was both swift and profound. Jordanians rushed to donate blood, and hospitals were crowded with people eager to offer something tangible to save the wounded. The Jordan News Agency (Petra) reported that, within just a few hours, approximately 220,000 milliliters of blood had been donated. Behind this figure lies a greater national truth: that the life of a Jordanian is the responsibility of their fellow citizen, and that religious differences are, in this context, non-existent. When a Muslim extends his arm to save his Christian brother, the blood itself becomes a living expression of a single nation-national unity embodied in a humanitarian act that transcends mere speeches and slogans.
This message was further reinforced by the presence of both official and public figures. The visits by official representatives and figures from all segments of Jordanian society to those affected underscored that the state stands by its citizens in times of suffering, and that protecting their lives and dignity is a responsibility that allows for no discrimination. This response is significant because it combines compassion with resolve: comforting families, caring for the wounded, and pursuing those responsible. Successfully confronting terrorism requires a state capable of enforcing the law, as well as a society capable of preventing such crimes from escalating into internal strife among its various components.
However, the domestic dimension of this crime does not negate its regional security implications. On October 26, Jordan announced that it had carried out airstrikes against sites in southern Syria, which it identified as being linked to terrorist groups connected to the perpetrators of the attack. This account warrants close attention as further investigations and official statements emerge.
These developments bring the dilemma of southern Syria back to the forefront for Jordan; borders do not effectively separate the security of two states when armed networks can exploit weak border control, the proliferation of weapons, and established smuggling routes. Jordanian concerns predated the political transformation in Syria and have persisted ever since-for instance, in March 2025, it was announced that an infiltration attempt by armed smugglers had been thwarted, with authorities seizing narcotics and weapons. This continuity reveals that a mere change in power is insufficient to dismantle networks that have built up their interests and capabilities over years of conflict.
To address these threats, Jordan has opted for communication and coordination. In January 2025, the two sides agreed to establish a joint security committee tasked with securing the border, combating the smuggling of weapons and narcotics, and preventing the resurgence of ISIS. A more precise question concerns the extent to which these understandings can yield sustainable results, as well as the potential gap between political commitments and control on the ground-a gap that requires both attention and accountability, grounded in clear information.
Furthermore, the discrepancy between the Jordanian and Syrian accounts regarding coordination for the recent strikes-compounded by Syrian reports of civilian casualties-makes direct communication and verification an urgent necessity. Safeguarding Jordan’s security requires precise intelligence, disciplined targeting, the protection of civilians, and the closure of spaces exploited by armed groups. It is in the mutual interest of both nations to prevent any friction from disrupting cooperation; a breakdown in relations would only provide further opportunities for networks of violence and smuggling. Both countries require actionable and measurable steps that go beyond mere meetings and statements.
Alongside this security dimension, there is the significance of the image of Jordan presented to the world through interviews conducted by American media personality Tucker Carlson. An episode focusing on Christians in the Holy Land—filmed at the Baptism Site (Al-Maghtas)-was released on February 4, 2026 (U.S. time). It featured Bishop Hosam Naoum, the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, and Saad Muasher, Chairman of the Jordan Ahli Bank. The segment offered a glimpse into the Jordanian experience through firsthand accounts, challenging the stereotypes that often reduce the entire region to a narrative of religious conflict.
Muasher spoke of his sense of belonging and equality, affirming that he had never personally experienced discrimination because of his Christian faith. He linked the flourishing of the Christian community to the presence of rights, stability, and the leadership of the Hashemite monarchy. Bishop Naoum expressed his sense of comfort and freedom in Jordan, while Carlson remarked on the care shown toward holy sites. The strength of these accounts lies in their portrayal of Jordanian Christians as authentic citizens and partners within society. They serve as significant testimonies to the personal experiences of those who shared them-without, however, being transformed into an absolute judgment that would negate the ongoing need to strengthen rights and participation for all citizens.
The significance of this presence is amplified by the scale of Carlson’s audience; as of October, he had approximately 17.9 million followers on X and 5.78 million subscribers on YouTube, in addition to millions more across other platforms. This reach provides an opportunity to highlight the model of Muslim-Christian coexistence in Jordan and to challenge prevailing stereotypes about the region. In this context, one might consider the possibility that actors hostile to Jordan’s stability-such as extremist, 'takfiri' terrorist groups-could seek to tarnish this image and undermine national cohesion, potentially acting in coordination with or under the direction of Israel.
Such an agenda involving planning, guidance, and funding-would serve the clear interest of damaging the image of Jordanian social harmony between Christians and Muslims. More importantly, the solidarity shown by Jordanians-including the act of donating blood for the victims-effectively thwarted any attempt to exploit the crime to incite sectarian strife. It demonstrated that a shared national identity is far stronger than any effort to transform religious differences into a rift that could tear society apart.
Furthermore, the targeting of Jordan’s national cohesion could be viewed as a potential attempt to leverage unrest to serve an Israeli objective: diverting attention away from the crimes and violations occurring in Gaza and the West Bank, while entangling Jordan in internal challenges that drain its focus and political and diplomatic efforts. Manufactured crises-regardless of their origin-create opportunities to weaken regional solidarity and distract from the suffering of the Palestinian people. The most effective Jordanian response remains the strengthening of national unity, the thwarting of incitement, and the continued defense of Palestinian rights-ensuring that this crime cannot be exploited to destabilize Jordan’s position or undermine its internal cohesion.
In the face of attempts to capitalize on this crime, Jordan can simultaneously protect its domestic front and uphold its supportive role toward Palestine. It does so by relying on the solidarity and awareness of its citizens, refusing to let terrorism distract from national priorities or allow religious diversity to become a gateway for strife and division among its people.
What is required today is to transform solidarity into a sustainable practice: supporting the families of the victims and the injured, enhancing the protection of places of worship, confronting incitement, and developing border cooperation rooted in mutual responsibility. The perpetrators of this crime sought to inflict pain-perhaps betting that it would erode national trust-but the Jordanian people provided their answer by standing together and sharing the duty of rescue. From Karak, Jordan’s message is reinforced: it is a state that protects its citizens, a society that preserves its bonds of goodwill, and a nation that unites its people in life, destiny, and responsibility-confronting terrorism with awareness, cohesion, and justice.
Hasan Dajah is professor of strategic studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
The terrorist crime that targeted Hmoud Church in Al-Karak on October 23 was not merely an assault on the worshippers and those attending a funeral; it struck the collective conscience of all Jordanians, subjecting the security and cohesion of society to a painful test. From a strategic perspective, the targeting of a religious site can be understood as an attempt to shift the violence from the bodies of the victims to the relationships between citizens-transforming grief into mutual fear. Yet, the Jordanian response moved in the opposite direction: the tragedy became an occasion to reaffirm a shared sense of belonging, rejecting any attempt by terrorism to define Jordanians through divisions they themselves reject.
The public response was both swift and profound. Jordanians rushed to donate blood, and hospitals were crowded with people eager to offer something tangible to save the wounded. The Jordan News Agency (Petra) reported that, within just a few hours, approximately 220,000 milliliters of blood had been donated. Behind this figure lies a greater national truth: that the life of a Jordanian is the responsibility of their fellow citizen, and that religious differences are, in this context, non-existent. When a Muslim extends his arm to save his Christian brother, the blood itself becomes a living expression of a single nation-national unity embodied in a humanitarian act that transcends mere speeches and slogans.
This message was further reinforced by the presence of both official and public figures. The visits by official representatives and figures from all segments of Jordanian society to those affected underscored that the state stands by its citizens in times of suffering, and that protecting their lives and dignity is a responsibility that allows for no discrimination. This response is significant because it combines compassion with resolve: comforting families, caring for the wounded, and pursuing those responsible. Successfully confronting terrorism requires a state capable of enforcing the law, as well as a society capable of preventing such crimes from escalating into internal strife among its various components.
However, the domestic dimension of this crime does not negate its regional security implications. On October 26, Jordan announced that it had carried out airstrikes against sites in southern Syria, which it identified as being linked to terrorist groups connected to the perpetrators of the attack. This account warrants close attention as further investigations and official statements emerge.
These developments bring the dilemma of southern Syria back to the forefront for Jordan; borders do not effectively separate the security of two states when armed networks can exploit weak border control, the proliferation of weapons, and established smuggling routes. Jordanian concerns predated the political transformation in Syria and have persisted ever since-for instance, in March 2025, it was announced that an infiltration attempt by armed smugglers had been thwarted, with authorities seizing narcotics and weapons. This continuity reveals that a mere change in power is insufficient to dismantle networks that have built up their interests and capabilities over years of conflict.
To address these threats, Jordan has opted for communication and coordination. In January 2025, the two sides agreed to establish a joint security committee tasked with securing the border, combating the smuggling of weapons and narcotics, and preventing the resurgence of ISIS. A more precise question concerns the extent to which these understandings can yield sustainable results, as well as the potential gap between political commitments and control on the ground-a gap that requires both attention and accountability, grounded in clear information.
Furthermore, the discrepancy between the Jordanian and Syrian accounts regarding coordination for the recent strikes-compounded by Syrian reports of civilian casualties-makes direct communication and verification an urgent necessity. Safeguarding Jordan’s security requires precise intelligence, disciplined targeting, the protection of civilians, and the closure of spaces exploited by armed groups. It is in the mutual interest of both nations to prevent any friction from disrupting cooperation; a breakdown in relations would only provide further opportunities for networks of violence and smuggling. Both countries require actionable and measurable steps that go beyond mere meetings and statements.
Alongside this security dimension, there is the significance of the image of Jordan presented to the world through interviews conducted by American media personality Tucker Carlson. An episode focusing on Christians in the Holy Land—filmed at the Baptism Site (Al-Maghtas)-was released on February 4, 2026 (U.S. time). It featured Bishop Hosam Naoum, the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, and Saad Muasher, Chairman of the Jordan Ahli Bank. The segment offered a glimpse into the Jordanian experience through firsthand accounts, challenging the stereotypes that often reduce the entire region to a narrative of religious conflict.
Muasher spoke of his sense of belonging and equality, affirming that he had never personally experienced discrimination because of his Christian faith. He linked the flourishing of the Christian community to the presence of rights, stability, and the leadership of the Hashemite monarchy. Bishop Naoum expressed his sense of comfort and freedom in Jordan, while Carlson remarked on the care shown toward holy sites. The strength of these accounts lies in their portrayal of Jordanian Christians as authentic citizens and partners within society. They serve as significant testimonies to the personal experiences of those who shared them-without, however, being transformed into an absolute judgment that would negate the ongoing need to strengthen rights and participation for all citizens.
The significance of this presence is amplified by the scale of Carlson’s audience; as of October, he had approximately 17.9 million followers on X and 5.78 million subscribers on YouTube, in addition to millions more across other platforms. This reach provides an opportunity to highlight the model of Muslim-Christian coexistence in Jordan and to challenge prevailing stereotypes about the region. In this context, one might consider the possibility that actors hostile to Jordan’s stability-such as extremist, 'takfiri' terrorist groups-could seek to tarnish this image and undermine national cohesion, potentially acting in coordination with or under the direction of Israel.
Such an agenda involving planning, guidance, and funding-would serve the clear interest of damaging the image of Jordanian social harmony between Christians and Muslims. More importantly, the solidarity shown by Jordanians-including the act of donating blood for the victims-effectively thwarted any attempt to exploit the crime to incite sectarian strife. It demonstrated that a shared national identity is far stronger than any effort to transform religious differences into a rift that could tear society apart.
Furthermore, the targeting of Jordan’s national cohesion could be viewed as a potential attempt to leverage unrest to serve an Israeli objective: diverting attention away from the crimes and violations occurring in Gaza and the West Bank, while entangling Jordan in internal challenges that drain its focus and political and diplomatic efforts. Manufactured crises-regardless of their origin-create opportunities to weaken regional solidarity and distract from the suffering of the Palestinian people. The most effective Jordanian response remains the strengthening of national unity, the thwarting of incitement, and the continued defense of Palestinian rights-ensuring that this crime cannot be exploited to destabilize Jordan’s position or undermine its internal cohesion.
In the face of attempts to capitalize on this crime, Jordan can simultaneously protect its domestic front and uphold its supportive role toward Palestine. It does so by relying on the solidarity and awareness of its citizens, refusing to let terrorism distract from national priorities or allow religious diversity to become a gateway for strife and division among its people.
What is required today is to transform solidarity into a sustainable practice: supporting the families of the victims and the injured, enhancing the protection of places of worship, confronting incitement, and developing border cooperation rooted in mutual responsibility. The perpetrators of this crime sought to inflict pain-perhaps betting that it would erode national trust-but the Jordanian people provided their answer by standing together and sharing the duty of rescue. From Karak, Jordan’s message is reinforced: it is a state that protects its citizens, a society that preserves its bonds of goodwill, and a nation that unites its people in life, destiny, and responsibility-confronting terrorism with awareness, cohesion, and justice.
Hasan Dajah is professor of strategic studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
comments
Karak and its Syrian aftermath: Jordan’s unity in the face of terrorism
comments