ISLAMIC ACTION FRONT LEADERS TO U.S.: DIALOGUE,

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 003327

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/20/2012
TAGS: KISL KPAO PGOV PHUM JO
SUBJECT: ISLAMIC ACTION FRONT LEADERS TO U.S.: DIALOGUE,
YES; AGREEMENT, NO

REF: AMMAN 778

Classified By: AMBASSADOR EDWARD W. GNEHM FOR REASONS 1.5(B) AND (D).


1. (C) On June 13, Poloff and PA Cultural Exchange Visitor
Imam Yahya Hindi met with Islamic Action Front (IAF) leaders
Hamza Mansour (IAF Secretary General),Abdel Latif Arabiyat
(IAF Shura Council President),Jamil Abu Bakir (Chairman of
the Board for the weekly IAF newspaper, Assabeel),and Sa'ud
Abu Mahfuz (Assabeel General Manager). The primary purpose
of Hindi's visit to Jordan was to communicate his view of
Muslim experience in the U.S. post-9/11, to counter rumors
and anecdotes now circulating in the region about treatment
of Muslims in the U.S. The narrower purpose of the June 13
meeting was to step closer toward the resumption of routine
contacts between the Embassy and the IAF, disrupted two years
ago by a series of visa issues involving prominent Muslim
leaders.

--------------
A CALL FOR DIALOGUE
--------------


2. (C) IAF leaders welcomed Poloff and Hindi, both of whom
are known to IAF leaders from past meetings. Hindi then
uncorked a variation on a theme he stressed during the entire
course of his visit to Jordan, encouraging IAF leaders to
engage in dialogue with U.S. officials on issues of common
interest to the U.S. and Muslims.

--------------
DIALOGUE, YES; AGREEMENT, NO
--------------


3. (C) Hindi's call for dialogue provoked substantively
aggressive, though politely delivered, responses from IAF
leaders:

- Arabiyat agreed on the need for dialogue. He further
stated his respect for U.S. foundational values (i.e.,
democracy, freedom, and justice),but criticized what he sees
as U.S. abandonment of these values in reflexive enmity
towards Islam and a unholy war against Muslims. Arabiyat
feels the U.S. could benefit from the reinsertion of moral
values -- values that could be supplied by Islam -- into its
culture. In saying this, he invoked the notion of a
U.S.-Muslim partnership.

- Arabiyat also accused the U.S. of running a war against
Muslims. As evidence of American malice, Arabiyat cited a
recent speech wherein President Bush supposedly promised
"American zionists" he would wage war on Muslims until "they
stand defenseless and clean-shaven." When Poloff asked to
see a copy of the speech, one of Arabiyat's junior colleagues
clarified that Arabiyat had been quoting Arab commentary on a
speech rather than the speech itself. Arabiyat, not greatly
deterred by the snafu in sourcing, seamlessly wound up with a
warning that Muslims have less to lose than the U.S. in a war
with the U.S.

- Mansour acknowledged the role of Muslim-Americans in
"balancing" U.S. views towards Islam, but stressed the "duty"
of U.S. embassies to candidly report trends and sensibilities
within Muslim countries. In this sense, Mansour said he
supports dialogue between the U.S. Embassy and the IAF.
Mansour apologetically explained that anti-U.S. sentiment at
all levels of Jordanian society prevented him from attending
a June 11 luncheon honoring Hindi. In a June 9 letter to the
Embassy, Mansour wrote that accepting "such an invitation
would seriously compromise our principles" until "US policy
is changed to a more just and even-handed posture." Hindi
bluntly commented that this type of wasted opportunity was
inexcusable and potentially detrimental to the IAF.

- Mansour also asserted that the U.S.-led "war on Islam"
harms Islamist moderates by complicating their efforts to
garner support against extremists. As evidence that the U.S.
is waging war on Islam, Mansour cited an unidentified recent
poll supposedly showing that "73% of Americans support war on
Islamists" as well as Rumsfield's effort to "humiliate"
Pakistan's President Musharraf during his recent South Asian
tour. As evidence that the U.S. ignores its moderate Islamic
friends, Mansour recalled the "uncivilized" revocation of his
own visa in 2000. Switching subjects, Mansour noted that the
IAF "has never accepted Arafat" but felt it was not up to the
U.S. to meddle in the decision of who should be leading the
Palestinian people.

- Abu Bakir likewise supported dialogue with the U.S. and its
representatives, saying he considered this a religious
imperative. The strength of the imperative is
counterbalanced by a duty to assist Muslims who are
everywhere beset by "external pressures." Many doubt the
efficacy of dialogue in any event, which also undermines
moderates. Abu Bakir, speaking of Muslims collectively, said
"we are a nation that can be captivated by a good deed." But
no good deeds have been forthcoming from the U.S., which
supports regimes (read: the Hashemite regime in Jordan) that
do not represent their people.

- Abu Mahfuz noted the burgeoning "hatred" for the U.S.
within the Arab world, as distinguished from more moderate
sentiments directed at European countries. He was also
puzzled over why the U.S. deals with the GOJ rather than the
Islamists, who (he says) have greater representation among
Jordanians than the GOJ. Abu Mahfuz affirmed that he does
not want the U.S. as an enemy. But, he said, if the U.S.
chooses to wage war on Islam, Muslims will be "patient" (or
"resolute"),the U.S. will bear the costs of the hatred it
foments, and justice will ultimately prevail.


4. (C) Poloff responded that the IAF's fundamental
misperception of the U.S. as duplicitously waging war against
Islam is an illustration of the need for dialogue between
Islamists and U.S. officials. Hindi added that dialogue is
actually working to get the Muslim viewpoint across in the
U.S. In the interest of better understanding the Islamist
movement, Poloff also obtained commitments for additional
meetings focusing on a range of issues concerning Islamists
in Jordan.

--------------
COMMENT
--------------


5. (C) Notwithstanding their polemics, the IAF leaders
attending the meeting presented themselves as moderates who
have suffered because of their relatively conciliatory stance
towards the U.S. They advocated symbiosis between the U.S.
and Islamist moderates as mutually beneficial -- with the
understanding that they consider current U.S. policies flawed
and counterproductive. Still, while it is clear what the IAF
opposes, it is not so obvious what they support, even on
basic social and economic issues. Our renewed contacts with
them, along with the likelihood of elections and campaign
platforms this year, should help clarify the crosscurrents in
a highly diverse movement. End comment.
Gnehm