Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
02AMMAN3441
2002-06-25 14:24:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Amman
Cable title:  

LUKE-WARM TO HOSTILE REACTION TO PRESIDENT'S

Tags:  PREL KPAL IS JO 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 003441 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/24/2012
TAGS: PREL KPAL IS JO
SUBJECT: LUKE-WARM TO HOSTILE REACTION TO PRESIDENT'S
MIDEAST SPEECH


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

-------
SUMMARY
-------

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 003441

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/24/2012
TAGS: PREL KPAL IS JO
SUBJECT: LUKE-WARM TO HOSTILE REACTION TO PRESIDENT'S
MIDEAST SPEECH


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

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


1. (C) A survey of Embassy contacts suggests that President
Bush's June 24 speech received mixed reviews here. More
hard-line Palestinian Jordanians charged that the U.S. was in
"cahoots" with the Israelis to destroy the Palestinian
resistance, and expressed resentment about "U.S.
interference" with a "democratically-elected Palestinian
Government". More moderate contacts tepidly applauded some
parts of the speech, but at the same time criticized
perceived ambiguity in the speech. Almost all contacts
expressed concern about the implications for the peace
process and U.S. engagement if Arafat is re-elected in open,
fair elections. End Summary.

-------------- --------------
HARD-LINE VIEW: U.S. WANTS A KARZAI FOR PALESTINE
-------------- --------------


2. (C) Reaction from the Islamist camp was predictably
negative. One Muslim Brotherhood rank and file member called
the speech, "condescending...the U.S. President is deciding
how we should liberate our country". He claimed that the
"U.S. wants a Karzai for Palestine." Jamel al-Bakri, an
Islamic Action Front representative, told the press that Bush
has sided with the pro-Israeli camp, which will reinforce
anti-American sentiment in the region. One press contact who
visited Bakaa camp--the largest refugee camp in Jordan--on
June 25 said residents who had viewed the speech saw "no
difference between the U.S. and Israel". Several camp
residents repeated the mantra, "resistance is the only way a
defenseless people can gain a state from a more powerful
enemy who has more powerful weapons." According to camp
residents, the speech was seen by many as a way for Sharon to
get out of his present crisis. Unlike the reaction to the
President's April 4 speech, more hard-line contacts
criticized the administration's lack of concern for the
Palestinians.


3. (C) UNRWA Deputy ComGen Karen Aby Zayd reported to
Refcoord the negative reaction to the speech among
Palestinians in Gaza, "...the speech has shifted the onus of
responsibility from Arafat and the PA to the Palestinian
people" and "set out conditions that never can be met."

Several Palestinian contacts complained that the speech "gave
Sharon everything that he wanted." One contact said that the
3-year time table, "will give Sharon enough time to create a
fait accompli".


4. (C) A group of young Palestinians who were watching the
speech at a dinner attended by the Ambassador walked out
several minutes into the speech to protest its content. A
group of Palestinian Jordanians who watched the speech with
PAoff sat through the whole thing, but were shocked and
dejected by the perceived anti-Palestinian tone and rejection
of the current PA leadership.

-------------- --------------
MODERATES: END GAME GOOD, BUT HOW DO WE GET THERE?
-------------- --------------


5. (C) Moderate contacts were more balanced in their
criticism. Adnan Abu Odeh, former Royal Court advisor, had
the most positive reaction to the speech, calling it "better
than the status quo", but he voiced concern about the lack of
details on how to enforce the speech's vision. He predicted
that no one in the current environment would oppose Arafat in
the elections. He also said that while he interpreted the
President's emphasis on a new PA leadership to mean a change
in leadership, he opined that the PA is interpreting "new
leadership" to mean Arafat's re-election followed by a
declaration that there is "new leadership". Abu Odeh asked
"then what happens to the Peace Process if Arafat is
reelected?" Hani Hourani, head of the Al-Urdun Al-Jadid
Research Center, also asked about U.S. involvement if Arafat
was re-elected. He said the speech contained some positive
steps for the Palestinians, including the 3-year timeframe
and the stronger commitment to a Palestinian state based on
UN resolutions, but warned that the layman, who can't read
between the lines, will view the language as favoring Sharon.



6. (C) Dr. Mohammad Kheir Mustafa of the Amman Center for
Peace and Development pointed out that the 3-year timeframe
is "something beyond the power of the Administration because
of the coming presidential elections." Dr. Mustafa, who
recently hosted a conference with Israelis, Jordanians, and
an American Jewish group, also pointed to the discrepancy he
saw between the increased conditions placed upon the
Palestinians in the speech and the lack of immediate
conditions on the Israelis. He did, however, applaud the
reference to building Palestinian institutions and improving
the living conditions of the Palestinians. Jamal Rifai, a
Palestinian Jordanian human rights activist, said the speech
was very fair "in terms of ultimate goals", but the mechanism
for getting there is not. He also warned that the continued
Israeli incursions will ensure that an environment, which
could support the election of a moderate Palestinian
leadership, will not develop.

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


7. (C) For many contacts, the June 24 speech raised more
questions than answers. Not surprisingly, the President's
references to the need for a Palestinian state, a three-year
timeline, and an end to "the Israeli occupation that began in
1967" based on UNSCRs 242 and 338 were well received.
However, the call for Arafat's departure, clear
terrorism-first sequencing, and vague timeline to reach a
Palestinian state and an end to occupation garnered the most
criticism.
Gnehm