US-DESIGNATED TERRORIST GROUP SUING WIESENTHAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L PARIS 000540 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/21/2016 TAGS: SOCI PTER PREL PREF PINS PHUM EAID FR IS SUBJECT: US-DESIGNATED TERRORIST GROUP SUING WIESENTHAL CENTER OFFICIAL IN DEFAMATION CASE IN FRANCE Classified By: Political Minister-Counselor Josiah Rosenblatt for reasons 1.4 b and d. ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY. The public trial for defamation brought against Dr. Shimon Samuels, Director for International Affairs of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, by the Committee for Welfare and Aid to the Palestinians (CBSP) concluded on February 2, after two days and 13 hours of testimony. The CBSP, named on the Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Global Terrorist Groups, accuses Samuels of unjustifiably claiming that it contributes to the financing of terrorism by participating in fund-raising for the families of Hamas suicide terrorists. Samuels now faces the possibility of a legal conviction in France (where grounds for defamation differ from those in the U.S.) for having done no more than level the same accusations against the CSBP as has the USG. The judge will render a verdict on March 8. In the lead-up to the trial, the Embassy conveyed to the Justice Ministry U.S. concerns about a possible conviction of Samuels for making accusations consistent with the USG designation of the CBSP as a terrorist organization. A second similar case is also underway. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (SBU) In October 2006, Dr. Shimon Samuels, Director for International Affairs of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, visited the Embassy and informed DCM Hofmann, Pol M/C Rosenblatt, and Poloff that he was being sued for defamation by the Committee for Welfare and Aid to the Palestinians (CBSP - Comit de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens). According to Samuels, the CBSP, named on the Treasury Department,s list of Specially Designated Global Terrorist Groups, had accused him of unjustifiably claiming that the group contributes to the financing of terrorism by participating in fund-raising for the families of Hamas suicide bombers. Samuels asked that Embassy officials intercede on his behalf and convey to French investigating authorities some indication that the USG regards his assertions concerning the CBSP as credible, given the Treasury Department's designation. ¶3. (C) In January the Embassy Justice attach met with the Ministry of Justice Criminal Director, Alain Saffar, and communicated USG concerns that Dr. Samuels risked a possible legal conviction for making the same assertions that the USG had acted on three years earlier in designating the CBSP a terrorist group. The Justice attach noted that U.S. designation was based on information that French intelligence may also possess. Mr. Safar explained that when a complaint is lodged by a private entity, as in this case, French law required that the government investigate. While initially stating that freedom of the press considerations usually resulted in no charges being made, Mr. Saffar later advised that the trial was about to begin. The official also advised that another defamation charge brought by the CBSP against a journalist for essentially the same conduct was scheduled to go to trial imminently. The Samuels/CBSP public trial concluded on February 2, after two days and 13 hours of testimony. ¶4. (U) After a summary of the facts of the two cases (two distinct defamatory articles penned by Samuels against the CBSP),sequestering the character witnesses, and briefly questioning the web site manager responsible for posting Samuels' contentious articles, Samuels gave his statement ) a sprawling 45-minute discourse that literally began with, "When I was a child growing up in a little town in England..." Touching on various professional successes, projects and honors (brokering ecumenical dialogue in Cairo, decrying the Rwandan genocide, Holocaust education, EU anti-racist efforts, etc.),Samuels presented himself as a broadly engaged human rights advocate tackling a range of issues with a consistent commitment to intellectual honesty in his research. Samuels walked the court through his investigative process ) at one point with the visual aid of a huge, laminated organization chart ) that led to his accusations against the CBSP. In short, Samuels had acquired and reconciled two lists of the recipients of CBSP funds ) lists that differed in their classification of beneficiaries, one reading "Child of Martyrs" and the other reading "Child Adopted by France". Further list and date matching, Samuels explained, led to the conclusion that these children were orphans of Hamas suicide bombers and that the payments served as an incitement to commit acts of terror by reassuring zealots that their families would be provided for after their deaths. ¶5. (U) Samuels noted repeatedly that the German, Dutch, Danish, and most recently Australian authorities have already taken measures against the counterparts of CBSP in those countries for financing associations close to Hamas, and the U.S. Treasury Department has classified the CBSP as a terrorist organization and frozen its assets as of 22 August ¶2003. These affiliates, Samuels contended, formed part of a global network dedicated to channeling foreign funds into terrorist activities. Samuels went on to question the distinction France makes between humanitarian fund raising and other types. ¶6. (U) Samuels' witnesses included journalists who showed video documentaries they had made imputing links between CBSP and radical Muslin groups, an Italian Islamic studies instructor who asserted that some Palestinian schools glorified terrorist acts, an Italian counter-terrorism analyst who also alleged questionable CBSP associations, and a senior French security officer. Notably, none of the witnesses were able to designate specific payments made by CBSP to suspect groups, a fact the prosecution emphasized in their witness cross-examinations. ¶7. (U) CBSP witness testimony reinforced the problems of perspective and semantics in the case. One witness, a French youth worker in Palestine, made the point that "martyr" was frequently understood and used to designate anyone killed in the Israel/Palestine conflict, including victims of random violence, sniper casualties, or those killed incidentally in larger armed clashes. Another Palestinian rights worker asserted that "When someone in your family becomes a suicide bomber, the Israelis raze your house. You lose everything. How can you argue that the promise of a trickle of money from far-away Europe could be a motivation to do that to your family?" She added that "for me, someone with family members who never returned from the Nazi concentration camps...for me, the CBSP are among today's Righteous." ¶8. (U) CBSP prosecution also took pains to depict the Wiesenthal Center as an institution that had lost its way and the guiding vision of its namesake. Witnesses and lawyers asserted that it had become a politically motivated stooge of Israel and the United States, distanced from true concern for human rights and more attuned to attacking political enemies. To this end, they cited Jimmy Carter's apparent critique of the Wiesenthal Center. ¶9. (U) Closing arguments drove home the respective points of view, though Samuels' team seemed a bit more tentative, focusing more on the lower standard needed to demonstrate investigative good faith ) that Dr. Samuels had not overstepped in his conclusions that which could be reasonably inferred from the data at hand. The CBSP team concentrated on their contentions that the defense had provided no direct evidentiary link to support Samuels' assertions and that, even if money had eventually gone to support terror, the CBSP was not responsible and would sever relations with any partner it knew to be so engaged. ¶10. (SBU) COMMENT.: During the proceedings, both sides strived to provide a more compelling answer to the trial's central question: At what point does humanitarian action give way to manipulation? Samuels argued that aid stops being about assuaging suffering with the first strong indication that it is abetting terror. The CBSP retorted that its mission was to provide vital aid for an ongoing humanitarian crisis, not to support reprisals. While never admitting to funding terror, at one point a CBSP lawyer looked across at his adversaries and rhetorically asked, "So, do you really believe that rage replaces suffering?" The answer, of course, is that there is plenty of each, inextricably commingled, and some activities likely service both. The judge, scheduled to render a verdict on March 8, will have to wrestle with this messy truth of mixed intentions and decide where to draw a line. ¶11. (C) COMMENT (CONTINUED).: Two cases of this judiciary nature have now come to trial. A guilty verdict in either trial could be interpreted to mean that the French legal system has essentially taken an opposite view from the U.S. on the CBSP designation, perhaps without awareness of information possessed by France's own intelligence services. The State Department might consider preparing guidance in the event of a conviction. END COMMENT. Please visit Paris' Classified Website at: http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/paris/index.c fm WHITE