NORWEGIANS COMBATIVE ON ISRAEL UNRWA SPEAKING ROLE

C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000536 SIPDIS FOR PRM/ANE (MONIQUE RAMGOOLIE),IO/RHS (CARI ENAV),IO/UNP (ANDREW MORRISON),EUR/NB E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/01/2019 TAGS: PREF PREL UNGA IS KPAL NO SUBJECT: NORWEGIANS COMBATIVE ON ISRAEL UNRWA SPEAKING ROLE REF: STATE 90251 Classified By: Charg d'Affaires James T. Heg for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d ) ¶1. (C) Summary: The Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Middle-East Section, Jorn Gjelstad, was surprisingly engaged, sensitized, and generally combative upon presentation of reftel demarche concerning a speaking role for Israel at the upcoming "UNRWA at 60" event (UNRWA is the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East). Norway appears to be unwilling to favor Israel's speaking slot unless there is already consensus on the issue within the UNRWA steering committee, because it sees a link between this issue and the issue of Arab League participation in the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC) meeting chaired by Foreign Minister Stoere which takes place two days before. At least based on this meeting, it appears that the Norwegians are afraid of the Arab response, and are afraid of being seen as delivering for Israel in UNRWA but not delivering for the Arabs in the AHLC. End Summary. ¶2. (C) Poloff scheduled a meeting with Torun Viste, the new deputy of the Middle East Section of the MFA, on August 31. When poloff arrived at the MFA for the meeting, however, Jorn Gjelstad, head of the section, met poloff at the door and did 100% of the talking during the meetings, perhaps reflecting the level at which Gjelstad wanted to convey the GON's response. Gjelstad on several occasions stated "this is the message I want you to take back to Washington," seemingly aware that he was talking directly to Main State on this issue. ¶3. (C) Gjelstad characterized an Israeli speaking role at the "UNRWA at 60" event as "a difficult idea" that "risks politicizing the exercise." He stated he saw "no good rationalization for inclusion" of the Israelis (although of course, poloff made and explained reftel USG points). He pointed out the Israel has "heavily criticized" UNRWA. "PUT YOURSELF IN OUR SITUATION" -------------- ¶4. (C) Over the course of the discussions, it was clear that Gjelstad saw a "linkage"--a word he used four times--between the issue of Israeli participation in the UNRWA event and the representation of the Arab League at the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC) meeting chaired by Norway that would be held two days before in New York. Gjelstad said that the representation of Israel by Avigdor Lieberman already was presenting the possibility of a "reduced level of representation from the minister to the senior official level" for the AHLC meeting. He said that it was Norway's priority not to come out of the AHLC meeting with "a setback rather than progress." He said that Norway wanted the U.S. to "see these two things in connection," and commented that "the Israelis are calling us anti-Semites and the Arabs are mad at us for failing to get the Arab League a speaking role at the AHLC." Gjelstad pleaded with poloff to express to Washington the need for our political pressure on Jerusalem (sic) to open up the door for the Arab League at the AHLC. ¶5. (C) Continuing, Gjelstad said that it was just as appropriate for the Arab League to have a role on the AHLC as for Israel to have a role in UNRWA. He pointed out that the Arab League asked to participate in the AHLC when the process was reinvigorated a few years ago, and Sweden, the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and Turkey, among others, all had representation at the AHLC, and drew a comparison to our list of steering committee countries on UNRWA. Gjelstad said that he wanted to see "a more positive Israeli attitude," and, crucially, said, "it is not natural for Norway to be the first one to decide" to support an Israeli speaking role given Norway's chairmanship of the AHLC. Rather, Norway "wants to see consensus on the steering committee before deciding." ¶6. (C) Comment: We were somewhat surprised at Gjelstad's strong negative position on this issue, especially given reftel's information that USUN had found the Norwegian delegation in New York to be "positively inclined." Our sense from the meeting was that the Norwegians are going to be reticent on this issue, because of how they fear being seen by the Arabs. At one point Gjelstad said that if Israel were included at UNRWA and no progress was made on the Arab League at the AHLC, the Arabs would be "infuriated." While Gjelstad appeared to listen to our points, he saw little downside to Israel's non-inclusion aside from our own domestic political consequences, but great downside for Norway in Israel's inclusion, given what he saw as Norway's precarious position in Arab eyes concerning the AHLC. End Comment. HEG