US embassy cable - 03AMMAN7268

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 007268 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/03/2013 
TAGS: PGOV, KISL, PHUM, KPAL, IS, JO 
SUBJECT: JORDANIAN ANTI-NORMALIZERS SCORE LEGAL VICTORY 
 
REF: AMMAN 06119 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Edward W. Gnehm for reasons 1.5 (b and d) 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
1.  (C)  Jordanian anti-normalizers scored a victory on 
October 26 in their campaign against ties with Israel. 
Capping a two-year legal battle, the Amman Court of First 
Instance acquitted Islamist member of parliament (MP) Ali Abu 
al-Sukkar, former head of the Professional Associations 
Anti-Normalization Committee (PAAC), of libel charges brought 
by Jordanian businessman and peace advocate Tariq al-Hammedi. 
 Hammedi sued Abu al-Sukkar for JD2 million in compensation, 
charging that the inclusion of his name on lists published by 
the PAAC damaged his business and reputation.  Abu al-Sukkar 
is appealing a 500JD fine levied by the court for subsequent 
comments in a professional journal associated with Abu 
al-Sukkar describing Hammedi as a "scared mouse." 
Anti-normalizers in Jordan, present at all levels of 
Jordanian society, could be emboldened by this result, which 
comes at a time of elevated anti-Israeli sentiment in Jordan. 
 End Summary. 
 
--------------------------------- 
HAMMEDI FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE 
--------------------------------- 
 
2.  (U)  The two-month parliamentary recess announced in 
early October paved the way for the resumption on October 13 
of Tariq al-Hammedi's two-year-old libel case against Islamic 
Action Front (IAF) MP Ali Abu al-Sukkar (Ref A).  The case 
had stalled because of Abu al-Sukkar's constitutional 
immunity from legal prosecution enjoyed by all MPs.  However, 
after discussion between the Court and the Parliament, it was 
determined that when Parliament is out of session, MPs do not 
enjoy immunity. 
 
3.  (C)  Hammedi's initial gratification at this development 
was overshadowed by his inability to secure a Jordanian or 
foreign lawyer to represent him.  Hammedi told poloff as the 
trial resumed that he was not confident in his abilities to 
represent himself in court and feared he would lose the case 
as a result.  Based on subsequent conversations with Hammedi 
and one of Hammedi's associates, poloff assessed that Hammedi 
probably received unofficial legal advice from friends, but 
that the fear of blacklisting from the Jordanian Bar 
Association -- coupled by his financial problems -- probably 
hindered his ability to secure a local lawyer.  According to 
Hammedi, the head of Jordan's Bar Association represented Abu 
al-Sukkar.  Although sympathetic, prospective Jordanian 
lawyers he approached were worried they would meet the same 
fate as Hammedi's previous attorney -- disbarment. 
 
-------------------------- 
VERDICT ENDS TWO-YEAR SAGA 
-------------------------- 
 
4.  (U)  Once the case resumed on October 13, it was over 
quickly.  Appearing before the Amman Court of First Instance, 
Abu al-Sukkar pleaded "not guilty," arguing in a written 
statement: "Our actions as committee were based only on 
protecting Jordan from being infiltrated by Jews and we were 
responding to associations' request to punish any member who 
was a normalizer."  Hammedi presented an evaluation of his 
financial losses for the court's consideration.  Meanwhile, 
Hammedi filed a second lawsuit against the MP, based on an 
interview Abu al-Sukkar gave to the weekly newspaper Shihan 
in which he was quoted as saying that "Hammedi was being 
funded by a Jewish center."  Hammedi also complained about a 
publication called "No to Normalization" published by the 
Jordan Engineers Association (JEA) which described Hammedi as 
a "scared mouse." 
 
5.  (U)  After deliberating for a week, presiding Judge Adel 
Hijazeen on October 28 declared Abu al-Sukkar innocent of the 
charges of seditious libel but ordered him to pay JD500 in 
compensation for the comments in the JEA publication.  The 
Judge said Abu al-Sukkar violated Articles 5 and 7 of the 
Press and Publications Law which gives individuals the 
freedom to express themselves, "as long as it does not touch 
the humanity of others."  Abu al-Sukkar, who is a JEA member, 
says he plans to appeal:  "I was not the one who wrote what 
was printed in the JEA publication."  Abu al-Sukkar has 15 
days to appeal the verdict. 
 
6.  (U)  Despite the fine, Abu al-Sukkar gloated after the 
verdict was announced, telling one paper: "Today's verdict 
was great.  It was a victory for all Jordanians who have the 
right to know who is a normalizer and who is not." 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
7.  (C)  It is unclear whether the outcome of Hammedi's case 
would have been different had he secured an attorney for the 
legal proceedings.  Local media coverage did not generate 
sufficient interest and pressure on the government to 
intervene on his behalf, as he had hoped.  This outcome 
probably will embolden the anti-normalization movement in 
Jordan. 
 
8.  (C)  It is worth noting that the Israeli ambassador, as 
well as Israeli businessmen, have pointed to the intimidation 
from the professional organizations, especially the Jordan 
Bar Association, as a significant factor in undermining any 
joint activities in the private and commercial sectors. 
Israeli companies cannot obtain legal counsel.  Jordanian 
commercial partners risk significant hostilities and, hence, 
detrimental consequences on their broader business 
activities.  This decision will make our efforts to develop 
joint Jordanian-Israeli activities even more difficult. 
GNEHM