US embassy cable - 02AMMAN3327

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