US embassy cable - 02AMMAN3441

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