Thursday, July 5, 2012

Wikileaks: Israel's Reaction To Human Rights Report Muted.

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TEL AVIV 001367 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/04/2014 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL KWBG KPAL IS GOI INTERNAL ISRAELI SOCIETY ISRAELI PALESTINIAN AFFAIRS
SUBJECT: ISRAELI REACTION TO HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT MUTED 
 
 
Classified By: Political Counselor Norm Olsen for reason 1.4 (b) and (d 
). 
 
1.  (SBU) Summary: GOI and public reaction to the State 
Department's 2003 Human Rights Report (HRR) has been 
relatively low-key in the five business days since the 
report's publication.  The GOI's main substantive public 
statement -- as reported in the daily Ha'aretz on February 27 
-- came from FM Silvan Shalom, who remarked that "the United 
States always takes into account that the human rights 
situation is determined by the state of terrorism."  At least 
six Knesset members gave brief comments, almost exclusively 
on the occupied territories report, with several accusing the 
United States of unfairly criticizing IDF actions and others 
calling on the GOI to investigate the incidents of abuse 
toward the Palestinians cited in the report.  Aside from news 
items on the report, only two editorials on the report, both 
critical, appeared in major newspapers.  One human rights NGO 
issued a press release citing in positive terms sections of 
the Israel report that criticized the GOI's discriminatory 
treatment of Israeli Arabs.  End summary. 
 
------------ 
GOI Reaction 
------------ 
 
2.  (C) Aliza Inbal of the MFA's North America Division noted 
to Poloff on February 26 that Shalom viewed the report 
favorably, had praised the United States for discussing the 
context within which Israel was operating, and had underlined 
that the United States was Israel's foremost ally.  After 
comparing the 2002 and 2003 HRRs for the occupied 
territories, Inbal concluded that the 2003 report was 
"softer" on Israel.  She noted that this year's report went 
further to "present the security context" within which the 
GOI is operating. 
 
3.  (C) Inbal, Daniel Meron of the Human Rights Department of 
the Division for United Nations and International 
Organizations and Ady Scheinman of the MFA legal department 
skimmed through the reports quickly during Poloff's February 
25 visit to deliver the embargoed texts of the Israel Report 
and the Occupied Territories appendix (OT report).  When 
informed about the restrictions on the reports' release, 
Meron joked that the State Department did not have to worry 
that the GOI would share the embargoed copy with the press, 
since the anticipated criticisms of the GOI in the report 
were not something the MFA would want to broadcast. 
Scheinman immediately searched the OT report for references 
to Israel's separation fence, and noted with surprise and 
dismay that the report uses the term "security barrier" to 
refer to the fence, although she did not indicate what term 
she would have preferred.  Meron asked why issuance of the 
report could not have been delayed just a few days until 
after the International Court of Justice hearing on the 
fence.  Poloff noted that the HRRs' issuance date is mandated 
by Congress.  Meron complained that, unlike in previous 
years, this year the Department had not conveyed to the GOI 
any questions during the report's preparation specifically 
related to incidents in the Occupied Territories. 
 
----------- 
MK Comments 
----------- 
 
4.  (C) On March 3, six MKs gave brief remarks mainly on the 
OT report: Mohammad Barakeh (Hadash), Naomi Blumenthal 
(Likud), Ronny Brizon (Shinui), Zahava Galon (Meretz), Nissan 
Slomianski (National Religious Party) and Jamal Zahalka 
(Balad).  Post is not aware of any media coverage of these 
statements.  In separate conversations with MKs Zahalka and 
Slomiansky on March 4, Poloff learned that the MKs, with the 
exception of Ronny Brizon, commented exclusively on the OT 
report.  Slomiansky complained to Poloff that the report's 
criticism of the GOI and the IDF was unfair since Israel was 
a small country trying to defend itself against terrorism. 
In contrast, Israeli-Arab MK Zahalka told Poloff that the 
report was "important" and that the GOI should take it 
seriously.  Zahalka noted that Justice Minister Tommy Lapid 
was present during the Knesset session to represent the 
government.  According to Zahalka, Lapid commented that the 
GOI should take the report into consideration and investigate 
some of the incidents mentioned in the report.  Brizon told 
Poloff on March 2 that although he understood that the agenda 
item for discussion was the behavior of the IDF in the 
occupied territories as described in the report, he planned 
to comment on the Israel report, in particular on the 
treatment of the Arab minority.  Zahalka later told Poloff 
that Brizon had been, in fact, the only MK to comment on the 
Israel report. 
 
----------------------- 
Media and NGO Reactions 
----------------------- 
 
5.  (SBU) The media focused almost entirely on the OT report, 
highlighting U.S. criticism of the IDF's use of "excessive 
force" against Palestinians.  The media also reported on U.S. 
criticism of IDF treatment of Palestinians, including at 
checkpoints, house demolitions, and civilian casualties 
resulting from "targeted assassinations."  Aside from 
straight news articles on the report, just two editorials 
appeared in the major newspapers.  In the February 29 
Ha'aretz, Gideon Levy claimed that "the United States has by 
its own hand lost its moral right to preach to any country in 
connection with human rights."  Levy asserted that "a country 
that is holding 660 Afghan detainees in Guantanamo without 
trial and depriving them of basic rights is in no position to 
criticize administrative detentions carried out by other 
countries."  Levy also claimed that the United States could 
have brought Israel's abusive practices to an end if it 
"truly wanted" to do so.  The February 27 Jerusalem Post 
carried an editorial by Caroline Glick in which she 
criticized the "State Department report" for "equating 
actions aimed at protecting Israeli citizens with terrorism" 
and for providing the names of Palestinian children who died 
"during Israeli assaults against Palestinian terrorists" but 
omitting the names of Israelis who died in Palestinian 
terrorist attacks.  She asserted that the report "follows in 
the path of the general climate" which "is characterized by 
the dehumanization of Israelis and Jews by the international 
community." 
 
6. (SBU) The Mossawa Center - The Advocacy Center for Arab 
Citizens of Israel, issued a press release on the Israel 
report, highlighting in positive terms those sections that 
discussed discrimination against Israeli Arabs.  Mossawa 
director Jafar Farah stated that "The U.S. Human Rights 
Report rightfully criticizes the State of Israel for 
systematically discriminating against its Arab citizens in 
the design and implementation of its policies.  The Arab 
citizens of Israel have to deal with the unfortunate day to 
day reality of these humiliating policies."   Mohammed 
Zeidan, Director of the Arab Association for Human Rights, 
told Poloff on March 4 that the Israel report was "excellent" 
and that the Embassy should make it a practice to send a copy 
of the report to each Knesset member to ensure that it is 
read. 
 
********************************************* ******************** 
Visit Embassy Tel Aviv's Classified Website: 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/telaviv 
 
You can also access this site through the State Department's 
Classified SIPRNET website. 
********************************************* ******************** 
KURTZER

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2004/03/04TELAVIV1367.html