The Chinese government tried to cover up counterterroism
meetings it held with Israeli officials in wake of allegations that Islamic
Jihad funds were laundered via the Bank of China, it emerged last week.
Leaked documents shed new light on a lawsuit filed by the
family of Daniel Wultz, an American Jewish teenager who was killed in a
terrorist attack in Tel Aviv in 2006, against
the Bank of China for damages in a U.S. court.
They claim that the money
transferred in one of the bank's branches, via accounts held by Palestinians
from the Gaza Strip, were used to finance Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist
cells in the territory.
One of those groups dispatched the suicide bomber that
carried out the attack at a shawarma restaurant in south Tel Aviv in which
Wultz was killed. The family has already won $320 million in damages in a
similar federal lawsuit against the Iranian and Syrian governments for their
support of Palestinian militant groups.
In that case, an affidavit from an
Israeli official said Islamic Jihad and Hamas in the Gaza Strip received
extensive economic aid via labyrinthine routes, in which the Bank of China
played a central role.
Israel, which approached the Wultz family and suggested
filing the suits, also promised to support them with evidence and affidavits
from former senior defense establishment officials.
These include former
intelligence official Uzi Shaya, who was supposed to testify that the Chinese
were warned – a year before the attack – about the use of those bank accounts.
At the same time, however, the Chinese government put serious pressure on Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to cooperate with the proceedings.
About two
weeks ago, Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth reported that, against the backdrop
of Netanyahu's visit to China about two months ago, Israel backpedaled on
providing witnesses for the case in New York.
The discussion last Friday in the U.S. District Court in New
York focused on the plaintiffs' request for discovery (pretrial disclosure of
pertinent facts or documents by one or both parties) and for a litigation hold
(which asks the parties to preserve their data) in light of the pressure from
the Chinese government.
The Wultz family's representatives presented to the
court minutes from a 2010 discussion between the Bank of China and Chinese
government officials, in which the latter admitted that there had in fact been
meetings between Chinese and Israeli antiterrorism officials in 2005 and 2007.
The minutes of the meeting reveal the Chinese intended to deny meetings with
the Israelis took place.
"We [the Chinese Foreign Ministry] recommend that these
authorities issue a written statement of 'no meeting took place' to the Bank of
China," it said in the minutes.
The minutes also noted that the Chinese assumed the Israelis
would also deny the meetings took place.
"As for the antiterrorism meetings between China and
Israel, the question is whether it is necessary to immediately notify Israel of
the status of this case, and our position, in hopes of maintaining a consistent
front," it said in the minutes.
"As it stands now, it should not be
necessary to communicate, in any way, with Israel in regards to this case.
Cooperation and exchange of information between the two governments is based on
mutual trust. And the Israeli government would not provide the contents of
meetings between the two countries to courts."
In the course of last week's discussion in court, the
Chinese tried to convince the court that Israeli had apparently decided not to
allow Uzi Shaya to testify because he is not supported by the Israeli
government.
"Let's assume that the claims of Mr. [Uzi] Shaya are
not supported by his government," said a representative of the Bank of
China in court, in a claim that the presiding judge didn’t buy.
"It's hard for me to accept that assumption,"
Judge Shira Scheindlin said.
During the proceedings, the judge also criticized Israel
conduct in deciding whether to allow Shaya to testify.
Referring to a letter she received from Yitzhak Blum, deputy
head of the international department in the State Prosecutor's Office, which
said Israel intends to decide on the issue of Shaya's testimony, Judge
Scheindlin said:
"I'm troubled that the letter does not suggest any time
frame for hearing again from Mr. Blum. It leaves me in the dark. Maybe they
don't feel like writing me a letter… That would not be helpful."
During the discussion, representatives of the Bank of China
claimed that, even if there were meetings in 2005 and 2007, specific
information about the bank accounts belonging to a Palestinian by the name of
Said al Shurafa and several members of his family who lived with him in China
did not come up.
According to an Israeli official, Shurafa's accounts were
allegedly used by Hamas and Islamic Jihad to transfer funds to their operatives
in the West Bank and Gaza.
At the end of the proceedings, the judge decided to turn
once again to the international department of Israel's State Prosecutor's
Office and request clarifications regarding Shaya's testimony, which the judge
felt was key to moving the legal proceedings forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment