|
Netanyahu, Mitchell report
'good progress' in peace talks
LONDON (Press Release)—Following is the text of a Joint Statement by U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following their four-hour meeting on Wednesday:
"The Prime Minister and Senator Mitchell had a very productive meeting today where the full range of issues was discussed.
"They agreed on the importance of restarting meaningful negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians and working toward a comprehensive peace, and that all sides need to take concrete steps toward peace.
"
The Prime Minister and the Senator made good progress today, and an Israeli delegation will meet Senator Mitchell next week in the United States to continue the conversation."
LONDON (WJC)—Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has met in London with his British counterpart Gordon Brown. Speaking to the press after their meeting, Brown said he was now "more optimistic" than before about the prospects for peace in the Middle East. "I'm increasingly confident that there is a genuine will to make progress, that a freeze in [settlement] activity would result in meaningful steps towards normalization from Arab states," the British prime minister said.
Netanyahu made a clear distinction between building in eastern Jerusalem and in other areas of the West Bank. "Jerusalem is not a settlement," Netanyahu said at a joint news conference following the meeting. "We have been building there for 3,000 years."
Before meeting with US envoy George Mitchell in London on Wednesday, Netanyahu said that "we are making headway". The Israeli prime minister will travel to Berlin and meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel there.
State Department spokesman becomes less outspoken about end to Israeli settlements
WASHINGTON (Press Release)--Following are Middle Eastern excerpts from the briefing by State Department spokesman Ian Kelly on Wednesday, August 26:
QUESTION: On the joint statement from Mitchell and Netanyahu, can you elaborate at all on what very productive and good progress mean?
MR. KELLY: Well, as you know, as they noted in their statement, we plan to continue talks next week. There’ll be a delegation coming from Israel to talk to Special Envoy Mitchell. We, of course, do want to make sure that this – that these talks continue to have forward movement. As you noted, they did make good progress and --
QUESTION: Well, I – no, I didn’t note that. The statement noted that. I’m just wondering what --
MR. KELLY: Well, as you noted, the statement noted that they made good progress.
QUESTION: What does that mean?
MR. KELLY: Let’s let these talks play out. We’ve got another set next week. I think there is room for optimism, but I don’t want to get into anything that will in any way cause any kind of obstruction to this forward movement. So I’m going to defer comment on it.
Yes, Dave.
QUESTION: Yeah, in connection with that, The Guardian newspaper in Britain had a rather elaborate story about possible breakthrough near on the Middle East. But one of the tenets of this story was that the United States is prepared to link its Israel-Palestine policy with Iran; in other words, a harder line on Iran by the United States --
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- is an incentive for the Israelis. Can you comment on that at all?
MR. KELLY: Well, again, Dave, this is a – this is very important to this Administration, the idea of comprehensive peace. This is an important objective. And because these are sensitive and critical negotiations, I really don’t want to comment on any of these stories and I don’t want to – we don’t want to suggest that there’s any – necessarily any imminent breakthrough either. We have an ongoing process and we want to give that process a chance to work.
**
QUESTION: In the statement, you talked about that the two parties have agreed on the importance of restarting meaningful negotiations. What did you mean by meaningful negotiations?
MR. KELLY: Well, I think it’s – what we mean by meaningful negotiations is that everything that we’re doing now is to lay the foundation for the negotiations, for the – for Israel and Palestinian representatives to sit down and come to a negotiated solution. So, meaningful means negotiations that will lead to a solution.
QUESTION: Do you know who the Israeli delegation is that’s coming next week?
MR. KELLY: I don’t, Matt, but I’m sure if you call the Israeli embassy, they probably will tell you.
QUESTION: Or they would not tell me.
MR. KELLY: Or maybe they won’t tell you, but it’s up to them.
QUESTION: Do you know when next week and where?
MR. KELLY: I don’t have the dates. Here --
QUESTION: It’s in Washington; is that --
MR. KELLY: I believe it’s in Washington, but it – you know that they’ve met before in New York as well. So --
QUESTION: Is that – well, the statement said the United States.
MR. KELLY: It said the United States. Yes, I did notice that.
QUESTION: It didn’t say – it didn’t say a city, so --
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- can we find – can we find out?
MR. KELLY: Let’s see if we can find it out for you.
Yeah, Mary Beth.
QUESTION: Ian, according to the reports from the meeting in London, Netanyahu said he was making headway in diffusing the agreement over settlement – settlements with the Americans, and it says Netanyahu says he wants a compromise that would allow Israel to proceed with some settlement construction, while at the same time restarting peace talks with the Palestinians. Is the U.S. prepared to agree to that compromise he talks about?
MR. KELLY: Yeah, again, I don’t think you can be surprised at my answer: We want to keep these negotiations in a confidential, diplomatic track. And I’m not going to try and characterize what the prime minister has said and I’m not going to try and characterize where we’re going to come out on the issue of settlement. We are in a sensitive time.
QUESTION: Right. But the other day – the other day, you were very clear about saying no construction.
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So has that changed?
MR. KELLY: No, I just – again, Mary Beth, I beg your forbearance, but it is a sensitive time and I just – I don’t want to get into characterizing.
QUESTION: Well, so you’re suggesting that you may --
MR. KELLY: No, I’m not suggesting anything. I’m just suggesting that I’m just not going to comment. I mean, I can give you our --
QUESTION: Well, she’s right. The other day, you said all – you said it was – all settlements must stop.
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: All means all is what you said.
MR. KELLY: That has been our position.
QUESTION: And is it no longer your position?
**
MR. KELLY: Well, again, I’m going to let Senator Mitchell – I’m going to let him negotiate. I’m not going to negotiate from this podium.
QUESTION: So this is a negotiable position?
MR. KELLY: No, I’m not saying that either; I’m just saying I’m not commenting on it right now. But I’m not retracting my words either. I’m just not – I just don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to put myself in this process.
QUESTION: But what kind of good progress they have made?
MR. KELLY: Again, Michel –
QUESTION: I’ve tried that one already.
MR. KELLY: – same answer. I’m not going to try and characterize exactly what happened in the meeting.
QUESTION: Still on the meeting --
QUESTION: The other thing that apparently came out of this is that the – both sides apparently indicated after the talks today that the Israeli and the Palestinian leaders are likely to hold their first meeting in the coming weeks. Is that your understanding?
MR. KELLY: Broken record. I’m not going to characterize what our understanding is of these confidential negotiations.
QUESTION: So then do you see something – final settlement of peaceful resolution in the Middle East? Do you see it?
MR. KELLY: I certainly hope so, and I hope it’s very soon.
QUESTION: Ian?
MR. KELLY: Yeah
Mike, did you have a question?
QUESTION: No.
MR. KELLY: No.
Charley, you have a question?
QUESTION: Still on the Mideast, yeah. Former President Carter talked today about the expectation that in coming days, there would be the release by the United States Government of some kind of comprehensive peace goals for the Mideast. Could you clarify that for us, or is that your expectation as well?
MR. KELLY: I haven’t seen those comments. And I frankly am not aware of what exactly he means by that.
QUESTION: Well, how about the --
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Forget about President Carter. Do you plan in the coming days and weeks to – does the U.S. plan to release some kind of a --
MR. KELLY: I’m not aware of any plans like that.
Yeah, back there.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) My question on a different topic.
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Five days before –
QUESTION: Can we stay on this issue?
MR. KELLY: Okay. We’ll come back to you.
QUESTION: The Israeli ambassador to the UN has said yesterday that there will be a meeting between President Obama, Israeli prime minister, and President Abbas in New York next month. Do you have anything? Are you working on it?
MR. KELLY: You have to ask the White House on that. I wouldn’t be surprised. There’ll be a lot of bilateral meetings, but you have to ask the White House.
Yes.
**
MR. KELLY: Well, again, I’m going to let Senator Mitchell – I’m going to let him negotiate. I’m not going to negotiate from this podium.
QUESTION: So this is a negotiable position?
MR. KELLY: No, I’m not saying that either; I’m just saying I’m not commenting on it right now. But I’m not retracting my words either. I’m just not – I just don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to put myself in this process.
QUESTION: But what kind of good progress they have made?
MR. KELLY: Again, Michel –
QUESTION: I’ve tried that one already.
MR. KELLY: – same answer. I’m not going to try and characterize exactly what happened in the meeting.
QUESTION: Still on the meeting --
QUESTION: The other thing that apparently came out of this is that the – both sides apparently indicated after the talks today that the Israeli and the Palestinian leaders are likely to hold their first meeting in the coming weeks. Is that your understanding?
MR. KELLY: Broken record. I’m not going to characterize what our understanding is of these confidential negotiations.
QUESTION: So then do you see something – final settlement of peaceful resolution in the Middle East? Do you see it?
MR. KELLY: I certainly hope so, and I hope it’s very soon.
QUESTION: Ian?
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
Mike, did you have a question?
QUESTION: No.
MR. KELLY: No.
Charley, you have a question?
QUESTION: Still on the Mideast, yeah. Former President Carter talked today about the expectation that in coming days, there would be the release by the United States Government of some kind of comprehensive peace goals for the Mideast. Could you clarify that for us, or is that your expectation as well?
MR. KELLY: I haven’t seen those comments. And I frankly am not aware of what exactly he means by that.
QUESTION: Well, how about the --
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Forget about President Carter. Do you plan in the coming days and weeks to – does the U.S. plan to release some kind of a --
MR. KELLY: I’m not aware of any plans like that.
Yeah, back there.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) My question on a different topic.
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Five days before –
QUESTION: Can we stay on this issue?
MR. KELLY: Okay. We’ll cpme back to you.
QUESTION: The Israeli ambassador to the UN has said yesterday that there will be a meeting between President Obama, Israeli prime minister, and President Abbas in New York next month. Do you have anything? Are you working on it?
MR. KELLY: You have to ask the White House on that. I wouldn’t be surprised. There’ll be a lot of bilateral meetings, but you have to ask the White House.
Yes.
**
QUESTION: Pardon me. Yesterday, I asked you about the tensions between Syria and Iraq. You told me you would try to --
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- find something. Do you have any reaction to the -
MR. KELLY: Yeah, if you could just hold on a second. We understand that there has been sort of mutual recall of the ambassadors. We consider that an internal matter. We’re – we believe that, as a general principle, that diplomatic dialogue is the best means to address the concerns of both parties. We are working with the Iraqis to determine who perpetrated these horrible acts of violence. But as I said, this is – it’s an internal matter for both – for the Iraqi Government and the Syrian Government, but again, we just encourage them to have as much --
QUESTION: But the Iraqis --
MR. KELLY: We hope this doesn’t hinder dialogue between the two countries.
QUESTION: Yeah. The Iraqis are actually accusing the Syrians to be behind the latest violence in Iraq. So do you think that it’s plausible or --
MR. KELLY: Well, again, we’re – we are – we’re very concerned about these reports. We’re – and we’re working with the Iraqi Government to find out exactly who was behind them, but we don’t have any firm information right now.
QUESTION: Is there any --
MR. KELLY: We have suspicions, but --
QUESTION: You have suspicions?
QUESTION: You have suspicions?
MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, everybody has suspicions about who was behind an attack.
QUESTION: Is there any progress on the Colonel Qadhafi house-hunting front? (Laughter.)
MR. KELLY: How far into the briefing are we when this was finally raised? I don’t really have much of an update. I mean, we have gone over this, of course, in exhaustive detail. We continue to raise with the Libyans – the sensitivities involving this visit, particularly in light of the release of Mr. Megrahi, we’ve conveyed the views of our congressional representatives to the Libyan authorities. And we believe that the Libyans understand these concerns and that we’re hoping to take some action – take appropriate action and we plan to stay in touch with them.
But regarding Mr. Qadhafi and his accommodations, no – there’s been no final decision as we understand it.
QUESTION: What does it mean, you’re hoping that they will take appropriate action? What would appropriate action be? Deciding not to --
MR. KELLY: Well, I think that you’ve heard the concerns of Senator Lautenberg and Congressman Rothman, and I think that they are – they’re reflecting the concerns of their constituents. And we, of course, think that the most important thing here is that we respect the feelings of the many families who live in the New York area who lost family members in the horrific bombing.
QUESTION: Well, does that mean he shouldn’t come at all?
MR. KELLY: No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying that we need to do this in a way that respects the families.
QUESTION: Okay. And yesterday, you said you would take the question as to whether the – Senator Lautenberg’s suggestion or his request to limit the movements of – to limit Qadhafi’s movements to the UN headquarters district --
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- if that had ever been imposed on anyone else before.
MR. KELLY: There is something called the Foreign Mission Act, and we’re still digging a bit, but under that Foreign Mission Act, the – we have the right to restrict travel within a certain distance of UN headquarters, and that – Libya is not subject to that, as you know. In the past, Soviet diplomats have been restricted to it. We’re restricted to it. Right now, Iranian diplomats are restricted to it. But as far as I know, that’s the only restriction.
QUESTION: So in other words, confining someone to that area between 42nd and 48th Street and 1st Avenue and the East River has never been done?
MR. KELLY: As far as I know, it has never been done. There – but there’s another part of the Foreign Mission Act that I think has been referenced to, and that’s that we can impose restrictions on the use of diplomatic residences. That’s a very broad provision, and we’re hoping that – and we’re expecting that we’ll be able to come to some sort of agreement where all of these sensitivities are respected.
QUESTION: You mean related to the house and the --
MR. KELLY: Yeah, related to the --
QUESTION: -- property in Englewood?
MR. KELLY: Related to the property in Englewood.
QUESTION: Because the mayor of Englewood and others say that there is an agreement that it’s only for use by the Libyan ambassador to the UN, not – and not anyone else, not even other members of the UN mission at --
MR. KELLY: Yeah, yeah, yeah. As I say, there are provisions in that law to --
QUESTION: Is that – but that’s your understanding of the – there are provisions related to that effort?
MR. KELLY: Yeah, I’ll have to take that question.
QUESTION: Okay. And then you said that Iran is – Iranian diplomats are subject to this 25, the --
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- whatever this radius is --
MR. KELLY: Yes.
QUESTION: -- this 25 miles? Who else, what other countries are subject to it?
MR. KELLY: I’d better take that question too.
QUESTION: All right. I ask because the North Korean diplomats who recently went out west --
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- needed special permission --
MR. KELLY: Right.
QUESTION: -- to leave – to leave the --
MR. KELLY: That’s right.
QUESTION: -- the area.
MR. KELLY: I think it’s fair to say that North Korea is also subject to the --
QUESTION: Right. But North Korea is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism. Libya is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism. And it was my understanding that that was the determination.
MR. KELLY: No, that’s not a --
QUESTION: That’s not an --
MR. KELLY: No, that’s not the – there may be one other criteria, but it’s not the only criteria.
QUESTION: All right. So Libyan diplomats to the UN – ignoring Qadhafi completely, Libyan – Libyan diplomats who are accredited to the UN can travel anywhere they want with no restriction?
MR. KELLY: I believe that is the case, and if it’s not the case, we’ll let you know.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: Ian, just to clarify that – what are you saying? You’re expecting to – we can come to some kind of what?
MR. KELLY: Some kind of understanding regarding where Mr. Qadhafi will stay that is respectful of the sensitivities of residents.
QUESTION: And just still on --
MR. KELLY: Yeah. Go ahead, Charley.
QUESTION: -- on Libya, is the United States participating in the upcoming celebrations of the 40th anniversary of Colonel Qadhafi taking power?
MR. KELLY: I don’t know – I don’t think we’ve made any decision on that.
Go ahead.Go ahead.
QUESTION: A couple things concerning the UN Security Council meeting next month to be chaired by President Obama. Has the U.S. made any decision on what kind of outcome it wants from that meeting in terms of a resolution or a presidential statement or whatever, and where does that stand? What kind of feedback have you gotten from other leaders as to whether they will attend, including whether Qadhafi himself will attend that meeting?
MR. KELLY: Yeah. Those are very broad questions and I’ll have to see if we can get you information on that. I’m just not prepared right now to say.
State Dept. press conference intense on Libyans in tents
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)—Following are Middle Eastern excerpts from the press briefing State Department spokesman Ian Kelly conducted on Tuesday:
QUESTION:Qadhafi?
MR. KELLY: Qadhafi.
QUESTION: What’s the latest on where he’s going to stay? Is he – what are your plans for him?
MR. KELLY: Well, I think you’ve all seen reports of concerns of members of the community in the New York area, families of the victims. We – of course, our priority has been and will remain the families of the victims of this tragedy. And we, of course, have said all along that we thought that it was, as the President said, it was highly objectionable for the Libyan Government to receive Mr. al-Megrahi the way they did. Having said that, we, of course, are sensitive to the concerns of the communities that might be affected by any travel arrangements made for the Libyan delegation. We are talking to the appropriate authorities both on the local level in the New York area. We’ve had contacts, of course, with congressional delegations. I think you’ve seen the – some of the letters from U.S. representatives. I know I’ve seen Senator Lautenberg’s letter. So we are involved in discussions, but as I said before, we’re also talking to the Libyans to highlight the concerns that we have and the very raw sensibilities or sensitivities of the families who live in that area. But it is no – just to wrap this up, no decision has been made regarding where he will stay.
QUESTION: All right. Well, since you raised Senator Lautenberg’s letter, he is suggesting or asking that Qadhafi be limited in his ability to travel to the UN Headquarters district which -- if you look at a map, there isn’t any place to stay there. I guess he could – there’s a park that he might be able to pitch his tent in, but there are no hotels in that area. Is that a feasible request to limit travel between – from 42nd to 48th Street and from 1st Avenue to FDR Drive and the East River?
MR. KELLY: Well, as far as the --
QUESTION: Has that ever been done before?
MR. KELLY: -- yeah. As far as the legal levers that we would have, I’m not sure. I do know, as you just mentioned, that we do have this restriction of – on certain diplomats based in New York of a 25 mile radius and that --
QUESTION: Right. But he’s asking for something much more strict.
MR. KELLY: Well, I know. That’s – I’m just – I’m not sure of our legal possibilities. And that is something that we’re discussing right now in this building.
QUESTION: All right. Did – was –
MR. KELLY: But we’re – wait a second, Matt. But what we’re hoping for is that we don’t get to this point, I mean, that we’re able to come to some kind of agreement with the Libyan Government on it.
QUESTION: Well, whose suggestion was it for the Englewood property?
MR. KELLY: I – it wasn’t our suggestion. I’ve only seen the press reports on that.
QUESTION: So after Central Park was turned down, the Libyans looked for –
MR. KELLY: Again, those are press reports. I’m not even sure whether it was turned down or they reconsidered.
QUESTION: Well, I’m just trying to get a– did the Libyans offer Englewood up as an alternative?
MR. KELLY: I don’t know the answer to that question.
QUESTION: Well, just to be –
MR. KELLY: I know that they own property in Englewood.
QUESTION: Is it clear that they – that the Libyans indeed asked for him to be able to pitch his tent in Central Park?
MR. KELLY: It’s not clear.
QUESTION: That’s not clear to you?
MR. KELLY: Not to me. Not to me, anyway.
QUESTION: Can you please confirm that he wants a special place for his tent, or that he agreed to –
MR. KELLY: I can’t confirm that. That’s only something that only the Libyan Embassy here could confirm.
QUESTION: Yeah. So what do you – just so I understand it – well, two things. One, you talked about the sensitivities of people in the New York area, but I believe that the people who have been most vocal have in fact been the representatives, including the mayor of Englewood, and obviously Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey. So have you seen other members of Congress or other local officials from New York State objecting to his presence, or is this so far just a New Jersey thing?
MR. KELLY: Yeah, Arshad, I’m not aware of other representations to us from congressional members.
QUESTION: Okay. And then you said that you’re talking to the local officials and -- you’re talking to them and, I presume, to the Libyans, to what end? To find a community that’s willing to take him, or –
MR. KELLY: Well, I think right now we’re just – we’re listening. We’re listening to their concerns.
QUESTION: But what’s the objective?
MR. KELLY: Yeah, Jill.
QUESTION: Is the objective to find a place for him to stay where it’s not going to annoy the local community, or –
MR. KELLY: As I say, we are now – we’re discussing within this building what exactly – what the levers that we have. But what we want – I mean, we want to be able to come to some sort of consensus with Libya before we even get to that point.
QUESTION: Consensus to – consensus on what? Where exactly he stays?
MR. KELLY: Where exactly he stays.
Yeah, Jill.
QUESTION: Ian, can you just for the record explain legally what you can do with any country when it comes to the UN Security Council meeting? You grant visas, I presume.
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: How – what are the legal ramifications for giving those visas, restricting them, etc? There must be some basic --
MR. KELLY: Well, I’m going to drain my knowledge base very quickly on this issue. But what I can tell you is that we’re obligated under an agreement that we have with the UN – the so-called UN Headquarters Agreement – that generally – under this agreement, we are generally obligated to facilitate travel to foreign nationals to and from UN Headquarters in New York. And if you want more specifics than that, I’ll have to take the question.
QUESTION: But Ian, just to – in other words, you’re obligated, but is there an exception? Can an exception be –
MR. KELLY: There are exceptions.
QUESTION: And what would the basis of those be?
MR. KELLY: Well, that – as I say, you’ve exhausted my knowledge at this point.
QUESTION: So you’re taking that question.
MR. KELLY: I’ll have to take that question.
MR. KELLY: Yeah, Mary Beth.
QUESTION: At what level are these conversations going on, and which offices are involved?
MR. KELLY: Well, there – we have a number of ways to talk bilaterally with Libyans. They have an embassy here and we have an embassy there, so that – I mean, it’s basically at the diplomatic level.
QUESTION: So basically, it’s the Libya desk here, or --
MR. KELLY: It’s at an appropriate level here in the State Department.
Yeah, Charlie, welcome back.
Go to the top of next column
|
|
QUESTION: You said – thank you – that we’re obligated to facilitate travel to UN headquarters. You mean travel from their home countries.
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: You don’t mean from whatever locale --
MR. KELLY: Right, it’s travel writ large. But I think it – the agreement has the intention of facilitating visas.
QUESTION: Right.
**
QUESTION: Not to exhaust your knowledge of the Libyan situation, but back to that one more time if I could. The – when a country comes to the UNGA, who provides security? Forgive me, I don’t know the – I don’t know this. Who provides security for them in the United States, for heads of state and --
MR. KELLY: That’s a good question. I believe it’s the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but --
QUESTION: Is that – and that’s part of State?
QUESTION: That’s Secret Service.
QUESTION: Secret Service?
QUESTION: Secret Service.
MR. KELLY: Secret Service for foreign leaders. I think Diplomatic Security for --
QUESTION: Foreign ministers.
MR. KELLY: For foreign ministers.
QUESTION: For foreign ministers, okay. Is there a requirement that they notify you where they’re going to stay? I presume they have to say, hey, we’re going to be in -- you know, on 48th Street, so you can protect us.
MR. KELLY: Oh, absolutely. Yes.
QUESTION: Okay, so is there a time that they must --
MR. KELLY: Not only that, but in order for us to provide security, they have to give us their movements as well.
QUESTION: Uh-huh. So is there a timeframe here when we might expect that --
MR. KELLY: To notify the itinerary?
QUESTION: Correct.
MR. KELLY: I don’t know that there is a hard and fast timeline or deadline for informing us. But I would assume it would be within the next few weeks.
QUESTION: But just to make sure --
MR. KELLY: You’re getting at – to know when the decision will have to be made --
QUESTION: Well, yeah. I mean --
MR. KELLY: -- in terms of where he stays?
QUESTION: There’s so much murkiness about this whole thing. But I mean --
MR. KELLY: I don’t think there’s a lot of murkiness about this.
QUESTION: So have they officially said we want to stay in New Jersey, to you, to the State Department?
MR. KELLY: I just don’t know the answer to that question.
QUESTION: Really?
MR. KELLY: Yeah. I mean, personally, I don’t know if they’ve officially informed us.
QUESTION: Isn’t that kind of a basic fact --
MR. KELLY: Well, let me see if it is a basic fact.
QUESTION: -- that we should know?
MR. KELLY: Yeah. Let me see.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. KELLY: Yeah, Arshad.
QUESTION: Could we go back to the –
QUESTION: (Inaudible) I asked – I just want to make sure you got this down. Can you find out if anyone – if the restrictions that Senator Lautenberg are asking for have ever been imposed on anyone else before, because they seem to be --
MR. KELLY: I’ll take that question.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: One more on Libya?
MR. KELLY: Sure. One more on --
QUESTION: A general question on Libya. As far as release of terrorist is concerned, you think the large scale of corruption may have played a role somewhere at the high level?
MR. KELLY: The decision in what? I’m sorry.
QUESTION: The leader of the Libyans (inaudible) Scotland (inaudible) British.
MR. KELLY: I’m going to refer you to the Government of Scotland on that one. I’m not going to comment.
**
QUESTION: On Iran, the fourth group of detainees who were – people who were detained after the elections were tried in Tehran today. And Kian Tajbakhsh was among them. He has been charged with acting against national security, and espionage. Any comments?
MR. KELLY: I haven’t heard that. If that report is true, we would obviously be very concerned about that. This – we have been concerned about his detention. We’ve been trying to get information through the Swiss Embassy on him. We have called repeatedly for his release. And this is a man who has worked for many years to help build understanding between the Iranian people and the American people through his scholarly work. And I’ll have to – I mean, we’ll have to confirm these reports, but if they’re true, we would be concerned.
QUESTION: Well, the report is directly from the Iranian news agency.
MR. KELLY: Well, yeah, but I haven’t seen the reports. Let me – let us look into it and then we’ll give you a comment.
QUESTION: Okay. What about the three Americans who were seized by the border with Iraq? Any news from them?
MR. KELLY: Let me check. I don’t think I do. But again, we are – our position on that is similar, that we’ve been trying through our – through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran to get consular access to them. We’ve been trying to get more information. We’re very concerned, as of course their families are very concerned, about their welfare.
QUESTION: Is it that they’re not just giving any answers, or what’s the Iranian Government saying? Do you know?
MR. KELLY: I just don’t think we’ve been able to get consular access through our – through the Swiss Embassy. And I don’t think we’ve gotten much information either.
**
QUESTION: In Baghdad, there was a crisis, a diplomatic crisis between Iraq and Syria. They recalled their diplomatic representatives. Do you have any comment on that? Is it something you think is disturbing? It – is it --
MR. KELLY: This is something that just happened today, you mean?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. KELLY: Yeah, I haven’t seen those reports.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. KELLY: Let us look into it.
**
QUESTION: On Iran, we have a report out of Vienna, quoting a diplomat as saying that Iran has not expanded the number of centrifuges that it has enriching uranium at Natanz. One, do you believe that is correct that the Iranians have not increased the number of centrifuges enriching uranium? And two, if – since May. And two, if so, do you have any sense of why?
MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I mean, you know that there are very deep-seated concerns about Iranian enrichment activity. It’s the -- one of the highest priorities of this Administration that we try and stop this – these activities. We have a invitation to Iran to sit down with us via the P-5+1 talks. They have yet to respond to this invitation. We are very concerned about the refusal of Iran to adhere to its international obligations.
Regarding that report that you mentioned, I think you know that we’re expecting a formal report from the IAEA in the coming days. And once we’ve had that report, we’ll be happy to comment on it.
QUESTION: Do you expect that report to address this issue?
MR. KELLY: I’m not going to get into what I – I’m not going speculate into what or what won’t be in the report.
Menendez joins Lautenberg call to keep Qadhafi out of New Jersey
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)— U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (Democrat, New Jersey) is urging the State Department to help keep Libyan leader Moammar Qadhafi out of New Jersey when he visits the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September. In a letter to Secretary of State Clinton, Menendez requested that Gadhafi be issued a visa that restricts him to the U. N. Headquarters District in New York City.
Gadhafi recently helped arrange for the release of the man convicted in the bombing Pan Am Flight 103 and helped give him a hero’s welcome in Libya. The Libyan government owns a mansion in Englewood where it has been speculated that Qadhafi would stay
JITLI says Iran's nomination of wanted terrorist as defense minister slap at face of West
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)-- By nominating one of the world ’s most notorious terrorists, Ahmad Vahidi, to be Iran's defense minister, the Iranian government once again served notice to the world that it is not interested in reforming its reputation as the world’s foremost state sponsor of international terrorism, declared the Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (JINSA).
Said Tom Neumann, JINSA's executive director: "This calculated move is a very public slap in the face to the West. There can be no clearer signal to the Obama Administration that Iran is not interested in peaceful relations or engaging in meaningful discussions related to its pursuit of nuclear weapons or support for terrorism."
On August 19, Iranian President Ahmadinejad announced that Vahidi was nominated to be Iran's defense minister. Vahidi is wanted by Interpol for his role in the July 18, 1994 suicide bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Argentina (AMIA), which killed 85 and wounded 240.
Ahmadinejad sent the Iranian parliament a list of 21 proposed cabinet ministers including Vahidi. Lawmakers are scheduled to vote on the nominees on September 1.
It has been reported that Vahidi was commander of the Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Qods Force (tasked with carrying out foreign operations) at the time of the AMIA bombing. The U.S. and UK governments have accused the Qods Force of facilitating violence by Shi’ite militias against coalition forces in Iraq, particularly by providing IEDs.
George Grosz heirs' attorney, MOMA disputed art provenance
NEW YORK (Press Release) -- The following account is provided by New York attorney David J. Rowland in behalf of the plaintiffs:
"In a lawsuit against the Museum of Modern Art(MoMA) to recover artworks stolen during the Holocaust, the heirs of expressionist painter George Grosz submitted an expert report concluding that three Grosz artworks now in MoMA's collection were lost or stolen during the Nazi Reich. The expert report also revealed direct links between MoMA's Director Alfred Barr and Nazi art dealers. The expert report was prepared by Professor Jonathan N. Petropoulos, a leading expert on Nazi art looting.
"The three paintings in MoMA's collection are: The Poet Max
Herrmann-Neisse with Cognac, Self-Portrait with Model, and
Republican Automatons. The paintings were created by Grosz in the 1920's and were consigned to Galerie Alfred Flechtheim in Berlin. Professor Petropoulos found that the artworks were lost or stolen when in 1933 George Grosz and his Jewish art dealer Alfred Flechtheim fled Nazi persecution in Germany. Two of the paintings, Self-Portrait with Model and Republican Automatons were sold after Flechtheim's death and without Grosz' consent at an Amsterdam auction in 1938.
"One of the paintings, The Poet Max Herrmann-Neisse with Cognac, remained in Germany and was misappropriated by Charlotte Weidler, an art critic who claimed she "inherited" it from Flechtheim.
" Grosz wrote in 1953 to a friend and a family member that this painting had been stolen from him. Petropoulos concludes that Weidler misappropriated this important work of German expressionism and sold it to MoMA through Curt Valentin.
"Prof. Petropoulos' report reveals that Alfred Barr used Nazi agent Karl Buchholz and his partner Curt Valentin to purchase artworks looted by the Nazis from German museums.
:Charlotte Weidler was recently accused by German author Stefan Koldehoff "Die Bilder sind unter uns"(The Paintings Are Among Us), of having stolen most of the Paul Westheim collection in a similar manner. When Paul Westheim, an important Jewish art collector, fled the Nazis for Paris, he left his art collection with Weidler for safe keeping in Berlin. After WWII Weidler told Westheim that his collection was destroyed in a bombing raid. After Westheim's death
in 1963, Weidler began selling off the Westheim collection, piece by piece.
Prof. Petropoulos criticizes MoMA's Director Alfred Barr for failing to research the provenance of the Grosz artworks at the time of acquisition in the 1940s and 1950s. He notes that Barr knew of Flechtheim's persecution by the Nazis and used the occasion to obtain an artwork from him at a duress price. Regarding Herrmann-Neisse with Cognac, Barr undertook no provenance research at all, although the U.S. State Department had issued warnings to U.S. museums to be cautious when acquiring artworks displaced during the Nazi period of rule.
:Petropoulos is highly critical of a 2006 MoMA report on the Grosz art claims penned by former U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach. Petropoulos rejected Katzenbach's findings and criticized Katzenbach for failing to follow the "Washington Principles" developed at the 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust Era Looted Assets which call for Nazi looted art claims to be decided on their merits.
Museum of Modern Art responds to Grosz heirs' allegations
NEW YORK (Press Release)—In response to the press release from attorney David J. Rowland published above, the Museum of Modern Art issued the following statement:
"The Museum of Modern Art recognizes its obligation to maintain the integrity of its collections to ensure that works of art reside with their rightful owners. The Museum takes very seriously the issue of ownership and as a matter of policy thoroughly examines any claims in this regard.
"
For nearly six years, MoMA worked closely with the estate of George Grosz on the provenance of the paintings at issue in this litigation. MoMA has engaged in extensive research throughout both the United States and Europe, has corresponded and met repeatedly with the estate's representatives, and has shared the results of its research with the estate. Based upon its extensive research, the Museum concluded that it held good title to the works, and advised the estate accordingly.
"
The Museum regrets that the estate has chosen to file its lawsuit and feels that it owes a duty to the public to defend vigorously against the estate's claims.
ADL says LaRouche behind Hitler imagery in health care debate
NEW YORK (Press Release)—The Holocaust imagery and comparisons of President Barack Obama to Hitler that have become ubiquitous at the town hall protests in the public debate over health care reform, have been strongly promoted and fueled by Lyndon LaRouche and his network of supporters, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
Since May 2009, LaRouche and his network have produced signs, banners, pamphlets and other items that employ Nazi imagery, including materials comparing President Obama and other government officials to Hitler, Nazis and fascists.
LaRouche, 86, a longtime anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist and perennial presidential candidate, has a long record of advancing conspiracy theories linking the AIDS crisis, the drug epidemic and international financial crises to prominent Jews and Jewish organizations. He has also argued that the "Zionist lobby" and "Jewish gangsters" control American foreign policy, and called the Holocaust a "thesis" produced by the "Zionist demagogue" where one and a half-million Jews, not six million, died.
"It is bad enough that Holocaust imagery has entered into the debate over health care reform, but it is worse when you realize that the major source of this imagery is a man who has a long track record of anti-Semitic fear mongering," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "Nothing LaRouche does is subtle. It is in your face and, as usual, he has encouraged his supporters to employ Holocaust analogies. The Nazi imagery helps LaRouche accomplish his goal of changing the subject and drowning out any meaningful public discussion of this important issue."
ADL's Center on Extremism, which monitors extremist rhetoric and groups, has assembled on its Web site examples of how LaRouche and his network of supporters, many of which are part of the LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC), have produced signs, banners, pamphlets and other items that employ Nazi imagery and introduced them at many public forums around the country.
Such Nazi imagery has appeared at many public forums, including at the August 17 event held by Congressman Barney Frank, where a member of the LaRouche Youth Movement held up for the cameras a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache at a town meeting in Dartmouth, Massachusetts.
The imagery is reinforced by LaRouche's statements about the Obama administration's health care proposals, which he has described as "Nazi stuff." In his publication, Executive Intelligence Review, and on his Web site, LaRouche consistently refers to the reform proposals as "Hitlerian" and "genocidal" and almost exclusively refers to the proposals as a "Nazi health plan."
LaRouche and his supporters have employed Holocaust imagery in the past to express opposition to various issues, but such imagery has rarely seeped into the mainstream as visibly as it has in the controversy over health care reform.
Blood libel controversy worsening Israel-Sweden relations
STOCKHOLM (WJC)—A Swedish newspaper has published a second article accusing the Israeli army of harvesting Palestinian organs. A Palestinian family in the West Bank reportedly told the newspaper 'Aftonbladet' that the body of their 19-year-old son, killed by Israeli soldiers in 1992, was returned to them wrapped in bandages and that they found a scar running from his neck to his stomach. The newspaper published a picture that the family said showed their son's body. The IDF had reportedly told the family the scar was from an autopsy. The article calls on Israel to investigate the issue to put a stop to the rumors or to the practice.
In an editorial published on Monday, 'Aftonbladet' Editor Jan Helin defended his decision to print the controversial articles, saying that he was "a responsible editor who gave the green light to an article because it raises a few questions." He added that the newspaper had no actual evidence that the allegations against the Israeli Army were true.
Meanwhile, thousands of Israelis have signed on to a boycott of the Swedish furniture retailer IKEA via an online petition. The petition calls the publication of the articles "anti-Semitic" and "a Medieval-type blood libel." There is one IKEA store in Netanya and a second outlet in Israel is set to open in 2010.
Citing freedom of the press, the Swedish Foreign Ministry rejected a condemnation of the story. Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, called on the Swedish government to condemn the article. "Statements in the Swedish press were outrageous. We are not expecting an apology, we are expecting condemnation," Netanyahu stated.
The controversy comes two weeks before Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister, is scheduled to visit Israel. Sweden currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union.
Despite controversy, Sweden's
FM Carl Bildt will visit Israel
JERUSALEM (WJC)—Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, will visit Israel next month, despite the controversy over the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet’ which ran an article accusing the Israeli army of harvesting organs from killed Palestinians, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said. The newspaper ‘Ha'aretz’ reported last week that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman had threatened to cancel Bildt's trip if the Swedish Foreign Ministry did not condemn the article.
Meanwhile, an Israeli lawyer has filed a lawsuit in Manhattan against ‘Aftonbladet’, asking for US$ 7.5 million in damages. The attorney Guy Ophir stated: "The newspaper published an anti-Semitic and racist blood libel which constitutes incitement to racism against Jews and IDF soldiers. The suit was filed in New York since the paper is distributed there and since the reporter made a connection to claims of New York resident rabbis who trade with organs."
Preceding provided by World Jewish Congress
Paramilitary swearing-in fete
broken up by Hungarian police
BUDAPEST (WJC) —Police in Hungary have broken up a swearing-in ceremony of the banned paramilitary Hungarian Guard at which new members were being inducted. Last month, a Budapest court banned the guard, saying its activities incited fear and threatened public order. The oath-taking ceremony was originally meant to take place in Heroes Square in central Budapest, but was moved to a private location in Szentendre, just north of the capital. Several hundred men and women in the black uniforms reminiscent of the pro-Nazi Hungarian Arrow Cross militias during World War II, arrived there by bus.
The extreme-right Jobbik party, which set up the guard in August 2007, won nearly 15 percent of the vote and three seats in the June elections to the European Parliament. It is responsible for anti-Semitic and anti-Gypsy incitement. Last week, police questioned four men arrested on suspicion of carrying out a series of attacks against the Roma population in which six people were killed.
On Tuesday, Budapest police initiated legal proceedings against members of the Hungarian Guard who had stood in line in front of the police headquarters in the capital while guard founder and Jobbik leader Gabor Vona was questioned about the swearing-in ceremony.
Austrian prosecutors weigh Egger comment about museum director
HOHENEMS, Austria (WJC)— Prosecutors in Austria has begun a preliminary investigation into whether a politician of the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ), once led by Jörg Haider, broke the law when he called the head of a Jewish museum a "Jew in exile from America." The remark by Dieter Egger, FPÖ leader in the Vorarlberg province, has sparked widespread condemnation. His comments were aimed at Hanno Loewy, who is director of the Jewish Museum in Hohenems and who had criticized an FPÖ campaign slogan. Egger also said that Loewy, “with his heavily subsidized museum, should shut up and not mix in Austrian politics.”
Prosecutor Franz Pflanzner said his office was looking into the matter based on an "initial suspicion" that Egger had engaged in incitement. It was unclear when a decision on whether to launch a formal investigation would be made. Loewy, a German citizen, called Egger's remarks "absurd."
ERFURT, Germany—German prosecutors have brought charges against a man accused of hanging a blood-drenched pig's head at a Jewish cemetery last November and a banner denying the Holocaust. The accused is also believed to have poured pig's blood at the entrance of another Jewish graveyard the same night together with another man who has also been charged, the Prosecutor's Office in the city of Erfurt said. Both men, aged 32 and 47, stand accused of disturbing the peace of the dead for the incident in Erfurt, in which they allegedly poured pig's blood over a memorial plaque at the cemetery's main gate.
The charge carries a penalty of up to three years in prison or a fine. In addition, the 47-year-old is believed to have hung the pig's head from the Star of David on the entrance gate to the graveyard in Gotha near Erfurt and thrown two glasses filled with pig's blood at the gate. Police also found a cloth banner reading "six million lies" in a reference to the number of Jews killed by the Nazis.
In addition, the 47-year-old has also been charged with incitement to racial hatred for denying the Holocaust which carries a sentence of up to five years in prison or a fine. "The accused, who have no criminal records, deny the charges," the Prosecutor's Office said in a statement.
WJC and Lithuania negotiate compensation for Jews whose assets were stolen
VILNIUS, Lithuania (WJC)—World Jewish Congress Secretary-General Michael Schneider has held talks in Vilnius with the Lithuanian government over the restitution assets stolen from Jews during World War II. The amounts should be adequate and the process carried out over a "reasonable" time frame, Schneider pointed out after meeting with Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius. He noted that he had a constructive conversation with the prime minister, but that further negotiations would be held with the Lithuanian government.
The current bill presented by the government earlier this year stipulates that the Jews are to receive compensation amounting to around US$ 50 million, a fraction of the value seized from Jewish owners during the Nazi occupation. This amount also includes the value of two buildings in the capital Vilnius.
Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite promised the Jewish community that would receive restitution. Addressing an international congress of 'Litvaks' – as Lithuania's Jews are known – in Vilnius, Grybauskaite said the Baltic state had spent the 20 years since its independence from the Soviet Union trying to correct "historical errors" that saw Jews dispossessed of their property and other assets when their community was almost entirely destroyed during World War II.
"This autumn the government and parliament will consider a Restoration of Property Act. I am very glad that a historical injustice which was not [perpetrated) in today's Lithuania, will be corrected, and you will get justice," she told delegates at the Third World Litvak Congress in Vilnius. Also speaking to delegates, Michael Schneider expressed hope that the government’s compensation offer would still increase.
NBA star Houston conducts basketball clinic in Sderot
SDEROT, Israel (Press Release)—NBA All-Star player and former Olympic gold medalist Allan Houston and his wife Tamara celebrated their 13th wedding anniversary with a surprise cake on their EL AL flight.
The former New York Knicks team captain is in Israel this week to conduct a basketball clinic for children of all ages in Sderot, a town in southern Israel. Houston and his wife will also visit important historical and holy sites.
Treasury to Muslim charities: Guard against abuse by terrorists
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)—The following statement on charitable giving in the Muslim community was issued on Wednesday by the U.S. Treasury Department:
"As Ramadan begins, the U.S. Department of the Treasury recognizes the particular importance of charitable giving throughout the holy month of Ramadan for Muslims in America and around the world. Charitable giving is a fundamental characteristic of many faiths, and zakat, one of the five pillars of Islam, is a sacred obligation for Muslims.
" Treasury underscores its support for the important work of the charitable sector in providing essential services to those in need, both at home and abroad. Treasury remains committed to strengthening its engagement with the donor community and the charitable sector to support their efforts while at the same time, safeguarding charities from abuse by terrorist organizations. In recent years, the charitable sector has taken significant steps to promote transparency and to guard against such abuse.
"We look forward to strengthening our partnership with the charitable sector and the donor community to further advance our shared objective of protecting legitimate charitable activity. "
FIRST AMENDMENT
Judge upholds Orthodox-majority board's decision on secular school
CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y-- U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert on Monday dismissed a lawsuit brought against the public Lawrence Union Free School District by district residents who contended the Orthodox Jewish majority of the board are closing a school and blocking tax increases in an effort to encourage attendance at private religious schools.
In her opinion, Judge Seybert said the politically Conservative goal of reducing government expenses and lowering taxes is shared by people of many religious backgrounds, and even if individual taxpayers subsequently decide to keep or send their children to a yeshiva (or some other private school),this does not constitute an unconstitutional entanglement of religion and state.
Seybert denied the plaintifs' request for a preliminary injunction, saying they had failed to demonstrate that public funds are being used to support private religious schools. In her 38-page opinion, Judge Seybert described plaintiffs' claims as "frivolous" on multiple occasions.
sale or lease to benefit the Orthodox community. The plaintiffs claimed that the lower tax base resulting from the public school's closure would help other Orthodox Jews pay for tuition at private yeshiva schools.
"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Orthodox Jews equal protection of the law," wrote Seybert. "This includes the right to run for public office and enact otherwise constitutional polices that have majority support. To deny Orthodox Jews these rights simply because, as Plaintiffs allege, Orthodox Jews have different opinions from Lawrence's other residents would be to discriminate against Orthodox Jews because they are Orthodox Jews. Any such discrimination would be Constitutionally and morally repugnant."
David Butler, lead lawyer of the Bingham McCutchen team representing the defendants, said the dismissal of the suit "has rightly brought a swift end to the plaintiffs' meritless and troubling claims."
SHONDA FILE
Bradley Ruderman pleads guilty
to $25 million investment fraud
LOS ANGELES (Press Release)—The founder and manager of two Beverly Hills hedge funds pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal fraud charges, admitting that he ran a Ponzi scheme targeting family members who suffered losses of more than $25 million.
Bradley L. Ruderman, 46, of Beverly Hills, pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud and two counts of investment adviser fraud related to the Ponzi scheme he ran from 2003 through 2009. Ruderman also pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of failing to file a federal income tax return for the year 2007.
Appearing this morning before United States District Judge John F. Walter, Ruderman admitted that he collected more than $44 million from investors, many of whom were family members who were promised annual returns as high as 60 percent. Ruderman admitted that he used much of the money to pay his own expenses and that he hid the misappropriation of investor money from his victims by sending them phony account statements that purported to show gains in their accounts. When the funds collapsed in April, Ruderman’s investors had lost more than $25 million.
Ruderman used false and misleading statements to persuade family members, friends and others to invest in his two hedge funds, Ruderman Capital Partners and Ruderman Capital Partners A. Ruderman lied about profits made by the funds, repeatedly sent false account statements to investors, and reported that he had $206 million in funds under management, when he actually had only $588,246 under management at the beginning of this year.
The FBI investigation revealed that Ruderman spent at least $8.7 million of investor money on personal expenses, which included a summer rental on Malibu's Carbon Beach and two Porsches. Ruderman further admitted that he lost $5.2 million of investor money in clandestine poker games held on a regular basis in a suite at a luxury Beverly Hills hotel.
Ruderman also pleaded guilty to failing to file his federal income tax return for 2007, a year in which he admitted earning more than $2 million. As part of his plea agreement with the government, Ruderman admitted that he failed to report income every year since 2004. He has agreed to file tax returns for those years and to resolve all taxes, penalties and interest due to the government
Judge Walter is scheduled to sentence Ruderman on December 7. As a result of today’s guilty pleas, Ruderman faces a statutory maximum sentence of 51 years in federal prison.
This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and IRS-Criminal Investigation.
|
