|
WASHINGTON, D.C (Press Release)--Following is a transcript of the Middle East portions of the briefing by State Department spokesman Ian Kelly on Wednesday. It was conducted before the UN Security Council voted to have a debate on the Middle East on Oct. 14, at which Arab states have said they will push for consideration of the Goldstone report.
QUESTION: Can I ask you about your friends, the Libyans, who seem determined not to allow the Goldstone report to go gently into that good night or just fall off the radar screen, which is what you’ve been hoping to do?
MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t agree with that, Matt. I think what we --
QUESTION: What?
MR. KELLY: What we wanted to do was defer discussion of it so it wouldn't become an impediment to the talks going on which are designed to develop the resumption of talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
QUESTION: Right. And now, today, the Libyans are raising it at the Security Council, which is precisely what you didn’t want to happen.
MR. KELLY: Well --
QUESTION: What are you going to do, and how are you going to prevent this from turning into a giant mess – even more of a mess than it already is for Abbas, who’s under very, very heavy pressure and criticism at home?
MR. KELLY: I think what’s going on today is there is a – it’s on the agenda of the Security Council, a regular Security Council meeting, to discuss the Libyan request. I don’t think that they’re discussing the overall issue, though, which is the Goldstone report. But I think you know what our policy is --
QUESTION: Isn’t it a fact that the Libyans have asked for the report to be discussed by the Security Council?
MR. KELLY: I believe that they have made a request to --
QUESTION: So whether they’re actually going to be talking about the content of the report today or not, they’re still going to be talking about it, and that’s exactly what you didn’t want to happen.
MR. KELLY: That – well, I mean, I – as I’ve said before and we said many times that we believe that the report raised some very serious allegations that should be reviewed that – but we also believe that these issues should be discussed in a constructive and non-divisive manner. And for that reason, we believe that the place for this kind of discussion is in the Human Rights Council.
QUESTION: So what are you going to do at the Security Council to keep it from being discussed?
MR. KELLY: Well, it will be raised today, this afternoon, and I imagine that there will be discussion on whether or not to have a more general discussion of it.
QUESTION: Right. Exactly. And presumably, you’re opposed to having a more general discussion of it, correct?
MR. KELLY: We believe that the proper place for a discussion of this is the Human Rights Council.
QUESTION: So what will you do to prevent it from coming before the Security Council?
MR. KELLY: Well, I would imagine that what we’re going to do is point out what I just pointed out, that we are at a sensitive time in trying to re-launch these negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Senator Mitchell arrived this morning to resume these talks with the Israelis and Palestinians, and we think that we should all stay focused on that objective of addressing the underlying causes of the tragic events that are covered in the Goldstone report, which is the lack of a comprehensive peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and a solution to this longstanding conflict, which we believe, and which both sides also believe – they share the same goal of having two states living side by side in peace and security.
QUESTION: Are you prepared to use your veto at the Security Council to prevent this from --
MR. KELLY: Well, you’re asking me to – you’re asking me to look into the future and prejudge what we will or what we won’t do.
QUESTION: I’m asking you about your strategy. What I’ve been trying to get at is trying to figure out what your strategy is --
MR. KELLY: Well, we’ll see --
QUESTION: -- in the Security Council to prevent it from being raised --
MR. KELLY: Right. We’ll see what happens at 4 o'clock today in this closed session of the UN Security Council.
Yeah, Lach.
QUESTION: Do you see it as provoking controversy among the Palestinians and that the – Abbas’s position, your partner in the peace talks, is undermined --
MR. KELLY: Well --
QUESTION: -- by the decision to delay it, which you pressured the Palestinians to do?
MR. KELLY: Well, we – I disagree with you that we pressured the Palestinians.
QUESTION: But you asked --
MR. KELLY: We believe that it was in the interest of all concerned, of all who share this common goal of re-launching these negotiations, to delay discussion of this report. And as I said, this is what we are focused on is a long-term objective of getting to a point where we can talk about a real solution to the problems that caused these terrible events in Gaza.
QUESTION: But you’re not going to get a solution if you continually have a weak Palestinian partner --
MR. KELLY: Well --
QUESTION: -- divided also with Hamas, and apparently, one of the first casualties is this reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah that --
MR. KELLY: Yeah, I’m not sure that that is --
QUESTION: Will it be delayed now?
MR. KELLY: Yeah, I’m not sure that it will be delayed. I mean, we, of course, have urged the Palestinians to demonstrate that they are committed to what they say they’re committed to, and that’s a Palestinian state that can live side by side with Israel. And they need to commit to renouncing violence, to building on previous agreements and obligations. And we, of course, hope that we can play a helpful role in getting to the point where the – where we can start – or restart the process towards this shared goal.
QUESTION: Do you support the reconciliation deal as outlined by the Egyptian brokers, the Hamas-Fatah deal?
MR. KELLY: I – yeah, I mean, clearly, we support a process that would lead to a restart of significant negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I don’t know enough about the Egyptian proposal. I don’t know enough about the details of it to really pronounce on whether or not this is the way to go.
Yeah, Arshad.
QUESTION: A different topic?
QUESTION: Can we just – I just want to get something clear. Did you tell – have you told the Libyans or asked the Libyans not to do this, and they just basically blew you off?
MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to that question.
Yeah, Arshad.
QUESTION: Same topic?
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Same topic.
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: On – you’ve made your position public that this report should be deferred. How do you think your position on the Goldstone report is going to impact U.S. relations with the Muslim world?
MR. KELLY: Look, we have said all along that – and I just said a few minutes ago that there are serious allegations in this report. And these allegations need to be addressed, and we have urged both sides to take steps to address these allegations and investigate them thoroughly. We think that the – it is in the best interests of everyone in the region, not just the Israelis and the Palestinians, to start a process that will lead to two states living side by side.
This is the end – this is the goal that is in the interests of everybody living in this region. And what we’re doing – all of our energies right now are being employed to move this process forward, and we want to clear the decks of any issues that might impede our progress towards this. And this is why we thought that it was perhaps better to delay discussion of this.
QUESTION: When you say impede progress, during the President’s speech in Cairo, he said that U.S. relations with the Muslim world is going to be based on mutual respect.
MR. KELLY: Right.
QUESTION: Muslims don’t believe the U.S. position is respecting the sanctity of Muslim lives, those Muslims that died in Gaza. How do you respond?
MR. KELLY: I respond by saying that we recognize that the allegations in the report need to be investigated thoroughly, and we, of course, were very concerned about the number of civilians who were killed in this operation. But again, we need to stay focused on this long-term goal of addressing the underlying causes for the whole conflict.
The conflict started because missiles were being fired into Israel and the operation was undertaken to stop these attacks on Israel. What we need to do is get to a point where there is peace between the two communities, between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And the way to do that is to have two states living side by side in peace and security and focusing on what’s really important, and that’s the future of their children and the prosperity of their countries.
***
university researcher, a guy named Shahram Amiri, who is rumored to be involved in their nuclear program. Wondering – this was an accusation made by their foreign minister Manuchehr Mottaki.
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: I’m wondering what the response is.
MR. KELLY: Yeah. We saw that wire story, and we looked into it – I mean, here in the State Department – and we just basically don’t have any information on this individual. And that’s – I don’t really have more to say besides that, really.
QUESTION: You here in the State Department (inaudible)?
MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, this story has only just come across the wires and we’ve only sort of talked in-house here. But I really don’t have any information about it.
QUESTION: So has anybody in the U.S. Government been involved in --
MR. KELLY: Not that I’m aware of.
QUESTION: – you know, either --
QUESTION: Are you leaving open the possibility that another government agency might be – have more information?
MR. KELLY: I can only speak for the State Department at this point.
QUESTION: Then – but you can’t categorically rule out that you had no involvement in this, can you?
MR. KELLY: Well, we just – we – the case is not familiar to us. The name is not familiar to us.
QUESTION: Really? Because I – it’s my understanding that the Iranians actually raised this among – this case among cases of at least one other in Geneva --
MR. KELLY: Well, maybe I misspoke. I’m not aware of that, I must say.
QUESTION: – and that they also complained to the UN about it – complained during the UN – during the UNGA.
MR. KELLY: Mm-hmm. Well, I know that I have no information about this. I don’t want to misspeak.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: On Iran.
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: There has been funding that has been going out to a lot of exile groups. One has been Iran’s human – center for human rights violation, documentation of that in – near Yale University. That grant has been cut and denied after five years of granting this group millions of dollars, a $3 million grant this year has been denied suddenly. Is there – is this a change in policy? Are you changing the policy of funding any of these exile groups of different sorts and forms?
MR. KELLY: Yeah. I don’t have the details of this particular case. I do know that our funding priorities haven’t changed for the region. What this program is designed to support is civil society and advocacy promoting human rights and the rule of law and increasing access to sources of information. But this particular grantee, I’m not aware of the reason that went into the funding decision for it.
QUESTION: Would you make available why a certain center or group has been denied? Is there a way to find out?
MR. KELLY: I’m not sure if that’s public information or the kind of information we’d only share with the grantee itself. I think we’d have to probably check to see if that’s possible.
QUESTION: I’m asking that because there’s a lot of speculation that this – in Iran especially, and I’ve spoken to a lot of human rights activists in Iran who were not upset about this, surprisingly to say. These kind of grants never ended up in Iran in any way. But more importantly, they think this might be your way of saying we didn’t just say regime change policy has changed, we’re following through with it. Is this a message sent – being sent to Tehran?
MR. KELLY: No. I mean, as I said before, our funding priorities under this program have not changed. We still have the same priorities and in terms of supporting rule of law, supporting civil society, and broadening of access to information. Those are sort of the main priorities we have for the program.
QUESTION: But could you possibly speculate that whether or not --
MR. KELLY: Speculate?
QUESTION: Yeah, speculatively thinking, is there – are you looking – is it – could it be that you’re looking into federal funding and you’re saying why are we giving this money to – is it – could it that, as President Obama said, I’m going to go line by line? Is this part of that, or is it part of something --
MR. KELLY: I simply don’t know the answer to that. I just know that the overall – our overall goals for this program have remained unchanged, and our priorities for the kinds of programs that we fund have not changed as well.
QUESTION: So would it be – at all be able to find out at any point? Is there something --
MR. KELLY: I’ll see. And like I say, I’m not sure we can share this kind of information about individual grantees, but --
QUESTION: Also on Iran.
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: In light of the talks the U.S., Russia, France are going to have with Iran on October 19th about uranium reprocessing, Iran – Ahmadinejad is offering to buy uranium from the United States. Would the U.S. ever think of buying uranium?
MR. KELLY: Well –
QUESTION: Selling uranium?
MR. KELLY: Selling uranium. Yeah, I think this is all done under the auspices of the IAEA, and so we would do this within that context. I mean, whatever we would do would be in consultation with them. Whether or not we would sell Iran enriched uranium, that I can’t say. You’re asking me to discuss the decision we may or may not make in the future. But I know this is all done through the IAEA.
QUESTION: Yeah. And el-Baradei’s visit at the weekend, I mean, have you heard back about the process for inspecting the new plant at Qom, the new uranium enrichment plant at Qom?
MR. KELLY: I don’t have any particular details about it. I know that it’s – the inspection will take place on October 25th. In the lead-up to that, there will preparatory work, interviews, and various ways to prepare for the inspection itself. But I don’t have any details about the inspection.
Go to top of next column
| |
Warsaw ghetto fighter
Marek Edelman dies
LODZ, Poland (WJC)—Marek Edelman, the last surviving commander of the 1943 Jewish ghetto uprising against the Nazis in Warsaw, has died at the age of 86. Edelman was part of Jewish militant groups who fought against the Nazis in 1943 during their final attempt to liquidate the ghetto.
Despite the anti-Semitic policies of Poland's Communist authorities after World War II, Edelman never left his homeland. In contrast with many Jewish Poles who survived the war, Edelman decided to stay and settled in the central Polish city of Lodz, where he became a cardiologist. In an interview, he said his work as a doctor enabled him to save lives, which he was unable to do in the ghetto. His memoirs were translated into six languages, including Hebrew.
Edelman was also a leading member of the Freedom Union, the party of Poland’s first post-Communist prime minister, Tadeusz Mazowiecki. Lech Walesa, the former Solidarity leader and Polish president, called Edelman "an upright, unequalled human being. There are no words to express the loss."
“He fought for his country more than anyone else,” Michael Schudrich, Poland’s chief rabbi, said in an interview. “He wasn’t fighting for himself, but to show that the Jews in the ghetto weren’t passive, that they wouldn’t go like sheep to the slaughter.”
United Nations will teach in Gaza schools about the Holocaust
UNITED NATIONS (WJC)--The United Nations is to include the education about the Holocaust in the new Gaza schools curriculum despite protests by Hamas. The UN Relief and Works Agency is producing a curriculum to be proposed for inclusion in the studies of secondary school students. It is to be discussed with the local community in Gaza over the coming weeks. At senior UN official in the Gaza Strip said he was confident the Holocaust would become part of the curriculum adopted by local schools. However, there is intense opposition to this plan from Hamas hardliners.
Yunis al Astal, a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, reportedly said that including the details of the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis in school teaching would be "marketing a lie". Those responsible for teaching the Holocaust would be committing a "war crime", he added.
The Relief and Works Agency, which provides aid to Palestinians in Gaza, insists that teaching the Holocaust to local children will help them understand the need for human rights....
(In New York, the American Jewish Congress issued the following statement: "UNRWA is to be congratulated for announcing that its schools will teach the Holocaust, in defiance of Hamas’ objections. It is a sad commentary that what should be a routine curriculum adjustment (albeit somewhat overdue) is now a matter of international news. We do not mean to cavil. It is good and important that in UNRWA’s schools Palestinian children will be inoculated against the lie heard from Hamas and others that the Holocaust never happened.")
Ya'alon, fearing arrest,
cancels trip to Britain
JERUSALEM (WJC)-- Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon has canceled a trip to Britain out of fear that he would be arrested. Ya'alon was scheduled to attend a fundraising dinner by the British section of the Jewish National Fund, for the benefit of Israeli soldiers with no family in the country.
However, the Foreign Ministry's legal department advised him that pro-Palestinian groups could ask a British court to have him arrested and put on trial for war crimes, specifically the assassination of a senior Hamas leader in 2002, in which 14 civilians were also killed. Ya'alon served as chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces at the time of the assassination. He left the post in 2005.
The legal team warned that despite his being a government minister, he likely would not be given diplomatic immunity. A lawsuit could be filed under the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, which gives courts in England and Wales universal jurisdiction in war crimes cases. Last week, a judge in London denied the issuing of an arrest warrant against Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who was attending the British Labor Party conference in Brighton.
Sanctions sought against
firms providing Iran with oil
WASHINGTON, D.C (Press Release)—Congressman John Adler (Democrat-New Jersey) sent a letter to Chairman Howard Berman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, urging his committee to pass The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009. Congressman Adler is a cosponsor of the bill that would reinforce American diplomacy by imposing economic sanctions on companies that provide Iran with petroleum products.
"The United States, Israel and the rest of the world cannot afford to have a nuclear-armed Iran," Congressman Adler wrote in the letter. "This is a critically important national security issue. Keeping our communities and families safe has to be our top priority."
With the recent discovery of a second uranium enrichment facility at Qom, the threat of a ‘nuclear Iran' is higher than ever before. In the letter to Chairman Berman, Congressman Adler argued that America must prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear power to protect national security and further instability in the Middle East. The committee must pass the bill in order to hold a vote on the House floor.
Stand With Us tells its
'concerns' about J-Street
LOS ANGELES (Press Release)--StandWithUs has concerns about "J Street," a new organization and lobby whose goal is to change U.S. policies on Israel. Though J Street claims to be "pro- Israel" and "pro-peace" and to represent mainstream Jewish opinion, we are troubled because their positions seem to undermine Israel and its search for peace with security. Their views may also contribute to anti-Israel biases and misinformation.
Among our concerns are the following:
We are concerned because J Street echoes many of the charges in Walt and Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby, and denigrates mainstream Jewish organizations across the political spectrum.
We are concerned about many of J Street's funders and advisors who have opposed Israel or have ties with Arab governments that have been consistently hostile to Israel. They include one board member who donated $10,000 and is on the National American Iranian Council, widely viewed as the unofficial lobby in America for the current Iranian regime. [1] Others include Zahi Khouri, a wealthy Palestinian businessman, who considers AIPAC and Netanyahu "enemies of peace" [2]
Another J Street donor is a board member of Human Rights Watch, an organization that targets Israel [3] for unfair criticism, and was recently exposed because its "military expert" was obsessed with Nazi memorabilia, and because it solicited funds from the Saudi government, enticing them by promising to continue its biased investigations of Israel. J Street advisor Judith Barnett worked for the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Trade, and became a registered agent for Saudi Arabia. [4]
We are concerned because J Street draws a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. During Israel's recent war against Hamas, J Street said it could not identify "who was right or who was wrong," proclaiming that "we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right and wrong." [5] We are deeply disturbed that J Street would equate the moral principles of Israel and Hamas, whose founding document calls for the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, and includes sections that echo The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
We are most concerned because J Street frequently endorses anti-Israel, anti-Jewish narratives. J Street claimed that Israel's response in the war against Hamas was "disproportionate;" accepted the discredited claims of the UN Goldstone report on Israel's conduct during the Hamas war; [6] launched letter writing campaigns to support a "60 Minutes" show demonizing Israeli settlers; [7] supported the staging of "7 Jewish Children," a play with such strong anti-Semitic messages that the BBC wouldn't air it, [8] and praised Jimmy Carter whose biased views have been so damaging to Israel. [9]
We are concerned because J Street lays equal blame on Israel and the Palestinians for the ongoing conflict, ignoring the long history of Palestinian rejectionism, the extremism of Palestinian organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Fatah-funded Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and the unfortunate results of Israel's concessions for peace, such as the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. We are disturbed when we read statements blaming both sides equally for the failure of past peace efforts, such as, "It is J Street's position that the parties themselves have proven incapable of reaching a resolution to the conflict." [10]
We are concerned because J Street frequently opposes the positions of the Israeli government and its electorate, and urges America to oppose center piece Israeli policies that have wide public support in Israel and the U.S. J Street opposed Israel's war against Hamas, supported the U.S. administration's call for a settlement freeze without comparable demands put on the Palestinians, rejects stronger sanctions against Iran, and calls for the U.S. and Israel to negotiate with Hamas. J Street seems to belittle or ignore official Israeli policy and the realities on the ground in the region.
We are also troubled that many Israeli J Street members are affiliated with Israeli political parties that were soundly defeated and marginalized in recent elections, and who seem to be trying to influence the American public and government to adopt their rejected platforms.
We are troubled that J Street claims to represent the silent mainstream of American Jewish opinion even though the polls that J Street conducted to prove the popularity of its positions were exposed as unreliable because biased questions forced the responses that J Street sought. [11] Other polls of Jewish American opinion produced substantially different results.
StandWithUs shares the deep concerns of Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, who broke with J Street because of its position on Israel's war against Hamas. He wrote that J Street's views are "deeply distressing because they are morally deficient, profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and also appallingly naïve." [12]
We are all committed to breaking the impasse on the road to peace in the Middle East, but we should be concerned about a group that misrepresents itself to well-meaning people by falsely claiming that it reflects mainstream American Jewish opinion, and while promoting policies and views that threaten to harm Israel and undermine the arduous efforts for establishing an enduring peace.
[1] http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/08/exposing -j-street-fraud-why-is-pro.html
[2] Lenny Ben-David, "Peeling Off J-Street's Invisibility Cloak: What Today's NY Times Magazine Won't Tell You, Pajamas Media, Sept. 13, 2009 at http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/peeling-off-j- streets-invisibility-cloak-what-todays-ny-times- magazine-wont-tell-you/
[3] http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/peeling-off-j- streets-invisibility-cloak-what-todays-ny-times- magazine-wont-tell-you/ and NGO Monitor at ttp://www.ngo- monitor.org/article/human_rights_watch_hrw_
[4] http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/peeling-off-j- streets-invisibility-cloak-what-todays-ny-times- magazine-wont-tell-you/
[5] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? cid=1244371055245&pagename=JPArticle% 2FShowFull and http://www.jstreet.org/page/rep-marcy- kaptur-d-oh-statement-violence-gaza
[6] http://www.jstreet.org/blog/ , Sept. 21, 2009
[7] http://jstreet.org/campaigns/archived Jan. 29, 2009
[8] http://theaterjblogs.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/j- street-letter-of-support-on-discussing-7jc/
[9] http://www.campusprogress.org/asktheexpert/293 4/redefining-pro-israel
[10] http://jstreet.org/page/israel-palestine#
[11] http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index. php/pollak/75641
[12] http://www.forward.com/articles/14847/
| |
|
|
|
