Who Are Those Terrorists? Who Are the Other Victims?

Press Statement

John Kirby
Assistant Secretary and Department Spokesperson, Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC
March 8, 2016


The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms today’s outrageous terrorist attacks in Jaffa, Petah Tikvah, and Jerusalem, which tragically claimed the life of U.S. citizen Taylor Allen Force and left many others severely injured. We offer our heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Taylor and all those affected by these senseless attacks, and we wish a speedy recovery for the injured. As we have said many times, there is absolutely no justification for terrorism. We continue to encourage all parties to take affirmative steps to reduce tensions and restore calm.

And who perptrated the attacks?

American officialdom at a loss for words.

(h/t-LM)


^ 

State Dep't Official Thinks Apartheid

According Peter Beinart, anyway:-

...But the administration’s motivation [in opposing West Bank settlements] was not only instrumental; it was moral, too. In March 2009, Hillary Clinton, Mitchell, and a few aides traveled from Jerusalem, where they had met Israeli officials, to Ramallah. As they sped through the West Bank, passing boulders that blocked Palestinian villages from accessing settler-dominated bypass roads, the Americans grew palpably uncomfortable. “There was a kind of silence and people were careful,” remembers one former senior State Department official, “but it was like my God, you crossed that border and it was apartheid.”

Can you trust Beinart?

Can you trust the State Department?

(k/t=AH)

^

Article on Shiloh and Construction

By P. David Hornik.

^

State Department Loses Diplomatic Points

As a friend with a background in international law wrote on the matter of the problem Arabs and the media have with Jewish residency in Yesha, which I redacted -

They make unprecedented demands on the issue of the Jewish communities so as to avoid negotiations, and this government made an unprecedented concession (a 10 month freeze) in order to try to lure them back to the talks. After the Israeli concession they still refused to talk, so how can they presume to be able to come back and demand further unilateral concessions from the Israelis on the issue. Whatever concerns the Arabs have about the communities can be resolved easily by getting serious about negotiations.

and as two others noted:

the issue of "settlements" was part of final status negotiations and not a precondition for talks. Israel’s record proves that it has made and kept peace deals notwithstanding settlement construction—for instance, Israel has a peace deal with Egypt notwithstanding settlements in the Sinai prior to that deal. The Palestinian record, by contrast, shows that they have not kept previous deals to end terrorism and resolve all differences at the negotiating table. Whereas Israel never agreed to stop financial incentives in settlements, the Palestinians did agree to negotiations without preconditions on settlements. Anyone serious about peace has to press the Palestinians to live up to their previous commitments on "settlements".

now consider this palabra from the State Department's
Daily Press Briefing of January 31, 2012 -

QUESTION: ...The Israeli Government has announced plans to actually encourage settlers to move into the West Bank and to begin – and also to begin a process that would – that could end up in legalizing what are now illegal outposts. I’m assuming that your position on both of these things hasn’t changed, so I’m wondering --


MR. TONER: You assume correctly.


QUESTION: Yeah.


MR. TONER: You know we’ve said multiple times --


QUESTION: What is it – can you maybe make it a little bit more clear, because it seems to be apparent that the Israelis, or at least Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government, don’t understand exactly what it is that you, as their prime benefactor and large – huge ally, want from them.


MR. TONER: Well, Matt, we’ve said this many times from this podium and from elsewhere that we view any move that would jeopardize getting these two parties back to the negotiating table, and indeed, we’ve obviously seen them back – face-to-face negotiations over the past couple of weeks – that we find those unconstructive and unhelpful.


QUESTION: And that would include what they have announced today?


MR. TONER: Yes, that would include that.


QUESTION: All right. So what is the consequence, then, for Israel for them continuing to defy – not only defy but really to do – not just to say no, we don’t agree with that, but then to actually actively -


MR. TONER: Well, again --


QUESTION: -- oppose or actively take active steps that fly in the face of what you say is helpful?


MR. TONER: Well, again, we’re seeking clarity on what is actually being proposed here. We did have an initial round of direct talks in Jordan. Those talks have ended, but they did show signs of progress and we certainly want to see them continue. And these kinds of actions don’t help create the kind of atmosphere that are conducive to these talks continuing.


Now, David Hale is in the region. He’s going to have meetings in Amman as well as Jerusalem and Ramallah, and he’ll be back in Washington later this week. But – obviously, he’s there in his capacity, but also I think he’ll make some of these concerns – convey them to the Israeli Government.


QUESTION: Well, these concerns have been conveyed over and over and over to the Israelis. What is the consequence for them continuing to do this?


MR. TONER: Well, again, this is about getting them back to the negotiating table. And what we make clear is that whenever these kinds of actions take place, that they hamper that process.


QUESTION: So there is no consequence at all?


MR. TONER: Well, again, it’s not about carrots and sticks. What it’s about is trying to encourage these parties to get back to the negotiating table.


QUESTION: Why not? It’s about carrots and sticks everywhere else in the world. Why isn’t it about carrots and sticks here?


MR. TONER: In this case, it’s in both their --


QUESTION: What are you doing --


MR. TONER: -- it’s in both parties’ best interests to continue negotiations towards a comprehensive settlement.


QUESTION: But the actions of at least – one could argue the actions of both parties, but in this series of questions, which is about the announcements by the Israeli Government --


MR. TONER: Right.


QUESTION: -- they are not acting in the best interests of that, according to you.


MR. TONER: Again --


QUESTION: Correct? So what is the consequence of that? The consequence is they don’t get back to talks that they apparently don’t seem to want?


MR. TONER: Well, again, you’ll have to ask the Israeli Government what their intent is here. But you’re absolutely right that this has to be something that both sides want to pursue and to do so in a meaningful and committed fashion. And again, we are very outspoken when we see actions by either side that we believe hampers the chance for these parties to get back into direct negotiations. It’s certainly – as we’ve said many times, it’s in both of their interests to be in direct negotiations.


QUESTION: All right. Two more very quick ones --


MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.


QUESTION: -- and then I’m done. You talk about meaningful and committed fashion. Are the actions of the Israeli Government something that you would consider meaningful and committed to be – is what they’re doing, is that something that you consider to be acting in a meaningful and – now I’ve forgotten the other word --


MR. TONER: That’s okay.


QUESTION: Committed.


QUESTION: -- and committed fashion?


MR. TONER: Thanks, Andy. Again, I think I’ve been very clear that actions by either side that we view as unconstructive to the process --


QUESTION: So they are not acting in a meaningful and committed fashion?


MR. TONER: Well, again, we have had talks in Jordan over the past few weeks that we believe offered a good start. We want to see those talks continue. David Hale is in the region. He’s consulting with all sides as well as the Jordanians.


QUESTION: Mark, that’s a great answer to a question, but it’s not the question I asked. Is Israel asking in a meaningful – acting in a meaningful and committed fashion toward getting a peace – towards encouraging these talks?


MR. TONER: Again, we’ve said that these kinds of actions are not constructive.


QUESTION: I think it’s a yes-or-no question.


MR. TONER: And I’m going to answer you the way I’m answering you, which is that it’s not constructive.


QUESTION: It’s not constructive, all right. And then the last one is just Hale – he is where at the moment right now?


MR. TONER: That is a good question. I believe he’s in Amman today.


QUESTION: Okay. And was he aware – was he aware of this before he went or --


MR. TONER: I don’t know. I haven’t – I didn’t talk to him.


QUESTION: Did this come out as a complete surprise to you guys?


MR. TONER: I do not know whether he was aware of it or not.


QUESTION: What about the rest of the building?


MR. TONER: Again, I believe that we were – again, I’m not going to get into what we may or may not have known. What we’re seeing here is actions that we believe aren’t constructive.


QUESTION: Mark, just a --


MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure, Said.


QUESTION: -- quick follow-up on this. Now, you keep saying that the path to statehood is through direct negotiations. Seeing how the settlement processing increased by 20 percent in 2011 and with today’s announcement, and in fact, since the beginning of this month we are likely to see an increase if they continue at this pace – like a 40 percent increase in settlement activities. So what incentive is there for the Palestinians to go into these negotiations to sort of get a state that is viable – as you keep saying – that is viable and contiguous and independent and sovereign?


MR. TONER: Well, the motivation should be clear, and that is the sooner they sit down with Israel and work through these issues in a comprehensive fashion so that we can get a clear way forward in terms of borders, then the sooner they have that comprehensive settlement and that statehood that they so desire.


QUESTION: But isn’t there a pattern that every time there is some sort of a negotiation and, in fact, a visit by a high-level U.S. official and so on to Israel, that the Israelis always counter by announcing a new settlement and increase the settlements and so on?


MR. TONER: Again, you’re asking me to speak to the motivations behind this decision. I don’t know.


QUESTION: Okay. So you talk about incentives for the Palestinians, but do you have any kind of disincentive for the increased Israeli settlement activities?


MR. TONER: Well, we’ve always been clear that – and Israelis themselves have commented that the status quo is unsustainable. So that’s --


QUESTION: So then the expression of anger and perhaps a little pouting, there is nothing that you can do?


MR. TONER: I disagree. David Hale is right now in the region. He is consulting with our partners as well as the parties. And we’re committed to getting them back into direct negotiations.


QUESTION: Can you tell us the last time that your position that was made very clearly to the Israelis did have an impact on stemming the settlement activities?


MR. TONER: Again, we are very outspoken when we see these kinds of actions by either side. We convey those to the Israelis, but you’re asking me to --


QUESTION: But you expressed a little recollection on that --


MR. TONER: -- elaborate on some kind of actions that I can’t.


QUESTION: In the last 12 months, you have not been able to sort of dissuade the Israelis from settlement activities. Are you aware of any time that you were able to persuade them?


MR. TONER: Again, Said, it is a question better directed to the Israeli Government. What we’re trying to do without preconditions, we’re trying to get the parties back to the negotiating table, and we’ve had a good start.

Amazing, no?

^

And Now The State Department Blames the Jews

(thanks to MB)

Well, even the State Department is on the matter of the olive trees:

Israel/Palestinians: Uprooting of Palestinian Olive Trees

Question Taken at the October 13, 2011 Daily Press Briefing
October 14, 2011

Question: Is the State Department aware of Israeli settlers uprooting Palestinian olive trees? What is the State Department’s reaction?

Answer: We are aware that Israeli settlers are again destroying Palestinian trees. The United States condemns and calls for an immediate end to such actions. We note the Government of Israel is working to address the situation. Those perpetrating these provocative acts should be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Unfortunately, attacks of Jewish agriculture are ignored even though I personally passed on the following information via diplomatic channels last November when this was sent around by the Yesha Council:

Yesha Council in cooperation with the Yesha Human Rights Organization.

Arab and Left-Wing Activists attack Jewish farmers in Judea and Samaria

The data presented in this paper outlines in detail the on-going suffering of the Jewish farmers in Judea and Samaria. These farmers, legally working their land, undergo severe abuse every day from their Arab neighbors who are supported, and even incited, by left-wing and farmers’ rights activists under a guise of nobly protecting unfortunates. Damage caused to the Jewish farmers is estimated to total hundreds of thousands of shekels yearly, in addition to the realization that their crops have been maliciously spoiled and destroyed which is simply immeasurable.

Many times, left-wing activists provoke the incidents. For example, on October 18th, 2010 Arik Asherman, a left-wing anarchic activist, came to Erez Ben-Saadoun’s field and started shouting at Erez that he stole olives from the Arabs, and immediately called the village mayor and demanded that he come down with residents to confront Erez. When the mayor arrived, he declared that the olives belong to Erez and not to the village, to the chagrin of Asherman, who began yelling at the village mayor. This event could have ended differently if the mayor had not backed up Erez’s claim.

The law of the State of Israel protects Arab olive pickers, yet does virtually nothing to protect the Jewish farmer. The media is almost never sympathetic to their pain and the troubles they have. In addition, during attempts to file a criminal complaint, the police often refuse to register the complaint without proof of ownership of the area by the complainant (e.g. following damage caused two weeks ago in Meshek Achia). Some of the plots have no official registration, and so the farmers who file the complaints expose themselves to the possibility of criminal claims against them by the state.

The following report is intended to shed some light on the absurd situation created in Judea and Samaria, where there is blatant discrimination in law enforcement between the two populations: over-enforcement, designed to protect the Arab farmer, and under-enforcement which abandons the Jewish farmer and his field.

Incident according to Date, Place, Farmer, Description of incident

2007
Bat-Ayin, Gush EtzionYehuda CohenBurning of 900 acres of pasture, stables, and 30 pomegranate trees.
2007
Ofra, Shlomi PuzakBurning of irrigation pipes, damage to vineyard, destroying crops, and uprooting vines.
Pnei Kedem, Moshe CohenUprooting of 500 olive trees.
Hebron, Menachem LivniBurning of 100 cherry trees, setting fire to agricultural buildings, and uprooting of 400 vines.
Har Sinai Farm, Har Hebron Herd stolen.
Har Hebron, Yaakov Talia Herds stolen 6 times.
2007
Neriah, BinyaminShlomi CohenUprooting of 5000 cotton seedlings during a demonstration of left-wing activists and Arabs.

14/8/10 Shiloh About 35 acres of vineyard burnt.
15/8/10 Shiloh Setting fire to 70 acres of pasture, vines burnt.
22/8/10 Shiloh Setting fire to 80 acres pasture, burning 200m of a main water pipe.
10/6/10 Hebron Natan Bar DavidSetting fire to a vineyard, burning of an agricultural structure.
21/6/10 Hebron Setting fire to an olive grove, 75 meters of water pipes and electrical cable burnt, and damage to vineyard crops.
18/10/10 Eli Erez Ben- SaadonDamage to 30 olive trees, branches cut.
10/2010 Shiloh Meshek Achia (Achia farm)Theft of fences and irrigation pipes and damage to olive trees
10/2010 Chavat Gilad (Gilad Farm) Uprooting of olive and fig trees, theft of agricultural tools in the Gilad Farm area.
8/2010 Chavat Gilad (Gilad Farm) Water pipe stolen, to the value of 60,000 shekel
2010 (throughout the year) Shavei Shomron, Kedumim, Itamar, Tapuach and Chavat Gilad Sheep stolen. In light of these thefts, many farmers have stopped raising herds.

Will someone alert the State Department that Jews suffer?

This year's report should be out soon.

^

The State Department Needs to Update Its Report

This paragraph on page 12 for the US State Department's Report on Religious Freedom needs revision:

On October 12, 2010, an arsonist set two fires at Tel Aviv-Yafo's historic Al Hambra Theater, which had been bought by the Church of Scientology in 2007 and largely renovated for future use. Nine workers escaped unharmed from the building. Scientologists complained about incitement by The Israeli Center for Victims of Cults, which had previously suggested the building be burned and whose predominantly religiously based objection filed with the municipality was forestalling the Scientologists from acquiring the final permit needed from the city to fully renovate the building for use.

The acts in question were due, it seems, to criminal behavior by the lawyer for the Church.

Read:

A Tel Aviv lawyer is the prime suspect in at least two attempted murders and an arson that were allegedly carried out by a Jaffa gang he controlled.  Gur Finkelstein was arrested several weeks ago, but details of the investigation were released for publication only yesterday...
Finkelstein is also alleged to have commissioned a hit against Tel Aviv building inspector Shoter Hovel, after the latter had stopped work on construction for the Scientology sect that Finkelstein represented.

Finkelstein also allegedly ordered the torching of the same Scientology building in an effort to generate new construction work, from which he was getting commissions from the building subcontractors he employed.

^

Semi-Propaganda Smoothtalk

Note this wishy-washy description:

Transjordan was one of the Arab states which moved to assist Palestinian nationalists opposed to the creation of Israel in May 1948, and took part in the warfare between the Arab states and the newly founded State of Israel.

To "assist" Arabs or to subvert a UN recommendation through violent aggression?

"Took part in the warfare" or did Jordan invade a neighboring state?

And who is the author of this semi-propaganda smoothtalk?

The United State Department of State, see under 'History'.

Hillary, that's history?


By the way, when Jordan requested to be accepted into the UN in 1946, you know what happened?

This from the UN protocol:

The representative of Poland questioned whether Trans-Jordan had de jure and de facto attained independence. He stated that he did not consider the way in which the British mandate was terminated to be in conformity with the procedure adopted by the Council of the League of Nations in regard to other mandates; nor had the requirements of the United Nations Charter been met when the mandate was terminated. The representative of Poland suggested that the application of Trans-Jordan be postponed for one year.

Review this blog post of mine

and this:

When the UK announced plans for Transjordanian independence, the final Assembly of the League of Nations and the General Assembly both adopted resolutions which indicated support for the proposal. However, the Jewish Agency and many legal scholars raised objections...the mandates could not be amended unilaterally...despite Transjordan's theoretical independence as conferred by the 1946 Treaty, the Arab Legion continued to be used, under nominal Transjordanian but actual British command, for police duties and for frontier control in Palestine.

The Jewish Agency spokesmen said that Transjordan was an integral part of Palestine, and that according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, the Jewish people had a secured interest in its territory.

The Anglo-American treaty, also known as the Palestine Mandate Convention, permitted the US to delay any unilateral British action to terminate the mandate...Members of the U.S. Congress introduced resolutions demanding that the U.S. Representative to the United Nations be instructed to seek postponement of any international determination of the status of Transjordan until the future status of Palestine as a whole was determined...US Secretary of State Byrnes had spoken out against premature recognition of Transjordan, and he added that the application should not be considered until the question of Palestine as a whole was addressed...At the 1947 Pentagon Conference, the USA advised the UK it was withholding recognition of Transjordan pending a decision on the Palestine question by the United Nations. During the General Assembly deliberations on Palestine, there were suggestions that it would be desirable to incorporate part of Transjordan's territory into the proposed Jewish state...

^

Look Who Are Guests of the US State Department

Found here:

At the arrow you can read these names:

James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute;
Amin Tarzi, Director of Middle East Studies at the Marine Corps University; Leon Hadar, research fellow at the Cato Institute;
Jonathan Alterman, Director and senior fellow at the Middle East Program of the Center for Strategic International Studies;
and
Thomas Mattair, Executive Director of the Middle East Policy Council

Do you think this is a balanced and pluralistic list of speakers?


^

Just Who Is Provocative and Unhelpful?

On Wednesday yesterday, State Department spokesman Mark Toner got all provocative and unhelpful to the goal of restarting peace talks.

What happened?

Well,

the State Department on Wednesday sharply criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government for adding two shrines in the West Bank to Israel's list of national heritage sites. The move, announced Sunday, sparked Palestinian protests and has drawn criticism from other quarters, including the United Nations.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the administration viewed the move as provocative and unhelpful to the goal of getting the two sides back to the table.

Toner said U.S. displeasure with the designations of the Cave of the
Patriarchs in the West Bank town of Hebron and the traditional tomb of the biblical matriarch Rachel in Bethlehem had been conveyed to senior Israeli officials by American diplomats.

I've searched for a State Dept. source but haven't come up with one.

But never mind, the point that needs to be made is twofold: what is the problem and is there hypocrisy here?

What is at the root of this preservation crisis can be explained by this article Between Paralysis and Practice: Theorizing the Political Liminality of Palestinian Cultural Heritage by Robert R. Sauders summary:

The Israeli military occupation of Palestine since 1967 coupled with the introduction of limited autonomy in 1993 has positioned the yet-to-be formed nation-state in political liminality — neither completely sovereign nor entirely subjugated. While this ambiguity has obvious ramifications for Palestine as a political entity, it also places the cultural heritage of Palestine in potential jeopardy. This paper examines the legal and historical construction of liminality for Palestine and explores how its ambiguous political status impacts the preservation, protection and management of cultural heritage in Palestine and influences the construction of cultural heritage narratives by Palestinians.

Of course, in Jordan, for a little archaeology, they move villages. But Israel is still slapped around by Toner.

But more than hypocrisy, we know that the United States provides funds for archaeological and cultural projects of Arabs in Judea and Samaria. In other words, the US is in direct competition with Israel about preserving history in Judea and Samaria.

The only question is whether that history is to be true and genuine or corrupted and fake. What will America go with? Will it be provocative and unhelpful?

Abbott & Costello at the State Department

TRANSCRIPT:

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 27, 2009

1:25 p.m. EDT

MR. CROWLEY: Good afternoon, and welcome to the Department of State. And for the first time since I’ve been here, we have nothing formal to announce. So against my better judgment, we’ll go right to your questions.

QUESTION: There’s some reports in Israel and elsewhere that in the meeting yesterday in London, that Mitchell agreed to an Israeli proposal that would see a – you know, a temporary freeze in West Bank settlements, but leave out any promises or pledges on East Jerusalem. Is this accurate?

MR. CROWLEY: Matt, I think we’re in intense discussions with Israel, with the Palestinian Authority with other countries in the region, and characteristic of difficult discussions, you’re seeing – you’re hearing a lot of noise coming from a lot of different directions. I’m not going to get into details to say, this one is right, this is one is wrong. There’s a lot of posturing that’s going on. I think what is important here is that Senator Mitchell is work – continues to work with the parties. Our objective is to get them vested in formal negotiations. And in those formal negotiations, we will tackle the hard issues that we know exist, and get not only to the finish line, but get across the finish line.

Ultimately, this is not a process by which the United States will impose conditions on Israel, on the Palestinian Authority, on other countries. This is – ultimately, the judgment as to both getting to negotiations and getting to a successful conclusion is something that the parties will have to make. We, the United States, are prepared to help them. So at this point in time, what Senator Mitchell is trying to do is to make sure that all of the parties, all of the vested interests in these negotiations, they have – they are putting forward a political commitment. And we will make the assessment in the coming weeks whether we feel that the conditions are right.

But it’s not about what we’re asking. We’re asking them to meet their commitments under the Roadmap, but most importantly, we’re asking them what they’re prepared to do and to demonstrate the steps that that they are prepared to take that allow us to have confidence that these negotiations can be restarted.

We recognize that once we get into those negotiations, all of the issues that you’re probably hearing in the press will be there for debate, for negotiation, for resolution. But this is not something that we’re imposing on them. This is something that we’re discussing with the parties on an ongoing basis. We’ll do so again next week with the delegation that comes to the United States from Israel. And hopefully through these discussions that will be ongoing in the coming days and weeks, we can get to a point where we have confidence that these negotiations can be restarted.

QUESTION: Well, all of that is fine, but --

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: -- it doesn’t really answer the question. Is the hard and fast position that was stated by Secretary Clinton in May, and again restated from the podium on Monday, I believe, that all means all, in terms of settlements? Is that a negotiable position now?

MR. CROWLEY: The position that the Secretary has stated remains our position. And we continue to discuss with Israel and with the other parties what they have to do on the settlement issue, on other issues, including incitement and security, and the support that we need in the region for us to have confidence that negotiations can begin. Ultimately, it will be up to the United States, together with the parties. We’ll make a collective decision in the coming weeks as to whether – what the various parties have put forth, give us confidence that negotiations can begin.

QUESTION: So that position is not negotiable? That’s what you’re saying.

MR. CROWLEY: What I’m saying is that our position on the importance of settlements, on the importance of the commitments made under the Roadmap remains unchanged.

QUESTION: But that’s not actually what you said. What you said was that the Secretary’s position remains – our position, your position – and the position, as she stated it, was, I think quite categorical in May when she said that all settlements – activity must stop, including so-called natural growth. That is – I’m not talking about the importance of settlement or the importance of the Roadmap or the importance of keeping commitment. That is your – that is and continues to be your – the U.S. Government position that Israel should have a complete, total cease to settlement activity, including natural growth?

MR. CROWLEY: Our position in these discussions remains unchanged. At the same time, ultimately, it will be up to the parties, together with the United States, looking at all of what has been put forward in these discussions to reach a determination whether the conditions exist for negotiations to begin. So that’s why these discussions have been taking place over many months and why we will continue them in the coming days and week.

QUESTION: So it’s --

QUESTION: Does that mean, then, if you can get the Palestinians and the – or the Palestinians particularly, but the Arabs more generally to buy into some kind – something that is less than the Secretary’s position, if you can get them to agree that that’s okay, that you will – that your position is, in fact, negotiable depending on --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, remember what we are trying to achieve here, okay? We are hoping to get to a formal negotiation through which we can reach a resolution between the Israelis and the Palestinians as part of our ambition to see comprehensive peace in the Middle East, okay? The key here is getting to the negotiations, okay? The discussions that we are having are to create the conditions so that the Israelis, the Palestinians, other countries in the region have the confidence that the negotiations can not only be started, but they can be successfully completed.

QUESTION: All right. Well, that sounds like a yes to me.

MR. CROWLEY: Yes to what question?

QUESTION: The question that I asked --

MR. CROWLEY: Which --

QUESTION: -- which was simply that if you can get buy-in from the others on something that is less than your May --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, drawing from --

QUESTION: -- the Secretary’s May demand, that in fact, it is negotiable.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, what I’m saying is we have discussions that are ongoing. We’re going to see how these discussions unfold. Ultimately, it will be up to the United States, and in this case, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, to make an assessment as to whether we believe the conditions are right so negotiations can be restarted. I’m not going to prejudge where these discussions go, and I’m not going to prejudge – ultimately, the judgment that the President, the Secretary, the prime minister, the president of the Palestinian Authority will have to make, together with other countries in the region, whether we think the conditions exist for negotiations to formally start.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Can I try this slightly a different way? So it is possible, I would understand from what you’ve said, that the U.S. position may not be relevant, in fact, if the Palestinians and Israelis can agree to start negotiations on whatever basis?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I understand the fascination, Charlie. Maybe I think we’re – what we’re trying to do is get everyone back on the highway towards a formal negotiation. You’re talking about characterizing the activity where various people are driving around the parking lot. I mean, that’s not the point. The point here is ultimately, we have to find a way back to negotiations, and we have to have confidence that when those negotiations start, that all of the parties – the Israelis, the Palestinians, the rest of the region – is invested in this peace process.

We have seen negotiations in recent years where the negotiations took place, but there was no real investment by the parties in the process. We’re trying to make sure that in the discussions that Senator Mitchell is leading right now, that the parties are sufficiently invested in this process. They’re putting real skin into the game so that when we get to those negotiations, there is this confidence that they can start, they can be meaningful, and that they can reach a successful conclusion. I’m not going to prejudge the judgments that will have to be made as these discussions continue as to whether we have reached those conditions.

Our objective is to reach the conditions that – and we have our ideas, and we put forward our ideas publicly and privately about what it will take for negotiations to be restarted. But ultimately, it’ll be up to the parties themselves, with our help, to determine whether that threshold has been met.

Yes.

QUESTION: So do you see, like, a situation or a possibility of where total freeze of settlement is not achieved, but at the same time, there’s a possibility to resume negotiations? Is that a possibility?

MR. CROWLEY: All right. Try me again?

QUESTION: Do you see – do you foresee, like, a situation or a possibility in the future where the Israelis actually don’t freeze total – have total freeze on settlements, but at the same time, there’s a place to resume negotiations?

MR. CROWLEY: I see a situation some weeks from now where the President of the United States and the Secretary of State and Senator Mitchell, together with the Israelis, the Palestinians, and others in the region, will make a fundamental judgment, at the conclusion of this phase of the process, after many discussions over many months, the question we put on the table: Do we feel that the conditions are sufficient so that a formal negotiation can begin?

That will be a judgment that everyone I just enunciated will have to make. Now where we are when that point is reached, I can’t predict. That’s why this process is continuing. It’s why Senator Mitchell met with Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday, why we continue to consult with the Palestinians and other countries in the region. We have to see how this plays out. We have to get to a point where you reach that fundamental judgment.

As I said, we, the United States, have outlined in these meetings what we feel is necessary for those conditions – for the atmosphere to be such, for the investment to be such that a formal negotiation can begin and can be successful. But ultimately, this will be judgments that are made not just by the United States, but by Israel, by the Palestinian Authority, by others. And let’s wait till we reach that point.

Yes.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, you said the decision will be made by those in the U.S., Palestine, Israel, and those in the region. What about the Quartet? Do you envision that the Quartet will be part of this decision-making process of whether the conditions are suitable for talks? And also, when you’re referring for the conditions to be suitable for talks, are we talking about Palestinian-Israeli talks, or are we talking about talks for all those involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict?

MR. CROWLEY: I think right now, our focus, obviously, is on the Israeli-Palestinian element. Our desire is for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. We recognize that over time, we will hopefully address the other issues that exist within the region. Right now, our focus is there. But we recognize that obviously, drawing from our experience over 15 or 20 years, that for this to be successful we have to have significant support by the region. That was what was missing, say, in 2000. So that’s why George Mitchell has been talking not just to the Israelis and Palestinians, but a wide range of other leaders who will need to be involved in this process as we go forward.

I think that obviously, as we get into a formal negotiation, the role of the Quartet and the international community will be vitally important, because whatever negotiation is ultimately – if a negotiation is ultimately successful, it will have to have significant support – both political, financial, other diplomatic, so – but our focus right now is in this particular phase. We’re in the homestretch, we hope. We hope that we can get to a point where we can make that fundamental judgment that a negotiation can be restarted and we have prospects for success.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. May I ask you about a slightly different subject?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let’s see. Is anyone – are we – go ahead.

QUESTION: The meeting is next week?

MR. CROWLEY: We’ll come back to you.

QUESTION: The meeting is next week? Any location?

MR. CROWLEY: The meeting is next week. Details are still to be determined. I don’t know when, don’t know where.

QUESTION: It’s going to be in New York, right?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know when, don’t know where.

QUESTION: Do you know who is coming from the Israeli side?

MR. CROWLEY: We’ll let the Israelis announce their delegation.

QUESTION: And then one other one on this.

QUESTION: New York is too (inaudible).

QUESTION: What talks, if any, does Senator Mitchell have planned, either with the Palestinians or with officials from other Arab states, over the next couple of weeks? We know about the Israeli team coming here, and I believe Prime Minister Netanyahu said he expected – or briefed reporters traveling with him that he expected Senator Mitchell back in Israel in September. What else – you know, what are the Arab – what’s the Arab side of the coin here?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. It’s a fair question, Arshad. I – as far as I know, the next step in the process is receiving the Israeli delegation next week. It wouldn’t surprise me if, once we get beyond Labor Day, that there’s another trip to the region before the UN General Assembly, but I don’t know that.

QUESTION: Can you check on whether there are any plans to talk to Arab officials over the next couple of weeks? It’d just be useful to have a sense of who else he’s talking to.

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Well, I’m still confused. People, and I think the media, as well, understood that the total freeze of settlement was an American precondition to resume talks. And now you’re saying probably it’s up to negotiations and what the different factor agree on. Is that a change in the – in your stance? Do you think that what you announced in the beginning, that total freeze of settlement was not realistic because the Israelis will not accept it?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think you’re prejudging the outcome. I was clear. The United States position on settlements – we’ve said it many times. We haven’t changed it. Now, that is the American position in a discussion that we’re having among our friends in Israel, also our friends with the Palestinian Authority. But our discussions are based on the need to create conditions to get to a negotiation. And it will be a collective judgment based on what Israel has put on the table, based on what the Palestinians have put on the table, based on what other countries in the region have put on the table, is what on the table sufficient to get to where we really want to go, which is back into a negotiation where all of these issues – in terms of borders, refugees, and so forth – can be successfully resolved. I’m not going to prejudge the outcome of the discussion that leads to the judgment – that hopefully leads to the negotiation. That process is continuing.

QUESTION: Would you – one last question. Would you quibble with or dispute the statement that in all the words that you’ve said over the last few minutes, that you have left the door open to a resumption of peace negotiations, absent a total and absolute halt to settlement activity? It seems to me you’ve left that door wide open.

MR. CROWLEY: What I am saying is the United States of America is working with the Israelis, Palestinians, other countries in the region to get to a negotiation, to restart negotiations and bring them to a successful conclusion. And we are earnestly working presently, and will continue to work in the coming days to create the conditions that gives us confidence, gives the Israelis confidence, give the Palestinians confidence, gives the region confidence that a negotiation can be successfully started and successfully concluded.

QUESTION: Even in the absence of a total freeze.

MR. CROWLEY: And I – again, I’m not going to prejudge the outcome of the discussions that are ongoing. I’m not going to comment on the noise that’s coming – the posturing that’s coming from various places; only to say that ultimately, we’ll reach a point hopefully soon where we, together with the Israelis, together with the Palestinians will say, based on everything we know, based on what everyone has told us, based on the commitments that they’ve made, is this sufficient to get us into a negotiation?

QUESTION: So your position is not a hard and fast condition?

MR. CROWLEY: Our position is to get to negotiations. We’re doing that --

QUESTION: Your position on settlements is not hard --

MR. CROWLEY: -- through the process that we’re – that is currently ongoing.

QUESTION: So your position on settlements – the U.S. position on settlements, as you’ve restated here from the Secretary’s – what the Secretary said in May, is not a condition?

MR. CROWLEY: The United States has stated its position on settlements based on commitments made --

QUESTION: And that position is not a condition. Is that correct?

MR. CROWLEY: That position is our position, and that position is the position that we took into the discussions that we hope will lead to a negotiation.

QUESTION: Took half a chance.

MR. CROWLEY: Let’s go to a different subject.

Did that recall to you "who's on first?"

The State Dept. Is So Considerate

After reading this, I turned to the Jerusalem Consulate-General in Jerusalem wishing to know: may Jews submit reports about being denied entrance to Joseph's tomb in Shechem, an act guaranteed according to the Oslo Accords and, likewise, being denied by the Waqf officials our right of freedom of prayer on the Temple Mount?


---------- Forwarded message ----------

- from Zogby's Arab American Institute.

Summer travel plans? Read this!

By href="http://www.aaiusa.org">AAI

Posted on Sunday June 14, 2009

If you plan to travel to Israel or the Occupied Territories this summer, please report any instance of denied entry to the Department of State. The Arab American Institute maintains contact with State and senior officials in the office of American Citizens Services about this and other, relevant issues. ACS continues to encourage U.S. citizens to report instances of denied entry. At the recent, April 24th meeting held by the White House for Arab American leaders, Michele Bond reiterated her desire to hear about any difficulties American citizens face when traveling to the Occupied Territories. During a May 28th conference call with several organizations, including the AAI, Michele Bond again reiterated the need for American citizens traveling to the Occupied Territories to notify the Bureau of Consular Affairs of any problems they face, be it denial of entry or unnecessary delays and harassment at the border crossings...or just send emails of anecdotes and negative experiences without full details of their personal information if they are concerned with privacy...The United States has continuously made it clear to the Israeli government that fair and consistent treatment of U.S citizens, regardless of ethnicity, is a priority, and continues to address this matter with the highest levels of the Israeli government.

The Consulate General strongly encourages anyone denied entry into Israel or the West Bank to complete the Denial of Entry Form and submit it via e-mail to JerusalemACS@state.gov in order to track cases.

Posted on Sunday June 14, 2009

If you plan to travel to Israel or the Occupied Territories this summer, please report any instance of denied entry to the Department of State. The Arab American Institute maintains contact with State and senior officials in the office of American Citizens Services about this and other, relevant issues. ACS continues to encourage U.S. citizens to report instances of denied entry.

At the recent, April 24th meeting held by the White House for Arab American leaders, Michele Bond reiterated her desire to hear about any difficulties American citizens face when traveling to the Occupied Territories. During a May 28th conference call with several organizations, including the AAI, Michele Bond again reiterated the need for American citizens traveling to the Occupied Territories to notify the Bureau of Consular Affairs of any problems they face, be it denial of entry or unnecessary delays and harassment at the border crossings.

Citizens can fill out official Denial of Entry forms, providing their information and the details of their denial, or just send emails of anecdotes and negative experiences without full details of their personal information if they are concerned with privacy. It is vital for the Department of State to have this information, Ms. Bond informed us, so that the department has empirical evidence to present when they address this issue with senior Israeli officials.

The United States has continuously made it clear to the Israeli government that fair and consistent treatment of U.S citizens, regardless of ethnicity, is a priority, and continues to address this matter with the highest levels of the Israeli government. Without any reporting of cases of denial of entry or harassment, the U.S government is forced to take the Israeli government at their word when they say that the situation has improved and is being resolved.

The Consulate General strongly encourages anyone denied entry into Israel or the West Bank to complete the Denial of Entry Form and submit it via e-mail to JerusalemACS@state.gov in order to track cases.

The State Department's Language Problem

Remember that I seemingly caught out the State Department for not knowing Polish? (here)

Well, they don't know Russian either:-

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in greeting Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, presented him with a red plastic button emblazoned with the English word “reset” and the Russian word “peregruzka.”

The gift was a play on Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s call in Munich last month for the two countries to “press the reset button” on their relationship.

“We worked hard to get the right Russian word,” Mrs. Clinton said, handing the button to Mr. Lavrov. “Do you think we got it?”

“You got it wrong,” he replied, explaining that the Americans had come up with the Russian word for overcharged.

“We won’t let you do that to us,” she said quickly, with a full-throated laugh.

Pretty stupid if you ask me.


And there's this there:

Russia has signed a contract to supply Iran with long-range S-300 missiles, which experts say Tehran could use to defend its nuclear facilities from an American or Israeli strike. The missiles have not been delivered, but it is not clear whether that is a gesture to the Obama administration.

Mr. Lavrov did not clear things up, saying that Russia’s arms sales to Iran were fully legal, but that Moscow understood that the issue stirred uneasiness in the United States and Israel.

Ooops, Fault of...State Deptartment?

Yep.

State Dept. Accepts Partial Blame for Fulbright Issue

The American State Department has accepted partial blame for not acting quicker to obtain visas for seven Gaza residents who were offered prestigious Fulbright scholarships. Answering persistent questions of reporters (*), State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Monday, "Was there a faulty decision-making process internal to the State Department in this particular case? Yes, there was. The Secretary saw it when it got to her level. She said 'fix it.' We hope that it has been fixed and that we are working with the Israelis to get these exit permits."

-----------

(*)

Here it is in full:-

QUESTION: Sean, change subjects?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Change of subject, too. So --

QUESTION: Just on the Fulbright matter.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: What did the Israeli – two questions, which I raised this morning. One, what did the Israeli Government say to you about what they intend to do regarding these seven people? And then secondly – well, let me just ask that and then we can --

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. A two-step process. We’re working now to get the exit visas, or exit permits, visas, whatever you want – however we – you want to refer to them as, to go to Jerusalem for their interview so they can be interviewed for a visa so that, you know, should they have a successful visa interview – and by law, I can’t prejudge an outcome of a visa interview -- then they would be able to come to the United States to pursue their program. So we’re working through that with the Israeli Government right now.

One additional fact you guys asked me this morning, when was the first time for these seven cases that we approached the Israeli Government, the answer to that is Friday – this past Friday.

Now – so clearly, on our part, there was a decision-making process on this particular issue that is not what we would have hoped it would have been. The Secretary heard about these cases, immediately and acted to have people reconsider the decision-making process here. We then went to the Israeli Government and said we want to work with you on these seven cases – very important to us.

All that said, it’s not the – not to say that in the past we haven’t had some issues working with the Israeli Government on these kind of educational exchange visas. There have been some issues in the past. We want to move beyond those. I think we can look at this particular set of cases as a fresh start.

QUESTION: You’re saying that the first time that anyone – the Israelis came and --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Israelis said that these students couldn’t get exit visas.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And you’re saying that the State Department just took that at face value and never approached the Israelis to ask, until after the Secretary found out about this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, like I said, Matt, you – look –

QUESTION: I just want to make sure.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, let me put it – restate it the way that I have put it. And that is: Was there a faulty decision-making process internal to the State Department in this particular case? Yes, there was. The Secretary saw it when it got to her level. She said fix it. We hope that it has been fixed and that we are working with the Israelis to get these exit permits so they – these individuals, again, can have a visa interview. That’s part of the process. And I can’t prejudge the outcome of a visa interview. And if they’re successful, these individuals would be able to pursue their Fulbright program here in the United States as originally envisioned.

QUESTION: Well, when did it first become clear that there was a problem with these applicants?

MR. MCCORMACK: It – what do you mean?

QUESTION: When did the State Department become aware there was a problem with them getting the – getting exit visas?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t know, Matt. I haven’t gone through – frankly, I haven’t gone through and done all the tick-tock on this, and I’m not going to get into the full explication of this entire thing with you, other than to say that: Was there a faulty decision-making process here? Yeah, there was.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, it seems like several days at least went by and no one --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, that -- you know, frankly, that’s – you know, it’s – if we have a good outcome here, which we all hope, have these people studying here under the Fulbright program -- we believe they’re qualified to do so -- again, pending the visa matter, that that will have been a good outcome and that everybody will have learned a lesson here in terms of internally.

QUESTION: Who made – I mean, you know, that’s a very passive --

MR. MCCORMACK: I’m not going --

QUESTION: No, no, but it’s a very passive construction: There was a faulty decision-making process here. I mean, what happened? Did the consulate not – did it not occur to them that maybe if we’re going to try to – if the U.S. Government is going to try to give fellowships to people, it should try to help them get to this country. I mean – or is it --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I’m not going to – you know, I’m not going to do the “who shot, John” here. You know, people in the State Department are trying to do their jobs. Do we, every single time we make, you know – do we have a good decision-making process? No, we don’t. But a real test of management is, if there is in fact a bad process and a bad outcome, do you go back and fix it? And that’s what we’ve done, we hope, in this --

QUESTION: Well, there’s one thing I don’t understand, which is the Times ran the story on Friday.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The Times is, I think, generally rigorous about contacting people to comment on stories.

Did they not approach you, presumably Thursday, and say, hey, we’re going to run this story? These guys have gotten their notes, you know --

MR. MCCORMACK: Arshad, I would no sooner comment on my interactions with a news organization than I would --

QUESTION: No, but it just makes me wonder why you didn’t try to fix this on Thursday. I mean, that would seem like a rational thing and I mean you could have saved yourself a lot of grief.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Matt – (laughter) – Matt? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I am honored. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: What happened, Arshad, is that I associated -- I heard the word “grief” and I immediately defaulted to Matt. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I think it’s the resemblance. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Why didn’t you – why not do something on Thursday? I mean, it’s a reasonable question.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it is a reasonable question, Arshad. And all I can say is that we – on Friday we worked immediately to try to fix it.

QUESTION: Well, surely, you must be a little bit disappointed, though, that it did come to this, that it happened –

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.


QUESTION: That it’s clearly become a –


MR. MCCORMACK: Surely, sure. So I was disappointed, as I’ve already said, and I will answer questions about this sort of thing. Absolutely. But the fact of the matter is, we got back and we’re working to fix it.

QUESTION: When do you expect these people to have their – sorry – their --

MR. MCCORMACK: Don’t have a – don’t have a date for you. We’re working diligently, I guess, is the best way to put it, to try to get them from Gaza so they can have the visa interview and then, if successful –

QUESTION: And they will not be --

QUESTION: So they’ll go back to Gaza after the interview and then they’ll need another visa to get out to potentially fly to the States?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t know the exact mechanics here. But basically, we’ll want to make sure that everybody who has a chance for the interview and then, if successful, move on to the --

QUESTION: I think Arshad asked this, but did -- and the Israelis have told you all that they will give them the --

MR. MCCORMACK: We’re working with them.

QUESTION: So not yet?

MR. MCCORMACK: We’re continuing to work on it.

QUESTION: So, you don’t -- you didn’t get any assurance from the Israelis they will have the right to leave the Israeli --

MR. MCCORMACK: They know this is an important issue for us and I’m sure that they will give due consideration.

QUESTION: But presumably they can’t promise they’ll get an exit permit any more than you guys will promise that they’re going to get a visa to the United States, right?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I’m not going to try to speak on their behalf, but I think they know this is an important issue for us.

QUESTION: Well, you’ve – the story of the Fulbrights themselves, yes? I mean --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, meaning here as Fulbright scholars.


QUESTION: That’s –

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, again, presuming everything works out the way we hope it does.

QUESTION: Sean, why was it characterized at first as hoping the Israelis would reverse the decision there? Did you guys not have enough information at that point? I know Friday at the podium it was, we hope the Israelis will fall off a log to do this and reverse the decision-making. So I’m assuming that there were --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, look, this – none of this is to say we haven’t had some issues in the past. I’m here to tell you today we have – we had some of our own internal decision-making issues. But -- and let’s just hope that this hits the reset button on this particular kind of issue where we can work well on both sides, the Israeli and the American side, on these issues.

QUESTION: Sean, can I – can you give me just one more, because it’s kind of a process issue, but I think it’s a significant process issue. I mean, it’s my understanding, Sylvie mentioned on Friday morning that a Fulbrighter, a Palestinian Fulbrighter, had difficulty with the same issue last year. I don’t know about that specifically, but I have been told that there have been similar problems in the past with Palestinian Fulbrighters to get – to be able to leave, you know, to get permission from the Israelis to be able to leave to take up their fellowships in the United States.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, and --

QUESTION: And I’ve been – it’s my understanding of the Israeli process that they, at least post the Hamas takeover of Gaza, they don’t approve any of these things unless they’re specially asked. Now, maybe I misunderstood that, but that’s how I’ve – it’s been explained to me.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: And so the question is, and it’s an American process question – given that you’ve had a problem with these in the past, are you going to try to set up some kind of a new system or protocol for this so that, you know, it doesn’t just languish and that actually you make formal requests each time you decide to award somebody a Fulbright in Gaza so that they can actually go? Are you changing the process –

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- you know, or is it going to be a sort Ethan Bronner writes a story and then we do it process? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I don’t know if there is going to be a change in the process. But I think as long as this current Secretary is Secretary of State, I think the – everybody, you know, who had put their hands on this particular issue understands the importance of these kinds of educational exchanges for the Secretary and how she views them as important in our public diplomacy and foreign policy.

QUESTION: So do they have to go through the Consulate in Jerusalem for the interview or are they – if they’ve somehow managed to find their way to Cairo or something in –

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, Matt, I think the tradition has been for them to go to Jerusalem. I don’t know in theory whether or not it is possible for them to go elsewhere. I believe that they’re going to go to Jerusalem.

QUESTION: The Palestinian groups say that there are hundreds of these, something like 600 Palestinians who want to study abroad, also in Britain and Germany --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- and are not allowed out. What is – you know, what does this incident say about the broader Israeli policy of not letting people leave Gaza?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, look, they – you know, since the Hamas has taken over Gaza in a coup, the Israelis have absolutely legitimate security issues with respect to the movement of goods and people across those borders with Gaza. Nobody is second-guessing that. And I can’t speak for any other people who may desire to participate in educational exchanges and other countries who desire Gazans to participate in those exchanges. They will have to speak for their own cases. I can only speak –

QUESTION: (Off-mike)

MR. MCCORMACK: -- It’s very difficult.

QUESTION: At least suggest that, you know, maybe the restrictions are a little bit too blanket? You know, you’re saying – you’re supporting that at least these Fulbrights should be let out. Well, what about the ones who want to study in Britain, for example?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I’ll let the UK Foreign Office spokesman speak to that issue. Not for me to do so. Yeah.

Oh My, What Have We Here?

It was reported that the American State Department has withdrawn all Fulbright grants to Palestinian students in Gaza hoping to pursue advanced degrees at American institutions this fall because Israel has not granted them permission to leave.

But this is even more interesting:-

But when a query about the canceled Fulbrights was made to the prime minister’s office on Thursday, senior officials expressed surprise. They said they did, in fact, consider study abroad to be a humanitarian necessity and that when cases were appealed to them, they would facilitate them.

They suggested that American officials never brought the Fulbright cases to their attention. The State Department and American officials in Israel refused to discuss the matter. But the failure to persuade the Israelis may have stemmed from longstanding tensions between the consulate in Jerusalem, which handles Palestinian affairs, and the embassy in Tel Aviv, which manages relations with the Israeli government.

The study grants notwithstanding, the Israeli officials argued that the policy of isolating Gaza was working, that Palestinians here were starting to lose faith in Hamas’s ability to rule because of the hardships of life.

Of course, it could be that Fulbright is not a popular man in Israel:

"Israel controls the United States Senate."
Senator Fulbright
April 15, 1973,
CBS televison program Face The Nation

In 1963 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Fulbright claimed that five million tax-deductible dollars from philanthropic Americans had been sent to Israel and then recycled back to the US for distribution to organizations seeking to influence public opinion in favor of Israel. This statement led to friction with the organized Jewish community in the U.S.

Source

It was the late Sen. William J. Fulbright who first called Congress "Israeli-occupied territory."

Source

S.N.A.F.U. at State

From Condi's remarks:

QUESTION:...Immediately after Annapolis, we introduced our -- Ambassador Khalilzad introduced at the UN the draft of a resolution or some ideas toward a resolution that would embody some of the Annapolis ideas. And then, by his account and press reports, that was withdrawn because the Israelis were not happy with that course. And that was played in the Arab world, on Al Jazeera, in the newspapers, as evidence that it was the Israelis who called the shots, not the Americans. It was a big story for them. And I'd like you to just to address it. What happened? Why did it go that way?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, after Annapolis, at the UN there was a desire to do something to welcome Annapolis and there were several options. One was a simple press statement. Another was a presidential statement. Another was a resolution of some kind. And discussions were going on as to what of those -- which of those would be most useful and what it might say. And Zal wanted to get a sense of what anything, any of those, would say and he went in to session with the Council.

It was very clear that there needed to be some more work done -- and by the way, not just with the Israelis but with the Palestinians as well -- about not what would be said -- I don't think anybody was concerned about what would be said -- but about the wisdom of a resolution at that moment.

And so when it went back to capitals, there was just a few that the resolution was not going to be helpful or welcome. You know, frankly, I wish that perhaps the capitals had spoken a little bit more clearly through their representatives. But they didn't, and no one was concerned that there was any walking back from what would have been the text of either a resolution or a presidential statement, but at that point it seemed that frankly the simplest and quickest thing to do was to simply have the Indonesian presidency state what had been stated, rather than continuing to work on something which frankly was not considered to have much force. So that's the story.

How a Diplomat Skirts

Last week, on December 6, there was an USINFO Webchat starring Thomas H. Goldberger, director of the Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs in the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. The topic was the next steps after the Annapolis Conference on the Middle East.

Here's my question and the reply of Thomas Goldberger:-

Q [YMedad]: The Annapolis Declaration skirted the 14 objections that the previous Sharon Government of Israel insisted need be adopted so that the Road Map diplomacy proceed. As those 14 objections were ignored by the U.S. administration and, as we have been witness, the Road Map has entered basically a dead-end due to its inadequacies, how will peace be achieved unless Israel's security is to be endangered, again?

A [Thomas Goldberger]: The United States is well aware of the reservations Israel has made to the Roadmap. At the same time, we have agreed to Israel's request -- which the Palestinians also made -- that the Roadmap serves as the basis for the implementation of peace. The United States will assist both parties implementing the Roadmap.

Notice how he skirted the main issue?

What a diplomat!

P.S. I think I was the only pro-Israel participant out of maybe 40 people.

Religious Freedom?

Here's an excerpt from the US State Department's Report of Religious Freedom as regards the question of the Temple Mount.

Notice how, when touching on the definition of the status of the Temple Mount, the Haram al-Sharif is most definitely what the Muslims claim it is whereas for Jews, we only "refer" to it or "consider" it implying that it's not really true. That's a bit of the State Dept.'s own discrimination at work, I'd say.

Here's the material with some comments of mine in brackets:

Restrictions on Religious Freedom

PA government policy contributed to the generally free practice of religion, although problems persisted. The Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) contains the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque, among the holiest sites in Islam. Jews refer to the same place as the Temple Mount and consider it the location of the ancient Jewish temple. The location has been, as with all of East Jerusalem, under Israeli control since 1967, when Israel captured the city (East Jerusalem was formally annexed in 1980, and thus Israel applies its laws to East Jerusalem). The Haram al-Sharif is administered, however, by the Islamic Waqf, a Jordanian-funded and administered Muslim religious trust for East Jerusalem with ties to the PA. The Israeli police have exclusive control of the Mughrabi Gate entrance to the compound and limit access to the compound from all entrances. The Waqf can object to entrance of particular persons, such as non-Muslim religious radicals, [that's me or Gershon Solomon] or to prohibited activities, such as prayer by non-Muslims or disrespectful clothing or behavior, but lacks effective authority to remove anyone from the site. In practice Waqf officials claimed that police often allowed religious radicals (such as Jews seeking to remove the mosques and to rebuild the ancient temple on the site) and immodestly dressed persons to enter and often were not responsive to enforcing the site's rules. During Passover in 2007, Israeli police escorted more than 100 activists affiliated with the right-wing group "The Temple Mount Faithful" to enter the compound on two consecutive days, the second day while carrying a model of the Second Temple [oh my gosh. wait, isn't that "religious freedom" for Jews??].

Non-Muslims may visit the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, with advance coordination with Waqf officials. The Israeli Government, as a matter of stated policy, has opposed worship at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount by non-Muslims since 1967 [not discriminmatory?]. Israeli police generally did not permit public prayer by non-Muslims and publicly indicated that this policy has not changed in light of the renewed visits of non-Muslims to the compound. However, Waqf officials contended that Israeli police, in contravention of their stated policy and the religious status quo, have allowed members of radical Jewish groups to enter and to worship at the site, including during Passover 2007. Representatives for these Jewish groups claimed successful attempts to pray inside the compound in interviews with the Israeli media. The Waqf interpreted police actions as part of an Israeli policy to incrementally reduce Waqf authority over the site and to give non-Muslims rights of worship in parts of the compound.

There were several violent clashes during the reporting period between Israeli police and Muslim worshippers on the Haram al-Sharif, which Waqf officials alleged were due to the large police contingent kept on the site. At times Muslim worshippers threw stones at police, and police fired tear gas and stun grenades at worshippers. Muslim worshippers also held demonstrations at the site to protest reported right-wing Israeli nationalist plans to damage the mosques or create a Jewish worship area at the site. Israeli security officials and police were generally proactive and effective in dealing with such threats.

Citing violence and security concerns, the Israeli Government has imposed a broad range of strict closures and curfews throughout the Occupied Territories since October 2000. These restrictions largely continued during the reporting period and resulted in significantly impeded freedom of access to places of worship in the West Bank for Muslims and Christians.

The Israeli Government prevented most Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza from reaching the Haram al-Sharif by prohibiting their entry into Jerusalem. Restrictions were often placed on entry into the Haram al-Sharif for Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, especially males under the age of 45. During the clashes surrounding the excavations at the Mughrabi Gate ramp in 2007, males under the age of 50 were prohibited entry to the Haram al-Sharif.

There were also disputes between the Muslim administrators of the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount and Israeli authorities regarding Israeli restrictions on Waqf attempts to carry out repairs and physical improvements on the compound and its mosques. Israeli authorities prevented the Waqf from conducting several improvement projects and removing debris from previous restorations to the site, alleging that the Waqf was attempting to alter the nature of the site or to discard antiquities of Jewish origin. Israeli authorities began excavations near the Mughrabi gate, preparing to build a permanent ramp onto the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. Waqf officials were not allowed access to the excavations in early 2007 and claimed they were not consulted in any part of the planning process for either the excavations or the ramp that will be constructed to replace the existing ramp. At the end of this reporting period, the excavations were suspended...

...Anti-Semitism

Palestinian media frequently published and broadcast material criticizing the Israeli occupation, including dismissing Jewish connections to Jerusalem. In September 2005 Sheikh Taysir al-Tamimi, the Chief Justice and President of the Higher Shari'a Council, called the Israeli Government's claim of a Jewish connection to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount a "baseless lie" and a provocation to Muslims everywhere. Al-Tamimi also warned against the "Judaization" of Jerusalem.

And there is also this:-

During the reporting period, Palestinian violence against Israeli settlers prevented some Israelis from reaching Jewish holy sites in the Occupied Territories, such as Joseph's Tomb near Nablus. Since early 2001, following the outbreak of the Intifada, the Israeli Government has prohibited Israeli citizens in unofficial capacities from traveling to the parts of the West Bank under the civil and security control of the PA. This restriction prevented Israeli Arabs from visiting Muslim and Christian holy sites in the West Bank, and it prevented Jewish Israelis from visiting other sites, including an ancient synagogue in Jericho. Visits to the Jericho synagogue have been severely curtailed as a result of disagreements between Israel and the PA over security arrangements.

Settler violence against Palestinians prevented some Palestinians from reaching holy sites in the Occupied Territories. Settlers in Hebron have in previous reporting periods forcibly prevented Muslim muezzins from reaching the al-Ibrahimi Mosque/Tomb of the Patriarchs to sound the call to prayer and have harassed Muslim worshippers in Hebron. Settler harassment of Palestinians in Hebron was a regular occurrence in this reporting period. The Israeli Government did not effectively respond to settler-initiated blocking of Muslim religious sites.