The State Department struggled again yesterday to explain why — a month after the U.S. committed itself to having Israel included in the “Global Counterterrorism Forum” (which Secretary Clinton formed last year and which the U.S. co-chairs with Turkey) — Israel was excluded from the Monday conference of the Forum, which 29 other nations attended.
Asked about this by A.P. reporter Matt Lee the day before yesterday, the State Department spokesperson pled ignorance, but said he would look into it. Yesterday, Lee returned to the subject:
QUESTION: … going back to the question I raised yesterday about the Global Counterterrorism Forum … did you get an answer on that?
MR. VENTRELL: Well, as you know, as we said at the time, Matt, that our idea with the Global Counterterrorism Forum was to bring together a limited number of traditional donors, frontline states, and emerging powers to develop a more robust yet representative counterterrorism capacity-building platform. A number of our close partners with considerable experience counting and – countering and preventing terrorism are not included among the GCTF’s founding members. We’ve discussed the GCTF and ways to involve Israel and its activities on a number of occasions, and we’re committed to making this happen. [Emphasis added].
QUESTION: Okay. That last line is exactly what was in the taken question from, I believe, June 8. Can you say –
MR. VENTRELL: And that’s exactly where we are today.
QUESTION: Okay. What was done between then and this last meeting, which was just yesterday? … I’m just wondering what did the CT Bureau or whoever’s in charge of this do in the interim to get Israel included?
MR. VENTRELL: We continued to discuss it with the GCTF. …
QUESTION: Well, I mean, I’d just like to know what you did in the interim between June 8 and July 9 to work on this, on your commitment to getting Israel involved.
MR. VENTRELL: I imagine it was raised at a number of different levels, but let me check for you, Matt, and get back to you.
Hopefully Matt Lee will return to the subject once again in today’s press conference, and hopefully the Department spokesperson will have a more informative answer than “I imagine it was raised at a number of different levels.”
Jonathan Tobin discussed the substantive aspects of this latest sign of the administration’s approach toward Israel, and Mannie Sherberg’s analysis at Boker tov, Boulder! is also worth reading. And here’s another question: why is getting answers to questions about Israel from this administration always like pulling teeth?
Sadly Hilary Clinton's well-rehearsed act of frigid love for Israel most certainly will be rewarded with dozens of speaking invitations from the major American Jewish organizations, all climbing over each other to be able to introduce her to their cheering supporters as a great friend of Israel and the Jewish people. With such organizations "representing" us, we should feel as secure as Jews did in the 1930s.
Exactly right.
What should concern the U.S. administration is why the Israelis are reaching out directly to the Russians and Chinese government. Putin's second visit to Israel was not a head fake. Important business got done. The visit of high ranking Chinese military officials to Israel and the the reciprocal visits to China by the Israelis should not be taken lightly. Israel is clearly reaching out for new alliances. It would be the diplomatic and military coup of the century if Israel were to be pulled into a Russo-Sino orbit. The administration won't answer the question of why Israel has not been invited to two meetings on combatting terrorism because the answer is self-evident. It's part and parcel of Obama and Clinton' record of dealing with Israel at arms length while holding their noses at the same time. Inept is not the word I would use to describe the administration's behavior. Intentional is more likely. Well, as the expression goes, you make your bed and you lie in it.
Obama's tack so far has been to stab his allies and kiss all the enemies who stab him. In the end, whether it's stupidity or ideology he's managed to turn the US into a defacto isolationist nation. This is the single thing Israel needs to remember.
"Hopefully Matt Lee will return to the subject once again in today’s press conference, and hopefully the Department spokesperson will have a more informative answer than “I imagine it was raised at a number of different levels.”' n nFor the record, Matt Lee did not return to the subject in today's Sate Department press briefing. n nThough I brought subject up in a previous comment, if you want questions asked about Israel that are about something other than the "illegality of the settlements", then it is imperative that the various news agencies which service the pro-Israel community pool their resources together and hire their own reporter to cover State Department briefings. n
Lumiere1 — your point in your two comments is an important one. Matt Lee is hardly a pro-Israel voice, and he frequently pushes the State Department spokesman to take a harder position on Israeli settlements. And there is at least one other correspondent who regularly attends the press conferences who just as regularly pushes the Palestinian position, often producing comments critical of Israel in response that become “news.” It is unfortunate that there is not a journalist from JTA, or some similar news agency, regularly in attendance to ask questions from a different perspective.
Thanks Rick. n nIt really can't be stressed enough how Matt and Said shape the news coming out of the State Dept. Matt seems to be the "dean" of the journalists who cover State in much the same way that Helen Thomas was dean of the White House press core for many years. Other journalists defer to him and follow his lead. One point in his favor is that he seems to enjoy "sticking it" to whoever is the spokesman on any topic but seems to especially enjoy asking leading questions regarding Israel. Not so with Said whose intent is all too clear: He's a flat-out propagandist for the Palestinians. His questions are designed to, as you say, illicit condemnations of Israel which then become news. n nIt is not only that these two consistently engage in asking questions designed to promote the Palestinian narrative, but equally important, they do not ask questions which may put the spotlight on Palestinian behavior. Thus, during the recent missile attacks against Israel launched from Gaza, not a single question was raised about it by any of the journalists who cover the State Dept. Under this Administration, State will not condemn the Palestinians on their own- they need to be asked about it. State needs to be asked about Palestinian incitement at least as frequently as they are asked about settlement activity. n nHaving a journalist from JTA or from one of the other news service would help balance this one-sided narrative, this manipulated news, coming out of the State Dept. It would be a rather inexpensive way for the pro-Israel community to get their message out as well as holding the Palestinian accountable for their actions, something which this State Dept. and the journalists who cover it, will never do on their own.