WarSclerotic

The U.S. State Dept. is equally unhappy with Israelis and Palestinian Arabs for the increase in violence – it interferes with the path to the beloved Two State Holy Grail.

By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Published: October 15th, 2015

Source: The Jewish Press » » Terror, Shmerror, State Dept Only Cares About Two State Holy Grail

U.S. State Dept. Spokesperson John Kirby at Daily Press Briefing, Oct. 15, 2015.
Photo Credit: screen capture State.gov

Several things became clear during Wednesday’s U.S. State Dept. press briefing, the first half of which focused exclusively on the wave of terrorism in Israel.

First, the overriding goal for the United States of America is the creation of a Two State Solution and anything that gets in the way of that is a problem. The Two State Solution is the Holy Grail (as it were) regardless of whether that fixed goal will dramatically increase violence and further destabilize the region or not.

Second, the U.S. State Department despises the fact that increasing numbers of Jews are living beyond the “Green Line,” in Judea and Samaria. The U.S. hates this so much that official policy is to condemn Jews living and breathing in that area at least as much, if not more, than brutal murders of innocent Jewish civilians by Arab terrorists.

Third, the U.S. has so embraced the idea that the Temple Mount “belongs” to the Palestinian Arabs that it casts unarmed, non-hostile Jewish tourists or Israelis who peacefully ascend the Mount as the legitimate cause of savage murders of any Jews, anywhere. The U.S. has jettisoned the fact that Israel re-acquired control of the Temple Mount in a defensive war and simply handed over control of that area to the Arabs, in the hope and belief that members of all religions would have equal access to that site.

Throughout the first half of the Oct. 15 State Dept. press briefing, reporters sought to pin down State Department Spokesperson John Kirby on who and what the U.S. believes is responsible for the recent tsunami of terror in which Jews were shot, stabbed with kitchen knives, hunting knives, butcher knives and rammed with cars by Arab Palestinians.

The violence is condemned by the U.S., although this government refuses to assign primary blame to either party. Young Arab men and women are brutally stabbing Israeli Jews standing at bus stops, boarding buses, walking on Israeli streets? That’s bad, but, as Kirby quoted Secretary of State John Kerry, “there’s disenfranchisement, there’s disgruntlement, there is – there’s frustration on both sides that have led to this [increase in violence].”

Why this reluctance to assign blame? It is because, apparently, anything that diplomats aching for a Two State Solution see as an impediment to their goal is equally bad. This becomes apparent from watching and reading the transcripts of the endless State Dept. briefings in which the issue of terrorism or violence in Israel is raised.

More than a dozen Israeli Jews going about their lives in Israel were stabbed, shot or run over by Arab terrorists in the past few weeks alone. One 17-year old Israeli Jew stabbed four Beduoins in Dimona, Israel. That act was condemned across the spectrum in the Israeli government, including by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Israel is a country of law and order. Those who use violence and break the law – from whatever side – will be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law,” said Netanyahu. He added that he “strongly condemns the attack against innocent Arabs.”

When Matt Lee of the Associated Press asked Kirby why it was so important that Secretary Kerry refused to assign blame, the response was:

I think he’s been very clear that he wants both sides to take affirmative actions, both in rhetoric and in action, to de-escalate the tension, to restore calm, and to try to move forward towards a two-state solution. He also recognizes, as a public servant with a long career associated with foreign affairs and the diplomatic relations of this country, that many of these issues are ages old. And when there’s a specific attack such as we’ve seen, we are not shy about calling it out. And as I said last week on – if we believe it’s terrorism, to say it’s terrorism. We’re not shy about that in terms of affixing responsibility for it. But in terms of the general scope of the violence that we’re seeing and the unrest, he’s been very clear that rather than to affix blame specifically on all of that, to try to focus on moving forward and restoring calm.

In other words, specific acts don’t matter, the only thing that matters is the Holy Grail in the distance and the desire to continue moving towards it.

This position was reinforced when Kirby was asked to comment about whether there has been a change in Israeli policy on the Temple Mount. Arab leadership, religious and political, have spread rumors of efforts by Israeli to change the policy on the Temple Mount in order to inspire religious terrorist responses.

The AP’s Lee asked whether it was the Administration’s position that the status quo at the Temple Mount has been broken.

Kirby responded: “Well certainly, the status quo has not been observed, which has led to a lot of the violence.”

In fact, there has not been a change in policy regarding the Temple Mount, other than a recent prohibition directed at members of knesset from visiting the site. In other words, Israel preemptively sought to remove any potentially incendiary actions, or ones that could be interpreted that way.

Several hours after the briefing, Kirby sent out a tweet in which he sought to claim that he “did not intend to suggest that status quo at Temple Mount/Al Sharif was broken.” Well, that is what he said, hard to understand what else he could have intended by it.

What the State Department Spokesperson’s tweet should have said is that he was wrong to suggest the status quo was broken, and therefore, Israel was not responsible for any violent acts purporting to avenge dishonor to the Temple Mount.

One reporter pressed Kirby on  Secretary Kerry’s upcoming visit to the region. The bottom line answer, of course, is to try and shove the parties along the path to the Two State Holy Grail.

MR KIRBY: The Secretary’s made clear his concerns over what’s going on there and his desire to travel to the region to engage and to discuss and to try to find ways to reduce the tensions, restore the calm, and then start to work collaboratively, hopefully, towards a two-state solution. SAID ARIKAT, al Quds: John? MR KIRBY: Yeah. ARIKAT: What would be the practical steps that both sides can take immediately to defuse the situation? What would be, like, practical suggestions to both sides that they must do now? MR KIRBY: Well, again, I wouldn’t get too specific here. I think the Secretary spoke about this yesterday very clearly that the violence needs to stop. So to the degree leaders on either side can help lead to that outcome, that would be useful. The incitement needs to stop. ARIKAT: Right. MR KIRBY: So to the degree to which leaders – whether they’re responsible for it or not, to the degree that they can contribute to an atmosphere which isn’t encouraging more violence, more killing, that would be useful. And then, again, to sort of put in place and then keep in place, maintain a sense of calm. All that would useful right now, and I think that’s really again where the Secretary’s head was yesterday. It’s where it is today, and it’s why he’s interested in pursuing travel there soon. ARIKAT: For instance, the Israelis put a great many checkpoints in the last, let’s say, 24 hours in and around Arab neighborhoods, Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas, and so on. Would that be something that the Secretary or you would call on the Israelis to undo, so to speak, to sort of – to alleviate some of the frustration or the feeling of being cooped in and so on by these young men and women? MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t think it’s going to be useful for me to stake out a position on each and every decision that the Israeli security forces are making. They certainly have an obligation towards their citizens and we understand that. Again, what the Secretary wants to see is the violence cease. ARIKAT: Mahmoud Abbas just made a speech, a short speech, a little while ago. I wonder if you’ve had the chance to see it. MR KIRBY: I have not. ARIKAT: But he’s – he’s basically accusing Israel of conducting summary executions, and so on. He’s threatening to take it to the international court – the International Criminal Court. He’s saying that we will not be held hostage to agreements that Israel is not adhering to, and so on. Apparently he’s talking about Oslo. He’s saying that the Palestinians must have a recourse to resist an occupation. Do you agree that the Palestinians must have some sort of a method or recourse, and so on, by which they oppose this occupation that has gone on for so long? MR KIRBY: Well, again, without getting into specific terminology here, Said, what we would like to see is progress made on both sides in both rhetoric and in action towards a meaningful two-state solution. That is very difficult to get to, to even get to the process of pursuing that when there’s so much violence going on, which isn’t doing anything but spiraling the tension upward rather than downward. And so again, what we want to see is both sides take the actions to calm things down so that we can have meaningful discussions and progress towards a two-state solution. No one even bothered to point out that Abbas’s “short speech” is an effort to rouse anger and incite violence directed at Israelis.

You can’t really blame Arikat for trying to corner Kirby into labeling Israel’s new security measures as forms of incitement. Arikat has successfully manipulated State Dept. spokespeople into making similar statements before.

Michael Wilner of the Jerusalem Post also tried to pin down Kirby as to what constitutes incitement and who is responsible for the increase in violence, to no avail.

Wilner pointed out that Ambassador Saperstein had just spoken at the State Department and “said to hold Israel to different standards than other – any other country isn’t just inappropriate; it’s anti-Semitism. What would you have – in terms of these checkpoints, what would you have Israel do?”

Kirby evaded the anti-Semitism point – which was a good one – and said the State Dept. is not going to dictate immediate security requirements onto Israel, which has the right and obligation to protect its citizens. He did, however, say that the U.S. is concerned by some reports of “what many would consider the excessive use of force.”

And then Kirby masterfully steered back on course, saying that what the State Dept. wants so see is “for both sides to take – to take the leadership responsibilities of calling for calm, maintaining that calm, and being able to restore a sense of normalcy so that people can get on with their lives safely and not have to worry, but also so that we can really begin to have again a meaningful discussion towards a two-state solution – which we continue to believe is the outcome that is – that’s best for the people there in the region.”

Terror, shmerror. The U.S. only cares about the Two State Holy Grail.