web analytics
March 30, 2015 / 10 Nisan, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Marie Harf’

Harf, Kerry and Obama: ‘The Answer to Violent Extremism is #Jobs4RandomFolk’

Thursday, February 19th, 2015

As children it was reassuring to hear Mister Rogers, clad in his cardigan sweater and slippers, remind us that people sometimes do bad things, but that does not mean they are bad people.

It is much less reassuring when the leaders of the Free World act as if they are impersonating Mister Rogers and as if those who depend on their leadership are  elementary school kids whose lunch money was stolen.

It is undoubtedly true that not all Muslims are violent extremists, but there is, currently, an assault on western civilization and it is being waged by Muslim extremists in the name of Islam.

This week the U.S. has been hosting a summit on Countering Violent Extremism. Some may have hoped real answers would be forthcoming.

So when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry writes in a Feb. 18 op-ed that the U.S. vision for countering violent extremism is to create a safer and more prosperous future, jaws dropped. Those jaws didn’t drop because Kerry’s words were insightful or inspiring. The dropped either in disbelief or as the first physical manifestation of a yawn. We’ve heard all this before; it was wrong then and it’s wrong now.

It was the same response some had to the atrocities committed against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. “If only” those misguided men had access to education and employment, and chickens in pots, they would not turn to such unspeakable violence. But those men did have access to education and all the opportunities open to those who do. Deprivation of opportunity is not what drove their violent extremism, and it isn’t what is driving Boko Haram or ISIS or al Qaeda.

The “education and opportunity” prescription is the same one offered to explain Palestinian Arab terrorists. But those who write the prescription ignore the reality: many of those who engage in terrorism are not without opportunities, it is a choice they make regardless of standing in life and access to education, and it is one offered to them by a leadership with vise-like control over its followers.

It is the same prescription that inspired mass-ridicule when recently uttered by Marie Harf, deputy spokesperson for the U.S. State Department. The twitter hashtag that rocketed to the top of the charts, “#Jobs4ISIS” was a laughingstock.

Despite what Deputy Spokesperson Harf, and her boss Secretary of State Kerry, and his boss, U.S. President Obama insist is not the case, the violent extremists threatening world order are Islamist extremists, and what they need is not more jobs.  They need to be defeated militarily.

And yet, when claiming that military defeat is the wrong goal, Kerry proceeds to give examples of the violence committed by the random violent extremists. And each example is an act committed by Islamists in the name of Islam: “Military force is a rational and often necessary response to the wanton slaughters of children, mass kidnappings of schoolgirls, and beheading of innocents. But military force alone won’t achieve victory.”

The word Islam never appears in Kerry’s 14 paragraph, 938 word op-ed on Countering Violent Extremism.

The word Muslim appears once. It crops up in the category of the biggest victims of this unnamed, orphan, random violent extremism. It comes up in a paragraph in which Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are lined up as equal victims. It is employed to demonstrate that not only is the source of violent extremism random, so are the victims:

A safer and more prosperous future also requires us not to be distracted by divisions grounded in hatred or bias. There is no room in this fight for sectarian division. There is no room for Islamophobia or anti-Semitism. Violent extremism has claimed lives in every corner of the globe, and Muslim lives most of all. Each of us is threatened, regardless of ethnicity, faith or homeland.

The rest of Kerry’s op-ed reads like something an earnest high school disciplinarian might say to teenagers who have been unruly. Kerry uses phrases like “peaceful communities” and “a vision that is positive and proactive,” a world with “concrete alternatives” and “a chance at a better life.”

For one brief, almost shining moment, Kerry stumbles on to a good idea. “The most basic issue is good governance.” But then, he drops the thought and instead goes on to discuss what the rest of the world needs to do in order to make the potential random violent extremists feel better about themselves and so less likely to blow us all to kingdom come.

Once again, as he concludes his statement, Kerry kicks into #jobs4ISIS mode. He channels Mister Rogers and suggests we all need to be ‘tailoring our efforts and targeting our resources’ and training youth so they can become employed and embrace “dignity and self-reliance,” as well as “security and justice.”

Jaw-dropping. Pardon the yawn.

 

State Dept. ‘Denial’ of ‘ISIS-Peace Talks’ Linkage Actually Confirms It [video]

Sunday, October 19th, 2014

Did or did not U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry link the failure of Israeli-Palestinian peace, meaning the creation of a Palestinian Authority country on its own terms, with the ability of the ISIS to recruit terrorist groupies?

Here is U.S. State Dept. Marie Harf’s denial to journalists who asked about Kerry’s comments that angered so many Israelis:

“He did not make any linkage between Israel and the growth of ISIL, period. And we can go back over what he actually said, which I have in front of me. He did not make that linkage.”

Okay, Ms. Harf, let’s indeed so back over your boss’s words.

Here is what Kerry said in his remarks at a reception for Muslims marking the Eid al-Adha holiday and reported here on Friday.

“I think that it is more critical than ever that we be fighting for peace, and I think it is more necessary than ever.

“As I went around and met with people in the course of our discussions about the ISIL coalition, the truth is we – there wasn’t a leader I met with in the region who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation that they felt – and I see a lot of heads nodding – they had to respond to.

“And people need to understand the connection of that. And it has something to do with humiliation and denial and absence of dignity, and Eid celebrates the opposite of all of that.”

Note that in the middle of his remarks, he commented, “And I see a lot of heads nodding.”

It was clear that the nodding heads understood exactly what you, I, and others understood: “The need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians… was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation that they felt … they had to respond to.”

Harf insisted that what he said is not what he said, to wit:

“What he was saying is in the course of his work, do leaders in Europe and in the Middle East tell him that they like that the U.S. wants to try to achieve peace? Of course they do. Do the leaders think peace would help create a more stable region? Of course they do….He did not make a linkage between Israel and the growth of ISIL, period.”

Wait a minute, ma’am. Kerry, and everyone else in the blind diplomatic world, “think peace would create a more stable region.” Kerry specifically stated that every leader he spoke with “in the course of our discussion about the ISIL coalition” said that the need for peace “was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation.”

So how can she say that he did not say what he did day?

Said Arikat, the Al Quds newspaper’s propagandist who dished out a daily doses of hype for the Palestinian Authority, asked Harf, “So you think that those leaders that told the Secretary of State there is a linkage, in fact, they’re expressing a sentiment of hate toward –“

Harf interrupted and insisted, “That’s not what he was saying. He was saying that as he travels around the world building a global coalition to defeat ISIL, which is an avowed enemy of Israel – the Secretary, helping to put together this coalition to defeat an enemy that has said they’re an avowed enemy of Israel, that he hears from people in conversations, as we have for many years, that if we could resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that would help create a more stable region.”

Lieberman and Indyk Bash Bennett for Bashing Kerry

Saturday, October 18th, 2014

Martin Indyk, another failed American messiah for the Palestinian Authority, and none other than hawkish Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman unwittingly were on the same soapbox Saturday to bash Jewish Home Minister Naftali Bennett for bashing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s incredible comments linking ISIS recruitment with the failure of the “peace process.”

Lieberman’s criticism of Bennett clearly reflects the dependence of the Netanyahu administration on the United States to cast a veto against any vote in the United Nations Security Council in favor of admitting the Palestinian Authority as a full member in the General Assembly.

For the record, Kerry’s spokeswoman Marie Harf claimed that Kerry never made such a suggestion although her convoluted explanation essentially said the same thing in other terms.

But Bennett stole the limelight with his remarks Friday that were very undiplomatic and politically incorrect, if not correct from the standpoint of truth, that Kerry was “encouraging global terror.

“It turns out that even when a British Muslim decapitates a British Christian, there will always be someone to blame the Jew,” Bennett said. “There is no justifying terror, only fighting it. To say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is strengthening the Islamic State is encouraging global terror.”

Kerry stated at a reception for Muslims Wednesday, as reported here, “As I went around and met with people in the course of our discussions … there wasn’t a leader I met with in the region who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation that they felt – and I see a lot of heads nodding – they had to respond to.

“And people need to understand the connection of that… It has something to do with humiliation and denial and absence of dignity.”

We will leave it to the reader to figure out how Harf could claim that there was no linkage.

Israel’s Communications Minister Gilad Erdan was just as caustic as Bennett and said, “Kerry is breaking records for a lack of understanding of what is going on in our region.”

Indyk, who has joined a long list of American “experts” at the State Dept’s ever-expanding foreign policy graveyard, tweeted, “There they go again: Israeli rightist ministers attack Kerry for wanting Israeli-Palestinian peace to help fight IS.”

He supposedly was defending Kerry but his tweet actually spelled out in capital letters that the cause and effect is obvious: Israeli-Palestinian peace will help the United States fight the Islamic State.

Lieberman’s defense of Kerry was not so idiotic.

The foreign minister, who is on top of the list of those panning Kerry’s Peace Talks Follies, can fairly be presumed to have applauded in his heart every word Bennett and Erdan said, but his position as foreign minister took precedence. He clearly is worried about the reaction from Washington, which already has been reeled by several remarks this year by Israeli officials that Kerry is “messianic” and doesn’t have a clue about the Middle East.

That is absolutely untrue. Kerry knows the Middle East is located somewhere between the Atlantic Ocean and the China. He also knows that the King David Hotel is located in Jerusalem, the part that is not “occupied.”

“Let’s state some facts,” Lieberman said. “When our ammunition supplies ran out during Operation Protective Edge, it was the United States that sent us more. It was the Americans who gave us money which enabled us to develop Iron Dome. It was the US who voted with us in the UN Human Rights Council. The United States is the only country that saves us a good deal of grief in the Security Council with its veto.”

Cruz: I’ll Intro Bill to Strip US Citizenship From ISIS Members

Sunday, September 7th, 2014

According to the U.S. administration, and as discussed at Friday’s State Department Press Briefing, approximately 100 Americans are presently in Syria, many of whom are there to join the jihadist force ISIS, the rest to fight with a different terrorist group, al Nusra.

Although the Administration speaks very fiercely about those terrorist groups, especially ISIS, which President Barack Obama recently called “a cancer,” an idea put forth by a Republican senator was the object of derision and laughter both by reporters and the assistant spokesperson for the State Department, Marie Harf.

On Friday, Sept. 5, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) announced that he intended to introduce legislation that would bar U.S. citizens who went abroad to fight with ISIS from returning to the country by stripping them of their U.S. citizenship.

Cruz announced that as soon as the Senate is called back into session on Monday, Sept. 8, he intended to file the Expatriate Terrorist Act of 2014.

“Americans who choose to go to Syria or Iraq to fight with vicious ISIS terrorists are party to a terrorist organization committing horrific acts of violence, including beheading innocent American journalists who they have captured,” said Sen. Cruz. “There can be no clearer renunciation of their citizenship in the United States, and we need to do everything we can to preempt any attempt on their part to re-enter our country and carry out further attacks on American civilians.”

The law would amend a current statute that deems certain action taken by a U.S. citizen to constitute a renunciation of their citizenship. The addition which Cruz intends to introduce would include “becoming a member of, fighting for, or providing material assistance to a designated foreign terrorist organization that is working to attack the United States or its citizens.”

The amendment would ensure that due process is ensured, but beyond that would find that

“If a U.S. citizen undertakes these acts with the intent of supplanting his U.S. Citizenship with loyalty to a terrorist organization, that person can be deemed to have forfeited their right to be a United States Citizen and return to the United States.”

The merry crew at the State Department briefing room, however, treated the idea as absurd, and suggested that Sen. Cruz’s proposal was to strip a U.S. citizen of his citizenship simply if he traveled to Syria, even if just to report on the war or to provide humanitarian assistance. The following is the exchange between the Associated Press’s Matt Lee and State Deparment Spokesperson Harf:

QUESTION: Marie, there’s some on the Hill who think that – who say, who make the argument that simply traveling – for an American citizen to travel to Syria right now should be enough to either, one, revoke their passport, or two, revoke —

MS. HARF: Just for someone traveling to Syria? That’s a —

QUESTION: Well —

MS. HARF: — interesting way of reading United States law and the Constitution in terms of passports and citizenship.

QUESTION: No, no, no. I think that they’re suggesting that maybe it should be written in – the Brits have announced their plans to do —

MS. HARF: Right.

QUESTION: — to step up their procedure for doing this kind of thing.

MS. HARF: Well, look, there are American citizens who travel to Syria, even though we tell them on to, as – for example, reporters or aid workers.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. HARF: Right.

QUESTION: So you would – this is not my —

MS. HARF: Well, traveling to —

QUESTION: This is not my idea.

MS. HARF: I know.

QUESTION: It’s some – it’s other people’s idea, and I’m just —

MS. HARF: I know. It’s sources on the Hill.

QUESTION: Well, it’s —

MS. HARF: Some on the Hill.

QUESTION: Senator Cruz, your favorite senator, is tweeting this kind of thing.

MS. HARF: Oh, God. Here we go again. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: So – no, look.

MS. HARF: Wait – this is a real question, though.

QUESTION: So – it is a real question.

MS. HARF: I know. I just said it was.

QUESTION: So you’re saying you would oppose – you would oppose some kind of a blanket —

MS. HARF: Well —

QUESTION: — law or legislation that would strip people of their passports and citizenship for going to a place —

MS. HARF: Well, let’s – first of all, I’m not going to take a position on hypothetical legislation. Certainly, that’s not my purview. But let’s start here. For one point, we – people who just travel to a country I think I would feel comfortably – comfortable legally saying is not grounds for revoking your citizenship or taking your passport.

QUESTION: I know it’s not now. I think the point is –

MS. HARF: I don’t think it – not traveling to a country, nor should it be. There’s travel restrictions in place. Now, the question of how you prevent Americans who have traveled to a place like Syria and joined a terrorist organization, that is, said they want to attack the U.S., that is a separate question. We have the authority now to revoke their passports under U.S. law if the Secretary makes a determination about their threat to U.S. national security. We already have that power. We also have the power if there’s a law enforcement request —

QUESTION: Right.

MS. HARF: — to revoke their passport if there’s an outstanding warrant or something like that.

In other words, the idea Cruz said he intends to introduce is neither idiotic nor would it constitute a violation of the U.S. constitution, but the repartee at the press briefing certainly suggests that the senator is an unstable nut job whose ideas are laughable. In reality, the idea not only has merit, a version of it already exists and Cruz’s intention is simply to streamline the process.

US Holds Hamas Responsible for All Rocket Attacks on Israel

Tuesday, August 19th, 2014

The United States holds Hamas accountable for all rocket attacks on Israel, U.S. State Dept. spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters at the daily oppress briefing Tuesday.

Asked if the rockets that broke the cease-fire were launched from Gaza, she said, “It came from Gaza, and Hamas has responsibility for Gaza.”

Harf also that there has been no agreement on re-opening border crossings.

Hamas immediately denied responsibility for the first rockets that rained on Be’er Sheva late Tuesday afternoon, six hours before the latest 24-hour truce was set to expire.

At least eight rockets were fired on southern Israel during the afternoon and the evening.

Thousands of soldiers, including Reservists, still are deployed along the Gaza front although most tanks and armored personnel carriers were transported back to the Golan Heights immediately after the first cease-fire was announced two weeks ago.

Each transport of a tank costs around $3,000, and if the IDF has to bring them back to Gaza, the round-trip cost will reach millions of dollars.

If the tanks are needed, someone is going to have to a lot of explaining to answer why the military got so over-excited over the cease-fire and showed its cards to Hamas by pulling out heavy equipment long before there was any evidence that the cease-fire would hold.

Hamas has failed to honor dozens of cease-fires the past several years, with one exception being the five-day truce that expired shortly before midnight Monday and was extended for 24 hours, until it was broken Tuesday afternoon.

The Israeli government kept its word that there will be no negotiations with Hamas, though Egyptian mediation, even if there is one rocket attack, and it ordered negotiators to return home.

Hamas still is acting as if it has the upper hand and warned that it has made its final offer to Israel, through Egypt, for a longer-term cease-fire.

The gimmick is an old one for Hamas. It creates a situation whereby it knows Israel cannot negotiate, in this case because it under rocket attacks, and then makes an offer that cannot be discussed. The next step is to blame Israel.

No one is buying it.

 

 

Arab Journalist ‘Lobbyist’ at State Department Press Briefings

Friday, August 1st, 2014

Said Arikat is the Washington, D.C. bureau reporter for Al Quds Daily newspaper, which is based in Jerusalem. He is a constant figure at the U.S. State Department daily press briefings. Regular observers of those press briefings will note that Arikat continuously badgers whichever state department press spokesperson is presiding to adopt the Palestinian Arab narrative of events, and to reject Israel as ever doing anything other than committing war crimes.

The State Department press briefing on Thursday, July 31, provides a perfect example of Arikat’s hectoring the spokesperson to adopt the narrative he is always promoting.

Marie Harf, the Deputy Spokesperson was at the podium on Thursday, and, as is the case so often, but especially when there is a war going on between Israel and any Arab entity, Arikat was relentless. As, indeed, were several other reporters, but Arikat is uniquely dogged.

First, Arikat took issue with the statement that there were rockets stored in UNRWA facilities, which might conceivably justify Israel’s shelling of any such buildings.

QUESTION: Are you saying Hamas is storing rockets at UN facilities?

QUESTION: Let – sorry.

MS. HARF: We have seen – yes, Said. We have seen —

QUESTION: What? Where is it?

MS. HARF: We have seen Hamas storing rockets in UN schools.

QUESTION: At UN facilities?

MS. HARF: Yes, we have. We’ve talked a couple times about UNRWA finding the —

QUESTION: Well, I’ve never heard of rockets being stored at UN facilities, but (inaudible).

MS. HARF: Said – Said, UNRWA came out twice in the past two weeks and said they had found caches of Hamas rockets in their schools. We talked —

QUESTION: Right. But they’re not rocketing them.

MS. HARF: They are storing rockets in them.

QUESTION: Okay. So that’s a different (inaudible).

Really? Is it possible that someone who is constantly present at State Department briefings and who writes for a newspaper based in the region in which the fighting is taking place is not aware that the U.N. itself has admitted to finding Hamas rockets in its facilities, and has made public photographs of the rockets stored in UN schools?

Arikat gives up relatively quickly on this point, but he remains ever vigilant to press the point of Israel bad, Palestinian Arabs good, poor victims of Israeli aggression.

In the following exchange, Arikat tries to lull Harf into acknowledging that because the numbers of casualties is so lopsided between Israel and Gaza, it must mean Israel is not listening to the United States which has told the Israelis to be more careful about avoiding harm to civilians.

MS. HARF: Yes, Said.

QUESTION: Marie, on the issue of condemnation, you’re not backtracking? You’re not walking back from using the word “condemn?” Because yesterday —

MS. HARF: I think I actually went further today, Said.

QUESTION: No, I understand. I just want to understand you clearly, because yesterday, you did not assign blame. Today, you seem to be certain as to who is responsible.

MS. HARF: There is not a lot of doubt, yes.

QUESTION: So you condemn Israel for shelling that school, correct?

MS. HARF: I just made very clear at the beginning that we condemn the shelling of the school and that there’s not a lot of doubt about whose artillery it was.

QUESTION: Okay. And now you also said that Israel is doing all it can or it’s doing all it can – yes, that’s – I think that’s what you said.

MS. HARF: That’s not what I said.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: I said they could do more.

QUESTION: Israel —

MS. HARF: It’s the opposite of what I said, actually.

QUESTION: Okay. Israel is doing something to minimize civilian casualties —

MS. HARF: They are, but we believe they could do more.

QUESTION: — while the – while on the other side, those who are firing rockets are not taking that into consideration. Do you know how many civilian – Israeli civilians were killed by these rockets versus how many civilians were killed by artillery and bombing of Israel?

MS. HARF: I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, but I do know they are fairly lopsided, yes.

QUESTION: Okay. They’re fairly lopsided, so Israel is not really taking your counseling or your – for them to take caution or to —

MS. HARF: We believe they should take more steps.

QUESTION: — as indicated the school —

MS. HARF: We believe they should take more steps.

QUESTION: — because they were warned 17 times.

MS. HARF: And we will keep telling them —

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: — they should take more steps, Said.

QUESTION: All right. Let me just quickly follow up on —

MS. HARF: Yep. And then Elise, you’re next.

QUESTION: — the issue of the humanitarian issue. UNRWA is saying that Gaza is on the verge of collapse. There is no power. There is no water. The hospitals are not working, or working on a very minimal power supply. Everything is falling apart. Are you concerned that we are maybe on the verge of a huge human catastrophe there?

MS. HARF: Well, I certainly believe that there is a huge humanitarian issue in Gaza right now. This is exactly why we want a humanitarian cease-fire in place, so we can get medicine, we can get supplies, but also so we can have some time and space to negotiate a longer-term, more lasting cease-fire, like we’ve talked about, which will the thing that ultimately helps the most with the humanitarian situation —

QUESTION: At the present time —

MS. HARF: — if we could stop the fighting.

It is absolutely galling to read and watch the video of the press briefings every day and see how several of the reporters – Arikat being the most consistent, and usually the most brazen – attempt to force words condemning Israel into the State Department’s mouth.

Arikat is also is the ringleader who regularly attempts to paint Israel as the sole player in need of reprimand and harsh punishment by the United States. And then, of course, he and the reporters jump on their computers, tap out lopsided news stories about Israel and Gaza, and they just got to create the news, report the news and convert the “news” into truth.

No wonder Israel consistently looks terrible in the media.

State Dept Press Corps Angry ‘Israel is Pushing Pollard Release’

Wednesday, April 2nd, 2014

In Tuesday’s daily press briefing conducted by the State Department spokesperson Marie Harf, several members of the media insinuated that it was Israel that raised the issue of Jonathan Pollard’s release from prison, as a condition for continuing the U.S. mediated “peace process” negotiations currently underway.

In fact, in a briefing that lasted less than 35 minutes, more than a third of the time was spent on the issue of Jonathan Pollard, and every one of the questions asked by the State Department press corps appeared to be an effort to convince the State Department that what they all characterized as an Israeli effort to get Pollard released was an outrage.

It was the first set of questions that was raised, it was the penultimate set of questions, and the questions were raised by no fewer than five different journalists, representing media outlets from across the globe.

Throughout the questioning, Harf maintained a solid line of no comment. She refused to comment on whether Pollard’s release was a matter under discussion during the “peace talks.”

The one definitive statement made repeatedly by Harf was “the President has not made a decision to release Jonathan Pollard.”

But several extraordinary things happened during the press conference, that is, extraordinary in addition to what seemed to be a united front by the journalists who were cross-examining the State Department spokesperson as to why would the U.S. buckle under a demand from Israel to release a convicted spy.

First, a significant comment made by Harf was deleted from the official transcript. That deletion specifically appeared to confirm for the journalists that Israel was the party which had raised the release of Pollard, rather than, as was the general sense in the Israeli media, that it was the U.S. who raised the issue in a desperate attempt to keep the “peace talks” alive.

Reproduced below, is the first relevant section of the transcript of Tuesday’s briefing. Even before this question, it should be noted, the journalist asking this first series of questions claimed that it was Abbas who cancelled the meeting with Secretary of State Kerry, not the other way around, as it has been generally reported.

QUESTION: (at 2:55) Do you want to give us some kind of readout on how it was that the Pollard release was put back up on the table? I know there’s been a lot of conflicting information over the last week, when these reports first surfaced in the Israeli press. We’d like a little clarification on exactly when and why and how, and whether or not Pollard’s release is still on the table, given that Abbas looks like he – that is what’s making him negative on the process right now. (at 3:23)

MS. HARF: (at 3:24) Well, a few points on that. First, the President has not made a decision to release Jonathan Pollard. I want to be very clear about that. Jonathan Pollard was convicted of espionage and is serving his sentence. I don’t have any further update on his status to provide today. In terms of this being a topic, (at 3:38)

THIS IS WHERE THE AUDIOTAPE OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE AND THE TRANSCRIPT DIFFER DRAMATICALLY.  WHAT HARF SAID AS REVEALED IN THE AUDIOTAPE, THOUGH IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE TRANSCRIPT AT ALL, IS:

it should be uh no surprise that the Israelis have frequently raised Jonathan Pollard in our discussions, uh, uh, throughout the peace process or at large, but I’m not going to get (at 3:50)

AND THEN THE TRANSCRIPT AND THE AUDIOTAPE RESUME TRACKING:

(at 3:51) into any of the details of the discussions that they’ve had with Secretary Kerry.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/state-dept-press-corps-irate-that-israel-is-pushing-pollard-release/2014/04/02/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: