State Dept Press Corps Shapes US Response to Netanyahu’s UN Speech By Lori Lowenthal Marcus
State Dept Press Corps Shapes US Response to Netanyahu’s UN Speech
In question after question during the state department press briefing, members of the press mischaracterized and ridiculed Netanyahu’s UN Speech. Any ground given by the spokesperson became the headlines.
The State Department press corps continues to spin madly against any statements or positions taken by the Israeli government, as made clear in the daily press briefing comments following Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Monday, Sept. 29.
Those who paid close attention to Netanyahu’s speech will recall that he made one overarching point. That the Islamic terrorist groups now arrayed around the world, but centered largely in the Middle East, share a common ideology that is a danger to everyone who does not share that ideology. And that ideology is global Muslim domination.
Netanyahu labeled them all “Militant Islam.” In this group he named, in addition to ISIS, Hamas and the Islamic State of Iran, “Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al-Shabab in Somalia, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Al Nusra in Syria, the Mahdi Army in Iraq, the Al Qaeda branches in Yemen, Libya, the Philippines, India and elsewhere.”
To support the position that all share the same goal of global Militant Islamic domination, he quoted the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; the leader of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal; and the founding and current rulers of the Islamic State of Iran. All three state clearly as their doctrine that their ultimate goal is for Islam to be the supreme faith of the entire world, and for that goal to be realized through force.
Baghdadi: “A day will come when the Muslim will walk everywhere as a master, the Muslims will cause the world to hear and understand the meaning of terrorism and destroy the idol of democracy.”
Mashaal: “We say this to the world: by Allah you will be defeated. Tomorrow our nation will sit on the throne of the world.”
Khomeini: “We will export our revolution to the entire world until the cry of ‘There is no god but Allah’ will be heard throughout the world.’
And this, from the current commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards: “Our Imam did not want the Islamic Revolution for this country. Our duty is to prepare the way for an Islamic world government.” And this, from Iran’s current foreign minister: “We have a fundamental problem with the West, and especially with America. This is because we are heirs to a global mission which is tied to our raison d’être.
So what was the state department press corps’ response to this point made by Netanyahu? It was to ridicule the grouping of ISIS, Hamas and Iran, to paint as absurd the concern that Iran is every bit as dangerous – in fact more so – as is ISIS.
This, from the senior press corps correspondent, Matt Lee, of the Associated Press, regarding Netanyahu: “One, he has a theory or believes that Hamas, ISIS, Iran – and Iran are basically kind of all part of the same big thing, which is this – what he would call a scourge of militant Islam. Do you – does the Administration agree with that?
MS. PSAKI: (Inaudible) never heard us state it in that way. We believe they’re both terrorist organizations. We obviously believe that ISIL poses a different threat to the United States, based on, of course, the military action and other efforts that are underway. We don’t believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu or anyone else from Israel is suggesting that the United States launch a military campaign against Hamas, so we certainly – they are both designated terrorist organizations under the United States designations, but certainly we see differences –
QUESTION: Well –
MS. PSAKI: – in terms of the threat and otherwise. But go ahead.
QUESTION: But he’s – he linked them with Iran as well, and saying that Shia – it doesn’t really matter, Shia or Sunni, they essentially all want the same thing, which is a Muslim caliphate dominating the world. Do you – does the Administration believe that that is the case, that Hamas, ISIS, Iran, Hezbollah, these other groups, Boko Haram, the ones that you mentioned, are all part of the same kind of militant Muslim –
QUESTION: – Islamic attempt to rule the world?
MS. PSAKI: We would not agree with that characterization, no.
Lee’s question collapses the strong distinction Netanyahu made at the outset, in which he referred only to Militant Islam, certainly not all sunnis and shiites as calling for global Muslim domination.
The caricaturization of the Israeli leader’s lengthy description virtually requires a rejection of the position by the state department, and that is what he gets. And that is what goes into the articles describing the U.S. response to Netanyahu’s speech, and it becomes the understanding by all who even pay some attention to what happens at the United Nations: that the Israeli head of state claims all Muslims want to control the world and that the United States rejects the Israeli Prime Minister’s characterization.
While it is true that AP’s Lee is cantankerous and badgers the state department spokespeople fairly ecumenically, there are at least two members of the state department press corps who can be counted on to always and virtually only attack Israel’s positions, while cheerleading for the Palestinian Arab or other Muslim positions.
Reuters’ Arshad Mohammed met expectations with his truncated version of Netanyahu’s description of the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
It is true that the Israeli leader was critical of the UNHRC. But the Israeli prime minister focused on the fact that during this summer’s war in Gaza, Hamas used Gazan civilians as human shields, executed Gazans without judicial process, and sought to maximize civilian – both Gazan and Israeli – casualties, while Israel sought to minimize casualties on both sides. And yet, Netanyahi made the point, it is Israel that is being investigated for war crimes, not Hamas. This, Netanyahu explained, served to legitimize the actions of terrorists. And his statement was that as a result, what the UNHRC was doing was “acting as a Terrorists Rights Council.”
But this is how Mohammed characterized that position:
QUESTION: Can I ask just on – going from what Matt said. I didn’t actually see the speech myself, I’m afraid, but if Prime Minister Netanyahu suggested that the UN should be called the “UN Terrorist Commission,” would you not say that that was offensive language?
MS. PSAKI: I think we’ve spoken about our concerns in the past. We certainly wouldn’t characterize it that way. We don’t see the need for heated rhetoric. But obviously there are times when we certainly agree, and we’ve expressed concerns, as Matt noted, in the past as well about the same organization and how they operate.
QUESTION: But you don’t think equating the world UN body to a terrorist –
QUESTION: It was the Human Rights Commission.
QUESTION: – or was it the Human Rights Commission? I –
MS. PSAKI: I think we certainly haven’t used that language. I think that speaks to how we view it.
What the Reuters’ correspondent was doing, was tag-teaming with the Al Quds correspondent, Said Erekat. Erekat tried repeatedly during this press briefing to find a chink in the state department spokesperson’s characterization the previous week of acting leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas’s UN speech as “offensive.”
QUESTION: Jen, I just wanted to ask you: What did you find offensive in Abbas speech? What particular – what in particular was so offensive in his speech?
MS. PSAKI: I think – I don’t think I need to repeat it, Said. I –
QUESTION: I mean, do you find the whole speech offensive?
MS. PSAKI: I’m sure, knowing you – knowing you, I’m sure you read it closely and –
QUESTION: I read it very closely, but –
MS. PSAKI: – and there are the – were the use – was the use of some terminology in there that we felt we needed to speak to.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: But I don’t think I need to outline that from here.
QUESTION: Okay. So you find the – that the terminology he used, as genocide; that’s offensive? Is that it?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think – I think I would point you to –
QUESTION: But –
MS. PSAKI: Said, let me finish. I’ve already spoken to this. I don’t think we need to – it’s productive to get into a –
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. PSAKI: – more of a back-and-forth about it. I will note again that the Palestinian people, President Abbas – Secretary Kerry had a lengthy, I think 90-minute meeting with President Abbas last week. He’ll have ongoing discussions. It doesn’t mean we don’t voice our concerns when we have them.
QUESTION: Let me ask you in a different way. I mean, do you find part of it offensive? The whole thing offensive? 10 percent offensive? What is offensive?
MS. PSAKI: I appreciate the opportunity, but I’m not going to go down this rabbit hole with you.
QUESTION: Okay. Let me just continue on with the –
There were more efforts by the press corps to ridicule, denigrate and minimize the seriousness of the points made in Netanyahu’s UN speech. In fact, that is all that happened during the briefing regarding Netanyahu’s UN address. And every time the state department spokesperson relented on some point or other regarding the imbecility of Netanyahu’s positions, as characterized by a member of the press corps, that statement becomes the headline or the gist of the articles that become the historical record of relations between Israel and the U.S.
AP’s Matt Lee’s tweet makes it look as though Netanyahu’s UN speech merely made fun of the UN Human Rights Commission.
Not surprisingly, there were and are no members of the press corps who made any effort to recast the negative press characterizations as lacking context or any efforts to ask a question intended to elicit a fair-minded response to Netanyahu’s speech. There never is.
Comments are closed.
