Background Briefing on Jerusalem
Senior Administration Officials
The Washington Foreign Press Center
Washington, DC
December 6, 2017
MODERATOR: Good morning and thank you for coming to this backgrounder on Jerusalem. Just to remind everybody of the ground rules today, this is on background. All three officials up here may be referred to as senior administration officials for purposes of reporting. We have [Senior Administration Official One], [Senior Administration Official Two], and [Senior Administration Official Three].
We can begin now. At the conclusion of opening remarks, there will be time for questions. I would just ask that when you ask questions, you identify the outlet you represent, you wait for the microphone, and you state your name. Thank you.
QUESTION: Anything on an embargo on this?
MODERATOR: The embargo – thank you – will be complete at the completion of this briefing. So for that – for purposes – okay, very good.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I know some of you were there in the briefing room last night, or many of you may have read the transcript or had dialed in, so I – rather than repeat what I said, I’ll maybe just respond to some of the lines of inquiry that we’ve been getting overnight. We want to reiterate and clarify that this action is a recognition of reality and not a prejudgment by the United States on any final status issues. I think we can’t say that often enough. Even as often as I’ve been saying it, people still – some haven’t quite gotten it.
I think – the other question we’ve gotten is why now. Is this just the fulfillment of a campaign promise? Is there is no foreign policy rationale to this? And the answer to why now, I mean, the narrowest sense of why now is because there was a waiver that expired and some action had to be taken. It is – it’s a fulfillment of a campaign promise but it’s more than the fulfillment of a campaign promise; it’s the fulfilment of something the President said long ago ought to be done, needs to be done. And the President believes that by following through on what he said he would do, by following through on his stated word, he’s augmenting confidence in himself, in his government, in his administration. He’s showing leaders that he does what he says he’s going to do. And I think he thinks that acknowledging reality will help all the parties. I know that he thinks that acknowledging reality will help all the parties move forward on the basis of truth and of a genuine understanding.
As I think we said in the backgrounder yesterday, the United States doesn’t envision a scenario in which after a final status agreement, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. If I could be glib and give [Senior Administration Official Three] kind of a heart attack, I mean, I don’t even know that I could – it’s impossible to even envision a scenario in which the Israelis says okay, well, as part of a final status agreement, we’ll move the capital to Ashkelon or something. They’re not going to do that and everybody knows that. And I think even people who say this is provocative or criticize this decision, they all know that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. So I think some of the concern is maybe a bit overblown.
And then to the question of, well, does this undermine the prospects for peace. The President absolutely doesn’t believe it undermines the prospects for peace. He’s very optimistic about the prospects for a peace deal. He’s – he thinks that his administration and his peace team have built very good relations with both sides and with the other Arab countries who he thinks has – have a central role in helping facilitate a deal. And again, he thinks that an acknowledgement of the reality sort of removes this issue. We’ve now moved past the fiction that there might be this possibility that Jerusalem won’t be the capital of Israel, and everybody just – if we can understand that that’s the truth, taking this issue out, in a sense, means – allows the parties a better chance to focus on very sensitive issues that are not resolved, where there isn’t a common understanding of how this is going to turn out and that can only be resolved through negotiations, and that’s where the focus should be.
I’ll stop there. If anybody else wants to open, go ahead.
QUESTION: Can I ask – can we open --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Do you want to say anything?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Do I want to?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. (Laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Sure. Let me just make a – just a couple of points. [Senior Administration Official One] has already introduced, but the – I would note that this action’s been fully coordinated with both Congress and international partners on this issue. Obviously, some have different views and may actually advise things in private that they don’t say in public, which I think is – goes without saying. But there has been broad bipartisan support in Congress for this issue since 1995, and you witnessed the reaction to the last waiver the President signed in the Senate, an overwhelming vote on that.
Just a couple of points I think of clarification that are useful is that the President’s instructing the State Department to develop a plan to relocate the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And so the expectation is it’s not going to happen overnight. This is now the first step in a multi-year process. And as many of you know, there’s also laws that we have to follow in terms of the force protection at embassies and all those other things. And so it may sound like we could just put up a sign and this would be complete, but we also have other regulations and laws that we have to follow as well in doing that.
And then I would note the departments and agencies have implemented a robust security plan to ensure the safety of American citizens and assets in the region, and are quite confident about that. The – just a couple more that are useful I think. The specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem will be subject to final status negotiations between the two parties, and so this is not a decision on boundaries or borders.
At the same time, I would note the President will reaffirm that the United States supports the maintenance of the status quo on the Temple Mount and the Haram al-Sharif – that will remain under the current conditions – and that the President remains committed to achieving this lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. As [Senior Administration Official One] said, he’s optimistic, but he’s also prepared to support a two-state solution to the dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians, if agreed to by both of the parties.
MODERATOR: Okay, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, thank you for doing – thank you for doing this. Joyce Karam with Al-Hayat and The National. It just strikes me that you don’t have one Arab partner supporting you in this, none from Europe that we’ve seen so far. So to you, [Senior Administration Official Two], I know you follow Gulf relations: How much are you worried that this would actually undermine your relations, U.S. relations with the GCC partner? And since you’re not even prepared to support the two-state solution or, as you say, if the two parties agree to it, what exactly are you giving the Palestinians at such a dire moment in their reality?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: We’ve had detailed conversations with our Gulf partners, with other partners in the region, and I won’t characterize those specifically. I do not believe that this will undermine those. We’ll continue to work with them on this issue, but also other issues in the region. For example, the war in Yemen, the crisis in Syria, Lebanon, Sinai, all those other issues. And so we’ll continue in that vein.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: In terms of what we’re giving the – I don’t know the specifics, but the United States does give the Palestinians a substantial amount of aid. We also work with Arab allies and partners to help the Palestinians, and we’re working with allies and Arab partners specifically to help achieve a deal and help a future Palestinian people – we’re trying to help them achieve a deal and help them on the other end of a deal, on the other side of a deal, and continue that help from their Arab partners with the United States' assistance and encouragement. And I would say the main thing the President – I don’t know that I would put it the way you put it, “giving the Palestinians,” but the main thing he’s doing for the Palestinians, he’s working hard to try to get them a deal, try to get them a resolution of the conflict that they have sought – they’ve sought that resolution for decades and it hasn’t been able to be achieved under past administrations. This President has thrown his full support behind it, his personal support when he speaks to Arab leaders, when he speaks to the prime minister of Israel, and he’s made it a top priority for his administration. I mean, I think that’s a pretty substantial commitment?
Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. Nadia Bilbassy with Al Arabiya. By nature of being a White House correspondent and foreign correspondent and give us two questions. So, [Senior Administration Official One], you just said the question is whether Jerusalem is not going to be the capital of Israel or not. The more – the question that’s more appropriate is, everybody maybe acknowledged that West Jerusalem is going to be the capital of Israel, but what about East Jerusalem being the capital of a future Palestinian state in any negotiation? Will the President allude to that or not? That’s the question.
And as you know, in Middle East negotiation or, in fact, in any negotiation, everybody said – it’s give-and-take. So you’ve given the Israelis something that you’re not asking for anything in return. So if you really care for – about this peace deal that the President has been talked about and working on it, why not asking the Israelis to halt the building of settlements in return for recognizing Jerusalem or even moving the embassy?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: I’ll answer those questions. Look, the first question – East Jerusalem, why not make some acknowledgment? Let me reiterate, this step is an acknowledgment of reality that Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel. There is no position taken through this decision on any of the final status, permanent status issues that touch on the specific boundaries of sovereignty in Jerusalem – (two words in Arabic) East Jerusalem. They’re not affected by this. The President recognizes fully and this decision is wholly consistent with his view that those questions are ones for discussion and negotiation between the two parties in the course of final status discussions, and that the U.S. would, in the context of an agreement reached by the parties in those negotiations, support a two-state resolution. So no change there. None. And that touches on all of the issues; you raised East Jerusalem, but there are many others that could be put into that same basket.
Now, the quid pro quo question you’re asking, let me try to walk a bit back from this. This is not a gift or a gesture to any party. It is a decision on behalf of the United States Government that the time has come to take this step. And to present it in the context of “you’re giving something here, why don’t you give something there?” is a misreading of what’s being done. This is a U.S. step; it’s a decision taken by the U.S. Government for reasons which my colleagues have elaborated – the President believes now is the time to make this acknowledgment.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: So I’d also reiterate a point that I made yesterday, without going into detail, because I can’t and I don’t want to undermine the progress that’s been made. There are points of negotiation that are not public, right? You don’t necessarily – we’re deliberately not making it public in order to preserve confidentiality, in order to keep moving forward. So don’t – it would be a mistake to presume that the President hasn’t made progress along these areas in precisely the way you suggested, a bit of give-and-take between the parties, and one of the reasons, again, it’s going well and he’s hopeful is because it’s remained a secret, and remaining confidential increases trust between the parties and it enables those discussions to move forward.
QUESTION: So this public move, do you believe that it will bring the Palestinians closer to negotiation? It’s going to bring them to the table after you make this public?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I can’t speak – I can’t speak for them, but again, we didn’t – the old – look, I’ll be blunt. The President ran against the foreign policy establishment to some degree. He ran against conventional wisdom. He said he was going to do things differently. He was, at times, sharply critical on the campaign trail of past bipartisan positions, and he has, at times, been sharply critical of those bipartisan positions as President. He said he was going to do things differently, and he’s doing something differently. The – I’m going to steal a thought from [Senior Official Three], which you may – you can tell me if I’m incorrectly characterizing something he said yesterday. But he said the idea that the physical location of the American embassy was somehow integral to peace, that we linked it to peace – an American policy linked it to peace, it might have made sense at a certain point as a – or as a speculative point. Maybe if we tied these two things together, it would have some productive outcome. But it has been definitively tried for many decades now. This idea that where the American embassy is, or America taking no position on where the Israeli capital is, has been tried. It has not facilitated peace, and the President is – the record is clear and it is long, and so he is moving forward on the basis of obvious reality.
Yes, as you say, people have been critical. And he’s been critical of past approaches, too. So I don’t think it should surprise people that he’s willing to make a break from past practice. It’s not the first one he’s made from past practice, and it probably won’t be the last one he will make in his administration. Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. Phillip Crowther with France 24. Just one thing, sir. You mentioned about this action being fully coordinated with international partners. I’d like to know whether Russia was involved. You are better experts on this than I am, but as far as I know, Russia is the only other country to have recognized now not Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but West Jerusalem. Did you coordinate – did you call Russia? Did you talk to them about how this went for them and how that might have an effect on your move as it will be announced by the President in a few hours’ time?
And then one other question: Did you and did the President try to put together a coalition of countries that might make the same move? This is something that the United States likes to do, be at the head of a coalition, diplomatically speaking. Did you try to get other countries to make that same announcement, either today or in the coming months or years? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: You want to start?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: You want to start? I can, if you want.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Why don’t you go ahead?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: Look, second question – second part of your question first. No, this was not part of a coalition-building initiative. It was a decision taken by the President on behalf of the U.S. Government because he believed, weighing all of the factors, circumstances, previous experience, his hopes for the peace process moving forward, believed was the right time to do, coincident with the calendar date of December 4th and the waiver requirement. It was not a coalition-related issue.
In terms of coordination with the international community, I think coordination is not the term here. It is outreach to, discussion with, solicitation of views from, the international community. And there were very detailed discussions – not just in the immediate context of this decision, but preceding – on the character of peacemaking, the character of the region, where Arab parties were, where key international parties were on these issues. And then, of course, in the immediate sense of this decision, the President, other senior officials, the Secretary of State, had been making calls. They’d been very detailed discussions, and I would say, broadly speaking, we have put forward our views as to the thinking behind this step. I think there is no question by any of our interlocutors that the President and the U.S. committed to advancing peace in the region. But coordination is not a term I would apply. It’s discussion with, consultation with, a dialogue with.
And Russia specifically, no, to my knowledge, there has not – there is an outreach pending with the Russians. But very frankly, on this issue, to see Russia as a critical actor on this question in specific, it’s not part of the calculus here.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: The last phone call the President had with President Putin – I don’t remember the date; it was about a month ago. They didn’t just talk about this.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: No.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: It was overwhelmingly about Syria, that call. So – I don’t know what may have happened at other levels --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: I think that’s the case, been consistently. It has all been focused on Syria-related issues.
QUESTION: Quickly, a follow-up: Was the Russian example – may I quickly follow up? Was the Russian example of recognizing West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, though, used in discussions that the President had?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: Not a factor.
QUESTION: Yes, please. Thomas Gorguissian, with Al Ahram, Egypt. The first question is – a few times you ask about East Jerusalem, West Jerusalem. You still believe in that definitions, or you just call it Jerusalem?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I – we’re just going to have to give the same answer. (Laughter.) I – we’re saying that the United States is not prejudging anything, and we’re not even – we’re not making any statement or taking any action that may even be construed as prejudging anything. We fully recognize that these are sensitive issues and they have to be negotiated by the parties. We want to be there to help facilitate such a negotiation, to help them achieve an agreement. We don’t think our role is to come forward with a “this is what you have to do,” or “the U.S. opinion is the following, and therefore just do what we say.” We think that that’s not the way to go. So we’re not taking a position; we’re there to help the parties negotiate a resolution to those sensitive issues.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: And I would ask you to listen to the literal construct, word by word: “This is a recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel.” Pay attention to what’s there and what’s not in that phrase. We’re not the ones making reference – East, West Jerusalem. Those are boundaries of sovereignty in Jerusalem. We are not touching on those issues at all.
QUESTION: Yeah, I mean, I’m trying to ask questions more than negotiating (inaudible). (Laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: No, but the answer I’m trying to make as clear as I can.
QUESTION: Okay. My real question is: When you mention it’s not a gift, it’s not a gesture, how it is – this decision usually – any decision made by the President or White House or the administration is for the national interest of United States. How it’s going to help national interest of United States to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, knowing that whatever it may --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Again, I think this is the same question I’ve gotten before and I tried to address in my opening remarks, because I’ve gotten it a few times. The President thinks that (a) an approach that has been tried for a number of years hasn’t produced the desired result, so it’s time for a new approach; (b) we’ll have a better opportunity to forge a real agreement on the basis of truth and reality than on the basis of a sort of polite fiction that everybody knows is a polite fiction; and (c) taking this issue – ceasing to pretend that Jerusalem is the capital – not the capital of Israel – taking this issue sort of off the table and just recognizing it’s a fact will help the parties, we think and hope, focus on the issues that are not, in a sense – that are universally recognized need to be resolved.
QUESTION: Could you just try to clarify – I mean, when you say “fiction,” and then few times you repeated “fiction” – I’m just trying --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, what I’m saying is a fiction is – so the fact that the Knesset, the supreme court, the prime minister’s office, the government ministries are all in Jerusalem, and the U.S. says we don’t know if it’s the – or we just – we decline to say that it’s the capital.
QUESTION: And in the same time, like, just – I’m trying to understand it, because when you are mentioning before that there is no boundaries now and it’s going to be decided by the – during the deal or the ultimate deal, as you – how it’s going to be – if you have an envisioning the future, how it’s going to be based on what? People are going to say this is the boundaries of Jerusalem that is (inaudible).
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: They’ll have to negotiate that.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: Exactly. It’s the same as it’s always been. Every aspect that touches on the specific boundaries, the (few words in Arabic), with respect to Jerusalem, have to be negotiated. This statement does not prejudice, this gesture does not prejudice in any way those permanent status or final status discussions. It is a simple recognition of a reality which has always been there. It’s been there since 1995 when the act was passed. The circumstances at that time, as [Senior Administration Official One] referred to, were quite different in terms of sensitivities and context. They’ve evolved over the years. But what has stayed the same is the understanding Jerusalem is the capital. How one defines those specific boundaries of sovereignty, that’s a permanent status or final status negotiation point, and is not being touched on here.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: If I could add to it too, though, consider the anomaly. There’s an anomaly where the seat of the Israeli Government – the parliament, the prime minister – those functions are in one city and our embassy is a different one, and you’d be hard pressed to find other places in the world where this anomaly is also in effect. And so what we’re doing is acknowledging a reality of where the seat of government is, rather than placing it somewhere else.
QUESTION: Could you be wrong about your reality, considering that zero embassies from the entire world --
MODERATOR: Could you please speak in the mic?
QUESTION: Sorry. Could you be wrong, that there’s no other embassies in the world – that they have embassies in Jerusalem?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I mean, wrong about what? Are we wrong that the Knesset is in Jerusalem? I don’t think we are.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: No --
QUESTION: No, but taking an Israeli position. And that’s my point, that basically many people believe you’re abdicating your role as an honest broker, and many argue you’ve never been an honest broker, but now you’re taking a pro-Israel position that will jeopardize any potential for Palestinian or Arab partners to come to the table and negotiate with the Israelis.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: You are making a number of judgments, which is of course your absolute right to do. We are explaining to you why this decision has been taken and what it does and does not constitute. And I can only repeat: We are not taking a position that touches on permanent status or final status negotiations on the boundaries of sovereignty in Jerusalem. That all has to be worked between the parties.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And I hope if everybody just takes one thing away from this – or at least quote it, whether you take it away or not – (laughter) – the President really, genuinely, sincerely wants to make a deal, or wants to be – he wants to see a deal happen. The parties – only the parties can make the deal, but he wants to facilitate a deal, he wants to see a deal happen, and he genuinely, sincerely believes it’s possible and that it’s within reach.
QUESTION: Hayvi Bouzo, bureau chief of Orient News in Washington. I don’t know if I’ve missed anything, but is it – are we going to be --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’re kind of saying the same thing over and over again, so – (laughter) – not really.
QUESTION: It’s all fiction, anyway.
QUESTION: That’s what I’m --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: You missed it. You did.
QUESTION: Yeah. But is there going to be an initiative, or a strategy that’s going to be laid out by the President today as part of this recognition, and are we going to be also asking for anything in return from Israel in terms of making any sort of compromise to reaching a deal?
And what is – I mean, there’s also the concern that this will hurt the progress that was made by Arab – Arab nations and Israel getting closer to each other and will backlash on the whole kind of progress that’s been made so far. So it’s a three-point question, if you’ll allow me.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I think to the give-and-take point, we did answer that earlier, that we don’t see this as a gift or something. It’s a recognition of reality. Will the President have a plan in his remarks today? No, but looking forward, we’re looking – we’re hopeful that sooner rather than later, maybe within months, more details of the U.S. approach could be made public. But for now, the negotiations between the President’s peace team and the Israelis and the Palestinians have been confidential, and we think that that confidentiality has been very beneficial to the process and are sticking to it for now. But we hope to be able to make more details public fairly soon, just not today.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: And with respect to your last point, we believe profoundly that the burgeoning relationships, shared views, common concerns of Israel and many states in the Middle East and North Africa are based upon a shared sense of common threat, common challenge, hostile forces and states acting upon it within the region; common interests. Those don’t change as a consequence of any decision or step like this. They stay on a very sound foundation. That foundation endures so long as the common interests and the common threats endure.
QUESTION: So you don’t think, [Senior Administration Official Three], that this would help?
MODERATOR: Please --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
MODERATOR: -- wait for the microphone.
QUESTION: You don’t think this will end up helping Iran, or helping Hizballah, or Hamas, or other groups that have rallied for decades around Jerusalem?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: We believe this is the right step to take at this time from the standpoint of U.S. interests and the President’s hope that a peace process can move forward on a basis of acknowledgment of reality, hope for a construct that can assist not just Israel and the Palestinians, but all the states of the region.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And I will just point to the President’s remarks on Iran in October, in which he noted and gave evidence, walked a bit through the history of the – a proxy war that Iran has been waging against the United States since 1979. I don’t think they’re doing that fundamentally over the physical location of the American embassy or recognition of Jerusalem. They may find those things useful as pretexts to rally terrorists and other extremists who would be inclined to act against the United States anyway, and I fully expect them to keep doing that, which is one of the reasons why the President has developed a very robust strategy to confront and counter Iranian malign influence.
And that malign influence is one of the factors – one of the common interests that [Senior Administration Official Three] mentioned that links the Gulf countries, that we share with the Egyptians, and ultimately with Israel as well.
Yes.
QUESTION: Anne Walters with the German Press Agency. You mentioned the ongoing negotiations and I’m wondering if you can give us – I know you can’t tell us details, but any indication of how this fits into those ongoing negotiations, particularly in regards to the timing as to why – I know the waiver is expiring, but why not do this six months ago, or six months from now, or even a year from now when the negotiations are proceeded a little further?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: As to how it fits in, I guess I’ll just say this again: It’s the recognition of reality – I mean, how --
QUESTION: But what’s different from reality now from six months ago?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I mean – well, okay, I guess I can say, well, what’s different from – I mean, we’ve let this go – this policy sort of run since the past – 22 years ago. Whenever it changed, if it had changed at the 17-year mark, or the 18-year mark, or the 21-year mark, you could ask the same question. One of the things that changed is a President got elected who said, “I don’t think this has – this approach has worked. I’m going to change it.”
As to why he didn’t specifically do it at the first waiver, I’m not going to go into the history of it. I mean, it’s water under the bridge at this point. He said he was going to do it. He said all along he was going to do it. At the time he signed the first waiver, he said it was a matter of when and not if, and so it is happening now. And his reasoning is, that moving forward on the basis of reality, on the basis of objective ground truth will help the parties get a better deal. If we stop pretending that this fact that everybody knows is not a fact that everybody knows, we will have a better chance at getting a genuine, workable deal that gives the parties what they’ve been seeking for decades, which is a lasting peace agreement.
QUESTION: Yes, please.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No. Actually, you’ve not had a question. Let’s make this the last one. I think everybody else who’s wanted to ask one has asked one.
QUESTION: Hello. Cordelia Lynch, Sky News.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah.
QUESTION: I wondered if I could just ask you – you referred to some of the concern being overblown and some people’s public and private positions being different. Do you think, therefore, that some of the public statements have been misleading?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t know that I would say misleading. I mean, I give people credit for being genuine when they say that they’re concerned that certain actions may have certain effects, and we may take – the United States may take different views about that. We always take people at their word. We’ll have to see whether this action has the effects that some have predicted. I mean, I can – there have – I can just say in the past, similar predictions have been made about various pronouncements or U.S. actions, and the scenarios that were predicted have not come true, or at least not in the magnitude, and we’ll see what happens here. That’s certainly what we’re hoping for in this case.
But in any event, those concerns, I think are, in part at least, reflective of this conventional wisdom – bipartisan conventional wisdom in the U.S. and maybe international conventional wisdom that the President, in a lot of respects, has rejected. So I don’t think it should be surprising that, in this instance, and in other instances, he listens to these concerns, factors them into his decision, but in the end, he decides to do something – I mean, do a different thing.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: But what – if I could add to that too, though, we do take those concerns quite seriously. We have – across the U.S. Government, we’ve oriented the Intelligence Community on these issues. We’ve also, in terms of military, Diplomatic Security, taken a series of measures and prudent precautions.
And as you’re well aware, it’s – there’s issues throughout the Middle East that could immediately spark other issues. For example, the Iranian missile fired at Riyadh International Airport on the 4th of November, very serious pieces there. And so the danger of escalation of any of these incidents we take quite seriously and are prepared for that or looking for indications and warnings. And I think you’ll see that our administration is postured well to understand those undercurrents, respond to those, and to move forward.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you all for participating
We can begin now. At the conclusion of opening remarks, there will be time for questions. I would just ask that when you ask questions, you identify the outlet you represent, you wait for the microphone, and you state your name. Thank you.
QUESTION: Anything on an embargo on this?
MODERATOR: The embargo – thank you – will be complete at the completion of this briefing. So for that – for purposes – okay, very good.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I know some of you were there in the briefing room last night, or many of you may have read the transcript or had dialed in, so I – rather than repeat what I said, I’ll maybe just respond to some of the lines of inquiry that we’ve been getting overnight. We want to reiterate and clarify that this action is a recognition of reality and not a prejudgment by the United States on any final status issues. I think we can’t say that often enough. Even as often as I’ve been saying it, people still – some haven’t quite gotten it.
I think – the other question we’ve gotten is why now. Is this just the fulfillment of a campaign promise? Is there is no foreign policy rationale to this? And the answer to why now, I mean, the narrowest sense of why now is because there was a waiver that expired and some action had to be taken. It is – it’s a fulfillment of a campaign promise but it’s more than the fulfillment of a campaign promise; it’s the fulfilment of something the President said long ago ought to be done, needs to be done. And the President believes that by following through on what he said he would do, by following through on his stated word, he’s augmenting confidence in himself, in his government, in his administration. He’s showing leaders that he does what he says he’s going to do. And I think he thinks that acknowledging reality will help all the parties. I know that he thinks that acknowledging reality will help all the parties move forward on the basis of truth and of a genuine understanding.
As I think we said in the backgrounder yesterday, the United States doesn’t envision a scenario in which after a final status agreement, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. If I could be glib and give [Senior Administration Official Three] kind of a heart attack, I mean, I don’t even know that I could – it’s impossible to even envision a scenario in which the Israelis says okay, well, as part of a final status agreement, we’ll move the capital to Ashkelon or something. They’re not going to do that and everybody knows that. And I think even people who say this is provocative or criticize this decision, they all know that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. So I think some of the concern is maybe a bit overblown.
And then to the question of, well, does this undermine the prospects for peace. The President absolutely doesn’t believe it undermines the prospects for peace. He’s very optimistic about the prospects for a peace deal. He’s – he thinks that his administration and his peace team have built very good relations with both sides and with the other Arab countries who he thinks has – have a central role in helping facilitate a deal. And again, he thinks that an acknowledgement of the reality sort of removes this issue. We’ve now moved past the fiction that there might be this possibility that Jerusalem won’t be the capital of Israel, and everybody just – if we can understand that that’s the truth, taking this issue out, in a sense, means – allows the parties a better chance to focus on very sensitive issues that are not resolved, where there isn’t a common understanding of how this is going to turn out and that can only be resolved through negotiations, and that’s where the focus should be.
I’ll stop there. If anybody else wants to open, go ahead.
QUESTION: Can I ask – can we open --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Do you want to say anything?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Do I want to?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. (Laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Sure. Let me just make a – just a couple of points. [Senior Administration Official One] has already introduced, but the – I would note that this action’s been fully coordinated with both Congress and international partners on this issue. Obviously, some have different views and may actually advise things in private that they don’t say in public, which I think is – goes without saying. But there has been broad bipartisan support in Congress for this issue since 1995, and you witnessed the reaction to the last waiver the President signed in the Senate, an overwhelming vote on that.
Just a couple of points I think of clarification that are useful is that the President’s instructing the State Department to develop a plan to relocate the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And so the expectation is it’s not going to happen overnight. This is now the first step in a multi-year process. And as many of you know, there’s also laws that we have to follow in terms of the force protection at embassies and all those other things. And so it may sound like we could just put up a sign and this would be complete, but we also have other regulations and laws that we have to follow as well in doing that.
And then I would note the departments and agencies have implemented a robust security plan to ensure the safety of American citizens and assets in the region, and are quite confident about that. The – just a couple more that are useful I think. The specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem will be subject to final status negotiations between the two parties, and so this is not a decision on boundaries or borders.
At the same time, I would note the President will reaffirm that the United States supports the maintenance of the status quo on the Temple Mount and the Haram al-Sharif – that will remain under the current conditions – and that the President remains committed to achieving this lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. As [Senior Administration Official One] said, he’s optimistic, but he’s also prepared to support a two-state solution to the dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians, if agreed to by both of the parties.
MODERATOR: Okay, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, thank you for doing – thank you for doing this. Joyce Karam with Al-Hayat and The National. It just strikes me that you don’t have one Arab partner supporting you in this, none from Europe that we’ve seen so far. So to you, [Senior Administration Official Two], I know you follow Gulf relations: How much are you worried that this would actually undermine your relations, U.S. relations with the GCC partner? And since you’re not even prepared to support the two-state solution or, as you say, if the two parties agree to it, what exactly are you giving the Palestinians at such a dire moment in their reality?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: We’ve had detailed conversations with our Gulf partners, with other partners in the region, and I won’t characterize those specifically. I do not believe that this will undermine those. We’ll continue to work with them on this issue, but also other issues in the region. For example, the war in Yemen, the crisis in Syria, Lebanon, Sinai, all those other issues. And so we’ll continue in that vein.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: In terms of what we’re giving the – I don’t know the specifics, but the United States does give the Palestinians a substantial amount of aid. We also work with Arab allies and partners to help the Palestinians, and we’re working with allies and Arab partners specifically to help achieve a deal and help a future Palestinian people – we’re trying to help them achieve a deal and help them on the other end of a deal, on the other side of a deal, and continue that help from their Arab partners with the United States' assistance and encouragement. And I would say the main thing the President – I don’t know that I would put it the way you put it, “giving the Palestinians,” but the main thing he’s doing for the Palestinians, he’s working hard to try to get them a deal, try to get them a resolution of the conflict that they have sought – they’ve sought that resolution for decades and it hasn’t been able to be achieved under past administrations. This President has thrown his full support behind it, his personal support when he speaks to Arab leaders, when he speaks to the prime minister of Israel, and he’s made it a top priority for his administration. I mean, I think that’s a pretty substantial commitment?
Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. Nadia Bilbassy with Al Arabiya. By nature of being a White House correspondent and foreign correspondent and give us two questions. So, [Senior Administration Official One], you just said the question is whether Jerusalem is not going to be the capital of Israel or not. The more – the question that’s more appropriate is, everybody maybe acknowledged that West Jerusalem is going to be the capital of Israel, but what about East Jerusalem being the capital of a future Palestinian state in any negotiation? Will the President allude to that or not? That’s the question.
And as you know, in Middle East negotiation or, in fact, in any negotiation, everybody said – it’s give-and-take. So you’ve given the Israelis something that you’re not asking for anything in return. So if you really care for – about this peace deal that the President has been talked about and working on it, why not asking the Israelis to halt the building of settlements in return for recognizing Jerusalem or even moving the embassy?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: I’ll answer those questions. Look, the first question – East Jerusalem, why not make some acknowledgment? Let me reiterate, this step is an acknowledgment of reality that Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel. There is no position taken through this decision on any of the final status, permanent status issues that touch on the specific boundaries of sovereignty in Jerusalem – (two words in Arabic) East Jerusalem. They’re not affected by this. The President recognizes fully and this decision is wholly consistent with his view that those questions are ones for discussion and negotiation between the two parties in the course of final status discussions, and that the U.S. would, in the context of an agreement reached by the parties in those negotiations, support a two-state resolution. So no change there. None. And that touches on all of the issues; you raised East Jerusalem, but there are many others that could be put into that same basket.
Now, the quid pro quo question you’re asking, let me try to walk a bit back from this. This is not a gift or a gesture to any party. It is a decision on behalf of the United States Government that the time has come to take this step. And to present it in the context of “you’re giving something here, why don’t you give something there?” is a misreading of what’s being done. This is a U.S. step; it’s a decision taken by the U.S. Government for reasons which my colleagues have elaborated – the President believes now is the time to make this acknowledgment.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: So I’d also reiterate a point that I made yesterday, without going into detail, because I can’t and I don’t want to undermine the progress that’s been made. There are points of negotiation that are not public, right? You don’t necessarily – we’re deliberately not making it public in order to preserve confidentiality, in order to keep moving forward. So don’t – it would be a mistake to presume that the President hasn’t made progress along these areas in precisely the way you suggested, a bit of give-and-take between the parties, and one of the reasons, again, it’s going well and he’s hopeful is because it’s remained a secret, and remaining confidential increases trust between the parties and it enables those discussions to move forward.
QUESTION: So this public move, do you believe that it will bring the Palestinians closer to negotiation? It’s going to bring them to the table after you make this public?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I can’t speak – I can’t speak for them, but again, we didn’t – the old – look, I’ll be blunt. The President ran against the foreign policy establishment to some degree. He ran against conventional wisdom. He said he was going to do things differently. He was, at times, sharply critical on the campaign trail of past bipartisan positions, and he has, at times, been sharply critical of those bipartisan positions as President. He said he was going to do things differently, and he’s doing something differently. The – I’m going to steal a thought from [Senior Official Three], which you may – you can tell me if I’m incorrectly characterizing something he said yesterday. But he said the idea that the physical location of the American embassy was somehow integral to peace, that we linked it to peace – an American policy linked it to peace, it might have made sense at a certain point as a – or as a speculative point. Maybe if we tied these two things together, it would have some productive outcome. But it has been definitively tried for many decades now. This idea that where the American embassy is, or America taking no position on where the Israeli capital is, has been tried. It has not facilitated peace, and the President is – the record is clear and it is long, and so he is moving forward on the basis of obvious reality.
Yes, as you say, people have been critical. And he’s been critical of past approaches, too. So I don’t think it should surprise people that he’s willing to make a break from past practice. It’s not the first one he’s made from past practice, and it probably won’t be the last one he will make in his administration. Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. Phillip Crowther with France 24. Just one thing, sir. You mentioned about this action being fully coordinated with international partners. I’d like to know whether Russia was involved. You are better experts on this than I am, but as far as I know, Russia is the only other country to have recognized now not Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but West Jerusalem. Did you coordinate – did you call Russia? Did you talk to them about how this went for them and how that might have an effect on your move as it will be announced by the President in a few hours’ time?
And then one other question: Did you and did the President try to put together a coalition of countries that might make the same move? This is something that the United States likes to do, be at the head of a coalition, diplomatically speaking. Did you try to get other countries to make that same announcement, either today or in the coming months or years? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: You want to start?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: You want to start? I can, if you want.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Why don’t you go ahead?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: Look, second question – second part of your question first. No, this was not part of a coalition-building initiative. It was a decision taken by the President on behalf of the U.S. Government because he believed, weighing all of the factors, circumstances, previous experience, his hopes for the peace process moving forward, believed was the right time to do, coincident with the calendar date of December 4th and the waiver requirement. It was not a coalition-related issue.
In terms of coordination with the international community, I think coordination is not the term here. It is outreach to, discussion with, solicitation of views from, the international community. And there were very detailed discussions – not just in the immediate context of this decision, but preceding – on the character of peacemaking, the character of the region, where Arab parties were, where key international parties were on these issues. And then, of course, in the immediate sense of this decision, the President, other senior officials, the Secretary of State, had been making calls. They’d been very detailed discussions, and I would say, broadly speaking, we have put forward our views as to the thinking behind this step. I think there is no question by any of our interlocutors that the President and the U.S. committed to advancing peace in the region. But coordination is not a term I would apply. It’s discussion with, consultation with, a dialogue with.
And Russia specifically, no, to my knowledge, there has not – there is an outreach pending with the Russians. But very frankly, on this issue, to see Russia as a critical actor on this question in specific, it’s not part of the calculus here.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: The last phone call the President had with President Putin – I don’t remember the date; it was about a month ago. They didn’t just talk about this.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: No.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: It was overwhelmingly about Syria, that call. So – I don’t know what may have happened at other levels --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: I think that’s the case, been consistently. It has all been focused on Syria-related issues.
QUESTION: Quickly, a follow-up: Was the Russian example – may I quickly follow up? Was the Russian example of recognizing West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, though, used in discussions that the President had?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: Not a factor.
QUESTION: Yes, please. Thomas Gorguissian, with Al Ahram, Egypt. The first question is – a few times you ask about East Jerusalem, West Jerusalem. You still believe in that definitions, or you just call it Jerusalem?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I – we’re just going to have to give the same answer. (Laughter.) I – we’re saying that the United States is not prejudging anything, and we’re not even – we’re not making any statement or taking any action that may even be construed as prejudging anything. We fully recognize that these are sensitive issues and they have to be negotiated by the parties. We want to be there to help facilitate such a negotiation, to help them achieve an agreement. We don’t think our role is to come forward with a “this is what you have to do,” or “the U.S. opinion is the following, and therefore just do what we say.” We think that that’s not the way to go. So we’re not taking a position; we’re there to help the parties negotiate a resolution to those sensitive issues.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: And I would ask you to listen to the literal construct, word by word: “This is a recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel.” Pay attention to what’s there and what’s not in that phrase. We’re not the ones making reference – East, West Jerusalem. Those are boundaries of sovereignty in Jerusalem. We are not touching on those issues at all.
QUESTION: Yeah, I mean, I’m trying to ask questions more than negotiating (inaudible). (Laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: No, but the answer I’m trying to make as clear as I can.
QUESTION: Okay. My real question is: When you mention it’s not a gift, it’s not a gesture, how it is – this decision usually – any decision made by the President or White House or the administration is for the national interest of United States. How it’s going to help national interest of United States to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, knowing that whatever it may --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Again, I think this is the same question I’ve gotten before and I tried to address in my opening remarks, because I’ve gotten it a few times. The President thinks that (a) an approach that has been tried for a number of years hasn’t produced the desired result, so it’s time for a new approach; (b) we’ll have a better opportunity to forge a real agreement on the basis of truth and reality than on the basis of a sort of polite fiction that everybody knows is a polite fiction; and (c) taking this issue – ceasing to pretend that Jerusalem is the capital – not the capital of Israel – taking this issue sort of off the table and just recognizing it’s a fact will help the parties, we think and hope, focus on the issues that are not, in a sense – that are universally recognized need to be resolved.
QUESTION: Could you just try to clarify – I mean, when you say “fiction,” and then few times you repeated “fiction” – I’m just trying --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, what I’m saying is a fiction is – so the fact that the Knesset, the supreme court, the prime minister’s office, the government ministries are all in Jerusalem, and the U.S. says we don’t know if it’s the – or we just – we decline to say that it’s the capital.
QUESTION: And in the same time, like, just – I’m trying to understand it, because when you are mentioning before that there is no boundaries now and it’s going to be decided by the – during the deal or the ultimate deal, as you – how it’s going to be – if you have an envisioning the future, how it’s going to be based on what? People are going to say this is the boundaries of Jerusalem that is (inaudible).
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: They’ll have to negotiate that.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: Exactly. It’s the same as it’s always been. Every aspect that touches on the specific boundaries, the (few words in Arabic), with respect to Jerusalem, have to be negotiated. This statement does not prejudice, this gesture does not prejudice in any way those permanent status or final status discussions. It is a simple recognition of a reality which has always been there. It’s been there since 1995 when the act was passed. The circumstances at that time, as [Senior Administration Official One] referred to, were quite different in terms of sensitivities and context. They’ve evolved over the years. But what has stayed the same is the understanding Jerusalem is the capital. How one defines those specific boundaries of sovereignty, that’s a permanent status or final status negotiation point, and is not being touched on here.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: If I could add to it too, though, consider the anomaly. There’s an anomaly where the seat of the Israeli Government – the parliament, the prime minister – those functions are in one city and our embassy is a different one, and you’d be hard pressed to find other places in the world where this anomaly is also in effect. And so what we’re doing is acknowledging a reality of where the seat of government is, rather than placing it somewhere else.
QUESTION: Could you be wrong about your reality, considering that zero embassies from the entire world --
MODERATOR: Could you please speak in the mic?
QUESTION: Sorry. Could you be wrong, that there’s no other embassies in the world – that they have embassies in Jerusalem?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I mean, wrong about what? Are we wrong that the Knesset is in Jerusalem? I don’t think we are.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: No --
QUESTION: No, but taking an Israeli position. And that’s my point, that basically many people believe you’re abdicating your role as an honest broker, and many argue you’ve never been an honest broker, but now you’re taking a pro-Israel position that will jeopardize any potential for Palestinian or Arab partners to come to the table and negotiate with the Israelis.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: You are making a number of judgments, which is of course your absolute right to do. We are explaining to you why this decision has been taken and what it does and does not constitute. And I can only repeat: We are not taking a position that touches on permanent status or final status negotiations on the boundaries of sovereignty in Jerusalem. That all has to be worked between the parties.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And I hope if everybody just takes one thing away from this – or at least quote it, whether you take it away or not – (laughter) – the President really, genuinely, sincerely wants to make a deal, or wants to be – he wants to see a deal happen. The parties – only the parties can make the deal, but he wants to facilitate a deal, he wants to see a deal happen, and he genuinely, sincerely believes it’s possible and that it’s within reach.
QUESTION: Hayvi Bouzo, bureau chief of Orient News in Washington. I don’t know if I’ve missed anything, but is it – are we going to be --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’re kind of saying the same thing over and over again, so – (laughter) – not really.
QUESTION: It’s all fiction, anyway.
QUESTION: That’s what I’m --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: You missed it. You did.
QUESTION: Yeah. But is there going to be an initiative, or a strategy that’s going to be laid out by the President today as part of this recognition, and are we going to be also asking for anything in return from Israel in terms of making any sort of compromise to reaching a deal?
And what is – I mean, there’s also the concern that this will hurt the progress that was made by Arab – Arab nations and Israel getting closer to each other and will backlash on the whole kind of progress that’s been made so far. So it’s a three-point question, if you’ll allow me.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I think to the give-and-take point, we did answer that earlier, that we don’t see this as a gift or something. It’s a recognition of reality. Will the President have a plan in his remarks today? No, but looking forward, we’re looking – we’re hopeful that sooner rather than later, maybe within months, more details of the U.S. approach could be made public. But for now, the negotiations between the President’s peace team and the Israelis and the Palestinians have been confidential, and we think that that confidentiality has been very beneficial to the process and are sticking to it for now. But we hope to be able to make more details public fairly soon, just not today.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: And with respect to your last point, we believe profoundly that the burgeoning relationships, shared views, common concerns of Israel and many states in the Middle East and North Africa are based upon a shared sense of common threat, common challenge, hostile forces and states acting upon it within the region; common interests. Those don’t change as a consequence of any decision or step like this. They stay on a very sound foundation. That foundation endures so long as the common interests and the common threats endure.
QUESTION: So you don’t think, [Senior Administration Official Three], that this would help?
MODERATOR: Please --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
MODERATOR: -- wait for the microphone.
QUESTION: You don’t think this will end up helping Iran, or helping Hizballah, or Hamas, or other groups that have rallied for decades around Jerusalem?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: We believe this is the right step to take at this time from the standpoint of U.S. interests and the President’s hope that a peace process can move forward on a basis of acknowledgment of reality, hope for a construct that can assist not just Israel and the Palestinians, but all the states of the region.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And I will just point to the President’s remarks on Iran in October, in which he noted and gave evidence, walked a bit through the history of the – a proxy war that Iran has been waging against the United States since 1979. I don’t think they’re doing that fundamentally over the physical location of the American embassy or recognition of Jerusalem. They may find those things useful as pretexts to rally terrorists and other extremists who would be inclined to act against the United States anyway, and I fully expect them to keep doing that, which is one of the reasons why the President has developed a very robust strategy to confront and counter Iranian malign influence.
And that malign influence is one of the factors – one of the common interests that [Senior Administration Official Three] mentioned that links the Gulf countries, that we share with the Egyptians, and ultimately with Israel as well.
Yes.
QUESTION: Anne Walters with the German Press Agency. You mentioned the ongoing negotiations and I’m wondering if you can give us – I know you can’t tell us details, but any indication of how this fits into those ongoing negotiations, particularly in regards to the timing as to why – I know the waiver is expiring, but why not do this six months ago, or six months from now, or even a year from now when the negotiations are proceeded a little further?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: As to how it fits in, I guess I’ll just say this again: It’s the recognition of reality – I mean, how --
QUESTION: But what’s different from reality now from six months ago?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I mean – well, okay, I guess I can say, well, what’s different from – I mean, we’ve let this go – this policy sort of run since the past – 22 years ago. Whenever it changed, if it had changed at the 17-year mark, or the 18-year mark, or the 21-year mark, you could ask the same question. One of the things that changed is a President got elected who said, “I don’t think this has – this approach has worked. I’m going to change it.”
As to why he didn’t specifically do it at the first waiver, I’m not going to go into the history of it. I mean, it’s water under the bridge at this point. He said he was going to do it. He said all along he was going to do it. At the time he signed the first waiver, he said it was a matter of when and not if, and so it is happening now. And his reasoning is, that moving forward on the basis of reality, on the basis of objective ground truth will help the parties get a better deal. If we stop pretending that this fact that everybody knows is not a fact that everybody knows, we will have a better chance at getting a genuine, workable deal that gives the parties what they’ve been seeking for decades, which is a lasting peace agreement.
QUESTION: Yes, please.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No. Actually, you’ve not had a question. Let’s make this the last one. I think everybody else who’s wanted to ask one has asked one.
QUESTION: Hello. Cordelia Lynch, Sky News.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah.
QUESTION: I wondered if I could just ask you – you referred to some of the concern being overblown and some people’s public and private positions being different. Do you think, therefore, that some of the public statements have been misleading?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t know that I would say misleading. I mean, I give people credit for being genuine when they say that they’re concerned that certain actions may have certain effects, and we may take – the United States may take different views about that. We always take people at their word. We’ll have to see whether this action has the effects that some have predicted. I mean, I can – there have – I can just say in the past, similar predictions have been made about various pronouncements or U.S. actions, and the scenarios that were predicted have not come true, or at least not in the magnitude, and we’ll see what happens here. That’s certainly what we’re hoping for in this case.
But in any event, those concerns, I think are, in part at least, reflective of this conventional wisdom – bipartisan conventional wisdom in the U.S. and maybe international conventional wisdom that the President, in a lot of respects, has rejected. So I don’t think it should be surprising that, in this instance, and in other instances, he listens to these concerns, factors them into his decision, but in the end, he decides to do something – I mean, do a different thing.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: But what – if I could add to that too, though, we do take those concerns quite seriously. We have – across the U.S. Government, we’ve oriented the Intelligence Community on these issues. We’ve also, in terms of military, Diplomatic Security, taken a series of measures and prudent precautions.
And as you’re well aware, it’s – there’s issues throughout the Middle East that could immediately spark other issues. For example, the Iranian missile fired at Riyadh International Airport on the 4th of November, very serious pieces there. And so the danger of escalation of any of these incidents we take quite seriously and are prepared for that or looking for indications and warnings. And I think you’ll see that our administration is postured well to understand those undercurrents, respond to those, and to move forward.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you all for participating
No comments:
Post a Comment