\n
\nTRANSCRIPT: <\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n\n
1:04 p.m. EST<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
\/…<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Let’s start with the Middle East.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Okay.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> As you probably have noticed, there seems to be some confusion, particularly in Israel, over where the United States and perhaps the Secretary himself personally stand on this whole BDS issue. So can you – and we went through this kind of a bit last week with Marie, but my line of questioning today is different than it was. Does – can you spell out as clearly as possible what the United States – what the Administration’s position is on BDS?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Well, I think you’re referring to the specific events around the Super Bowl issue that we talked about last week.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> No, no. Just in general about whether the United States supports or opposes the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions initiative, movement – whatever you want to call it – against Israel.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Sure. Well, let me be absolutely clear here. And I know, to your point, there was some confusion and mixed reporting – not reporting but confusion over the weekend. We are absolutely opposed, we have been opposed to any attempts at boycotts – boycotting Israel. Secretary Kerry himself personally, who, of course, is the world’s – or the United States chief diplomat at this point – has a proud record of over three decades of steadfast support for Israel’s security and well-being, including staunch opposition to boycotts. And just last year – and many of you were on this trip – you may remember that we were in Vilnius for a meeting of the EU foreign ministers – he made the case in that private meeting that they should refrain from implementing these types of measures. So as we often say, actions speak —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Sorry. Who – okay, sorry.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Actions speak louder than words. But go ahead, Matt.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> He made the case that who should refrain?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> The EU.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> The European Union. Okay. And outside of the private meeting – that private meeting, has he said this publicly?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> His opposition to boycotts?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Correct.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Absolutely. That has consistently been his position for three decades in public service.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> All right.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> There should be no doubt or question about it.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Okay. Notwithstanding the fact – or I think some would argue with the facts —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Mm-hmm.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> So notwithstanding your stated position against BDS —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Mm-hmm.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> — and the Secretary’s stated opposition, does the Administration or the Secretary believe that, while objectionable and while not a good idea, that BDS is potentially a useful or helpful thing to get Israel to make concessions as part of the negotiations?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> No, that is not our view, that’s not our strategy, that’s not what we’re pushing for in any capacity.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> All right.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> So there should be no confusion about that.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> To the best of your knowledge when the Secretary was a senator, did he ever disagree with previous administrations’ decisions to veto UN Security Council resolutions that the U.S. regarded as one-sided or biased against Israel?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> I’d have to look at his lengthy 30-year record in the Senate, Matt. But his own view, and whether it’s for or against, what was proposed by various administrations, has consistently been opposed to any form of boycott.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> And do you know if while he was a senator, and especially as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, if he ever supported a reduction in the substantial U.S. assistance that is provided to Israel every year?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> I can’t imagine he did, Matt, but I’d have to check his Senate record.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> So you would describe people’s suggestions that the Secretary is anti-Israel, or in fact to the extreme, anti-Semitic, as incorrect?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Absolutely incorrect; not based on any fact. He has had a 100 percent voting record throughout his career in the Senate. There is no greater advocate – or opponent, I should say, to boycotts – or proponent of Israel’s security and their future.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> So given all that, and this will be my last question —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Mm-hmm.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Given all that, is he dismayed or frustrated at all that some have taken – chosen to interpret his comments as being anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, or giving encouragement to people who are in favor of boycotts?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Well, certainly, he always expects anyone, even those who are against the efforts underway moving towards a peace process, not to distort his words or his record. And so I think that’s frustrating for not just him but for any of us.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Jen, just to follow up on the boycott issue, but that did not preclude the Secretary from saying or suggesting that a boycott is maybe the future for Israel, a warning in a friendly manner, despite his objection. Does it?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Well, I think we should be very clear about the context of this weekend. At the Munich Security Conference, which the Secretary was at this weekend and he gave remarks and Secretary Hagel gave remarks, he was asked a question about – let me finish – the ongoing peace process. He spoke forcefully – and anyone can look at the context of his comments – in defense of Israel’s interests as he consistently has for 30 years in public life. He also described some well-known and previously stated facts about what is at stake for both sides if this process fails, including the consequences for the Palestinians. His only reference to a boycott in his remarks was a description of actions undertaken by others that he has been a vocal opponent of, he has taken actions to oppose. So there should be no confusion or question about his record or his view on this issue.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Okay. Understood. But seeing – if this process fails and the world becomes more and more frustrated with the continuation of an endless occupation and the expansion of settlements and so on, that actually you may feel that this would be in the offing in the future – more boycotts, more restrictions, more isolation of Israeli – you do feel that way, don’t you?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> I’m not going to make any further predictions, Said. What I would say is that clearly there are stakes for both sides. There are reasons why the Secretary is so committed to this process, not just the Secretary but many international leaders around the world. And certainly, his opposition to boycotts and his desire to lead the charge against them will not change.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> (Off-mike.)<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Let me just follow up —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> But let’s just do one at a time.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Yeah, a little bit just —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Said, you have one more and then we’ll move to the next person.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> I want to move away —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Okay.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> — from the boycott issue and go to what Palestinian Authority President Abbas said about having the —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Can we finish this issue in case others have —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Sure, sure. Yes.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> — questions, and then we’ll go back to you?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Yes.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Go ahead, Jo.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> I wanted to ask – this is not the first time that the Secretary’s made this point. Back in June, he spoke to the American Jewish Committee —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Mm-hmm.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> — when he said that if there were no peace deal that there would be a continuing de-legitim – de-litig – I can’t say the word.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> It’s a tough one. I can’t do it either.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> De-legitimization.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> — of Israel. I mean, is there – going back to what Matt –he also made the same comments in a press conference in Tel Aviv at the airport that I attended. These are not new comments that he’s made.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Correct. Mm-hmm.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> So is – going back to what Matt’s question was, is there not a frustration on the part of the Administration, and particularly within the State Department and Secretary Kerry, that suddenly these comments have been seized upon and have become a big issue now in Israel in the middle of this peace process which you guys are trying to —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Sure. Well, Jo, I would say contextually we’re at a different point in the process than we were in June, and there’s no question that there is more pressure on the parties. That manifests itself in many different ways. What’s important is that the people of Israel understand no, that you cannot find a greater opponent of boycotts than Secretary Kerry, and his record speaks to that. And all we can do here is to continue to convey what is accurate and what the facts are.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
And so yes, he does expect that the parties – and whether they’re for or against his efforts or any efforts at all – will not distort his facts or his record. And that’s why we’re speaking forcefully on this issue.<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Jen, one of the larger contexts of this – you have these comments from the economy minister and from a member of the Knesset. You’ve had in the past couple of weeks comments from Minister Rabbo of the PA. Is there a concern within the State Department that neither side is doing the groundwork to prepare their people for what could come out of a peace deal, given how inflammatory these comments have been from both sides?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> That’s not how we view it, Roz. I would say we’re not surprised because this is now – we’re at a point in the process where we are discussing a framework for negotiations moving forward. There are decades – and to satisfy Matt, longer than decades of history on these issues. There is sensitivity about these issues. The leaders are making tough choices. And I know we’ll get to Said’s question in a second, but one of the things that President Abbas said in his interview was that he reiterated his commitment to it and his willingness to commit to it over the long term.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
So the parties are committed to – the parties who are negotiating over this are committed to sitting down at the table, addressing the tough choices. We can’t make a prediction of what the outcome will be, but it is not a surprise that at this challenging time in the process, given that we are talking about the core issues, that things have become more challenging politically.<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> What is the Administration doing then to make certain that the people who are actually in this negotiating room are not succumbing to the pressures, which seems to be the word of the day —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Mm-hmm.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> — coming from both sides? Clearly, there are domestic considerations for a member of the Knesset to say what he said about Mr. Kerry, for Mr. Rabbo to say what he has said about the validity of a Jewish state – what’s being done to inoculate the negotiators, as it were?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> Well, the negotiators – I think the fact that they remain engaged in the process tells you what you need to know. Yesterday, the Secretary met with Molho and Livni when he was in – where were we yesterday – Germany. (Laughter.) In Germany. They had a meeting. I think it lasted about 90 minutes. They discussed the core issues.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
The Secretary, of course, as needed, as do we, convey what is accurate and what is inaccurate when things are mischaracterized, and we’ll continue to do that.<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> That’s what I wanted to ask you. Is there any indication as of – since these comments and still the actual over them, is there any indication that anybody’s pulling out or that it’s compromised the discussions at all in any way?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> The fact that he met with the Israeli negotiators yesterday, that those – that meeting went on despite – even while these comments were being made tells you what you need to know about that.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Do you know, Jen, though, in that meeting, did he – did the Secretary raise this issue, or did this issue come up? Was it discussed at all?<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> He discussed it with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he also —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> On the phone.<\/p><\/div>\n\n
MS. PSAKI:<\/strong> On the phone. He also discussed it with Justice Minister Livni, but it was a very brief part of the conversation, and she made public comments about it, too —<\/p><\/div>\n\n
QUESTION:<\/strong> Right.<\/p><\/div>\n