ISS VIEW OF EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN AT NIGHT

FROM:  NASA 

Eastern Mediterranean Coastline at Night

This night photograph taken by astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS) shows the location and size of cities at the east end of the Mediterranean Sea. The largest, brightest cluster is the Israeli city of Tel Aviv, a port set against the blackness of the Mediterranean Sea. Jerusalem, Israel’s capital city, and Amman, Jordan’s capital, are the next largest (with Amman’s lights having a whiter tone), followed by Beersheba.

Bright but narrow lines that snake between the cities are highways. The darker areas with smaller patches of lights are mostly agricultural and pastoral areas of Israel, Sinai, the West Bank, and Jordan. A wide, almost black zone between Jerusalem and Amman trends north-south across the right half of the image; it is the long valley that includes the Jordan River and the Dead Sea.

Click here to view an astronaut image of the same area in daylight. And read more here about a new NASA crowd-sourcing project to identify cities and towns in night images from the space station.

Astronaut photograph ISS040-E-74022 was acquired on July 22, 2014, with a Nikon D3S digital camera using an 85 millimeter lens, and is provided by the ISS Crew Earth Observations Facility and the Earth Science and Remote Sensing Unit, Johnson Space Center. The image was taken by the Expedition 40 crew. It has been cropped and enhanced to improve contrast, and lens artifacts have been removed. The International Space Station Program supports the laboratory as part of the ISS National Lab to help astronauts take pictures of Earth that will be of the greatest value to scientists and the public, and to make those images freely available on the Internet. Additional images taken by astronauts and cosmonauts can be viewed at the NASA/JSC Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth. Caption by M. Justin Wilkinson, Jacobs at NASA-JSC.

DEFENSE SECRETARY HAGEL MEETS WITH ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTER YAALON IN TEL AVIV, ISRAEL

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, left center, meets with Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, right center, in Tel Aviv, Israel, May 15, 2014. Hagel met with the defense leader to discuss issues of mutual importance before he visited American and Israeli troops in the area. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo  
Hagel Meets With Israel’s Minister of Defense
By Claudette Roulo

American Forces Press Service

TEL AVIV, Israel, May 15, 2014 – Israel has had no closer ally or better friend than the United States, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said today after meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon at the Israeli defense ministry here.
Since taking office, Hagel has met with Yaalon six times

“Our defense relationship is as strong as it’s ever been,” the defense secretary said.

The two defense leaders discussed the ongoing P5+1 negotiations in Vienna over Iran’s nuclear weapons program and President Barack Obama’s commitment to ensuring that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.

“We also discussed America’s unwavering pledge to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge, including the provision of some of America’s most advanced capabilities,” Hagel said.

The defense secretary said he also spoke with Ya’alon about the need for continuing negotiations with Palestine and reaching a viable two-state solution.
“The frequent meetings that minister Yaalon and I have had, and the visit by President Obama’s national security advisor last week, speak clearly to the strength of our nations’ friendship,” Hagel said. “They speak clearly to the strength of America’s commitment to defend Israel.”

But, the defense secretary said, nothing speaks more clearly of America’s commitment than the concrete support it provides to Israel and its defense.
“That includes $3.1 billion per year in foreign military financing,” Hagel said. That’s more than the U.S. provided this year to any other nation, he noted, and more than the U.S. has provided to any other nation in American history.
“Our support also includes unparalleled military cooperation,” the defense secretary said, noting as an example the joint U.S.-Israel missile defense exercise Juniper Cobra, which starts later this month.

The five-day exercise involves more than 4,000 American and Israeli troops, with more than 700 American soldiers, sailors and airmen deploying to Israel. The exercise provides training in ballistic missile defense and humanitarian response. Two U.S. Navy Aegis-class ships will also participate while off the coast of Israel, the defense secretary noted.

Israel’s entire rocket and ballistic missile defense architecture is employed during Juniper Cobra, Hagel said, including Iron Dome, Arrow and David’s Sling. All three are platforms that the U.S. is “proud to have helped Israel finance and develop,” he added.

“This will be our European Command’s largest exercise this year, and it will be the seventh in the Juniper Cobra series, which began in 2001,” the defense secretary said.

Two months ago, the U.S. reached a milestone co-production agreement with Israel, raising its investment in the Iron Dome program to a total of nearly $900 million, he said. This will support additional batteries and interceptors.
Following Hagel’s meeting with Ya’alon, the two defense leaders traveled to Hatzor Air Base, about 30 miles south of Tel Aviv. There, they again stressed the strength of the bilateral relationship while speaking to U.S. and Israeli troops preparing for the start of Juniper Cobra.

Military-to-military cooperation between the two nations is stronger than ever, Hagel said, adding that he and Ya’alon are dedicated to ensuring the relationship grows even stronger.

“Israel’s security is -- and always will be -- non-negotiable,” the defense secretary said.

U.S. CONDEMNS BUS BOMBING IN ISRAEL

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Bombing of Bus in Israel

Press Statement

Jen Psaki
Department Spokesperson

Washington, DC

December 22, 2013

---

We strongly condemn the bombing of a bus near Tel Aviv today. Our thoughts are with those affected and with the Israeli people at this time. Violent acts targeting civilians are deplorable. We reaffirm our unshakable bond with Israel and our solidarity with the Israeli people.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS AT BEN GURION INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Press Availability at Ben Gurion International Airport
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Tel Aviv, Israel
December 6, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: We’re here this morning just outside of Tel Aviv, but our hearts are in Johannesburg with all the millions of people who loved Nelson Mandela. Madiba’s long walk to freedom gave new meaning to character and to courage, to forgiveness, and to human dignity. And now that his long walk has ended, the example that he set for all of humanity lives on. He will be remembered as a pioneer for peace, and there are some people, I think, in the course of life who truly – you meet and you are touched by them, and you’re forever changed by the experience. Nelson Mandela is one of those people.

Teresa and I had the honor of sitting with Mandela over the Thanksgiving holidays of 2007, and – that and several other times. And I also stood in his tiny cell on Robben Island, a room with barely enough space to be able to lie down in or stand up in. I learned that the glare of the white rock quarry on the island permanently damaged his eyesight, and it hit home even more how remarkable it was that after spending 27 years locked up, locked away, and having his own vision impaired by that condition, that this man was still able to see the best interests of his country, the best interests of humanity, and embrace even the very guards who kept him prisoner. That is the story of a man whose ability to see resided not just in his eyes but in his conscience. He was a stranger to hate. He rejected recrimination in favor of reconciliation, and he knew the future demands required that we move beyond the place that he had been, beyond the past.

So we just think of the lessons that he taught the world which have special significance at this moment in history. He said, “It always seems impossible until it is done.” I think it’s appropriate for us to think about that in the context of the work that I’ve been doing here in the last couple of days and over these last months, and of the hopes and aspirations of the people of this region. That example of Nelson Mandela is an example that we all need to take to heart as we face the challenge of trying to reach a two-state solution.

Over the past two days, I had the opportunity to meet with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. And despite the fact that we are discussing really difficult, complicated issues, I am encouraged by the continued commitment of both leaders to the pursuit of peace. And they both underscored their commitment to continue to work through these difficult issues in the days ahead. As we look to the challenges that we face in the coming months, we need to all be not just reminded of the example of Nelson Mandela’s words, but by his actions. The naysayers are wrong to call peace in this region an impossible goal. It always seems impossible until it’s done.

Since the two parties first agreed to resume talks four months ago, they have held regular discussions and the United States has remained in close contact with both sides. It hasn’t been easy; I won’t pretend that. But none of the parties embarked on this path with the expectation that it was going to be a simple or easy process. We all knew upfront that it would be a long, arduous, and complicated journey.

Nonetheless, it is absolutely clear to me through the discussions that we had – and believe me, I wouldn’t spend these hours and I wouldn’t come back here given the agenda that we face on a global basis if I didn’t think it was worthwhile, if President Obama didn’t believe it was worth pursuing. And it is quite clear that both President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu remain as determined as ever to continue down this path and to explore these possibilities. Because both parties have the same endpoint in their sights: Two nations for two peoples living side by side in peace and prosperity.

But neither peace nor prosperity are possible without security, and the United States will only support a final status agreement that makes both Israelis and Palestinians more secure than they are today. As I made clear yesterday, the commitment of the United States to Israel’s security is ironclad. It is a commitment that spans decades. It is permanent. In 1973, that commitment was the driving force behind the 32-day airlift the United States conducted to deliver military assistance to Israeli forces during the Yom Kippur War. More than 20 years ago, that commitment was the reason we began work with Israel to develop ballistic missile defense technologies that continue to protect the Israeli people from the range of threats that they face every day. And at this moment, our commitment to Israel’s security – a central issue as we work towards a lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and as we work towards the creation of a viable, independent, Palestinian state.

That’s why President Obama and I have been working very closely with General John Allen, who is one of the United States’ most experienced military leaders, and a team with him of American defense experts – so that we can anticipate all of the threats to Israel’s security at every step of the final status negotiations process and work out ways to address those threats as well as to address the complicated questions of security within a new state of Palestine and to deal with the issues of a viable independent Palestinian state and the security challenges that that presents. Together, there is no doubt in my mind we can reach an agreement that will support the peaceful and promising Palestine that the Palestinian people deserve alongside a prosperous and a more secure Israel.

There’s another issue at the heart of Israel’s security that’s also been a key focus of all of our discussions, and that is the P5+1 negotiations with respect to Iran. Throughout these negotiations, our commitment to Israel’s security is paramount. The fact remains that both the United States and Israel have the same priority with respect to Iran. We are laser-focused on preventing the Iranians from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The United States firmly believes that the P5+1 first-step agreement not only makes Israel more secure than it was the day before that agreement, but we believe it will take us closer to a lasting, peaceful, and comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear program. It is the best opportunity we have to resolve the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.

I pledge this, as President Obama has: As we proceed forward in this negotiation, we will continue to consult very closely with Israel as the negotiations resume as well as with our other friends and allies in the region and around the world, because that input is critical to us in the process. And as is known, Security Advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu Yossi Cohen will travel to the United States next week. We will be engaging in very direct conversations so that we are on the same track going forward. I look forward to speaking in greater detail about the United States partnership with Israel tomorrow when I address the Saban Forum in Washington, D.C.

For now, let me just now reiterate how grateful I am for the courage that both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas both continue to display against naysayers, against opponents, as they pursue a full exploration of the possibilities of peace. I believe we are closer than we have been in years to bringing about the peace and the prosperity and the security that all of the people of this region deserve and yearn for.

Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering any questions.

MODERATOR: Lara Jakes, AP.

QUESTION: Thanks. Thank you. Just kind of following up on what you just said, you said you believe that we are closer than we have been in years to bringing about peace and prosperity. You’ve been here eight times, and as you know, the media is full of reports that there has actually been no progress made. So what specific examples of progress can you give us to show for your time here?

Also, this was the first time that General Allen briefed the prime minister on some ideas for a security resolution for Israel. Is the U.S. moving now into a more proactive bridging role because the two sides together have been unable to come up with some kind of resolution, solution, or compromise? Thanks.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, no, actually, no. Let me answer the first – the second part of the question first as I answer the first part of the question.

The United States has always been an active participant and will remain an active participant, but the negotiation is between the two parties. And we play a critical role because we have an ability to be able to provide technology as well as other technical capacity as well as concepts that we can help shape with respect to security. Now, why do I say that I believe we’re making progress? Because we’ve gone through a very detailed, lengthy, in-depth analysis of the security challenges of the region, and particularly the challenges to Israel and to the creation of a viable, independent Palestinian state. And that process has taken time.

General John Allen, who came with me on this trip and did brief, did so because we’ve reached a point where we have something to brief on, where we have results as a consequence of the analysis that’s been made. And we believe we’re able to contribute thinking as a consequence of those – that analysis that could help both the Palestinians and the Israelis to make judgments about some of the choices that are important to arriving at an agreement. So that is progress, and it hasn’t come easily. There are about 160 people who have contributed one way or the other to the process General Allen has pursued. The intelligence community, the Department of Defense, the State Department, the White House – all have been engaged in thinking through the various possibilities of how you deal with one problem or another with respect to security. And so obviously, security is paramount in the minds of the prime minister and his team with respect to their ability to be able to move forward with other issues that have to be dealt with. If Israel’s security cannot be increased through this agreement, it’s very difficult to make an agreement. So we are making certain that we’re addressing each and every one of those questions.

And I’m not going to comment further on the progress, but one thing I will say is this: We purposefully agreed at the beginning of this process that I would be the only person to comment on these talks publicly. And I notice in the newspapers or in some comments here or there there’s a leak and somebody suggests this or that. I have no idea who is leaking; I know it’s not me, and I’m the only authorized spokesperson. So whatever people are saying that something is on the table or not on the table or this or that is really not grounded in these talks. Some people may want to think they know more than others or suggest that they know what’s going on or – but the reality is that the people who really know what’s going on are not talking about it. And so there is not going to be a lot of information coming out. And the fact that there is not a lot of information coming out doesn’t mean that the talks aren’t being productive.

So we feel – I mean, I wouldn’t spend these hours if I didn’t think it was productive and we weren’t hammering out important concepts. And nor would the prime minister of Israel, who has a lot to do, spend this kind of time – nor would President Abbas, who has major responsibilities with respect to finance and to management of the Palestinian Authority. But all of us are committed to this process and they have taken, particularly, political heat for choices they have made in order to continue to pursue it. And guess what? They are continuing and they remain committed, and that’s because they know that we are engaged in serious conversations about how we could resolve the differences between the parties.

MODERATOR: Anne Gearan from The Washington Post.

QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, do you leave here today with any assurances from the Israeli prime minister that he will be quieter or more cooperative on the Iran talks front? And also, did you discuss with him directly the role of Congress and possible new sanctions and anything that he might do to influence against that? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: No. I did not have any conversation with the prime minister regarding Congress or Congress’s role. But of course, we did discuss the substance of the issue of Iran and the negotiation. And look, the prime minister has every right in the world to make his views known with respect to his concerns about the security of his country, and we would expect him to do that. But the prime minister has also been extremely constructive in working with us on the next steps and where we need to go now. He understands that we are now in the real negotiation.

And as I pointed out in my earlier comments, and I’ll say this again – I have said this to the prime minister, and I think it’s – and I’ll say this again now to the people of Israel and to any interested parties: I am personally convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that Israel is safer today after we have reached this first-step agreement than it was before we did that. Why do I say that? I say that because we are now engaged in the major comprehensive discussion that the prime minister wanted us to be engaged in, but guess what? We have stopped their program where it is.

They are destroying – under requirements, they will have to destroy the 20 percent enriched uranium in its entirety. They will not be able to grow their 3.5 percent enriched to stock at all. They will not be allowed to put new centrifuges in place. They will have to submit to inspections of the Fordow facility, of Natanz facility, of Arak facility. The Arak facility cannot progress at all with the installation of components or the testing of additional fuel or the installation of any of the nuclear components. And therefore, we have expanded the amount of time during which Iran could actually break out. That makes Israel safer in our judgment.

And the fear of the prime minister with respect to the sanctions is certainly an appropriate concern, but it is one that the Treasury Department and the Obama Administration are absolutely determined to prevent from becoming a problem, because we have the ability to control what happens with respect to those sanctions. And we will continue to enforce them. There is no change in the fundamental sanctions regime. A very small amount of money is released, but those sanctions will continue over the course of these negotiations. And we are free at any time, if Iran is not complying, or we do not move forward, to ratchet up those sanctions and even to go back to Congress and ask for additional sanctions.

So I am convinced that we have put forward a strong proposal, and now what we are doing with Israel is working very closely on what the final comprehensive agreement ought to look like. Israel and the United States are absolutely in sync, not an ounce of daylight between us, with respect to the need to make sure that Iran cannot achieve a nuclear weapon, will not in the future be able to achieve it, and certainly cannot move towards it without the United States of America and Israel knowing that and therefore being able to take steps to deal with it. I believe Israel is safer today and we will approach this final negotiation with an absolute view about Israel’s security, Israel’s safety, the region’s safety, and our ability to stand up afterwards and say, this was an agreement that was good for the region, good for Israel, good for the United States, good for the world. That’s our objective.

MODERATOR: Thanks, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.

REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY AT OVERSEAS SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL'S ANNUAL MEETING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks at the Overseas Security Advisory Council's 28th Annual Briefing
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Dean Acheson Auditorium
Washington, DC
November 20, 2013

Greg, thank you very much. Wow. Can’t we find seats for you folks? I feel badly. (Laughter.) But thank you for being here in such numbers.
I’m very, very pleased to be able to share a few thoughts with all of you, and I’m particularly glad to be here to emphasize this enormous agenda that we have and that we share together, which Greg Starr heads up for us here at the Department. He’s, as I know you know, a very experienced traveler along the road of trying to provide security for American citizens and for our embassies and facilities around the world and for all of you, having served from Kinshasa to Dakar and Tunis to Tel Aviv. This is a man who understands the threats. I meet with him regularly every week. We are beginning our meetings thinking about and working on and analyzing the latest threats and the challenges that we face in a very complicated, volatile world today.

And we saw that just yesterday with the tragic bombing in Beirut against the Iranian Embassy. We may have our significant differences with Iran and be working hard to try to resolve them, but nothing excuses bombings of anybody, any person, anywhere. This violent taking of life has to end, and we all have a huge obligation to work together to try to find a way to deal with it. Greg works at that every single day. We’re constantly reviewing, whether it’s Libya or Yemen or some part of the world – we’re working hard at it. And we’re very happy that he’s back at Foggy Bottom where he graduated from GW many years ago – I won’t say how many.

In a way, you can say that Greg has come a long way but not gone very far. (Laughter.) You work that out, okay? I don’t know if anybody recognizes you when you walk around the campus these days, Greg, but – he’s nodding his head, yes.

I’ll share with you a quick story. I am now no longer in elected politics, obviously, and – but I’ll tell you, when I was, you’ll understand why I’m thrilled with the job I have now. I was walking through an airport not too many months before I was asked to take on this job. And as I’m walking through the airport, you kind of have – you learn how to walk straight ahead and not get sidetracked by somebody who wants to grab you, and some – and this guy made himself very evident. He said, “Hey, hey! Hey you! You! You! Anybody ever tell you you like that Kerry guy we sent down to Washington?” (Laughter.) So I just – I said, “Yeah, they tell me that all the time.” (Laughter.) He says, “Kinda makes you mad, don’t it?” (Laughter.) So I’m glad to be where I am. It makes a difference.

The world, obviously, is getting smaller, and globalization is a force that, no matter how you react to it, nobody’s ever going to put it back in the bottle. I can remember when we rewrote the telecommunications law back in 1995, ’96. We were mostly focused, tragically, on telephony. And that’s what mostly had sort of risen to the surface in our efforts to try to manage this new world we live in. Within six months of passing the bill, it was obsolete. Why? Because, of course, it didn’t deal with data. It didn’t deal with what was suddenly emerging only in 1995 – think about it – and that’s the internet, which wasn’t designed for what it is. It was a military U.S. Government-sponsored initiative to deal with communications in the event of nuclear war. And then the commercial purposes evolved and came forward, and all of the sudden we have this totally connected, super-connected world in which more information is coming at people than many people are able to process. And with the advent of FaceTime and Facebook and tweeting and so forth, there is just never any absence of information. It also has created a new level of kind of citizen accountability and engagement.

I recently learned about a fellow who showed up in the newspapers with a photograph of him that showed him – it was a privately taken telephone photograph – that showed him with a pale area around where he had been wearing a watch, and he was a public official. And so people thought, that’s sort of odd, why is there no watch and there’s obviously a pale area there and he was wearing one. So they went back and found other pictures of him which showed him with a different watch almost every single day, and a very expensive watch, way beyond his capacity to have that watch in the position that he held and the salary that he had. And lo and behold, he was outed; he was caught and trapped for corruption, and thrown out of office as a consequence.

So there’s a new policeman on the block. There’s a new awareness of events and what’s happening. You go anywhere in the world and something happens and you’ll see it on YouTube and you can check it out at any point in time. You don’t even have to watch that night’s news to get it.

So this is the world that we are operating in, and there’s a lot of benefit from them. But there’s also risk from it, because there is a clash in certain parts of the world between culture, tradition, history, current mores, and the future, modernity. And as everybody in this room knows, some places are having a harder time managing that transition than others. That’s what we see in some of this emotion, particularly around religious extremism, which we see expressed in many of these suicide – individual suicide operations and other kinds of confrontations that take place.

The world is not going to stop for that, nor should it. But it remains a challenge for all of us going forward as to how we are going to be able to do business, go to school, travel, and engage in our normal lives as we go through this transition. And I’m confident, over time, we will. I believe that.

So this gathering – OSAC and what you represent – are a group of people who really understand these challenges and the opportunities that come at us from this interconnected world. I think there are 10,000 representatives from more than 4,600 American companies, educational institutions, religious groups, nongovernmental organizations, who are all part of this gathering. And it’s an important gathering, and that’s why I’m currently meeting upstairs with the Australians. We have the Defense Minister, the Foreign Minister of Australia here.

But I wanted to interrupt my participation in that to come and share a few thoughts with you, because the role you play in fostering two-way communication between the private and the public sector in order to promote security and create understanding between people about what it is we’re seeking to do and why people benefit from what we’re seeking to do is critical. And it’s even more important today than it was when Secretary George Shultz had the vision to found this organization nearly three decades ago.

And Secretary Shultz said the following. He said: “Risk is not something that you take or not take. It is something you analyze to mitigate properly and understand.” And I think he understood the risks that we face in the world, and they couldn’t be any more real for him way back then when he had to console the families of American diplomats who died alongside U.S. Marines in Beirut 30 years ago. Khobar Towers – we all remember it too well. These risks aren’t new. They’ve just grown to some degree in their intensity, and there are absolutely understandable reasons for that.

So make no mistake: The greatest danger to America, whether to our people or to our interests, doesn’t come from a rising rival. It comes from the risks that would arise in a world where American leadership ceases to be a driving force in order to be able to help people to be able to respond to this transition. It comes from the vacuum that the absence of leadership would create for autocrats and extremists to exploit.

All of us know that these risks are – they’re real and they’re unpredictable. Participating in OSAC, you all know them well, and that’s why you’re prepared against them. Just in the past year, there were 78 specific cases where the Department of State informed an American company or a faith-based group, or a nonprofit overseas of a specific, credible threat. And there are countless other times when larger information shared within OSAC, whether on the web portal or through the breakout sessions that you participate in today, has led to greater preparedness and awareness of the environment around you, the environment that you’re operating in. So some of OSAC’s greatest work comes from the threats that we actually never see and that never have a chance to be able to materialize because the information that is shared allows our people to be more prepared, and sometimes even to thwart the threat altogether.

So everyone here understands the risks; you know the dangers, and that’s why you’re here. But you also know – and this is what’s really important – you know that we need to be out there. You can’t retreat. There is no fortress. And nothing would work if we did, frankly, because now, more than ever, I believe we need to be engaged in the world to help move it forward in this transformation that has taken place. While there are instances, obviously, of this terrible violence – the blowing up of an embassy, the Westgate mall that took place recently in Kenya, and you could run a list of these things – a subway in London, a subway in Tokyo – I mean, these things are not new, unfortunately.

But I’ll tell you this: Believe it or not, notwithstanding the prominence of these events and the way that they do exactly what they’re meant to do, send terror down the spines of people everywhere, the fact remains we lose far less lives today to conflict and there is far less loss of life in war or violence anywhere in the world today than there was in the last century, even in the last half century. That’s a fact. We’re not seeing the kinds of wars and confrontations where millions of people are thrown at each other across the trenches or there’s firebombing of whole cities and we’re engaged in these larger kinds of conflicts. That doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous, obviously, but it means that there’s a transformation taking place. More and more countries are gaining middle class populations, more and more people are traveling, more and more tourists, more and more people going to school, more and more people engaged. Not enough yet, and that’s the great challenge that we all face.

The fact is that in many parts of the world, our challenge is not the ideology per se. It’s the fact that we have huge populations of young people, 65 percent of a nation in the Middle East under the age of 30, 50 percent under the age of 21, 40 percent under the age of 18. And you can replicate that in country after country. And if they don’t have jobs and they don’t have an education, that’s when they are prone to being seduced by one extreme ideology or another extreme religious theory, and that’s really what’s happened. It’s a governance failure. It’s an absence of sufficient recognition of the challenge. It’s an absence of opportunity. And where you have opportunity, where you have democracy, where you have education, where you have growth, where you have decision making and full participation of citizens in a society, you tend to have much greater stability and much greater chance of beating the odds against that kind of violence. And you can look at that and see it anywhere at this point in time.

So the reasons we’ve got to be out there ought to be clear. Nobody else in the world at this moment – and I don’t say this with any arrogance; I say it with pride and I say it as a matter of reality – no one else comes close to what we are able to do to keep the peace or what we do to try to manage and tampen down old animosities and keep them at bay. I think we are – the best antidote to extremism, as I said, is opportunity.

That Tunis fruit vendor who self-immolated and started a revolution in Tunisia – there was no religion, nothing, no extremism and ideology behind it. And he got slapped around by a police officer, he was tired of corruption, and he wanted an opportunity to lead his life by being able to sell his wares. And those kids in Tahrir Square, they were not motivated by any religion or ideology. They were motivated by what they saw through this interconnected world, and they wanted a piece of the opportunity and a chance to get an education and have a job and have a future, and not have a corrupt government that deprived them of all of that and more. And they tweeted their ways and Facetimed their ways and talked to each other, and that’s what drove that revolution. And then it got stolen by the one single-most organized entity in the state, which was the Brotherhood.

Same thing in Syria. Syria didn’t start Sunni-Shia or anything else. It started with young people who wanted reform. And regrettably, Assad responded to their request for reform with bullets and bombs and violence. And that’s led to where we are today to an increasingly sectarian struggle.

So I say to you, it is vital. The antidote to extremism is opportunity, and nobody does more to promote education or entrepreneurship or public health around the world than the United States of America, proudly. We also need to be out there because the example of our universities and of our culture of innovation is more than just soft power. We know that the world is more secure and more prosperous when we bring students, professors, researchers from abroad, and when we bring that strength to the world. And we also need to be out there because for every billion dollars in goods and services that we export, we create 5,000 jobs here at home.

We also need to help countries stand on their own two feet. No country has done as much of that as we have. We create trading partners for your businesses. Eleven of 15 of our biggest trading partners used to be recipients of American foreign aid. Today, they’re donor countries. Look at South Korea – used to be 10, 15 years ago it was receiving aid from the United States. Now it’s giving aid to other countries. Japan – you can go through a long list.

So now more than ever before, economic policy, I believe, is foreign policy and foreign policy is economic policy. And we need to make sure that as we see the barriers coming down, we also do what we can to strengthen security. Security is not limited to a battlefield in today’s world.

So if you look at the attacks of the last century – the Naval base at Pearl Harbor, a Marine barracks, an embassy in Beirut, and our embassies in East Africa. At the beginning of the new century, terrorists attacked the USS Cole, they attacked the Pentagon, but they also attacked two office buildings in the heart of America’s financial capital. They attacked public transportation in London and Madrid. And just this fall, they attacked a shopping mall in Nairobi.

So when they don’t see a difference between military, diplomatic or economic assets around the world – if they don’t see it, neither can we. And that’s what this is all about. As we work together to protect America’s interests around the world, the importance of communicating across boundaries is more important than it ever was before.

And here at The State Department, we have people in some of the most far flung corners of the world. Some of your companies and organizations also have people in some of the most remote places on the planet, working in all kinds of fields – building schools, building roads, supplying water, often in places that we can’t reach. And if we don’t share information and communicate with each other, then none of us will have a complete picture of the risks that we face and that we take.

So the work of your organizations and the dedicated professionals here at the State Department is really essential in order to help us create shared prosperity. And we also have a shared responsibility to share that information and to communicate with one another.

So I – whatever else we do, the bottom line is the work of highly trained and highly dedicated professionals, working in both the public and private sector, is essential to our success and to our safety going forward. And their work will do as much to shape American prosperity as anything else out there, folks. Because if people feel they can’t be safe, then we are deterred from being able to help these countries, whether it’s in the pursuit of energy resources or helping people with respect to education and getting the information resources they need to buy into this different future.

Really, in many ways the men and women who are on the front lines of this security initiative are pioneers of this new global economy and the new global diplomacy. And we have to be able to meet that obligation. And Greg is dedicated to it. I’m dedicated to it. We’ll do everything in our power to help you so that we can continue to transform this world that we live in.

And I know that every one of you believe that this genie of globalization, which I’ve heard many of my former colleagues in politics rail against – pretty easy applause lines – I remember the fights we had over NAFTA and over the free trade agreements and all the rest of it. But in every case, our GDP has grown, our opportunities have grown, our job base has grown, our tax base has grown, America has gotten stronger. And we continue to be the envy of the world, believe me, in the capacity of our economy, which now, thanks to our innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, will make the United States of America energy independent by about the year 2025 or so, a remarkable turn which will have a profound impact on our ability to have an impact elsewhere in the world.

So you can’t put the genie of globalization back in the bottle. No demagogue, no politician, no opponent of this transformation can possibly do that. And all you have to do is look at what’s happened in a place like Abu Dhabi or Dubai or any other number of places around the world to understand how rapidly some people are grabbing a hold of this thing and how inexorable it really is.

So as the aspirations that we have really given birth to in so many places – and we can take pride in that – as those aspirations go global, with our work together and with good conferences like this and the good ideas that come forth at them, I am absolutely confident that we are going to be able to make the most of these opportunities, and in doing so we are going to ensure greater prosperity for our country, greater safety for our citizens, and frankly, a greater opportunity to share in both for the rest of the world. And that is what it takes to meet our obligations as citizens as well as individuals who care about our families and our children and our grandchildren and their future. That’s what we’re building here, and every single one of you are frontline ambassadors in that effort. So thank you very, very much. Appreciate it. (Applause.)

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS AT BEN GURION INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Press Availability in Tel Aviv, Israel
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Ben Gurion International Airport
Tel Aviv, Israel
May 24, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks very much, folks. Appreciate your patience. It’s really been terrific to be back here in Israel, and also to be able to pay a visit to the Palestinian territories. Enjoyed a shawarma and a small walk on the streets, which was fun.

I had very productive meetings with leaders in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority. As everyone knows, Israel remains our closest ally and a partner in the region, and we will continue to work together in order to enhance regional security and stability. And we will also continue to work with the Palestinian Authority in order to help them to be able to reach and meet their aspirations.

I believe that President Obama’s trip here earlier in the year opened up a window of opportunity, and it showed that there are strong constituencies for peace both in the West Bank, in the Palestinian territories, as well as in Israel. The polls overwhelmingly showed – perhaps 68, 72 percent of the people of Israel believed in a two-state solution. Peace is actually possible, notwithstanding the doubts that some people have because of past disappointments.

So the bulk of my discussions while I was here were therefore focused on how to move forward to try to achieve the negotiations that are necessary to bring about a just and lasting peace and security. I will continue my close engagement with both the Israeli and the Palestinian leaders going forward as needed in an effort to try to bridge any divide or to try to find the framework by which negotiations could begin.

I am convinced that the people on both sides of this conflict want it to end, but there are obviously different views about how to get there or who takes the first step or what the successive measures are in order to be able to get there. And so that’s what we have to deal with here. Israelis have a clear priority, which we understand and support, with respect to the issue of security, and they need and deserve that security. Palestinians have a priority concern with respect to knowing that they can secure an independent, sovereign, and prosperous state with clear lines as defined previously by them and others along the 1967 lines with swaps and recognizing changes that have taken place on the ground, as President Obama stated in his vision in 2011.

There is one way to make any of these visions a reality, and that is through direct negotiations. Ultimately it is the Israeli and the Palestinian people who will both decide the outcome or even the possibility of getting to those negotiations, and it is ultimately the people of Israel and Palestinians who will achieve the greatest benefits from a peace, and it is they who must make their voices heard.

Leaving this conflict unresolved for decades has deprived generations of security, and it has deprived people of the recognition that they deserve. And it is clear that – despite the sense of status quo, which for many is acceptable, it is clear that, in the long run, that status quo is not really sustainable. We all know that the longer it takes to bring about a peaceful end to this conflict the more and more difficult it will become to do so.

So I made clear in my discussions that the parties should be focused on making progress towards the direct negotiation, and each side needs to work to build trust and each side needs to refrain from any provocative rhetoric or actions that take us backwards. Ultimately, ending this conflict will take leadership on both sides. And as we look to restart negotiations, we look forward to working with the Israeli Government under the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his new government, as well as the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Abbas.

Achieving a lasting peace is also in the interests of all the communities in this region, all of the countries in the region. Just last month in Washington, the Arab League representatives stood up and reiterated their support for ending this conflict, and they moved voluntarily to adjust the initiative to reflect where we are today with the realities on the ground.

In addition, I will say that in every conversation I have had in the trips the President has asked me to make over the course of the last months – whether in China or Japan, or throughout Europe or throughout the Gulf, or visitors who have come to see me as recently as last week, the day before – the day I left to come here, the Foreign Minister of Brazil, Antonio Patriota, or the Foreign Minister of New Zealand, Mr. McCully – all said – they almost began their conversations with discussion of the need for and the potential of peace within the Middle East. This is a global concern for a lot of different reasons.

I was very encouraged by the statement from the Arab League delegation that said that a future agreement ought to be based on a two-state solution along the ’67 lines with comparable and mutually agreed upon swaps. The United States remains deeply committed to the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security, and it is only through direct negotiations that the Israelis and the Palestinians can address the permanent status issues and achieve the peace that both deserve – a peace with two states for two peoples with a sovereign and viable, independent Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security with a Palestinian homeland and a homeland for the Jewish people. That remains our goal.

I know that in some corridors, I know there are those who are skeptical, and some even because of prolonged skepticism might even call themselves cynical. And there are legitimate reasons for that. There have been years of disappointments. It’s our hope that by being methodical, being careful, being patient, but detailed and tenacious, that we can find a path that will ultimately lead to peace. I emphasize it will not be because the United States makes it happen or some other country does – this is a peace that must be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians and their elected leadership. That is what we’re working towards.

I thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for his warm and generous welcome while here, his hospitality. I thank him for his efforts and I thank President Abbas for his warm hospitality and for his efforts. And I call on both of them in the next days to demonstrate the leadership that I believe the people in the Palestinian territories and in Israel hope for.

Thank you. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

MS. PSAKI: The Secretary – sorry.

SECRETARY KERRY: Or any questions. I guess I’m --

MS. PSAKI: Okay. The Secretary will take five questions this afternoon. The first will be from Arshad Mohammed of Reuters.

SECRETARY KERRY: Arshad, you’re on.

QUESTION: In Rome two weeks ago, you’ve said you believe both the Israelis and the Palestinians, both sides, were serious about the possibility of resuming peace negotiations. Last week, Israeli court documents showed that the government plans to retroactively legalize their previously illegal outposts.

SECRETARY KERRY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is that the act of a government that is serious about peace talks? Have you asked the Israeli Government for a full public settlement freeze to head into talks? And can you point to actions on either side that demonstrate – that show seriousness?

SECRETARY KERRY: I’m not going to comment on what was asked for, not asked for, what was – any of the sort of private conversations I’ve had with the leaders except to say this: That issue was raised appropriately, and we did discuss the status of settlements overall and the need for both sides to take steps that indicate a willingness to try to move forward.

Now, the United States position with respect to settlements is clear, and it has not changed. We believe they should stop. That is a position that has been consistent not just by the United States but by the international community. And it is also clear that when actions are taken – whether by court or otherwise – it is our view that those actions can be deemed by some to be provocative, and they are not necessarily constructive with respect to the process. So it is our hope that there will be a minimal effort there.

Now, some of this is, frankly, beyond the control, and I understand that. There are some private and individual permits granted some time ago, and in terms of the legality, there is no capacity to move on them. But in other ways, certainly the government has an ability to be able to make a difference here in the next months. It’s my hope that they will, but I’m not going to go into any specific discussion of sort of what steps they may or may not take or where we are.

As I’ve said, we are trying to get to talks without pre-conditions. We do not want to get stuck in a place where we are arguing about a particular substantive issue that is actually part of a final settlement, and that argument takes you so long that you never get to the negotiations that bring about the final settlement. So the key here, in my judgment, is to show patience on both sides. There will be things that each side may choose to do that may create problems for the other side or change the politics. That’s pretty normal out here in this part of the world. Our hope is that everybody will stay focused on the prize, focused on the goal, and that is to negotiate in full faith on the broad basis that ends the anxiety and the tension over some of these other issues, because you’ve actually solved them by reaching a settlement on the broader components of the conflict itself.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will come from Christine Renawi.

QUESTION: Yeah. I’m from Palestine TV and (inaudible) news agency. Yeah, about Israel declared recently that it’s in the process of legitimatizing the four settlement outposts in the Palestinian territories. What’s your position towards that? And finally, what are the prospects of the peace process on the light of your meetings with Netanyahu and Mr. President Abbas?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, as I just said, our position on settlements and outposts and on the legalization is that we are opposed to it. We believe that that is not appropriate, and, in fact, is not constructive in the context of our efforts to move forward. But it should not be something, as I just said, that prevents us from being able to get to negotiations, because if you can negotiate borders, and if you negotiate security and get to a final settlement, you have resolved the issue of settlements themselves. That’s the way you resolve the issue, is by deciding what is in the Palestinian state and what are the rules there and what is Israel and what are the rules there. And the sooner we get to that, the sooner the question of settlements is resolved.

With respect to where we are in the process, I’m not going to comment, except to say that we have reached – I’ve been here now a number of times. Both sides know what the choices are. Both sides know what is needed in order to try to move forward. And it’s really time for the governments to make their decisions. Are they prepared? This is not something, as I said, that we can decide. This is something that the leaders of Israel and the leaders of the Palestinian Authority have to decide. And we’re getting towards a time now where hard decisions need to be made.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will come from Michael Gordon of The New York Times.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, Palestinian officials have said that June 7th is the date by which they hope to see discernible progress in the peace process. They say that you’ve asked them to suspend their efforts to join international organizations or take steps that would reinforce their claim to statehood prior to that. What do you hope to accomplish in June? Is that month a target date for you? And if there is no progress in that month, what restraint will you ask for of each side?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m not going to get into specific dates, Michael. I don’t think setting one date or another unilaterally and arbitrarily necessarily advances things. But I will say this: President Obama, when he was here, made it very clear to all of the folks that he talked with – he made it clear to the Palestinians, he made it clear to the Israeli leadership – that he was going to give this a certain period of time, a few months is the term that he phrased it in, and then he was going to take stock of where we are to try to determine whether or not the parties are serious about coming back to the table and negotiating. He was here March 23rd. We are now May 23rd; that’s two months. And we’re moving into June.

So we are obviously moving in to a point where, as I just said, we are reaching the time where leaders need to make hard decisions. And I think that speaks for itself.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will come from Mala Barty from Israeli Channel 10.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, is there any readiness from the Israeli side to go for confidence-building measures such as settlement freeze in the territories prior to the resumption of negotiation? If not, is there a readiness from the Palestinian side to go back to the table without getting these steps from the Israelis prior to the resumption? And in a more important sense, we know there are gaps. But you were here a month ago, and you’re saying the time is running out. And we understand that you will plan to come back here next Monday, but you somehow not (inaudible) regarding what happened in the last day.

SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah.

QUESTION: But what’s necessary to – now to happen in order for you to come back for next round of talk? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me begin by saying that time is running is out is sort of the wrong phraseology, if you don’t mind my saying so. It – the question is whether or not people are going to make the hard choices with respect to getting back to negotiations, and the timeframe within which the President said he wanted to have a sense of that is obviously coming due. But no, I think that it’s important for us to not create some sort of artificial standard. If it’s a week, two weeks, something like that, I think we need to allow folks to make their decisions within a reasonable framework in the next days ahead.

I don’t know what this thing about Monday is. I think we had a day where I might have been able to come back if I needed to, but I don’t think I do need to. And so I’m going to be speaking at the World Economic Forum; I’ll have a little more to say there about this process. But then I’m going to go on to other meetings and other business that I have as Secretary of State, while others obviously consider the choices that they know now are clear and the ways that we have offered to think about how we might proceed forward. So in that regard, those are the hard choices that need to be made.

MS. PSAKI: The final question will be from Jo Biddle of AFP.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I actually want to turn to Iran. This week, the Guardian Council authored a list of 80 candidates who are permitted to stand in the June 14th presidential elections. After initially barring all 30 women candidates, they’ve also ruled out several moderates, including former-President Rafsanjani and only allowed a hand-picked that served so loyal to the Supreme Leader to stand. While it isn’t – obviously not up to the U.S. to choose who should stand in the Iranian elections, does this hand-picked slate of candidates represent a fair and free choice for all the people of Iran across a broad spectrum of Iranian society? And how concerned are you that the leadership which emerges from the vote will actually toughen Iran’s stand on its nuclear program? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I can’t think of anybody in the world looking at Iran’s election who wouldn’t be amazed by a process by which an unelected Guardian Council, which is unaccountable to the Iranian people, has actually disqualified hundreds of candidates, potential candidates, according to very vague criteria, which the Iranian people are not privileged to know or judge by. The council narrowed a list of almost 700 potential candidates down to the sort of officials of their choice based solely on who represents the regime’s interests, obviously, rather than who might represent some different point of view among the Iranian people. That is hardly an election by standards which most people in most countries judge free, fair, open, accessible, accountable elections. The lack of transparency obviously makes it highly unlikely that that slate of candidates is either going to represent the broad will of the Iranian people or represent a change of any legitimate kind.

So in addition to that, there are some troubling signs that Iranian Government is now taking steps to slow down or even cut off internet access, which is the process by which people can take part in the sharing of information and the exchange of ideas in an election. So ultimately, the Iranian people will be prevented not only from choosing someone who might have reflected their point of view, but also taking part in a way that is essential to any kind of legitimate democracy.

So we’ll have to see what develops, but it’s our hope still that the Supreme Leader and the Iranian leadership will come to the table in a serious way with a serious offer in order to prove that their nuclear program, which they profess is peaceful, is indeed peaceful. And I would reiterate – and I’ve said this before, and now it is almost a month or so even later – the clock is clearly ticking. And even today there are reports from the IAEA of its dissatisfaction with its access, and we know of the continued efforts of Iranian development of its program.

So this is an issue which is very, very much on our radar screen. We think about it and look at it every single day, take stock of it on a regular basis, and our hope is, for the sake of the region, the world, the Iranian people, ourselves, that we can have a peaceful resolution. But it is going to have to be demonstrated much more affirmatively than it has been to date that Iran is interested in that kind of a solution and that they are, indeed, prepared to prove that their program is peaceful.

I will repeat what I’ve said previously: Notwithstanding my criticism that I just made of the election process, the President of the United States has from day one said that he is open to trying to work towards a relationship with Iran that sees them rejoin the community of nations, lift sanctions, move to participation in international organizations, and assume a role like other nations that is responsible and accountable to the rule of law that we live by in the international community. That is the preferred hope of the American people and I think people in the world.

The Iranian leadership needs to make its decisions whether or not it wants to go down that road or the alternative. And the alternative is obviously one that none of us are looking for or want to contemplate. But the President has made it clear it is not one that he shies away from, if that is the only option that is left to him.

Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. Thank you.

　

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY AT BEN GURION INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

FROM: U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY,
Solo Press Availability in Tel Aviv, Israel
Press Availability
Ben Gurion International Airport
Tel Aviv, Israel
April 9, 2013


SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. It's always a great pleasure for me to be able to be here in Israel. And before I leave for our next stop at the ministerial in London, I wanted to take a moment to update everybody on what I consider to be very constructive talks over the course of the last 24 hours here. A very good series of discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu, with President Abbas, as well as with Prime Minister Fayyad and President Peres. Each of them made very serious and well-considered, constructive suggestions with respect to what the road forward might look like. And they all embraced the goal that we all share here. So this effort is not just about getting the parties back into direct negotiations, it’s about getting everybody in the best position to succeed.

This effort has been dogged by good intentions and failed efforts at one time or another for a lot of different reasons. I think we’ve all had enough time to analyze those reasons and understand some of the lessons we need to learn in trying to go forward now. It’s our intention, and we all committed to this, every party, to continue our intensive discussions with the belief that they are constructive and they are in good faith, and that we intend to try to create the conditions for peace so that we can resume negotiations between the parties in a clear and precise, predetermined manner.

We also spoke about other steps that could be taken in order to facilitate this process and to make it more conducive to success. Specifically, we agreed among us – President Abbas, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and ourselves – that we are going to engage in new efforts, very specific efforts, to promote economic development and to remove some of the bottlenecks and barriers that exist with respect to commerce in the West Bank, to move very rapidly towards increased business expansion and private sector investment in the West Bank, all of which, we are convinced, will help improve the economic security of the people living there as well as improve the security of the people of Israel. Economic growth will help us be able to provide a climate, if you will, an atmosphere, within which people have greater confidence about moving forward.

But I want to emphasize – I emphasize this very strongly: This is not in lieu of, or an alternative to, the political track. It is not a substitute. The political track remains the primary focus. But this is in addition to, in a way that could help to facilitate that track, and I believe will begin to take hold immediately.

I held discussions regarding these efforts with both Israeli and Palestinian officials, as well as with the Quartet representative Tony Blair, and other private sector business people. And this will be a focus of our work over the course of the next months in a very intensive way, and I will have more to say about this in the very near future. I will answer your questions about specifically who, what, where, when, and how.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and I spoke about this in some detail this morning, about the specific steps that we could take to break through red tape, to help expedite the goal of economic growth on the West Bank, and I let him know that I have already been in touch with our partners in the United States. The White House is committed to this – the President is committed to this process – and we will put all of the energy of our own government – OPIC, Ex-Im Bank, USAID, the international financial institutions, the Trade Partnership Agency – all of these efforts will be put into this initiative to try to make a significant dent with respect to employment and economic security of the West Bank.

As I’ve said before, and I want to emphasize it here again today, the President has not sent me here to propose or impose an American plan or to dictate to anybody the way forward. Ultimately, this negotiation is between the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Now we are not naive about the challenges before us, but we believe very deeply that it is our duty to give every effort we can to this effort, and each of the leaders that I met with assured me that they will put their best effort into trying to help us move forward. And everybody understands that if we work together, knowing that doing it right is more important than doing it quickly, I think we increase the possibilities of success.

So that’s the framework within which I wanted to leave here today. As I think many of you know, I’ll be somewhere in the region in a short period of time with respect to the Syrian issue, and we will continue to have our discussions. The most important thing is we have homework to do; we’re going to go home and get our homework done while others do theirs, and we will continue to move in a deliberate and thoughtful way.

On that note, happy to throw it open to questions.

MODERATOR: The Secretary will take four questions today. The first is Brad Klapper from the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Real quick, what – you said you made progress in your talks with Mr. Netanyahu. What concretely was that progress? Is there anything more you can say about the economic development plans for the West Bank, and if you could be more specific at all about when you’re expecting to come back to the region?

SECRETARY KERRY: Brad, I’m going to come back when we get our homework done, and that’s as specific as I’m going to be right now. We’re going to stay in close touch. We’re never out of touch. And with respect to the economic plans, as I said, I will be very specific next week. We will have the Washington meeting, and you all will have a chance to see this fleshed out in full. And I think that’s the most important thing is to make sure we have all the details pulled together.

But we’ve talked about it a lot. We have it in full concept. I just want to have the meetings I need to have next week, and we will announce some of the corporate entities that may be involved and some of the specific plans that we have with respect to it.

MODERATOR: The next question will come from Bow Shapira from Channel 1.

QUESTION: 
Yeah, this is me. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, yes, I would like to ask about future possible withdrawal of Israel from West Bank. Israel is a bad lesson from the withdrawal from Gaza. A few months after Israel left, they found Hamas took over. And this is one point that Israel is hesitate to do some steps regarding going out of West Bank. And second thing is a guarantee coming from Bush Administration, April 9th, 2004, telling that blocs of settlements can stay, cannot removed from the territory, as Israel can leave but peace territories – well, does it exist?
I have the two questions today, withdraw and a guarantee from the past.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, as everybody here knows very well, I don’t now and never have spoken for the Bush Administration. (Laughter.) That said, I remember that commitment very well because I was running for president then, and I personally have supported the notion that the situation on the ground has changed, and obviously, we’re talking about blocs that are in a very different status.
I’m not going to get into telling you what ought to happen with respect to any particular piece of geography today because that’s for the parties to decide in their negotiation. But I have certainly supported the notion publicly myself that we need to deal with the ’67 lines, plus the swaps that reflect some of the changes that have taken place since then. And that has been my prior public position. It’s up to the parties to negotiate this, and what the United States wants is for Israel’s security to be guaranteed and Palestinian aspirations to be reflected in that dialogue.
We clearly care deeply about the security of Israel. We have provided Iron Dome. We have an unprecedented cooperative level with Israel at this point in time. I think your military and intelligence personnel will tell you that never has the cooperation with the United States been as good as it is today. And I can guarantee you that President Obama, in whatever role we play to try to help the parties come to an agreement, knows that that agreement must address Israel’s security concerns.
Now, Gaza reflected a unilateral withdrawal, not a peace agreement, and so there is a difference there. Secondly, the reality is that the President made it very clear when he was here that he puts the security of Israel way up on top as a paramount issue that has to be resolved. And obviously, that issue will have to be addressed because no leader of Israel is going to sign an agreement that doesn’t adequately meet the needs of Israel’s security. So you can rest assured that’s on the agenda, as are the other issues of concern to the other parties.
Both parties have a set of needs here, and the art of any negotiation is to find a way to satisfy the parties’ needs. We know that Israel lives in a very narrow piece of land with a different kind of threat today from rockets and missiles, and Israel deserves peace, real peace. And it doesn’t make sense to have some kind of an agreement that doesn’t allow you to know you can provide for the security of your people. So this is an issue that is front and center, and I can guarantee you that’s part of the homework and part of the work that all of us have to do. But nobody is entering this with any sense of naiveté. These are complicated issues. They need to be part of the negotiation.
And most importantly, to answer Brad’s question a little more from earlier, it’s not going to be done and shouldn’t be done in piecemeal public releases. That would do everybody a disservice. You cannot take one component of this and say this is what’s being worked on, and then pretend you’re going to adequately meet the needs of anybody. So it’s best done quietly, by your leaders, by their leaders, in a process that is thoughtful, responsible, and at the right time, when it is appropriate, then when the parties decide to, something should and could be made public. But it shouldn’t be done in some daily, weekly tick-tock, and I caution any of you to try to draw conclusions from any leaks or anybody’s partisan statement that reflects some point of view that they’re really pushing for.
This is going to be contained, it’s going to be tightly held, and it’s going to be managed as effectively as possible so that we can try to guarantee a result.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Anne Gearan, Washington Post.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Looking ahead to your meetings in London, will you be meeting with members of the Syrian opposition who are expected to be there? And what is your message for them about any possible movement on new battlefield support, either from you or from any of the other allies you’ll be talking to there?
Also, on Iran, do you expect to be consulting in London about any further sanctions? And lastly, have you seen the report from Iran today that they are reopening two yellowcake mines? Is that a setback? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, the answer is yes, I will be meeting with the Syrian opposition in London, and, yes, we will be discussing various means of having an impact on President Assad’s calculations about where the battlefield is going.
I reiterate: President Obama’s preference – my preference also – is to have a diplomatic solution along the Geneva communiqué’s lines, where you have a legitimate transfer of governing responsibility to an independent entity, and that you try to stop the killing. Now, that’s the first priority. It sounds good. The problem is you can’t get there if President Assad is unwilling to decide that he should transfer that authority, and that’s the current situation. So we are left with no choice but to try to find ways to get him to think differently about what lies in the future. That will be part of the discussion in London and in the ensuing weeks.
I will leave it to the White House. They ought to make any announcements with respect to any stepped-up efforts, but I will say that those efforts have been very much front and center in our discussions in the last week in Washington. And I’m not sure what the schedule is, but I do believe that it’s important for us to try to continue to put the pressure on President Assad and to try to change his calculation. And we’ll see what is forthcoming on that in the days ahead.

QUESTION: On Iran?

SECRETARY KERRY: On Iran, I think it’s fair to say that we were hoping that there would be a more fulsome presentation in Almaty that would have laid out with greater specificity and greater breadth what could have been done to try to reduce the tensions over Iran’s nuclear program. And clearly, any effort – not unlike the DPRK, where Kim Jong-un has decided to reopen his enrichment procedures by rebuilding a facility that had been part of an agreement to destroy – in the same way as that is provocative, to open up yellowcake production and to make any step that increases the rapidity with which you move towards enriched fissile material raises the potential of questions, if not even threat. And I think that is not constructive.

So we will have discussions in London about this, yes. And there will be further discussions in Washington, and we’ll take stock of precisely where we are. But I’ll repeat what I said, and have said in several stops: The clock that is ticking on Iran’s program has a stop moment, and it does not tick interminably. We have said again and again that negotiations are not for the sake of negotiations, they are to make progress. And negotiations cannot be allowed to become a process of delay which in and of itself creates greater danger.

So it is important for the Iranians to make the fundamental choice here: Which direction do they want to move in? If it is a peaceful program, it is very easy to prove it is peaceful. If they want to make the choice to confound that possibility of proving it is peaceful, that is their choice. And President Obama has made it clear he takes no option off the table with respect to what may follow.

Thank you all.

MODERATOR: Oh, sorry, sir.

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, sorry.

MODERATOR: One more question.

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, one more.

MODERATOR: The final question is from Abdelraouf Arnaout from al Ayyam.

SECRETARY KERRY: Abdel, thank you.

QUESTION: Hi, Mr. Secretary. I want to ask: We’ve heard from several sources that in your meetings with the parties you proposed two changes to the Arab Peace Initiative, so that this initiative would serve afterwards as a basis for negotiations on borders and security.

Second issue: Just a follow-up for things that you spoke in the beginning; you spoke about economic steps to be taken on the ground. Now the pertinent issue for the Palestinians on the ground is the issue of prisoners. Have you heard anything from the Israelis in this regard?

Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. President Abbas raised the issue of prisoners with me, and he’s very passionate about it, and I understand that passion. And obviously, the issue of prisoners is very, very important to the Palestinians, very, very important to President Abbas. And I am not going to discuss here what I discussed privately with the Prime Minister; I think that’s inappropriate. But suffice it to say that President Abbas made a passionate argument to me about the prisoners, and I think the government in Israel has a full understanding of the potency of that issue.

With respect to --

QUESTION: The Arab Peace Initiative.

SECRETARY KERRY: -- the question of the Arab Peace Initiative, let me make this very clear. I actually am happy to have the question because I’ve wanted to have a chance to clarify a couple of things that I’ve been reading. Number one, no, I have not made any proposals to change it. It’s not my initiative to change; it belongs to King Abdullah and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that made the initial proposal, and to the Arabs, the Arab League, and the Arab community that has – Arab and Muslim community that has adopted it. It is a very important initiative, free-standing on its own. And what is important about it is that it suggests in its own language a way forward for the Arab world to make peace with Israel. And as such, it remains a very important statement.

Now, it may not be that in its current format it is a basis for a negotiation or for – it is a – the foundation of the way in which negotiations can take place, but any statement, any document where you have a proposal for peace and where you have dozens of Arab countries, Muslim countries, willing to make peace, needs to be taken at its value and should be respected. And it is an important contribution to the overall dialogue. And that’s the way I think it ought to be reflected.

Now, I will be meeting in a matter of weeks with a delegation from the Arab League that will come to Washington. I’m confident they will want to discuss components of it. But in the end, the parties themselves, Israel and the Palestinians, need to come to the table, and this is a negotiation between them, and they need to work out the details of which agreement they want to work off of, or what language they want to work off of, and where they want to proceed.

Clearly, this is one of the things that I am working on in the context of laying the groundwork so that we can bring people to the table with a clear understanding of what we’re beginning on, of what we’re trying to do, and of where we want to wind up. And those are the things that require time and thought and care. And we will continue, as I said, to do our homework. Others will do their homework, and when we’ve done our homework, I’m confident we’re going to be in a position to be make some progress and move forward.

Thank you all very, very much. Appreciate it.
 

JOINT U.S.-ISRAEL PRESS CONFERENCE

FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, right center, meets with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, left center, in Tel Aviv, Israel, Aug. 1, 2012. Panetta is on a five-day trip to the region to meet with leaders in Tunisia, Egypt, Israel and Jordan. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo
　

Joint Press Conference with Secretary Panetta and Minister Barak in Israel

STAFF: Ladies and gentlemen, hi. And the Minister of Defense will start with a short statement.

ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTER EHUD BARAK: Defense Secretary Panetta, welcome to Iron Dome Ashkelon.

I would like to thank the United States administration for its generous assistance, and in particular its latest investment in Iron Dome project.

The relationship between our defense establishments is extraordinary. Much of the credit for this genuinely special relationship must be given to my friend and counterpart, Secretary Leon Panetta, and of course to President Obama.

Our ties with the United States have extended in a range of areas, including intelligence, high-tech, and securing the qualitative military edge of Israel. The defense relationship underpins greater and wider cooperation between the two countries. It also highlights the undeniable mutual commitment that exists between Israel and America.

The American administration recently allocated additional $70 million to equip Israel with more of Iron Dome. During the recent (inaudible) the Iron Dome system has been proven to be an extremely successful technological and operational project, extremely effective intercepting more than 80 percent of incoming missiles, neglecting those who are not going to hit real targets, and already intercepted more than 100 real missiles and rockets from the Gaza Strip.

We want to thank the administration for these funds that have already been transferred to Israel defense establishment. The region, our region, the Middle East is subject to dynamic changes (inaudible). Israel and America are vigilantly monitoring all of the regional developments.

Like any relationship, from time to time there are disagreements and differences of opinion. However, with true friendship these disagreements can never alter the fundamental depth and special nature of the United States-Israel relationship. We are determined to keep it this way.

Thank you very much, Secretary Panetta, and have a successful visit here. Thank you.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON E. PANETTA: Thank you very much, Minister Barak, my good friend Ehud, and good morning everyone. It's a real pleasure to be here on my second visit to Israel as Secretary of Defense. This is about my fifth visit to the country since joining the Obama administration in 2009.

It's also a great honor to be standing here alongside my friend Ehud, who I deeply respect as a leader, as a statesman and as a warrior.

The first call I received from a foreign counterpart after I was sworn in as Secretary of Defense was from Ehud, and I have met with him more than any other Minister of Defense.

I agree with what he has said. The U.S.-Israel defense relationship is stronger than it has ever been before. And I share his commitment to strengthening that relationship even further.

Let me begin by publicly expressing my condolences to the people of Israel for the five Israeli citizens who were murdered this month while vacationing in Bulgaria, and the many others who were injured in that attack.

The attack is a reminder that both the United States and Israel continue to be threatened by violent extremism simply because of the values that we share.

The Israeli people should know that the United States stands with them in this fight and in the fight to ensure peace in this region, and that we have a rock-solid commitment to Israel's security and the security of its citizens.

This commitment, this partnership is more important than ever because of the real security challenges that we see emanating from this region, which are a focus of my discussions with Israeli leaders during this visit and a focus of this trip to the region.

On Israel's northern shore, its northern border, the Assad regime is engaged in brutal violence against its citizens, which is both an affront to our values and a threat to regional stability.

At the same time, Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities and its destabilizing activities, including its support for Assad, for Hezbollah and for international terrorism, poses a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire region.

The United States is also a focus of that threat as indeed the rest of the world.

On Syria, we firmly believe that a political transition is the best way forward, and we are urgently working with like-minded nations to pressure Assad and find a political solution in order to bring the violence, terrible violence, as well as the regime to an end.

On Iran, the United States and Israel share the same goal: preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. The most effective way to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is for the international community to be united, proving to Iran that it will only make itself less secure if it continues to try to pursue a nuclear weapon.

We have been steadily applying more and more pressure against Tehran, focusing on diplomatic and economic sanctions, and I believe these steps are having an effect. But it is clear that we need to continue to apply maximum pressure. And make no mistake, we will.

Just yesterday, President Obama announced additional sanctions to further penalize and isolate Iran, building on the toughest sanctions that Iran has ever faced.

It's my responsibility as Secretary of Defense to provide the president with a full range of options, including military options, should diplomacy fail. President Obama has made clear that preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is a top national security priority by the United States and that all options -- all options -- are on the table.

The United States has made an enduring commitment to Israel's security, backed not only by our words, but by our deeds. The Iron Dome facility that you see behind me is one example of that commitment. Since Iron Dome has been deployed, it has been a game-changer for Israel's security. It has saved Israeli lives and it has achieved a better than 80 percent success rate against rockets fired on Israeli population centers.

Last March, there were 12 rocket attacks in this area -- 12 -- and this battery successfully intercepted every one of them, saving lives and preventing further escalation of conflict.

When I met with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Washington last March, he told me something that I think makes the point: These missile shields do not start wars, they prevent wars. I strongly agree with the prime minister, and for that reason I'm proud of the Obama administration's strong record of support for Iron Dome and other rocket and missile defense systems.

We've already provided more than $200 million for Israel to acquire additional batteries. And last week the president announced an additional $70 million is being transferred to Israel for the current fiscal year.

We will seek additional funding in the years ahead, based on an annual assessment that we will make together of Israel's security requirements against this threat. My goal is to ensure -- to ensure that Israel has the funding it needs each year in order to produce these batteries that protect its citizens.

This cooperation on Iron Dome is only one part of our commitment to preserving and enhancing Israel's qualitative military edge, the bedrock principle guiding our defense relationship.

One other very important way that we are -- that we are involved with is through Israel's participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program. Israel is the only country, the only country in the Middle East participating in this program. And DoD's Joint Strike Fighter programs is working closely with Israel and Lockheed Martin on a package of enhancements to their Joint Strike Fighter. This will ensure Israel's unquestioned air superiority for years to come.

Let me close by noting that I am coming to the end of a trip that has also taken me to Tunisia and Egypt. This is clearly a time of dramatic change and upheaval in the Middle East and in Africa.

This time of change is also a time of opportunity -- opportunity for Israel to benefit from the development of other democracies in the region. The challenge for the United States is to try to help the people of this region achieve their goal of greater freedom and greater prosperity and to ensure the security of Israel and the region.

One important way to do that is to work towards a sustainable, comprehensive Middle East peace with a two-state solution.

Each time I visit Israel, I come away inspired by the extraordinary challenges the Jewish people have overcome in establishing this state and sustaining it in the face of war and in the face of other threats. There should be no doubt about the commitment of the United States to Israel's future security and to our deepening defense partnership.

Thank you once again, Ehud, for your partnership and for your friendship.

MIN. BARAK: Thank you. I will give you words in Hebrew with your permission.

(SPEAKING IN HEBREW)

Q: -- (inaudible) -- from Israeli Channel 10.

Mr. Secretary, you've made it clear time and again that you see no U.S. interest in Israel launching a military strike on Iran this year. Still, the Israel leadership is counting on U.S. support, diplomatic and military, should it decide to launch a strike in the coming weeks.

Can they count on it? Would the U.S. provide Israel with the required military and diplomatic umbrella if it launches a strike on Iran?

SEC. PANETTA: Look, I think we've said very clearly that we respect Israel's sovereignty and their independence, and the, you know, the -- their -- their effort to decide what is in their national security interest is something that must be left up to the Israelis.

As to future contingencies and future hypotheticals, I -- I don't -- I just don't want to engage in speculating what we will or won't do. I guess my hope is that, working together, since we have a common cause here, we are both interested in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and we have been working together and we will continue, hopefully, to work together to ensure that that never happens.

Q: Hello. Kevin Baron from Foreign Policy magazine.

Both of you today have expressed the closeness of the military relationship, and, Mr. Secretary, you said there should be no doubt about the U.S. commitment to Israel's security.

But there are doubts. And Governor Romney, representing large parts of the U.S. electorate, was just here saying that the U.S. should be doing more to protect Israel and more with its military to put pressure on Iran.

So for Mr. Barak, do you agree with those characterizations? Is the U.S. doing enough in your eyes or would you like to see more?

And since I'm pretty sure I know the answer from Mr. Panetta, why is the military not doing more? What are the reasons in your mind for -- for holding the line like you have?

MIN. BARAK: I noticed, I believe that you mentioned the candidate for presidency as well as the administration. And following the American code, I would not recommend on the different positions of competitors running -- people for -- for election in America.

I think that we have a long tradition of friendship with America running many administrations. I can count probably eight of them since Carter where I've been exposed to it personally and have seen it going deeper and deeper along the year, no matter which part of the -- which side of the political aisle in America was in power.

But (inaudible) that the relationship now with regard to our security is extremely deep and strong. Of course we expect it to be continued by the next administration upon the American election results. And we -- we strongly believe that it stems out of a deep background of shared values by our peoples and stems out from the very feeling of the American people. And I can witness here or bring my witness that it's the same on this side of the Atlantic. We also feel the same.

And I think that we are extremely thankful to the administration and to Secretary Panetta for what they are doing now. And we keep looking and watching developments all around the area, and as the Secretary said, Israel is always seeing the very crucial issues of its security and future as something that ultimately the Israeli government and only the Israeli government has to make decisions upon.

But we are not blind. We -- we are looking around. We watch all developments and try to predict most of the consequences. And of course taking into account the -- the American views, the -- the European views and the views of our neighborhood. But always (inaudible) to keep on and making sure that Iran will not turn nuclear. And when we say all the options are on the table, when the American's say all the options are on the table, we mean it and I believe that Americans means -- means it as well.

SEC. PANETTA: I think -- I think Minister Barak has said it. The United States and Israel have the strongest relationship when it comes to the military area that we have ever had. And that's true in a number of areas. We -- we continue to have very strong communications between the Defense Minister and I on almost every issue that is confronting this region, and beyond that, that is confronting the world. And we continue to have discussions not only with us, but between our military and the Israeli military.

We continue to have assistance, military aid that continues to be -- and financing that has -- that continues to be provided to the Israelis. We continue to strengthen their quality area in terms of their equipment to ensure that they always have a qualitative edge, and that -- that is made clear by the fact that they're purchasing the Joint Strike Fighter and the only country to be doing that in this region.

In addition to that, we've provided additional funding on Iron Dome and we will continue to provide funding for that so that Israel can develop its missile defenses. And in addition to that, we continue to have joint exercises between our militaries that -- that strengthen both sides.

So this is -- this is the strongest alliance that we have. They are -- they are a friend. We are Israel's friend. And we will continue to strengthen the military relationship, particularly at a time when we face so many threats abroad.

Q: Hello. (Inaudible) from the (inaudible) Daily, Israel. I would like to ask Secretary Panetta about Pollard. After 27 years in jail, Israeli spy Pollard (inaudible) U.S. security, if he will be released?

And I would like to ask both of you about talks with Iran. Isn't it time to declare that the talks of the P-5-plus-1 with Iran has failed?

Thank you.

SEC. PANETTA: With regards to the first issue, obviously that -- that rests with the -- with the administration to make a judgment as to what will or will not happen with regards to that individual. There's been a great deal of opposition about him being released because of what he did. But again that -- that decision rests with the -- with the White House as to what will or will not happen.

With regards to the issue of -- of -- of the effort to bring pressure on Iran and to try to draw them to the -- the table in order to negotiate a resolution, I think -- I think we have to exhaust -- and the prime minister has made this point -- we have to exhaust every -- every option, every effort, you know, before we resort to military action. I think that's important.

And to do that, you know, we have -- we have applied, the international community has applied very strong sanctions against them. We are ratcheting up those sanctions, as -- as made clear by the president's executive order and made clear by the European countries and others that are applying additional sanctions on Iran.

It's biting. It's having an impact there. And the result is that we did initiate the P-5-plus-1 negotiations. We have not, obviously, been able to reach any kind of agreement. But the key here is to keep putting the pressure on them to negotiate.

They have a choice. They have a choice to make. They can either negotiate in a way that tries to resolve these issues and has them abiding by international rules and requirements and -- and giving up on their effort to develop their -- their nuclear capability. That -- that's an effort we would be interested in working with them to try to negotiate.

But if they don't, and if they continue, and if they make the decision to proceed with a nuclear weapon, as the minister has pointed out, we have options that we are prepared to implement to ensure that that does not happen.

MIN. BARAK: We see both the sanctions and diplomacy going further than in the past and they have clearly certain impacts.

But to tell you the truth, we in Israel see the probability that it will lead the ayatollahs to gather around the table, look at each other eyes and tell each other that -- that the game is over, we have to give up our nuclear military program, the probability of this happening is very, extremely low.

And it's important to -- to notice that while sanctions are taking place and diplomacy takes -- takes place, it takes time, and in the meantime the Iranians are keeping enriching daily uranium, not just to -- to enlarge the -- the amount of (inaudible) enriched uranium they have, they are coming very close to having uranium enriched to 20 percent in an amount that comes closer to -- to the amount needed for a weapon. And they're continuing every day.

So it's not just a -- a -- a kind of passive symmetry. We are trying. We have nothing to lose. We have clearly something to lose by this stretched time upon which sanctions and diplomacy takes place because the Iranians are moving forward not -- not just in enrichment.

Thank you.

Q: Hello, (inaudible) with BBC News.

Secretary Panetta, is there an obligation, an understood obligation on the part of the U.S., if Israel were attacked by Iran?

And Minister Barak, Naftali Bennett has said to the BBC this morning that it seems like the Obama administration is more concerned with stopping Israel than stopping an Iranian bomb and only a credible U.S. threat would prevent an attack and Israel hasn't seen that yet. Can you respond?

SEC. PANETTA: Let me make clear that -- that we're committed to -- to the defense of Israel and to their security. And beyond that, I'm not going to discuss what contingencies we would or would not engage in were that to happen.

MIN. BARAK: I made it clear that the government of Israel and only the government of Israel will make the decisions about any issue that -- that touches the very core of our security interests and our future. I think that that's the way it should be run and that's the way we are going to run it. And beyond, -- (inaudible) Naftali Bennett?

That's it. Before we are delayed late.