AP journo tweaks State Department over stance on Palestinians

Politico
Josh Gerstein

Victoria Nuland

I've noted before how, for whatever reason, the State Department press corps often seems more confrontational and assertive than the White House press contingent.

Another illustration of the State press corps' different model came Monday as Associated Press reporter Matthew Lee challenged State spokeswoman Victoria Nuland over the department's assertion that it was inappropriate for Palestinian representatives to seek recognition as a state from the U.N. cultural body UNESCO and her argument that it would be sensible for the U.S. to pull out of a related intellectual-property organization if the Palestinians receive state status there.

"I used to think that this government, my government, had some intellect itself, but this just seems ridiculous. You are going to oppose them in some kind of international weather organization as well? The Civil Aviation Organization?" Lee asked.

When Nuland said the U.S. was applying the same position to all U.N. agencies, Lee countered incredulously:

"You can — you think that there is somewhere — somewhere in this building that someone can draw a intellectually responsible and acceptable argument that membership in the World Intellectual Property Organization should not be granted to the Palestinians because they are not a state, because their intellectual property, because they’re not a state, is somehow less deserving of protection than anyone else’s, including the Syrians, including whoever else?"

After a bit more let-me-finish sparring, Nuland slapped back with: "Are you asking me a question that you’d like me to answer, or are you just going to have an argument with me today?"

Text of the full exchange after the jump. Full briefing text here. And video here.

UPDATE: Several Lee fans, including some pro-Israel voices, have rallied to Lee's defense on Twitter after some suggested he might have a pro-Palestinian bent.

"Matt Lee is a bulldozer. Only agenda is 2 make podium squirm & report news," former AIPAC spokesman Josh Block tweeted, comparing Lee to veteran AP State newsman Barry Schweid.

Indeed, at Tuesday's briefing, Lee gave Nuland so much grief over the lack of any State Department punishment for the Palestinians' defiance of U.S. wishes that the spokeswoman got grumpy.

"Is there a question here, Matt, or is this a speech? ... I’m serious, really," she said.

"Well, I’m serious, too. It just seems to me that there’s a profound lack of critical and intelligent thinking going on to this," Lee replied.

QUESTION: Quite apart from the congressional lot, you’re opposed to the Palestinians having membership in the World Intellectual Property Organization?

MS. NULAND: We are.

QUESTION: You are?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Because the Palestinians don’t have any intellectual property, or because their intellectual property, because they’re not a state, is somehow less protectable or less worthy of protection?

MS. NULAND: Because this is a cascade effect of the decision in the UNESCO which we consider —
QUESTION: What does protecting intellectual property have to do — anything to do with statehood?

MS. NULAND: It has to do with the declaration of state status in UNESCO, which cascades into WIPO, that we are opposed to.

QUESTION: I used to think that this government, my government, had some intellect itself, but this just seems ridiculous. You are going to oppose them in some kind of international weather organization as well? The Civil Aviation Organization?

MS. NULAND: Our position on this with regard to all the UN agencies is the same.

QUESTION: You can – you think that there is somewhere – somewhere in this building that someone can draw a intellectually responsible and acceptable argument that membership in the World Intellectual Property Organization should not be granted to the Palestinians because they are not a state, because their intellectual property, because they’re not a state, is somehow less deserving of protection than anyone else’s, including the Syrians, including whoever else?

MS. NULAND: Matt, the move here is not with regard to the aspiration that we all have for the Palestinians to have access to and full rights of all of these UN organizations. The concern here is trying to shortcut the process of statehood, trying to establish statehood through the back door --

QUESTION: But see, that’s the --

MS. NULAND: Can I finish my point, please?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. NULAND: Thank you. Rather than establishing true statehood the way it has to be done, which is in direct negotiations with their neighbor. And from that can flow all of the benefits of these organizations.

QUESTION: But not even the Palestinians themselves say that this is a way to statehood. They —

MS. NULAND: Well, but what has been granted here —

QUESTION: They know that this is not — this does not mean statehood.

MS. NULAND: What has been granted here in UNESCO is Palestinian membership and statehood status. That’s what’s of concern.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, and the Palestinian vote on that?

MS. NULAND: Excuse me?

QUESTION: The Palestinians didn’t vote for this. A hundred and seven other countries, including some of your best friends, voted for this. The Palestinians didn’t vote for it; they just simply put it up for — they put it up for a vote. They didn’t have a vote on this.

MS. NULAND: This began —

QUESTION: You lost.

MS. NULAND: Matt —

QUESTION: Why —

MS. NULAND: Are you asking me a question that you’d like me to answer, or are you just going to have an argument with me today?

QUESTION: No, no. I’m — I want to know why you think, and everyone else — which is a position that everyone else disagrees with, that this is somehow — that this hurts the peace process or hurts the ability of the Palestinians to get a state, short of just upsetting the Israelis?

MS. NULAND: Start with the premise this process in UNESCO began with a Palestinian petition for membership, which we thought was ill-advised and ill-considered, and which we so said to the Palestinians at the time. So the Palestinians made a move here that we didn’t think was conducive to the environment for the talks or conducive to getting us back to the table. That is our concern. We want to get the Palestinians their state. It’s only going to happen if we can get these parties back to the table. We have to create an environment that gets them back to the table, and this is not helpful.

QUESTION: Okay. But you accept that 107 countries disagreed with you.

MS. NULAND: A hundred and seven countries made their own decision. We disagree with them.

QUESTION: Right. Exactly. So, I mean, isn’t it maybe — doesn’t that tell you anything, that if you add in the abstentions, which included the Brits, your special ally, who abstained, then 159 countries disagreed with you?

MS. NULAND: It tells us that we are not any closer to a Palestinian state by virtue of this vote today. We are trying to get to that end state that we want, that the Palestinians want, and we don’t think this is helpful.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services