State Department says Amb. Gutman was ‘speaking on his own’

Wow this is crazy. Yesterday Matt Lee of AP asked the State Department spokesperson Mark Toner if US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman was speaking for the US government when he said that Israel’s actions have generated anti-Semitism in Muslim communities. And Toner says he was “speaking on his own.”

Under Lee’s questions, Toner repeatedly distances the Obama administration from Gutman with remarks like, “I will leave it to the Ambassador to Belgium to clarify what he meant–” and continually changes the discussion to how much the U.S. loves Israel.

Lee then gets at the heart of the matter: Isn’t there a difference between classic anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism that is based on criticism of the state of Israel. Toner says, Gutman was saying “there are different forms of anti-Semitism. We condemn them in all their forms.”

As Lee says late in this dialogue, “you’re in a very difficult position.” Video goes from 1:00 to about 8:30.

QUESTION: Let’s start with Ambassador Gutman’s speech from last week…. Does the Administration agree with the sentiments that he expressed in his speech?

MR. TONER: …He made very clear in a subsequent statement that they were his thoughts or his remarks. He did condemn and was very vocal about condemning anti-Semitism in all its forms, and I believe he expressed regret that his words might have been taken out of context…

QUESTION:

Does the Administration agree with the content of the – of Ambassador Gutman’s speech?

MR. TONER:

And the Administration and the State Department says that we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms.

QUESTION: That’s great, Mark. I’m glad that you do, and I’m sure everyone is glad that you do, but do you agree with the content of Ambassador Gutman’s speech?

MR. TONER: We –

QUESTION: I don’t know; it’s a pretty easy question. Yes or no?

MR. TONER: It is – it was his remarks. It was his opinion. He was not speaking on behalf —

QUESTION: So he wasn’t speaking – the Ambassador to Belgium, he was not speaking —

MR. TONER: I think he said as much. He said it was his remarks and he was speaking on his own.

QUESTION: No, he didn’t. He did not say that. He – but he was not speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government?

MR. TONER: I don’t believe so.

QUESTION: So the – okay, the Ambassador to Belgium shows up at a conference in Europe, in Belgium, and he is not speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government. Is that correct?

MR. TONER: The Ambassador was expressing his views on an issue.

QUESTION: They are not the view – so he —

MR. TONER: He subsequently issued a statement clarifying that he was – I don’t know – expressing regret if his remarks were taken out of context. He then said that he does condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms, and in fact, pointed to his own family history as a testament to that.

QUESTION: Well, I understand that, but you’re saying that he was speaking as a private citizen, not as the U.S. Ambassador?

MR. TONER: Well, of course, when – anytime an ambassador speaks, he is representing the United States.

QUESTION: So the views that he expressed in his speech do not represent the views of the Administration?

MR. TONER: Matt, let me be very clear.

QUESTION: Mark, I understand that you condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I understand that, okay? I’m asking you if you agree with the content of his speech, which he gave as the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium.

MR. TONER: And I would just say that he was sharing his views on an issue. Our commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad. The United States – or Israel has no greater friend or ally than the United States, and we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms.

QUESTION: Okay. That’s fine, but I don’t – I’m not hearing in there – unless you’re going to tell me right out he was speaking as a private citizen and not as the Ambassador. Is that – that’s what you’re saying?…

MR. TONER: Again, we’ve been very clear that we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms regardless of how you call it or how you characterize it.

QUESTION: Do you – okay. So you do not agree, then, with the contents of the Ambassador’s speech?

MR. TONER: I think I’ll just stop there.

QUESTION: Well —

MR. TONER: I think I just said we condemn –

QUESTION: — this guy is the —

MR. TONER: — anti-Semitism in all of its forms. He —

QUESTION: Okay. So you don’t draw a distinction between criticism of Israel —

MR. TONER: No.

QUESTION: — and all criticism of Israel —

MR. TONER: No. We don’t draw any distinctions. We don’t —

QUESTION: All criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism? Is that what you’re saying?

MR. TONER: Look, I will leave it to the Ambassador to Belgium to clarify what he meant —

QUESTION: Does the —

MR. TONER: — by his remarks —

QUESTION: Does the —

MR. TONER: — to this gathering.

QUESTION: Does the –

MR. TONER: I can only speak on behalf of this Administration, and that is that we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms.

QUESTION: Does the Administration think that Israel is above reproach? In other words, that Israel should not be criticized for anything?

MR. TONER: Speaking largely about the issue that was on the table, which is Middle East peace and the importance of it and, frankly, the stability that it brings to the region, we’ve been very clear that the best way to a lasting peace is through the negotiating table. That remains our focus. We want to get both sides back into direct negotiations….

QUESTION: This Administration has been critical of the Government of Israel before, correct?

MR. TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Yes. Do you – is that criticism anti-Semitic?

MR. TONER: Of course not.

QUESTION: So all criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism?

MR. TONER: Again, I don’t want to parse this out. I just simply want to say we condemn —

QUESTION: I know you don’t want to because you’re in a very difficult position.

MR. TONER: — anti-Semitism in all of its forms. Okay?

QUESTION: You’re saying, though, that you accept a distinction between criticism of Israel and anti – criticism of the government of – the policies of the Government of Israel and anti-Semitism. You draw a distinction between the two things, correct?

MR. TONER: I’d just say that this Administration has consistently stood up against anti-Semitism and efforts to delegitimize Israel, and will continue to do so.

QUESTION: Does the Administration believe that you can be critical of Israel without being anti-Semitic?

MR. TONER: I think that when it comes to trying to keep the parties focused on the peace process and in citing behavior that is not constructive to that process, we are certainly able to do that, and have done so in the past.

QUESTION: But does the Administration believe that you can be – that one can be critical of the policies of government – the Government of Israel without being anti-Semitic? Yes or no?

MR. TONER: Well, again, I think I just answered the question, that we have been critical —

QUESTION: Okay. So you’re saying that there – you do draw a distinction between criticism of the Government of Israel, of policies of the Government of Israel, and – in other words, not all criticism of Israel – when you come out and you say we think that more settlements are a bad idea, that doesn’t mean the Administration —

MR. TONER: Of course, of course.

QUESTION: — is anti-Semitic, right?

MR. TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Okay. So in his speech, Ambassador Gutman draws a distinction between classic anti-Semitism and some kind of new form of hatred toward Jews which is based – what he said, based on the policies of the Government of Israel. Do you – it sounds as though you accept that there is a distinction between the two.

MR. TONER: What Ambassador Gutman was – I believe what he was trying to convey is that there are different forms of anti-Semitism. We condemn them in all their forms.

QUESTION: All right. I’ve got another on Israel, but it’s not on this subject.

[Not Matt Lee’s] QUESTION: If I could just follow up briefly on that, some Republicans have called for the Administration to fire Ambassador Gutman. Is there – does the Administration have a response to that, have a position on –

MR. TONER: We have full confidence in him.