Dual Loyalties

My opinion on the people who shape our world

Thursday, August 18, 2005

State Department Biography of David M. Satterfield (American Traitor)

Biography of David M. Satterfield: "

Biography of David M. Satterfield

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Term of Appointment: June 2004 to February 2005

David M. Satterfield assumed the position of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary on June 1, 2004, having served for the previous three years as Deputy Assistant Secretary. He was Ambassador to Lebanon from September 1998 to June 2001, and was confirmed by the Senate in May 2004 as the next Ambassador to Jordan. A career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Ambassador Satterfield served on the National Security Council Staff from 1993 to 1996 as Director for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs and held the position of Director of the Department of State’s Office of Israel and Arab-Israeli Affairs from 1996 to 1998.

David Satterfield entered the Foreign Service in 1980, and has served overseas in Jeddah, Tunis, Beirut, and Damascus. In addition to other State Department assignments in the Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, he was Director of the Executive Secretariat Staff 1990 to 1993. Ambassador Satterfield is the recipient of the Presidential Meritorious Executive Rank Award, Department Senior Performance Awards, and six Department of State Superior Honor Awards, notably for his work on the Middle East peace process.

Ambassador Satterfield was born in Baltimore, Maryland. He attended the University of Maryland and Georgetown University.


Released April 2005"

Haaretz - NY Times: Satterfield discussed secret data with ex-AIPAC official

Haaretz - Israel News: "Last update - 02:19 19/08/2005

NY Times: Satterfield discussed secret data with ex-AIPAC official

By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent

WASHINGTON - David Satterfield, a former senior State Department official who is deputy to the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, is mentioned in the indictment against former AIPAC official Steve Rosen as one of the senior American officials who discussed classified material with the defendant, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

Rosen and another former official of the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee, Keith Weissman, were recently indicted for allegedly passing classified information obtained from American officials to Israeli officials.

The indictment does not mention Satterfield by name; it merely refers to a "government official" who met with Rosen twice in early 2002 and discussed classified matters. However, the Times identified this official as

The indictment also does not say whether the official in question is suspected of breaking any laws. However, a briefing given by the federal prosecution when the indictment was filed seemed to indicate that there are no plans to charge any of the officials mentioned in the charge sheet, with the exception of Pentagon official Larry Franklin.

Before taking up his current job, Satterfield served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. In this capacity, he was a frequent visitor to the region, and was very involved in both Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and talks between Israel and the Untied States.

According to the Times, another American official cited in the indictment has since resigned from government service. However, the Times did not give this official's name."

Jerusalem Post | Satterfield named in AIPAC indictment

Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World: "JPost.com » International » Article

Aug. 18, 2005 21:40 | Updated Aug. 18, 2005 22:18
Satterfield named in AIPAC indictment

David Satterfield, who served as the second-ranking Middle East officer in the State Department, is the US government official who is mentioned in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee indictment.

The US Justice Department is accusing two former officials in the lobby, former AIPAC policy director Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, of unlawfully receiving classified information and passing it on to Israeli diplomats and to members of the press. Satterfield is not described as the source of this classified information in the indictment, which focuses on information the two AIPAC lobbyists received from Larry Franklin, an analyst in the Pentagon's Iran desk.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Satterfield was the person who was in touch with Rosen and that he was the one who discussed classified information with Rosen. Legal sources close to the case confirmed that Satterfield's name has come up in the context of the investigation.

The indictment, handed down on August 4, does not mention Satterfield by name, but refers to him as "Government Official 2" (USGO2). The indictment details two separate meetings Satterfield held with Rosen, both in 2002, in which classified information was discussed, though it is not clear what this information was and whether Satterfield has broken any law by discussing the information with the AIPAC lobbyist.

According to the report, the State Department consulted with the Department of Justice prior to appointing Satterfield to his new post, as deputy chief of mission in Baghdad, and was informed that Satterfield is not a suspect in the case and that it should have no effect on his new assignment.

As a senior official at the Near East bureau of the State Department, Satterfield was in close contact with all those who deal with the Middle East, including representatives of AIPAC.

Another US official is mentioned in the indictment as "Government Official 1" (USGO1). This official's name was not available, but it is presumed that he too is a former employee in the State Department Near East bureau.

Three Israeli diplomats are also mentioned in the case, and referred to by code names "Foreign Official" – FO1, FO2 and FO3. Israeli and American sources have identified FO3 as Naor Gilon, the former political officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington, and FO1 as Rafi Barak, former deputy chief of mission at the embassy. Israeli sources emphasized that, contrary to prior media reports, ambassador Danny Ayalon is not the diplomat referred to in the indictment as FO2.

The trial of Rosen, Weissman and Franklin is due to begin on January 3 at the US federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia."

Israeli Spy David Satterfield Tried to Use Hariri Death to Strong Arm Syria

MyUSTINET News: U.S. Official Calls On Syria To Cooperate: "U.S. Official Calls On Syria To Cooperate
Monday, 28-Feb-2005 7:40AM Associated Press - AP Online

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield called on Syria Monday to cooperate in the war on terrorism in Iraq and Lebanon.

Speaking after a meeting with Lebanese Foreign Minister Mahmoud Hammoud, Satterfield said "a just and suitable settlement should be reached between Lebanon and Syria."

"Lebanon should not be excluded from the trend of freedom and democracy that is sweeping the region, from Pakistan to the Palestinian territories ... especially as Lebanon has a long history in democracy", he said.

He reiterated his government's support of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls for Syria to withdraw its approximately 15,000 troops from Lebanon and for the dissolution of local and foreign militias, in reference to Hezbollah and armed Palestinian factions.

Satterfield called the Feb. 14 slaying of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri "a national and international tragedy. The United States and the U.N. urge the Lebanese government to uncover the culprits and bring them to justice as quickly as possible."

He stressed, "We want to have better relations with Syria, but that can only be possible when Syria cooperates in Iraq and in putting an end to terrorism.""

whitehouse.gov Personnel Announcement of Israeli Spy David Satterfield

Personnel Announcement: "For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 26, 2004

Personnel Announcement
President George W. Bush today announced his intention to nominate two individuals to serve in his administration:

The President intends to nominate David Michael Satterfield, of Virginia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. A career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Ambassador Satterfield currently serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department. He previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon. Earlier in his career, Ambassador Satterfield served on the National Security Council as Director for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs. In addition, he also served as Director of the State Department's Office of Israel and Arab-Israeli Affairs. Ambassador Satterfield earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Maryland."

BIOGRAPHIC SUMMARY of Israeli Spy David Michael Satterfield

Text: Satterfield Senate Statement, Ambassador-Designate To Lebanon: "TEXT: SATTERFIELD SENATE STATEMENT, AMBASSADOR-DESIGNATE TO LEBANON
(Highest goal will be to encourage progress toward peace)

July 16, 1998
Washington -- If confirmed as Ambassador to Lebanon, David M. Satterfield says his "highest goal will be to encourage progress toward peace through resumption of Lebanon-Israel and Syria-Israel negotiations, to help achieve a lasting end to the violence in south Lebanon, and to support the democratic process in Lebanon, including Presidential elections this fall."

At his July 16 confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Satterfield noted that he served in Lebanon "a decade ago during a time of great challenge and tragedy for the United States and for the people of Lebanon. I look forward to assisting as Lebanon rebuilds, and above all to the advancement of the interests and ideals of the United States," he said.

In the past 20 years, Satterfield testified, "the United States has had neither a higher or more consistent commitment than the quest for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace," in the Middle East.

"Alongside our extraordinary, ongoing efforts to realize such a secure and enduring settlement, we remain dedicated to the goal of a fully sovereign and independent Lebanon, free of all foreign forces and able once more to take its rightful place among the nations of the world. We believe strongly that attainment of a comprehensive regional peace will help bring about the fulfillment of this goal," he stated.

Following are the texts of Satterfield's Senate statement, as prepared for delivery, and his bio:

(Begin text)


Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Committee. I am deeply honored to have been nominated as Ambassador to the Republic of Lebanon and I am grateful to the President and Secretary Albright for their trust and confidence.

It is a special privilege and personal pleasure to have been nominated to return as Ambassador to Lebanon, where I served a decade ago during a time of great challenge and tragedy for the United States and for the people of Lebanon. I look forward to assisting as Lebanon rebuilds, and above all to the advancement of the interests and ideals of the United States.

My career with the U.S. Government over the past twenty years has been focused almost entirely on the Middle East. In that time, the United States has had neither a higher or more consistent commitment than the quest for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace.

Alongside our extraordinary, ongoing efforts to realize such a secure and enduring settlement, we remain dedicated to the goal of a fully sovereign and independent Lebanon, free of all foreign forces and able once more to take its rightful place among the nations of the world. We believe strongly that attainment of a comprehensive regional peace will help bring about the fulfillment of this goal.

Our friendship with the people of Lebanon spans almost the entire history of our republic and of the modern Lebanese state. While we remember the terrible sacrifices made by Americans and Lebanese alike during the years of war, we also recall our shared values and ideals, including a firm commitment to democracy, freedom and a vibrant civil society.

I have experienced first-hand with the people of Lebanon and with their neighbors -- Arab and Israeli -- the suffering that war and terror can bring. If confirmed, my highest goal will be to encourage progress toward peace through resumption of Lebanon-Israel and Syria-Israel negotiations, to help achieve a lasting end to the violence in south Lebanon, and to support the democratic process in Lebanon, including Presidential elections this fall.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you in the Congress and to pursuing these objectives an behalf of the United States and the American people.

Thank you.


NAME: David Michael Satterfield

POSITION FOR WHICH CONSIDERED: Ambassador to the Republic of Lebanon

PRESENT POSITION: Director, Office of Israel and Arab-Israeli Affairs, Department of State

FOREIGN SERVICE GRADE: Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor

DATE/PLACE OF BIRTH: December 18, 1954, Baltimore, Maryland


NAME OF SPOUSE: Martha Anne Satterfield

NAMES OF CHILDREN: Alexander Michael Satterfield Victoria Maria Satterfield

EDUCATION: B.A., University of Maryland, College Park, 1972-1976 Georgetown University Law Center, 1976-1978


FOREIGN LANGUAGES: Arabic and French

(End text)"

The late Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield

Prime Minister Rafic Hariri - News: "UNITED STATES

Sunday, November 03, 2002
The President of the Counsel of Ministers, Mr. Rafic Hariri, flew to Washington DC to continue his tour of countries and international institutions participating in the Paris II conference.

Premier Hariri met with the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Mr. Horst Köhler, and “reviewed recent economic and financial developments in Lebanon and the upcoming Paris II meeting.” The Premier also met with the President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn. He went on to discuss the situation in the Middle East, the Iraqi issue and the latest developments in the occupied Palestinian territories with US Secretary of State, Colin Powell. The talks were attended by Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East William Burns, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield and Lebanese Ambassador to Washington Farid Abboud. They also covered the Wazzani water issue and Lebanon’s efforts in this regard.

During his meeting with Mr. Hariri, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill officially notified the Lebanese Premier that the United States would participate in the Paris II conference.

After meeting with US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Prime Minister Hariri concluded his visit by meeting with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, after which he said, “We discussed the participation of the United States in the Paris II conference aimed at supporting Lebanon in its financial reform efforts,” in addition to the situation in the Middle East and Iraq, as well as bilateral US-Lebanese relations.

Accompanying Prime Minister Hariri on his trip were Finance Minister Fouad Siniora, Economy Minister Bassil Fuleihan, Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh and the Premier’s advisor on European affairs Basile Yared."

Israeli Spy David Satterfield Knows 4 Words of Arabic

The Angry Arab News Service/????? ????? ?????? ??????: "Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Repeat After Me: Batata: So US deputy assistant secretary of State, David Satterfield, is visiting Lebanon. Why now? Nothing special. He has heard a lot of good things about the quality of Falafil in Lebanon, and wanted to see for himself. When European and Asian diplomats visit Lebanon, they speak in Arabic. But Mr. Satterfield is an American "Middle East expert" so I noticed that whenever he spoke during this visit (always in English of course--he spent years working on his English afterall--he uses one Arabic word for extra effect. On the first day of his visit, he used the word "fitnah" (sedition), on the second day of the visit, he used the word "fawran" (immediately). It is expected that that on his third day, he is planning the use the word "batata" (potato). His family must be so proud of him for his extensive use of the Arabic language. At this rate, Mr. Satterfield may actually use four full words of Arabic during this touristic visit. His first meeting was with the right-wing Maronite patriarch (who, like the Mufti in Lebanon, is an enthusiastic book burner, and firmly believes that there is a "Satan's worshipping conspiracy in Lebanon-kid you not), and Bush has decided to invite the latter to the White House. Perhaps France gave the Americans figures of the various sizes of the sects in Lebanon from the times when France colonized Lebanon after WWI."

Israeli Spy David M. Satterfield - Keynote Address to the Israel Policy Forum

Israel Policy Forum: "NEA Deputy Assistant Secretary David M. Satterfield
Keynote Address to the Israel Policy Forum
Washington, D.C.
March 11, 2004

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It’s wonderful to be with you again today. As I’ve watched IPF develop over the past 10 years I have been impressed with its energetic and capable leadership. Truly, the extraordinary talent, expertise, and accomplishment represented in this room are a testament to IPF’s growth and achievement. I have very much appreciated the opportunities I have had to work with IPF over the years, and look forward to continuing that dialogue with all of you today and in the future.

The past twelve months have been a time of remarkable change in the Middle East. The end of Saddam’s regime is central to that change, but only the start. The region’s people find themselves facing a series of critical questions related to post-war reconstruction, reconciliation and territorial borders, and the emergence of democracy and open societies. And they are posing these questions in new ways, and with new urgency. They are questioning old assumptions, and old rhetoric, with a critical eye. Clearly, the status quo is an unacceptable paradigm. We can’t be naïve about it. There are entrenched forces that will resist change, and throw up obstacles along the way. And in some cases they will be successful for a time. But new voices are being heard, and the direction is clear.

This is a hopeful sign. Because a new vision for the region cannot be imposed from the outside: it must rooted in the experience and aspirations of the region’s people. That is the only basis for change, and the only path toward resolving the conflicts and curing the economic and political ills out of which extremism and insecurity grow. Even so, powerful challenges loom on many fronts, from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to Iraq to the global war on terrorism. Many Middle East societies are falling further and further behind in the global economy, and Arab thinkers themselves highlight mounting deficits in educational and political modernization.

And underlying all those problems is a crisis of understanding. The fact that a recent survey by the Pew Foundation found that 94 percent of Egyptians, for example, have an unfavorable view of the United States ought to be a cause for sober reflection. So should the palpable unease of many in the United States about the Middle East and prospects for the future. Recent polls showing a majority of Europeans believing that Israel now poses a threat to world peace are as troubling as they are ill-founded, and equally alarming is the creeping return of anti-Semitism in political discourse. Gaps between Europeans and Americans in viewing many Middle East issues are widening, not narrowing – even as our stake in addressing these issues is growing. If ever there were a time for looking honestly at where we’ve been together, and for speaking some plain truths about where we’re headed, this is it.

I don’t mean to suggest that there is a neat path ahead of us. There isn’t. And I certainly don’t mean to suggest that the Department of State has a monopoly on wisdom on any of these issues. We don’t. And if you don’t believe me, there is no shortage of people in Washington who will confirm it for you.

It seems to me that we face four interconnected policy challenges in the Greater Middle East today. The first challenge is the topic of today’s symposium: renewing progress toward the two-state vision which President Bush has outlined, and which is so deeply in the interests of Israelis as well as Palestinians. Second is the struggle against terrorists and their state sponsors, as well as against the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Third is the historic challenge of supporting efforts at economic and political reform in a region which has for too long known too little of either. And fourth, and not least, is the challenge of helping Iraqis liberated from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein to build the unified, stable and prosperous country that they and their neighbors so richly deserve.

Again, these are enormously difficult issues, and change will not come easily or quickly, nor will it be risk-free. But, taken together, progress on each of these four issues offers a positive agenda for the Greater Middle East. They offer a basis for making common cause with people and leaderships in the region struggling against the militant minorities who threaten us all. And they offer a basis for hope – the ultimate antidote to the despair on which violent extremists thrive.

Let me touch briefly on each of these policy challenges in turn.

Israel and the Palestinians

We are now facing a compelling, complicated, and endlessly frustrating challenge: how to rekindle some sense of hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I hardly need to tell any of you in this audience that hope is in very short supply right now. It is evaporating in the understandable rage of Israelis suffering through horrible acts of terror. It is being swallowed up in the deep frustrations, daily humiliations and wounded dignity of Palestinians living under occupation. And what is being lost in the process is the vision of two states that President Bush offered on June 24, 2002.

The truth is that in the long term, nothing would have a greater impact in shaping a positive future for the Middle East than the realization of the President’s vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, security, and dignity. In order for that to happen, both Israelis and Palestinians must see a different reality emerging than the one they see today. Israelis must see an end to terror, and hope for a final end to the conflict and full acceptance in the region. Palestinians must see their dignity respected, their hope restored for an early, negotiated end to the occupation which began in 1967, and the creation of a viable, independent state of their own.

But more than this, it will require bold choices for peace from Israelis and Palestinians themselves, strong leadership from the United States, and active diplomacy with our friends in the region and throughout the international community. We are consulting intensively with the Israeli government now to determine how Prime Minister Sharon’s disengagement proposals might serve to bring us closer to the two-state vision. It is possible that this is a moment of opportunity in the seemingly endless effort to bring peace to the Middle East. As you all know, last December in Herzliya, Prime Minister Sharon said, “Israel will not remain in all the places where it is today.” In that speech Sharon laid out in broad brushstrokes some ideas about what he referred to as “the unilateral security step of disengagement from the Palestinians.” The United States believes that direct negotiation between the two parties is the best way to achieve a just, lasting, and secure peace. However, if Israel has now decided that its security needs dictate a certain level of disengagement, we must now work on ensuring that any such steps are consistent with the roadmap and continue to lead towards the two-state vision.

There certainly do exist disengagement steps that Israel can take that would decrease friction between Israelis and Palestinians, improve Palestinian freedom of movement, and advance progress toward the President’s two-state vision. Such steps, however, must help, rather than hinder, realization of the goal the President has set forth. And such steps should be part of a strategic, comprehensive approach that takes into consideration the need for positive actions by Israel in both Gaza and the West Bank. In short, actions taken by Israel – and the Palestinians - ought to move the sides closer to the two-state solution, not farther away from it. In this regard, we are continuing to urge the Israeli and Palestinian Prime Ministers to meet and resume direct contacts that can make possible progress toward an agreed settlement. Because there is no substitute for the roadmap’s final destination: a negotiated two-state solution that ends the conflict permanently and sees two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

Such a Palestinian state cannot be built upon a foundation of terror and violence. On that there can be no concessions, no flexibility, no turning a blind eye. Palestinians will have to be honest with themselves on this point, and they will have to confront those among them who would drag Palestinian dreams further down a tragic dead-end path. As President Bush has emphasized repeatedly, a transformed Palestinian leadership is essential. Ending violence and reforming Palestinian political institutions are not a favor to any outsider – they are deeply in the self-interest of Palestinians, and the only workable path to statehood and the end of occupation.

But the emergence of a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel is not just a dream of the Palestinian people. Its realization is intimately connected with Israel’s future as well, and the kind of Israel that Israelis will pass on to their children and grandchildren. Israel’s national political dialogue has been dominated in recent months by attempts to answer that question. Because as Israeli settlements expand, and their populations increase, it becomes increasingly difficult to see how the two peoples will be separated into two states. The fact is that settlements continue to grow today, encouraged by specific government policies, and at enormous expense to Israel’s economy. And this persists even as it becomes clear that the logic of settlements and the reality of demographics could threaten the future of Israel as a Jewish democracy.

For friends of Israel, the conclusion is hard to escape. Settlement activity must stop, because it ultimately undermines Israeli as well as Palestinian interests. The course of the security fence remains a significant problem as well – not its existence as a separation barrier between Israel and the West Bank – but because its planned route inside the West Bank isolates Palestinians from each other, prejudices negotiations and, like settlement activity, takes us further from the two state goal.

Just as it is essential to drive home to Palestinians that violence and terror will never achieve their aspirations, so too it is important to preserve the possibility that a viable state can be achieved by a Palestinian leadership committed once and for all to ending terror. That reality underpins the President’s continued personal commitment to his June 24 vision, and to the roadmap as a means of pursuing it.

In the meantime, we are left with the reality that roadmaps and visions and final status proposals do not implement themselves. They require hard work and hard choices from all of us. We will continue to work with Palestinians and Israelis, with the Quartet, and with our friends in the region and the international community, to help the parties to this conflict make those hard choices.

Struggle Against Terrorism and WMD

Another critical challenge is our ongoing struggle against terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. I’ll just touch on a few of the major issues before us, with particular emphasis on Libya, which has become a real success story and demonstrates that our efforts to fight terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction can indeed result in a positive outcome for everyone involved.

Libya is a major success in our efforts to halt both state sponsored terrorism and the proliferation of the world's most dangerous weapons. Following long and determined diplomacy, Libya – a nation that had been a sponsor of terrorism and had aggressively sought WMD capabilities – made the right and historic decision to eliminate its WMD and MTCR-class missile programs. In the space of less than three months, Libya has invited U.S. and UK experts, along with officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to help destroy the dangerous legacy of its decades-long effort to obtain and deploy chemical and nuclear weapons. .

Libya’s cooperation has been excellent. In less than three months, Libya's declared nuclear capacity has been effectively dismantled; its chemical munitions have been destroyed; its chemical agents are declared, consolidated and awaiting destruction; and its Scud C missiles have been removed. On March 8, Libya signed the IAEA Additional Protocol and acknowledged its history of non-compliance – an example we hope other nations will follow.

President Bush has said that as the Libyan government demonstrates its seriousness, the U.S. will respond in good faith and with the possibility of better relations. We can now say that U.S.-Libyan relations are on a path of gradual, step-by-step normalization. We are engaged in a bilateral political dialogue, U.S. diplomats are back in Tripoli for the first time in 24 years, Americans can travel to Libya, and Libya has been invited to open an Interest Section in Washington.

The message for the region, and for the world, is clear. The U.S. is committed to working with our allies and with multilateral institutions to address through diplomatic means the challenge posed by the proliferation of WMD and terrorism. As President Bush put it, “old hostilities do not need to go on forever.”

On the other side, however, we have Iran, about which not only the United States but also an increasing number of other countries have profound concerns. While Iran has made gestures toward greater cooperation on WMD issues, recent reports have called into question the sincerity of those gestures. And they must be weighed against the backdrop of Iran’s previous broken promises, its crackdown on reformists, and its continuing support for terrorism. Syria poses another challenge. Secretary Powell made unmistakably clear to President Asad last year that the United States, remains committed to comprehensive peace, including on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. But he also laid out candidly the range of our concerns and what it would take to build a more normal relationship. The point is that the Syrian regime can’t have it both ways: it can’t profess a commitment to peace on the one hand, and with the other support groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which are doing everything they can to explode prospects for peace.


The third component of our challenges in the Middle East today is, of course, Iraq. Both the Iraqi people and we face a huge and complicated a task of reconstruction after decades of brutal misrule by Saddam Hussein. However, the possibilities are before us are equally huge. There can be no doubt that security is a daunting and immediate problem. The March 2 bombings in Karbala and Baghdad are a reminder of how ruthless and vicious an enemy we are facing. So too are the issues of economic reconstruction and accelerating a political process as we prepare to hand over authority to a sovereign, independent Iraqi government on July 1. But there can also be no doubt that Iraqis are finally free from the terrible atrocities and waste of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Step by difficult step, Iraqis are beginning to put their society back together again. Basic services have largely been restored. Iraqi ministers are taking on more and more responsibilities. Ordinary citizens are expressing their views freely, in ways that were simply unimaginable under Saddam. And the compromise draft Iraqi constitution is a milestone for Iraq and for the region, not only enshrining basic civil and political rights, but also serving as an important example of peaceful political compromise on core issues of power sharing.

We have a long way to go, and I won’t pretend this will be easy. Iraqis will need our help, and the help of their neighbors and the international community. But that help will come. I think it is becoming clear to the entire international community that success in Iraq is in everyone’s interest. And we are seeing results, whether in Iraqi debt relief, political support for the Governing Council, or increasing international involvement in reconstruction.

Real partnerships on Iraq, with Europe and other G-8 members, with regional states, and with the Iraqi people, will be hard to build, but immense in potential. It will have to be a two-way street, in which Americans also listen and adapt, which I know can sometimes seem like an unnatural act for us. But now is the moment to recognize what’s at stake in Iraq. The Iraqi people and we have our work cut out for us, but we’re pointed in a direction that can, and must, succeed. We simply cannot afford the alternative.

Supporting Economic Modernization and Democratic Change

The last, but surely not the least, element on our policy agenda, and intertwined with the other three, is the longer-term issue of supporting efforts from within the region aimed at democratic change and economic modernization. It is a fair criticism of U.S. efforts during the past 20 or more years to say that we have never paid adequate attention to the long-term importance of opening up some very stagnant political systems, especially in the Arab world. But now President Bush, in speeches during the past year, has talked about the urgent need for a “Forward Strategy for Freedom” to help bring fundamental reform to countries in the Greater Middle East.

In the aftermath of September 11, the United States has come to the fundamental realization that lagging reform has held back freedom and prosperity for millions of people, and has helped to produce the most serious security challenges we are now facing: terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the freedom deficit, political extremism, and radical Islam.

This is not just a matter of promoting American or Western values, or of ensuring basic human rights, crucial as both of those concerns are. It is also a matter of hardheaded American interests. Stability is not a static phenomenon, and political systems that do not find ways to gradually accommodate the aspirations of their people for participation will become brittle and combustible. And we are not along in thinking this. Many leaders in the political, academic, and economic spheres in the Middle East region have also come to the realization that reform is essential – and in their own best interests. We want to support that regional movement for change. The Greater Middle East initiative is designed to respond to the region’s needs and the region’s own ideas for reform. It is not a plan to be imposed from outside. Enduring democratic change and economic modernization must be driven from within Arab societies. The initiative has to be homegrown. So while we believe the impetus for reform must come from within the region, we also stand ready to assist those within the region who seek reformist change.

I know there are some who argue for a kind of Arab or Moslem exceptionalism regarding reform, but I simply don’t agree. Of course it’s true that Arab societies have more than their share of difficulties to work through, but that doesn’t mean that they are incapable of gradual democratic change. Assuming otherwise is both flawed analysis and a dangerous basis for policy. To put it simply, reform is essential for stability in the Greater Middle East. Reform is needed in order to expand political, economic, and educational opportunities throughout the region; lack of reform is a root cause of extremist violence.

But what is encouraging across much of the Greater Middle East today is the extent of self-examination underway, and the tangible steps that many countries are taking toward political and economic reform. The Arab Human Development Reports issued over the past two years bear eloquent testimony, from Arab thinkers themselves, about what needs to be done to ease serious deficits in political freedoms, economic openness, educational opportunity and women’s empowerment. The hard reality as we enter the 21st century is that countries that adapt, open up and seize the economic and political initiative will prosper; those that don’t will fall further and further behind.

From Morocco to Jordan to Bahrain, Arab leaders and emerging civil society groups are beginning to grasp – and act on – that hard truth. Iraq will be a crucial test for economic and political modernization, whose success over time will have far-reaching consequences. So will the course of events in Saudi Arabia and Egypt – two critically important partners for the United States. Both face enormous challenges. A series of terror attacks in Saudi Arabia are another horrible reminder of the utter ruthlessness of Al Qaeda, whose indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women and children reinforced the threat posed to all of us. The Saudis have responded aggressively. But importantly, Crown Prince Abdullah has made clear that these attacks will not deter his pursuit of domestic reforms, including opening up the economy and enhancing political participation.

In the last 30 years, a genuine partnership has also emerged between the United States and Egypt. It has been founded not on sentiment or imagined bonds, but on a bedrock of shared interests and aspirations. It has also had its share of setbacks and differences and mutual disappointments – but it would be a serious mistake to forget what it has meant for both of us, and for the hopes of the region.

There are many things that the United States, Europe, and others in the international community can do to help those in the Greater Middle East committed to creating new economic and political opportunities. President Bush has proposed a U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area within the coming decade. Our assistance programs are expanding throughout the Arab world, under the umbrella of Secretary Powell’s Middle East Partnership Initiative. As I have stressed, the initiative must ultimately come from within the region, but we are now trying to think creatively about what new structures for support we could organize. The Greater Middle East initiative is a platform for discussing these issues with our friends in the region and the international community.

Undersecretary Mark Grossman recently returned from a trip to the Morocco, Egypt, Bahrain and Jordan. The purpose of his trip was to listen, consult, and learn from people in the Middle East about how the U.S. can best support efforts for freedom. He heard regional opinions about the President’s Greater Middle East initiative, and had productive meetings with government official and civil society leaders. We are all listening closely to the view from the region. Undersecretary Grossman’s travel followed close on the heels of visits by other senior officials, including Undersecretary for Economic Affairs Alan Larson and Assistant Secretary Bill Burns. Secretary Powell has been discussing ideas with leaders from all over the region. President Bush wants us to support those who are pursuing reform in areas such as governance, education, and business; he does not want us to impose reform from the outside. That is the goal we are pursuing.

Ultimately, our success will be measured by whether we are able to achieve a partnership with the people of the region based on a common vision. To do this, we must be just as clear about what we stand for as what we stand against. We must convey a message of freedom, opportunity, and dignity to the region’s people. We must restore hope and confidence as the best antidote to chaos and extremism.

That certainly goes for Israelis and Palestinians, who after all are part of the region too. Hope and confidence are in short supply in Israel and the Palestinian Authority right now. But the prospect of reform, stimulated and nurtured from within the region, can only help to move the peace process forward. U.S. support for regional reform, however, is not a substitute for our continued engagement in the peace process. We remain strongly committed to working closely with both parties to realize President Bush’s vision of two states. But we must also be very clear that the process of reform in the Greater Middle East should not and must not be held hostage to progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Overall economic and political reform in the region must be pursued in parallel with efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But we do need to recognize that each of issues we face in the region is connected to the others in increasingly important ways. Communications advances, technology, and modernization only strengthen those links. This is a great irony in a region known more for closed borders than open societies, but it should make us realize that we cannot afford a narrow view that sacrifices a broad vision for tactical advantage. Most important, we should be unafraid to look at old problems in new ways. It is my hope that the region’s people will lead us in that direction. And if that can happen, I think a better future is close at hand.

Thank you."

Israeli Spy Addresses Congress - Statement by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David M. Satterfield

Statement by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State: "Statement by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David M. Satterfield Senate Foreign Relations Committee July 20, 2004 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m glad to have this timely opportunity tospeak with members of the Committee, as I was just in the region ten days ago. We are – once again – at a potential watershed moment in the Middle East peace process. We are seeing more activity and movement than we have seen for almost a year, as Israel refines its plan to withdraw from Gaza; and the Palestinians, along with the international community and regional partners such as Egypt, strive to ensure that this withdrawal leaves Gaza in a position to progress in an orderly fashion towards economic vitality, and security and political reform. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of this Administration’s highest foreign policy priorities. Prime Minister Sharon’s plan to disengage from Gaza offers a real opportunity to restart the roadmap and move the parties towards realization of President Bush’s vision of two states, Israeli and Palestinian, living side by side in peace and security. For the first time ever, Israel is proposing to evacuate settlements from the West Bank and Gaza. It is an historic decision for Israel, and one President Bush fully supports. But it needs to be done in such a way that it is consistent with a process that leads to peace and security for Israel, and to a viable, contiguous, democratic state for the Palestinians. According to the disengagement plan, all settlements and certain military installations would be removed from Gaza, and four settlements would be removed from the northern West Bank. The Israeli Cabinet has approved this plan in principle. I don’t want to underestimate the domestic difficulties still facing Prime Minister Sharon: he is currently engaged in discussions to secure the political base necessary to proceed with disengagement.As-plans for Gaza disengagement move forward, the issue before the U.S., the Quartet, and the broader international community is how to prepare 1
Page 2
the Palestinians to take -the necessary steps to ensure a smooth and orderly transition in Gaza. We are engaged in intensive planning and discussion of practical matters of security, Palestinian political reform, and economic and humanitarian assistance. Security, of course, is the -number one issue that needs to be addressed. The Quartet envoys met with Palestinian Prime Minister Qurei two weeks ago, and stressed to him the need to take concrete action, particularly on security, in order to seize the opportunity presented by an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. In all honesty, I must tell you that there has been very little preparation or movement on the part of the Palestinian Authority to take these steps. But we will continue to push them, because as Israeli withdrawal from Gaza draws closer, it becomes increasingly vital that the PA be prepared to take over and maintain law and order and stability in Gaza. Egypt is working closely with both the Israelis and Palestinians in planning and preparing for Gaza withdrawal, particularly the difficult security aspects. Both sides have welcomed Egypt’s helpful role, and the United States and the Quartet have expressed full support as well. The Egyptians have been very clear with the Palestinians on their expectations for security reform, and have pushed them to take those steps quickly. Egypt has also committed to provide training and assistance, including on the ground in Gaza, to the restructured Palestinian security services. In addition to this, Egypt has worked closely with Israel on the critical questions of Gaza border security. We are pleased at the level of cooperation the two sides have shown, at both the political and operational levels, and the trend is definitely going in the right direction. While recent cooperation between the two sides has been good, there is much more that needs to be done. The Quartet envoys also met this month with international representatives of the Local Aid Coordination Committee and the Task Force on Palestinian Reform to discuss their continuing efforts to provide assistance and promote Palestinian reform; and preparations are underway for a meeting in September of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee of major donors to assess Palestinian Authority progress on reforms. Again, Palestinian progress in this area has been extremely slow, although there have been some notable successes in the areas of fiscal accountability and transparency, and in the implementation of a direct-deposit payment system2
Page 3
for all PA security service salaries. The PA has announced its intention tobegin municipal elections sometime before the end of the year, and the U.S., along with the Quartet, is ready to assist the PA in the preparations necessary to hold free and fair elections. We would like to see the established independent election commission play a role in organizing and regulating this election process. Given the continued desperate state of the Palestinian economy in Gaza and the West Bank, international aid efforts are crucial. The humanitarian plight of the Palestinian people is very real and has, in some cases, been exacerbated by the building of the Israeli separation barrier. Israel has the unquestioned right to defend itself; however we do have concerns when the construction of the barrier appears to prejudge final borders, leads to confiscating Palestinian property, or imposes further hardship on Palestinians. Israel itself is starting to address this issue: the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled last month that portions of the barrier’s route around Jerusalem must be altered to ameliorate the hardship it imposes on Palestinians. This ruling is binding on the Israeli government, unlike the recent International Court of Justice opinion that found Israel’s separation barrier to be illegal. We have said from the beginning that this referral to the ICJ was inappropriate and was likely only to impede efforts towards a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Our position on that has certainly not changed, and we are now eager to refocus attention where itshould be – on Gaza withdrawal and practical steps to reform the institutions of the Palestinian Authority. These are the types of efforts that will re-energize the peace process and get the roadmap back on track. It is true that the roadmap has been stalled, with neither party having fulfilled its commitments under Phase I. Most crucially, the Palestinian Authority has not put a stop to violence and terror. Without an end to brutal acts such as suicide bombings, there can be no progress towards peace. Israel also has obligations under the roadmap, and has promised to fulfill the commitments Prime Minister Sharon made to President Bush at Aqaba last year to dismantle unauthorized outposts and establish parameters for a freeze on new settlement construction. The Deputy National Security Advisor met with PM Sharon last week in Israel, and Sharon reiterated his determination to dismantle unauthorized outposts and take steps to ease the humanitarian situation of the Palestinian population. 3
Page 4
Gaza disengagement, rather than the roadmap per se, has been the focus of attention since the beginning of the year. Disengagement indeed offers a real opportunity to make progress in the seemingly endless quest for peace in the Middle East. However, it is also an opportunity to move back to a political process. Israeli disengagement from Gaza, done properly and with appropriate support from the international community, has the potential to move both parties to the conflict closer to realization of the ultimate goal to which the roadmap is a path: two states, living side by side in peace and security. Thank you. I’ll be happy to take your questions. 4"

ZOA - June 16, 2003 - Early Attempts to Provide Israeli Spy David Satterfield With Cover

Zionist Organization of America - June 16, 2003 - David Satterfield, Senior Member Of U.S. Monitoring Unit In Mideast, Has Justified Some Arab Terrorism: "The Zionist Organization of America
Jacob & Libby Goodman ZOA House Phone: 212-481-1500
4 East 34th St. New York, NY 10016 Fax: 212-481-1515
e-mail: email@zoa.org Web Site: www.zoa.org

June 16, 2003 Contact: (212-481-1500)

David Satterfield, Senior Member Of U.S. Monitoring
Unit In Mideast
, Has Justified Some Arab Terrorism

NEW YORK- The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has expressed concern over the fact that one of the leaders of the U.S. monitoring group sent to oversee implementation of President Bush's "Road Map" plan, has justified some acts of Arab terrorism against Israel.

Deputy Undersecretary of State David Satterfield, who has arrived in as one of the leaders of the monitoring team, made his controversial statements while touring southern Lebanon in December 1998. He was asked by reporters about attacks launched by Hezbollah against Israel. (Hezbollah is on the U.S. list of terrorist groups; its attacks include the 1983 car-bomb massacre of 241 Marines in Lebanon.) According to the Arab newspaper Al-Nahar (Dec. 4, 1998), he replied: "We make a distinction between resistance and terror. We don't think that this resistance is terrorism."

When a correspondent for the Journal of Counterterrorism asked the State Department for its response, a spokesman "refused to answer whether Satterfield's comments were in line with State Department policy or not." He did not deny that Satterfield made the statement. (Vol.6, No.2, p.26)

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said: "David Satterfield's record raises troubling questions about his ability to remain fair and impartial. Will he acknowledge Palestinian Arab violations of the Road Map, or will he follow the traditional State Department approach of whitewashing such violations in order to 'advance the negotiating process'? Will he ignore some terrorist attacks on the grounds that they are 'legitimate resistance'?"

The ZOA notes that the Palestinian Authority claims that Palestinian Arab attacks against Israelis are "resistance, not terrorism" and therefore justified. PA Minister of Information Nabil Amr said (Doha Al-Jazira Television, June 14, 2003): "As regards the word terrorism, I do not know why when the Palestinians denounce the word terrorism, certain people think that this means resistance. There is no text anywhere that says that the Palestinian people's resistance is terrorism, which we denounce...Yes, we denounce terrorism. Anyone who says that denouncing terrorism means denouncing resistance is doing an injustice to legitimate resistance and is in effect labeling it with terrorism."

Abu Mazen, in his first press conference (Doha Al-Jazira Television, June 3, 2003), was asked about his previous statements suggesting a temporary halt to some types of terrorist attacks. He replied: "We called for ending the militarization of the intifada. Nobody can prevent people from expressing the popular stand through peaceful means, as was the case in the first intifada." That "peaceful intifada" actually included thousands of firebomb attacks, stabbings, and stonings; steering a bus into a ravine off the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, murdering 16 people (including an American woman, attorney Rita Levine of Philadelphia) [July 1989]; hijacking a Beersheba bus and murdering 3 passengers [March 1988]; grenade attack on the Haifa mall, wounding 25 people. [August 1988]

* * *
The Zionist Organization of America, founded in 1897, is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA works to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, educates the American public and Congress about the dangers that Israel faces, and combats anti-Israel bias in the media and on college campuses. Its past presidents have included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver."

Israeli Spy David M. Satterfield Addresses the Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives: "Committee on International Relations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-0128

Statement by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
David M. Satterfield
House International Relations Committee
May 5, 2004

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Water is a topic of great importance in the Middle East, and the United States has long recognized the key role water plays in relations between Middle East neighbors and in economic development of their societies. Since the October 1991 Madrid conference, water has been an integral part of the peace process, and the United States has worked continuously with parties in the region and members of the international donor community on a wide range of water issues. Over the years, the work the regional parties have done together on water, both among themselves and with the support and participation of the international community, continues to demonstrate that the old adage about the next war in the Middle East being over water is not a given. Rather, our experience in the Middle East clearly illustrates that water can be a positive force for cooperation and does not have to be a negative force resulting in conflict.

Before expanding on these thoughts, I would like to briefly discuss the general water situation in the region. Then I will spend a few minutes describing in more detail how water fits into the peace process, including the ongoing cooperation in the multilateral track of the process. And finally, I would like to comment on the future of water and cooperation in the region.

Water in the Jordan River Basin
As established at the Madrid conference, the core parties to the peace process are Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, and Lebanon. From a water resources perspective, then, the focus is on the Jordan River Basin. In the Middle East generally, and the Jordan basin specifically, the climate is semi-arid to arid, with all the limitations on water availability such a climate implies. In many respects, the water resources situations in the Jordan basin and the western United States are similar. In addition to not receiving adequate quantities of precipitation generally, the temporal and spatial variability of rainfall in both the Jordan basin and western United States make managing water resources quite complicated and difficult. In the Jordan basin, it rains only in the winter, with the rainy season spanning from approximately November through March. No rain falls at all during the summer months when demand for water is the highest. In addition to dramatic seasonal variations, annual variations in total rainfall are equally dramatic. The cycle of several years of drought followed by one or two years of good rainfall that is so common in the western United States is also the norm in the Jordan basin. The Jordan basin is just coming off two relatively wet winters (2002-2003 and 2003-2004). However, the previous three winters – 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 – were very dry, and all governments instituted cuts in water allocations, especially to agriculture, in response to the drought conditions. In addition to temporal variability, the spatial variability in rainfall further complicates water management. Rainfall is highest in the northern Jordan basin, and decreases steadily as you go south. However, most water consumers live in central and southern parts of the basin. Thus, water must be moved from where it falls to where it is consumed.

As suggested above, the people in Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank and Gaza live in a constant state of water scarcity. A widely used rule of thumb is that a population is considered to be in a state of “water stress” if the average annual per capita availability of water is below 1,000 cubic meters. Israeli, Jordanian, and Palestinian average annual per capita availabilities are all significantly below that level. Israel, which has the most advanced water infrastructure and water management capabilities in the region, has an average annual availability of only some 250-300 cubic meters per capita. Jordan, at some 170-200 cubic meters per capita, and the Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza, at some 70-90 cubic meters per capita, are under even greater water stress. By comparison, average annual water availability in the United States is on the order of 7,000 cubic meters per capita.

Most of the naturally occurring water resources available to Israelis, Palestinians, and Jordanians are already being utilized. With population growth and further economic development, in the future those water resources will come under increasing stress. Since the mid-1990’s, the United States, through its bilateral foreign aid programs, has provided substantial assistance to the Jordanians and Palestinians in the water sector. Through our support for major water infrastructure projects and projects designed to enhance the water authorities’ capabilities for improved water management, we have helped the parties make better use of their water resources. My USAID colleague Jim Kunder will provide more details on those programs.

Water in the Middle East Peace Process
Water has been discussed in a variety of fora in the peace process. In the bilateral track, where Israel has negotiated bilaterally with its Arab neighbors, negotiations on the broad spectrum of “political” issues, including those related to water, have taken place. The various agreements that have been concluded to date have arisen out of these negotiations. The October 1994 Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace (Article 6 and Annex II) contains an extensive discussion of water issues of common interest to both countries. Through the work of the standing Israel-Jordan Joint Water Committee that was established under the treaty, the two countries have been implementing the treaty’s various water provisions over the last ten years. Similarly, the Israelis and Palestinians have been working together through an Israeli-Palestinian Joint Water Committee on water issues that were addressed in Article 40 of their September 1995 Interim Agreement. The United States has assisted the parties in implementation of their agreements, when requested. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian interim agreement, the agreement established a formal U.S.-Palestinian-Israeli Trilateral Water Working Group to assist with implementation of the agreement’s water provisions. The trilateral group has met regularly over the last 9 years. In the case of the Israel-Jordan treaty, though no formal trilateral mechanism was established, we have regular discussions with Israeli and Jordanian water officials concerning implementation of the treaty’s water provisions. Any future Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese treaties, as well as any Israeli-Palestinian permanent status agreement, also will contain substantial water provisions.

In addition to the bilateral track of the process, in early 1992, the United States and Russia, as co-sponsors of the peace process, established what is known as the multilateral track of the peace process. As constituted at that time, the multilateral track consisted of five working groups focusing on: water resources; the environment; refugees; regional economic development; and arms control and regional security. The multilateral track was designed to: 1) support the bilateral track of the peace process; 2) bring regional parties together to explore practical, technical solutions to key regional problems; and 3) build confidence among the parties to create a dynamic that reinforces cooperation and peace. Unlike the bilateral negotiations that involve only Israel and its four immediate neighbors, in the multilateral negotiations, we broadened participation to include a total of fifteen regional delegations and 34 non-regional delegations. The Multilateral Working Group on Water Resources’ agenda included the following four topics under which activities were conducted: 1) enhancing water data availability; 2) principles of water management, including conservation; 3) enhancing water supply; and 4) principles of regional cooperation. In the early days of the working group, our initial efforts were modest, as it took time for the regional participants to adjust to and become comfortable with the idea of cooperating together. Over time, the group developed larger projects, several of which have continued to this day.

Before briefly describing the current projects, let me say a few words about the multilateral process itself. Through 1996, each of the multilateral working groups met regularly in plenary session. Individual project activities took place on a regular and frequent basis between plenary meetings. While the project work was kept focused on technical issues, holding the plenary meetings was more closely tied to the political climate in the region. In late 1996, the political situation took a downturn, the bilateral negotiations slowed, and we had to stop holding plenary sessions of the working groups. Unfortunately, we have not been able hold any plenary sessions since that time. Despite the lack of any plenary meetings of the Working Group on Water Resources since 1996, projects initiated by the working group have remained active and productive. Projects have continued first and foremost because the regional participants – the projects focus mostly on the needs of the Jordanians, Israelis, and Palestinians – have decided the projects are too important to allow them to stop. And the United States and other donors have agreed it is important for the projects to continue and so have continued to support the projects.

The three main water projects currently active are: 1) the Regional Water Data Banks project; 2) a Public Awareness project; and 3) the Middle East Desalination Research Center.

In the Regional Water Data Banks project, Israeli, Jordanian, and Palestinian water officials – supported by the United States, the European Commission, France, and the Netherlands – work together to increase their capabilities to gather, store, and analyze a wide range of water data. The issue of sharing water data is considered political, and thus, the project does not directly address sharing data. Rather, the project focuses on technical aspects of water data, with the objective of giving the regional parties the technical tools they need to share data that are meaningful, whenever the political decision to share data is made. In the early days of this project, as with most other working group projects, most ideas for project activities came from donors. Over time, the regional parties have taken on more responsibility for guiding the project. Now, the Israelis, Jordanians, and Palestinians meet among themselves regularly to discuss and agree on the direction for the project and new activities they want to propose to the donors.

At the beginning of the Public Awareness project, the Palestinian, Jordanian, and Israeli participants agreed the project should focus on increasing the awareness of water issues among children in the region, since that segment of the populations will be the decision makers of tomorrow. With U.S. support, the parties have produced: a) a public awareness video targeting children emphasizing the scarce nature of water in the Middle East and the need to use water wisely; and b) more recently, a student resource book on water (in Arabic, Hebrew, and English versions), which the parties have introduced on a pilot basis into a small number of their schools. The latest project activity just now starting keeps the focus on schools and will design and install rain harvesting systems in select schools. Teachers and students will use these systems for instructional purposes, and, in addition, the systems will provide additional water for the schools’ use.

The Middle East Desalination Research Center, which has its headquarters in Muscat, Oman, has been operating since 1997. The United States, Oman, Israel, Japan, Korea, and the European Commission have provided support to the Center. The Working Group established the Center in recognition of the fact that although most of the world’s desalinated water production is in the Middle East, most of the expertise and technological capacity resides elsewhere. The Working Group agreed that the Middle East will need to make greater use of desalination in the future but that the cost of desalination will have to come down for its use to become more widespread. All the Center’s activities – the training programs, the outreach and information sharing programs, and the cooperative research program – are designed to increase desalination expertise in the Middle East and to help address the issue of cost reduction.
In addition to projects mentioned above, I should mention two other programs where the United States also has supported regional water-related activities. Under the Multilateral Working Group on the Environment, we have supported a number of activities on the important issue of wastewater treatment and reuse. Also, USAID’s Middle East Regional Cooperation (MERC) Program, which is not part of the peace process per se but which funds cooperative research projects between Israeli and Arab scientists, has supported a variety of water projects.

To sum up the multilaterals, the model for cooperation incorporated in the multilateral peace process is based on the premise that it is possible to create synergies through awareness of common problems, such as water. By focusing on problems related to regional water scarcity, the participants in the process have been able to transcend the realm of competing interests and create a situation in which all parties share benefits. Because the multilateral water working group has kept its work focused on technical issues (while leaving the “political” water issues to the bilateral track), the regional projects developed by the Working Group on Water Resources have been able to withstand the vagaries of the political process. The robustness and success of this approach is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that during the last three and a half years of violence and instability in the region due to the Intifada, during which time political negotiations have largely been in abeyance, Israeli, Palestinian, and Jordanian water officials and experts continue to work together on a range of regional water projects.

The Future of Water and Cooperation
To date, the multilateral water projects have focused on capacity building and technical assistance efforts, as described above. One reason is that the financial resources donors have available for regional activities are generally limited. For the United States, we have been able to provide on the order of $1-2 million per year for the regional water projects we support. However, despite these relatively modest efforts, the importance of the cooperative efforts on water the Israelis, Palestinians, and Jordanians have undertaken with our support (and that of other donors) should not be under estimated. The parties have told us repeatedly that the projects provide them with important practical benefits, and they have urged us to continue our support. We have assured the parties that as long as they continue to want to work together, we will continue to work with them.

As good and productive as the multilateral water projects have been, since the projects are technical in nature, we cannot expect them to resolve the broader political aspects of water. Thus, only when the Palestinians and Israelis get back to the bilateral negotiating table will it be possible for them to come to agreement on their outstanding political water issues such as water allocations. However, even though they do not directly address the bilateral water issues, the multilateral water projects do provide important technical assistance that will be helpful to the parties whenever they do get back to the negotiating table. Additionally, in the interim, the regional water projects help to maintain open channels of communications between the parties, which should also help facilitate the restart of the bilateral water negotiations.

There is another class of regional water projects I would like to mention. Over the years there have been numerous ideas for large scale regional water infrastructure projects whose objectives would be to generate significant quantities of additional water – on the order of 800 million to 1 billion cubic meters per year – to meet the water needs of the Palestinians, Jordanians, and Israelis. These ideas have included: 1) large scale desalination facilities on the Mediterranean coast; 2) large scale importation of water from Turkey via pipeline or canal; and 3) the Red-Dead conveyance project. While such projects might in principle be able to help alleviate water shortages in the region, there are a number of reasons why none of these projects have progressed very far. First, these projects would be very expensive, costing anywhere between $2 to 5 billion or so. Second, by their very nature, these kinds of projects take on a more “political” character, as they can raise political concerns among parties that have not yet concluded peace agreements. And third, there are many outstanding issues related to some of these projects, including environmental concerns and questions of economic viability.

Let me say a few words about the Red-Dead conveyance project, since it is an idea currently being discussed. The project is designed to move Red Sea water from the Gulf of Aqaba through a pipeline/canal conveyance approximately 180 kilometers to the Dead Sea. Since the Dead Sea is some 410 meters below sea level and the Gulf of Aqaba is at sea level, water dropping through that 410 meters of elevation can be used to generate hydropower, and the power can be used to desalinate a portion of the Red Sea water. The project as currently envisioned would generate 850 million cubic meters of desalinated water a year for use by Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority. In addition, a portion of the Red Sea water would flow directly into the Dead Sea, so that the level of the Dead Sea, which has been dropping almost 1 meter per year for the last thirty years or so, could be controlled. Proponents of the project argue that this project would reverse the negative environmental impacts produced by the continual lowering of the level of the Dead Sea.

The scale of the Red-Dead project is large, to say the least. If the envisioned desalination capacity were realized, the resulting desalination facility would be 5-6 times larger than the world’s largest desalination facility currently in operation. And there are many crucial questions about the project that remain unanswered, such as: 1) will the introduction of Red Sea water into the Dead Sea have a major negative impact on the chemistry of the Dead Sea water?; 2) while introducing Red Sea water into the Dead Sea to control the level of the Dead Sea may alleviate some environment problems, will such introduction cause other negative environmental impacts?; 3) what will the environmental effects at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba be, where the Red Sea water will be siphoned into the project?; and 4) will the cost of the desalinated water delivered to customers in Amman or other population centers be too expensive for consumers?

Given the scale of the Red-Dead project and the outstanding issues surrounding it, the State Department has not taken a position on whether the project could or should be pursued. Rather, in our discussions with the Jordanians, Israelis, and Palestinians, we have told them that if they want to work together to explore this project idea in more detail, and if they can agree on how they will work together, we would be willing to work with them, if they so desire. Since last year, the parties have been discussing a terms of reference for a project feasibility study. However, up until now, they have not come to final agreement on a T.O.R., largely because of some Israeli and Palestinian political concerns.

In closing, I hope my discussion has demonstrated that water cooperation among the Jordanians, Palestinians, and Israelis is an active and ongoing pursuit, which takes place through a number of mechanisms. The governments in the region have recognized that they must continue to cooperate in order to be able to provide water for their people, regardless of the political situation in the region. And the United States, as it has done for so many years, will continue to work with the parties to facilitate their cooperation, and we will continue to encourage the international donor community to do so as well."

Thousands Protest Israeli Spy David Satterfield - Lebanon Vist Tied To Mysterious Assassination of former premier Rafiq Hariri

IRIB PERSIAN NEWS PAGE: "Lebanese students protest at US

03:49:34 È.Ù
Awkar, Lebanon, March 31 - Around 3,000 people demonstrated Wednesday against US meddling in Lebanon's political crisis since the assassination of former premier Rafiq Hariri.

"Satterfield out, the government is our business," shouted the demonstrators, referring to US deputy assistant secretary of state David Satterfield, who left Lebanon earlier in the day after a week-long visit.
Prime Minister Omar Karami, who resigned after Hariri's assassination on February 14 but later returned on a caretaker basis, has said he plans to resign due to the opposition's refusal to form a national unity government.

The rally organised by the Shiite movement Hezbollah, was held outside the heavily guarded US embassy in Awkar, on the coast north of the capital.

A cordon of police and soldiers as well as civil defence members equipped with water cannons kept the demonstrators some 800 metres (yards) away on the road leading up to the mission.

"Zionists govern the US, not the US," read a banner amid a sea of red-and-white Lebanese flags, as Abdullah Qassir, a Hezbollah MP, condemned US interference in Lebanon.

The mostly young demonstrators tore up and trampled a cartoon portrait of US President George W. Bush as well as copies of the US and Israeli flags.

Others carried portraits of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad sitting alongside Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, as the protest passed without incident."

US Ambassador (and Israeli Spy) David Satterfield to Talk on Arab-Israeli Peace

School of International Studies: "US Ambassador David Satterfield to Talk on Arab-Israeli Peace

Ambassador David Satterfield, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, gave his lecture, “In Pursuit of Arab-Israeli Peace,” on October 9, 2003, as part of the Global Briefing series. The briefing took place in the Wes Watkins Center Auditorium from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. with a reception following.

Satterfield assumed the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary June 25, 2001. From September 1998 to June 2001, he served as the US Ambassador to Lebanon.

A career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Satterfield has worked in Jeddah, Tunis, Beirut and Damascus. In addition to several other State Department assignments in the Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, he was Director of the Executive Secretariat Staff from 1990 to 1993.

Satterfield also served on the National Security Council staff from 1993 to 1996 as Director for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs and later as Director of the Department of State’s Office of Israel and Arab-Israeli Affairs.

The Ambassador also received several Department of State Superior Honor Awards for his work on the Middle East peace process.

Satterfield was born in Baltimore, Maryland and attended the University of Maryland and Georgetown University"

JTA NEWS: David Satterfield Spied For Israel Through AIPAC


New revelations in AIPAC case
raise questions about FBI motives
By Matthew E. Berger
August 18, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 (JTA) — New revelations in the case against two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers raise questions about why FBI investigators have been focused on the pro-Israel lobby.
The New York Times reported Thursday that David Satterfield, the No. 2 man at the U.S. mission in Baghdad, was one of two government officials who allegedly gave classified information to Steve Rosen, AIPAC’s former director of foreign policy issues, but he wasn’t named in the indictment handed down against Rosen and two others earlier this month.

A big chill among lobbyists?
Ex-AIPAC men join to fight charges
Satterfield allegedly spoke with Rosen on several occasions in 2002 — when Satterfield was the deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs — and shared classified information. At one point, Rosen allegedly relayed the secret information in a memorandum to other AIPAC staffers.

The fact that Satterfield is not a target of the case and was allowed to take a sensitive position in Iraq has raised questions about the severity of the information allegedly given to AIPAC officials, as well as about the government’s motives for targeting Rosen and Keith Weissman, a former AIPAC Iran analyst, neither of whom had classified access.

The defendants and AIPAC supporters see the new revelations as evidence that federal prosecutors are targeting the powerful pro-Israel lobby for simply conducting the normal Washington practice of trading sensitive information. Officials inside and outside government privately acknowledge that classified information routinely changes hands among influential people in the foreign policy community and that the exchanges often are advantageous to diplomats.

“If, in fact, Satterfield passed on classified information that other people should not have had, then they should all be guilty of the same thing,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “The fact that Satterfield hasn’t been prosecuted suggests that’s not the case.”

Rosen and Weissman both pleaded not guilty Tuesday to a charge of conspiracy to communicate national defense information. Rosen also is charged with communicating national defense information to people not entitled to receive it.

Larry Franklin, a Pentagon Iran analyst, has been charged with five similar counts, including conspiracy to communicate classified information to a foreign agent. Franklin, who also pleaded not guilty, is accused of passing classified information to Rosen and Weissman from 2002 through last year.

Observers say the case is likely to create a chill among lobbyists and others who seek to garner foreign-policy information from the government.

The second U.S. government official, who allegedly met with Rosen and Weissman in 2000, remains anonymous but reportedly has left government service. Their identification is seen as central to the government’s case that the AIPAC staffers followed a pattern of seeking classified information and disseminating it to journalists and officials at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. A spokeswoman for Paul McNulty, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, would not comment.

Attorneys for Rosen and Weissman, who are collaborating on their defense, will likely use the same information to show that sharing documents and other information was normal practice between government officials and AIPAC.

Leaders of other pro-Israel groups say State Department and other government aides handling the Middle East portfolio frequently share information.

“When we discuss issues, it’s an exchange. It’s not one-sided,” Hoenlein said. “What people forget is they benefit from these exchanges too, because they learn things from us.”

Those who have worked with Rosen say a large part of his task was capturing sensitive material and that numerous government officials aided his pursuits over the years.

Tom Dine, a former AIPAC executive director, said Rosen had claimed in a 1983 memo, shortly after joining the pro-Israel lobby, that he received a classified review of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Dine, who recently left his post as president of Radio Free Europe to head the San Francisco Jewish federation, told the New York Jewish Week that he was shown the document by FBI investigators.

“Everybody knew that Steve was quite capable of luring important information, which was exceedingly useful to the mission of the office,” said Neal Sher, another former AIPAC executive director. “It was understood by the people in the organization, both professional and lay.”

But they say Rosen’s work mirrored what was being done throughout Washington.

“The trafficking in sensitive information, some of which might have been classified, is the norm in many instances,” said Sher, a former federal prosecutor. “While I don’t recall ever being specifically told that info they passed on to me was classified, I would not have been shocked if that was done.”

A spokesman for AIPAC denied any wrongdoing by the organization.

“AIPAC does not seek, use or request anything but legally obtained information as part of its work,” Patrick Dorton said. “All AIPAC employees are expected and required to uphold this standard.”

Satterfield is not considered a subject of the government’s probe, and he reportedly was cleared by the Justice Department for his Iraq post.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he could not comment on an ongoing investigation.

“I will say, though, that David Satterfield is an outstanding public servant, he is a distinguished Foreign Service officer and diplomat, and that he has worked on behalf of the American people for a number of years,” McCormack said Thursday.

A State Department official said it was within Satterfield’s portfolio to work with policy groups such as AIPAC. As the deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs, Satterfield led the State Department group dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as other regional issues on AIPAC’s agenda.

“It wasn’t out of the normal at all for a deputy assistant secretary, as he was, to be meeting with AIPAC on a regular basis,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Our office tries to meet with interested people of all groups, and it’s supposed to be an informational exchange.”

© JTA. Reproduction of material without written permission is strictly prohibited."

Israeli Spy David Satterfield: Israel Should Cease Settlement Activities, Reconsider Wall

INTERNATIONAL PRESS CENTER-PALESTINE: "Satterfield: Israel Should Cease Settlement Activities, Reconsider Wall

GAZA, January 13, 2004 (IPC + Agencies)-- The United States Deputy Under Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, David Satterfield, said on Monday that Israel should halt construction of settlements and reconsider the construction of the wall (Apartheid Wall) it is building on Palestinian-owned lands in the West Bank.

Speaking at a conference on the 1967 Arab-Israeli war in Washington, Satterfield called on the Israelis to stop construction of settlements on the occupied Palestinian territories and criticized the Apartheid Wall, being built around and through West Bank cities, towns, villages and refugee camps.

He explained that “Israel’s friends believe that settlement activities must come to an end for they harm interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.”

The U.S official expressed appreciation for the individual political initiatives launched unofficially by Israelis and Palestinians, particularity the recent Geneva Accord and Nosaiba-Ayalon Document.

Both Jewish settlements and the Apartheid wall being built by Israel on Palestinian-owned lands have created demographic and geographic problems for the Palestinian population in West Bank and Gaza Strip, affecting the future Palestinian state, proclaimed by the US-sponsored "Road Map" peace plan."