So she adopts the terminology of Israel's enemies to avoid angering them? She has redefined the discussion by giving the propaganda legitimacy. This is a foreign policy failure for the position that the US has held since 1967.
What bothered me here is that the article’s reference to the “State Department” is extremely misleading, as evidenced by Diogenesis’
Not at all. She is the figurehead of the State Dept. It and her language is quite clear. The administration, and by proxy its directives to its state dept. have done nothing about an ongoing documented problem with the Muslim associations on a number of campuses in the states. Most notably at the University of San Francisco and UC Irvine. People have been threatened with their lives, speakers forced to leave by police escort, vandalism of Jewish centers, and verbal attacks on those who are openly Jewish.
There is no misinformation here. The Muslims on these campuses sense a reluctance by our federal government, by state university governance, or even by local law enforcement to respond to an obvious problem. Instead, there has been a modification of our language in the hope that unreasonable violent people will somehow make a deal. If you wish to say the emperor has no clothes, go right ahead, but don't expect others to follow.
You are missing the point. There was ZERO involvement in, or comment on the matters discussed in the article by any representative of the US Department of State, yet the article is written so as to imply otherwise (perhaps inadvertently), and is being misinterpreted by readers here as reporting that the US Department of State did have some involvement and comment.