U.S.: Direct talks can achieve Mideast peace in one year
Speaking to reporters, American Mideast envoy George Mitchell says Obama put comprehensive Mideast peace talks at 'very high priority.'
By Natasha Mozgovaya Tags: Israel news Middle East peace Benjamin Netanyahu Mahmoud AbbasDirect peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority can be concluded within a year, U.S. special Mideast envoy George Mitchell said Tuesday, hours before the talks were set to begin in Washington.
 |
Hillary Rodham Clinton and George Mitchell at the State Department, August 31, 2010. |
| Photo by: AP |
U.S. President Barack Obama considers the possibility of achieving peace in the Middle East a top priority, Mitchell told reporters at a briefing.
Earlier Tuesday, about three hours after a deadly shooting attack in the West Bank that left four Israeli civilians dead, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in Washington, where he was scheduled to meet U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton later in the day.
Clinton launched the U.S. push for Mideast peace on Tuesday, holding one-on-one talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders before they sit down on Thursday for direct negotiations.
Mitchell insisted that while the United States recognized that "there are many experienced and knowledgeable people who hold different view," when "it really comes to the end, what is best for the people of Israel and the Palestinian people, I believe strong and persuasive arguments can be made."
Remarking on the extent of U.S. participation in the actual talks, Mitchell said that "the United States will play an active and sustained role in the process, but that doesn’t mean that we must be physically represented in every single meeting."
"We recognize the importance of the direct bilateral meetings between the two leaders. We hope to proceed promptly after September 2, with meetings on an intensive basis - about every 2 weeks," Mitchell added.
On the possibility of a visit to the region by Obama in the near future, Mitchell stressed that the U.S. president “has been engaged in person from the very beginning."
"Please do not confuse personal engagement exclusively with public activities. I am certain he will make a judgment – based on reasonableness and necessity of his participation. He has many important obligations, but he places the comprehensive peace process at a very high priority," Mitchell said.
Recently, American officials have tried to avoid as much as possible mentioning Israeli settlements in the West Bank, as a 10-month moratorium on settlement construction, declared by Netanyahu last November, is about to expire on September 26. The Palestinians have announced unequivocally that if Israel resumes construction in the settlements, the negotiations would immediately break down.
“Our position on settlements is well known and it remains unchanged," Mitchell told reporters. "We always said parties should provide an environment that is conducive to negotiations. Our discussions continue with all sides on this issue."
Mitchell added that the United States was still trying to engage Syria – and that although he does not expect Islamist Palestinian faction Hamas "to play a role in this immediate process, we welcome the full participation of Hamas and all relevant parties once they comply with basic principles of democracy."
Asked about the previous peacemaking failures, Mitchell said that the Obama administration deliberately avoided labeling the current talks as a “continuation of process A or B”, but, having learned a lesson, tried “to improve what worked and avoid what didn’t work."
Obama will host a dinner for the visiting leaders on Wednesday, seeking to boost momentum for Thursday's meeting, which will mark their first direct peace talks in 20 months and the start of what Obama hopes will lead to a peace deal within a year, despite deep skepticism.
U.S. State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday that "we will be clarifying today where the parties stand in advance of the meetings that they'll have."
"We want to see not just a successful relaunch tomorrow but an understanding that, going forward, the leaders will meet on a regular basis," Crowley told reporters at a press conference in Washington.
Crowley said Washington expected "substantive discussions of the core issues at the heart of the process."
Political analysts are cautious about the prospects for the U.S.-backed talks, which represent Obama's riskiest foray into Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking - a goal that has eluded generations of U.S. presidents.
Obama has invited Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah to take part in Wednesday's White House events, expanding the dialogue to two influential Arab neighbors that already have peace deals with Israel.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Likud and Hamas are in cohoots, oddly enough....Hamas did it's first attempt at destroying the talks....no doubt, Bibi will try to trump it with one of his own...
:D
Very few things in the universe are as sure as that: In 1/9/2011 there will be no peace. "Optimists" (Obama/Clinton supporters) might continue to say that it is "much closer", but we've been hearing that forever. Only the media will keep echoing politicians' lies - ridiculed by anyone else. I give this to the religious people - "Peace" will not come before the Messiah (and not after either)
it has finally dawned on the obama administration that democracy is an essential component to achieving a lasting peace.
I will believe this when it rains 'Hotties' from the sky and Mother Theresa rises from the dead and becomes Pope !
obama should understand first and foremost that the peace process is not about him. the peace process is about the jews and the palestinians. the peace process is not about what other arabs want, or what iran would want, nor about what the europeans want. peace can be achieved if and only if the two sides, jews and palestinians, can arrive at a mutually agreed to peace treaty. neither security guarantees, nor strong arm tactics can substitute for the desire for settlement between the two parties to the conflict.
If peace isn't your priority, you can just walk away. And if you want to wait another six years for another President, that is your prerogative, too. If you want to do it on your own, that, too, can be your choice. I personally think Mitchell and Clinton and Obama are wasting US time and resources trying with your current government and should just walk away.
you are being purposefully obtuse as usual. i am not against the peace process. i am critical of obama's self-obsession, a trait that many people have commented on.
Why it is a priority for Obama, has a simple answer: it affects US national security. With US Military in the Mid-East and Diplomacy with Muslim countries, a settled, negotiated peace helps the USA. A lack of peace hurts the USA. This is why the US has been subsidizing Israeli's military for decades--to achieve peace.
....Well, why is it that this President (of mine) does not impress me anymore? The first time in quite a few tens of years too....
The US funds the Palestinian Authority which funds the terrorists. The US gov't has known this for years, they want terrorism, so they have an excuse to "manage the process"* and tell Israel to strengthen Abu Mazen so he can "fight terror" (yeah, right) *see Dr. Eugene Narrett's books for an explanation of the process
97.2% of the conflict will be over once the Muslim-Arab leadership states, in Arabic, Hebrew and English, its acceptance of Israel's RIGHT to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Will the Obama/Clinton/Mitchell team be able to resolve this predicament by convincing the Muslim-Arabs to accept Israel's legitimacy, to internalize it and to demonstrate to the world that it has...?? P.S. The Jewish people, within and without its nation-state of Israel, is hopeful, indeed very eager to finally see an accommodation of peaceful coexistence between Arab and Jew, between the Muslim-Arab world and the nation-state of the Jewish people. Do the Muslim-Arabs feel the same...??
recognition of a State is enough. The Palestinians aren't asking for a State of the Palestinians exclusively, so why are the Israelis?
What does that really mean? Why no just except Israels right to exist with its Jewish, christian, and muslims all being treated the same
BHO has a chance to justify Nobel prize. Netanyahu has a chance to be the historical Israeli peace maker. Abbas knows this his his only chance to survive. Despite last terror murder. Most Israelis want peace, and many Israelis have working relations with Palestinians. The main enemies of peace in Israel are the extreme right - obviously, but also the extreme left who wants to continue to be the servants of antisemitic Europe. Their strategy will be to make provocations like the theater in Ariel. Remains to be seen what about West-Bank Palestinians, ultimately the whole process may depend on them. I hope that they will succeed in making peace. As far as Europe's influence is concerned, well, if a British or a French will want to visit holy places in Jerusalem or Nazareth, they will have to ask permission of a Palestinian or Israeli to enter - nice.
Believe me when I tell you: "It's an illusion."
It seems that whenever Obama and the Dems are in danger of losing any block of votes they pull something like this. For the Hispanic vote, they throw a comprehensive immigration bill out in to the public arena, For the Jewish vote they throw out peace with the Palestinians. How about that Iranian nuclear program which is far more a threat to Israel than the Palestinians? For Asian vote they nominate a few Asian-Americans for federal judgeships. For the unions, they throw out Federal bailouts and more 'Porkulus" dollars. Folks, the Obama Administration is really what happens when we leave the "kids in charge." Even though he couldn't pronounce "nuclear", I'll take Bush and Cheney anyday over Obama and Biden. Too bad the Republicans ran a poor candidate like McCain and the independents saw that despite all of George Soros money and Moveon.Org. Obama is inexperienced, inept, incompetant, insincere, interminable, insufferable and in-love with himself.
"obama is inexperienced, inept, incompetent, insincere, interminable, insuffferable and in-love with himself."
He did leave the country heavily in debt and on the path to bankruptcy, remember the financial meltdown? He also got a few thousand Americans killed around the world and at home. 9/11 happened on his watch after all.
i thought we would. shalom, cipora
why fix what is not broken
Hope this time a seed of peace will be instilled in the holy land. I'm not expecting a full peace but at least we gotta start somewhere. We'll go through challenges and a lot of obstacles like the one where 4 innocent people have been killed. It's because the haters of peace are now scared and extremely worried, those people's business is killing and once peace is done, their business is endangered. Come on people, let's start believing peace can happen and let's start working for a better future, a future where our sons can grow up with no fear and also with hopes and expectations. Let's share the future. Peace all
Okay folks. This conflict has never been about "merit" or a better argument, or right and wrong. It's not about history, genetics, legitimacy, colonialism, or even g-d. This is pure game theory (Google "game theory"). I believe, I pray, and I hope that we have reached a point where the two sides realize that they make their best deal NOW.
No preparation, no expectations, no responsibility. The Americans twist arms and then throw both sides into a room and give them a time limit. There is an old saying: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". This means that Obamas strong arm tactics will bear no fruit.
My brother sometimes twists my arm and that hurts, but I still like him though because he is my brother.
How do you know there is no preparation, expectations, or responsibility - are you a fly on the wall? One day Obama is too weak, next he is using strong arm tactics, forcing people to change their opinions against their will -make up your mind. And if your worst fears are realized, and the parties come to an agreement, I don't think the rest of us will care if it comes about as a result of strong arm tactics - strong arm tactics will probably be necessary.
Agree
...would that you'd make the same sense more often.....But, by the way, your beautiful saying involves not only one party to the conflict, but both...as with everything...
My dear sister, as usual you comments don't make sense.
An indicator as to the form of a final settlement? I do so believe as I do there will indeed be a final settlement. One reason only . "U.S. President Barack Obama considered the possibility of achieving peace in the Middle East a top priority." Do not underestimate the mettle of this man.
Surely you can't be talking about the mettle of "president" Barry Obama. Does an empty suit have mettle ? He's the least qualified person in any room he walks into. Israelis, don't believe a word that comes out of this man's mouth or any of his underlings. Since he is the most anti Israel president in US history I don't know why you would want to anyway. The majority of the American people have woken up to this fraud. He'll be gone in 2 yrs. so stick to your guns, literally.
So far Obama has been the best chance for peace the middle east has had, and you should thank him for that along with the check he's been forwarding. If you stay on the same path that you have been on for the past 60 years you'll have a never ending war, is that what Isreal wants? Just think about the arms that flow to the middle east its just a matter of time till the rockets will be able to hit the larger citys in Isreal. Make pease now its you best hope for a good life
there is no way peace will be achieved in a decade, never mind a year. let me set the scene for you. palestine is generally accepted to encompass east jerusalem, the west bank, and gaza. (not even touching the golan/syria issue.) israel has said repeatedly that east jerusalem is off the table. they will never recognize it as non-israeli territory--even though the rest of the world does. so that's one down. israel refuses to negotiate with hamas, which is the elected leadership group of gaza, so that's two down. israel has already made it clear that they intend to keep most of the west bank (the parts with tons of jews in them) AND as recently as today the PM said that the recent attack "highlighted security needs of israel". now, we won't go into how ridiculous that statement is, since those who died had built their homes in a place that was not, uh, ISRAEL (it's a bit like saying that an american who builds his home in juarez and is then shot "shows the security needs of america"), but that statement to me suggests that israel is not going to be okay with giving up ANY of the west bank land that has even a few dozen jews on it. this is basically the entire west bank. thus israel has already left the palestinians without a state, and the talks will be all about saving-face for israel. sorry kids.
Israel would eventually give the Palestinians all of Gaza and all of West Bank (minus Jerusalem, which I admit they intend to keep), in exchange for a rock solid security guarantee. Israel has said it reserves the settlements as part of a final agreement. Unfortauntely, we all know that Israel will never have complete security. If Israel pulled out from all the occupied territories, do you think the Palestinian attacks would cease completely? Of course not. And this proves that the onus for peace lies with the Palestinians. Ultimately, and very unfortauntely, Israel may have to tolerate the occasional bomb in order for peace to be possible. And we know it is possible, because for the better part of the 1990s there was peace. I would not have gambled on "full MidEast peace" as Obama has. I would have focused more on getting Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel, which I do believe is possible. I realize many on this board will disagree, but it is possible. S.A. is a very close US ally.
Yes Israel does have security needs and obviuosly Arabs can't /won't provide it. The job of the Israeli PM's is to provide it. Israel WILL negottiate with Hamas if they change their no peace ever stance and accept a state of Israel,which they refuse to do and keep repeating their refusal. Arabs HAVE been offered parts of Jerusalem in the past and they refused.Arafat wanted controll over the Jewish sites.How do you know what WILL be on the table? After the Arab armies ethnic cleansed the Jews out of Jerusalem,they refused to allow Jews into their sacred sites where Jews have been praying since time immemorial."Corpus seperatum" the invading Arab armies fixed that and proceeded to trash Synagogues the Mount Olives cemetry etc.etc. PS Jews are spelt with a CAPITAL J,it shows us what you are about
apart from other binding treaties ! israel is succcessor to the 1922 mandate " JEWS ARE ALLOWED TO CLOSE SETTLE IN ALL PARTS OF THE MANDATED TERRITORY" THE TREATIES ARE STILL EXTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE ARAB STATE IS JORDAN same treaties !!
K.S.A. has already offered Israel full peace at the Arab summit in Beirut in 2002. But only after Israel makes peace with the Palestinian people, leading to the two state solutions. Actually, all Arab countries offered to do so but no taker on the israeli side.
Stop with logic now and get real: Israel can give 96% of West Bank by moving 3000 Jews (Gaza was three times that). It's not the problem. The problem is the so-called refugees. Abbas fights teeth and nail for that and Netanyahu will never accept it, even if his life depended of it (actually his life depends of it, since it would make a Palestinian minority united around one Hamas party voted in mass).
Designed to make sure there is never a deal.