[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

" two-state solution which ensures security and dignity for Israelis and
Palestinians"
Briefing on Middle East Peace Process
Hillary Rodham Clinton Secretary of State
George Mitchell Special Envoy for Middle East Peace
Washington, DC

August 20, 2010

What's the meaning of "security and dignity"?

That is to say: is the position of the Obama administration that there some
kind of trade off between the two of them?

We have already heard it said that our inspection points offend the
"dignity" of Palestinians.

They also prevent bombs from reaching Israeli targets.

And we certainly have been facing ongoing pressure to keep dropping those
inspection points.

And now that we enter final status talks we will no doubt hear the
Palestinians argue that the various security measures and provisions we
require shame them.

What kind of dignity is there, for example, in not controlling their own
airspace - or in the Israeli Air Force being able to fly over the
Palestinian state as it pleases?

What kind of dignity is there in having Israelis look over their shoulders
in the inspection of the traffic into the Palestinian state from overseas?

What kind of dignity is there in Israeli involvement in the processes of
movement between the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

What kind of dignity is there in the restrictions required for the
Palestinian state to truly be a demilitarized state and the enforcement of
these restrictions?

What kind of dignity is there in Jews being allowed to pray in structures
that are also claimed to be holy to Moslems in Hebron, Bethlehem and
elsewhere?

What kind of dignity is there in Jews making noise with shofars etc. as they
pray at the Western Wall next to the Al Aqsa Mosque?

And we only started.

What kind of dignity is there in restrictions that would prevent, for
example, a delegation of of 500 Iranian "sports instructors" or "air
conditioning maintenance instructors" from visiting the Palestinian state?

What kind of dignity is there in second guessing the efficacy of the
performance of the Palestinian law enforcement/justice system in its
handling of Palestinians who engage in attacks against Israel or Israelis?

The "dignity" card, under any circumstances, is problematic.

And when Secretary of State Clinton opts to give "dignity" and "security"
equal standing in the opening paragraph of her five paragraph prepared
remarks it could be a critical mistake for Israel to ignore the warning.

Briefing on Middle East Peace Process
Hillary Rodham Clinton Secretary of State
George Mitchell Special Envoy for Middle East Peace
Washington, DC

August 20, 2010
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/08/146156.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MR. CROWLEY: Good morning and welcome to the Department of State. We have
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton here along with our Special Envoy George
Mitchell to tell you about the most recent developments in our pursuit of
Middle East peace. The Secretary will begin with a brief statement. George
Mitchell will stay behind to answer your questions. And we are joined today
by your colleagues in the White House Press Corps up in Martha's Vineyard
and we'll be sharing the - they'll be sharing the Q&A duties with you.

But we'll start with Secretary Clinton.

QUESTION: I don't like that idea. They're in Martha's Vineyard. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: I will appoint a negotiator to deal with that.
(Laughter.)

Since the beginning of this Administration, we have worked with the Israelis
and Palestinians and our international partners to advance the cause of
comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a two-state solution which
ensures security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians. The President
and I are encouraged by the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and
President Abbas and fully share their commitment to the goal of two states -
Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

After proximity talks and consultations with both sides, on behalf of the
United States Government, I've invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and
Palestinian Authority President Abbas to meet on September 2nd in
Washington, D.C. to re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final
status issues, which we believe can be completed within one year.

President Obama has invited President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of
Jordan to attend in view of their critical role in this effort. Their
continued leadership and commitment to peace will be essential to our
success. The President will hold bilateral meetings with the four leaders
followed by a dinner with them on September 1st. The Quartet Representative
Tony Blair has also been invited to the dinner in view of his important work
to help Palestinians build the institutions of their future state, an effort
which must continue during the negotiations. I've invited Prime Minister
Netanyahu and President Abbas to join me here at the State Department on the
following day for a trilateral meeting to re-launch direct negotiations.

As we move forward, it is important that actions by all sides help to
advance our effort, not hinder it. There have been difficulties in the past;
there will be difficulties ahead. Without a doubt, we will hit more
obstacles. The enemies of peace will keep trying to defeat us and to derail
these talks. But I ask the parties to persevere, to keep moving forward even
through difficult times, and to continue working to achieve a just and
lasting peace in the region.

As we have said before, these negotiations should take place without
preconditions and be characterized by good faith and a commitment to their
success, which will bring a better future to all of the people of the
region.

George. Thank you all.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, are you traveling to Pakistan (inaudible)
concern, Madam? Thank you, Madam.

MR. MITCHELL: I'll be pleased to respond to any of your questions.

QUESTION: As tempted as I am to ask you about Roger Clemens, I'd rather - or
P.J. perhaps. (Laughter.)

MR. CROWLEY: I predicted that.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what was the turning point here? What was it that
got the - that overcame the final snags to get them to come back to direct
talks?

MR. MITCHELL: We believe it's the recognition by the parties themselves, by
their leaders - Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas - that the best
outcome is an agreement which results in two states living side by side in
peace and security, and that the only way that can be achieved is through
direct negotiations between the parties in which the United States will be
an active and sustained participant, and with the full support of our many
friends and allies around the world, including, of course, specifically, the
Quartet.

QUESTION: But what was it that got them to - I mean, you've been trying to
do this for months now.

MR. MITCHELL: Yeah.

QUESTION: And why - so why - how is it that today, you've gotten to this
point, whereas three days ago, you weren't at this point?

MR. MITCHELL: Yeah. I think it's the cumulative result of the efforts made
over that time and the recognition by the parties that this is the right
time. We will be active participants and there is broad support, as you
know, by members of the Quartet and others around the world. But in the end,
these decisions will be made by the parties themselves.

MR. CROWLEY: And (inaudible) Senator Mitchell ---

QUESTION: Senator Mitchell, could you --

MR. MITCHELL: I'll let - why don't I let P.J. --

QUESTION: Could you talk about the sequencing of the talks? Will they
discuss territory, refugees, or Jerusalem first, or will this all be in
parallel?

MR. MITCHELL: All permanent status issues will be on the table. It will be
for the parties themselves to decide the manner by which they should be
addressed.

QUESTION: Senator Mitchell --

QUESTION: Yes. Madam Secretary mentioned without doubt there will be more -
without doubt, there will be more obstacles. What will these obstacles be?
What are the main sticking points that are going to be going forward?

MR. MITCHELL: We are all well aware that there remains mistrust between the
parties, a residue of hostility developed over many decades of conflict,
many previous efforts that have been made to resolve the conflict that had
not succeeded, all of which takes a very heavy toll on both societies and
their leaders. In addition, we all know that, as with all societies, there
are differences of opinion on both sides on how best to proceed, and as a
result, this conflict has remained unresolved over many decades and through
many efforts. We don't expect all of those differences to disappear when
talks begin. Indeed, we expect that they will be presented, debated,
discussed, and that differences are not going to be resolved immediately.

But we do believe that peace in the Middle East, comprehensive peace,
including, but not limited to, an end to the conflict between Israelis and
Palestinians, is very much in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, of
all people in the region; it's in the national security interests of the
United States, and therefore, we are going to continue to pursue that
objective with patience, perseverance, and determination. We know that will
be difficult. We know, as the Secretary said, there will be obstacles. But
we're going to proceed, as I said, with patience, perseverance, and
determination.

MR. CROWLEY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Senator Mitchell, sir, the Palestinians, the Israelis, and the
United States have been down that road many times before. Now, what is in
your opinion, sir, this time around that engenders - or should engender hope
and optimism to get these talks into its intended end? And what kind of
incentive did you offer President Abbas to entice him into the direct talks?

MR. MITCHELL: I don't want to repeat everything I said in response to prior
questions, but I will say that I believe that it is very much in the
interest of people in both societies that there be an end to this conflict
enabling both to live in peace and security. And I believe that their
leaders believe and understand that, and therefore, notwithstanding the many
difficulties that they face - and we recognize those difficulties - this is
the best course for them.

On the question of past efforts in failing and succeeding, I'll return, if I
might, to my experience in Northern Ireland. I chaired three separate sets
of discussions in Northern Ireland, spanning a period overall of five years.
The main negotiation lasted for 22 months. During that time, the effort was
repeatedly branded a failure. I was asked at least dozens, perhaps hundreds,
of times when I was leaving because the effort had failed.

And of course, if the objective is to achieve a peace agreement, until you
do achieve one, you have failed to do so. In a sense, in Northern Ireland,
we had about 700 days of failure and one day of success. And we approach
this task with the same determination to succeed notwithstanding the
difficulties and notwithstanding the inability to get a final result so far,
including past efforts. But past efforts at peace that did not succeed
cannot deter us from trying again, because the cause is noble and just and
right for all concerned.

MR. CROWLEY: Let's take Michele and then Kirit and then we'll go up to
Martha's Vineyard and come back.

Michele.

QUESTION: I wanted to get a sense of this timeline, this 12 months that the
Secretary talked about. Do you see that as a deadline or is that - or is it
looser than that? And also, just following up on this other question. I
mean, what makes this peace process any different from all other peace
processes?

MR. MITCHELL: We will only know the answer to your second question when it
is completed. But I believe that, as I said in response to the previous
question, that the cause is so important, so right, so just, that our
continued effort is the right thing to do, and we are going to pursue it
with determination. I believe that the two leaders themselves, President
Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu, are sincere and serious and believe that
it can be done, and we will do everything humanly possible to help them see
that it is done.

With respect to your first question, Prime Minister Netanyahu said in a
public appearance in this country on his most recent visit to Washington
that he believed it could be done within a year. President Abbas has
expressed similar sentiments to me, and I hold strongly to that belief,
having now been involved for some time in the region. So, we believe it can
be done within a year and that is our objective.

QUESTION: But it's not a deadline then?

MR. CROWLEY: Kirit, one more and then we'll go up to Martha's Vineyard.

QUESTION: It took you about nine months to get to the point where these guys
were willing to sit down and talk to each other. What makes you think that
you can get them to agree to peace in one year? At what point during this
process is the U.S. willing to put its own ideas on the table to help move
this forward? And after the initial set of talks here in D.C., where do you
expect the talks to take place?

MR. MITCHELL: I'll take your questions in reverse order. One of the subjects
to be discussed in the meeting on September 1st and 2nd, and also in
preparatory meetings that have been occurring on a regular basis and will
continue between now and then, will be the timing and location of subsequent
meetings, and we certainly expect some of those meetings to occur in the
region.

With respect to the timing and nature, how long it took to get here and how
long will it take to get in, I don't think one is a necessary determinant of
the other. It's - I liken it to the first time I owned a house and had it
painted. It took the painters seemingly forever to prime the building and
the walls. I kept asking myself, "When are they going to start painting? We're
paying by the hour and we want some progress." (Laughter.) And after this
seemingly endless priming, they painted it very quickly.

Now, I don't want to suggest one year is quickly, but I don't think that
events leading up to the negotiations are themselves decisive in terms of
the negotiations themselves. We believe that the statements by the prime
minister regarding within one year are credible and appropriate. We believe
that President Abbas shares a similar view, as do we. And that's what we're
going to pursue.

QUESTION: And at what point does the U.S. put its own ideas on the table in
this process?

MR. MITCHELL: We will be active and sustained partners, although we
recognize that this is a bilateral negotiation and we have indicated to both
parties that, as necessary and appropriate, we will offer bridging
proposals. But I repeat: This is a direct bilateral negotiation between the
parties with our assistance and with the assistance of our friends and
allies. And although nobody has asked it, I do want to take a moment to
acknowledge and recognize the enormous support and assistance we have
received from many of our friends and allies: Egypt, under President
Mubarak; Jordan, under King Abdullah; many of the other Arab states; the
other members of the Quartet; the United Nations under Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon, who has been extremely helpful in this process; the European Union,
with Lady Ashton as the foreign minister; and the - Russia, with Foreign
Minister Lavrov, have all been active and very helpful along with other
European states.

So it's important to understand that while the United States is playing an
important and active and sustained role, we do so with full participation,
full input, full consultation, full discussion, and we hope full support,
from a wide variety of allies whose efforts have been extremely important
getting us to this phase and will be extremely important in reaching a
conclusion.

MR. CROWLEY: Operator, we'll go to take two or three questions from White
House press corps.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our first question comes from Philip Hartley with
Washington Today. Please ask one question.

QUESTION: Good morning. Actually, it's two; I apologize. Have all the
invited parties accepted the United States' invitation to weigh in next
month? And the Secretary had mentioned references to peace in the world, and
as an envoy of peace, I wanted to know what your thoughts are on whether the
proposed mosque be built at the Ground Zero site.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm sorry, I didn't understand.

MR. CROWLEY: We're not here to talk about that latter subject. We'll take
the next question. What was the question?

QUESTION: Wait --

QUESTION: The first part was --

MR. CROWLEY: Have they accepted.

MR. MITCHELL: What was the first question?

MR. CROWLEY: Have they accepted the invitation?

MR. MITCHELL: We have been in consultation with both. We expect to hear from
them shortly, but it will be their decisions on whether to accept.

MR. CROWLEY: We'll take the next question, Operator.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question is from Jonathan Broder with
Congressional Quarterly.

QUESTION: Yeah. Do both parties have to ask for the U.S. to step in with its
bridging proposals, or is it enough for one party to ask for that bridging
proposal?

MR. MITCHELL: We're getting a little bit ahead of the game now to be
speculating on what may or may not occur well into the process. As I stated
earlier, this is a direct bilateral negotiation with the active and
sustained support of the United States. And we will make bridging proposals
at such time as we deem necessary and appropriate. But I don't want anyone
to have the impression that we are somehow going to supplant or displace the
roles of the parties themselves, nor do we have any view other than that
this must, in the end, be an agreement by the parties themselves.

MR. CROWLEY: We'll take one more, Operator, then we'll come back here to
this.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Ron Kampeas with JTA.

QUESTION: Thank you. One technical question and then a real question. On
September the 2nd - is that - are they actually - are you actually launching
direct talks on September the 2nd, or are the leaders getting together with
the Secretary to discuss the re-launching of direct talks? And the other
thing: What role, if any, does Hamas have in this process?

MR. MITCHELL: The first question is yes, we are launching direct
negotiations beginning on September 2nd. And the second question is: None.

QUESTION: Senator, is re-launching the direct negotiations without
preconditions means that we are re-launching the direct negotiations without
terms and references?

MR. MITCHELL: Only the parties can determine terms of reference and basis
for negotiations, and they will do so when they meet and discuss these
matters. As you know, both we and the Quartet have previously said that the
negotiations should be without preconditions.

QUESTION: Thank you. Can you tell us whether they're going to start from
scratch, or will they build on what talks that - during the Olmert period?
And the second question is whether Israel is expected to continue the
freeze. Do you think that they'll continue the freeze? Do you think the
Palestinians will continue their boycott of settler goods?

MR. MITCHELL: The parties themselves will determine the basis on which they
will proceed in the discussions, in response to your first question. In
response to the second, our position on settlements is well-known and
remains unchanged. We've always made clear that the parties should promote
an environment that is conducive to negotiations. And as the Secretary said
in her statement a few moments ago, it's important that actions by all sides
help to advance our effort, not hinder it.

MR. CROWLEY: Charlie.

QUESTION: Senator, just to follow up on that and a previous question, your
position is well-known on settlements, but the Israelis, when they've chosen
to, have ignored it and gone ahead with settlement construction as they've
seen fit to do. Do you have any understanding from them that they will not
do that this time?

And referring to the earlier question on Hamas and your quick answer that
they will have no role, how do you get around the fact, even in the best of
all circumstances that you negotiate an agreement, how do you get around the
fact that Hamas is playing a huge role in Gaza?

MR. MITCHELL: With respect to the first question, let's be clear that the
declaration of the moratorium itself last November was a significant action,
which has had a significant effect on new housing construction starts in the
West Bank. And as I said, our position on settlements is well-known, remains
unchanged, and we expect both parties to promote an environment conducive to
negotiations.

With respect to Hamas, let's be clear. Hamas won a legislative election.
They acknowledge the continued executive authority of President Abbas and
his team, and it is entirely appropriate that we negotiate with the
executive head of that government. When Democrats regained control of the
Congress in 2006, that didn't end President Bush's tenure as president, and
others who wanted to negotiate with the United States negotiated with the
legally elected and then-chief of our executive branch of government. And
that is the situation here.

QUESTION: So you expect Hamas to accept any decision made by President Abbas
at these negotiations?

MR. MITCHELL: It is not for me to make decisions for others.

MR. CROWLEY: We'll take one more here, then we'll go back up to the phones.

QUESTION: Senator Mitchell, is it your understanding that this would be a
shelf agreement, something to take effect at a later date when political
conditions in the Palestinian territories allow, or is it your understanding
that this is something that would take effect in a very short period after
it was agreed?

MR. MITCHELL: That's obviously subject to the results of the negotiations.
We are not creating limitations or restraints upon what the parties may
agree to. Our hope is that there will be an agreement that will end the
conflict for all time and will result in the establishment of a viable,
democratic, and independent state of Palestine living side by side in peace
and security with Israel.

MR. CROWLEY: Operator, we'll take one or two more from the phones.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question on the phone is Margaret Talev with
McClatchy newspapers.

QUESTION: Hi, thanks for taking our questions. The Palestinian press has
reported that the U.S. put the harshest pressure to date on the Palestinians
to get them into the talks. What I want to know is why did the U.S. feel
that this was the time, in the Palestinians' view, to bully the Palestinians
into talking, considering the politics of the Israeli administration right
now?

MR. MITCHELL: The United States position has been well-known from the time
that this administration entered office. We have and we do favor direct
negotiation between the parties to resolve the conflict and to produce an
agreement that results in two states living side by side in peace and
security. We have encouraged the two parties to enter into such negotiations
and they have now agreed. And we are - we believe it's the right thing to
do, we think that both of the leaders believe it's the right thing to do,
and we believe it's in the best interests of the people they represent.

MR. CROWLEY: We'll take one more, Operator, from the phone.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Susan Garraty with News Talk Radio.

QUESTION: Hello, Senator Mitchell. You harkened back to the Northern Ireland
peace process, and as you certainly recall, the President then played a very
intimate role in that. Considering that many Americans themselves are even
confused about President Obama's religious affiliation, do you feel like the
people of the Middle East on both sides of this issue will see President
Obama as an honest broker and someone that they can actually reach out to in
that same intimate fashion?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I do believe that they do and will continue to regard
President Obama in that fashion. I will say that from the outset, both he
and the Secretary of State have played an important, indeed critical, role
in this effort. Both are deeply involved on a regular basis and deeply,
personally committed to the cause of a comprehensive peace in the Middle
East. I think that is not only widely recognized throughout the region and
the world, but very much appreciated, and in particular, throughout the
region.

MR. CROWLEY: We'll take a couple of wrap-ups. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. Senator Mitchell.

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: The total settlement freeze never happened, so I was wondering,
how can these talks be considered authentic in the region when that demand
was never met?

MR. MITCHELL: We believe that there is a basis for proceeding and achieving
a successful result, and we're going to pursue that. We do not take the
position that if you don't get everything you want the first time you ask
for it, you pack up your bags and go home. If that had been the standard
applied in South Africa, there would never have been peace there; in
Northern Ireland, there would never have been peace there; in Bosnia, there
would never have been peace there.

It takes patience, persistence, a willingness to go back again and again, to
not take the first no as a final no, to not take the 50th no as the final no
or the 100th no. We are patient, we are persevering, and we are determined,
and we believe there is a basis for concluding a peace agreement in the
region, and that's what we're going to pursue.

MR. CROWLEY: Samir.

QUESTION: Senator, do you understand that - you expect Abbas to accept
entering these talks without preconditions?

MR. MITCHELL: Both the United States and the Quartet have said that we
believe there should be direct talks without preconditions. And we also have
said many times that we think that these talks should be conducted in a
positive atmosphere in which the parties refrain from taking any steps that
are not conducive to making progress in the discussions, that negotiate
seriously and in good faith. And in all of these respects, we think that
there is a basis for making progress.

QUESTION: So the talks won't be based on the Quartet statement of March 19?

MR. MITCHELL: The parties are the only ones who can determine what the basis
of their discussions are, and that is the case.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you. Senator, so many Palestinians, as you know, and
Arabs believe peace with the actual Israeli Government is practically
impossible because of its nature, past statement regarding refugees,
Jerusalem, et cetera. Aren't you concerned that by setting this one-year
deadline, you'll probably be raising expectations just like a la Camp David
and all what happened after that?

MR. MITCHELL: The reality is, of course, that there are some in both
societies who do not believe that the other side is serious, who do not
trust the other side, who do not wish to proceed with the other side. And if
we accept the premise that because some in one or both societies hold these
views that we cannot proceed, then of course, what we are doing is
consigning all of those people to never-ending conflict, never-ending
difficulties. We simply don't believe that's a proper basis for any country,
and certainly not ours, the United States, on which to base its policy.

We believe that the best course of action is the direct negotiations that
result in a peace agreement ending this conflict and resulting in two states
living side by side in peace and security. We believe the only way to
achieve that is through direct negotiations. We believe that if those
negotiations are conducted seriously and in good faith, they can produce
such an agreement within 12 months. And that is our objective. We
acknowledge, we recognize, as you have just stated, that there are many who
don't believe that, many who don't want that, many who will act to prevent
that.

But their lack of belief, their contrary views, their contrary actions
cannot serve to prevent us from trying to deal with this conflict, nor can
it prevent the leaders of those countries who both recognize that the
interests of their people, the future of their societies rests upon
resolving this conflict and achieving the kind of peace and stability and
security from which they will all benefit.

MR. CROWLEY: Last question, Mark Landler.

QUESTION: Senator, this Administration believed from the early days that its
Middle East strategy and its Iran strategy were linked in the sense that if
you could make progress in one, you might help make progress in another and
vice versa. You now are moving into a period of less engagement and more
confrontation with Iran. I'm wondering whether you think that is an added
hurdle to a peace agreement or is it something that could actually help in
the sense that the Israelis may feel that the U.S. is going to be tough on
Iran and it allays their fears somewhat in that regard.

MR. MITCHELL: That extends somewhat beyond the area of my involvement in
this process, and so I would defer for a more full and thoughtful answer to
those who are directly engaged on the broader issues. I will simply say that
if you look at the Middle East and review its history over just the past
half century, never mind several millennia, you will conclude that there is
no really, quote, "right time" to do this, that there always have been and
always will be issues external to the immediate parties that have an effect
upon what is occurring.

And in my judgment, what is occurring in the - throughout the region, not
just in Iran but in other areas, all add compelling, cumulative evidence to
the need to act with respect to this conflict. That is to say, whether or
not the circumstance you describe produces the result you describe, it still
remains a compelling argument that it is very much in the national security
interest of the United States, in terms of dealing with other conflicts, to
assist, to do all we can with the help and support of our allies, to bring
about a resolution of this conflict. It helps in so many ways, and most
importantly, it's the best thing for the Palestinian people and for the
people of Israel. And it is in our national security interest and in that of
others.

Thank you all very much. It's been a pleasure to be with you.

PRN: 2010/1142