Video: Israeli Spokesman Regev "No Contradiction Between Our Security Needs and Palestinian Sovereignty"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Israel-Palestine Analysis: “Security” Moves to the Front in Direct Talks (Yenidunya)
Israel-Palestine Transcript: George Mitchell on the Direct Talks (3 September)
Israel-Palestine Video & Transcript: Clinton-Abbas-Netanyahu Statements and Meeting (3 September)

Mark Regev, spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, appeared on the US channel MSNBC. Here is a striking extract highlighting Israel's official line: "No contradiction between Palestinian achieving sovereignty and Israelis being secure without threat."

MSNBC: There was an attack by Hamas that killed four Israelis within the last several days. the Prime Minister has made reference to it in terms of the security requirements. could you expand a little bit on the security requirements that Israel feels it needs in order to proceed to a final resolution of this?

REGEV: These attacks, these terrible attacks just underscore the need that with peace, you got to have security. You can't have one without the other. I mean, Israel vacated the Gaza Strip some five years ago. A land we transferred to the Arab side were a land we were attacked with with thousands of rockets....There is no contradictions between Palestinians achieving sovereignty and Israelis being secure without threat.

Israel-Palestine Analysis: "Security" Moves to the Front in Direct Talks (Yenidunya)

On 1 September, following the murder of four Israelis ahead of the Israel-Palestine direct talks, we said:

The most significant, if cynical, question is: which side can get the most benefit from this tragedy during direct talks? Will this attack boost Israel through attention to its security concerns? Will it make Ramallah a more valuable partner for peace, given the shadow of Hamas and other opposition groups, especially at a time when polls show that more than half of Palestinians in the West Bank do not believe that there will be a peace agreement in Washington?

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has offered an answer, underlining the magical word "security" through reference to an "existential threat". He wrote on his Facebook page:

The vicious and cold-blooded attack on four Israeli citizens last night underscores the importance of a security dialogue like the one I just had with our counterparts from Canada and other friends and allies. After the attacks on Israel in recent weeks, the Iranian regime has proven once again the threat that it poses to global peace and security through its proxies like Hamas.

Israel-Palestine Transcript: George Mitchell on the Direct Talks (3 September)
Israel-Palestine Video & Transcript: Clinton-Abbas-Netanyahu Statements and Meeting (3 September)

A day later, Ayalon saw the reward from his warning through pressure on the Palestinian Authority. He said:

While negotiations are restarting in the US, ministers in Abbas' government are continuing with their incitement and encouraging acts of terrorism by visiting the and praising families of terrorists and murderers. These types of visits encourage terrorism, as we saw recently with the murder of four Israelis. The Palestinians need to make a decision, they cannot talk peace and at the same time encourage terrorism.

At the ceremony at the White House marking the official launch of direct Mideast peace talks at the White House, the most prominent word was "peace" (39 times), but it was followed by "security" (24).

Unsurprisingly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made great use of the term. For him, two points are key: the root of the conflict with Palestinians  has not changed, but there are other "genuine security needs of Israel that have changed", due to Iran and its "proxies". Let's go back to his 2009 speech at Bar Ilan University: "The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been and remains the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland." Netanyahu reiterated this position yesterday: "We expect you to be prepared to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people."

Netanyahu situated this tragedy of this week's killings of Israeli settlement as a contribution to the definition of peace and security in his Washington statement:

The last two days have been difficult. They were exceedingly difficult for my people and for me. Blood has been shed, the blood of innocents: four innocent Israelis gunned down brutally, two people wounded, seven new orphans. President Abbas, you condemned this killing. That’s important. No less important is to find the killers, and equally to make sure that we can stop other killers. They seek to kill our people, kill our state, kill our peace. And so achieving security is a must. Security is the foundation of peace. Without it, peace will unravel. With it, peace can be stable and enduring.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also used the deadly event in the context of "suspicion and skepticism".  "Peace" was not a concrete and immediate action but a series of actions, starting with the willingness to come to Washington. She said:

We understand the suspicion and skepticism that so many feel, born out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes. The tragic act of terror on Tuesday and the terrorist shooting yesterday are yet additional reminders of the human costs of this conflict. But by being here today, you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change, and moving toward a future of peace and dignity that only you can create.

But here is the twist: Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas also adopted the "security" framework. Indeed he offered it even more often than Netanyahu, and he also used the attack on the four Israelis for essential context:

Also, with respect to security, you do know, ladies and gentlemen, that we have security apparatuses that are still being built, that are still young, but that are doing everything that is expected from them. Yesterday, we condemned the operations that were carried. We did not only condemn them, but we also followed on the perpetrators and we were able to find the car that was used and to arrest those who sold and bought the car. And we will continue all our effort to take security measures in order to find the perpetrators. We consider that security is of essence, is vital for both of us, and we cannot allow for anyone to do anything that would undermine your security and our security. And we therefore do not only condemn, but we keep on working seriously. Security is fundamental and very sensitive.

Israel-Palestine Transcript: George Mitchell on the Direct Talks (3 September)

Following Thursday's trilateral meeting between Israeli Prime Minister George Mitchell, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama's special envoy George Mitchell briefed the press. He did not give any detail on the substance of direct talks, he did put out a few markers.

*Washington expects a "comprehensive" peace for a "viable Palestinian state and a secure Israel" within one year

*The Israeli and Palestinian delegations will meet once every two weeks. The next discussion will be 14-15 September, with Mitchell and Clinton present. Meanwhile, talks will continueat other levels in Washington.

The first aim of the meetings is to reach a framework for settlement between the parties.

*Iran is presenting a threat to the peace process but both parties can convert this into encouragement for agreement.

NEW Israel-Palestine Analysis: “Security” Moves to the Front in Direct Talks (Yenidunya)
Israel-Palestine Video & Transcript: Clinton-Abbas-Netanyahu Statements and Meeting (3 September)

TRANSCRIPT:

MR. MITCHELL: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The parties have just concluded the first round of trilateral talks. The meeting lasted about an hour and a half. It began with a plenary session involving the full U.S., Israeli, and Palestinian delegations on the eighth floor of the State Department and then broke to a smaller meeting in the Secretary of State's personal office involving Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Abbas, Secretary Clinton, and myself. Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas then went into a separate meeting for a direct discussion. That meeting is still going on right now.

In the trilateral meeting, there was a long and productive discussion on a range of issues. President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed their intent to approach these negotiations in good faith and with a seriousness of purpose. They also agreed that for these negotiations to succeed, they must be kept private and treated with the utmost sensitivity. So what I and they are able to disclose to you today and in the future will be limited, but I will now describe some of the key items that were addressed in the trilateral meeting.

Both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas condemned all forms of violence that target innocent civilians and pledged to work together to maintain security. They reiterated their common goal of two states for two peoples and to a solution to the conflict that resolves all issues, ends all claims, and establishes a viable state of Palestine alongside a secure state of Israel. President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed that these negotiations can be completed within one year and that the aim of the negotiations is to resolve all core issues.

The parties agreed that a logical next step would be to begin working on achieving a framework agreement for permanent status. The purpose of a framework agreement will be to establish the fundamental compromises necessary to enable them to flesh out and complete a comprehensive treaty that will end the conflict and establish a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The parties agreed that in their actions and statements they will work to create an atmosphere of trust that will be conducive to reaching a final agreement.

They agreed to meet again on September 14 and 15 in the region and roughly two weeks thereafter - every two weeks thereafter. Of course, continued interactions at other levels between the parties and also yet others involving the United States will take place between those meetings. In fact, a preparatory trilateral meeting to plan for that second meeting in the region has already begun at another location in this building and will continue here and in the region between now and September 14th, as is necessary.

As both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have said, the United States pledges its full support to the parties in these talks. We will be an active and sustained partner throughout. We will put our full weight behind these negotiations and will stand by the parties as they make the difficult decisions necessary to secure a better future for their citizens.

As we saw this week, there are those who will use violence to try to derail these talks. There are going to be difficult days and many obstacles along the way. We recognize that this is not an easy task. But as the President told the leaders, we expect to continue until our job is complete and successful.

And with that, I'll be pleased to take some of your questions.

QUESTION: Senator, I'm Jeff Napshin with CCTV News out of Asia. I would like to know what was their personal relationship. At times when you saw them next to each other, it seemed like they were kind of distant. Did they seem to interact? Did they seem to develop any kind of bond or relationship together?

MR. MITCHELL: The relationship was cordial. As you know, these men have known each other for a long time. This is not the first meeting between them. They are not in any way strangers politically or personally. And I felt that it was a very constructive and positive mood, both in terms of their personal interaction and in terms of the nature of the discussion that occurred.

QUESTION: Thank you. Nadia Bilbassy with MBC Television. Senator, President Obama yesterday talked about some progress when asked, and I appreciate the fact that you don't want to divulge too many details, but today, Prime Minister Netanyahu talk about the Jewishness of the state, which is considered nonstarter issue for the Palestinian. Just generally, do you think that these issues can be - can you bridge the gap considering there is obviously so many difficulties? But since re-launching the negotiation today, do you think this is - could be an issue that could be an explosive for the whole issue - for the peace process?

MR. MITCHELL: First, I believe very strongly, deeply, and personally that this conflict can be resolved and that these negotiations can produce a final agreement that enables the establishment of a Palestinian state and peace and security for both peoples.

Secondly, it is, of course, self-evident that the reason for a negotiation is that there are differences. The differences are many, they are deep, they are serious, and it will take serious, good-faith negotiations, sincerity on both sides, a willingness to make difficult concessions on both sides if that agreement is to be reached.

But I don't think that any human problem can be solved if one begins by viewing the problems as insurmountable, as suggesting that the mountains are too high and the rivers are too wide, so let's not undertake the journey. There has to be a sincerity and a seriousness of purpose combined with a realistic appraisal and understanding of the difficulties, but a determination to overcome them.

I believe that exists. I believe these two leaders, President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu, are committed to doing what it takes to achieve the right result.

MR. CROWLEY: Major.

QUESTION: Hello, Senator Mitchell. Major Garrett, Fox News. You remember well from your life on Capitol Hill the phrase, whenever a tough negotiation was going on, "Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to." Will that be the operative approach, you believe, for this process? And as a result, will you be reluctant to talk about anything that's agreed upon until everything is agreed upon? That's one process question.

The second one is you discussed the framework; is the deadline for the framework one year? Or is the framework something we're likely to see much earlier and the one year still governs the entire solution to all remaining issues?

MR. MITCHELL: In terms of process, that and other questions will be resolved by the parties. The - you cannot separate process from substance in these discussions. There is an interaction that affects both and we've made it clear that these issues are to be determined by the parties. We have had extensive discussions with them on that and many other issues, and those will continue.

Our goal is to resolve all of the frame - all of the core issues within one year. And the parties themselves have suggested and agreed that the logical way to proceed, to tackle them is to try to reach a framework agreement first. And as I said - and I think this ought to be made clear because there has been a good bit of misunderstanding or not a full meeting of minds publicly regarding a framework agreement - a framework agreement is not an interim agreement. It's more detailed than a declaration of principles, but is less than a full-fledged treaty. Its purpose is to establish the fundamental compromises necessary to enable the parties to then flesh out and complete a comprehensive agreement that will end the conflict and establish a lasting peace.

MR. CROWLEY: Charlie.

QUESTION: Thank you. Charlie Wolfson with CBS News. You mentioned that a number of issues were talked about today, but can you mention specifically that settlements was among them? And do you plan to be in the region for the talks that will take place on the 14th and 15th and at the table as well? Though you said the U.S. would be a part of the talks, take an active role, do you plan to be there for those talks, and can you tell us where they're going to be?

MR. MITCHELL: As I said at the outset, what I will be able to disclose to you, that the parties will disclose will be limited. And so you've given me the first opportunity to invoke that principle with respect to the first part of your question, for which I thank you. (Laughter.)

Secondly, both Secretary Clinton and I will be at the meeting in the region on September 14th and 15th, and one of the subjects now being discussed in the trilateral preparatory meeting that's ongoing in another room in this building, to which I must go in a few moments, is that subject. So a determination has not yet been made. That will be made, I believe, obviously in the near future and well in advance of the meeting.

MR. CROWLEY: Kirit, and then we'll go there and then come back.

QUESTION: Kirit Radia with ABC News. I would like to take another crack at it after Charlie. I understand and appreciate that you can't get into specifics about what was talked today, but I'm curious whether you could say - could speak about the scope of today's talks, whether they did involve any substantive discussions on any of the core issues or whether this was strictly to lay out the plan for the coming year. Thanks.

MR. MITCHELL: As I mentioned in my response to Major's questions, I don't think one can neatly characterize process and substance as though they're two separate things in these matters. They do interact and relate. You can't discuss a process issue in any meaningful way without some relations to the substance that's being discussed.

And so as I appreciate you said you're taking another crack at Charlie's question, and that gives me the chance to say for the second time that I'm not going to be able to get into the substance. But yes, there were discussions that touched on subject - on substance, although I don't want to suggest to you that the meeting was such that there was a detailed and extended discussion or debate on a specific substantive issue.

MR. CROWLEY: We'll move over here and then we'll wrap up.

QUESTION: Ron Kampeas from JTA. It appears from this morning that obviously there weren't any substantive concessions. There were - there have been rhetorical concessions. President Abbas talked about security, which is something that Netanyahu has wanted him to talk about, and Netanyahu yesterday at the dinner talked about recognizing the Palestinian claim that they're - that the Palestinians live there.

Is that something that you've noticed? Is that something that the Americans have been encouraging? Have you played a role in asking the leaders to get out those statements?

MR. MITCHELL: We have encouraged the parties to be positive in their outlook, in their words, and in their actions. Any realistic appraisal of the situation, including the recent history - by which I mean the last two decades - makes clear that there are very serious differences between the parties, that there are many difficulties which lay ahead both in terms of the substance of the issues, the impact on their domestic politics, the needs and interests of their societies. We have not, of course, attempted to prescribe what they can or should say about any issue. These are independent and extremely able leaders representing the interests of their societies.

What we have sought to convey in innumerable conversations that I have had personally with both leaders over many, many months is President Obama's conviction that despite all of the difficulties - near term, long term, political, substantive, personal, and otherwise - the paramount goal of making the lives of their citizens more safe, more secure, more prosperous, more full can best be achieved by a meaningful and lasting peace between the parties and in the region; that the alternative to that poses difficulties and dangers far greater to the individuals, to the leaders, to their societies, than those risks which they run in an effort to reach an agreement that brings about their lasting peace; that any realistic evaluation of the self-interest of the people of Israel and the Palestinian people must, in our judgment, conclude that they are far better off living side by side in two states in peace and security than in a continuation of the current situation.

MR. CROWLEY: Two last questions here (inaudible).

QUESTION: Yeah. Mohamed Ouasi of France 24 Washington. Senator, Prime Minister Netanyahu mentioned Iran this morning. Wouldn't that be making things more difficult for you to close the gap between the two parties?

MR. MITCHELL: In every aspect of human life, including your personal life and mine, the world is much different today than it was 10 years ago and vastly different than it was 20 years ago. And that is certainly true of the Middle East. It is an area of rapid change, of many conflicting currents that historians and analysts have described far better than I could in any exchange we have here.

But obviously, the actions and policies of the current Government of Iran have an effect in the region and in the wider world, and they influence what is occurring here. And in my judgment, they add another argument to those which I've already made and which many others have made as to why this conflict should be resolved. It is in the interests of the people involved, and in this respect, the word "comprehensive peace" is directly relevant. Please recall that when President Obama announced my appointment two days after taking office, he specifically identified comprehensive peace as the objective of U.S. policy in the region: Israel and the Palestinians, Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon, Israel at peace with all of its neighbors in normal relations.

And obviously, one of the factors that makes that desirable, in my judgment necessary, for all of these parties is, in part, the actions and policies that have been and are being taken by the Government of Iran. Yes, so it is a factor. Even if it didn't exist, there would be a compelling reason for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but that's an additional factor.

MR. CROWLEY: Last question.

QUESTION: Senator, Laurie Ure, CNN. Peace negotiations between the parties have taken place, obviously, several times in the past. What is Secretary Clinton doing differently than her predecessors, including President Clinton?

MR. MITCHELL: Although my comment on that is not constrained by the agreement which I earlier described - (laughter) - there are other constraining factors - (laughter) - which come into play that somehow come right into my head as you completed the question. (Laughter.) Since I was not a part of the immediately preceding administration, although I did serve at the request of President Clinton and the then prime minister of Israel and the president of the Palestinian Authority as chairman of an international commission in 2000 and 2001 following the eruption of the second intifada, I'll tell you my own belief.

First, we can't be deterred by the fact that previous efforts didn't succeed. The cause of peace is so important, so just, indeed - I'm not trying to use hyperbole - so noble, that it must continue notwithstanding prior efforts at failure. Indeed, an argument can be made to the reverse that the prior failures create an even more compelling imperative to proceed now.

Secondly, with respect to past efforts, as I said previously, not today but at an earlier briefing, we think that the best approach is to carefully review them, as we have done, and to try to draw the best lessons out of each one, not be bound by any particular practice or process or procedure, and always trying to keep in mind the dynamic changes in the region that have occurred in what is, in historical terms, a very short period of time.

So we don't - I've been asked often, "Is this a continuation of Annapolis? Is it a continuation of some other process?" Our view is this is an effort that will try to learn from the lessons of the past, take the best and bring them forward, but not be bound by any label or category or previous process. Everything should be judged on the basis of what it will do to advance - help us advance to achieve the ultimate goal of peace in the region.

Now, one obvious difference is that President Obama is the only president in recent times, to my knowledge, to have established this as a high priority immediately upon taking office and to have acted immediately at that time. There have been many very well-written books on the history of the past 20 years. I think I've read most of them. And it's very clear that at least in a couple of instances, time ran out. Indeed, the authors of several of these books used exactly those words to describe the problem: They ran out of time at the end.

Well, this President, I believe, will succeed. But as he said yesterday, neither success nor failure is predetermined or guaranteed, but it isn't going to be because time ran out at the end. So that's a vast difference.

I have a high opinion of the men and women who served in these tasks in the past. I know most of them personally, and I don't think you can attribute inability to achieve a result to their individual or collective failures. They are the product of the difficulty and what many regard as the intractability of the problems and issues. But we believe that there are dynamic changes that occur. There are the more obvious difficulties that lie ahead for both sides if they don't reach agreement that may be even more obvious than they were five or eight or 12 years ago.

You have to remember that these leaders must weigh two things. They must weigh the difficulties they face in getting agreement and they must weigh the difficulties they will face if they don't get an agreement. And we believe it's a very powerful argument that if you subject these to careful, reasoned, and rational analysis, to conclude that the latter difficulties, if they don't get an agreement, will be much greater and have a much more profound impact on their societies than those they face in trying to get an agreement.

Thank you all very much. Been a pleasure to see you and I look forward to reporting to you on a regular basis.

Israel-Palestine Video & Transcript: Clinton-Abbas-Netanyahu Statements and Meeting (3 September)

Video 1: US Secretary of Statement Hillary Clinton

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NEW Israel-Palestine Analysis: “Security” Moves to the Front in Direct Talks (Yenidunya)
Israel-Palestine Transcript: George Mitchell on the Direct Talks (3 September)
Israel-Palestine Video & Transcript: Clinton-Abbas-Netanyahu Statements and Meeting (3 September)

Video 2: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Video 3: Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning and welcome to the State Department here in the Benjamin Franklin Room. I want to thank all of you for joining us today to re-launch negotiations to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I know the decision to sit at this table was not easy. We understand the suspicion and skepticism that so many feel, born out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes. The tragic act of terror on Tuesday and the terrorist shooting yesterday are yet additional reminders of the human costs of this conflict. But by being here today, you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change, and moving toward a future of peace and dignity that only you can create. So, thank you. Thank you for your courage and your commitment.

I also want to recognize the support of Egypt and Jordan, which have long been crucial partners for peace. And we appreciate the support of the Arab League for the vision of a comprehensive peace embodied in these talks.

I also wish to thank former Prime Minister Tony Blair, the special representative of the Quartet, for his leadership and efforts. Mr. Blair’s work in support of the institutional and economic development of the Palestinian people is critical to the success of these peace efforts. As we’ve said all along, progress on this track must go hand-in-hand with progress in negotiations.

And let me also, as represented by this overwhelming turnout of representatives of the press from across the world, express our gratitude to many friends and allies who have worked so hard for progress toward our shared goals. To those who criticize this process, who stand on the sidelines and say no, I ask you to join us in this effort. As President Obama said yesterday, we hear often from those voices in the region who insist that this is a top priority and yet do very little to support the work that would actually bring about a Palestinian state. Now is the opportunity to start contributing to progress.

For our part, the United States has pledged its full support for these talks, and we will be an active and sustained partner. We believe, Prime Minister and President, that you can succeed, and we understand that this is in the national security interests of the United States that you do so. But we cannot and we will not impose a solution. Only you can make the decisions necessary to reach an agreement and secure a peaceful future for the Israeli and Palestinian people.

Now, for many of us in this room, this is not the first trip to the negotiating table. I look around and I see veterans from all three of us. We’ve been here before and we know how difficult the road ahead will be. There undoubtedly will be obstacles and setbacks. Those who oppose the cause of peace will try in every way possible to sabotage this process, as we have already seen this week.

But those of you here today, especially the veterans who are here today, you have returned because you have seen the cost of continued conflict. You know that your people deserve the benefits of peace. The core issues at the center of these negotiations – territory, security, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, and others – will get no easier if we wait. Nor will they resolve themselves.

Success will take patience, persistence, and leadership. The true test of these negotiations will not be their first day and it will not be their last day. It will be all those long days in the middle, when the path toward peace seems hidden, and the enemies of peace work to keep it obscured. But we are convinced that if you move forward in good faith and do not waver in your commitment to succeed on behalf of your people, we can resolve all of the core issues within one year.

You have taken the first steps. You have both embraced the idea of a two-state solution, which is the only path toward a just, lasting peace that ensures security and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians. I fervently believe that the two men sitting on either side of me, that you are the leaders who can make this long, cherished dream a reality. And we will do everything possible to help you. This is a time for bold leadership and a time for statesmen who have the courage to make difficult decisions.

Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. President, you have the opportunity to end this conflict and the decades of enmity between your peoples once and for all.

And I want to conclude by just saying a few words directly to the people of the region. Your leaders may be sitting at the negotiating table, but you are the ones who will ultimately decide the future. You hold the future of your families, your communities, your people, this region, in your hands. For the efforts here to succeed, we need your support and your patience. Today, as ever, people have to rally to the cause of peace, and peace needs champions on every street corner and around every kitchen table. I understand very well the disappointments of the past. I share them. But I also know we have it within our power today to move forward into a different kind of future, and we cannot do this without you.

So now let me turn to the prime minister, who will make his remarks, followed by the president.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Thank you, Madam Secretary. I want to thank you and President Obama for the many efforts that you have invested to bring us to this moment. My friend, Senator Mitchell, thank you for your consistent effort, for you and your staff’s efforts to bring a lasting and durable peace to our region.

President Abbas, as I said yesterday in our meeting at the White House with the President of the United States, the President of Egypt and the King of Jordan, I see in you a partner for peace. Together, we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict.

Now, this will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, would be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides – from the Israeli side, from the Palestinian side, from my side, and from your side. But the people of Israel, and I as their prime minister, are prepared to walk this road and to go a long way, a long way in a short time, to achieve a genuine peace that will bring our people security, prosperity, and good neighbors – good neighbors, to shape a different reality between us. That’s going to involve serious negotiations, because there are many issues in contention. The core issues that you outlined, Madam Secretary, are things that we have disagreements on, but we have to get from disagreement to agreement – a big task.

Now, two years ago, or rather, a year ago, in a speech I gave in Bar-Ilan University in Israel, I tried to outline the two pillars of peace that I think will enable us to resolve all the outstanding issues. And these are legitimacy and security. Just as you expect us to be ready to recognize a Palestinian state as the nation-state of the Palestinian people, we expect you to be prepared to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. There are more than a million non-Jews living in Israel, the nation-state of the Jewish people, who have full civil rights. There is no contradiction between a nation-state that guarantees the national rights of the majority and guaranteeing the civil rights, the full civil equality, of the minority.

I think this mutual recognition between us is indispensible to clarifying to our two people – our two peoples that the conflict between us is over. I said, too, yesterday that a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel that have changed. They have changed since I was last here. You spoke about the veterans who are gathered here at this table. We’ve been here before. We fashioned the Hebron agreement and the Wye agreement. This was 12 years ago. In these 12 years, new forces have risen in our region, and we’ve had the rise of Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare. And so a peace agreement must take into account a security arrangement against these real threats that have been directed against my country, threats that have been realized with 12,000 rockets that have been fired on our territory, and terrorist attacks that go unabated.

President Abbas, I am fully aware and I respect your people’s desire for sovereignty. I am convinced that it’s possible to reconcile that desire with Israel’s need for security. We anticipate difficult days before we achieve the much-desired peace. The last two days have been difficult. They were exceedingly difficult for my people and for me. Blood has been shed, the blood of innocents: four innocent Israelis gunned down brutally, two people wounded, seven new orphans. President Abbas, you condemned this killing. That’s important. No less important is to find the killers, and equally to make sure that we can stop other killers. They seek to kill our people, kill our state, kill our peace. And so achieving security is a must. Security is the foundation of peace. Without it, peace will unravel. With it, peace can be stable and enduring.

President Abbas, history has given us a rare opportunity to end the conflict between our peoples, a conflict that has been lasting for almost a century. It’s an unprecedented opportunity to end a century conflict. Well, there have been some examples in history, but not many. But we face such a task to end the bloodshed and to secure a future of promise and hope for our children and grandchildren.

In the first book of the Bible, the book of Genesis, there is a story of how two brothers in conflict – brothers, Isaac and Ishmael – joined together to bury their father Abraham, our father, the father of our two peoples. Isaac, the father of the Hebrew nation, Ishmael, the father of the Arab nation, joined together at a moment of pain and mutual respect to bury Abraham in Hebron.

I can only pray, and I know that millions around the world, millions of Israelis and millions of Palestinians and many other millions around the world, pray that the pain that we have experienced – you and us – in the last hundred years of conflict will unite us not only in a moment of peace around a table of peace here in Washington, but will enable us to leave from here and to forge a durable, lasting peace for generations. Shalom. Salaam. Peace.

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (Via interpreter) In the name of God, Madam Secretary Hillary Clinton, Mr. Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, ladies and gentlemen, let me, in the first place, once again, extend my thanks to President Barack Obama and to Secretary Clinton and Senator George Mitchell and their teams for the unrelenting effort they exerted during the last month in order to re-launch the negotiation on the final status between the PLO and the Israeli Government.

Ladies and gentlemen, now that you are launching these negotiations today, we do know how hard are the hurdles and obstacles we are facing and we will face during these negotiations, negotiations that should, within a year, lead to an agreement that will bring the peace – the just peace of international law – international legality between our two people, the Israelis and the Palestinians. What’s encouraging as well and what’s giving us confidence is that the road is clear in front of us in order to reach peace. The road of international law is represented by the National Security Council and the General Assembly of United Nations, the Quartet, and the positions of the European Union, of the Arab Follow-up Committee. And all these position clearly for us represent international unanimity on the references, the bases, and the goals of the negotiations.

Ladies and gentlemen, also we’re not starting from scratch, because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli Government, and we studied all horizons and we also defined and determined all the pending issues. We will work on all the final status issues – Jerusalem, the settlements, the borders, security, water, and also releasing the detainees – in order to end the occupation that started 1967, the occupation of the Palestinian territories, and in order to create the state of Palestine that lives side by side with the state of Israel, in order to end the conflict and end the historic demands in the Middle East, and to bring peace and security for the two people and all the peoples of the region.

Once again, we want to state our commitment to follow on all our engagement, including security and ending incitement. And we call on the Israeli Government to move forward with its commitment to end all settlement activities and completely lift the embargo over the Gaza Strip and end all form of incitement.

Also, with respect to security, you do know, ladies and gentlemen, that we have security apparatuses that are still being built, that are still young, but that are doing everything that is expected from them. Yesterday, we condemned the operations that were carried. We did not only condemn them, but we also followed on the perpetrators and we were able to find the car that was used and to arrest those who sold and bought the car. And we will continue all our effort to take security measures in order to find the perpetrators. We consider that security is of essence, is vital for both of us, and we cannot allow for anyone to do anything that would undermine your security and our security. And we therefore do not only condemn, but we keep on working seriously. Security is fundamental and very sensitive.

Ladies and gentlemen, once again, I want to state today what I said at the White House meeting yesterday in front of President Obama, President Mubarak, and King Abdullah. And we do believe that their participation was of essence and was very strong and represented the belief of Jordan and Egypt in peace. These two states alongside with other Arab states do believe that peace is a vital interest not only for the Palestinians and the Israelis, but also for all the peoples in the region and for the United States, as President Obama said when he said that the creation of a Palestinian state, or the two-state vision, is a vital national American interest.

The PLO participates in these negotiations with good intentions and seriousness and is adamant about bringing just peace that guarantees freedom and independence for the Palestinian people who is attached to his land and his rights, the fair solution of the problem of the refugees according to international resolutions. We are attached to the international resolutions. We do not want anything above and we do not want anything under. We want to have a new era in our region, an era that brings peace, justice, security, and prosperity for all.

And let me say here that in 1993, on the 9^th of September of this year, we signed, Mr. Prime Minister, what is called a document of mutual recognition between us and Israel, between former President Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, and this document was signed. And in this document, we give enough so – to show that our intentions are good, our intentions with respect to recognizing the state of Israel. And you do know, sir, that in Camp David, also commitments were required from us. And when we came back with President Clinton, we carried on with all our commitments because we respect our commitments and our agreements.

Therefore, we stand from here to reach a peace that will end the conflict, that will meet all the demands, and start a new era between the Israeli and the Palestinian people.

Thank you, and peace be among you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I want to thank both leaders for their statements. And I also want to thank the members of their respective teams who are here in both delegations. The people sitting here have worked very hard, some for many years, and they certainly have traveled a long way to be here and we’re grateful for their commitment as well.

Today, President Obama and I, Senator Mitchell and our entire team, are prepared to do whatever we can to help you succeed. And we believe in you and we support you. So again, let me thank you for being here, and now it’s time to get to work.

Thank you all very much.

Palestine-Israel Analysis: The Two Questions to Answer Today (Yenidunya)

Starting question for today's direct Israel-Palestine talks in Washington: as a group lacking the legitimacy of being a state, both in the eyes of Palestinians and of the international community, can the Palestinian Authority get any traction for its negotiating position?

Palestinian negotiators will first urge Israelis, as move towards resolution of the status of borders, to reach a solution on settlement construction both in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. Before agreeing on drawing the borders, Israel will urge its "partner" to come as close as possible to a proposal based on its "security needs". That in turn will take talks to a broader agenda beyond Ramallah's demands, which means an early victory for Israel.

Palestine to Israel: “What Kind of State Does Netanyahu Have in Mind?” (Yenidunya)
Israel-Palestine Talks: Will Confidence-Building Measures for Ramallah Work? (Yenidunya)
Gaza Latest: UN’s Flotilla Interviews Start, More Aid Ships?, Worry Over Hamas
Israel-Palestine: Were 4 Settlers Killed to Sabotage Talks? (Yenidunya)

The only exit for Palestinians from this outcome is standing firm against the broader agenda while re-stating its conditions, including the extension of the settlement freeze to East Jerusalem.

And thus a more specific question: will the settlement freeze issue replace the status of Temple Mount at the 2000 Camp David talks as the breaking point of discussions?