Video and Transcript: Obama's New Year Message to Israelis

Israel-Palestine Analysis: Can Ramallah’s “Security” Card Advance the Talks? (Yenidunya)

Transcript:

As Jews in America and around the world celebrate the first of the High Holy Days I want to extend my warmest wishes for the New Year. L’shana Tova Tikatevu – may you be inscribed and sealed in the Book of Life.

Rosh Hashanah marks the beginning of the spiritual calendar and the birth of the world. It serves as a reminder of the special relationship between God and his children, now and always. And it calls us to look within ourselves – to repent for our sins; recommit ourselves to prayer; and remember the blessings that come from helping those in need.

Today, those lessons ring as true as they did thousands of years ago. And as we begin this New Year, it is more important than ever to believe in the power of humility and compassion to deepen our faith and repair our world.

At a time when too many of our friends and neighbors are struggling to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads, it is up to us to do what we can to help those less fortunate.

At a time when prejudice and oppression still exist in the shadows of our society, it is up to us to stand as a beacon of freedom and tolerance and embrace the diversity that has always made us stronger as a people.

And at a time when Israelis and Palestinians have returned to direct dialogue, it is up to us to encourage and support those who are willing to move beyond their differences and work towards security and peace in the Holy Land. Progress will not come easy, it will not come quick. But today we had an opportunity to move forward, toward the goal we share—two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

The scripture teaches us that there is “a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” In this season of repentance and renewal, let us commit ourselves to a more hopeful future.

Michelle and I wish all who celebrate Rosh Hashanah a sweet year full of health and prosperity.

US Politics: How Can Obama Deal with a World after Iraq? (Cohen)

Roger Cohen writes for The New York Times:

Europe adjusted long ago, but not without pain, to its diminished place in world affairs. After Suez for the British, after Algeria for the French, even the most stubborn post-World War II illusions evaporated. The baton had passed to America. European nations set their minds to a war-banishing Union.

I don’t think the Iraq and Afghan wars constitute for the United States what Suez and the Algerian conflict were for Britain and France: points of irrevocable inflection. But, inconclusive and ill-managed, they have set new limits to U.S. power. President Obama is focused on reducing American expectations for “an age without surrender ceremonies.”

US Politics: When Delaware Matters — And How to Survive It (Haddigan)
Iraq: Obama and A Meaningless Date of Withdrawal (Packer)

That’s how he defined our epoch in an address winding up the seven-year U.S. war in Iraq. It was a quintessential Obama speech — intelligent but not stirring, firm and sober and rather solemn, altogether in the image of his refurbished Oval Office with its risk-averse muted neutral tones.

As with the office so with the speech: You can admire the clean lines but your heartbeat sure won’t quicken.

The main subject, it must be said, hardly lent itself to hurrahs. In Iraq, brief triumph subsided through criminal incompetence into fractured mayhem, leaving more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead and concluding in the fluid uncertainty of sporadic violence and democratic deadlock. No intellectual contortion — even with important stirrings of political give-and-take in Iraq — can ever inscribe Operation Iraqi Freedom in the annals of U.S. victories.

An age without surrender ceremonies is just that: an age without clear winners, an opaque time.

Obama put the situation this way: “One of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power — including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example — to secure our interests and stand by our allies.”

Power, in this Obama doctrine, is not for winning the day, vanquishing the enemy. Its purpose is more modest: the pursuit of America’s interests or those of its friends.

Obama is a realist in the image of Britain’s 19th-century statesman Lord Palmerston, who once declared: “We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”

What inhabits Obama is the conviction that the United States “is still the biggest power but not the decisive power,” said Jonathan Eyal, a British foreign policy analyst. “And Americans will only accept that with time and with bumping against buffers.”

This is not the stuff of heroic American narrative, of shining citadels or beacons to mankind. Obama, subtly but persistently, is talking down American exceptionalism in the name of mutual interests and mutual respect, two favorite phrases. He is downsizing American ambition — the eventual Afghan exit is now pre-scripted along neither-defeat-nor-victory Iraqi lines — in the name of American rebuilding.

Read full article....

Iraq: Obama and A Meaningless Date of Withdrawal (Packer)

George Packer writes in The New Yorker:

What President Obama called the end of the combat mission in Iraq is a meaningless milestone, constructed almost entirely out of thin air, and his second Oval Office speech marks a rare moment of dishonesty and disingenuousness on the part of a politician who usually resorts to rare candor at important moments. The fifty thousand troops who will remain in Iraq until the end of next year will still be combat troops in everything but name, because they will be aiding one side in an active war zone. The proclaimed end of Operation Iraqi Freedom has little or nothing to do with the military and political situation in Iraq, which is why Iraqis were barely aware when the last U.S. combat brigade crossed into Kuwait a few days ago. And for most of us, too—except, perhaps, those with real skin in the game, the million and a half Iraq war veterans and their families—there’s hardly any reality or substance to the moment.

Iraq: Obama Wants Us to Forget the Lessons (Bacevich)

It’s hard to have an honest emotional response or even know what one feels. After seven years of war, the occasion deserves some weight of feeling, but many Americans stopped paying attention a long time ago. And that’s exactly why the President made his announcement: because Americans want the war to be over, have wanted it for years. Tonight he told us what we wanted to hear. August 31, 2010, will go down in history as the day Americans could start not thinking about the war without feeling guilty.

This is not entirely ignoble, by the way. The war has gone on for a long time—almost as long as the Civil War and America’s part in the Second World War combined—and it has taken a heavy toll on the one half of one per cent of Americans who have fought it, and in a democracy this is an intolerable situation. A checked-out public, a stressed-out military, a war hardly anyone can explain: at some point it had to be declared over, and only the President could do it, and Obama is the President, and he was as good as his word in so declaring it on August 31, 2010, not a day sooner or later. He can claim full credit for sticking to his own date certain regardless of circumstances—for not postponing the artificial event that just happened until some future date certain. And in doing so, he restored a small measure of democratic credibility here at home. This is what it looks like when a wartime President is true to his word and the people are behind him. Strange, that it doesn’t look better than it does.

For almost all purposes, Iraq has no government. Almost six months after national elections, the country’s politicians remain unable to compromise and cut a deal, showing the persistent lack of maturity and vision that has earned the political class the justifiable contempt of the Iraqi public. Meanwhile, Iraq’s neighbors are playing their proxies against one another and jostling for a piece of the action. In the vacuum, Sunni extremists are showing just how much—and how little—Iraqi security forces are going to be capable of in the post-American-combat-mission era. It’s not a very encouraging picture. Even if a return to civil war or a military coup, or both, doesn’t happen in the near future, Iraq remains fragile and extremely violent. Daily life—electricity, water, security, the same things Iraqis have been complaining about since 2003—is pretty hellish for most Iraqis. Read the comments from Iraqis in these New York Times interviews. They show the same range of views, some of them within a single individual, that one heard throughout the war. There is great disappointment in and resentment of America, but only one expression of pure hatred, and a fair number affirmations that, at least, Iraqis have been allowed to join the world and enjoy a margin of freedom. Almost all of them fear the future and can only imagine a normal life years or decades from now (fifty years is a common marker). Many of them (especially in Sunni areas), as much as they dislike the occupation, dislike more the prospect of a return to the levels of chaos seen in 2006, which could accompany an American withdrawal. It’s a real possibility, and August 31, 2010 was actually not such a good choice for the end of the combat mission. March 31, 2010, right after the elections, would have been better.

And then there are the hundreds of thousands, the millions, of Iraqis who have fled the country and not yet deemed it in their interest to go back. Among them is the core of the country’s educated, secular-minded middle class, including the younger generation—those who had the most to gain by the American invasion. It’s going to be much harder for Iraq to build itself into a stable, modern country without them.

And yet, to hear the President tell it, Iraq is on the right path and in a surprisingly good position to take its destiny in hand. Those passages from the speech remind me of nothing so much as the fatuously optimistic updates one regularly heard from President Bush and others in the earlier years of the war. Whatever Iraqis said, whatever the evidence of one’s senses, things were always getting better (though “challenges” always remained). And, as it turns out, as of August 31, 2010, this is still the case. As a candidate, Obama was in a position to tell the truth about Iraq, and he did. As President, he’s learned the official language of euphemism and vagueness and distortion. Administration officials who, three years ago and not yet in power, were withering in their assessment of the war and Iraqi politicians, have become their unlikely boosters.

The language of Obama’s speech was as flat and forgettable as anything we’ve heard from him. Unlike Bush’s “major combat operations are over” address in 2003 (which came to be known as the “mission accomplished” speech), Obama’s “the combat mission is over” in 2010 failed to carry conviction—evidence of this President’s intelligence, if not his forthrightness. When he talks about Afghanistan, he thinks about what he’s saying, and as a result he says real things in a way that penetrates, even—or especially-—when he avoids grandiosity, as in his speech last December at West Point. On Iraq, he seemed to be trying not to think too hard about what he was saying, while sprinkling his words with a grandiose coating. Otherwise, he might have had to admit—among other things—that he strongly opposed the surge that his speech praised.

O.K.—why should we expect him to be that much better than any other politician? Presidents never admit they were wrong. (Bush turned the refusal into a badge of honor.) We know how much credit honesty would have gained him among his opponents. John Boehner’s speech on Iraq (which, though it preceded Obama’s by a few hours, was a kind of Republican response) proved that the opposition has no interest in Iraq, except as yet another weapon to use against Obama. So Boehner wants Obama to declare victory, and he suggested that it’s unpatriotic not to do so—Boehner, who couldn’t pronounce General Ray Odierno’s name.

There is no American victory in Iraq, and there is not going to be any American victory in Iraq, and Obama was right not to talk about V-I. There isn’t even a clear truce, with a D.M.Z. and a southern half that, under American protection, might evolve into an economic powerhouse and a liberal democracy. In the Times Tuesday, Paul Wolfowitz proposed South Korea as a model for Iraq. The analogy is closer than Vietnam or the Second World War, but it still fails the test of commensurateness—among other reasons, because there will not be tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq sixty years from now, or even two years from now. We are leaving, undefeated and unvictorious—we are leaving it to the Iraqis....

Read full article....

Iraq: Obama Wants Us to Forget the Lessons (Bacevich)

Andrew Bacevich writes for The New Republic:

The Iraq war? Fuggedaboudit. “Now, it is time to turn the page.” So advises the commander-in-chief at least. “[T]he bottom line is this,” President Obama remarked last Saturday, “the war is ending.” Alas, it’s not. Instead, the conflict is simply entering a new phase. And before we hasten to turn the page—something that the great majority of Americans are keen to do—common decency demands that we reflect on all that has occurred in bringing us to this moment. Absent reflection, learning becomes an impossibility.

For those Americans still persuaded that everything changed the moment Obama entered the Oval Office, let’s provide a little context. The event that historians will enshrine as the Iraq war actually began back in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Iraq’s unloved and unlovable neighbor. Through much of the previous decade, the United States had viewed Saddam as an ally of sorts, a secular bulwark against the looming threat of Islamic radicalism then seemingly centered in Tehran. Saddam’s war of aggression against Iran, launched in 1980, did not much discomfit Washington, which offered the Iraqi dictator a helping hand when his legions faced apparent defeat.

Yet when Saddam subsequently turned on Kuwait, he overstepped. President George H.W. Bush drew a line in the sand, likened the Iraqi dictator to Hitler, and dispatched 500,000 American troops to the Persian Gulf. The plan was to give Saddam a good spanking, make sure all concerned knew who was boss, and go home.

Operation Desert Storm didn’t turn out that way. An ostensibly great victory gave way to even greater complications. Although, in evicting the Iraqi army from Kuwait, U.S. and coalition forces did what they had been sent to do, Washington became seized with the notion merely turning back aggression wasn’t enough: In Baghdad, Bush’s nemesis survived and remained defiant. So what began as a war to liberate Kuwait morphed into an obsession with deposing Saddam himself. In the form of air strikes and missile attacks, feints and demonstrations, CIA plots and crushing sanctions, America’s war against Iraq persisted throughout the 1990s, finally reaching a climax with George W. Bush’s decision after September 11, 2001, to put Saddam ahead of Osama bin Laden in the line of evildoers requiring elimination.

The U.S.-led assault on Baghdad in 2003 finally finished the work left undone in 1991—so it appeared at least. Here was decisive victory, sealed by the capture of Saddam Hussein himself in December 2003. “Ladies and gentlemen,” announced L. Paul Bremer, the beaming American viceroy to Baghdad, “we got him.”

Yet by the time Bremer spoke, it—Iraq—had gotten us. Saddam’s capture (and subsequent execution) signaled next to nothing. Round two of the Iraq war had commenced, the war against Saddam (1990–2003) giving way to the American Occupation (2003–2010). Round two began the War to Reinvent Iraq in America’s Image.

With officials such as Bremer in the vanguard, the United States set out to transform Iraq into a Persian Gulf “city upon a hill,” a beacon of Western-oriented liberal democracy enlightening and inspiring the rest of the Arab and Islamic world. When this effort met with resistance, American troops, accustomed to employing overwhelming force, responded with indiscriminate harshness. President Bush called the approach “kicking ass.” Heavy-handedness backfired, however, and succeeded only in plunging Iraq into chaos. One result, on the home front, was to produce a sharp backlash against what had become Bush’s War.

Unable to win, unwilling to accept defeat, the Bush administration sought to create conditions allowing for a graceful exit. Marketed for domestic political purposes as “a new way forward,” more commonly known as “the surge,” this modified approach was the strategic equivalent of a dog’s breakfast. President Bush steeled himself to expend more American blood and treasure while simultaneously lowering expectations about what U.S. forces might actually accomplish. New tactics designed to suppress the Iraqi insurgency won Bush’s approval; so too did the novel practice of bribing insurgents to put down their arms.

Yet as a consequence the daily violence that had made Iraq a hellhole subsided—although it did not disappear.

Meanwhile, once hallowed verities fell by the wayside. U.S. officials stopped promising that Saddam’s downfall would trigger a wave of liberalizing reforms throughout the Islamic world. Op-eds testifying to America’s enduring commitment to the rights of Iraqi women ceased to appear in the nation’s leading newspapers.

Respected American generals—by 2007, about the only figures retaining a shred of credibility on Iraq—disavowed the very possibility of victory. In military circles, to declare that “there is no military solution” became the very height of fashion.

By the time Barack Obama had ascended to the presidency, this second phase of the Iraq war—its purpose now inverted from occupation to extrication—was already well-advanced. Since taking office, Obama has kept faith with the process that his predecessor set in motion, building upon President Bush’s success. (When applied to Iraq, “success” has become a notably elastic term, easily accommodating bombs that detonate in Iraqi cities and insurgent assaults directed at Iraqi forces and government installations.)

Which brings us to the present....

Read full article....

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.