Middle East Peace Process

Middle East Peace Process in 2011

United States views on international law (based on the document “Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law”): As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, nonmilitarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I'm aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, the U.S. Quartet partners, and the Arab States will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

More about Middle East Peace Process

On May 20, 2011, the day after President Obama delivered the remarks excerpted above, the Middle East Quartet (representatives of the United Nations, the European Union, the Russian Federation, and the United States) issued a statement in support of President Obama's proposal for resuming negotiations on peace in the Middle East. The Quartet's statement appears below, and is available at (internet link) state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/05/163941.htm.

The Members of the Quartet are in full agreement about the urgent need to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. To that effect, the Quartet expressed its strong support for the vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace outlined by U.S. President Barack Obama on May 19, 2011. The Quartet agrees that moving forward on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation for Israelis and Palestinians to reach a final resolution of the conflict through serious and substantive negotiations and mutual agreement on all core issues.

The Quartet reiterates its strong appeal to the parties to overcome the current obstacles and resume direct bilateral negotiations without delay or preconditions. The Quartet further recommits itself to its previous statements and principles.

On May 22, President Obama addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (“AIPAC”) Policy Conference. Daily Comp. Pres. Docs., 2011 DCPD No. 00377, pp. 1-6. He reiterated many of the points he made about the peace process in his May 19 remarks. Excerpts from President Obama's May 22 address appear below.

Developments

Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties. And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. And we will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognizing Israel's right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements.…

And yet no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable. And that is why on Thursday, I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims, the broad outlines of which have been known for many years and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians since at least the Clinton administration.

Details

… I firmly believe, and I repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the United Nations or in any international forum. Israel's legitimacy is not a matter for debate. That is my commitment; that is my pledge to all of you.

Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner, which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist. And we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and for their rhetoric.

But the march to isolate Israel internationally and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. And for us to have leverage with the Palestinians, to have leverage with the Arab States, and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. And so in advance of a 5-day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require.

There was nothing particularly original in my proposal. This basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations. Since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday, not what I was reported to have said.

I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their potential in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. And a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign and nonmilitarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

More about the Issue

…[L]et me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.

By definition, it means that the parties themselves—Israelis and Palestinians—will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That's what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

On September 21, 2011, President Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly on the subject of pursuing peace and discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, among other topics. Daily Comp. Pres. Docs. 2011 DCPD No. 00661, pp. 4-5. President Obama's discussion of the peace process from that September 21 speech follows.

Middle East Peace Process in 2011

United States views on international law (based on the document “Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law”): On February 18, 2011, Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, provided the following explanation of the United States' opposition to a draft Security Council resolution on the situation in the Middle East, including the question of Palestine. Ambassador Rice's statement is available at (internet link) usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2011/156816.htm.

Developments

The United States has been deeply committed to pursuing a comprehensive and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In that context, we have been focused on taking steps that advance the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, rather than complicating it. That includes a commitment to work in good faith with all parties to underscore the U.S. opposition to continued settlements.

Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. For more than four decades, Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 has undermined Israel's security and corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region. Continued settlement activity violates Israel's international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace.

The United States and the U.S. fellow Council members are also in full agreement about the urgent need to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, based on the two-state solution and an agreement that establishes a viable, independent, and contiguous state of Palestine, once and for all. We have invested a tremendous amount of effort and resources in pursuit of this shared goal, and we will continue to do so.

But the only way to reach that common goal is through direct negotiations between the parties, with the active and sustained support of the United States and the international community.

It is the Israelis' and Palestinians' conflict, and even the best-intentioned outsiders cannot resolve it for them. Therefore every potential action must be measured against one overriding standard: will it move the parties closer to negotiations and an agreement? Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides. It could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations and, if and when they did resume, to return to the Security Council whenever they reach an impasse.

Madame President, in recent years, no outside country has invested more than the United States of America in the effort to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Details

In recent days, we offered a constructive alternative course forward that we believe would have allowed the Council to act unanimously to support the pursuit of peace. We regret that this effort was not successful and thus is no longer viable.

The great impetus for democracy and reform in the region makes it even more urgent to settle this bitter and tragic conflict in the context of a region moving towards greater peace and respect for human rights. But there simply are no shortcuts.

We hope that those who share the U.S. hopes for peace between a secure and sovereign Israel and Palestine will join us in redoubling the U.S. common efforts to encourage and support the resumption of direct negotiations.

While we agree with the U.S. fellow Council members—and indeed, with the wider world—about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this Council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians. We therefore regrettably have opposed this draft resolution.

On May 19, 2011, President Barack Obama delivered remarks at the State Department concerning the changes taking place in the Middle East and North Africa in 2011. Daily Comp. Pres. Docs., 2011 DCPD No. 00368, pp. 1–10. He concluded his remarks by discussing the pursuit of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. That discussion appears below.

More about the Issue

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.

For over 2 years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations. Yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on and sees nothing but stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now.

I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That's certainly true for the two parties involved.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, the U.S. friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. the U.S. commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of the U.S. friendship, it's important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people—not just one or two leaders—must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Now ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, not by the United States, not by anybody else. But endless delay won't make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples—Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people—each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

Middle East Peace Process in 2011

United States views on international law (based on the document “Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law”): Now, I know, particularly this week, that for many in this hall, there's one issue that stands as a test for these principles and a test for American foreign policy, and that is the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

One year ago, I stood at this podium, and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then and I believe now that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year. That basis is clear. It's well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.

Now, I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. I assure you, so am I. But the question isn't the goal that we seek, the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no shortcut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations. If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians, not us, who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.

Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after the U.S. speeches are over, long after the U.S. votes have been tallied. That's the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That's the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state: negotiations between the parties.

We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There's no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.

But understand this as well: America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. the U.S. friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day.

Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel's citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel's children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than 8 million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution and fresh memories of knowing that 6 million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.

The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.

That is the truth. Each side has legitimate aspirations, and that's part of what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other's shoes, each side can see the world through the other's eyes. That's what we should be encouraging. That's what we should be promoting.

This body—founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide, dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every single person—must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The measure of the U.S. actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and Palestinian children to live lives of peace and security and dignity and opportunity. And we will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other's hopes and each other's fears. That is the project to which America is committed. There are no shortcuts. And that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come.

More about Middle East Peace Process

Representatives of the Quartet met in New York on September 23, 2011, and issued another statement, affirming their support for the resumption of peace talks. The Quartet's September statement follows and is also available at (internet link) state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/09/173919.htm.

The Quartet takes note of the application submitted by President Abbas on 23rd September 2011 which is now before the Security Council.* The Quartet reaffirmed its statement of 20th May 2011, including its strong support for the vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace outlined by United States President Barack Obama.

The Quartet recalled its previous statements, and affirmed its determination to actively and vigorously seek a comprehensive resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, on the basis of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, 1397, 1515, 1850, the Madrid principles including land for peace, the Roadmap, and the agreements previously reached between the parties.

The Quartet reiterated its commitment to a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East and to seek a comprehensive resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and reaffirms the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative.

The Quartet reiterated its urgent appeal to the parties to overcome the current obstacles and resume direct bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations without delay or preconditions. But it accepts that meeting, in itself, will not reestablish the trust necessary for such a negotiation to succeed. It therefore proposes the following steps:

1. Within a month there will be a preparatory meeting between the parties to agree an agenda and method of proceeding in the negotiation.

2. At that meeting there will be a commitment by both sides that the objective of any negotiation is to reach an agreement within a timeframe agreed to by the parties but not longer than the end of 2012. The Quartet expects the parties to come forward with comprehensive proposals within three months on territory and security, and to have made substantial progress within six months. To that end, the Quartet will convene an international conference in Moscow, in consultation with the parties, at the appropriate time.

3. There will be a Donors Conference at which the international community will give full and sustained support to the Palestinian Authority state-building actions developed by Prime Minister Fayyad under the leadership of President Abbas.

4. The Quartet recognizes the achievements of the Palestinian Authority in preparing institutions for statehood as evidenced in reports to the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, and stresses the need to preserve and build on them. In this regard, the members of the Quartet will consult to identify additional steps they can actively support towards Palestinian statehood individually and together, to secure in accordance with existing procedures significantly greater independence and sovereignty for the Palestinian Authority over its affairs.

5. The Quartet calls upon the parties to refrain from provocative actions if negotiations are to be effective. The Quartet reiterated the obligations of both parties under the Roadmap.

6. The Quartet committed to remain actively involved and to encourage and review progress. The Quartet agreed to meet regularly and to task the envoys and the Quartet Representative to intensify their cooperation, including by meeting prior to the parties' preparatory meeting, and to formulate recommendations for Quartet action.

Developments

On October 24, 2011, at a Security Council debate on the Middle East, Ambassador Rice delivered remarks that included a part, reprinted below, on the United States' ongoing efforts to promote peace in the Middle East and its position on recent actions of the Israelis and Palestinians. The full text of Ambassador Rice's remarks is available at (internet link) state.gov/p/io/rm/2011/176080.htm.

The United States continues to work vigorously with the parties, the Quartet, and the U.S. international partners to resume negotiations on the basis of the September 23rd Quartet statement. That statement provides a clear and credible path back to the negotiating table, which is the only path to achieve the two-state solution we all seek. The Quartet statement reaffirms President Obama's vision for peace as laid out in his May remarks. President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu have each agreed to send negotiators to Jerusalem for preparatory meetings with the Quartet envoys on October 26th. Thus, the U.S. focus remains on laying the groundwork for these and subsequent meetings leading to the two parties exchanging comprehensive proposals members of this Council and all member states to unite to help create a positive climate for resuming negotiations.

Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Only they can reach agreement on the painful issues that divide them: borders and security, refugees, and Jerusalem. We have been very clear that we believe Palestinian efforts to seek member-state status at the United Nations will not advance the peace process but rather will complicate, delay, and perhaps derail prospects for a negotiated settlement. Therefore, we have consistently opposed such unilateral initiatives. We will continue at the same time to exert every effort to bring the parties back to the negotiating table.

Like every American administration for decades, the Obama administration does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. The fate of existing settlements is one that must be dealt with by the parties, along with the other permanent-status issues, including the status of Jerusalem. For that reason, steps by the Government of Israel to advance significant new construction in Givat Hamatos are deeply disappointing.

The illegal trafficking of weapons in Gaza continues to pose a serious threat to civilians in Gaza, in Israel, and in Egypt. It must be stopped. With regard to Hamas, we reaffirm the importance of fulfilling the Quartet principles' commitment to nonviolence, recognition of Israel's right to exist, and recognition of previous agreements. We call again on Palestinians and Israelis to take constructive actions to promote peace and to avoid actions that complicate this process or undermine trust.

Details

In the keynote address at the National Democratic Institute's Awards Dinner on November 7, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reviewed developments in the Middle East and North Africa in 2011. Her remarks, available at (internet link) state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/11/176750.htm, included the following comments on the need for a negotiated peace between the Palestinians and Israelis:

And there is one last question that I'm asked, in one form or another, all the time: What about the rights and aspirations of the Palestinians? Israelis and Palestinians are not immune to the profound changes sweeping the region. And make no mistake, President Obama and I believe that the Palestinian people—just like their Arab neighbors, just like Israelis, just like us—deserve dignity, liberty, and the right to decide their own future. They deserve an independent, democratic Palestinian state of their own, alongside a secure Jewish democracy next door. And we know from decades in the diplomatic trenches that the only way to get there is through a negotiated peace—a peace we work every day to achieve, despite all the setbacks.

Middle East Peace Process in 2013

United States views on international law [1] in relation to Middle East Peace Process: On July 19, 2013, United States U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the Israelis and Palestinians had reached an agreement that establishes a basis for resuming direct final status negotiations. On July 23, 2013 at a Security Council debate on the Middle East, Acting U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN, Rosemary A. DiCarlo remarked on the Middle East Peace Process, emphasizing that certain recent actions at the UN by the Palestinians do not contribute to the process. Her remarks are excerpted below and available in full at (link resource) usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/212299.htm. For further discussion about Palestinian actions at the UN, see Chapter 7.

Some Aspects of Middle East Peace Process

The United States is deeply committed to a just and lasting peace with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace and security. This is why U.S. Secretary of State Kerry has made repeated visits to the region and focused so heavily on this effort. Last week, after his sixth trip to the region as Secretary, he was able to announce that the Parties had reached an agreement that establishes a basis for resuming direct final status negotiations.

Developments

He also stressed that the agreement was in the process of being formalized and that, in the meantime, none of the parties would be making public comments about the negotiations so as to improve the likelihood that the talks could indeed succeed.

Details

As Secretary Kerry noted, everyone is aware that this process will not be easy. And no one believes that the longstanding differences between the parties can be resolved overnight or just wiped away. We know that the challenges require some very tough choices in the days ahead. Today, however, we are hopeful, because the representatives of two proud people have decided that the difficult road ahead is worth traveling and that the daunting challenges that we face are worth tackling. So they have courageously recognized that in order for Israelis and Palestinians to live together side by side in peace and security, they must begin by sitting at the table together in direct talks.

More

It is important to note that this diplomatic effort would not have been possible without strong international support. The Arab Peace Initiative Follow-Up Committee, the Quartet envoys, and many others played a vital role in supporting the resumption of negotiations. The Secretary General, European partners and others around the world also weighed in with strong statements of support.

More

We should now continue to urge all sides to avoid taking unilateral actions, including steps at the United Nations. Our shared objective at this critical moment must be on building the trust and confidence necessary for a lasting peace. In this regard, the United States' position remains that UNGA resolution 67/19 did not establish that “Palestine” is a state. The United States is committed to helping bring about a viable Palestinian state through bilateral negotiations with their Israeli counterparts. This is the only real path to genuine statehood for the Palestinian people, as repeatedly affirmed by both sides and endorsed by the international community.

Middle East Peace Process in 2013 (Continuation)

United States views on international law [1] in relation to Middle East Peace Process: In the end, those who are most responsible for this process are the parties themselves. We applaud the courageous leadership shown by President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu in taking this step forward. As the parties work through the complicated issues they face, we should encourage them with all possible support.

More about Middle East Peace Process

On July 29, 2013, President Obama issued a statement, below, on the resumption of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Daily Comp. Pres. Docs., 2013 DCPD No. 00536, p. 1 (July 29, 2013).

Development

I am pleased that Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas have accepted Secretary Kerry's invitation to formally resume direct final status negotiations and have sent senior negotiating teams to Washington for the first round of meetings. This is a promising step forward, though hard work and hard choices remain ahead.

Details

During my March visit to the region, I experienced firsthand the profound desire for peace among both Israelis and Palestinians, which reinforced my belief that peace is both possible and necessary. I deeply appreciate Secretary Kerry's tireless work with the parties to develop a common basis for resuming direct talks and commend both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas for their leadership in coming to the table.

More

The most difficult work of these negotiations is ahead, and I am hopeful that both the Israelis and Palestinians will approach these talks in good faith and with sustained focus and determination. The United States stands ready to support them throughout these negotiations, with the goal of achieving two states living side by side in peace and security.

Middle East Peace Process

In relation to the international law practice and middle east peace process in this world legal Encyclopedia, please see the following section:

International Conflict Resolution and Avoidance

Note: there is detailed information and resources under these topics during the year 2013, covered by this entry on middle east peace process in this law Encyclopedia.

Middle East Peace Process

In relation to the international law practice and Middle East Peace Process in this world legal Encyclopedia, please see the following section:

International Conflict Resolution, International Conflict Avoidance

Resources

See Also

• International Conflict Resolution
• International Conflict Avoidance
• Middle East
• Peace Process

Resources

Notes

1. Middle East Peace Process in the Digest of United States Practice in International Law

Resources

Notes

1. Middle East Peace Process in the Digest of United States Practice in International Law

Resources

Notes and References

1. * Editor's note: See discussion in this world Encylopedia of Law 7.B.

See Also

Resources

Notes and References

1. * Editor's note: See discussion in this world Encylopedia of Law 7.B.

Resources

Notes and References

1. * Editor's note: See discussion in this world Encylopedia of Law 7.B.