World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

If you want a read on whether the newest round of Israeli-Palestinian talks will be successful, you should read this exchange between the White House Press corps and Jen Psaki, the State Department representative, on what is “different” in this round of talks.  The most persistent reporter is Matt Lee of the Associated Press.  He does a fabulous job of doing exactly what a reporter for a free press should do: press hard when the government gives vague and meaningless answers.  I apologize for the length of the excerpt, but there is no other way to demonstrate how difficult it was for Lee to get a substantive answer (and, in the end, the exchange ends with no good answer, but, one hopes, the State Department has to be excruciatingly embarrassed by the vapidness of its responses).  In the end, there is no good reason to believe that these negotiations will be any different from any earlier ones.

You can read the full transcript here.

QUESTION: Lovely. Now, beyond logistics, when he announced or appointed Ambassador Indyk to this post, the Secretary said that the Ambassador knows what has worked and what hasn’t worked in the past.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I’m wondering if you could elaborate a little bit. What has worked in the past?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I don’t – I’m not going to elaborate on that for you. I’m not a historian here.

QUESTION: Well, what did he mean, that the Ambassador knows what has worked and what hasn’t worked?

MS. PSAKI: I think we —

QUESTION: Because I think any – if you look at what has worked and what hasn’t worked in the past, everything hasn’t worked.

MS. PSAKI: So are you asking me why this is different?

QUESTION: I’m asking you, one, why it’s different, but I’m also asking you, what does he mean when he says that Ambassador Indyk knows what has worked?

MS. PSAKI: Well, he knows that Ambassador Indyk has been involved and engaged in this process in the past. He has respect from both parties. That was a key priority for the Secretary in making this appointment – somebody who could run the process on a day-to-day basis. The Secretary knows he can’t do this on his own. So certainly – I’m certain there are many lessons that have been learned from the past, but I don’t want to speak for how he will use those moving forward.

QUESTION: Okay. But you can’t specify then what has worked, what Ambassador Indyk knows has worked in the past?

MS. PSAKI: I think there’s lots of things, Matt, that —

QUESTION: Can you point to a single – just, I’m just curious; I’m really not trying to be a jerk about this. I just want to know what example can you point to as being something that has worked in the past?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to read out for you their discussions of what lessons they’ve learned from the past and how they’ll apply them moving forward.

QUESTION: All right. The lessons learned from past failures, is that what you mean?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, if it had worked in the past we wouldn’t be pursuing this process right now.

QUESTION: All right. And then just my last one on this is: Does the Secretary still believe, as he said up on the Hill a couple months ago, that time is running out for a peace agreement.

MS. PSAKI: He certainly does. He believes that time is not our ally, which is why we’re working so hard on this issue now. As time passes, the situation on the ground becomes more complicated, mistrust deepens and hardens and the conflict becomes even harder to resolve. It allows for vacuums to be filled by bad actors who want to undermine our efforts. That’s one of the reasons why they have all agreed to focus on having talks not just for the sake of talks, but this is the beginning of direct, final status negotiations on a nine month – at least a nine-month timetable. They’ve agreed to work together through the course of that time, and the Secretary absolutely feels that time is of the essence.

QUESTION: What, in your view, was the last thing that pushed —

QUESTION: I’m sorry. The nine-month —

MS. PSAKI: Sir, let’s let Jo – just let Jo. And we’ll go to you – we’ll go to you right next, Said.

QUESTION: Sorry, the nine-month timetable, when does that start from? That’s starts —

MS. PSAKI: Starts now.

QUESTION: — from today?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And in —

MS. PSAKI: But it’s not a deadline.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: This is an agreement that they will work together for at least that time period on this effort.

QUESTION: What will determine when they’re no longer working together? Do you have to have a peace deal, or does it have – I mean, is nine months a timeline for which, by the end of which, you want to have a peace deal?

MS. PSAKI: Well, they have – it is not a deadline.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: It is an agreement by – to engage in direct, final status negotiations for at least nine months. So we’re going to make every effort to reach an agreement within that timeframe, but again, if we’re making progress and we’re continuing to make progress, this is not a deadline, it’s not a stop-end, it’s just an agreement to continue to work through that time period.

QUESTION: So it could be extended at the end of nine months if you feel you’re still making progress?

MS. PSAKI: It’s not a cutoff deadline, exactly.

QUESTION: So a child conceived today, if all goes well – (laughter) – should be born with a Palestinian state.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt —

QUESTION: Is that right?

MS. PSAKI: — good luck with that. We hope you can report back to us on the status. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Let me ask you —

QUESTION: When he goes to – when they meet tomorrow, how can you – how do you foresee them moving forward, inch by inch, on this? Is it – is the discussion first on a framework? How do you envision this going?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Secretary will have more to say on where things go from here tomorrow. But these meetings will serve as an opportunity to develop a procedural work plan for how the parties can proceed with negotiations in the coming months. And again, I expect they’ll have more to say tomorrow. But as they said – as the Secretary said just a week and a half ago, they’re eager to talk about the key issues at stake here, and I can’t predict for you if that’s hour one, if that’s hour seven, but obviously time is of the essence and this is the natural first step of the process.

QUESTION: Can we expect them to stay in Washington for the entire nine months, or do we see them going back and forth?

MS. PSAKI: No. I expect – and especially in naming Martin – Ambassador Martin Indyk as the Special Envoy, he’s going to be responsible for facilitating negotiations, of course. And in that role he’ll be spending a lot of time in the region. But again, I don’t want to predict what will be here and there, but certainly a lot will take place there.

QUESTION: And can I just get clarification on – sorry – on Ambassador Indyk?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not forgetting you, Said. Yes.

QUESTION: Exactly that. You said he’ll facilitate. So in other words, does he direct, set a schedule, or does he kind of set – stand back, sit back, watch how they do it, guide them, et cetera? Who’s kind of directing?

MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly we will play an active role, as has already been evidenced, in facilitating the dialogue and discussions. But ultimately it’s the responsibility of the parties to make the hard choices necessary. So he will be running kind of the day-to-day, playing – representing the U.S. on a day-to-day. But again, it’s up to both parties, and we won’t get too far ahead of where we are, which is the first day.

QUESTION: Jill asked the right question, but just to follow up a little bit.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: They are going to be working face-to-face, alone, so to speak, without any sort of American supervision or interference?

MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly we expect – the question here is what is the most productive role the U.S. can play? Obviously, the Secretary named Ambassador Indyk to this role so he could be there on a day-to-day basis. But again, I expect they’ll have more to say tomorrow after they conclude the first two days of procedural planning for this effort.

QUESTION: Well, he will be – correct me if I’m wrong – he will be sort of on call when they run into obstacles?

MS. PSAKI: I think he will be very engaged in day-to-day discussions with both parties. But again, I don’t want to get too ahead of what his day-to-day will entail.

QUESTION: Okay. And just a quick follow-up on what is different this time around. I mean, you, as a member of the team that has been involved in this process, what do you – in your judgment, what was the last thing that pushed the last hurdle sort of out of the way to restart the talks, to have both agree to the talks?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Secretary has spoken about this a bit himself in terms of what is different this time, or what he views as different. There’s no question, we know that the challenges we face – and he’s long said this – have required some tough choices. We’ve seen some evidence of that. But both parties also recognize – and this is his view – that there’s a new urgency in moving towards peace. And he felt that he had heard, through his meetings, deep concern both in the region and many other parts of the world in seeing a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So there’s a feeling that the status quo is not sustainable, that there’s an urgency given events on the ground, given both sides’ seriousness, and that’s why we’re where we are today.

QUESTION: Okay. And lastly, this time around, the fact that it is low-key in the sense that Abbas and Netanyahu and – like, the last time there was Mubarak, who’s gone now, Abdullah of Jordan and so on, and the President, does that tell us, or should it tell us, that expectations are low this time around —

MS. PSAKI: Well —

QUESTION: — and not as high as they were the last time around?

MS. PSAKI: Well, our goal is certainly to reach a final status agreement. That has not changed. But I think what you’re talking about in terms of how it’s quiet is what we’ve talked about a little – a bit in here, and the Secretary has talked about, about giving the negotiations and the discussions the room to make progress. He feels that’s a priority, and that’s why we have been making every effort to give them the room to do just that.

QUESTION: So each time in the past that new talks have been announced, people from this podium and the White House and secretaries of state, presidents, have spoken about a new urgency —

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: — and spoken about how the status quo is not sustainable. What exactly is it that’s different this time?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I think we see both parties agreeing that time is of the essence and they want to move things forward.

QUESTION: Yeah, but —

MS. PSAKI: We’ll see —

QUESTION: But that’s exactly what has been said previous – in previous iterations of this.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we have to give time for the process to continue and to work its way through. But I think the Secretary and others involved feel that this is moving in a positive direction.

QUESTION: This is the Administration’s third try at getting talks going. Was there any thought at all given to putting someone in the – at the helm whose past history is not that of failure?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, the reason that he has the relationships —

QUESTION: I don’t – right.

MS. PSAKI: — and I believe the confidence of both sides is because he has been through this before, and again, has – is eager to apply lessons learned from the past. And having somebody with that experience and the confidence of the President and the Secretary is vital in such an important role.

QUESTION: I’m not taking issue with the fact that he has experience. He clearly does, and I don’t think you can argue that experience is not of value here. But I just want to know, was there any thought given to getting some new blood into this process?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, he will be working with a team of people. You heard the Secretary announce that Frank Lowenstein will be involved in – heavily involved in this. We’re also working, of course, with Phil Gordon over at the White House, who’ll be in a lot of these discussions. So he is the person who the Secretary and the President felt was right to lead this effort given his experience, and he’ll be working with a broad team of senior officials.

QUESTION: And what is the role of Phil Gordon? Can you explain what role he will have?

MS. PSAKI: Well, he, as you know, was once here and now is over at the White House.

QUESTION: Right. The White House, right.

MS. PSAKI: And he oversees – this is part of his portfolio. So he’ll be participating in the discussions over the next two days. Beyond that, I don’t have a prediction from there.

QUESTION: So he will give it his fulltime effort, so to speak?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not suggesting that. I’m suggesting that we’re working closely with him and we’re very in lockstep with the White House on these efforts.

QUESTION: Excuse me if I didn’t follow quite closely there. I just want to go back to the logistics of these meetings —

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: — over the next nine months. Do you expect them to be on a weekly basis, on a monthly basis?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have a prediction at – of that for you right now. Obviously, sending Ambassador Indyk to spend some significant time in the region is an indication that we feel there will be a portion there. But I don’t think the Secretary is getting ahead, before discussing over the next two days, what’s going to work and the procedural work plan for the coming months.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, did you say when Ambassador Indyk will head out to the region?

MS. PSAKI: I did not. I don’t have an update on that for you quite yet. It just started.

QUESTION: And how long is he expected to spend out there?

MS. PSAKI: He could come back and forth. I don’t have kind of a prediction of how long he’ll be on the ground each time.

QUESTION: So the talks will meander between Washington and Israel and —

MS. PSAKI: Well —

QUESTION: — or maybe even Jordan or (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I don’t want to – I just don’t want to mislead anyone about kind of what the plan is. Obviously, there will be a significant amount of time that Ambassador Indyk will spend on the ground. They’re talking and working through now what the procedural work plan is, so I just don’t want to get too ahead of their own discussions and planning.

QUESTION: And could I just ask again, logistically for tonight —

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: — other than the main people you already mentioned, who else will be at the Iftar dinner?

MS. PSAKI: I will – I’m happy to venture to get you a list of attendees for that. I just don’t have it in front of me.

QUESTION: But the idea is to have an intimate dinner or are you planning to have a more broader participation with —

MS. PSAKI: No, it’s more of an intimate dinner. But again, we’ll see – we’ll get you the list of participants. I’ll check on that.

QUESTION: And that’s going to be at the State Department?

MS. PSAKI: It is, exactly.

QUESTION: Sorry, can I just make sure I understood the answer to my last question —

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: — about new blood? So the answer was no, there wasn’t any consideration of bringing people in, new people who haven’t been involved —

MS. PSAKI: Matt, I’m not going to get into the sausage making. But obviously, the decision was made by the Secretary, by the President, by the national security team that he was the right person for this job. He has the right experience for this job and he has the respect and confidence of both sides. Obviously, there’ll be a number of officials working on this process moving forward.

QUESTION: A few weeks ago, it was the term “silent diplomacy” was coined or used in – on this podium. It is still applicable, this approach and term?

MS. PSAKI: Absolutely. I think one of the Secretary’s priorities and the priorities of the team is to give the process the room and the privacy to make – allow progress to be made. So that is certainly a priority of the team working on this.

QUESTION: And the other question related: Are the other two partners in this process agreed about this silent diplomacy, or not?

MS. PSAKI: There was an agreement that we weren’t going to discuss all the details, we were going to allow many of those conversations to happen privately. Obviously, there are announcements or decisions that need to be made by both parties, and some of them have been – become public over the last couple of days, as we have seen. But this is a commitment the Secretary made and he feels it’s important to abide by.

QUESTION: So quite apart from Ambassador Indyk, the other two parties to this, the negotiating teams, Tzipi Livni and Molho, Ms. Livni was involved in the Annapolis peace process which resulted in no agreement, Mr. Molho was involved in both of the previous George Mitchell attempts which were not good, and on the Palestinian side Mr. Erekat and Mr. Shaath have been involved in unsuccessful negotiations with the Israelis since Madrid. Can you explain to me how exactly you see this time that this cast of characters, all of whom have been at this for decades and not achieved anything, is going to make – is going to be any different?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, it sounds like we’re lucky to have decades of experience ready to come back to the table and make an effort to push forward.