NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
| The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date. This site is not updated so external links may no longer function. Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
Today Israeli and Palestinian delegations concluded more than a week of talks at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington. The discussions, which focused primarily on permanent status issues, were designed to work toward a framework agreement as soon as possible, so that all issues could be resolved in a comprehensive agreement by September 13th of this year. The issues on the table are difficult issues, and there are remaining gaps, but we believe the discussions at Bolling have been serious and intensive. They also discussed the third phase of further redeployments during these meetings. Both delegations are now returning home for consultations. They have agreed to resume their talks on April 6th in Washington, and these talks will again be held at Bolling Air Force Base. For its part, the United States is committed to continuing to help Israelis and Palestinians reach an agreement on all permanent status issues by September 13th. Indeed, the US believes that it is essential to resolve the Israel-Palestinian issue, in order to achieve a comprehensive peace. Question: Omitted from your characterization of the Israeli-Palestinian talks was the word "progress." Do we take it that there was none? Mr. Foley: I think that the word "progress" is not necessarily relevant to the kinds of discussions that took place here this week. As Mr. Rubin indicated at the start of those talks, these were conceived of--and indeed were, in fact--a kind of brainstorming session, in which the parties were exchanging ideas with each other, and attempting to achieve a better understanding of each other's needs and requirements. This, in our view--this kind of discussion--was a necessary predicate to the phase to come, in terms of getting down to brass tacks, making concrete proposals, working on texts and working hard to achieve resolution of all the permanent status issues. Yesterday, I noted that the talks had been productive. You can quibble with the word "productive," and suggest "progress" in its place. We believe that these talks were successful in achieving a real exchange of ideas, and a greater and deeper understanding of the needs and requirements by each side of the other side; and that is the critical predicate, as I indicated, to achieving the concrete negotiating progress that we're going to need, in a very accelerated fashion, in the course of the next six months. Question: Can you tell us whether the next session will also be a brainstorming session, or will it be a more conventional negotiating session, in which we can then start talking about progress or lack of progress? Mr. Foley: Well, in order to approach the phase of drafting--if you will--successfully, it is necessary for each side--at least it is ideal, from our perspective, for each side--to, in advance of that exercise, to have listened carefully to the other side, to have heard their views, achieved a deeper understanding of their perspectives and requirements, before formulating one's concrete negotiating positions. So we have had a successful session of idea exchange and brainstorming. I am not in a position to predict whether they will be entering a different mode when they return on April 6, or whether they will still be in the mode of exchanging ideas. That is speculative at this point. What is important, though, is that the time table is a narrow one. We're talking about the attempt to achieve a framework agreement as soon as possible, and resolution of all outstanding permanent status issues between now and September 13th, so there is not a lot of time to get to that phase that you're talking about. Question: Just simply because of that, isn't it kind of unfortunate, then, that you can't say that there was any progress made, given the time, given the narrow-- Mr. Foley: I was quibbling with George over the word "progress." If you want to use "progress," I won't dispute it. I used the word "productive" yesterday. We think each side made progress in understanding better the other side's requirements and needs and perspectives, and that that is necessary for a successful effort to negotiate text and achieve agreement on the outstanding and very difficult issues. So we believe it was a very positive session. The atmosphere was extraordinarily collegial, and this too is a necessary predicate to success in these talks: the fact that these negotiators have gotten to know each other so well, have gotten to understand each other and, indeed, sympathize with each other. And Secretary Albright met with the parties together yesterday, both to underscore her strong commitment to the success of these talks, but also to elicit from them their perspective on how they were going. And her view, as a result of that meeting was that, as I indicated, they are getting along very well. They are creating the kind of atmosphere, the kind of collegial atmosphere, that is necessary to achieving progress and ultimately success in the talks, and she urged them to continue in that vein in the subsequent round. Question: Jim, do you have any kind of color on how they're getting along better? I mean, did they go to Pizza Hut together? Did they go bowling, did they-- Mr. Foley: Well, they did, I believe, socialize together, but I don't want to trivialize the sessions they had, because the main focus was on the hard work and on the issues which they discussed, and the ideas which they exchanged. They also happened, though, to take advantage of the amount of time they spent together to socialize together as well. I don't have the kind of specific color that you're looking for. I don't know whether pizza was actually consumed. I think it was, but I'd have to check that for you. Question: At the beginning of these talks, you said that you didn't expect the U.S. side to present any ideas. Can you say whether, in fact, they did not, and whether in the next round perhaps they might be drafting something in advance? Mr. Foley: Let me make it clear. We didn't expect them to be tabling text either in this first round, nor did we anticipate that the US would be tabling ideas or draft text. Question: A little informal but, you know, for right now. Mr. Foley: We are tailoring our role in a way to suit both the needs of the process and the desires of the parties, and thus far it's been our judgment that it's been neither appropriate nor necessary for the United States to advance ideas of its own. That may come at a later stage, if it's necessary, and if it's desired by the parties. But the focus is on them. They're dealing with other. Mostly--overwhelmingly--they met with each other. Occasionally, either Dennis Ross or Aaron Miller did sit down with them separately, I think a couple of times together, with both delegations as well. But they were dealing with each other, as they should, and we did not believe it was appropriate or necessary for us to insert American ideas at this stage. Question: Jim, that was a very nice turn of phrase: "tailoring our role in a way to suit..." I thought that was-- Mr. Foley: Thank you. I was an English major. Thank you. [end of excerpt] Full transcript of Daily Press Briefing on 3/28/00
Peace Process | Near Eastern Affairs | Department of State | Secretary of State |
