Middle East peace talks: 17 years after Oslo Clinton takes on challenge

'It's time to get to work,' says US secretary of state with the knowledge that expectations are low as negotiations begin

It is clear Israelis and Palestinians face a tough slog if the negotiations launched in Washington today are to get anywhere near the agreement Barack Obama hopes to reach within a year.

Low expectations were reflected in the opening statements, but it was the US that sounded most determined to keep hopes alive in the face of profound scepticism in the Middle East and beyond. Hillary Clinton's most significant comment was her promise to be an "active and sustained partner" – noting that an agreement was "in the national security interests of the US".

But her clear warning that the US "cannot and will not impose a solution" will alarm those who believe that only thus will Israelis and Palestinians be able to wriggle out of what she called "the shackles of history" to make peace.

Clinton's appeal to "those who criticise and stand on the sidelines" was unlikely to impress Hamas. The Islamist movement that controls Gaza prefers resistance (including the killing on Tuesday of four Israeli settlers) to negotiations, and excoriates Mahmoud Abbas as a traitor.Wider Arab support for this re-launched process is limited to two close US allies — President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan, who both already have (domestically unpopular) peace treaties with Israel. Saudi Arabia and Syria, which attended the ill-fated Annapolis talks in 2007, were conspicuously absent.

Crucially, neither side signalled any readiness for concessions that could create forward movement in the talks, though it would have been surprising if they had at this stage.

Binyamin Netanyahu's familiar script reflected his dual need not to alienate the Americans or his rightwing coalition allies at home. So he hailed Abbas as a "partner" while stressing the importance of security, and repeated his insistence on explicit recognition of Israel as "a Jewish state" – a demand taken by many as a way of blocking the right of return of Palestinians who lost their homes in 1948 and 1967.

Netanyahu's pointed references to "Iran and its proxies" and the emergence of "missile warfare in the region" in recent years were reminders of the threats he and many of his compatriots worry about far more than the Palestinians these days. It may be true that "a lasting peace will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides," but there was no sign that he is willing – or politically able – to extend his grudging moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank when it expires later this month. The Palestinians have warned they will break off talks if he does not.

Netanyahu's solemn invocation of the biblical Isaac and Ishmael — burying the Patriach Abraham "the father or our two peoples... in a moment of pain and mutual respect" seemed unlikely to win many Palestinian hearts or minds.

Abbas, speaking in Arabic through an interpreter after Netanyahu's fluent American English, was less florid, warning of "the magnitude of the obstacles facing us" and calling again on Israel to freeze settlements and end the siege of the Gaza Strip. Reference back to an agreement signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat (pictured below, with Bill Clinton) after Oslo in 1993 was a reminder of a more hopeful era.

But Abbas – often criticised by Hamas as a "collaborator" – sounded anxious to prove his good intentions when he revealed that Palestinian security forces were already on the track of the gunmen – Hillary Clinton's "enemies of peace" – who struck with grim predictability near Hebron on Tuesday night. "We cannot tolerate any actions that will undermine your security or ours," Abbas said.

Clinton, ending the public part of proceedings with an affectionate pat on the back and a handshake for each leader in turn, had the best line: "Now it's time to get to work," she concluded. And very hard work it is going to be.

• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Hillary Clinton
• Middle East
• United States
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Mahmoud Abbas
• Obama administration
• US politics
• US foreign policy

Middle East peace talks: the history

The summit in Washington between Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas follows several previous attempts at peace

Camp David I Israel signed the Camp David accords in 1978 and a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 and returned the Sinai peninsula in return for full relations with its former enemy. But talks on Palestinian autonomy went nowhere.

Madrid The mother of all Israeli-Arab peace conferences was at Madrid in 1991, when Israel and all its immediate Arab enemies came to the negotiating table for the first time. Israel refused to deal directly with the PLO, so the Palestinians formed part of a joint delegation with Jordan. Talks eventually petered out but the principle of "land for peace" has remained the basis for all subsequent negotiations.

Oslo This summit in 1993 was the big breakthrough, leading to the famous handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn. Israel and the PLO recognised each other. Rabin's assassination in 1995 marked a sharp decline. Israel came to regret the Oslo deal, while many Palestinians saw it as a trap to perpetuate occupation.

Camp David II Subsequent smaller-scale agreements, at Taba, Wye Plantation and Sharm el-Sheikh were followed by Bill Clinton's final attempt to broker a deal at Camp David in 2000. Agreement seemed close even on the toughest issues – Jerusalem borders and settlements – but in the end talks collapsed. Each side blamed the other for the breakdown, which was followed by the second Palestinian uprising.

Annapolis In 2007, a belated attempt by George Bush to show his concern for Israel-Palestinian peace after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. It was widely dismissed as little more than a photo-opportunity.

• Middle East
• Israel
• Palestinian territories

Middle East peace talks aim for 'a future that will end conflict'

Israeli prime minister gives positive message to 'partner for peace' Mahmoud Abbas

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, launched peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians today with a call for courageous, bold leadership and an appeal to stay the course even when a resolution seemed elusive.

Clinton noted that all of the key participants – Binyamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas and herself – had been there before in one role or another.

"Those of you here today, especially the veterans who are here today, you have returned because you have seen the cost of continued conflict," she said. "The core issues at the centre of the negotiations – territory, security, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and others – will get no easier if we wait, nor will they resolve themselves."

For many diplomats, though, the great unanswered question at the talks was which Netanyahu would be at the table: 14 years ago the same Israeli prime minister seemed determined to kill any peace deal at talks with Yasser Arafat overseen by the US secretary of state's husband, the then president Bill Clinton.

Yesterday Netanyahu's language was of historic compromises and went further than many expected, repeatedly calling the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, his "partner for peace".

Diplomats had expected the Israeli prime minister to pay lip service to a peace deal and even to make some significant concessions. What they had not expected were the repeated pledges to peace that poured forth after Netanyahu's meeting with Barack Obama yesterday and again today before the talks.

"Together we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict. This will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides … from my side and from your side," he said. "The people of Israel, and I as their prime minister, are prepared to walk this road and to go a long way in a short time to achieve a genuine peace that will bring our people security, prosperity and good neighbours."

Clinton suggested that maybe the experience of the years of missed opportunities and violence had tempered the Israeli leader as well as the Palestinians.

Netanyahu and Abbas both said they recognised the point. The Palestinian leader said that the issues were not new, and that was a reason for optimism.

"We're not starting from scratch because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government," he said.

Netanyahu reiterated his assertion he would make historic compromises. However, the Israeli prime minister said that there were two issues he regarded as central to any agreement – "legitimacy and security".

"Just as you expect us to be ready to recognise a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people we expect you to be prepared to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," he said. "I think this mutual recognition between us is indispensable to clarifying to our two peoples that the conflict between us is over.

"I said too, a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel … new forces have risen in our region, Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare [with Hamas attacks from Gaza]. A peace agreement must take into account security arrangements against these real threats.

"President Abbas, I'm fully aware and I respect your people's desire for sovereignty. I'm convinced it's possible to reconcile that desire with Israel's security."

Abbas noted that his Palestine Liberation Organisation recognised Israel's legitimacy in earlier accords going back to 1993, although they do not mention it explicitly as a Jewish state.

The Palestinian leader called for an end to all Jewish settlement construction in the occupied territories, an issue likely to be an open sore at the talks. Netanyahu has declined to commit himself to extending a partial freeze on building in the settlements in the West Bank, although not occupied East Jerusalem, when it expires this month. The Palestinians see the issue as a litmus test of his intent.

The difficulties of agreeing that compromise were highlighted after Netanyahu's defence minister, Ehud Barak, said the day before the talks that Israel could meet a Palestinian demand to divide Jerusalem so that the mainly Arab east of the city could become a Palestinian capital. "The Arab neighbourhoods in which close to a quarter of a million Palestinians live will be theirs," Barak told Haaretz newspaper.

One of Netanyahu's aides immediately contradicted Barak, saying the prime minister's position at the talks will be that the city must remain fully under Israeli control.

"Our position is that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel," the aide said.

• Israel
• Middle East
• Palestinian territories
• Hillary Clinton
• Mahmoud Abbas
• Binyamin Netanyahu

More on the UN | Michael Tomasky

Stupid me, I should have remember to go to undispatch.com and check their archives on this. As usual, the intrepid Mark Leon Goldberg has been on the story of the Human Rights Council and the universal periodic reviews.

In the comment thread to my earlier post on this matter of the State Department and the Arizona immigration law and the UN, I wrote, in response to left halfback, who thought that the US shouldn't be reporting to the UN period end of story:

LHB: The point of participating in such a regime is not to expose ourselves to the UN; it is to set the example of participation so that other countries with less exemplary records may feel forced to do the same. Do we want Egypt and Syria and China and lots of other places to improve their human rights records? Of course we do. Pressuring them to participate in this UN regime seems like a way to help that process along.

No it won't change things overnight. Nothing does. But I rather like the idea of three countries with decent human rights records having the chance to comment on what I presume would be a phony and self-serving and false report by an Egypt or what have you. It can't hurt, and it strikes me as an improvement over the old way.

But the US will have no leverage over the Egypts if we don't participate ourselves. And so the moral of the story: It feels cathartic to tell the UN to f--- off and it proves Uncle Sam doesn't kowtow to anyone. But it also reduces our moral authority to criticize other nations. This is something they don't think much about over on Fox.

Back in February, Goldberg wrote the following tale about how the UPR process had actually made a bit of a difference:

Still, the ultimate measure of the effectiveness of the Universal Periodic Review is the extent to which it can inspire a country to alter its internal human rights practices. With countries that are generally rejectionist of this sort of external interference (say, Iran and North Korea) there is an obvious limit to what the council can practically accomplish. On the other hand, countries that have troubling human rights records, but are not completely rejectionist, have been inspired to improve their human rights records based on the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review. For example, Human Rights Watch notes that following Saudi Arabia's first review last year, the Saudi government pledged a number of reforms on women's rights, ending the juvenile death penalty, and expanding its labor laws to include protection for domestic workers.

So there you are. This process yielded tangible gains in a country with a pretty dismal record. Here's a section from the Human Rights Watch write-up Goldberg linked to:

Saudi Arabia accepted a recommendation put forward by UN member states in February to take steps to end the system of male guardianship over women, to give full legal identity to Saudi women, and prohibit gender discrimination. The government also clarified that the Shari'a concept of male guardianship over women is not a legal requirement, and that "Islam guarantees a woman's right to conduct her affairs and enjoy her legal capacity."

Like any big process, it's far from perfect. But a little bit at a time. And in 10, 20 years, the UPR process might have a string of important successes to its credit.

But it couldn't work without the US's participation. Without the United States taking part, countries could and would just blow the process off. If you want to debate the political wisdom of including the Arizona thing, because it's fodder for the right, fine. But that's a political question, not a substantive one. On substance, I think these last two posts have made it abundantly clear that there are benefits to the US and the world to UPR participation.

It must always be remembered, when confronted with one of these new right-wing memes. Remember to tell yourself whenever you hear one that in all likelihood, there's some minuscule grain of truth to it, but you can be virtually certain that they are twisting it out of shape and omitting context that puts matters in a very different light. Do not panic like the Democrats too often do. Seek out facts. It took me half an hour to find this stuff out. Even allowing for the fact that you're not journalists with Barbara Crossette articles miraculously landing in your in-boxes, you could do it, too.

And, as several of you wisely said in the earlier thread, everything the Democrats do is potential fodder. Let Us Not Go Into Tizzies and Deliver Us From Distortion. Here endeth the lesson.

• Obama administration
• United Nations

Middle East peace 'in a year'

Israeli and Palestinian leaders begin framework talks on a peace deal which could encompass borders, Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and security

The Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, met for the first day of direct talks in Washington today and agreed that a peace deal could be achieved within a year.

George Mitchell, the White House envoy who joined the negotiations, said the two leaders decided to begin putting together a framework agreement on all major issues – such as borders, Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and security – that will "establish the fundamental compromises necessary" to flesh out a comprehensive peace deal.

Mitchell said Netanyahu and Abbas agreed to meet again in a fortnight in the Middle East and every two weeks after that. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and Mitchell will attend the first of those meetings on 14 September.

Mitchell declined to disclose the detail of the discussions, although he said some of the major issues were touched on. Netanyahu and Abbas met American officials and then on their own. Mitchell described the two men's relationship at the talks as "cordial".

Before the talks opened, Netanyahu said two key demands – recognition of his country as a Jewish state and arrangements to ensure it does not come under attack from within a Palestinian state – were a prerequisite to a wider agreement.

Netanyahu again called Abbas his "partner in peace" and said he was prepared to make "painful concessions" to reach a deal. But the Israeli prime minister said that what he called the "two pillars to peace" must be resolved.

Clinton launched the negotiations by calling for the two leaders to show themselves as bold and courageous statesmen and reach an comprehensive peace agreement within the one year deadline set by Barack Obama. "We understand the suspicion and scepticism that so many feel born out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes," she said. "But by being here today you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change."

Netanyahu said Israel was prepared to make sacrifices to reach an agreement. "Together we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict. This will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides … from my side and from your side," he said.

The Israeli prime minister said central to any agreement were legitimacy and security. "Just as you expect us to be ready to recognise a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people we expect you to be prepared to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," he said. "I said too, a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel … new forces have risen in our region, Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare [with Hamas attacks from Gaza]. A peace agreement must take into account security arrangements against these real threats."

Abbas said he believed a deal was possible. "We're not starting from scratch, because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government."

Comment, page 33

• Middle East
• United States
• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Barack Obama
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Mahmoud Abbas

Middle East peace 'in a year'

Israeli and Palestinian leaders begin framework talks on a peace deal which could encompass borders, Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and security

The Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, met for the first day of direct talks in Washington today and agreed that a peace deal could be achieved within a year.

George Mitchell, the White House envoy who joined the negotiations, said the two leaders decided to begin putting together a framework agreement on all major issues – such as borders, Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and security – that will "establish the fundamental compromises necessary" to flesh out a comprehensive peace deal.

Mitchell said Netanyahu and Abbas agreed to meet again in a fortnight in the Middle East and every two weeks after that. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and Mitchell will attend the first of those meetings on 14 September.

Mitchell declined to disclose the detail of the discussions, although he said some of the major issues were touched on. Netanyahu and Abbas met American officials and then on their own. Mitchell described the two men's relationship at the talks as "cordial".

Before the talks opened, Netanyahu said two key demands – recognition of his country as a Jewish state and arrangements to ensure it does not come under attack from within a Palestinian state – were a prerequisite to a wider agreement.

Netanyahu again called Abbas his "partner in peace" and said he was prepared to make "painful concessions" to reach a deal. But the Israeli prime minister said that what he called the "two pillars to peace" must be resolved.

Clinton launched the negotiations by calling for the two leaders to show themselves as bold and courageous statesmen and reach an comprehensive peace agreement within the one year deadline set by Barack Obama. "We understand the suspicion and scepticism that so many feel born out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes," she said. "But by being here today you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change."

Netanyahu said Israel was prepared to make sacrifices to reach an agreement. "Together we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict. This will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides … from my side and from your side," he said.

The Israeli prime minister said central to any agreement were legitimacy and security. "Just as you expect us to be ready to recognise a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people we expect you to be prepared to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," he said. "I said too, a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel … new forces have risen in our region, Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare [with Hamas attacks from Gaza]. A peace agreement must take into account security arrangements against these real threats."

Abbas said he believed a deal was possible. "We're not starting from scratch, because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government."

Comment, page 33

• Middle East
• United States
• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Barack Obama
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Mahmoud Abbas

Read more [Guardian America]

Thursday: 11 Iraqis Killed, 9 Wounded

Violence remained fairly light today; however, at least 11 Iraqis were killed and nine more were wounded across the country. Meanwhile, U.S. military advisers warn that the Iraqis must correct the inefficiencies of their armed forces if U.S. troops hope to withdraw next year.
Read more [AntiWar]

Jewish director Julian Schnabel brings Palestine to Venice

Director talks of 'responsibility' to tell story of Middle East conflict in film Miral, told through eyes of two Palestinian women

The American artist and film-maker Julian Schnabel said he felt a "responsibility" as a Jew to tell the story of Palestine when he opened his new movie at the Venice film festival.

Schnabel's film Miral, competing with 22 others for the Golden Lion award, brought a note of seriousness to an event that sometimes veers towards the frothier side of culture.

Miral is told mainly through the eyes of two Palestinian women, covering 40 years of history from the birth of the state of Israel in 1948 to the failed Oslo peace accord of 1993. Its message is that education is the only hope to bringing any kind of resolution to the conflict.

Yesterday Schnabel said he felt a responsibility to bring the story to the big screen. "Coming from my background, as an American Jewish person whose mother was president of Hadassah [the Women's Zionist Organisation of America] in 1948, I figured I was a pretty good person to try to tell the story of the other side."

Schnabel has admitted not knowing much about the Palestinian people until he read the semi-autobiographical book by Rula Jebreal on which the film is based. "I felt it was my responsibility to confront this issue because, maybe, I've spent most of my life receding from my responsibility as a Jewish person."

He said there was an urgency to his film. "This conflict has to end. Every time a child dies on each side — there's no reason for it."

Miral tells the story of the Dar al-Tifl orphanage in Jerusalem, which was set up by a rich socialite called Hind Husseini in 1948 after she came across 55 orphans in the street. Within six months she had a school for 2,000 children.

The film shows how one of the orphans, Miral, is forced to grow up fast when she falls in love with a Palestinian activist. Miral is played by Slumdog Millionaire's Freida Pinto, and while there have been eyebrows raised at the Indian actor's casting as a Palestinian, Pinto bears an uncanny resemblance to Jebreal, on whom the character of Miral is based. Vanessa Redgrave and Willem Dafoe have small cameo roles.

Schnabel said the values that were instilled in him by his mother were the same as the ones instilled in Jebreal by Hind Husseini. "One of the reasons why I made this film is that it was so obvious to me that there are more similarities between these people than differences."

The debut of Miral was well-timed, coming on the day the US president, Barack Obama, opened a new round of Middle East peace talks.

Meanwhile, Iranian film-maker Jafar Panahi has been forbidden by the authorities from attending the premiere of his new short film Accordion. He was arrested last year and imprisoned for making a film looking at the Iranian elections, but had planned to attend.

• Israel
• Middle East
• Venice film festival
• Festivals
• Palestinian territories

Britain and France will not share aircraft carriers, officials say

Reports that two countries are to combine forces denied as defence secretaries meet to discuss closer military co-operation

British and French officials engaged in high-level defence talks have denied reports the two countries are considering sharing aircraft carriers, but are paving the way for unprecedented military co-operation, according to sources on both sides of the Channel.

Speaking on the eve of talks in Paris between the defence secretary, Liam Fox, and his French counterpart, Hervé Morin, officials said plans were being drawn up in an attempt to save money but maintain capabilities.

"We're in a phase where we must absolutely synchronise our budget cuts so that, in the end, there's no loss in our military capacities," a senior French diplomat told Agence France Presse news agency this week.

But British defence officials, irritated by reports of plans to "combine forces" and "share" ships, are keen to play down the significance of tomorrow's meeting. Morin is expected to be a victim of an imminent French government reshuffle.

"We will be looking at areas of closer co-operation between the two countries. But there are no plans to share carriers," British officials said.

Officials are instead pointing to the significance of the Franco-British summit between David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, due to be held in England on 5 November. In a keynote address to ambassadors last month, Sarkozy said France was prepared to undertake "concrete" defence projects with Britain. He added: "We will be discussing this with them without taboos in November."

The results of the British government's strategic defence and security review are expected to be announced before the November summit, making it easier for Cameron and Sarkozy to announce specific plans for co-operation.

Recent reports the two countries were planning to share ships, notably aircraft carriers, have provoked a storm of protest. Lord Boyce, the former first sea lord, said: "You cannot co-own an asset. It is totally impracticable and simply won't work."

French military officials have also expressed concerns about the practical problems involved, including different warship design. The countries also have different interests or have taken opposing positions on key international issues, including the Falklands Islands, former French colonies in Africa and the invasion of Iraq.

However, there are many potential areas of defence co-operation, which British and French officials have been working on intensely throughout the summer.

Britain is building two carriers at a cost of £5.2bn which are due to enter service in 2016 and 2018. They are unlikely to fall victim of the defence review, officials say, if only because £2bn has already been spent on them and under the contracts with shipyards and the manufacturers BAE Systems, Babcock International, and the French company Thales, scrapping them would save less than £1bn.

France, which has one aircraft carrier, has delayed until next year a decision on whether to build a second one.

Instead of sharing carriers, Britain and France could ensure more effective co-operation on missions about which the two governments agree, officials say. These could include humanitarian operations such as those off Lebanon four years ago and in the Persian Gulf.

Britain and France could also increase the "interoperability" of their warships, provide surface escorts for each other's carriers, and synchronise nuclear missile submarine patrols, officials say.

Officials point to successful co-operation between the two countries in the past on maritime missions in the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and countering pirates off the Horn of Africa.

• Defence policy
• France
• Military

Binyamin Netanyahu opens Middle East talks with two 'pillars to peace'

Israeli PM names non-negotiable issues as Hillary Clinton warns of cost of continued conflict

Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, opened peace talks with the Palestinians today by saying that two issues – recognition of his country as a Jewish state and arrangements to ensure it does not come under attack from within an independent Palestine state – are key to any deal.

Netanyahu called the two issues the "pillars to peace" at the opening of face-to-face talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in Washington.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, launched the negotiations by calling for the two men to show themselves as bold and courageous statesmen and reach an comprehensive peace agreement within the one-year deadline set by Barack Obama.

"We understand the suspicion and scepticism that so many feel borne out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes," she said. "But by being here today you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change."

Clinton noted that everyone at the negotiating table had been there before, in Netanyahu's case when he was prime minster 14 years ago.

"Those of you here today, especially the veterans who are here, you have returned because you have seen the cost of continued conflict," she said. "The core issues at the centre of the negotiations – territory, security, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and others – will get no easier if we wait, nor will they resolve themselves."

Netanyahu responded by repeating his assertion that he sees Abbas as a "partner for peace".

"Together we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict. This will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides … from my side and from your side," said Netanyahu

"But the people of Israel, and I as their prime minister, are prepared to walk this road and to go a long way in a short time to achieve a genuine peace that will bring our people security, prosperity and good neighbours."

However, the Israeli prime minister said there were two issues he regards as central to any agreement: "legitimacy and security".

"Just as you expect us to be ready to recognise a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people we expect you to be prepared to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," he said. "I think this mutual recognition between us is indispensable to clarifying to our two peoples that the conflict between us is over.

"I said too, a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel ... New forces have risen in our region, Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare [with Hamas attacks from Gaza]. A peace agreement must take in to account security arrangements against these real threats.

"President Abbas, I'm fully aware and I respect your people's desire for sovereignty. I'm convinced that it's possible to reconcile that desire with Israel's security."

Abbas responded by noting that his Palestine Liberation Organisation has recognised Israel's legitimacy in earlier accords going back to the 1993 Oslo agreement, although they do not mention it explicitly as a Jewish state. However, diplomats do not believe that will prove a significant stumbling block.

Security may prove more problematic. Among other things, Israel wants to keep control of the border between the West Bank and Jordan, which would mean a Palestinian state there would be entirely surrounded by the Israeli military.

Abbas said he believes a deal is possible. "We're not starting from scratch because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government," he said.

But the Palestinian leader called for an end to all Jewish settlement construction in the occupied territories, which is likely to be an open sore at the talks. Netanyahu has so far declined to commit himself to extending a partial freeze on building in the settlements in the West Bank, although not occupied East Jerusalem, when it expires later this month. The Palestinians see the issue as a litmus test of his intent.

The first issue is to agree an agenda. The US says that all the biggest issues, from drawing final borders and the fate of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories to Israel's security demands, will be on the table.

Diplomats said they were surprised by the strength of Netanyahu's insistence that he is committed to making an "historic compromise" in search of a durable peace settlement.

But the difficulties of agreeing that compromise were highlighted after Netanyahu's defence minister, Ehud Barak, said the day before the talks that Israel could meet a Palestinian demand to divide Jerusalem so that the mainly Arab east of the city can become a Palestinian capital.

"The Arab neighbourhoods in which close to a quarter million Palestinians live will be theirs," Barak told Haaretz newspaper.

One of Netanyahu's aides immediately contradicted Barak, saying the prime minister's position at the talks will be that the city must remain fully under Israeli control.

"Our position is that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel," the aide said.

• Middle East
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Mahmoud Abbas
• Hillary Clinton

Why Israelis Don't Care About Peace with Palestinians (Time.com)

Time.com - Israelis feel prosperous, secure -- and disengaged from the peace process with the Palestinians. Is that wise?
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Hillary Clinton launches Israeli-Palestinian peace talks (McClatchy Newspapers)

McClatchy Newspapers - WASHINGTON — Israelis and Palestinians on Thursday opened their first direct peace negotiations in 20 months, a long-shot attempt to end the conflict that host Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged is burdened by history and bitter disputes.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Middle East peace talks - live

Follow all the diplomatic activity as Israel and Palestine hold Middle East peace talks in Washington DC - live

3.20pm ET: Here's a first look at an article on the peace talks by Chris McGreal that will be appearing in tomorrow's Guardian print edition:

For many diplomats though the great unanswered question at the talks was which Binyamin Netanyahu would be at the table. Fourteen years ago the same Israeli prime minister seemed determined to kill any peace deal at talks with Yasser Arafat overseen by Hillary Clinton's husband and then president, Bill Clinton.

Yesterday Netanyahu's language was of historic compromises and repeatedly calling the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, his "partner for peace" went further than many expected.

Diplomats had expected the Israeli prime minister to pay lip service to a peace deal and even to make some significant concessions. What they had not expected was the repeated pledges to peace that poured forth after Netanyahu's meeting with Barak Obama on Wednesday and again yesterday before the talks.

3.11pm ET: The New York Times raises an interesting point about the consequences of the timing of the second round of talks, agreed on earlier today. The next round will take place on 14-15 September:

That would mean that a successive round of talks would fall just days after an Israeli freeze on new construction in the occupied West Bank is set to expire. Mr Netanyahu has said he will not renew it; Mr. Abbas has hinted he cannot continue talking without an extension; efforts at a compromise were thus certain to be a central topic in Washington.

3pm ET: So far, there has been some surprise at how dovish Benjamin Netanyahu has sounded in Washington. One veteran observer of Israeli politics writes to suggest:

"I wonder if Netanyahu isn't sincere in his own mind, that he's made the leap and recognises Israel has to give up territory. But I wonder if he's fully grasped how big the compromises will have to be."

Netanyahu is sending all the right messages but will that translate into action? Then the question is: even if he does, can he carry it through politically?

2.33pm ET: Chris McGreal's latest piece on the Guardian's website sets out the scale of the problems that any agreement is going to face:

Diplomats said they were surprised by the strength of Netanyahu's insistence that he is committed to making an "historic compromise" in search of a durable peace settlement.

But the difficulties of agreeing that compromise were highlighted after Netanyahu's defence minister, Ehud Barak, said the day before the talks that Israel could meet a Palestinian demand to divide Jerusalem so that the mainly Arab east of the city can become a Palestinian capital.

"The Arab neighbourhoods in which close to a quarter million Palestinians live will be theirs," Barak told Haaretz newspaper.

One of Netanyahu's aides immediately contradicted Barak, saying the prime minister's position at the talks will be that the city must remain fully under Israeli control.

"Our position is that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel," the aide said.

2.19pm ET: More on the framework agreement that the Israeli and Palestinian leaders are thrashing out today. The Associated Press reports:

Though "less than a full-fledged treaty," [US peace envoy George] Mitchell said the framework would "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."

How long will that take? According to Mitchell, the goal is to "resolve all of the core issues within one year".

1.50pm ET: Further details emerging from the peace talks this morning, with George Mitchell speaking to reporters at the State Department where the talks are taking place:

"I believe these two leaders – President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu – are committed to doing what it takes to achieve the right results."

Mitchell said the two sides are working on a framework agreement for on-going talks, without giving details, although he said the agreement would describe the "fundamental compromises" that would be needed.

On the table is likely to be the list of issues that have been long familiar: Israel's security, East Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and of course the question of borders and settlements.

Mitchell said he and Hillary Clinton would attend the next round of talks later this month.

1.25pm ET: More details now emerging on the agreements for a further round of talks. The US special envoy George Mitchell has announced that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas have agreed to a second round of talks to take place 14-15 September in the Middle East – probably at Egypt's Sharm el-Sheikh resort region on the Sinai peninsula.

Mitchell also said they would meet every two weeks after that.

Sharm el-Sheikh was the site of talks in 1999, as was nearby Taba in 2001.

1.05pm ET: Breaking news There are reports that Israeli and Palestinian leaders have agreed to hold a second round of peace talks on 14-15 September.

More details when we get them, but this is encouraging, given that the US had hoped for at least this much.

12.30pm ET: The US's special Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell gave a briefing before the peace talks started, in which he was asked about the role of Hamas, on the grounds it would be "the elephant in the room" during the discussions. Mitchell responded:

We do not expect Hamas to play a role in this immediate process. But as Secretary of State Clinton and I have said publicly many times, while in the Middle East and in the United States, we welcome the full participation by Hamas and all relevant parties once they comply with the basic requirements of democracy and nonviolence that are, of course, a prerequisite to engage in these serious types of discussions.

Mitchell then raised the issue of comparing Hamas to the IRA, given his long involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process:

There has been a good deal of a discussion about references to Northern Ireland, and I have repeatedly been asked by reporters and individuals when I make public appearances, well, Senator, you talk to the IRA in Northern Ireland, but don't you talk to Hamas here. The questions reflect an incomplete understanding of what occurred in Northern Ireland and its relationship to this situation.

So, first, let me say they're very different. It's not useful to try to make direct comparisons because the participants, the circumstances, the situation, the timing are all very different. And while we should learn what we can from other processes, each is unique.

But on the central point, the reality is that in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin, the political party that is affiliated with the IRA, did not enter the negotiations until after 15 months had elapsed in the negotiations, and only then because they met two central conditions that had been established. The first was a ceasefire, and the second was a publicly stated commitment to what came to be known as the Mitchell Principles because I was the chairman of the commission that established them.

12.15pm ET: Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, answers a few questions about the state of the Middle East peace talks during his daily televised press briefing.

After some talk about approaching Hurricane Earl and today's oil rig explosion in the Gulf, Gibbs is asked if Obama is more optimistic about the prospects, given recent stability in the area.

"The president felt the meetings yesterday were productive and believed that each of the leaders were genuine and serious about seeking peace," responds Gibbs, giving nothing away. But Middle East peace has "eluded generations, we're mindful of that."

Gibbs is asked if the threat to all parties from a nuclear armed Iran was concentrating the minds of participants, including the Palestinians. Gibbs won't go down that road: "We have always maintained that peace was in the best interests of all of these entities involved, regardless of anything else in the Middle East."

But the rest of the White House corpse – sorry, corps – are more interested in asking about the up-coming 2010 midterms and how badly the Democrats are likely to do.

11.32am ET: As usual, the peace talks are being covered in minute detail by the Israeli press. Writing in Haaretz, Avi Issacharoff has a positive view of Mahmoud Abbas's track record as president:

Abbas' control may not extend to Gaza, but in the West Bank he has engineered a revolutionary transformation. Lacking Arafat's much-touted charisma, Abbas has quietly, obstinately changed the very face of the territory. Along with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, he has created a new way of life for the Palestinians. The armed men have disappeared, and West Bank cities for the first time know law and order. And yes, the number of terror attacks against Israelis has plummeted.

Issacharoff's conclusion about the chances of success at the peace talks:

The Netanyahu government must understand the price of ending the conflict. You want peace? Give Abbas the Temple Mount. Without Islamic sovereignty over what Muslims call the Haram al-Sharif, we won't have peace even a decade from now.

10.55am ET: The Guardian's Chris McGreal is at the State Department in Foggy Bottom, and he listened to the statements from Clinton, Netanyahu and Abbas in the conference room just now. Here's his take:

I thought it was interesting Netanyahu said that if the issues of recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and security were agreed, everything else was doable. That suggests he's prepared to make the necessary sacrifices on settlements, East Jerusalem, the borders, etc. But whether the sacrifices he has in mind meet Palestinian expectations is another matter.

The security issues will not be easy, either. Netanyahu made reference to rockets coming from Gaza. What the Israeli have in mind to ensure there is no such threat from the West Bank is not clear

10.49am ET: Back to Clinton, who wraps up the opening remarks:

"Now it's time to get to work."

10.40am ET: Now Palestinian President Abbas speaks. After a preamble, Abbas calls for Israel to stop building settlements on the West Bank and to end its embargo imposed on Gaza.

Abbas then talks about efforts the Palestinian Authority has been taking to find the terrorists who killed four Israeli settlers yesterday, and the police work and arrests that have followed.

Abbas then said "the goals are clear" and the path to an enduring peace is known to both sides – and that means it should be possible to achieve a final peace agreement within the year-long table favoured by the US sponsors:

"We do know how hard are the hurdles and obstacles we face during these negotiations – negotiations that within a year should result in an agreement that will bring peace."

10.38am ET: Netanyahu:

"President Abbas, history has given us a rare opportunity to end the conflict between our two peoples, a conflict that has been going on for more than a century."

Netanyahu then quotes from the book of Genesis, the story of Isaac and Ishmael joining together to bury their father Abraham in Hebron, and concluding:

"I can only pray, and I know that millions around the world ... pray that the pain that we have experienced, you and I, in the last 100 years of conflict, will unite us not only in a moment of peace around a table of peace here in Washington, but will enable us to leave from here and forge a lasting peace for generations."

10.33am: Now Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu is speaking. So far, diplomats have been struck by the force of Netanyahu's insistence yesterday that he wants to find an historic compromise. But they remain sceptical about whether he has the will and the ability to do so.

"We have to get from disagreement to agreement, that's a big task," says Netanyahu, who refers to the "two pillars of peace": legitimacy and security.

"Just as you expect us to recognise the Palestine as the nation state of the Palestinian people, we expect you to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people."

Netanyahu refers to Clinton's remark about the "veterans" of Middle East peace talks, and the 12 years he has been involved in them, but then talks about what has changed in recent years, especially the influence of Iran.

10.29am ET: Clinton is making no bones that the chances of success from these talks are slim.

"I want to conclude by saying a few words directly to the people of the region," says Clinton, telling them "you are the ones that will ultimately decide the future."

"For the effort to succeed we need your support and your patience ... we cannot do this without you."

10.22am ET: The first official public act begins: at the State Department, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opens proceedings with a statement:

"I look around and I see veterans. We've been here before and we know how hard this will be."

Looking at Netanyahu and Abbas, seated around her at the U-shaped conference table, Clinton said: "You each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change."

Things will "get no easier if we wait, nor will they resolve themselves" says Clinton, warning of "all the long days" that will follow if the peace talks are to proceed.

10am ET: Amid the searing heat of a Washington summer and swarms of police and Secret Service vehicles around the centre of the city, the latest round of Middle East peace talks are formally underway.

You can tell it's Middle East peace talks at the State Department from the presence of bomb-sniffing dogs and long lines to get through security. Computers have to be opened and placed on the ground for the dogs to sniff – and given that they are journalists' laptops, the greatest security threat may be to the health of the sniffer dogs from the toxic keyboards.

The Guardian's Chris McGreal sets the scene:

Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has said he is looking "to find a historic compromise" that will bring peace to the Middle East for generations as he begins direct talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in Washington today.

Today's talks are the first since the last peace effort foundered in December 2008, and take place against a background of violence in the West Bank and Israeli settlement activity. As a result, expectations are low and the US is setting its sights on an agreement to hold a second round of negotiations as a mark of success.

• Middle East
• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Obama administration
• US foreign policy
• Barack Obama
• United States
• Hillary Clinton

Middle East peace talks - live | Richard Adams

Follow all the diplomatic activity as Israel and Palestine hold Middle East peace talks in Washington DC - live

3.20pm ET: Here's a first look at an article on the peace talks by Chris McGreal that will be appearing in tomorrow's Guardian print edition:

For many diplomats though the great unanswered question at the talks was which Binyamin Netanyahu would be at the table. Fourteen years ago the same Israeli prime minister seemed determined to kill any peace deal at talks with Yasser Arafat overseen by Hillary Clinton's husband and then president, Bill Clinton.

Yesterday Netanyahu's language was of historic compromises and repeatedly calling the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, his "partner for peace" went further than many expected.

Diplomats had expected the Israeli prime minister to pay lip service to a peace deal and even to make some significant concessions. What they had not expected was the repeated pledges to peace that poured forth after Netanyahu's meeting with Barak Obama on Wednesday and again yesterday before the talks.

3.11pm ET: The New York Times raises an interesting point about the consequences of the timing of the second round of talks, agreed on earlier today. The next round will take place on 14-15 September:

That would mean that a successive round of talks would fall just days after an Israeli freeze on new construction in the occupied West Bank is set to expire. Mr Netanyahu has said he will not renew it; Mr. Abbas has hinted he cannot continue talking without an extension; efforts at a compromise were thus certain to be a central topic in Washington.

3pm ET: So far, there has been some surprise at how dovish Benjamin Netanyahu has sounded in Washington. One veteran observer of Israeli politics writes to suggest:

"I wonder if Netanyahu isn't sincere in his own mind, that he's made the leap and recognises Israel has to give up territory. But I wonder if he's fully grasped how big the compromises will have to be."

Netanyahu is sending all the right messages but will that translate into action? Then the question is: even if he does, can he carry it through politically?

2.33pm ET: Chris McGreal's latest piece on the Guardian's website sets out the scale of the problems that any agreement is going to face:

Diplomats said they were surprised by the strength of Netanyahu's insistence that he is committed to making an "historic compromise" in search of a durable peace settlement.

But the difficulties of agreeing that compromise were highlighted after Netanyahu's defence minister, Ehud Barak, said the day before the talks that Israel could meet a Palestinian demand to divide Jerusalem so that the mainly Arab east of the city can become a Palestinian capital.

"The Arab neighbourhoods in which close to a quarter million Palestinians live will be theirs," Barak told Haaretz newspaper.

One of Netanyahu's aides immediately contradicted Barak, saying the prime minister's position at the talks will be that the city must remain fully under Israeli control.

"Our position is that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel," the aide said.

2.19pm ET: More on the framework agreement that the Israeli and Palestinian leaders are thrashing out today. The Associated Press reports:

Though "less than a full-fledged treaty," [US peace envoy George] Mitchell said the framework would "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."

How long will that take? According to Mitchell, the goal is to "resolve all of the core issues within one year".

1.50pm ET: Further details emerging from the peace talks this morning, with George Mitchell speaking to reporters at the State Department where the talks are taking place:

"I believe these two leaders – President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu – are committed to doing what it takes to achieve the right results."

Mitchell said the two sides are working on a framework agreement for on-going talks, without giving details, although he said the agreement would describe the "fundamental compromises" that would be needed.

On the table is likely to be the list of issues that have been long familiar: Israel's security, East Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and of course the question of borders and settlements.

Mitchell said he and Hillary Clinton would attend the next round of talks later this month.

1.25pm ET: More details now emerging on the agreements for a further round of talks. The US special envoy George Mitchell has announced that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas have agreed to a second round of talks to take place 14-15 September in the Middle East – probably at Egypt's Sharm el-Sheikh resort region on the Sinai peninsula.

Mitchell also said they would meet every two weeks after that.

Sharm el-Sheikh was the site of talks in 1999, as was nearby Taba in 2001.

1.05pm ET: Breaking news There are reports that Israeli and Palestinian leaders have agreed to hold a second round of peace talks on 14-15 September.

More details when we get them, but this is encouraging, given that the US had hoped for at least this much.

12.30pm ET: The US's special Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell gave a briefing before the peace talks started, in which he was asked about the role of Hamas, on the grounds it would be "the elephant in the room" during the discussions. Mitchell responded:

We do not expect Hamas to play a role in this immediate process. But as Secretary of State Clinton and I have said publicly many times, while in the Middle East and in the United States, we welcome the full participation by Hamas and all relevant parties once they comply with the basic requirements of democracy and nonviolence that are, of course, a prerequisite to engage in these serious types of discussions.

Mitchell then raised the issue of comparing Hamas to the IRA, given his long involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process:

There has been a good deal of a discussion about references to Northern Ireland, and I have repeatedly been asked by reporters and individuals when I make public appearances, well, Senator, you talk to the IRA in Northern Ireland, but don't you talk to Hamas here. The questions reflect an incomplete understanding of what occurred in Northern Ireland and its relationship to this situation.

So, first, let me say they're very different. It's not useful to try to make direct comparisons because the participants, the circumstances, the situation, the timing are all very different. And while we should learn what we can from other processes, each is unique.

But on the central point, the reality is that in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin, the political party that is affiliated with the IRA, did not enter the negotiations until after 15 months had elapsed in the negotiations, and only then because they met two central conditions that had been established. The first was a ceasefire, and the second was a publicly stated commitment to what came to be known as the Mitchell Principles because I was the chairman of the commission that established them.

12.15pm ET: Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, answers a few questions about the state of the Middle East peace talks during his daily televised press briefing.

After some talk about approaching Hurricane Earl and today's oil rig explosion in the Gulf, Gibbs is asked if Obama is more optimistic about the prospects, given recent stability in the area.

"The president felt the meetings yesterday were productive and believed that each of the leaders were genuine and serious about seeking peace," responds Gibbs, giving nothing away. But Middle East peace has "eluded generations, we're mindful of that."

Gibbs is asked if the threat to all parties from a nuclear armed Iran was concentrating the minds of participants, including the Palestinians. Gibbs won't go down that road: "We have always maintained that peace was in the best interests of all of these entities involved, regardless of anything else in the Middle East."

But the rest of the White House corpse – sorry, corps – are more interested in asking about the up-coming 2010 midterms and how badly the Democrats are likely to do.

11.32am ET: As usual, the peace talks are being covered in minute detail by the Israeli press. Writing in Haaretz, Avi Issacharoff has a positive view of Mahmoud Abbas's track record as president:

Abbas' control may not extend to Gaza, but in the West Bank he has engineered a revolutionary transformation. Lacking Arafat's much-touted charisma, Abbas has quietly, obstinately changed the very face of the territory. Along with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, he has created a new way of life for the Palestinians. The armed men have disappeared, and West Bank cities for the first time know law and order. And yes, the number of terror attacks against Israelis has plummeted.

Issacharoff's conclusion about the chances of success at the peace talks:

The Netanyahu government must understand the price of ending the conflict. You want peace? Give Abbas the Temple Mount. Without Islamic sovereignty over what Muslims call the Haram al-Sharif, we won't have peace even a decade from now.

10.55am ET: The Guardian's Chris McGreal is at the State Department in Foggy Bottom, and he listened to the statements from Clinton, Netanyahu and Abbas in the conference room just now. Here's his take:

I thought it was interesting Netanyahu said that if the issues of recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and security were agreed, everything else was doable. That suggests he's prepared to make the necessary sacrifices on settlements, East Jerusalem, the borders, etc. But whether the sacrifices he has in mind meet Palestinian expectations is another matter.

The security issues will not be easy, either. Netanyahu made reference to rockets coming from Gaza. What the Israeli have in mind to ensure there is no such threat from the West Bank is not clear

10.49am ET: Back to Clinton, who wraps up the opening remarks:

"Now it's time to get to work."

10.40am ET: Now Palestinian President Abbas speaks. After a preamble, Abbas calls for Israel to stop building settlements on the West Bank and to end its embargo imposed on Gaza.

Abbas then talks about efforts the Palestinian Authority has been taking to find the terrorists who killed four Israeli settlers yesterday, and the police work and arrests that have followed.

Abbas then said "the goals are clear" and the path to an enduring peace is known to both sides – and that means it should be possible to achieve a final peace agreement within the year-long table favoured by the US sponsors:

"We do know how hard are the hurdles and obstacles we face during these negotiations – negotiations that within a year should result in an agreement that will bring peace."

10.38am ET: Netanyahu:

"President Abbas, history has given us a rare opportunity to end the conflict between our two peoples, a conflict that has been going on for more than a century."

Netanyahu then quotes from the book of Genesis, the story of Isaac and Ishmael joining together to bury their father Abraham in Hebron, and concluding:

"I can only pray, and I know that millions around the world ... pray that the pain that we have experienced, you and I, in the last 100 years of conflict, will unite us not only in a moment of peace around a table of peace here in Washington, but will enable us to leave from here and forge a lasting peace for generations."

10.33am: Now Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu is speaking. So far, diplomats have been struck by the force of Netanyahu's insistence yesterday that he wants to find an historic compromise. But they remain sceptical about whether he has the will and the ability to do so.

"We have to get from disagreement to agreement, that's a big task," says Netanyahu, who refers to the "two pillars of peace": legitimacy and security.

"Just as you expect us to recognise the Palestine as the nation state of the Palestinian people, we expect you to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people."

Netanyahu refers to Clinton's remark about the "veterans" of Middle East peace talks, and the 12 years he has been involved in them, but then talks about what has changed in recent years, especially the influence of Iran.

10.29am ET: Clinton is making no bones that the chances of success from these talks are slim.

"I want to conclude by saying a few words directly to the people of the region," says Clinton, telling them "you are the ones that will ultimately decide the future."

"For the effort to succeed we need your support and your patience ... we cannot do this without you."

10.22am ET: The first official public act begins: at the State Department, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opens proceedings with a statement:

"I look around and I see veterans. We've been here before and we know how hard this will be."

Looking at Netanyahu and Abbas, seated around her at the U-shaped conference table, Clinton said: "You each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change."

Things will "get no easier if we wait, nor will they resolve themselves" says Clinton, warning of "all the long days" that will follow if the peace talks are to proceed.

10am ET: Amid the searing heat of a Washington summer and swarms of police and Secret Service vehicles around the centre of the city, the latest round of Middle East peace talks are formally underway.

You can tell it's Middle East peace talks at the State Department from the presence of bomb-sniffing dogs and long lines to get through security. Computers have to be opened and placed on the ground for the dogs to sniff – and given that they are journalists' laptops, the greatest security threat may be to the health of the sniffer dogs from the toxic keyboards.

The Guardian's Chris McGreal sets the scene:

Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has said he is looking "to find a historic compromise" that will bring peace to the Middle East for generations as he begins direct talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in Washington today.

Today's talks are the first since the last peace effort foundered in December 2008, and take place against a background of violence in the West Bank and Israeli settlement activity. As a result, expectations are low and the US is setting its sights on an agreement to hold a second round of negotiations as a mark of success.

• Middle East
• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Obama administration
• US foreign policy
• Barack Obama
• United States
• Hillary Clinton

Read more [Guardian America]

Middle East talks begin as US tries to engineer peace in region

Israeli and Palestinian leaders begin direct talks, as Netanyahu describes Abbas as 'partner for peace' despite recent attacks

Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has said he is looking "to find a historic compromise" that will bring peace to the Middle East for generations as he begins direct talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in Washington today.

The two leaders met Barack Obama yesterday, when the US president launched his initiative to forge a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians within a year, which he described as a "moment of opportunity that may not soon come again".

Obama said he recognised the depths of passions and mistrust and that the task would be difficult after so many failed efforts. But he said the occupation and accompanying conflict were unsustainable: "We are under no illusions. Passions run deep. Each side has legitimate and enduring interests. Years of mistrust will not disappear overnight …

"After all, there's a reason that the two-state solution has eluded previous generations. This is extraordinarily complex and extraordinarily difficult. But we know that the status quo is unsustainable," he said.

Obama said it was in the national interests of all involved, including the US, that the conflict be brought to a peaceful conclusion. But he warned that Washington could not impose a solution or want it more than did the parties themselves.

In the face of widespread scepticism, Netanyahu sought to persuade the US president that he does indeed want peace. "Our goal is to forge a secure and durable peace between Israelis and Palestinians," he said. "We don't seek a brief interlude between two wars. We don't seek a temporary respite between outbursts of terror. We seek a peace that will end the conflict once and for all. We seek a peace that will last for generations. We must learn to live together, to live next to one another and with one another."

The Israeli prime minister then turned to the Palestinian leader and said: "President Abbas, you are my partner in peace." He added: "We cannot erase the past but it is in our power to change the future."

Abbas said the talks are a "sincere opportunity to make peace".

He continued: "It is time to put an end to the struggle in the Middle East. Let us sign a final agreement and put an end to a very long period of struggle."

However, the talks were overshadowed by the killing of four Jewish settlers in the West Bank on Tuesday. Obama said "terrorists who want to undermine" the push for peace would not be allowed to weaken negotiations.

Netanyahu said the deaths reinforced Israel's determination to ensure its security is at the forefront of the negotiations.

Obama held bilateral meetings with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, and with the Egyptian and Jordanian leaders, before hosting a White House dinner for all four. Tony Blair, the envoy for the US, UN, EU and Russia, was also at the dinner.

Direct negotiations between the two sides begin today at the state department with the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and the US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell.

The White House initiative has been met with widepsread scepticism in Israel and the occupied territories about whether the other side is ready for peace, particularly given the rejection by hard-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet of compromises such as dismantling settlements.

But it has also drawn warnings that the talks may be the last chance to agree a two-state solution before either a new wave of violence or the continued expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories makes such an agreement impossible.

The talks are seen as a test of Israeli and Palestinian claims that they are ready to forge an agreement. But they are also a measure of Obama's willingness to take the necessary political risks. The US administration has angered some of Israel's supporters in describing the failure as a cause of continued instability in the Middle East and a threat to America's national security.

Some involved in previous peace negotiations are concerned Obama has failed to distinguish his push from the failed efforts of the past.

"People don't think there's an Obama-specific approach," said Daniel Levy, a former adviser to an earlier Israeli prime minister and an architect of the Geneva initiative peace plan. "You're seeing a very similar approach to what we've seen in the past – an approach that didn't deliver."

Levy warned that "the script for now is still being written more by the Netanyahu government than the Obama administration"; the White House would have to be very careful not to be seen as "Israel's lawyer", as Aaron David Miller, a former US negotiator, put it, by exerting more pressure on the Palestinians than the Israelis.

• Middle East
• United States
• Obama administration
• US politics
• Washington DC
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Mahmoud Abbas
• Palestinian territories
• Israel

Middle East peace talks begin in Washington

Israeli and Palestinian leaders begin direct talks, as Netanyahu describes Abbas as 'partner for peace' despite recent attacks

Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has said he is looking "to find a historic compromise" that will bring peace to the Middle East for generations as he begins direct talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in Washington today.

The two leaders met Barack Obama yesterday, when the US president launched his initiative to forge a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians within a year, which he described as a "moment of opportunity that may not soon come again".

Obama said he recognised the depths of passions and mistrust and that the task would be difficult after so many failed efforts. But he said the occupation and accompanying conflict were unsustainable: "We are under no illusions. Passions run deep. Each side has legitimate and enduring interests. Years of mistrust will not disappear overnight …

"After all, there's a reason that the two-state solution has eluded previous generations. This is extraordinarily complex and extraordinarily difficult. But we know that the status quo is unsustainable," he said.

Obama said it was in the national interests of all involved, including the US, that the conflict be brought to a peaceful conclusion. But he warned that Washington could not impose a solution or want it more than did the parties themselves.

In the face of widespread scepticism, Netanyahu sought to persuade the US president that he does indeed want peace. "Our goal is to forge a secure and durable peace between Israelis and Palestinians," he said. "We don't seek a brief interlude between two wars. We don't seek a temporary respite between outbursts of terror. We seek a peace that will end the conflict once and for all. We seek a peace that will last for generations. We must learn to live together, to live next to one another and with one another."

The Israeli prime minister then turned to the Palestinian leader and said: "President Abbas, you are my partner in peace." He added: "We cannot erase the past but it is in our power to change the future."

Abbas said the talks are a "sincere opportunity to make peace".

He continued: "It is time to put an end to the struggle in the Middle East. Let us sign a final agreement and put an end to a very long period of struggle."

However, the talks were overshadowed by the killing of four Jewish settlers in the West Bank on Tuesday. Obama said "terrorists who want to undermine" the push for peace would not be allowed to weaken negotiations.

Netanyahu said the deaths reinforced Israel's determination to ensure its security is at the forefront of the negotiations.

Obama held bilateral meetings with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, and with the Egyptian and Jordanian leaders, before hosting a White House dinner for all four. Tony Blair, the envoy for the US, UN, EU and Russia, was also at the dinner.

Direct negotiations between the two sides begin today at the state department with the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and the US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell.

The White House initiative has been met with widepsread scepticism in Israel and the occupied territories about whether the other side is ready for peace, particularly given the rejection by hard-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet of compromises such as dismantling settlements.

But it has also drawn warnings that the talks may be the last chance to agree a two-state solution before either a new wave of violence or the continued expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories makes such an agreement impossible.

The talks are seen as a test of Israeli and Palestinian claims that they are ready to forge an agreement. But they are also a measure of Obama's willingness to take the necessary political risks. The US administration has angered some of Israel's supporters in describing the failure as a cause of continued instability in the Middle East and a threat to America's national security.

Some involved in previous peace negotiations are concerned Obama has failed to distinguish his push from the failed efforts of the past.

"People don't think there's an Obama-specific approach," said Daniel Levy, a former adviser to an earlier Israeli prime minister and an architect of the Geneva initiative peace plan. "You're seeing a very similar approach to what we've seen in the past – an approach that didn't deliver."

Levy warned that "the script for now is still being written more by the Netanyahu government than the Obama administration"; the White House would have to be very careful not to be seen as "Israel's lawyer", as Aaron David Miller, a former US negotiator, put it, by exerting more pressure on the Palestinians than the Israelis.

• Middle East
• United States
• Obama administration
• US politics
• Washington DC
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Mahmoud Abbas
• Palestinian territories
• Israel

Read more [Guardian America]

Wiesenthal Worked for Israeli Spy Agency, Book Alleges

Simon Wiesenthal, who ran a one-man Nazi-hunting operation, worked for Israel’s spy agency, a new biography claims.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

Iraq: The Never-Ending Story

'Advisory' troops will still kill and die, says Tom Knapp
Read more [AntiWar]

US forces still in fight at end of combat mission (AP)

AP - Even as President Barack Obama was announcing the end of combat in Iraq, American soldiers were sealing off a northern village early Wednesday as their Iraqi partners raided houses and arrested dozens of suspected insurgents.

Two Israelis injured in West Bank

Hamas claims responsibility for attack near Jewish settlement, day after similiar shooting leaves four Israelis dead.
Read more [Al Jazeera]

Iraq needs economic investment, says US

As the United States officially ends combat operations in Iraq, it is urging friends such as Australia to mark this new phase by injecting investment.
Read more [The Age: Australia National]

Obama's Iraq Speech: Reactions from Afghanistan (Time.com)

Time.com - President Obama's Oval Office address indicated that the Iraq withdrawal would lead to more forces for Afghanistan. But Afghans only see an eventual withdrawal from their own troubled country
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Ben Jennings on Tony Blair's A Journey and Iraq

In the latest instalment of the cartoonist's showcase, Ben Jennings turns his eye to the publication of the former PM's memoirs

Hamas leader rejects talks with Israel (AP)

AP - The top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip rejected compromise with Israel in a fiery speech Wednesday, a day after gunmen killed four Israelis in a strong reminder that the Islamic militant group cannot be ignored in any Mideast deal.

Middle East peace talks begin as Obama warns 'chance may not come again soon'

Direct dialogue begins between leaders in Washington as Barack Obama heralds 'moment of opportunity' to clear way for two-state solution

The Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, begin direct talks in Washington today after Barack Obama launched his initiative to forge a Middle East peace agreement within a year, which he described as a "moment of opportunity that may not soon come again".

The US president said that he recognised the task would be difficult after so many failed efforts, and that passions and mistrust ran deep. But he said that the occupation and accompanying conflict were unsustainable.

"The purpose of the talks is clear. These will be direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. These negotiations are intended to resolve all final status issues. The goal is a settlement negotiated between the parties that ends the occupation which began in 1967, and results in the emergence of an independent democratic and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish state of Israel and its other neighbours," he said. "We are under no illusions. Passions run deep. Each side has legitimate and enduring interests. Years of mistrust will not disappear overnight ...

"After all, there's a reason that the two state solution has eluded previous generations. This is extraordinarily complex and extraordinarily difficult. But we know that the status quo is unsustainable."

The president said that it was in the national interests of all involved, including the US, that the conflict be brought to a peaceful conclusion. But he warned that the US could not impose a solution or want it more than did the parties themselves. Obama also called on Arab states to back the process, saying that they claimed to want to see an independent Palestine, but did little to support it – his statement implying that the Arab states should move toward recognising Israel.

The talks were overshadowed before opening by the killing of four Jewish settlers in the West Bank on Tuesday. Obama said that "terrorists who want to undermine" the push for peace would not be allowed to weaken negotiations.

Netanyahu said the deaths reinforced Israel's determination to ensure its security is at the forefront of the negotiations.

Obama held bilateral meetings with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, and the Egyptian and Jordanian leaders, before hosting a White House dinner for all four. Tony Blair, the envoy for the quartet of the US, UN, EU and Russia, was also expected to be at the dinner. Direct negotiations between the two sides begin today at the state department with the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and the US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell.

The White House initiative has been met with wide scepticism in Israel and the occupied territories over whether the other side is ready for peace, particularly given the rejection by hard-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet of compromises such as dismantling settlements. But it has also drawn warnings that the talks may be the last chance to agree a two-state solution before either a new wave of violence or the continued expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories makes such an agreement impossible.

The talks are seen as a test of Israeli and Palestinian claims to be ready to finally forge an agreement. But they are also a measure of Obama's willingness to take the political risks necessary to keep the negotiations on track. The US administration has angered some of Israel's supporters by breaking with its predecessors in describing the failure to resolve the conflict as a cause of continued instability in the Middle East and a threat to America's national security.

Some involved in previous peace negotiations are concerned Obama has failed to distinguish his push from the failed efforts of the past. "People don't think there's an Obama-specific approach," said Daniel Levy, a former adviser to an earlier Israeli prime minister and an architect of the Geneva Initiative peace plan. "There isn't a way of going about it that this administration has made its own and has wrapped its arms around. You're seeing a very similar approach to what we've seen in the past – an approach that didn't deliver."

Levy warned that "the script for now is still being written more by the Netanyahu government than the Obama administration"; the White House would have to be very careful not to be seen as "Israel's lawyer" (as Aaron David Miller, a former US negotiator in the conflict, once put it) by exerting more pressure on the Palestinians than the Israelis, because it appears Abbas is in the weaker position and more likely to fold and make an agreement possible.

The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said an agreement was inevitable at some point. The question was whether it could be reached within Obama's deadline of a year. "[Palestinians and Israelis] know that, if not this year, next year, or in 10 years' time, it will be a two-state solution on the 1967 lines, Palestine next to the state of Israel. The difference in time here is how many lives of Israelis and Palestinians will be saved," he said.

• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Middle East
• Mahmoud Abbas
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Barack Obama

US forces still in fight at end of combat mission (AP)

AP - Even as President Barack Obama was announcing the end of combat in Iraq, American soldiers were sealing off a northern village early Wednesday as their Iraqi partners raided houses and arrested dozens of suspected insurgents.

Letters: Iraq, intelligence and intellectual paucity

You report Tony Blair as "admitting" that the "intelligence Saddam possessed a WMD programme 'turned out to be incorrect'." It depends on what intelligence the former prime minister was reading (Iraq: the nightmare he didn't see coming, 1 September).

Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, who was the former director of Iraq's military industrial programme, defected to Jordan with his brother in August 1995, and there was debriefed by US and British intelligence, alongside UN WMD investigators, about Saddam's weapons programmes.

"I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons, biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed," Kamel told them. "Were weapons and agents destroyed?" asked the investigators. "Nothing remained," he replied. This interview was even reported in the Guardian (1 March 2003).

When asked by the then Labour MP Llew Smith, who opposed the war, a few days after the invasion began about the Kamel interview, Blair said, "Following his defection, Hussein Kamel was interviewed by the United Nations Special Commission and by a number of other agencies. Details concerning the interviews were made available to us on a confidential basis. The UK was not provided with transcripts of the interviews."

We know, however, that Blair was fully conversant with the content of the interviews, citing verbatim extracts to parliament. He selectively told MPs a few days before the invasion: "Kamel also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in the 1990s. Iraq was then forced to release documents that showed just how extensive those programmes were."

Blair can assert all he likes that the "intelligence" turned out to be incorrect. It depends on what intelligence he chose to believe.

Dr David Lowry

Stoneleigh, Surrey

• I am always suspicious when journalists write of admissions rather than claims by politicians. So it is with Nicholas Watt writing that Blair "admits to shedding many tears at the loss of so many lives" in Iraq. If Blair was making a claim that diminished rather than enhanced his reputation, then to say he had "admitted" to something would be appropriate. But if he is making a claim that humanises himself, in spite of all that we now know, then to say he has "admitted" to anything is to participate in his self-exculpation.

Mark Elf

Dagenham, Essex

• That Blair didn't anticipate the chaos that occurred following Saddam's overthrow demonstrates his intellectual paucity with regard to any understanding of Iraqi history. The millions who marched against Blair's war were clearly better educated.

Ged Peck

Luton, Bedfordshire

• Iraq
• Tony Blair

Middle East peace talks: Back to the future | Editorial

Obama must push for a settlement that is fair to the Palestinians if the deadlock of weariness and obstinacy is to be broken

We have been here before. Once again, Israelis and Palestinians are preparing for talks aimed at agreeing on the two-state solution which has for so many years appeared to be the obvious, indeed the only, template for peace. Once again, Arab countries have been summoned to do what they can to help. Once again, an American president is putting his prestige on the line in the hope that American pressure on both sides can tip the balance. And once again, expectations are low.

The optimism which fitfully and misleadingly marked the Oslo-initiated peace process is a distant memory. The parties come to the table in Washington today in a mood that mingles weariness, obstinacy, ennui and despair. The leaders are weak. The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has lost Gaza to Hamas, which opposes the talks and which also remains a force in the West Bank, a fact that it demonstrated in its deadly attack on a settler vehicle this week. Even though life in the West Bank is more secure and its economy more lively than it has been for a long time, Abbas can count on little popular support for the negotiations. What he could deliver or, more exactly, what he could deliver and still stay in charge, is far from clear.

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, appears to have a dim perception that the settlement-led policies of the past have ceased to be viable, and some developing ambition to be the Israeli leader who reaches the peace agreement with the Palestinians which has eluded others. But he shows no readiness to make real concessions and oscillates between fear of his old supporters in the settler lobby and anxiety about alienating the United States, a recipe for prevarication and procrastination. His defence minister, Ehud Barak, who bears considerable, although not sole, responsibility for the failure of the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and who may have learned some lessons, was talking this week of the need to divide Jerusalem with the Palestinians.

Perhaps that is a good sign, but it is hard to believe that the present Israeli government, left to itself, will ever be able to depart from the familiar pattern of wanting too much in return for too little which has vitiated negotiations in the past. So in the end it depends on what Obama can do. It is not only a question of whether he has the will and is ready to risk the political capital needed to push the parties to a settlement. It is whether he has the will to push for a settlement that is fair, or at least halfway fair, to the Palestinians. The temptation to lean harder on the weaker party is always difficult to resist, but, unless it is resisted, any settlement which emerges will not last long.

• This article was amended at 09.40 on 2 September to make clear that Ehud Barak is defence minister, not foreign minister.

• Barack Obama
• Israel
• Middle East
• Palestinian territories
• United States

Middle East peace talks: Back to the future | Editorial

Obama must push for a settlement that is fair to the Palestinians if the deadlock of weariness and obstinacy is to be broken

We have been here before. Once again, Israelis and Palestinians are preparing for talks aimed at agreeing on the two-state solution which has for so many years appeared to be the obvious, indeed the only, template for peace. Once again, Arab countries have been summoned to do what they can to help. Once again, an American president is putting his prestige on the line in the hope that American pressure on both sides can tip the balance. And once again, expectations are low.

The optimism which fitfully and misleadingly marked the Oslo-initiated peace process is a distant memory. The parties come to the table in Washington today in a mood that mingles weariness, obstinacy, ennui and despair. The leaders are weak. The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has lost Gaza to Hamas, which opposes the talks and which also remains a force in the West Bank, a fact that it demonstrated in its deadly attack on a settler vehicle this week. Even though life in the West Bank is more secure and its economy more lively than it has been for a long time, Abbas can count on little popular support for the negotiations. What he could deliver or, more exactly, what he could deliver and still stay in charge, is far from clear.

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, appears to have a dim perception that the settlement-led policies of the past have ceased to be viable, and some developing ambition to be the Israeli leader who reaches the peace agreement with the Palestinians which has eluded others. But he shows no readiness to make real concessions and oscillates between fear of his old supporters in the settler lobby and anxiety about alienating the United States, a recipe for prevarication and procrastination. His defence minister, Ehud Barak, who bears considerable, although not sole, responsibility for the failure of the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and who may have learned some lessons, was talking this week of the need to divide Jerusalem with the Palestinians.

Perhaps that is a good sign, but it is hard to believe that the present Israeli government, left to itself, will ever be able to depart from the familiar pattern of wanting too much in return for too little which has vitiated negotiations in the past. So in the end it depends on what Obama can do. It is not only a question of whether he has the will and is ready to risk the political capital needed to push the parties to a settlement. It is whether he has the will to push for a settlement that is fair, or at least halfway fair, to the Palestinians. The temptation to lean harder on the weaker party is always difficult to resist, but, unless it is resisted, any settlement which emerges will not last long.

• This article was amended at 09.40 on 2 September to make clear that Ehud Barak is defence minister, not foreign minister.

• Barack Obama
• Israel
• Middle East
• Palestinian territories
• United States

Read more [Guardian America]

West Bank settlers threaten to break construction freeze (McClatchy Newspapers)

McClatchy Newspapers - JERUSALEM — As President Barack Obama launched top level Middle East peace talks in Washington, Jewish settlers across the West Bank, enraged by the killing of four West Bank settlers, Wednesday held up signs, declaring: "Peace or no peace, we will build" and began breaking an official construction freeze that is essential to the talks.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Netanyahu calls Abbas 'my partner in peace' as Middle East talks begin | Richard Adams

Netanyahu says Israelis 'recognise that another people shares this land with us' in White House peace talks with Palestinians

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of his desire to "forge a new beginning" as the Middle East peace talks in Washington got underway tonight with a dinner between leaders at the White House.

"The Jewish people are not strangers in our homeland, the land of our forefathers," Netanyahu said, speaking in the White House's East Room before the dinner. "But we recognise that another people shares this land with us. And I came here today to find an historic compromise that will enable both people to live in peace, security and dignity."

Turning to address Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, Netanyahu said: "Every peace begins with leaders. President Abbas, you are my partner in peace. It is up to us to live next to one another and with one another."

Netanyahu, Abbas and the leaders of Jordan and Egypt made statements after spending the day in one on one talks with Barack Obama, ahead of a full day of talks in Washington on Thursday.

For his part, Abbas called on Israel to stop settlement building and to end its blockade of Gaza. "We will spare no effort and we will work diligently and tirelessly to ensure these negotiations achieve their cause," Abbas said.

Earlier, Obama had described the day's talks at the White House as "very productive," and urged the leaders of Israel and Palestine to "recognise this as an opportunity that must be seized" for lasting peace in the region.

Speaking in the White House's Rose Garden earlier in the day, Obama warned: "This moment of opportunity may not soon come again."

"The hard work is only beginning," Obama said. "Neither success nor failure is inevitable. But this much we know: if we do not make the attempt then failure is guaranteed. If both sides do not commit to these talks in earnest, then long-standing conflict will only continue to fester and consume another generation, and this we simply cannot allow."

It is the first time in two years the Palestinians and Israeli have held direct, face to face talks.

"Passions run deep. Years of mistrust will not disappear overnight," Obama warned:

"Too much blood has already been shed. Too many lives have already been lost. Too many hearts have already been broken. And despite what the cynics say, history teaches us that there is a different path. It is the path of resolve and determination, where compromise is possible and old conflicts at long last can end."

But Netanyahu later said a lasting peace would require "security arrangements that can stand the test of time":

"We left Lebanon, we got terror. We left Gaza, we got terror. We want to ensure that territory we concede will not be turned into a third Iranian-sponsored terror enclave aimed at the heart of Israel."

• Middle East
• Palestinian territories
• Israel
• Barack Obama
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• US foreign policy
• United States

Netanyahu calls Abbas 'my partner in peace' as Middle East talks begin | Richard Adams

Netanyahu says Israelis 'recognise that another people shares this land with us' in White House peace talks with Palestinians

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of his desire to "forge a new beginning" as the Middle East peace talks in Washington got underway tonight with a dinner between leaders at the White House.

"The Jewish people are not strangers in our homeland, the land of our forefathers," Netanyahu said, speaking in the White House's East Room before the dinner. "But we recognise that another people shares this land with us. And I came here today to find an historic compromise that will enable both people to live in peace, security and dignity."

Turning to address Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, Netanyahu said: "Every peace begins with leaders. President Abbas, you are my partner in peace. It is up to us to live next to one another and with one another."

Netanyahu, Abbas and the leaders of Jordan and Egypt made statements after spending the day in one on one talks with Barack Obama, ahead of a full day of talks in Washington on Thursday.

For his part, Abbas called on Israel to stop settlement building and to end its blockade of Gaza. "We will spare no effort and we will work diligently and tirelessly to ensure these negotiations achieve their cause," Abbas said.

Earlier, Obama had described the day's talks at the White House as "very productive," and urged the leaders of Israel and Palestine to "recognise this as an opportunity that must be seized" for lasting peace in the region.

Speaking in the White House's Rose Garden earlier in the day, Obama warned: "This moment of opportunity may not soon come again."

"The hard work is only beginning," Obama said. "Neither success nor failure is inevitable. But this much we know: if we do not make the attempt then failure is guaranteed. If both sides do not commit to these talks in earnest, then long-standing conflict will only continue to fester and consume another generation, and this we simply cannot allow."

It is the first time in two years the Palestinians and Israeli have held direct, face to face talks.

"Passions run deep. Years of mistrust will not disappear overnight," Obama warned:

"Too much blood has already been shed. Too many lives have already been lost. Too many hearts have already been broken. And despite what the cynics say, history teaches us that there is a different path. It is the path of resolve and determination, where compromise is possible and old conflicts at long last can end."

But Netanyahu later said a lasting peace would require "security arrangements that can stand the test of time":

"We left Lebanon, we got terror. We left Gaza, we got terror. We want to ensure that territory we concede will not be turned into a third Iranian-sponsored terror enclave aimed at the heart of Israel."

• Middle East
• Palestinian territories
• Israel
• Barack Obama
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• US foreign policy
• United States

Read more [Guardian America]

The trickiest issue in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks (The Christian Science Monitor)

The Christian Science Monitor - As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas enter direct peace talks on Thursday, an intensifying battle for Jerusalem has rendered the conflict’s trickiest issue even more intractable.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Israeli Peace Effort Rests on Netanyahu’s Shoulders

The Israeli prime minister believes that only someone like himself, with his hawkish credentials, has the will and support to produce lasting peace with the Palestinians.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

US marks the end of Iraq combat ops

Vice president Joe Biden claims in address to troops that Iraqis' 'darkest days are behind them'

In a giant opaque rotunda built by a dictator, then commandeered by an invading army, the final act of an 89-month war was played out with brass-band pageantry, and a little reflection.

Flanked by the outgoing commander of US forces in Iraq, Ray Odierno, and his replacement, General Lloyd Austin, US vice president Joe Biden marked the end of US combat operations in Iraq in a tightly choreographed ceremony at Saddam Hussein's al-Faw palace.

Biden said that the US presence in Iraq had divided America and proved "that war is the realm of uncertainty".

"They were seven and a half years that tested our mettle like no other conflict in recent American history," Biden said of the war that he had supported launching as a senator.

Addressing an audience of American troops and senior Iraqi officers, he offered an upbeat vision of what lies ahead for Iraqis: "I truly believe that their darkest days are behind them."

Privately, some of the Iraqi guests suggested, the victors were writing history perhaps a little too early. But if the rows of Iraqi military brass at the front of the audience had a different view from Biden, or Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who had also flown in, today wasn't the day to express it.

General Odierno, who had spent most of the past seven years in the shadow of his predecessor, David Petraeus, listed many of the headline moments in a war that he had been a part of, as commander of a division, then a corps and, finally, of the whole overall theatre. He was the first US general to hold all three positions in combat.

He named the ousting of Saddam – and his capture seven months later – the 2007 troop surge, and the security agreements that paved the way for a US exit.

But Odierno seemed most proud that only a few people had shot at his forces as they left earlier this month. "That defines a certain level of security," he said.

It will be 15 months before the 49,000 remaining US troops have left the country – until then they will continue what the US calls "stabilisation operations."

With combat operations officially over, US commanders are reluctant to send troops into harm's way, unless – as Odierno says – "something disastrous happens". US policy makers hope that the turbulent and fragile US relationship with Iraq can be consolidated by diplomats, rather than generals.

The ceremony was held in the palace where Odierno had based his command for much of the past few years.

But the opulence of the restored palace was at odds with its violent past: three circular floors full of soldiers and officers gazed down on the speakers who stood on a restored floor that had been shattered by a US bomb during the fall of Baghdad.

The palace was once one of Saddam's favourite lodgings, built on an inlet in a massive man-made lake. The ousted president's favourite hunting lodge was on the other side of the lake and his guest houses scattered all around its foreshore. This was Fantasia in the desert, a place that had somehow always seemed surreal, with thousands of battle trucks, Humvees and soldiers driving by.

Outside the command centre today, US Camp Victory seemed gradually to be collapsing in on itself. Giant staging yards, which not long ago brimmed with weapons of war, were empty. Blast walls lay on top of each other ready to be trucked away, and shop fronts looked abandoned.

Earlier in the day, during a tour of US troops still stationed in Ramadi, Gates underscored why the gains of the past few years may not be enough to assuage the war's critics: "The problem with this war, I think, for many Americans, is that the premise on which we justified going to war turned out not to be valid."

• Iraq
• Middle East
• United States
• US foreign policy
• US military
• Joe Biden