U.S. Suggests There Will Be a 'Framework Agreement' in Peace Talks

Middle Phase Deal May Not Address Every Issue

Getty Images

By Ron Kampeas

Published December 10, 2013.

(page 2 of 2)

“Needless to say, for a period of time this will obviously involve Israeli participation,” Kerry told the Saban Forum. “It has to.”

On Monday, Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, denied that references to a “framework” agreement implied the administration is backing away from its pursuit of a final-status agreement, though she declined to elaborate on what “framework” means.

“The secretary – and this may have caused some of the confusion – and the president both used the term ‘framework’ this weekend,” Psaki said at her daily media briefing. “I think some thought – took that to mean interim. It does not mean interim. We still remain focused on a final-status agreement.”

Nevertheless, the administration’s language was perceived as marking a dramatic departure from previous understandings.

“This contradicts completely what we were promised by the American secretary of state at the beginning of this peace process – to avoid any partial or interim agreements,” Yasser Abed Rabbo, a top Abbas aide, told the Voice of Palestine radio on Monday, according to a report in the The Associated Press.

The shift follows a comprehensive review of Israeli security needs led by Gen. John Allen, a former commander of allied forces in Afghanistan. Allen was present at the Saban Forum but did not speak publicly.

Both Obama and Kerry suggested that they understood the shift would not be welcomed by the Palestinians.

“We’re going to have to see whether the Israelis agree and whether President Abbas, then, is willing to understand that this transition period requires some restraint on the part of the Palestinians as well,” Obama said. “They don’t get everything that they want on day one. And that creates some political problems for President Abbas, as well.”

Kerry said those who believe “there might be an unfairness” by making Israeli security a preeminent factor in advancing toward a peace deal should “look at the history and understand why that’s a fundamental reality.”

Jonathan Schanzer, the vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Israel might have demanded the shift in part because it needs strong security assurances in the wake of upheaval in neighboring Egypt and Syria. Israel also is concerned that the recent deal between world powers and Iran could spur rather than prevent the Islamic Republic’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

Schanzer, who just published “State of Failure,” a critique of Abbas’ governance, said Kerry deserved credit for keeping the parties at the table after differences over preconditions kept them apart for almost three years.

“The administration has exceeded all our expectations,” he said. “We’re halfway through a process that is still going.”



Would you like to receive updates about new stories?






















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.