President George W. Bush delivered these remarks in a radio address

President Bush. Good morning. Over the past week, I have been monitoring the situation in the Middle East closely with the members of my national security team. Secretary Rice is actively engaged in diplomacy. And I've been in contact with leaders throughout the region—including the King of Saudi Arabia, the King of Jordan, the President of Egypt, the President and Prime Minister of the Palestinian Territories, and the Prime Minister of Israel.

This recent outburst of violence was instigated by Hamas—a Palestinian terrorist group supported by Iran and Syria that calls for Israel's destruction. Eighteen months ago, Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in a coup, and since then has imported thousands of guns and rockets and mortars. Egypt brokered a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, but Hamas routinely violated that ceasefire by launching rockets into Israel. On December 19th, Hamas announced an end to the ceasefire and soon unleashed a barrage of rockets and mortars that deliberately targeted innocent Israelis—an act of terror that is opposed by the legitimate leader of the Palestinian people, President Abbas.

In response to these attacks on their people, the leaders of Israel have launched military operations on Hamas positions in Gaza. As a part of their strategy, Hamas terrorists often hide within the civilian population, which puts innocent Palestinians at risk. Regrettably, Palestinian civilians have been killed in recent days.

The United States is deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation facing the Palestinian people. Since Hamas's violent takeover in the summer of 2007, living conditions have worsened for Palestinians in Gaza. By spending its resources on rocket launchers instead of roads and schools, Hamas has demonstrated that it has no intention of serving the Palestinian people. America has helped by providing tens of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid, and this week we contributed an additional $85 million through the United Nations. We have consistently called on all in the region to ensure that assistance reaches those in need. And as I told President Mubarak, America appreciates the role Egypt has played in facilitating the delivery of relief supplies in recent days.

In addition to reducing humanitarian suffering, all nations must work toward a lasting end to the violence in the Holy Land, and a return to the path of peace. The United States is leading diplomatic efforts to achieve a meaningful ceasefire that is fully respected. Another one-way ceasefire that leads to rocket attacks on Israel is not acceptable. And promises from Hamas will not suffice—there must be monitoring mechanisms in place to help ensure that smuggling of weapons to terrorist groups in Gaza comes to an end. I urge all parties to pressure Hamas to turn away from terror, and to support legitimate Palestinian leaders working for peace.

In the days ahead, the United States will stay closely engaged with our partners in the region, in Europe, and in the international community. My Administration will continue to keep the President-elect and his team informed. And America's objectives in the Middle East will remain clear: We seek security and peace for our allies, the free people of Israel. For the Palestinian people, we seek a peaceful and democratic Palestinian state that serves its citizens and respects its neighbors. For all in the region, we seek an end to terror. And we seek an enduring peace based on justice, dignity, and human rights for every person in every nation of the Middle East. Thank you for listening.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Rice. Good morning. I've just had a chance to brief the President and to discuss with him the situation in Gaza. Obviously, the United States is very concerned about the situation there and is working very hard with our partners around the world to address it.

I want to begin by noting that Hamas has held the people of Gaza hostage ever since their illegal coup against the forces of President Mahmoud Abbas, the legitimate President of the Palestinian people. The Hamas has used Gaza as a launching pad for rockets against Israeli cities and has contributed deeply to a very bad daily life for the Palestinian people in Gaza, and to a humanitarian situation that we have all been trying to address. But frankly, Hamas has made it very difficult for the people of Gaza to have a reasonable life.

We are working toward a cease-fire that would not allow a reestablishment of the status quo ante where Hamas can continue to launch rockets out of Gaza. It is obvious that that cease-fire should take place as soon as possible, but we need a ceasefire that is durable and sustainable. I might note that it was Hamas that rejected the Egyptian and Arab calls for an extension of the tahadiya that Egypt had negotiated. But I have been in constant contact with the key Arab states. I have talked with our European colleagues, and we are talking constantly with the Israeli Government to find a solution to Gaza that will be a sustainable one for the people of Gaza, for the people of Israel and for the people of the Palestinian territories of the Middle East more broadly.

The President has also been in touch with the major leaders of the Arab States and with the Israelis. And we're going to continue our work toward a cease-fire that will not allow a return to the status quo ante and that will be durable. Thank you very much.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks in New York, NY

Secretary Rice. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Secretary General. I wish to thank President Abbas for his presence here and also the ministers of the Arab League who have joined us.

The United States is, of course, deeply concerned about the situation in Gaza, which is clearly worsening. We have been working around the clock to try and end the violence there. The ongoing attacks against Israel and the decision that Hamas made not to respect the previous period of calm shows us that when this ends there must be new arrangements in place, not a return to the status quo ante. It is imperative that any ceasefire is durable and sustainable, and that it ensures the safety and security of Israelis and Palestinians alike.

The situation before the current events in Gaza was clearly not sustainable. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis lived under the daily threat of rocket attack, and frankly, no country, none of our countries, would have been willing to tolerate such a circumstance. Moreover, the people of Gaza watched as insecurity and lawlessness increased and as their living conditions grew more dire because of Hamas's actions which began with the illegal coup against the Palestinian Authority in Gaza.

A ceasefire that returns to those circumstances is unacceptable and it will not last.

We need urgently to conclude a ceasefire that can endure and that can bring real security. This would begin a period of true calm that includes an end to rocket, mortar, and other attacks on Israelis, and allows for the cessation of Israel's military offensive. And it must include also an end to the smuggling into Gaza and a reopening of crossings so that Palestinians can benefit from humanitarian goods and basic supplies. The November 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access provides a basis for the reopening of these crossings.

We must find a way, with the consent and full cooperation of likeminded governments, to prevent any arms or explosives from entering Gaza, and the tunnel systems that have allowed rearmament of Hamas must be prevented from reopening.

Our goal must be the stabilization and normalization of life in Gaza. This will require a principled resolution of the political challenges in Gaza that reestablishes ultimately the Palestinian Authority's legitimate control and facilitates the normal operation of all crossings. The November 26 Arab League statement will serve as an important guide in these efforts, efforts that are led by Egypt.

And the international community should adopt an intensive reconstruction initiative, perhaps through a donors conference, that would complement the efforts of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. Because the Palestinian Authority actually devotes 58 percent of its budget to Gaza, there should be an effort to reconstruct Gaza.

As we strive for a ceasefire, the United States remains deeply concerned about innocent Palestinians and Israelis who are suffering. In that regard, let me assure you that we understand the urgency of an end to the fighting and that we are working around the clock to bring it into being. In this regard, we are pleased by and wish to commend the statement of president—the president of Egypt and to follow up on that initiative.

But we also are very concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. I have had from people on the ground, American partners on the ground, detailed reports about the difficult circumstances in Gaza. I have discussed these in detail with Prime Minister Olmert and with Foreign Minister Livni, and the prime minister has informed me that as of tomorrow Israel will open a humanitarian corridor so that there can be some relief for the people of Gaza. This is something that we will follow up on, but we will also help you, Mr. Secretary General, to follow up on this through UNRWA because the problem, as I understand it, is that even if goods get into Gaza, it is not possible to distribute them within Gaza. And so the United States will actively work to relieve this circumstance. Moreover, the United States, which has already provided in the last year $85 million for humanitarian work in Gaza, will contribute more emergency aid if that is needed.

We need very much to find a solution to this problem in the short term. But it really must be a solution this time that does not allow Hamas to use Gaza as a launching pad against Israeli cities. It has to be a solution that does not allow the rearmament of Hamas. And it must be a solution that finds a way to open crossings so that Palestinians in Gaza can have a normal life. Just three weeks ago, we sat in this chamber to vote on a UN Security Council Resolution 1850. It described the principles to chart a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike. Resolution 1850 noted that lasting peace can only be based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition; freedom from violence, incitement, and terror; and the two-state solution, building upon previous agreements and obligations.

I think that the members of this Council know that President Bush and I personally have been very dedicated to this goal. We remain dedicated to this goal and the United States of America will remain dedicated to this goal. Because we know that the time has long since come when Palestinians who deserve to live in their own state should get that state and when Israelis who will live in peace and security when they have a peaceful neighbor should have that peace and security.

I do not mean in any way to diminish the dangers, the urgency, the challenges of this moment in Gaza. This is a crisis that we must resolve and resolve urgently. But we must also stay focused on creating the conditions that will ultimately lead to a real peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Thank you.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks in New York, NY

Secretary Rice. I'm on my way to a meeting with the Secretary-General, so I only have one moment. We're working very hard here for effective action. Obviously, the United States and several other countries have been working very hard to get to a cease-fire. We believe a cease-fire is necessary, but it has to be a cease-fire that will not allow a return to the status quo. Of course—the status quo ante.

Of course, we are very much applauding the efforts of a number of states, particularly the effort that President Mubarak has undertaken on behalf of Egypt. We're supporting that initiative. I've been in very close discussions with my Arab colleagues, but also with the Israelis about the importance of moving that initiative forward. We're also talking about how the Council can best support the effective action that could be taken on the ground.

I just want to make one comment also about the humanitarian situation. We have deep concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. I had extended discussions yesterday, very detailed discussions, with the Israelis about the conditions in Gaza. I had received a report from our director of—the Administrator for USAID Henrietta Fore about specific problems in Gaza. We went over those. I am pleased that the Israelis were able to open a humanitarian corridor and to provide a pause for humanitarian action, but that needs to be repeated again and again because the people of Gaza need to be in a position to be able to get a lifeline to goods and supplies and to sanitation and to medical help.

And so we're very focused on that. I've spoken again with the Israeli prime minister and with the foreign minister today about the need to make sure that that humanitarian corridor functions. And that's one of the discussions that I'm going to have with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon right now. Thank you very much.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks in New York, NY

Secretary Rice. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Mr. Secretary General. I am pleased to join the members of the Council for this important discussion tonight. It is obviously a very serious situation in Gaza. And while our goal must be the stabilization and normalization of Gaza through the implementation of a durable and fully respected cease-fire and an end to all terrorist activities, I think that this resolution shows that the Council and the United Nations is indeed seized of the matter.

This resolution is a step toward our goals. It reflects the international community's concern about the circumstances in Gaza and its desire for a sustainable peace in Gaza.

I want especially to note that while much work remains to be done, there is important work underway. In that regard, the work of the Egyptian president, President Mubarak, in the mediation efforts of Egypt are to be not just applauded, but supported. I believe that it is those efforts that will ultimately help to lead to a durable cease-fire and that will not only lead to a durable cease-fire but to a sustainable peace in Gaza, and we must all support the Egyptian efforts.

Obviously, there are many tasks to be done to root out the causes of the hostilities, including to deal with the provision of rockets and the smuggling of weapons, to secure the borders so that we can lay the basis for the reopening of crossings based on the principles of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, and to provide security for the Israeli people and a better life for the people of Gaza.

We must establish an international consensus that Gaza must never again be used as a launching pad for rockets against Israeli citizens, because it is important to remember how this crisis began. Violence in Gaza was instigated by Hamas, a terrorist group that called for the destruction of Israel. Eighteen months ago, Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in a coup, and since then, thousands of guns and rockets and mortars have been smuggled into Gaza. Hamas refused to extend the tahadiya and continued armament is a root cause of the current situation and it has gravely endangered the residents of both Gaza and southern Israel. Hamas's commitment to violence is not only an attack on Israel, but also on the two-state solution.

We require principled resolution of the situation in Gaza, and the Security Council resolution that we are passing tonight, in fact, gives us a basis on which to do this.

Of course, it is not just a matter of resolving the situation on the ground. There will need to be a principled resolution also of the political challenges in Gaza that reestablishes the Palestinian Authority's control, including over borders; and facilitates the normal operation of Rafah and Kerem Shalom crossings, as the resolution recognizes; and in time, the opening of other crossings.

And we support President Abbas as he carries out his responsibilities both with respect to governance and in negotiations to establish a state of Palestine. Regional states have previously recognized the importance of this, notably in the November 26 Arab League resolution.

As we strive for a sustainable cease-fire, the United States remains deeply concerned about the innocent Palestinians who are suffering in Gaza, and the United States will undertake, maintain, and continue the humanitarian efforts that we are taking to support UNRWA and the other nongovernmental organizations that are working there.

Let me say, too, that the United States recognizes the right of Israel, like other states, to exercise its right of self-defense. And we have said to Israel that it is obligated to take feasible steps to minimize the impact of any actions on civilians.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to remind the Council also that Hamas continues to hold IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, and he must be released.

Finally, let me just note that while we are dealing with the current situation in Gaza, we must keep our eye on the goal of Resolution 1850, which we passed in this chamber a short time ago. That is the goal of establishing an enduring commitment to mutual recognition; freedom from violence, incitement, and terror; and a two-state solution, building upon previous agreements and obligations. All UN member-states bear a responsibility to promote these principles and to help the parties toward the establishment of a state of Palestine to live in peace, side by side with the state of Israel.

Ladies and gentlemen, the United States thought it important to see the outcomes of the Egyptian mediation efforts in order to see what this resolution might have been supporting, and that is why we chose to abstain tonight. But after a great deal of consideration, we decided that this resolution, the text of which we support, the goals of which we support, and the objectives that we fully support, should indeed be allowed to go forward. I believe in doing so, the Council has provided a roadmap for a sustainable, durable peace in Gaza.

Thank you very much.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Q. Why should the—why should the U.S. abstention on the Gaza resolution not being taken as ambivalence about the terms?

Secretary Rice. The U.S. abstention was principally because we believed that it would have been useful to have a little bit more time for the Mubarak initiative to mature. There was, in fact, just yesterday, a delegation from Israel to Egypt. And because sustainability and durability is so important for this ceasefire, knowing better the terms of durability is very critical. And we are working to support the Mubarak initiative, including offering to do whatever we can to help with the smuggling and the illegal arms trafficking. And so it was simply believed that this might have been a little premature.

But for the Council to address that there should be a condemnation of all acts of terrorism, we thought was an important feature. For the Council to express that a ceasefire, while there's a desire for an immediate ceasefire, it needs to be a durable ceasefire and one that will be fully respected. For the Council to express that this all began with the refusal of Hamas to actually extend the tahadiya that Egypt had negotiated before, we thought these were important points, and given the situation in Gaza, that it was acceptable for the UN to speak.

I just want to say one other thing. We also—and I expressed this to my colleagues—had reservations that no one would think that there was any equivalence being drawn here between Israel and Hamas. This is not like 1701 with Lebanon, where you had a member-state, Lebanon, and a member-state, Israel. Here, you have a terrorist organization and a member-state, Israel, and there isn't any equivalence here. Israel was defending itself because of these rocket attacks, yet we are concerned about the suffering of the (inaudible) people, the humanitarian situation, and we're doing everything we can to alleviate that as well.

Q. Do you expect to (inaudible) to push along the Mubarak initiative?

Q. (Inaudible.)

Secretary Rice. I don't—I don't have a timeframe (inaudible).

Q. (Inaudible.)

Secretary Rice. It's a very good security cooperation component, and we already had an extensive security cooperation (inaudible).

Q. (Inaudible) the humanitarian obligations (inaudible)?

Secretary Rice. It is very difficult in a circumstance like Gaza, which is a very densely populated area. I might note it's also an area in which Hamas participates in activities like human shields and using buildings that are not designated as military buildings to hide their fighters. So it's hard.

But I was encouraged that Prime Minister Olmert, after an extensive conversation that we had, agreed to open a humanitarian corridor. And we're going to continue to pass the Israelis information about what we're hearing about the humanitarian situation on the ground, and to try to support in any way that we can the efforts through UNRWA and other nongovernmental organizations which are in a very difficult environment in which to work.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice was interviewed by MSNBC in Washington, DC

Q. Thank you very much. Madame Secretary, Iran. The President-elect has said that he wants a change of approach to Iran. Do you think a change of approach, engagement with Iran, can work?

Secretary Rice. Well, it's not an issue of engagement or non-engagement with Iran. It's a question of whether or not Iran is willing to make a strategic choice to move in a different direction. And there are all kinds of tactics that one can apply to try to bring that about. But the most important element is that we have now an international coalition that is sending a very strong message to Iran that it cannot have a nuclear weapon, that it ought to abandon its current course. It is not just a matter of the nuclear program, but also support for Hezbollah and Hamas. And when you've passed four Security Council resolutions and you have international agencies and international economic agencies leaving Iran in the way that they are, companies leaving—the last Western company to be there was Total—it really does show that Iran is paying a cost for what it's doing. Now, whether sooner or later, reasonable people in Iran will decide that it's too high a cost, I think that's another matter. But Iran is clearly paying a cost.

Q. David Sanger wrote in his book— in The New York Times and in his new book, The Inheritance, that President Bush vetoed an Israeli plan last year to attack Iran's suspected nuclear facilities.

Secretary Rice. I'm not going to comment on internal deliberations in the White House or in any place else. I'm not going to talk about that story. But I can tell you this, the President has always been very straightforward that he believed that a diplomatic course was the appropriate course, that he believed that enough pressure could be brought on Iran through sanctions, some of them unilateral on our part, some of them multilateral through the UN, some sanctions of choice that the European Union decided to impose, that enough pressure could be brought upon Iran to make Iran take another course, and that's the policy that we've been devoted for—devoted to for the last couple of years, and it's had some effect.

Q. I note that you're not denying the reports. There had been—

Secretary Rice. I'm also not confirming them, Andrea.

Q. There had been conclusions along the way that you and Secretary Gates had taken a strong position in favor of diplomacy, of more engagement—in your definition of engagement— through the United Nations, through the Europeans, to try to stop the nuclear program. And that there had been countervailing pressures, perhaps from the Vice President and others, perhaps from Donald Rumsfeld, that had been pushing the other direction. Why do you think it was the right choice?

Secretary Rice. Well, the most important thing here is that the President thought it was the right direction. Because the very fact that we were constantly trying to find a course that would turn responsible people in Iran—you notice, I don't say moderates in Iran, but responsible people in Iran—to a different course, shows the dangers of what Iran was doing. And so it is, in fact, an urgent task. But bringing the international community together to say to Iran, you must change your behavior—something that by the way in 2005, there really wasn't an international consensus about Iran and about its nuclear ambitions. And so I think we've achieved a lot.

Now, the President never took any of his options off the table. Never. And he constantly repeated that. But he also believed, and believes until this day, that the diplomatic course is the appropriate one.

Q. But there are plenty of reports also, to play devil's advocate for a moment, that this has not slowed Iran's progress. And that, in fact, we are several years down the road—several years closer, maybe months away, from them reaching a point where they have enough for a bomb and where they are a real threat not only to Israel and their immediate neighbors, but a threat to us in terms of the deterrence, the balance of power in the region.

Secretary Rice. Look, there are no perfect policies here.

Q. When is the risk too great to wait—

Secretary Rice. Well—

Q.—to wait, given how slowly the UN and everything else has evolved?

Secretary Rice. Well, there are no perfect policies. These are tough choices. And one set of policies brings a set of consequences, other policies could bring even greater unintended consequences. Because after all, we are dealing with Iran not just in terms of its nuclear program, but also in a regional context. We have to remember that the United States has a new relationship with Iraq that is really central to the emergence of a different kind of Middle East which is going to be more stable and more favorable for American policies. That has to be taken into consideration when one considers how to deal with Iran.

So yes, the multilateral diplomacy is not something that is known for its quickness, but it can be effective. And the Iranians are facing a lot of difficulties in what they're trying to do. They're facing difficulties because they have a great deal of trouble in annexing—or accessing the international financial system. One of the reasons that we've worked so hard to sanction some of the Iranian entities that might be able to fund their weapons programs and their proliferation programs and their terrorism programs is it makes it more difficult for them to carry out their goals.

Q. There are a lot of reports, including over the weekend in The Washington Post, that those sanctions have plenty of holes, like Swiss cheese, that there are front companies, that they have gone beyond Dubai, they've gone to other countries set up fronts, and that they've gotten the technical help that they needed through other companies, including through American companies, illegally perhaps.

Secretary Rice. I think that the—I would not go there in terms of gotten the help that they need from American companies. Sure, the Iranians are quite ingenious. They try to use front companies. They try to get around sanctions. We know that. But the United States and the international financial system don't sit still either when the Iranians are trying to find backdoors to the—to fund their activities.

If one looks also at the effects on the Iranian economy, you're looking at an economy that, despite their great hydrocarbons wealth, is importing a refined product, and finding it harder and harder, by the way, to do anything about their creaky refineries because it is difficult for them to get help. So yes, it is not ideal that Iran continues along this course.

But we have seen and are seeing a lot of criticism of the course that the Iranian President Ahmadinejad has taken. We are seeing in the run-up to elections that will take place this spring in Iran a lot of criticism of the isolation that Iran is enduring. And perhaps, as the costs mount, there will be an opportunity to find Iranian interlocutors who want to take a different course.

Q. Iran is believed to be a primary sponsor, or secondary sponsor, of Hamas and, of course, the situation in Gaza is of critical importance right now. The United States abstained at the United Nations. There were reports out of London, and John Bolton has written as well, someone who used to work with you here, although didn't always agree with the policies in the Administration. There were reports that there was a last-minute plea from Israel, from the prime minister directly to President Bush, which at the very last minute changed your instructions and what the U.S. did at the United Nations.

Secretary Rice. Well, the United States abstained on this resolution for really two reasons. I cited one at the time. We really thought that it was premature. I made clear that I felt that the Egyptian mediation effort needed a little more time so that we could see whether or not, in fact, this was a Security Council resolution that was really implementable. But we have been standing, the United States, for a ceasefire—an immediate ceasefire that's durable—for some time. The President has said it. I have said it. Now, the abstention sent that signal that we thought it was premature.

Q. You don't think it sent a signal of weakness, that the U.S.—

Secretary Rice. No.

Q.—is out of the game?

Secretary Rice. No, no. I think it sent a signal of exactly what I said, that we supported the goals of it. In fact, I think there's very good text about condemning all terrorist acts. I think that there's very good text that makes sure—makes clear that an enduring ceasefire is the only way that you can lead to a withdrawal of Israeli forces. So I think there is very good text here.

Q. Doesn't it isolate the United States—

Secretary Rice. No, of course not.

Q.—from Europe, from Arab sponsors—

Secretary Rice. No, of course not.

Q.—of the resolution?

Secretary Rice. No, of course not. Of course not. The United States stands for the right of countries to defend themselves against terrorist attacks, and Israel has that right. The United States also stands for a durable ceasefire that will allow Gaza never to be used again as the kind of launching pad that Hamas has used it for over the last several years, and the United States stands for a better life for Gazans. And I might just add that miserable life for Gazans is because of Hamas policies, and I made that very clear, too. So in fact, this was the right decision for the United States. We did the right thing in allowing the Security Council to go ahead and speak on this issue, but also to demonstrate that we had concerns.

Q. President Bush said today that the key to a sustainable ceasefire is for Hamas to stop rocketing Israel.

Secretary Rice. Yes.

Q. It might appear to some people that this was too one-sided a statement that, once again, President Bush seems to only be articulating the Israeli concerns and not addressing the broader concerns of the Palestinian people in general and the residents of Gaza in specific.

Secretary Rice. I've talked to the President many times about this, and I think the President has made clear his concerns for innocent civilians, Israeli civilians, but Palestinian civilians, too. We know the very difficult circumstances that they're living under in Gaza. We know that it's been necessary to press very hard, really to press very hard with Israel on issues of humanitarian corridors, of making sure that there are enough crossings so that material can get in to help people who are hurting, either in terms of food or medical care or whatever it may be. The United States is intensifying its efforts, increasing its contributions to UNRWA, the UN agency that deals with Gaza.

So the concerns of Palestinians are very much on my mind and on the President's mind. The problem is that the people of Gaza are in a terrible situation and have been in a terrible situation because Hamas launched an illegal coup against a legitimate authority of the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas, an authority that the President has supported, a two-state solution that we have worked tirelessly for. And it has to be said that it was Hamas that broke the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire. And so you have to lay blame where blame is—it really is.

Q. Of course, Hamas says that the— that Israel never opened the borders, that there were violations by the Israeli side as well. You get into a chicken-and-egg situation where both sides are accusing each other. But in terms of the U.S. position, you've advocated for a humanitarian corridor, yet the UN relief agencies say their drivers were shot last week, they had to stop deliveries because there were violations even during that temporary ceasefire for humanitarian deliveries, that children were starving near the dead bodies of their mothers within, you know, yards or meters of where the Israeli soldiers were deployed, and that they could not get to these families for days.

Secretary Rice. Well, let me start by saying that no one should have to live in those circumstances, and that's why we've worked so hard with the Israelis on this issue. The humanitarian corridor was a direct result of American intervention with Israel.

Q. Are you satisfied with Israel's response, though, in all regards?

Secretary Rice. Well, the humanitarian corridor—I'll tell you, Andrea, I had a report that morning from Henrietta Fore, who is the Administrator for USAID. And I went through the details, the horrors of Gaza, with the prime minister, with the foreign minister of Israel. And within hours, they had responded with the humanitarian corridor.

Now, it has to work better and we've made that very clear. But I do think that a humanitarian corridor with good coordination with the UN agencies is very important. It's not a good situation. Military operations are—always make it very difficult. But I do think the Israelis are trying to respond.

We're trying to help the people of Gaza. But the very best response would be if the—Hamas stopped rocketing Israeli cities—and they're the ones who started rocketing Israeli cities—if we could get the crossings opened under the terms of the access and movement agreement that I myself negotiated in November of 2005, this would allow a beginning of a normal life in Gaza, where the Gazan people can benefit from the 58 percent of the Palestinian Authority budget that is spent on their behalf. But if you look at why the situation is so difficult in Gaza, it is because Hamas holds it hostage. Yes, the Israelis need to, and I think want to, do more on the humanitarian side. And we're trying to do everything we can. But we have to just admit that you're not going to get a more stable situation in Gaza until Hamas begins to behave not like the terrorist organization that they are.

Q. Was it a mistake for the United States to encourage the elections in the first place that led to Hamas? There was a report written by Elisabeth Bumiller in her book, in her biography of you, that you and the U.S. Government were really surprised. You were exercising one more morning and found out that Hamas had won control of Gaza, and that this came as a complete surprise. Was this a failure of analysis, of intelligence, foresight?

Secretary Rice. Well, first of all, they won in the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Q. Right.

Secretary Rice. They didn't win the right to go and have an illegal coup against the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. And that's very important to state, because the legitimate authority was still and still is the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Legislative Council elections were one thing, the Palestinian Authority another.

Q. Was it a mistake?

Secretary Rice. No, I believe—what was the alternative? That the people of the people of the Palestinian territories don't get to vote for representation? I might note also that we were—one reason that people were surprised is that all the predictions, including those, by the way of Hamas, were that the Palestinian Authority would—that the Fatah would, in fact, win in those elections. And I think even some members of Fatah would tell you that what was being communicated there was that Fatah needed to do a better job in showing that it was no longer a corrupt party, a corrupt party of Yasser Arafat, but rather, one that was moving on to better governance. And I think that Salam Fayyad and President Abbas have shown over recent—the recent year or so that, in fact, they are bringing a better life for the people of the West Bank, because they're not corrupt and they are governing on their behalf.

But you know, the United States was actually not the only one that wanted to see elections in—that would allow Hamas to participate. In fact, the Palestinian people as a whole, the Palestinian legislative—the Palestinian Liberation Organization as a whole believed that those elections had to be open.

Q. Do you think in response to criticism of the full eight years before you were Secretary, but when you were National Security Advisor, do you think that the Bush Administration waited too long to be engaged, and some critics have said, never had a consistent engagement, for all of your trips and all the time you've spent on this, that perhaps a full-time envoy on the ground or some other mechanism might have done more to promote the two-state solution that this President embraced early on?

Secretary Rice. Well, this President has done more for the two-state solution than anybody else. He, first of all, declared that it was a necessity. And you know, the words roll off our tongues now, the two-state solution, a Palestinian state, a state called Palestine to live next to the state of Israel. This was not either the policy of the United States nor was it so easily said —

Q. What about the follow-up?

Secretary Rice.—when this President became—became President.

Do you really think in 2001, 2002, with a raging intifada that was not bringing violence against Israel and Gaza out of Gaza or in the settled areas, but rather in Tel Aviv. Do you really think we were going to have a two-state solution when Ariel Sharon came to power to defeat the intifada, not to bring peace; when Likud was opposed to a two-state solution? This was a sea change that took some time, that Israel's entire political center, led by Ariel Sharon, the father of the settlement movement, finally moved to acceptance of a two-state solution.

And then in 2003, we tried to launch it. But in fact, Abu Mazen resigned as the Prime Minister of the Palestinian people, not because of American policy, not because of Israel, but because of his frustrations with Yasser Arafat. In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza. And finally, in 2006/2007, it was possible to really work in a concerted way—by the way, with the Lebanon war in between—toward the real negotiations of a two-state solution.

But you know, this is an issue that is decades old and it wasn't going to be resolved in a moment. I still think that there was a good chance after Annapolis to get it done—

Q. The Annapolis peace conference a year ago?

Secretary Rice. The Annapolis peace conference a year ago. But they've made progress. They've done things in terms of identifying what the elements will be to a two-state solution, and I think it's going to be possible to carry it forward.

Q. The President was asked about regrets today. He cited several. He talked about the “Mission Accomplished” sign on the carrier. He talked about weapons of mass destruction not having been discovered. On that point, back in 2002, you know the quotation on September 8th, 2002: “We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” Were you and others in the national security team too willing to believe the ambiguous intelligence—

Secretary Rice. Well, I have to tell you, Andrea—

Q.—or the various claims about intelligence?

Secretary Rice. I have to say I don't think that the assessments were all that ambiguous on chemical and biological—

Q. They were just wrong?

Secretary Rice.—that he had reconstituted on nuclear, that he could with— if he was getting outside help, reconstitute a nuclear program in a year. These were the key judgments. That's not so ambiguous if you're sitting in the White House with responsibility for the security of this country post-9/11, and the security of the region as a whole.

Q. What advice would you give to—

Secretary Rice. Yeah, unfortunately, they were the—the estimates were just wrong, the intelligence was just wrong. But you know, I don't blame the intelligence community for having to deal with an opaque system like Iraq where by all evidence, Saddam Hussein was doing everything that he could to prevent weapons inspectors from seeing what was actually going on, where most of the intelligence communities around the world believed that he had weapons of mass destruction, where he had used weapons of mass destruction before; where, in fact, when we got there in 1991 he was further along than anybody had estimated. So of course, the entire picture, connecting the dots, as people are often fond of saying, led to a picture of a Saddam Hussein who was aggressively pursuing and succeeding, despite the sanctions, in creating new weapons of mass destruction capabilities. I don't think any President of the United States—and, by the way, the many people who read those reports, whether they were in the Congress or in the Administration, had much reason to believe that we had another course.

Q. Well, given how challenging intelligence conclusions are, do you think it's the right time for a non-professional like Leon Panetta, to take over the CIA?

Secretary Rice. Look, this is going to be a decision for—now the Congress. I know Leon Panetta some. He's a very capable person, very sound person, I think somebody of good judgment. But this is a decision that I think the Administration has made and the Congress will determine.

Q. What advice would you give to your successor? You've had dinner with her, you hosted her at your own home, so you've been reaching out to her to try to give her advice. What do you think Hillary Clinton needs to know in order to get control of the complex bureaucracy, the intelligence, and the foreign challenges?

Secretary Rice. Well, I'll give my advice to Senator Clinton privately. I think it's obvious to everyone that this is a challenging time for the United States. But you know, it's been a challenging time for a while. And when I'm asked about the challenges that are left, I think about the challenges that we faced when we first came. This was a country that was wholly unprepared in terms of its institutions, in terms of its psychology, in terms of its mechanisms and procedures to deal with a global terrorist threat of the kind that exploded, literally, in New York and Washington on September 11th. And I think there's a much better system in place now for marrying the intelligence to the actions that need to be taken to prevent a terrorist attack.

But the first thing that I would say is that job is not done. It requires daily vigilance. It requires knowing that every day, there are people plotting and planning to pull it off again, and that they have to be right once and you have to be right 100 percent of the time. So that is still the first and primary challenge that this country faces.

Q. Barack Obama has made it clear through his appointments and his statements that he wants to reverse Bush policies regarding interrogation, enhanced interrogation techniques, some of the more controversial intelligence-gathering methods. Do you think that's wrong?

Secretary Rice. I can't make that judgment for the next administration and I won't make that judgment for the next administration. But I do know this. After September 11th, the President of the United States said to all of us, and we said to each other, that this country was in a war with those who intended not just to terrorize us, but to try and bring us down. You don't attack the Pentagon, you don't attack the Twin Towers, and you don't try to attack the Capitol, which is what we now think that last plane was aimed to do, just to terrorize. You are bringing down the very symbols of American power.

And this country mobilized to confront that threat. But part of the confronting that threat was to make sure that you used the means at your disposal, legal and, in fact, in alignment with our obligations, treaty obligations and other obligations, to do what you could to make this country safer.

We knew virtually nothing about how this network operated prior to September 11th.

Q. Well, do you think that this country will be less safe—

Secretary Rice.—and now we do.

Q. Will the country be less safe if some of those interrogation techniques and other practices are no longer used?

Secretary Rice. Again, this is a judgment that the President-elect—soon-to-be president and his team will have to make. But I will tell you what it was like in November and December and January and February and March. Andrea, it was like being in a dark room with doors all around you that might open at any time with another terrorist attack springing toward you. And under those circumstances, that the President of the United States did everything—and his team, everything legal and everything necessary to protect this country, I think is absolutely—was absolutely the obligation of the President of the United States to defend this country.

Q. What would you say to Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who are concerned that a new Secretary of State whose husband is a former president with many wideranging activities, business and foundation activities around the world with foreign governments and foreign individuals—do you think there's a built-in conflict of interest there?

Secretary Rice. Look, this is a unique circumstance. We all know it's a unique circumstance. It's, in many ways, a great circumstance. The President of the United States, former President of the United States, and of course, now senator, former senator, former First Lady, who will become Secretary of State. It's unique.

But I am quite confident that they will find a way to work these arrangements out in a way that protects the integrity of the office. I also have to say that President Clinton has been tremendously supportive and helpful over the last four years of my term here as Secretary, everything from helping in the tsunami relief with George H.W. Bush, the 41st President, to being someone that I called from time to time about the Middle East. He's been a very good and supportive person. And so I'm quite certain they'll work these arrangements out.

Q. Do you think that you and George Bush have left America not only stronger militarily, but with a better reputation abroad, contrary to the conventional wisdom that America's reputation has been damaged by the Iraq war and brought down by Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and the controversies?

Secretary Rice. Well, I will wait to talk about America's reputation when a little time has passed and when people start to take account of the extraordinary circumstance of an Iraq that is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq, putting people in mass graves and attacking his neighbors and seeking weapons of mass destruction, but this powerful, important Arab state now finding its Arab identity with a multiethnic, multiconfessional democracy that won't seek weapons of mass destruction, that will be a friend to its neighbor, where the Egyptian Foreign Minister can visit for the first time in 30 years, where the Jordanian King can go, where the Kuwaits— Kuwaitis fly the Iraqi flag voluntarily, and that is a friend of America. What will that mean when that Iraq is at the center of the Middle East?

What will it mean when we look back on this period of the emergence of India as a great global power, a multiethnic democracy, that America, under George Bush, has taken that relationship to a different level?

A relationship with China, difficult though it may be, that I think is in the best shape that it's ever been. You know, Andrea, I'm a political scientist, and people say, oh, you couldn't have a good relationship with both China and India. Well, we have both—and by the way, having helped shepherd Pakistan back to civilian rule.

And what will people say about this— America's reputation as a country that launched the greatest single health program in human history, the President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief and Malaria Relief? What will they say about an American President who has a whole— who created a whole different way to deal with foreign assistance, to reward countries that were governing wisely and fighting corruption, and who took American development assistance levels to new heights—three times the development assistance for the—for poor countries worldwide, quadrupled it in Africa, doubled it in Latin America?

I mean, there's so much to be proud of that this President has done. But history has a long tail, not a short one, and I, more than anybody, am aware that today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same.

Q. I think we have to go, but let me just ask you to respond to—the President did say today that we don't know yet whether democracy will survive in Iraq. Do you think Iraq's history is still being written?

Secretary Rice. Oh, absolutely, Iraq's history is still being written. But that's the nature of democratic change. You know, just a few years out, Germany's democratic history was still being written. A couple of decades out, South Korea's democratic history was still being written, Japan's democratic history was still being written. So of course, just five years after the libration, Iraq's history is still being written. But the trend lines are that it's being written in a way that will not just fundamentally change the way that Iraqis see their future, but will fundamentally change the way the people of the Middle East—long left out of the conversation about democracy, long left out of the conversation about the empowerment of women, long left out about the conversation of the right of every man, woman, and child to live in freedom—that Middle East is also going to be changed by Iraq.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice was interviewed by the Washington Post Editorial Board in Washington, DC

Q. I'd be interested to know as you look forward at the challenges facing the next administration, could you sort of game out what you think might plausibly be a path towards some kind of long-term peace and sort of—way too far down the road, but to some kind of accommodation which you think is likely?

Secretary Rice. Well, I think that, first, frankly, unlike when we arrived, those elements are now pretty clear. Everybody's known that there had to be a piece that somehow exchanged—or gave land to the Palestinians (inaudible). But the President was the one who talked about a state of Palestine to live in peace and security with Israel, and made the Palestinian state a declared part of American policy. That's important, but more important is that he focused us not just on the borders of that state, which, frankly, I think can be resolved— it's not too difficult to imagine two or three different possible outcomes concerning the borders of that state.

But the real issue that we're seeing played out now in Gaza is what's going to be on the other side of that boundary. It is going to be a capable state that is able to deliver security and well-being for its own people and willing to fight terrorists in its midst? That's really the essential question.

And the last year of Annapolis has focused as much on that question in the West Bank as it has focused on what the boundaries of the state will be. They've been co-equal parts. That's why Palestinian security forces are more professional now and more capable now than they were in 2001, '2, '3, '4, '5 or '6. It's because there's been a concerted effort to make those forces professional and capable, not a bunch of armed thugs running around with cell phones calling themselves security forces in nine different organizations paying patronage to Yasser Arafat. That was the nature of Palestinian security forces in the past. These are professional security forces, trained in Jordan, that are taking up their security responsibilities in places like Hebron and Nablus and Jenin.

Secondly, Salam Fayyad often says that he is building the state even under occupation, though he would be the first to say—and I would agree with him—the occupation has to end in order for that state to really emerge. But that's why he is focused on good governance, on budget control, on a social system for the people, on an educational system that doesn't incite. The institutions of a Palestinian state are, in fact, coming into being.

So I think there's been a lot of work done to deal with what probably ultimately is going to determine both the creation of that state and its well-being, which is its internal character. It helps, too, that Salam Fayyad and Abu Mazen are devoted to democracy as their—the basis of their legitimacy.

Now, Gaza, unfortunately, is under quite a different kind of regime. It's under Hamas, which shows us what it could look like if you're not very much focused on what the internal character of the state is. It could be a launching pad for terrorist activities against Israel, which Israel, rightly, will not countenance. It could be a place where the schools are being turned to a hard Islamic—Islamist agenda. It could be a place where gangs and thugs run the streets smuggling weaponry in from Iran. And it could be a place where the people can't receive basic goods and services because it is isolated internationally. That's the alternative. So again, working on the internal character of this will help.

Now, it is my hope that a durable ceasefire in Gaza will begin to reverse some of the difficulties that Hamas's illegal coup d'état in Gaza brought. First of all, that there will be a way to deal with the smuggling so that arms are not flowing in; secondly, that there will be a way to put pressure on Hams to stop firing rockets against Israeli citizens; third, that there will be a reasonable opening of crossings, particularly Rafah and Kerem Shalom under the 2005 Movement and Access Agreement; and fourth, that there will be a process of Palestinian reconciliation that is based on the principles that are embodied in the November 26th Arab League resolution that effectively says there need to be elections for both the PLC and the presidency, but until then Abu Mazen ought to govern. And what is more, any government has to be—to adhere to prior agreements that the PLO has signed. That, I think, is the way ultimately out of Gaza. And if you get that in Gaza, then you have a West Bank and Gaza that you could imagine becoming constituent parts or that would become constituent parts of a Palestinian state that would work.

They'll continue, I'm sure, to negotiate the borders and precisely what's the refugee formula and exactly what do you do about security arrangements, and of course, there will have to be an answer for Jerusalem, which is difficult. But this hard state work of really creating reasonable and viable institutions should not be ignored.

Q. And do you see any evidence that Israel's military campaign is leaning toward any of those goals in Gaza?

Secretary Rice. Well, I think that a durable ceasefire would lead precisely toward those goals. But let's be clear. Israel's military campaign is a direct response to Hamas and the way that they have targeted Israeli cities. It was Hamas that broke the tahadiya that Egypt negotiated. And so yes, we want to see a ceasefire, but those rocket launches have got to stop, too—or the launch—the rocket launches have got to stop so that there can be a ceasefire.

Q. I mean, given the bloodshed right now in Gaza, do you regret encouraging the Israelis to leave Gaza or encouraging the Palestinians to hold legislative elections?

Secretary Rice. Well, certainly not—in terms of legislative elections, those were going to take place. The question was—

Q. Or I guess regret letting Hamas be part of those elections.

Secretary Rice. First, it was Palestinians who believed that everybody had to participate. And once Hamas said they wanted to participate, what were you going to say? That no, they couldn't? Now, in retrospect, I will tell you that we were this close in a Quartet statement to saying that there had to be an expectation that you lay down your arms as the—

Q. I remember that being—

Secretary Rice. Yeah, as we required for Afghan warlords when they participated or (inaudible). And yeah, in retrospect, I wish we'd pushed that harder, because I think there was an international consensus around that point—not that Hamas shouldn't participate, but—and not, frankly, that Hamas had to participate based on the Quartet principles, but that Hamas needed to have—there needed to be a commitment to nonviolence and to lay down your arms. I think that was a legitimate demand for the participation in its elections. And it was felt at the time that perhaps that would be sent as a signal that you were just—that Abu Mazen was just trying to keep Hamas from participating, and that's why it didn't happen. But no, I think, you know, if you're going to have elections, probably anybody who wants to participate needs to be able to participate, that stipulation being the only one.

In terms of Israel leaving Gaza, I think that the Israelis did the right thing in leaving Gaza in 2005. But unfortunately, the efforts to build up Palestinian institutions in Gaza really didn't keep pace, and maybe that's something that we should have paid more attention to. I think Abu Mazen was focused on it, but frankly, they didn't yet have a governmental structure. It was a while before you get Salam Fayyad and his government, which is— you can say that these things should happen, but if you don't actually have people who can execute, it's difficult. And you now have a Palestinian government that can execute. You really didn't have that in 2005-2006.

Q. In the “do you regret” category—

Secretary Rice. Aren't you going to say, “Aren't you thrilled that?

Q. Well, I should rephrase that. A Senior Administration official said that our policy of isolation towards Syria has failed, which leads to the question, since it's been obvious for some time that policy was failing, why the Administration didn't move sooner into an alternative track, and specifically, why by late last summer in August/September when it was clear that the Syrians wanted U.S. endorsement of their indirect negotiations with Israel, why the Administration held back. And that turns out to have been consequential. You can argue that had we taken that up (inaudible) move forcefully in that direction, among other things, the Gaza war might not have happened. But just let me put it to you straight up. Why didn't you move in September towards some formal public endorsement of negotiations that Israel was conducting and strongly support it?

Secretary Rice. David, first of all, for quite a while those negotiations were confidential. We knew about them from the very beginning. We never said that, you know, we wouldn't support them if they began to bear fruit. But they were confidential for quite a long time, if you remember.

Secondly, when it became more public that they were there, I think we said that—I know I said that we supported an additional track, that—the Syrian track. We did not want it to detract from the Palestinian track because we felt that one was more ripe. But we also said that if at any time it was appropriate and useful for the United States to become involved, we would. But they remained indirect talks between Israel and Syria for a variety of reasons, and I think the United States sort of trying to plunge in and become a party to them really wasn't in the cards.

But there's a view out there that—

Q. Why wasn't it in the cards? It wasn't in the cards, or you decided it wasn't (inaudible) there was no reason? There were requests from a number of parties that you do precisely that.

Secretary Rice. Well, not from the Israelis or the Syrians, actually.

Q. There was a request from Syria.

Secretary Rice. No, the Syrians said that at an appropriate time the United States should become involved. And we said at an appropriate time the United States should become involved. But when they are in indirect talks—one sat in a hotel room here and one sat in a hotel room there—it didn't seem the appropriate time for the United States.

Now, as you know, David, when we came to Annapolis there was a question of whether or not we would signal that we thought that the Syria track ought to be taken up. And in fact, we did. And I actually personally invited the Syrians to that meeting because we did not want to signal that we thought there should be no Syrian track.

So if you say should we have taken it up, made them direct talks, the United States becomes mediator, I suppose that was one course. But we didn't think it appropriate given where the really kind of feeling out between the Israelis and the Syrians was, through Turkish mediation, because it's been too often the case, particularly on that track, that there was a lot of misunderstanding about what was possible. We saw that in 2000. Everybody thought it was perfectly ripe, and than at the last second Asad pulled out. And so rather than have that happen again, why not have it explored in this confidential and quiet way? But every time that I got the chance, including when I met with the Arabs as a group, I expressed hope that that track would, in fact, mature. What we didn't do was plunge in and start negotiating ourselves.

But I want to say something about the— in all due respect to the Senior Administration Official, about the Syria policy. We kept—you know, we kept trying to determine when and if a more comprehensive approach to the Syrians (inaudible). We had a number of barriers. One was the foreign fighters issue in Iraq. The second one was trying to keep leverage so that Syria might ultimately permit or stand back so that the Lebanese could have their presidential elections. The third was support for what the Egyptians were doing in terms of Palestinian unity and the like.

One thing that is not yet clear, and maybe it will become clearer over time, is the degree to which Iran's hand in Gaza is the real story here. I tend to think it is. I don't know enough—I don't think any of us knows enough—to lend much credence to the “there are splits in Hamas” argument that you get out there. But I will say this: There is clearly a faction or a segment of Hamas that is armed by and sustained by Iranian weapons and influence. And so I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that better relations with Syria would have led to no fighting in Gaza. But that said, I think we—I don't think there was ever a time when comprehensive engagement with Syria under the circumstances made very much sense, although we did have engagement with Syria on discrete issues—Annapolis, the foreign fighters issue, and ultimately through others on the Lebanese issue.

Q. How do you think the Iranians are likely to respond to an effort by the new administration to reach out in some way and to open up some kind of dialogue? And if you're advising them, would you suggest they do that before or after the Iranian elections? Are there any particular way you think they should go about it (inaudible)?

Secretary Rice. Well, again, I'm not going to give him advice now or later. Privately I'll tell him what I see. But I—but aside from giving advice, the Iranians are paying a cost in terms of their nuclear program. It's not yet a cost that has led them to believe that they ought to suspend. But if you look at the state of the economy and you look at the flight of capital, you look at the inability to use the international financial system, you look at the lack of investment in their oil and gas infrastructure, they're not doing very well.

I think those pressures are growing or likely to grow more over time. And that's in real contrast to 2005. But frankly, after that first trip to Europe, I thought the United States had gotten itself into a peculiar position where the Europeans thought they were mediating between the United States and Iran, and that's really not a good place to be. So one thing that we set out to do was to put the end to the circumstance, where everybody knew that Iran was the problem. And I think that's been achieved.

Iran, I think, has also learned the limits of its influence in Iraq by the defeat of its friends in Basra and by the willingness of the Iraqis to go forward with the SOFA and SFA against just extreme Iranian pressure not to do so. It means that Iranians are learning an age-old lesson, which is that Iraq is indeed a barrier to Iranian influence, undue influence, in the Middle East, has been historically, is still. But this time, instead of being a barrier through Saddam Hussein, who put people in mass graves, attacked his neighbors, actually tried to—did absorb Kuwait, sought weapons of mass destruction, fought three wars against the United States, you now have a multiethnic, multiconfessional Iraq that is not going to seek weapons of mass destruction, won't attack its neighbors, the Egyptian foreign minister goes there for the first time in 30 years, the Jordanian King—I actually saw Iraqi flags flying in Kuwait voluntarily. And it's a friend of the United States. This is a trade up for the United States and a trade down for Iran. And I think that that will take its course.

So I know that there is a kind of common wisdom that Iran is on the march. I think if you actually look at Iran's geostrategic position and its economy, and the criticism that is starting to emerge of the Iranian leadership, particularly Ahmadinejad, from a lot of elite quarters about what he—the isolation that he's causing, you have to wonder whether the elections are going to be a kind of denouement for the ultra hardliners. I don't speak about moderates in Iran, but just responsible or reasonable people versus the implacable hardliners. And those elections are going to be very important.

Now, I think there are lots of ways to play the tactics—engagement, not engaging, so forth. But I think keeping in mind that Iran is under a great deal of pressure both domestically and internationally, and that it is important not to allow Iran to get on the cheap what it can't get through hard-earned effort, is very important. We had an extremely important meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council plus Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan with a couple of members of the P-5, and they made very clear that any discussion of a role for Iran in the region should not be offered by the P-5+1 but rather should involve the Arab states that have so much at stake.

Q. Do you think there's any—there's any purpose or any advantage to separating out, for example, Afghanistan as an issue on which there can be conversations with Iran, as (inaudible) Europeans have suggested? Some people in the new administration have said maybe that's the way to go in terms of engagement. Do you think there's, again, any advantage to that? And do you—what pitfalls do you see to doing that?

Secretary Rice. Well, we've had some discrete—as you know, we have discrete—

Q. But not for a long time.

Secretary Rice. Well, at the beginning, significant ones. And then even on Iraq we had some discussions. Look, I think this isn't an issue of talk to the Iranians, don't talk to the Iranians. It's a question of what price are the Iranians trying to extract for engagement. Are they trying to extract a kind of grand bargain in which Iran is acknowledged as a regional power without having given up the very policies that are destabilizing the region? So do you import into the emerging Middle East an Iranian role that is steeped in support for Hezbollah, support for Hamas, nuclear weapons ambitions, and an un—a way to influence Iraq to the—to the negative side? That's really the problem. What are you talking to them about?

Q. Well, in this case, you'd be talking to them about Afghanistan.

Secretary Rice. Well, I—that's what I said, Karen. I don't want to talk about any specific case. I think discrete—there may be opportunities for discrete engagements with Iran. We've had discrete engagements with Iran. But—

Q. Were those helpful?

Secretary Rice.—the question is what do they lead to.

Q. Is that discreet e-e-t or e-t-e? (Laughter.) You're talking about these discussions that the Ambassador—

Secretary Rice. Limited. Let me use the word “limited.” Not as in secret. Limited.

Q. You're talking about the discussions that Ryan Crocker would have, or would, I guess.

Secretary Rice. Yeah.

Q. Did they—were those at all productive in any way?

Secretary Rice. Early on, I think the argument is—some would make the argument that on things like counternarcotics they were marginally effective. And maybe they would be again. I think one of the problems is that when you enter into these discussions, you have to ask yourself, “Have the Iranians actually made a decision that they do want to see a stable X, Y, or Z, or are they using these contacts as a way to solidify and justify their destabilizing role?” That's really the question that I think you have to ask.

And I think there's some evidence that, at the beginning, they were more interested in an effort to try and help the Afghans in terms of—because the counternarcotics problem is a problem for them. You know, the stuff is going into Tehran. Some of their behavior in Afghanistan over the last couple of years would suggest that they're not very committed to a stable Afghanistan. So I think that's what you have to weigh.

Q. But it also—isn't part of the problem with Iran that you don't know who has the upper hand?

Secretary Rice. Well, that's right. It's a very opaque system. It seems to me that there are several voices coming out of Iran. Unfortunately, the policies don't change much no matter how many voices you see. And one thing that the elections may do is it may sort some of those voices.

Q. Have we learned more about the Iranian hand in Gaza as a result of Israel's operation? And as long as we're on Gaza, can you help us understand what brought you to abstain on the ceasefire—

Secretary Rice. Yeah.

Q.—resolution when you yourself negotiated it?

Secretary Rice. Well, first of all—well, we had decided that we were not going to be—we would not like to be in a position of having to veto a resolution. And frankly, the circumstances in the West Bank and in the region as a whole had to be kept in mind in that issue. And it became pretty clear that there was going to be a vote of some kind on probably the Libyan resolution, which was unacceptable. And so we worked to see if we could get to something that was more acceptable.

But I was strongly of the view and had let it be known that we still felt this premature because there was a lot going on in the Egyptian-Israeli track. As a matter of fact, Amos Gilad was back on his way back from Egypt and we thought that it was somewhat premature. There was, frankly, also the point that I—and I made this point with my Arab colleagues—one has to be really careful with a ceasefire resolution when you're not talking about, as you were with 1701, two member-states, Israel and Lebanon, but a member-state and a terrorist group. And so this process of coming to a resolution was pretty fraught on a number of sides.

We had a discussion about it. I talked to Steve Hadley about it. I talked to the President about it. I talked to my colleagues about it. And abstention was a way to allow the Council to go ahead and speak on this issue at a time when a number, particularly, of moderate Arab states felt that they needed to speak. We had a text that we thought was acceptable, if not ideal. It even had some good elements, like the condemnation of all terrorist acts, and a kind of sequencing about durability that was important.

But in the final analysis, abstention was a way to signal that it would have been preferable to have this—to have the Israeli-Egyptian track go forward a little bit more because you might then have been using a resolution to do something else, which was to move the process forward toward a more normalized Gaza. So that was the thinking behind it, and you know, it was not an easy decision but the right one, and it allowed the United States to let things go forward, because it's not as if we didn't agree with the text.

Q. Was this your recommendation to the President or was this the President's recommendation to you?

Secretary Rice. Well, first of all, you know that, Glenn, I'm not going to talk to you about what the President and I talked about. But you know—

Q. (Inaudible.)

Secretary Rice. You know that the President and I have the kind of relationship in which we go back and forth and come to a decision.

Q. We have—I had heard that you had actually recommended voting for the resolution and that Prime Minister Olmert spoke to the President and was quite hot under the collar about that, and that was where the abstention decision came from.

Secretary Rice. The abstention was an option that the President and I discussed, and I'm not going to talk about anything more than that but to say that I think you know my relationship with the President. And the President and I have a relationship in which we can discuss these things and come to the best option, which is what we did.

Q. In your conversations with President-elect Obama, whether on Gaza and some of the briefings and what you observed, what would you—what are your impressions that have been formed about his leadership style, and maybe contrast that to President Bush's—

Secretary Rice. I don't know enough about his leadership style. I—because, you know, it's a completely different relationship. I can tell you what I know of him as a person because he was also a member of my committee on Senate Foreign Relations. And from the very beginning, he was somebody who asked probing questions, good questions, but in a very, you know, no polemics, no fireworks, very kind of even keel, really soliciting information, not speaking for the camera. It was just really impressive. The first time I went there for my confirmation hearings, that was my very strong impression.

And when I talked to him about various issues, it's the same thing. He's eliciting information. He's asking where this is going. You know, it's a—I'm impressed with his style and I'm impressed with the way that he goes about gathering the facts. And I'm not party to his decision-making style, but I think those are characteristics that bode well.

Q. On these sort of general topics, you've spoken a lot, as have—as has Secretary Gates, about the need to improve civil-military cooperation, how you want to build up the State Department's ability to be a more forceful presence in a lot of places. I wonder, in retrospect, as you've looked back on the progress you've been able to make there, if you see, as the military has expanded its own role in a lot of countries, and even as the military in some ways speaks very openly about having co-ambassadors as they have in Iraq, as they feel they would like to have in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where do you see this issue going as long as there is such a huge imbalance of resources that actually has increased rather than decreased over the past number of years?

Secretary Rice. You know, again this is an interesting question for analysis because I know the defense budget pretty well and I know that—I think it's almost 50 percent of it goes to personnel, some other significant portion goes to weapons systems, some extremely large portion of it goes to benefits that extend over many generations. So actually, you know, you don't—you shouldn't look at the $583 billion and say, oh, that's the Defense Department budget for diplomacy. It's not. And I think Bob Gates would be the first to tell you that.

Look, we are in a different kind of world now. And I think that the key is for the Secretary of State, who is chief—not just foreign policy officer—but really structures and puts in place the framework for American foreign policy, that as long as the direction is there from the Secretary of State, from the President through the Secretary of State, then all kinds of agencies of the U.S. Government can contribute to the furtherance of American foreign policy goals. And Defense brings certain very specialized capabilities, like for instance, the ability to get to a tsunami or the ability to do the Mercy off the coast of Guatemala, as does, you know—my colleague Mike Leavitt in Health and Human Services has made multiple trips to Latin America to do health programs. And I've never felt that somehow this was encroachment on the State Department's mission. Rather, why shouldn't we be able to take advantage of the full range of U.S. Government capabilities to further the goals of American foreign policy? It's more a matrix kind of organization, a networked organization, not one in which we should split into stovepipes.

Now, when it comes to something like Afghanistan or Iraq, the fact is that this is just a very difficult, different circumstance. It used to be that you got—there's a war, you win in the war—World War II—then you do the peace; the military does the war and the diplomacy, the Department of State, does the peace. But of course, what we see in Iraq or Afghanistan is it's a continuum. You're fighting a war at the same time that you're trying to make the peace. Counterinsurgency strategies, by their very nature, means that you might go into a village, clear it of terrorists, bring in governance and reconstruction right there on the spot, train the police right there on the spot to hold the area.

So the idea that you can neatly divide these responsibilities between the State Department and the Defense Department, I think is just wrong. And that's why Bob Gates and I—and it really started with Don Rumsfeld—had developed a number of mechanisms and strategies that allow us to meet this challenge, whether it's the Provincial Reconstruction Teams which are a wonderful innovation that gets you out into the field as a unified military— civilian-military unit, or the counterterrorism—sorry, counterinsurgency training that we've done together through FSI and the National Defense University, or the 1206-1207 authorities, these pots of authorities for the use—expenditure of funds from Defense for certain near-term, very short trigger kinds of efforts like arming the Lebanese armed forces and getting equipment to them during the Nahr al-Bared event. I think this is the way it's going to work. And it means the military has to work better with us, and we have to work better with them. And I was just down at—with the Navy SEALs with the President down in Norfolk, and our political officer down there, a pol-ad down there, said to me, “Thank you for letting me have this position.” Now imagine a State Department with the Navy SEALs—why is that? A diplomat with the Navy SEALs? Because the whole counterinsurgency approach is one in which you have to marry these—this cast.

So I don't know if (inaudible) the President's put plenty of resources into the Department. The Department budgets have been going up during this entire time. The President has requested 1,100 new Foreign Service officers and 300 new USAID officers. I think that will continue to grow.

The one thing that we didn't have that we now will have, I think, the Civilian Response Corps, is an important innovation, because there there's no single department of the U.S. Government that is capable of doing the kind of reconstruction efforts that we are doing in Afghanistan, did in Iraq, and we didn't have the right mechanism. Defense wasn't the right place for it after Iraq, but we didn't have another option.

Q. I guess my—I guess I will ask the question more from the point of view of the recipients rather than—rather than us. If you have a situation where you have, as we now have for the next three years, a $300 million military contract for what amounts to public diplomacy and information spread in Iraq, when you have in Kenya soldiers doing humanitarian work that far outnumber other U.S. Government civilian personnel there, what kind of message are you sending?

Secretary Rice. I'll tell you, on the first, the public diplomacy, there are public diplomacy efforts that are directly linked to the counterinsurgency fight, and that's principally—and you're right, there you can get some bleeding effect if you're not careful between roles and missions. And we've tried to be very careful, but those efforts are really addressing, for instance, the kind of terrorist activities, public diplomacy—their own version of public diplomacy that are endangering the fight. But you're right, it could bleed.

I think that, frankly, on AFRICOM we had to go back and do some readjustments. We didn't get that message quite right. So I don't mean to suggest that it's not—it doesn't have potential downsides. It does. But when it's managed well, you get very good synergy between what State can do and what Defense can do.

In terms of people seeing a soldier, you know, a medic come and do dental exams in a school in Guatemala, which is what I saw, I don't think there's any problem. It's a good face for the American military. You know, how many people have you heard who, after World War II, say that their first encounter was with an American GI in Germany who gave them candy for the first time? This isn't new.

Q. (Inaudible.)

Secretary Rice. Well, in 1945, candy wasn't known to have the corrosive effects on molars that it now is known to have.

Q. Now we do sugar-free candy.

Secretary Rice. Yes, right.

Q. Can I follow on a related—? The incoming administration and the incoming congress are—if they're sure of anything, it's that they're going to restore America's moral standing and they're going to restore diplomacy and the place of diplomacy in America. The President spoke a little bit this morning to the moral standing. I wonder how you feel when you hear the second one, or what you think or—

Secretary Rice. I, frankly, don't know what it means.

Q. If only we could record your facial expression.

Secretary Rice. Yeah. You know, I really don't know what it means. Diplomacy is not getting in a room and talking. I think that people who are (inaudible) understand that. These are seasoned professionals. And yeah, the work that we've done to—to the degree that U.S.-European relations with certain European allies were frayed after 2003, it's just not the case anymore. It's not the case. We have very good relations with our European allies and I've sat through many, many a diplomatic meeting (inaudible). I mentioned where I thought we were with Iran in 2005 and where I think we are now. We have worked together on Middle East peace, on the Gaza circumstance. There's constant discussion and work between the United States and Europe and our Arab allies. And so I think, you know, we've been very, very active on the diplomatic front. We were talking earlier about North Korea. That's a diplomatic effort. We— and I think if you look at some of the big relationships around the world, U.S.-China relations have never been better. And it's come not at the expense of other relationships. So U.S.-Japan relations are strong. U.S.-South Korean relations have never been better. We developed a fundamentally different and deepened relationship with India. You're not supposed to be able to do India and China at the same time. We've done that. There is no single country in Northeast Asia, or for that matter you can look at Southeast Asia, places like Vietnam, where the relationships have been fundamentally strong. And so—and I could go on. And you don't even need to speak of what we've been able to do in Africa with the combination of quadrupling of foreign assistance, PEPFAR, Millennium Challenge, dealing with the crises—the civil war in Liberia, the CPA between Southern Sudan and northern Sudan. Look, there's been—opening relations to Libya for the first time. Really plenty of diplomacy that we've done. And yes, we've been doing this in a post-9/11 context, which really does make you look at American strategic interests somewhat differently. It makes you focus on the power of failed states, failed and failing states, to undermine your security. And so a lot of what we've done has been at that.

But I think you'll find that maybe there will be outreach to countries that we've not done that with, and that's all well and fine. But it will be in the context of a strong international consensus about whose behavior actually needs to change here. And on an Iran, for instance, it's not the United States. On North Korea, it's not the United States. Those are very important—

Q. If I could just follow up—to sort of follow up, I think when those kinds of statements are made, they're not necessarily talking about our diplomatic relations or government-to-government relations. They're talking about the opinion in which the United States is held in other countries. And to the extent that's not very good, it's not over Korea and not really over Iran. It's over Middle East policy. It's over Iraq. And I wonder if you could just address that question, because my impression is that that's what's is being spoken about, not necessarily that we're not getting along with other presidents and prime ministers.

Secretary Rice. Sometimes the United States has to do things that are not popular. We do. Sometimes we do things that I think are not well understood. But the outcome here is not what the latest Gallup poll says about what somebody thinks of the United States. The outcome is: What kind of world is this going to be in 20 or 25 or 30 years, and what has this President, this Administration, done to set up that world? Do you think we were very popular in South Korea in 1984 or '5, or '86 or '87?

Karen, you as much as anybody, will remember women chaining themselves to Greenham Commons to protest American missile deployment. You will remember the million people in the streets in Germany to protest the SS-20—sorry, the Pershing II deployment in response (inaudible). Does anybody think now that it was a bad idea to deploy the Pershing II's, force the Soviet Union to come to terms, end up in the collapse of the Soviet Union with Ronald Reagan's policies helping to goad that along, and end up winning the Cold War? No.

So you know, history has a long tail, not a short one. And if you get very focused on whether somebody thinks your policies are popular, you won't do the right thing, and then, in 20 or 30 years, people will be talking about missed opportunities. So in Iraq, it will be much more important what Iraq becomes, and if it becomes the Iraq of which we are suddenly seeing glimpses, an Iraq that is multiethnic and multisect—multiconfessional and democratic and signs a long-term agreement with the United States despite Iranian pressure, and declares Christmas a national holiday, that will be more important than what anybody thought in 2003 and 2004.

Now, that's not to say that it didn't come at great cost. Look, I myself will always be haunted by the lives that were lost. I will always think about the people that I visited at Walter Reed or at Bethesda and wonder what their lives were like. I also know that nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice. And if that Iraq emerges—and I think there's now a good chance that that Iraq is going to emerge— that's what will survive in history. And that's what the President of the United States needs to be concerned about.

Q. Just to focus this same question at a very particular example, your friend, I want to say, Fuad Siniora, the prime minister of Lebanon, said to me in December, talking about the view of the United States, kept saying many complimentary things about the Department's trying to keep faith (inaudible). The Americans say so many nice words, but in the end, they just don't deliver, and they don't deliver because, in the end, Israel—what Israel wants is always more important to them. And he then cited a couple of specifics, but the most important is the Shebaa issue, where you gave him (inaudible) public statements believed that the United States should take a position (inaudible) and support the Lebanese Government and try to recover this territory. Israel did not want to do that. And in the end, in the perception of Siniora, I think most Arabs would probably say pretty much the same thing, it was Israel's desire that was decisive.

Let me put the question to you—I mean, among the many things that you studied as Secretary, the relationship between the United States and Israel is (inaudible). It's really complicated (inaudible) every Secretary in modern times has really grappled with this. So let me ask you—and I'd love to hear your response (inaudible) you know, more in sadness than in anger (inaudible). But more broadly, what you take away from this really complicated relationship.

Secretary Rice. Well, first, in Lebanon, Shebaa Farms, as you know, David, was a complicated issue both legally and politically. We kept trying to get the demarcation of that line so that it was clear, and a UN decision whether it was Syrian or Lebanese. Because as you remember, when Israel withdrew from Lebanon, it was declared Syrian. So I know that Fuad wanted very much to have the UN move in and then we could settle it later. That wasn't in the cards, and I told him from the very beginning that wasn't in the cards. The question was: Could we move this forward with the UN Secretary General doing the cartographic work to determine what the history showed and then get the Syrians to agree to a demarcation and move it forward?

We weren't able to get it done, but hopefully it will get done, because I, frankly, do think that this would have an effect on—I think Hezbollah will find another excuse, by the way, but I think it could have a positive effect. But it's not so simple as just declaring, well, Israel needs to withdrawal from Shebaa. This is wrapped up in the entire negotiated solution to the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, so this is something on which to try to make sure that the homework was in place.

I would note that if America just talks, there would have been no 1701 without the United States of America. In fact, there would have been no 1701 without me, because at the time that we were trying to get the war in Lebanon finished, it was really David Welch who sat in Siniora's office, and I sat in the Waldorf-Astoria on the phone trying to get a resolution. So there would have been no 1701. And, by the way, without Kofi Annan, whose role in 1701 should really be underscored. He was terrific.

Secondly, 1701 put the Lebanese army in the south of Lebanon for the first time in decades. And the Lebanese army is actually emerging as a strong national force in Lebanon. Third—able, by the way, to take on Nahr al-Bared for the first time (inaudible).

Third, when they took on Nahr alBared, it was the United States that got ammunition to them in lightning time so that they could survive and fight and defeat the Palestinian terrorists. And I could go on and on. The $770 million dollars that the United States put on the table in Paris that really did make a lot of others finally put real money on the table. Jacques Chirac gave the United States credit for that. So I feel very good about what we've done for Lebanon, and I think Lebanon has done it for itself, because despite the difficulties, it is able now to see forward to elections next—this year, which I think you have, for the first time, a strong, democratic, friendly majority that has a good chance. It'll be like Lebanese politics. It'll be a little bit here and a little bit there.

But those—none of those conditions existed in 2005. And you know, it doesn't just happen by accident that that is where Lebanon is today. So yes, I'm sorry that Shebaa didn't get done, but I do think that the story of Lebanon is one that is far better than the one in 2005.

As to Israel—

Q. Well, what about the fundamental question (inaudible), which is—

Secretary Rice. Yes. Israel—

Q. (inaudible) when the United States comes up against Israel's strong political will, America accedes.

Secretary Rice. That's simply not true. The fact is that—have we defended Israel's right to defend itself? Yes. Do we believe that there is a—that the only answer here is the two-state solution? Yes. Did we work with our Israeli friends, who are our friends, to find a way to get the Israeli body politic more solidly behind a two-state solution through the Roadmap and through work with Ariel Sharon? Yes. Do we believe that the terrorists, Hamas and Hezbollah, are of the same ilk because they kill innocents wantonly, as any other terrorists? Yes. I admit those aren't popular positions in quarters in the Arab world. But we don't take them because they're Israeli positions. We take them because they are American positions. I don't think any Secretary has actually been more outspoken about the settlement issue. And I've been very outspoken about it and I think we've been very clear that Israel ought to stop its settlement activity, which is provocative.

But it's simply not the case that if Israel wants it, the United States does it. There are very often times when American and Israeli views of interest are congruent. There are also times when they are not. And when they are not, we act (inaudible).

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Q. Do you have any comment on the bombing of the UN warehouse in Lebanon today? And then secondly, we understand that you're working out a deal with the Israelis on tunnels, and also on crossings. Have you reached an arrangement?

Secretary Rice. Well, I can't speak to the latter, Sue. We are discussing with the Israelis and with others what we can do to bolster the possibilities of getting to the durable cease-fire that we're all seeking. And I think you know that there are several elements to that, and we are working with the regional partners and also with the Israelis.

As to the unfortunate circumstances— incident at the UNRWA warehouse earlier, I did speak with my Israeli counterparts about it. There is great concern on their part. It was, they say, an error that it happened. It does demonstrate the very dangerous nature of the kinds of fighting that's going on and the events that we're in. We are principally concerned, of course, about the humanitarian situation in that regard, and Henrietta Fore is reporting to me frequently about what can be done to help. We talked about—you may know that the Israelis extended the humanitarian pause for a period of time, and we think that that needs to be done and we are really asking for the tightest possible cooperation and coordination between UNRWA, the ICRC, and the Israeli forces that are there, because we— obviously, it's a very difficult situation for civilians.

Q. Did you protest after this—

Secretary Rice. Well, we had a discussion of the difficulties that this had caused and the need to try to avoid such incidents. I'm quite sure that they're trying to avoid them, but it's a difficult environment. And our focus has been on what can we do to help get supplies—medical and food and water—to the citizens of Gaza. We are in contact with people on the ground through various means, and can therefore try and be as specific as possible when we talk to the Israelis about what needs to be done. And I've done that personally with both Foreign Minister Livni and Defense Minister Barak today.

Q. So is that who you spoke to today to give this message that they needed to, you know, avoid such incidents in the future?

Secretary Rice. Yes, and they know that. You know, they're not trying to create these incidents. But it is—it's also very important that there be humanitarian access coordination. And yes, I spoke with both the foreign minister and the defense minister.

Q. (Inaudible.)

Secretary Rice. I am continuing to work on it. You know that we're all seeking a cease-fire. We're aggressively working toward that cease-fire. And we're trying to help put the pieces in place so that it can be durable.

Q. Secretary—

Mr. McCormack. All right. Thanks, guys.

Q. I just want to ask about the signing, actually.

Secretary Rice. Thank you. Oh, about the—oh, all right.

Q. So how realistic is it that the signing of this accord could actually be used as a model for some kind of peaceful nuclear accord with Iran, as has been suggested, but others have criticized that, saying it's a totally different kettle of fish with Iran?

Secretary Rice. Well, there are a number of countries that have expressed interest in the pursuit of civil nuclear power, peaceful uses of nuclear power, in a way that does not raise proliferation concerns and proliferation risks. As you know, the issue here is the fuel cycle and the ability, in particular, to enrich and reprocess. And if you're prepared to use imported fuel with a fuel take-back provision, then that really does minimize, as a matter of fact, almost eliminates the proliferation risks that are associated with the peaceful uses of nuclear power.

This is something, by the way, that has been advocated by Mohamed ElBaradei. It has been advocated by Presidents Putin and Bush together. I think a lot of people see this as a way for countries to pursue peaceful useful—peaceful uses of nuclear power. And I might note that Sheikh Abdullah mentioned that, of course, UAE is quite rich in hydrocarbons, but a lot of countries are looking out into the future and seeing that they don't want to be dependent on exhaustible sources of energy out into the future; and also that as we're all trying to be more responsible stewards of the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power is clean, it is safe. And when one can minimize proliferation risks, we think that it is something that could be spread quite widely.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Introductory Remarks Omitted

Secretary Rice. It has really been an honor and a great pleasure to represent this great country and the values that it stands for and the work that it tries to do.

America is not without its ability to make mistakes, like anyone can. But it also a country that tries to do the right thing—not always the easy thing, but the right thing. I think it's a country of great generosity. It is a country that reaches out not just to the powerful, but to the poorest and those who are most in need. And whether it is in the tremendous work that this country does with refugees or in humanitarian assistance or the foreign assistance that particularly this President has made a hallmark of his presidency, working with children and parents who might have otherwise died of AIDS, and seeing them live in hope, or sometimes using American power to deal with difficult and sometimes controversial issues, I think the United States of America is extraordinary in being a powerful country that has never sought and will never seek empire.

It is also, I believe, a country that has great internal strengths. It's a country that despite internal difficulties always seems to find a way to overcome them with a kind of toughness and resoluteness and commitment to values. It's a country that truly tries to make the promise of a multiethnic democracy that is inclusive and for all people true. It wasn't always the case, but we've made that journey and we'll continue to make that journey, and we'll of course in many ways reach a new height on that journey when Presidentelect Barack Obama is sworn in on Tuesday.

But it's also a country that started out with certain very important institutions. And in many ways, first and foremost among them was a free press. Thomas Jefferson called it the fourth estate. And he understood and the founders understood that a free press was at the center of the ability of a democracy to deliver on its promise of accountability to those who brought them to power, because the consent of the governed cannot be taken for granted. And the consent of the governed cannot be known without a free press.

So many times around the world, I've found myself in discussions about democratic institutions, democratic change, the need to respect human rights, the need to give liberty and freedom to peoples who are living in tyranny. Many times, throughout discussions with countries that are trying to break free of authoritarianism or in cases where countries are still under authoritarian rule, I've found myself defending the free press. I've found myself talking about specific reporters who have been held, about internet bloggers who have been charged with crimes. I've found myself defending newspapers. I've found myself talking about journalists who, just in their pursuit of truth, have actually paid the final price in the greatest measure.

And because of those conversations, I think it has, for me, affirmed and reaffirmed again and again what I've always known, and that is that America is very fortunate indeed to have at its core, from its founding, and until now a press that takes seriously its responsibilities to democracy, seriously its responsibilities to hold officials accountable, and seriously its responsibilities to tell the truth. And in working with each and every one of you, I see that professionalism and that commitment. And it's been really a great honor and a great pleasure not just to represent the United States of America, but to do it in the glare of your cameras and your pens.

Thank you very, very much.

Q. Madame Secretary, thank you very much for those comments. I'm— you've been warning us for some time that it was going to be a sprint to the finish, and—

Secretary Rice. Yeah.

Q.—today—today, in this 11th hour, it really is a sprint to the finish. I'm wondering if, one, you can tell us a little about what you're going to be signing with Foreign Minister with Livni, and two, based on your comments just now about the press, if you're prepared to ask or to tell the Israelis to make certain or to do everything that they can to protect journalists and reporters who are in Gaza now.

Secretary Rice. Yes. First, on the second point, I've made the point and we will continue to make the point again. It's a difficult situation. Warzones are difficult with the press, but the protection of the press is an extremely important principle from the point of view of the United States, in that regard.

The MOU that Foreign Minister Livni and I will sign is—should be thought of as one of the elements of trying to help bring into being a durable ceasefire, a ceasefire that can actually hold. As you know, there are a number of conditions that need to be obtained if a ceasefire is to be durable— not to have a ceasefire, but so that it can really endure. And among them is to do something about the weapons smuggling and the potential for resupply of Hamas from the—from other places, including from Iran, Iranian weapons supply or backed weapons supply coming into Gaza. And you know that we've worked with regional partners, including Egypt, on some of these issues through the Army Corps of Engineers. This we foresee as a part of broader international effort on information sharing, on using some of the aspects that we've learned through, for instance, the PSI of how to deal with weapons shipments and how to deal with supply lines.

It is a bilateral memorandum of understanding with Israel, but it's my understanding that Foreign Minister Livni is going to pursue similar efforts with our European colleagues. And indeed, I've talked with David Miliband, Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Bernard Kouchner this morning to brief them on what we're going to do. And I suspect that those efforts will be followed up quite soon with the Europeans.

Yes, Sue.

Q. Where does this fit in with the general, sort of, ceasefire agreement? How much longer do you think that Israel is going to continue pounding Gaza? I mean, the death toll is already above a thousand people who have been killed. So could you put this in the context of a larger agreement?

Secretary Rice. Well, you know that we have wanted to have an immediate and durable ceasefire, and we've been working aggressively toward that goal. We are hoping that as the elements of durability begin to come into place that the need for continued operations can cease. We know that, after all, Hamas is responsible for this. They're the ones who refuse to extend the Egyptian ceasefire, the Egyptian tahadiya, and we are—the front line of this—the U.S. effort is, I think, important here, but the front line, of course, is what the Egyptians are trying to do in their mediation. We've been in very close contact with them as well as with the Israelis and with others, and hope that that effort is bearing fruit. But we see this as supportive of that effort.

Yeah, a couple more. Yeah.

Q. Even though this fighting will stop in the next—everyone hopes a couple of days, it doesn't look like Hamas, while weakened, will be completely destroyed. It looks in the territories like it's still very strong, it's further radicalizing the region and, as Sue mentioned, the death toll and the humanitarian condition is extremely dire. There are some in the region and even within the expert community here in the U.S. administration that say, given the fact that the U.S. is Israel's—one of the closest allies, if it really wants to be a good friend to Israel, that it will start—urge them to exercise restraint, wrap this up, and pay more care to the fact that the death toll is rising and the Palestinian plight is really bad.

Secretary Rice. Well, first of all, I wouldn't make any judgments about how Hamas is going to be viewed after this. Because after all, Hamas, by making Gaza into both a prison for Palestinians and isolated, and also as a launching pad against Israel, has significantly deepened the misery of the Palestinian people. And I think that that story will be—will be known.

There is a significant contrast between Gaza and the West Bank, and I think that it's important. We know that President Mahmoud Abbas—Abbas's forces were expelled effectively from—in a coup by Hamas. So let's keep the focus where the focus should be.

I do think that, in time, it will be clear that Mahmoud Abbas, who still cares about the people of Gaza, who talks all the time about the need to stop this fighting, who contributes 58 percent of the PA budget to Gaza, is demonstrating that he is the Palestinian leader for all the Palestinian people.

Now, we have been aggressively pursuing a ceasefire. And we have talked to the Israelis about the need, while defending themselves, to always be aware of the impact of military operations, particularly in such a densely populated area, on civilian populations. It's why we have pressed very hard for, and achieved in a couple of circumstances, humanitarian pauses and humanitarian corridors. I think the Israelis said yesterday that the bombing of the— the shelling of the warehouse was an error. But it does just show that the difficulties of fighting in close quarters like this. And so this action—we are doing everything that we can to help bring it to an end, supporting the Egyptian mediation, trying to help put in place some of the pillars of a durable ceasefire.

The United States, of course, actually negotiated in 2005 the Agreement on Movement and Access, which could be a basis for the opening of the crossings. And that was, after all, an agreement between Israel, the United States, and the Palestinian Authority, as well as with Egypt and with international support. So we are doing everything that we can to help bring this to an end.

Let me just say one other thing. I do believe that when this is over, it's going to be important for there to be an effort to deal with the humanitarian situation. The Czechs, in particular, are interested in a kind of donor conference on the humanitarian side. There is some talk with others about a donor conference, perhaps Norway leading one on reconstruction that would augment what the Palestinian Authority does with the already 58 percent of its budget that goes to Gaza. And so, I think that there is much that can be done to begin to bring Gaza out of the dark of Hamas' reign there and into the light of reconnecting to the very good governance that the Palestinian Authority can provide. But you can be sure we've talked as much as we can and we're working as hard as we can, which is why today's agreement is important to try to get to a durable ceasefire.

I'm going to just take two more. Charlie, and then—

Q. Madame Secretary, can you be specific as to what conversations you've had with the Egyptians? Have you talked to President Mubarak, to Suleiman, to others? Or who has, and what kind of input you're getting?

Secretary Rice. Our Ambassador has talked to all the major Egyptian officials, and I myself talked last night with Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit. But we've been in constant contact with the Egyptians.

Sylvie, you're going to get the last question.

Q. Thank you, Madame Secretary. Do you hope you can—

Secretary Rice. Because you've been on every trip, I think.

Q. Thank you. And it has been a joy.

Secretary Rice. Thank you.

Q. Thank you, Madame Secretary. Do you think you can reach an agreement, a ceasefire agreement, before Tuesday?

Secretary Rice. Well, I think the American timeline here is not what's important. What's important is to reach a ceasefire agreement and to get one that can endure, so that we're not back in this situation in six months with Hamas using Gaza as a launching pad against Israeli cities and the people of Gaza living in misery because they're internationally—because they can't get goods and services.

We're working at it on as quick a timeline as we possibly can in support of the Egyptian mediation. The Egyptians are going to have to also be the source of dealing with whatever political arrangements can emerge, because, as you know, the Arab League November 26 statement that talks about Palestinian reconciliation, but in line with existing agreements and with Mahmoud Abbas as the leader of the Palestinians until elections can be held, is also going to be an important element going forward. So there's a lot of work ahead here, but I certainly hope that we can push this to conclusion for a ceasefire very, very soon. That's my hope.

Let me just say I also had—I've had several-times-a-day briefings on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We have tried to be not just receiving briefings, but operational in going to the Israelis with specific requests for what can be done, with specific information and detailed information about what is going on. They have been receptive to receiving that information, and we're going to continue that practice because I do think that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is quite dire. I'm very concerned about it. Our people on the ground are very concerned about it. And that is another reason to get this—to get this ceasefire in place.

Thank you.

Q. Will you meet with Hillary Clinton one more time?

Secretary Rice. I've been keeping— we've been keeping their team involved. We, of course, had lunch yesterday, talked yesterday. We had some extensive discussions. But we'll keep them briefed. And I believe Steve Hadley has been also briefing General Jones. But the important thing is, obviously, is, as they say, we'll—we're here until 12:01 on the 20th, and we're going to do everything that we can in that time to try to push this forward.

Because—let me just say one final thing. The Palestinians and the Israelis have made a lot of progress toward ending their conflict. I do think that the work on the bottom-up approach of trying to make a better life for people, of trying to train security forces that are professional and capable, of good governance that Salam Fayyad and the Authority have pursued, will need to continue to be pursued, as too will the importance of trying to end the occupation and to build a Palestinian state.

Israelis and Palestinians deserve nothing less than that. And as quickly as people can return to what Resolution 1850 lays out as the Annapolis process, we'll all be better off for it, and so will the region. Thank you very much.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice and Minister Tzipi Livni delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Rice. I'm very glad to be here this morning to sign this Memorandum of Understanding with Israel, and with the Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister at my side.

We have worked together over the last years with a common commitment to bringing peace and security to Israel and its citizens, and to Israel's Palestinian neighbors. I know how important it is to her and to the Israeli Government to see that Israel and all of its citizens achieve the security and peace that they so deserve. It is for this reason that the United States has been working so hard to bring an end to rocket attacks and threats directed against Israel from Gaza, and to stabilize and normalize life for both Israelis and Palestinians.

The current crisis in Gaza was instigated by Hamas, a terrorist group that has called for the destruction of Israel, and refused to extend the calm, and still holds Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier, who was captured.

The Israelis cannot be expected to live under daily threats, nor should Gazans be put at risk by Hamas's reckless targeting of Israel or endure the brutality of life under Hamas. Hamas has presided over the degradation of safety and well-being of innocent Palestinians since it seized power in a violent coup against the legitimate Palestinian Authority 18 months ago.

We've said repeatedly that the continued supply of armaments to Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza, including by some in the region, is a direct cause of the current hostilities. It is, therefore, incumbent upon on us in the international community to prevent the rearmament of Hamas so that a ceasefire will be durable and fully respected. There must be an international consensus that Gaza can never again be used as a launching pad against Israeli cities.

This Memorandum of Understanding that we will sign today responds to that need. It provides a series of steps that the United States and Israel will take to stem the flow of weapons and explosives into Gaza. The United States is reaching out to its partners, as well. And together, the steps that we and other members of the international community can take will contribute to a durable ceasefire.

The United States remains deeply concerned, too, about the innocent Palestinians who are suffering in Gaza. A sustainable end to hostilities, rather than one that collapses in a few days or weeks, is crucial to ending the suffering. In the meantime, we are doing all that we can to respond to the humanitarian needs of the population of Gaza.

And Foreign Minister Livni and I have talked about the need to be responsive to the humanitarian organizations that are working there, including the United Nations and the International Committee for the Red Cross, as well as nongovernmental organizations with which we are working through USAID to relieve the suffering of innocent people there.

When this is done, we must all turn again back to the goals of UN Security Council Resolution 1850. That resolution noted that lasting peace can only be based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement, and terror, and the two-state solution, building upon previous agreements and obligations. The United States remains firmly committed to Israel's security, to continued bilateral negotiations through the Annapolis process, toward a two-state solution, which is the only way, ultimately, to secure a future for Israelis and Palestinians alike over the last term— long term. The sooner that these hostilities can be brought to an end, the sooner the real work of forging a permanent peace can resume.

President Bush and I have very much enjoyed and valued our work with you, Tzipi, and with the people of Israel, with Prime Minister Olmert, with Defense Minister Barak, and with others. Israel and the United States will and always will—are and always will remain friends. We share values and we share a common desire to see a Middle East that lives in peace and in freedom.

And so, I welcome you here today in these difficult circumstances, but I know that you, in your personal commitment to a better life for the people of Israel and for the people of the Middle East, as well as for the people of the world, will continue your endeavors well beyond this day. Thank you.

Foreign Minister Livni. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Israel is fighting today against the Hamas terrorist organization that has taken Gaza hostage and continues to target the citizens of Israel. We are fighting Hamas that continues to hold Gilad Shalit and even denies him ICRC access.

I've said from the outset that ending the fighting in Gaza will not be achieved by agreements with terror, but with effective arrangements against it. This is what we are doing today. I've said from the outset that an end to the fighting will come— will not come through a simple call for a ceasefire, but through a determined, united and effective effort by the international community against terror groups such as Hamas, and this is what we are doing today.

Israel left Gaza Strip years ago. When we left, Hamas claimed that terror made us leave. But the truth is that it was the hopeful peace that made us leave Gaza, and terror that forced us, and forced our soldiers, to come and fight in Gaza today.

After years of restraint, Israel has shown that it will no longer tolerate attacks on our citizens, and that there will be high price for terror from Gaza against our citizens. We have also made clear, as have many international leaders, including President Bush and Secretary Rice, that for a cessation of hostilities to be durable, there must be an end to the smuggling of weapon into Gaza. That is why the MOU we sign today is so important as a vital component for the cessation of hostility.

It is true that even after the fighting ends, we reserve our right to act to defend ourselves against those activities in Gaza, including weapons smuggling and buildup of military capabilities. But this can be prevented by actions of the international community, according to this MOU. In this MOU, we have agreed on a series of actions with regional and international players in order to complement Egyptian actions and end the flow of weapon to Gaza.

I will not repeat the list of measures, but these are specific steps to end the flow of weapons along the supply routes by working with NATO and regional states, and by enhancing the effectiveness of measures against Iran, the main supplier of these weapons.

As I've said many times, our commitment to peace and the solution of two-states with two peoples requires not only genuine negotiations with our pragmatic partners, the legitimate Palestinian Government, as was decided in Annapolis; but also determined action against terrorists and enemies of peace.

It is this dual strategy that we are pursuing. And I believe that it is this strategy that will lead us to a more secure and peaceful future. I believe that this MOU, together with parallel understanding with Egypt and an end to attacks from Gaza, can create the basis for Israeli decisions on the future of the operation.

I would like to thank Secretary Rice and the entire Administration for their efforts to conclude this important, and, I think, historical MOU in record time. And I think that this MOU shows, once again, not only the strong strategic partnership between Israel and the U.S., but also the principled and determined stand of the United States against terror as the leader of the free world. We value this leadership under President Bush, and we are confident that it will continue under the new U.S. administration of President-elect Obama.

On a personal note, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Condi Rice, not just for her efforts on this MOU, but for leadership, support, and friendship over the last years. Important work has been done over the last years to lay the foundation for a secure and stable Middle East, for the benefit of the people of Israel and the region as a whole. There are many challenges ahead, but I want to thank my friend Condi for her important contribution on our shared goals and shared values. And it is about values that we are talking about, determination to act according to your values. I know that you care. I know that in each and every decision that make, you were working according to your values and an understanding that we need to work together in order to create a better world. Thank you.

Secretary Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, Special Envoy George Mitchell, and Special Representative Richard Holbrooke delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. Thank you. Thank you very much, and welcome to the State Department. Please be seated.

We are delighted to be joined this afternoon by President Obama and Vice President Biden for this very important announcement. But it is also absolutely a delight to have the President and the Vice President here with us today. It is an indication of the President's commitment to a foreign policy that protects our national security and advances our interests and is in keeping with our values. So we, Mr. President, take great heart from the confidence that you have placed in us.

Today, we start the hard work to restore our standing and enable our country to meet the vexing new challenges of the 21st century, but also to seize the opportunities that await us. The President is committed to making diplomacy and development the partners in our foreign policy along with defense, and we must be smarter about how we exercise our power. But as I said this morning upon entering the building, the heart of smart power— are smart people. And Mr. President, we have them in abundance here in the State Department, USAID, and our related agencies.

Today, you will see an example of the kind of robust diplomacy that the President intends to pursue and that I am honored to help him fulfill. Nowhere is there a need for a vigorous diplomatic approach more apparent than in the two regions that epitomize the nuance and complexity of our interconnected world. Many of you in this building, many of your Foreign Service and Civil Service and Foreign National colleagues have been engaged on behalf of issues related to the Middle East and to Afghanistan and Pakistan for years, sometimes, as we know, at great peril and personal sacrifice. That work has been invaluable, and it will continue to be the underpinning of everything our government does to achieve peace and stability in these regions.

At the same time, we know that anything short of relentless diplomatic efforts will fail to produce a lasting, sustainable peace in either place. That is why the President and I have decided to name a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace and a Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Given the magnitude of the issues confronting us, we will bolster the excellent work that is done daily here, as well as in our embassies and outposts around the world, and particularly in these two regions, by an intensive push undertaken through the efforts of these two seasoned diplomats.

Mr. President, by coming here to the State Department, and through your announcement today of these two positions, you are, through word and deed, sending a loud and clear signal that diplomacy is a top priority of your presidency, and that our nation is once again capable of demonstrating global leadership in pursuit of progress and peace.

We are honored to have you join us on only the second day in office. We are grateful to you for highlighting these urgent issues and the collaboration needed to address two of the biggest foreign policy challenges of our time. I know that everyone here at State and in our various embassies and consulates and other outposts throughout the world look forward to working closely with these two exceptional public servants, as we strive to protect and advance America's interests and find a path to peace and greater harmony in these vital areas of the world.

I am pleased now to introduce someone who is no stranger to this Department, who has been a friend and partner, as a Senator, as the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and now as our Vice President. There are few people who have been so devoted to promoting diplomacy and development as our guest, Vice President Joe Biden.

Vice President Biden. Thank you very much. Madame Secretary, let me begin by saying congratulations. It was a bright day for the whole Department and the Foreign Service when you walked through that door. And so, congratulations to you.

Mr. President, your choice of our colleague, Senator Clinton, is absolutely the right person, in my view, at the right moment in American history.

We've come here today to the State Department to send a very clear message, a clear message at home as well as abroad, that we are going to reinvigorate America's commitment to diplomacy. This effort will be led by Secretary Clinton. I believe, and as I know you do, Mr. President, because you chose her, that she has the knowledge, the skill, the experience, as well as that sort of intangible commodity of having personal relationships with many of these world leaders, which makes her uniquely—in my view, uniquely qualified to put diplomacy back in the forefront of America's foreign policy.

For too long, we've put the bulk of the burden, in my view, on our military. That's a view not only shared by me, but by your Secretary of Defense as well. And our military is absolutely—to state the obvious, absolutely necessary, but not sufficient. Not sufficient to secure the interests of this great nation.

In a moment, Mr. President, you're going to announce two new powerful weapons in our—or I mean, I guess the Secretary is going to announce two very powerful weapons in our diplomatic arsenal. They have faced and helped resolve equally challenging issues to the ones they face today in their—throughout their careers, from the Balkans to Northern Ireland. Both—both are outstanding public servants and both are very, with all full disclosure, Mr. President, very old and close and friends.

Mr. President, if you'll permit me, I'd like to thank them. I'd like to thank them for their willingness to come back into government to take on two of the most vexing international dilemmas that we face and require their incredible capacity. And so I compliment the Secretary on her recommendations and your choices, and I look forward to—with following you, Mr. President, to reinvigorate diplomacy in the world. It is the key, ultimately, to our security.

I thank you.

Secretary Clinton. The President and I feel very grateful for the willingness of both of these extraordinary Americans to serve. And it is also fitting to thank their families. Both Mrs. Mitchell—Heather— and Kati, Richard Holbrooke's wife are here, along with other family members. These are very difficult assignments. They are disruptive of settled and successful lives. And we thank them for taking on these responsibilities.

It's my great honor to introduce the man who the President and I have asked to be the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace. He will lead our efforts to reinvigorate the process for achieving peace between Israel and its neighbors. He will help us to develop an integrated strategy that defends the security of Israel, works to bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will result in two states living side by side in peace and security, and to achieve further agreements to promote peace and security between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Senator Mitchell will also work to support the objectives that the President and I believe are critical and pressing in Gaza, to develop a program for humanitarian aid and eventual reconstruction, working with the Palestinian Authority and Israel on behalf of those objectives.

It is a great personal pleasure to introduce George Mitchell, a man who is well known inside this Department and across Washington and America, who has been willing to accept this important assignment.

Senator Mitchell. Mr. President, Madame Secretary, I am grateful to you for your kind words and for the confidence that you show in me and in Ambassador Holbrooke. It's a great honor for me to be able to serve our country again, and especially to do so with my friend and distinguished colleague, Richard Holbrooke.

I don't underestimate the difficulty of this assignment. The situation in the Middle East is volatile, complex, and dangerous. But the President and the Secretary of State have made it clear that danger and difficulty cannot cause the United States to turn away. To the contrary, they recognize and have said that peace and stability in the Middle East are in our national interest. They are, of course, also in the interest of Israelis and Palestinians, of others in the region, and people throughout the world.

The Secretary mentioned Northern Ireland. There, recently, long-time enemies came together to form a power-sharing government, to bring to an end the ancient conflict known as the “Troubles.” This was almost 800 years after Britain began its domination of Ireland, 86 years after the partition of Ireland, 38 years after the British army formally began its most recent mission in Ireland, 11 years after the peace talks began, and nine years after a peace agreement was signed. In the negotiations which led to that agreement, we had 700 days of failure and one day of success. For most of the time, progress was nonexistent or very slow. So I understand the feelings of those who may be discouraged about the Middle East.

As an aside, just recently, I spoke in Jerusalem and I mentioned the 800 years. And afterward, an elderly gentleman came up to me and he said, “Did you say 800 years?” And I said, “Yes, 800.” He repeated the number again—I repeated it again. He said, “Uh, such a recent argument. No wonder you settled it.”

But—800 years may be recent—but from my experience there, I formed the conviction that there is no such thing as a conflict that can't be ended. Conflicts are created, conducted, and sustained by human beings. They can be ended by human beings. I saw it happen in Northern Ireland, although, admittedly, it took a very long time. I believe deeply that with committed, persevering, and patient diplomacy, it can happen in the Middle East.

There are, of course, many, many reasons to be skeptical about the prospect for success. The conflict has gone on for so long, and has had such destructive effects, that many have come to regard it as unchangeable and inevitable. But the President and the Secretary of State don't believe that. They believe, as I do, that the pursuit of peace is so important that it demands our maximum effort, no matter the difficulties, no matter the setbacks. The key is the mutual commitment of the parties and the active participation of the United States Government, led by the President and the Secretary of State, with the support and assistance of the many other governments and institutions who want to help.

The Secretary of State has just talked about our long-term objective, and the President himself has said that his Administration—and I quote—“Will make a sustained push, working with Israelis and Palestinians to achieve the goal of two states: a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security.”

This effort must be determined, persevering, and patient. It must be backed up by political capital, economic resources, and focused attention at the highest levels of our government. And it must be firmly rooted in a shared vision of a peaceful future by the people who live in the region. At the direction of the President and the Secretary of State, and in pursuit of the President's policies, I pledge my full effort in the search for peace and stability in the Middle East.

Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Senator Mitchell. I next have the great personal pleasure of introducing the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ambassador Holbrooke will coordinate across the entire government an effort to achieve United States' strategic goals in the region. This effort will be closely coordinated, not only within the State Department and, of course, with USAID, but also with the Defense Department and under the coordination of the National Security Council.

It has become clear that dealing with the situation in Afghanistan requires an integrated strategy that works with both Afghanistan and Pakistan as a whole, as well as engaging NATO and other key friends, allies, and those around the world who are interested in supporting these efforts. It is such a great decision on the part of the Ambassador to respond to the call that the President and I sent out, asking that he, again, enter public service and take on this very challenging assignment. And we are grateful that he has.

Ambassador Holbrooke.

Ambassador Holbrooke. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Madame Secretary, Senator Special Envoy Mitchell, I thank you so much. It's an extraordinarily moving thing for me to return to this building again, having entered it so many years ago as a junior Foreign Service Officer.

As somebody whose career was determined in that initial decade of my life in the Foreign Service, I want to tell you, Mr. President, that I know that the Foreign Service and the Civil Service and the Foreign Service Officers serving around the world will appreciate and remember the fact that you chose to come to the Department on your second day to demonstrate what you have with this fantastic team. And if I may, on behalf of all Foreign Service Officers, active and retired, I want to thank you so much.

I'm also honored by the presence of two good and close friends, Vice President Biden and, of course, my boss—immediate boss, Secretary Clinton, and to share the podium with a colleague from the Irish days and many Senate events, Senator George Mitchell. I thank you for your confidence in offering me this daunting assignment, and all I can do is pledge my best to undertake it. I see—thinking of my early years in the Foreign Service, I see my former roommate in Saigon, John Negroponte, here. We remember those days well, and I hope we will produce a better outcome this time.

I also have to thank Kati; my two sons, David and Anthony; my stepdaughter— my beloved stepdaughter, Lizzie and her fiancé David, especially for coming down here today. And I hope that I'll be able to see you sometime in the next few years.

Mr. President, Madame Secretary, Mr. Vice President, you've asked me to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan, two very distinct countries with extraordinarily different histories, and yet intertwined by geography, ethnicity, and the current drama. This is a very difficult assignment, as we all know. Nobody can say the war in Afghanistan has gone well. And yet, as we speak here today, American men and women and their coalition partners are fighting a very difficult struggle against a ruthless and determined enemy without any scruples at all, an enemy that is willing to behead women who dare to teach in a school to young girls, an enemy that has done some of the most odious things on earth.

And across the border, lurks a greater enemy still: the people who committed the atrocities of September 11th, 2001.

We know what our long-term objective is. I hope I will be able to fill out the mandate which Secretary Clinton has mentioned: to help coordinate a clearly chaotic foreign assistance program, which must be pulled together; to work closely with General Petraeus, CENTCOM, Admiral Mullen, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General McKiernan and the command in Afghanistan, to create a more coherent program.

If our resources are mobilized and coordinated and pulled together, we can quadruple, quintuple, multiply by tenfold the effectiveness of our efforts there.

In Pakistan the situation is infinitely complex, and I don't think I would advance our goals if I tried to discuss it today. I wish to get out to the region and report back to the Secretary, the Vice President, and the President.

But I will say that in putting Afghanistan and Pakistan together under one envoy, we should underscore that we fully respect the fact that Pakistan has its own history, its own traditions, and it is far more than the turbulent, dangerous tribal areas on its western border. And we will respect that as we seek to follow suggestions that have been made by all three of the men and women standing behind me in the last few years on having a more comprehensive policy.

So I thank you again for your confidence in me. I look forward to working for you, with you closely, and following a joint effort to do better than we have in the past. Thank you very much.

Secretary Clinton. Well, we are not only honored and delighted, but challenged by the President coming here on the second day. This puts the pressure on everybody. And yet, Mr. President, we feel up to that challenge. We want to do our very best work in furtherance of your goals. You set a high standard in your Inaugural Address as to what we are aiming toward. And I pledge to you on behalf of the thousands and thousands of dedicated public servants who serve you, on behalf of diplomacy and development, that we will give you our very best efforts. It is an honor to be working to fulfill the goals that you have set for our country.

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Subject: Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related to Gaza

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the “Act”), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Special Envoy George Mitchell delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. Good morning. I welcomed our Special Envoy George Mitchell back from his trip to the Middle East and Europe this morning, and we were able to have a long discussion about what he heard and learned in the region. This kind of diplomatic force projection that Special Envoy Mitchell represents is something that both the President and I believe very strongly in, and I was pleased that the President agreed to appoint Senator Mitchell. And of course, he quickly sprang into action.

He has described to me the steps that he discussed with the various parties to obtain a sustainable and durable ceasefire. We especially commend Egypt for its leadership role in working through the complex issues concerning a ceasefire. Senator Mitchell also discussed how we can better mobilize humanitarian relief to the people of Gaza and to coordinate the efforts underway or anticipated in the international community.

This is the first of what will be an ongoing, high level of engagement by Senator Mitchell on behalf of myself and the President. We are looking to work with all of the parties to try to help them make progress toward a negotiated agreement that would end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, create an independent and viable Palestinian state in both the West Bank and Gaza, and provide Israel with the peace and security that it has sought.

We are looking forward to the results of the Israeli elections so that we can begin working with a new Israeli government. We are working with the Palestinian Authority under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad to support their efforts to continue the progress that they have made in providing security and meeting the needs of the Palestinian people.

Senator Mitchell will be returning to the region before the end of the month. We are very grateful to all of the leaders and the various countries who quickly arranged their schedules to be able to meet with him.

And I want to thank him again for answering yet another call to duty. I'm grateful that he is also making clear to all of the interested parties and sides in the region who are concerned about the fate of the children on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides of this conflict, that the United States is engaged, that we are determined and committed to working with all who will work in good faith to solve the problems that are obviously afflicting that region.

So let me now ask Senator Mitchell to report on his trip and to, you know, provide you with some insight into what he learned during the last week.

Senator Mitchell. Well, thank you, Madame Secretary. When the Secretary first called me to tell me that she would like to recommend my appointment to the President, she warned me that it would involve some travel—but she didn't tell me that it would be so much so soon, that I would have to cover so much ground in my first week on the job. But I warned her this morning that she's going to have to start pretty soon because all of the leaders with whom I met had, in fact, already spoken to the Secretary and are anxious for her to come to the region, which, at an appropriate time and consistent with the worldwide demands on her schedule, I hope that she'll be able to make. So I thank her for the contribution.

Her discussions with most of the leaders helped to pave the way, along with the President's appearance on television, in the region. And as a result, I was received very warmly by those with whom I met, all of whom expressed satisfaction and gratitude that the United States in this Administration is undertaking promptly an initiative to try to help as best we can to achieve the goals that the Secretary set forth in her statement.

As I said here when my appointment was announced just a little over a week ago, the situation is obviously complex and difficult, and there are no easy or risk-free courses of action. But I'm convinced, after a week there, that my original assessment that with patient, determined, and persevering diplomacy, we can help to make a difference and that we can assist those in the region achieve the peace and stability that people on all sides long for.

It's extremely difficult for all concerned there now, and they recognize widely that American diplomacy can, and I believe will, be helpful in resolving the differences and moving forward toward the peace and stability that everyone wants.

So, Madame Secretary, thank you again for suggesting my appointment to the President and being so fully supportive of the mission that I've undertaken. As you have indicated and directed, I will be returning in just a couple of weeks, and I plan to make a regular and sustained— establish a regular and sustained presence in the region.

Thank you very much.

Q. Madame Secretary—

Secretary Clinton. Thank you.

Q.—(inaudible) it's clear that from the President's first interview and from the first stop in Cairo that the Administration is making a concerted effort to send a signal of the priorities and the balance, and perhaps a rebalancing. Is that enough going in? Or, eventually, does there have to be a path, a diplomatic path to Hamas, in order to resolve Gaza? And if I could ask both of you, Madame Secretary.

Secretary Clinton. Well, Andrea, you know, we have a very clear policy toward Hamas, and Hamas knows the conditions that have been set forth. They must renounce violence. They must recognize Israel. And they must agree to abide by prior agreements that were entered into by the Palestinian Authority.

We are just at the beginning of this deep and consistent engagement that we are part of, that Senator Mitchell is leading for our Administration, but our conditions with respect to Hamas have not and will not change. It is our hope that the work that needs to be done to move the parties toward an effort to settle many of the disputes that they currently confront will be effective. But Hamas knows that it must stop the rocket fire into Israel. There were rockets yesterday, there were rockets this morning. And it is very difficult to ask any nation to do anything other than defend itself in the wake of that kind of consistent attack. So that's not new news. You know what our position is. It is something that the President has set forth.

We are not able to, you know, look into the future to see whether there will be changes on the part of Hamas that would meet our conditions. But you know, certainly, that would be a clear path for them to follow. We are going to report to the President in the next day. And, you know, we'll have more to say as this process moves forward. But again, I want to thank Senator Mitchell for undertaking one of the most difficult assignments that anyone could be willing to shoulder.

And we want to send a clear message, as he did, both listening and responding during the last week, that the United States is committed to this path, and we are going to work as hard as we can over what period of time is required to try to help the parties make progress together. So thank you all very much.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. I'm very happy to welcome former Prime Minister Blair who, as you know, is the Quartet's Representative in the Middle East, and has been working very hard on behalf of the principles that the Quartet put forward.

He worked closely with General Jim Jones, who now is our National Security Advisor, on security and development issues in the West Bank. He's now working with General Dayton, who is continuing that mission. And he has met with former Senator Mitchell and others at the State Department and the White House to continue our efforts to work through the strategy that we want to pursue and that Senator Mitchell is spearheading for us. So I'm very glad to welcome him to the State Department to be brought up to date on his views and ideas about the way forward.

Secretary Hillary Clinton was interviewed by VOA in Washington, DC

Q. Thank you for giving us the time again today, Madame Secretary. You are about to embark on your first trip to the Middle East, and some would argue that it's coming at an inopportune time: Israel is, of course, struggling to form a government; President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority—his term has technically expired; and of course, you have that overhanging split between the forces of Mr. Abbas and Hamas. Isn't this a particularly difficult time for you?

Secretary Clinton. Well, this will be my first trip to the Middle East as Secretary of State. Of course, I have been there many times in the past. And as you know, George Mitchell was designated Special Envoy for Middle East Peace and is currently in the midst of his second trip to the region.

I'm eager to meet with leaders to hear their thoughts about the best way to move forward on seeking peace and security. So at Sharm el-Sheikh, I'll be joining other members of the international community to address the immediate humanitarian crisis in Gaza. We want to strengthen a Palestinian partner willing to accept the conditions outlined by the Quartet and the Arab summit; in other words, a renouncement of violence, a recognition of Israel, and a commitment to abide by the previous agreements entered in by the Palestinian Authority.

All of our efforts will be designed to produce the sort of progress that is concretely felt by people on the ground. Our aid dollars will flow based on these principles. They'll be spent only in service of the goals that will help people feel more secure in their lives, and therefore more confident that progress toward peace would serve them better than retreating to violence and rejectionism. And I will be announcing a commitment to a significant aid package, but it will only be spent if we determine that our goals can be furthered rather than undermined or subverted.

So I'm looking forward to returning to Israel. During my last visit in 2005, the reception I received, along with my husband, was so warm, and I have so many great memories of my many visits to Israel. It's a visit with old friends. And obviously, this is a sensitive time in Israeli politics as they seek to form a government, but I will take the opportunity to reaffirm the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship and talk about the best way to move peace forward. We are still committed to a two-state solution. I will also be visiting with Palestinian leaders in Ramallah to consult with them.

So I guess in summary, I will be working along with Special Envoy Mitchell to help make progress toward a negotiated agreement to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians; to create an independent, viable Palestinian state in both the West Bank and Gaza; and to provide Israel with the peace and security that it has long sought and which the people deserve to have.

Q. Madame Secretary, are you in any way encouraged by the reports of progress in the Egyptian mediation efforts between the major Palestinian parties?

Secretary Clinton. Well, I believe that it's important, if there is some reconciliation and a move toward a unified authority, that it's very clear that Hamas knows the conditions that have been set forth by the Quartet, by the Arab summit. And they must renounce violence, recognize Israel, and abide by previous commitments; otherwise, I don't think it will result in the kind of positive step forward either for the Palestinian people or as a vehicle for a reinvigorated effort to obtain peace that leads to a Palestinian state.

Q. What about the Israeli side of the equation? Benjamin Netanyahu, who is the designated—the prime minister-designate, hasn't fully embraced the two-state solution that's been a real fundamental part of U.S. policy.

Secretary Clinton. Well, I think that our policy remains as it is the policy of the Quartet and the Arab League peace initiative to move toward a two-state solution. And there is not yet a government in Israel, so clearly, we have not had an opportunity to consult with anyone, but we will certainly convey our strong commitment to a two-state solution.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt

Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be back in Egypt, and to be with so many people dedicated to building regional and global peace. I want to thank the Egyptian Government, my colleagues in the Quartet, the Norwegian co-chair, and other sponsors for convening this meeting. Let me also convey special gratitude to President Mubarak for his hospitality and for his personal efforts to bridge divides and end conflict.

I'm proud to be here on behalf of the Obama Administration—and to bring this message from our new President: The United States is committed to a comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors and we will pursue it on many fronts. So too will we vigorously pursue a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a sign of our seriousness, President Obama and I have appointed Special Envoy George Mitchell to lead this effort.

We commend President Abbas for his commitment to move forward with a negotiated solution, and also Prime Minister Fayyad for his work to build institutions to support a Palestinian state. And we take inspiration from the Arab Peace Initiative proposed by His Majesty King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the Arab League.

Time is of the essence. We cannot afford more setbacks and delays, or regrets about what might have been had different decisions been made. And now is not the time for recriminations. It is time to look ahead.

We gather today to address the humanitarian and early recovery needs of the Palestinian people after the recent conflict, and the United States joins with others in generously stepping forward to help. Our pledge of over $900 million, designed in coordination with the Palestinian Authority and to be submitted to the United States Congress, will deliver assistance to the people of Gaza and the West Bank.

All of us recognize that human progress depends on the human spirit. That a child growing up in Gaza without shelter, health care, or an education has the same right to go to school, see a doctor, and live with a roof over her head as a child growing up in your country or mine. That a mother and father in the West Bank struggling to fulfill their dreams for their children have the same right as parents anywhere else in the world to a good job, a decent home, and the tools to achieve greater prosperity and peace. That progress toward the goals we seek here today is more likely to grow out of opportunity, than futility; out of hope, than out of misery.

So we will work with our Palestinian partners, President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, to address critical humanitarian, budgetary, security, and infrastructure needs. We have worked with the Palestinian Authority to install safeguards that will ensure that our funding is only used where, and for whom, it is intended, and does not end up in the wrong hands.

In pledging these funds, we are pursuing both a short- and long-term approach. It is not enough just to respond to the immediate needs of the Palestinian people. Our response to today's crisis in Gaza cannot be separated from our broader efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace. Only by acting now can we turn this crisis into an opportunity that moves us closer to our shared goals.

By providing humanitarian assistance to Gaza, we also aim to foster conditions in which a Palestinian state can be fully realized—a state that is a responsible partner, is at peace with Israel and its Arab neighbors, and is accountable to its people; a state that Palestinians everywhere can be proud of and is respected worldwide.

This is the Palestinian state we all envision. This is the Palestinian state that we have an obligation to help create.

For the Israelis, that means showing the Palestinians that there are benefits to negotiating if their goal is to control their own destiny and live in peace and dignity in an economically viable state.

For the Arab states, it means signaling through words and deeds that the spirit of the Arab Peace Initiative can begin to govern attitudes toward Israel now. For all of us—the Arab states and the wider international community—it means working with the government of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority, to help build a state that can meet international expectations and obligations.

And for the Palestinians, it means that it is time to break the cycle of rejection and resistance, to cut the strings pulled by those who exploit the suffering of innocent people, and show the world what the talent and skills of an exceptional people can build and create.

That is why we're here today—not only to address Gaza's urgent needs, but to move ahead toward genuine Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli peace.

Our aid package is meant to accelerate, not hinder, that effort.

Through his commitment to negotiations with neighbors, President Abbas has shown the hallmarks of leadership, as has Prime Minister Fayyad, who has bolstered the credibility of his government by instituting a national budget process that is transparent and serves the needs of the Palestinian people. They are offering their people the option of a peaceful, independent, and more prosperous future, not the violence and false choices of extremists whose tactics—including rocket attacks that continue to this day—only will lead to more hardship and suffering. These attacks must stop.

The positive approaches I've outlined offer an opportunity for even greater progress if our Palestinian partners can continue to work with us and abide by the PLO commitments to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist. The Quartet, in adopting its own principles, has agreed with the Arab League that the interests of the Palestinian people are best served under a government that abides by the PLO commitments.

Only a Palestinian Authority that adheres to these principles can fulfill the aspirations of the Palestinian people to be free, independent, prosperous and peaceful, flourishing in a viable state of their own.

As President Obama has said, the United States will engage in this effort with vigor and intensity in pursuit of genuine progress—progress that will improve the lives and the livelihoods of the people of Gaza and the West Bank, the people of Israel, and the neighbors throughout the region.

Assistance for the Palestinians is one step up the ladder to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. We must be willing to take this step—and many more together— until we fulfill that promise.

Thank you very much.

Secretary Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Al Arabiya in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt

Q. Thank you. Of course, it's been a very long day and a hectic day, but on the Gaza reconstruction conference, it is ironic that the whole world is trying to fix what Israel has been—has destroyed, actually—without blaming Israel and without getting guarantees that this will not be happening again. So what kind of guarantees are you having, or can you pursue any efforts or pressure on Israel in order to stop this vicious circle?

Secretary Clinton. That's a very difficult question, because, of course, the rocket attacks haven't stopped. And that is something which any nation must respond to. The rocket attacks, we thought, would end, and Egypt has worked so hard to create a durable ceasefire. But in the last several days, there have been 15, 18 more rocket attacks. And I think about what I would do in my country if rockets were coming across and threatening and scaring the people of my town or my state or my country. And you can't, as a nation, let that go unanswered. It is our hope that the rocket attacks will stop, because clearly Israel will have to respond if they don't stop.

And enough with the suffering. The Palestinian people deserve better than that. We call today on Hamas to work to try to help build up the Palestinian people instead of firing the rockets at Israel.

Q. But Prime Minister Olmert backed down on his agreement with a truce just hours before it was supposed to take place. So, I mean, it's the Israelis' role as well here.

Secretary Clinton. I think that there were negotiations going on about the truce, and certainly, it is very important to the Israelis that their soldier be returned. The talking can continue, and to try to resolve it. And I have certainly said that we need to provide humanitarian relief, and that's something that we will be talking to the Israelis about. But it's very difficult to do this while the rockets continue, because it is something that, as a necessity of national defense, you cannot let go unanswered.

Q. What is the U.S. position toward settlements?

Secretary Clinton. The U.S. position has been consistent over a number of presidencies that settlement activity is not helpful, that there needs to be an evaluation of that on the part of the Israelis.

Q. Okay. There is a new interim government—a Palestinian interim government that's supposed to take place, or to—I mean, to be formulated. If Hamas is part of this government, will the U.S. be dealing with it?

Secretary Clinton. That's really up to Hamas, because as we heard today, there are several principles that have been adopted. The Quartet—which consists of the United Nations, the European Union, the Russians, and the United States—the Arab League, which, of course, Egypt is a member of, have adopted the same principles that Hamas should renounce violence, recognize Israel, and comply with all previous PLO agreements. If Hamas does that, then there is a united Palestinian government that everyone will be able to deal with.

Q. Okay. A new Israeli cabinet also is taking place, or a new government, and it has been described here as (inaudible) government, and we know that Avidgor Lieberman is part of it. He has made statements before wanting to bomb the High Dam using the nuclear bomb. So what is your position?

It is viewed that there is a double standard in dealing in nuclear weapons with Israel and with the rest of the Middle East.

Secretary Clinton. The nuclear weapon issue is such a serious issue that I don't think intemperate remarks of any kind from anybody should detract from the importance of us dealing with the very real threat that nuclear weapons poses. The United States will work with friends and allies—like Egypt, other Gulf States, Jordan—to try to figure out how to control the kind of threat that nuclear weapons poses.

Q. Okay. What if Israel attacks Iran? What will the United States position be?

Secretary Clinton. What we have said is that we are willing to engage with Iran. In his inaugural address, President Obama said that we will extend a hand if you unclench your fist. And so the United States, after consulting with our friends and allies like Egypt, is willing to discuss with Iran areas of disagreement.

But Iran has to be willing to recognize that the nations in the area, not the United States—we don't live in this neighborhood, we're trying to be a good partner— but Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan and so many other Arab countries, are very worried about the conduct of Iran. And so what we're trying to do is—in consultation with our friends and allies— create a situation where perhaps we could deal with some of these challenges that Iran poses.

Q. On another issue, the State

Department issued a report about criticizing the human rights record of Egypt. And what kind of—in order for Egypt to enhance its record, what do you recommend or ask Egypt to do?

Secretary Clinton. We issue these reports on every country. We consider Egypt to be a friend and we engage in very forthright conversations with our friends. And so we hope that it will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered, that we all have room for improvement. The United States, as you have seen under our new President, is moving to remedy some of the problems that we have had. We view human rights as very important. It's central to our value system and to our foreign policy, and so we want to enlist others to make progress.

Q. Is this file, by any chance, connected to the invitation—extended invitation—for President Mubarak to visit the United States?

Secretary Clinton. No. It's an annual report. It is not in any way connected. We look forward to President Mubarak coming as soon as his schedule would permit. I had a wonderful time with him this morning. I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States.

Q. How do you view the presidency in Egypt, the future of the presidency in Egypt?

Secretary Clinton. That's for the people of Egypt to decide. That is a very important issue that really is up to Egyptians.

Q. My last question is about Iraq. And President Obama has announced that there is a withdrawal—a partial withdrawal of the U.S. troops by the year 2010. There is fear that Iran will fill that gap. Do you share the same fear?

Secretary Clinton. I don't, and here's why. I think the Iraqi people are very committed to their nation. We have seen the leaders of Iraq stand up for their own elections, stand up for their own rights as a nation. And so we are very supportive of Iraq being for Iraqis. Now, other countries will certainly interact with the Iraqis. We will. Others will in the region. But I see a very strong sense of national identity in Iraq. And as we withdraw our troops, we will work with the Iraqi army so that they will be able to defend their country, and we will work with the Iraqi Government on a range of issues that they wish to have help from us on.

Q. You don't fear any Iranian interference?

Secretary Clinton. Oh, do I think that they will try to interfere? Of course. I think that is part of the historical record. But I think that the Iraqis have demonstrated over the last couple of years that they're going to stand up for Iraq; that they are proud of their new democracy. These elections that were just held were very contested, and a lot of the religious parties and the Iranian-backed parties did not do well. People are anxious to have results. They don't want to hear a lecture; they want to have the electricity. They're not interested in ideology; they want a job. So I think that as the Iraqi people demand from their government these kinds of results, they will be more interested in defending Iraq than in being influenced by anyone else.

Secretary Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Egyptian TV in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt

Q. Madame Secretary of State, thank you for being with us.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you.

Q. It's a great pleasure to have you on Egyptian Television. You're coming here—this is your first visit to the region as the Secretary of State. And after eight years of the Bush politics that have inflicted such damage to the image of the United States and to the region itself, what are you telling the people of the region about your foreign politics? What are we expecting from you? Are we expecting better relations? Are we expecting a more balanced America? Are we expecting a new foreign policy?

Secretary Clinton. We are looking forward because we have a new President and he has made it very clear that the United States is going to reach out to the rest of the world. We will consult and listen to our friends and allies like Egypt, which has been a partner of the United States for a number of years. We will work together wherever possible to resolve conflicts and bridge divides.

As President Obama said in his inaugural address, we're extending an open hand. If those who still have clenched fists will release that, we will work together. So I think what our message is very clear— that consistent with American values and ideals, our commitment to trying to be a facilitator to solve difficult problems— we're going to be deeply engaged.

I think that is evidenced here in this region by the fact that on the second day he was President, President Obama came to the State Department. He and I announced our Special Envoy for Middle East Peace. We did not waste any time to demonstrate this was of the highest priority.

When Egypt invited us to this conference, I cleared my schedule so that I could personally be here along with our Special Envoy, because there is a lot of work to be done to build our relationships, to be a good listener as well as actor, and we're tackling these problems from the very beginning of the Obama Administration.

Q. You've mentioned Egypt as a friend and as an ally. In fact, the Egyptian-American relations have gone through bumpy relations during the Bush era as well—conditionalities on assistance, and human rights—recent human rights reports. Where are we heading? Are we seeing a new page in that relation?

Secretary Clinton. We are friends, but even friends don't agree on everything. We have a very constructive relationship. I had wonderful meetings today with President Mubarak, with the prime minister, with the foreign minister and other ministers of your government.

And in the course of those, we renewed our commitment to work together on a range of challenges that are not just of concern to the United States, but are of grave concern to Egypt—which is one of the reasons why Egypt played such a leadership role in trying to resolve the situation in Gaza, tried to create a durable ceasefire, trying to find a way to bring all Palestinians together, and we are supportive of that.

And we also want to take our relationship to the next level. We discussed today at breakfast with President Mubarak creating a formal bilateral dialogue that would be meaningful and cover the range of issues that we have concerns about.

Q. With no conditionalities?

Secretary Clinton. We are very much looking at this because the conditionality is something that is not our policy, not the Obama Administration policy. So we will be discussing everything.

Q. You're going tomorrow or maybe tonight to Israel?

Secretary Clinton. Yes.

Q. You're meeting with Netanyahu, someone who has rejected for such a long time the two-state solution. What are you going to tell him? Are you going to talk to him about freezing the settlements, about opening the crossings and the corridors for humanitarian aids?

Secretary Clinton. As you know, the Israelis are forming their government. They don't yet have a government. We will be meeting with everyone—the current government, those who are in negotiations to form the next government.

On this first trip, I will certainly convey the very strong commitment that the United States has, as I announced again today at the conference here in Sharm el-Sheikh, to a two-state solution, a comprehensive peace—a just, secure peace where the Palestinians, where Israel and the Arab neighbors can live in a productive and constructive ways together to the benefit of all the people.

I got into politics because I care deeply about what happens to children. And as I said today, a child growing up in Gaza has just as much of a right to a job, to an education, to healthcare, as a child growing up anywhere. And parents in the West Bank have just as much right to expect that their children will grow up and have a future that is worthy of their efforts. That's what motivates me. That is what I'm going to work toward.

So in this first meeting, we will be reasserting what we believe should be the American policy.

Our Special Envoy Senator Mitchell has already met several times. As soon as there is a government in place, he will be coming back. And we are going to put our very best efforts to work here.

Q. On Syria, President Obama today said that he prefers talks, or he's looking forward to talks, direct talks with Syria. Are we seeing, again, an ambassador, American ambassador, going back to Syria, to Damascus?

Secretary Clinton. We are beginning a conversation with the Syrians. We have a number of issues between the United States and Syria. We are concerned about the role that Syria has played which—as you know so well here in Egypt—has not been viewed as productive, but also beyond in the Gulf as well. We're just beginning to have that conversation. I don't know where it will lead. But we want the Syrians to know that we are willing to talk and to listen and to see whether there are ways that we can solve some of the problems between us.

Q. Does this go along for Iran as well?

Secretary Clinton. As the President has said, we are open to having engagement but we will do so only in consultation with our friends like Egypt. We are not going off on our own. We are talking with our friends and our allies who have concerns, deep concerns about Iranian behavior and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, its intervention in the internal affairs of other countries, its support of terrorism, frankly, including Hamas.

And we want to make it clear to the Iranians that again unclench your fist, come to the table in good faith. We will consult with our friends and allies. And if there is way that we can work toward some resolution of these problems that bother us, Egypt, and others, we would welcome that.

Q. One last question because I know you have to—you have other engagements. How is it—is it more difficult to be a Secretary of State rather than being a First Lady or a candidate? Which is more interesting?

Secretary Clinton. They're all interesting. They really are.

Q. Which is more difficult?

Secretary Clinton. I have to say, they're each difficult. When I was First Lady—that's not a job. You make it up as you go along. I was very interested in all kinds of important issues. When I came to Egypt on some wonderful trips, I was fortunate to engage with your leaders and with many people throughout the country. As a Senator, I represented 19 million people in New York, all of whom had an opinion that I had to listen to.

Q. That's difficult.

Secretary Clinton. Now, here I am as Secretary of State and working in an Administration under a President with whom I had a political contest. But it was so important to me when he asked me—as a former opponent—to come into his government so that we could work together to bring the American people together. So that we could meet with so many important officials around the world to start solving the problems that we all face, that I said, absolutely.

And there's a lot of work to be done, but I'm honored to do it.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt

Secretary Clinton. Good evening.

We had a very productive conference today. I was privileged not only to participate in the plenary session, but to meet with a number of my counterparts in the region. The opportunity to meet with leaders, prime ministers, foreign ministers, and others has given me additional insight as to the way forward. I particularly appreciated the meetings that were hosted by President Mubarak and his commitment to bridging the divides and ending the conflict. And I want to again thank Egypt for hosting this important conference.

I announced today that the United States is joining others in responding to the needs of the Palestinian people. We have made a pledge of over $900 million for humanitarian and early recovery assistance.

Now, two points clearly emerged from the conference: First, that the international community is committed to providing immediate assistance to meet the humanitarian needs in Gaza and to help the Palestinian Authority's efforts to improve the lives of all the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank. Second, that the assistance we are offering is integral to our broader goals of a comprehensive peace and a two-state solution.

We are working with our Palestinian partners to help pave the way for a responsible Palestinian state that can be independent, accountable to its people, and live in peace with Israel and its Arab neighbors.

President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad both displayed their leadership today as they outlined their objectives in their remarks. And it wasn't only goals. There were very specific requests that I believe helped to create the confidence that led to the very large sum of money that was pledged today.

Senator Mitchell, our Special Envoy, joined me throughout the day. And as you have already seen, the United States is prepared to engage in aggressive diplomacy with all sides in pursuit of a comprehensive settlement that brings peace and security to Israel, the Palestinians, and their Arab neighbors.

And with that, I'd be glad to answer some questions.

Q. Madame Secretary, you called on Israel today to show the Palestinians that there are benefits to negotiating. I guess I'm interested in what you have in mind there. Does it include freezing settlements and opening border crossings? And added to that, your EU colleague, Ms. Ferraro-Waldner, said that you will certainly make the case in Jerusalem on opening border crossings. Will you?

Secretary Clinton. Well, Israel is in the process of forming a new government, and we will be discussing specific policies with that new government once it is formed. Tomorrow, Senator Mitchell and I will be meeting with all of the major players in Israel. On Wednesday, we will go to Ramallah and meet for a working meeting with President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad.

As a general principle, we believe it is important for Israel to work with its responsible Palestinian partners, including President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, to improve the lives of Palestinians, to expand opportunities for Palestinians, and to strengthen their capacity to govern the Palestinian people and move toward a viable state.

As I said in my remarks, to me, this is about what happens to the children in Gaza and the West Bank. I got into politics because I care deeply about what happens to children. I could never have imagined that I'd be sitting here as the United States Secretary of State. My work has always been about how to give children a better chance to live up to their God-given potential.

A child in Gaza has the same right as a child anywhere in the world to a good education, to health care, and to a better future. Parents in the West Bank have the same right as parents anywhere in the world to a good job, to housing, to a better opportunity for their children.

That is what motivates me, and I believe that will be the basis on which we discuss how best to realize the goal of a two-state solution, a comprehensive peace, and a better future for Israeli and Palestinian children.

Q. This is a question from (inaudible) magazine. Will the U.S. try to convince Israel to agree on the ceasefire agreement that Egypt has done a lot to reach it? And the second point: Will you consult with the countries in the region concerning your dialogue—future dialogue with Iran? Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. I commend Egypt for the role that it has played in working toward a ceasefire and attempting to bring the parties together—the Palestinian parties as well as with Israel—for a durable and lasting ceasefire. But I have to confess I am troubled by the continuing rocket attacks coming out of Gaza, 15 to 18 rockets in the last several days.

We call upon all parties to move toward a durable ceasefire, but it is very difficult for any country to just sit and take rockets falling on its people. That is the crux of the Israeli problem. How are they supposed to respond when they continue to have that kind of attack? So I commend the Egyptians and know that they will continue to work toward a durable ceasefire, but I hope that we are able to get a position established where that can be done.

As to Iran, we have made it very clear that we are going to consult constantly with our friends and partners. We have made our point to the people here in Egypt, in Jordan, as well as in the Gulf and elsewhere that, as President Obama said, we are willing to extend a hand if the other side unclenches its fist in order to have some process of engagement. But it will only be done in close consultation with our friends.

Mr. Wood. Sue Pleming from Reuters, please.

Q. Madame Secretary, in some of your meetings today, particularly with the United Arab Emirates, you expressed doubts about whether Iran will accept your overtures for talks. If indeed this is the case, then why is it such a good idea to reach out to Iran? And secondly, could you please tell us about your meeting, or your brief exchange, with the Syrian foreign minister? And do you plan to send an ambassador or an envoy there soon?

Secretary Clinton. Sue, with respect to any of my meetings that I held today, I will not characterize them in any specifics. I will say, in general, that they were productive and constructive and I thought, created a greater depth of understanding and basis for our working relationship going forward.

With respect to talking with the Syrian foreign minister, I will reiterate that in consultation with our friends and allies, our partners, we are reaching out to determine what, if any, areas of cooperation and engagement are possible, and that includes with respect to Syria.

Q. Thank you. Madame Clinton, the people in this region are pinning a lot of hope on the Obama Administration to engage actively and to help bring about a just solution. Will the U.S. Administration consider engaging with Hamas, the same way you're reaching out to Iran, at any point? Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Hamas is not a country. It is an entity that has to understand what the principles for any engagement are not just from the United States. The Quartet—which consists of the United Nations, Russia, the European Union, and the United States—as well as the Arab League are in agreement that there are certain principles that Hamas would have to adopt in order for any of us to engage with Hamas: recognize Israel, renounce violence, and agree to abide by the prior PLO agreements. Now that is not the United States talking. That is the Quartet and the Arab League. Everyone knows what Hamas must do, and it is up to Hamas.

Mr. Wood. Last question right here.

Q. (Inaudible). Madame, President Sarkozy said today that he hopes to see a conference by the end of the year, to see to a declaration of a Palestinian state. From your point of view, is it possible as circumstances on the ground? Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Is it possible to see the declaration of a Palestinian state?

Q. In a year.

Secretary Clinton. Within a year?

Q. Yes.

Secretary Clinton. I am a very hopeful person. It would be our hope that there could certainly be progress that was tangible, that positively affected the lives of the Palestinian people, which led to the possibility, the probability, of a viable state.

You all know that this is a very difficult and complex set of issues. You also know that I personally am very committed to this. And I know that it can be done. I believe that with all my heart. The timing of it will depend upon human effort and political will on all sides. It is not either/or, it is everyone. We have to decide whether we are ready to move on to other issues, whether we're ready to say: yes, let's take a chance on peace, and let's provide the opportunity for the Palestinian people to build and create a better future for their children.

You will see the amount of effort that the United States puts into this. I was talking to President Mubarak this morning about the many, many conversations he had with my husband in the 1990s, where they would stay up all night, night after night, and make maybe this much progress. But that much progress was worth it, because somebody didn't die and somebody had a better life and somebody wasn't turned from hope to despair.

I wish it could happen tomorrow. I wish it could happen certainly by the end of this year. But I will not give up. We will make progress. We made progress today. The amount of money committed was significant. The presentation from Prime Minister Fayyad was as good as I've seen from anybody. I mean, that's a presentation that should make every person proud, because it was so professional, so well thought out, and it inspired confidence. The statement of President Abbas about working together to achieve a state should give absolute proof that we're not giving up on the two-state solution; we are committed to it.

I feel passionately about this. This is something that is in my heart, not just in my portfolio.

And it is something that means a great deal to our Special Envoy. Some of you know that George Mitchell's father was Irish and his mother was Lebanese. Well, he solved half of his family's problems. So now he's here working on the second half, and we hope that we will see it come to fruition.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Minister Tzipi Livni delivered these remarks in Jerusalem

Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much. I'm delighted to be back here at the foreign ministry and to be hosted by the foreign minister. As with all my previous visits to Israel, going back nearly 30 years, I feel very welcomed by the Israeli people. And I appreciate now the opportunity to have this first visit as Secretary of State of my country, representing our new President, and to discuss with officials and friends some of the very challenging issues—a full, broad array of them— based on our close relationship.

I was privileged to start my day with President Peres, and then to pay a visit to Yad Vashem to once again pay tribute to those who lost their lives in the Holocaust. My visit was a powerful reminder, as it always is, of why we are working so hard to advance the peace and security of the state of Israel.

As I said this morning, President Obama and I believe that the bond between the United States and Israel, and our commitment to Israel's security and to its democracy as a Jewish state, remains fundamental, unshakable, and eternally durable.

We had a very productive discussion today, and it was broad-ranging. We discussed, among many other things, our common commitment to a two-state solution as part of a comprehensive, secure peace with Israelis, Palestinians, and the Arab neighbors. We talked about the steps that the minister has pursued and what could be done when there is a new government in place.

The first step right now, not waiting for a new government, is a durable ceasefire. But that can only be achieved if Hamas ceases the rocket attacks. No nation should be expected to sit idly by and allow rockets to assault its people and its territories. These attacks must stop and so must the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. These activities put innocent lives of Israelis and Palestinians at risk and undermine the well-being of the people of Gaza.

As we move forward, we will work together—along with the international community—to address the humanitarian needs in Gaza. We believe we can also work together to further the obligations that were entered into by the Palestinian Authority under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, and help pave the way for a viable Palestinian state that can be independent, accountable, and live at peace.

That is the message that I brought to the Gaza donors conference, along with a pledge that the United States will be vigorously engaged in the pursuit of a two-state solution every step of the way. Our Special Envoy Senator Mitchell is here with me today. He will be back soon, once there is a government formed. The road ahead, we acknowledge, is a difficult one but there is no time to waste.

The foreign minister and I also discussed Iran. We share Israel's concerns about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its continued financing of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. As we conduct our policy review and consider areas where we might be able to productively engage with Iran, we will stay in very close consultation with our friends here in Israel, with the neighbors of Iran in the region and beyond with those countries that understand what a threat Iran poses today, and what a greater threat it would pose were it ever to be successful in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

As I pledge again today, and as President Obama has said, we will do everything necessary to ensure Israel's security now and into the future.

I will later today meet with the prime minister-designate, with the defense minister, and with the prime minister, and will be engaging with them on a full range of the issues that we—both of our countries —care so much about.

We believe that working together as friends and partners with patient, determined, persevering diplomacy, we can help advance the cause of peace and security here in Israel and throughout the region. So again, Madame Minister, thank you so much for hosting me here today.

Foreign Minister Livni. Thank you. It is an honor for us, for all of us, to welcome you to Israel. I mean, Secretary Clinton is a good friend of Israel and has shown this deep understanding of the needs of Israel, the understanding of the nature of the threats that we have here in the region, and shown this kind of friendship and understanding—an understanding in many positions that you had in the past.

There are new administrations in the United States of America and, of course, a new government in Israel that is going to be formed during the next few days. But it is not less important to (inaudible) to emphasize that the relationship between Israel and the United States of America are based on the same values, the understanding of the interests, the threats, and the way to confront and to meet these challenges together (inaudible) parties and governments. And this is based on the understanding of the nature of the values.

The United States of America is the leader of the free world. It leads the battles which are needed against extremism, and represents the same values that are the basic values of the United States of America. And Israel, I would say, proud to be or to represent these values here in the Middle East. According to these values and the need to fight anti-Semitism, I would like to express not only the government appreciates them, but the people of Israel's appreciation to the standing that you took against the participation in Durban. This demonstrates the values of the United States of America. It was a symbolic decision, and I hope to see more states who are going to follow this decision. And I would like to thank you personally for this.

According to these values, there is an understanding between Israel and the United States of America that the division in the region is between extremists and moderates, and there's a need to act according to a dual strategy. On one hand, to confront terror, to act against extremism that is being represented here in the region by Iran, who poses these threats trying to pursue a weapon—a nuclear weapon and expresses its extreme ideology, which is not connected in any way to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We have Hamas within the Palestinian Authority that controls Gaza Strip and targets Israel on a daily basis. And Israel is working according to this dual strategy: on one hand, to confront terrorism, and when the state of Israel is being targeted (inaudible) as a government, any government, is to fight back and to use military forces when it comes to Gaza Strip.

On the other hand, there's a need—not less important—to continue the peace process between Israel and the legitimate Palestinian Government, according to the vision of two states for two people, that represent the interests of Israel and the values of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and represents the idea of living—at the end of the day, living together in peace in this region.

Since a new government in Israel is going to be formed, I am sure that part of the process is going to be sitting together, sharing the evaluation of the situation in the region, not only the nature of the threats, but what are the right things to do in order to address this. And when— according to the shared policy, I do believe that it's not only about sharing the same values, but also a basic understanding of what need to be done in order to address the threats and the challenges in the region. And we had very fruitful and enlightening discussion, until now, and thank you.

Q. Andrea Mitchell from NBC. Foreign Minister, did you present Secretary Clinton a series of red lines, conditions that Israel would want to insist on before the United States engages with Iran—conditions such as a time limit on such talks and tougher sanctions before talks would begin?

Could we ask you also, Secretary Clinton, whether those red lines were presented to you? And could we also ask whether the Obama Administration has expressed a willingness, or is willing, to give up the deployment of missile defense in Eastern Europe if Russia is helpful in persuading Iran to back down on any nuclear ambitions?

Secretary Clinton. We had a very broad discussion about Iran, and we will continue those discussions. There is an understanding that we share about the threat that Iran poses. We intend to do all that we can to deter and to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. That is our stated policy. That is the goal of any tactic that we employ.

When we talk about engagement with Iran, do not be in any way confused. Our goal remains the same: to dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and continuing to fund terrorism. It happens to be a goal that is shared not only with Israel, but with many countries that view Iran through the same prism that we do. And as President Obama has said in his inaugural address, we will stretch out our hand to any country that unclenches its fist. But that is yet to be seen. Whatever we do will be done thoughtfully, in consultation with our friends and allies— most particularly Israel.

With respect to Russia, we are at the beginning of our engagement with Russia on behalf of this new government. I had a chance to meet briefly yesterday at Sharm el-Sheikh with the Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. I will be meeting with him at length in Geneva on Friday night. We have a very broad agenda also.

What we have said specifically in regard to missile defense in Europe is that it has always been intended to deter any missile that might come from Iran. That's been our stated position. That was the stated position previously and it remains our position. We have explained that to the Russians before. When I say we, I mean the American Government. And we continue to believe that we have to take all steps necessary to protect ourselves, our friends, our allies, from a potential aggressive action in the future from Iran.

But there's a broad agenda to discuss with the Russians, and we're going to be starting that on Friday.

Foreign Minister Livni. Okay, thank you. I would like to add on the Iranian issue. I mean, it's not about red lines, but it's about sharing the same perspective about the nature of the threat and how to deal with it. But it is not less important to understand that Iran is not only the problem (inaudible). I mean, this is a global threat. And I'm sure that Secretary Clinton, coming from Egypt right now after hearing the perspective of other states in the region, including other Muslim and Arab states, understands today that they feel that Iran is (inaudible) enemy and not Israel anymore. And they feel that Iran tried to undermine their own regime. Iran works with radical elements within their own states, and Iran represents an ideology which is not (inaudible). It's not a conflict on borders or something; it's an extreme religious ideology that tries to deprive us from our rights. And it's not only about Israel living in peace in the region, but about the entire region. And nobody—really nobody wants to see Iran getting a nuclear weapon. So this is the basic understanding in the world.

Secondly, there is an understanding that time is of the essence. I mean, while we are talking here, Iran tries to continue and to pursue the weapon in order to express its horrific ideology. So there is an understanding that time is of the essence.

Clearly, there is another understanding that sanctions are effective, but they were not effective enough, because unfortunately, the need to have a consensus with the entire international community led to some compromises in the past about the nature of the sanctions. And the United States of America is the leader of the free world. According to the understanding that Iran is a threat and a problem to—a global problem and a global threat, is going to take all the necessary steps in order to address this threat, according to the interest not only of Israel, but the basic interest of the United States of America. And on this, it's a shared interest.

Q. Please, Secretary Clinton, we heard in more than one occasion from you statements regarding the determination of the Administration to be—to go along the lines of the two-state solution, earlier this morning, twice or three times. Do you anticipate there would be clashes or disagreements or tensions with the new administration in Israel? It's no secret that Benjamin Netanyahu, a two-state solution is not part of his agenda. So what do you expect the relations be on that issue?

And I'd really appreciate a comment on that (inaudible), too, from Minister Livni since this is probably one of the reasons she is not joining the government.

Secretary Clinton. We look forward to working with the new government when it is formed. Obviously, its formation is up to the people of Israel. The United States, regardless of our political party in the White House or in the Congress, has always worked and supported the government and the people of Israel, and we intend to continue doing so. Now, that doesn't mean that as good friends, which we are, we might not have opinions that we will express from time to time. And certainly, having been on the receiving end, I know that Israel is not shy about expressing opinions about our policies.

I think that that's the nature of our relationship. I think that's one of the reasons why it is so dynamic and vibrant, is we are two vigorous democracies that have a broad range of opinions within our countries and between our countries. But that doesn't go to the fundamental alliance that we have, which stands the test of governments coming and going, and parties, and particular policies.

It is our assessment, as I expressed yesterday and again today, that eventually the inevitability of working toward a two-state solution seems inescapable. That doesn't mean that we don't respect the opinions of others who see it differently. But from my perspective, and from the perspective of the Obama Administration, time is of the essence on a number of issues, not only on the Iranian threat. We happen to believe that moving toward the two-state solution, step by step, is in Israel's best interest. But obviously, it's up to the people and the government of Israel to decide how to define your interests.

Q. Minister Livni, I hope you didn't just make news, because I'm not in a good position to ask you a follow-up question.

Foreign Minister Livni. No, just (inaudible).

Q. My question is actually to both of you, but first to Secretary Clinton. Yesterday in Sharm el-Sheikh, the UN Secretary General, European leaders and others appealed to Israel to open border crossings into Gaza. The United States obviously just announced a $900 million aid package for Gaza, and there was questions raised: How does that aid get to the people who need it without open borders?

I wonder whether you raised that issue in the spirit of friends offering an opinion to a friend in your meeting with the minister. And if so, Minister Livni, what did you say to the Secretary about it?

Secretary Clinton. I think that clearly the humanitarian needs in Gaza are ones that we all are attempting to alleviate. In our discussions, the foreign minister pointed out that consistent with security, they are trying to do what they can to facilitate the transit of humanitarian goods.

It doesn't help to have the rockets start up again. That is the double reality that we're facing here. We have a humanitarian challenge in Gaza with a lot of innocent Palestinians in need of the help that could be provided, and Hamas decides to continue to rain rockets down on Israel.

Yesterday, in my remarks and the remarks that I made afterwards at the press event, I pointed out that it's very difficult to solve this dilemma when Israel is still under physical attack. I certainly would appeal to the rocket launchers and their patrons to enter into a durable ceasefire and permit the humanitarian aid to flow.

At the same time, we know that the smuggling continues. We know there are certainly lots of items getting into Gaza, and there has to be a real concerted effort to try to cut off the smuggling of weapons, including rockets and other offensive weapons.

But I know that the Government of Israel and certainly the foreign minister share our concern about the humanitarian needs and are looking for a way to facilitate even greater delivery of necessary goods.

Foreign Minister Livni. Thank you. I would like to add clearly that the crossings are open for humanitarian needs. The crossings are not closed for humanitarian needs. Israel is not trying to punish the population in Gaza Strip. We are acting against Hamas, since this is a terrorist organization, who, in a way, abuse the fact that it controls the civil population in order to target Israel, and in order to get legitimacy from the international community.

And as I said before, the only way to address the challenges in the region is to understand that Hamas represents the extremists in the region. They are not fighting for the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. They are not fighting for the establishment of a state of—of the state— of the future state of Palestine, but are trying to act according to their own ideology of resistance, of acting against anyone who lives in the region not according to their own ideology.

So when it comes to the population— and Israel worked—we worked with United States of America before the conference, the donors conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, we are working with the international community in order to help the population as long as it comes through the PA, the legitimate Palestinian Authority, or through international organizations directly to the people, and doesn't legitimize this way or the other Hamas.

Another thing which is important for us, and it is related to the crossings—not to the humanitarian aids, but through something that Hamas wants to happen from (inaudible) own political perspective— Hamas wants the crossings to be open normally in order to have a kind of ministate, Hamastan, in Gaza Strip controlled by them. And this is something that, from our perspective, is connected to the fact that Gilad Shalit, the Israeli abducted soldier, was not released yet, and secondly, to the agreement between Israel, the PA, the United States, Europe from 2005.

Q. Madame Secretary, do you intend to send any of your officials from here to Damascus, perhaps? And if you do so, what's on the agenda? And even if you do not, do you see any possibility for real progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track without any active, real progress with the Syrians? Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you. We are going to be sending two officials to Syria. There are a number of issues that we have between Syria and the United States, as well as the larger regional concerns that Syria obviously poses. As you know, there have been a number of members of the United States Congress who have gone to Damascus in the last weeks and months, and we had an occasion a week ago to call in the ambassador from Syria.

Yes, we're going to dispatch a representative of the State Department and a representative of the White House to explore with Syria some of these bilateral issues. We have no way to predict what the future with our relations concerning Syria might be. Again, we don't engage in discussions for the sake of having a conversation. There has to be a purpose to them. There has to be some perceived benefit accruing to the United States and our allies and our shared values. But I think it is a worthwhile effort to go and begin these preliminary conversations.

With respect to the Syria track, again, that will be a matter that once there is a government in Israel, it will be on the agenda that both Senator Mitchell and I have with the new government.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert delivered these remarks in Jerusalem

Prime Minister Olmert. Good evening. I welcome the Secretary of State of the United States of America to (inaudible) on her first visit to Israel in her new position. The Secretary of State has an excellent familiarity with the state of Israel and the entire Middle East, one which goes back many years. And I'm certain that she will know how to utilize all the experience and knowledge she acquired through the years, and as a leading senator in order to represent the United States' interest and those of the entire free world, and to advance stability and quiet in the region, (inaudible) the goal we all share.

The friendship between the United States and Israel is close and long-lived. Throughout my entire tenure, our two countries nurtured and strengthened (inaudible) friendship. I'm certain that President Obama and the Secretary of State will work in cooperation with any Israeli Government and will remain committed to the well-being and the security of Israel as a Jewish state.

I expect that our discussion will undoubtedly deal with the bilateral relations between our countries as well as regional issues. The Secretary of State has arrived here at the prime minister's residence after a day of discussions with the president of the state of Israel and with my colleagues, and I am certain that she heard about our concerns and hopes from all of them.

I will share our increasing concern about the Iranian threat with her. The position of Israel, as I've already outlined, is that Israel cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. And I heard President Obama and the Secretary of State that they resolutely object to a nuclear Iran. We will discuss ways in which we can ensure this.

With regard to our hopes, I will share with the Secretary of State the position my government has taken to advance peace between us and the Palestinians, and together we will discuss ways to advance peace in the region as part of the two-states solution. This is the only solution. There is no doubt, and it reflects absolutely Israel's supreme strategic interest, as well as the interest of the Palestinian people.

I will update the Secretary of State with regard to the peace negotiations we conducted with Syria through the Turkish mediation, and together we will discuss ways in which we can extricate as many countries in the region from extremism in order to weaken the strengths and influence of those countries which support terror and of terrorist organizations in the region.

I will certainly update her with regard to the situation in southern Israel and about our intention to continue defending ourselves from any terrorist organization on the part—or aggression on the part of Hamas and other terrorist organizations which, unfortunately, (inaudible) in the Gaza Strip. In fact, they continue almost on a daily basis to shoot against innocent Israelis living in the southern part of Israel. And this is, of course, something which is totally unacceptable and intolerable to us and to everyone who lives in the state of Israel.

Madame Secretary of State, I am pleased to have the opportunity to meet with you in your new position. Your courage, your commitment, your international experience, and the brave friendship you have demonstrated for the state of Israel throughout the years will certainly find expression in your new role and assist in your success.

I am totally convinced that you will continue to advance and strengthen the relations between Israel with the greatest friend we have in the whole world, the United States of America. Welcome.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Prime Minister, and it is indeed a personal delight for me to be here this evening. I thank you for the generous offer of hospitality. As you've pointed out when I came in, I have been to this home before, and it always reminds me of the many years of friendship and people whose lives have intersected with mine. I am grateful for this opportunity to return as my country's Secretary of State on behalf of President Obama, and to have the opportunity you just briefly outlined to discuss the range of issues that are of concern to Israel and the United States.

I've had a wonderful day. As the prime minister pointed out, it started with an old friend, Shimon Peres, then I was honored to go to Yad Vashem to see some of the new parts of the museum and memorial, and to pay tribute there to the 6 million lives lost in the Holocaust, and to lay a wreath and pay respect to the eternal flame.

The United States and Israel face a number of serious challenges, and it was important for me to be here and to be with my delegation, including our Middle East Envoy Senator Mitchell—who has been here before and will be back numerous times in the future—to engage in in-depth discussions with Israel's leaders on these matters of grave mutual concern.

But I also enjoyed the opportunity to have a discussion with a group of women entrepreneurs, just a short while ago at the hotel, who are being featured in a little video made for a contest that the United States State Department is running seeking interesting projects around the world. There were so many hundreds of them submitted. This project from Israel discusses a supportive community that helps women become entrepreneurs, particularly immigrant women, women from the former Soviet Union, women from Ethiopia and elsewhere.

As we discuss the critical issues of our time, it's also important to remember why we do this. It is to provide the people, who both the prime minister and I are privileged to represent, with a chance to fulfill their own dreams, to live lives in safety and security, and to be given the opportunity to fulfill their own God-given potential.

When we sometimes discuss these serious matters of terrorism and extremism, of the threat posed by Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, we can't disconnect it from what we are attempting to do—to make sure that the people of Israel have a chance to live and flourish in a safe and secure environment, and as the prime minister said, to seek a way that they can live next to their Palestinian neighbors in a safe and secure environment.

I am very grateful, once again, to be here in Israel and pledging not only my personal commitment, but that of my country, to the fundamental and unshakable bond that joins us to Israel's security and to our enduring bonds of friendship.

Thank you so much, Prime Minister.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and President Shimon Peres delivered these remarks in Jerusalem

President Peres. Madame Secretary of State, our very dear Hillary, and the people that came with you—for Israel, it's a very important day. You are not new in this country, but this is a compliment, because you really know—and your views are known, and we feel that your judgment is responsible and penetrating and mature. I told you previously the situation right now is not as good as we would like to have it, but not as bad as it's being reported in the press. Not everything is lost, and I think that we can have a new beginning, as your Administration is a new beginning. And the President was elected by the Americans, but chosen by the rest of the world, and all of us look forward to it.

We have very serious security problems, particularly in Gaza, and further away, the threats that are coming from Tehran. But we're also experienced enough to understand that without peace, we cannot solve our security problems. I do not see profoundly any contradiction between the position taken by the United States and the position taken by us. Our aims are the same, our values are the same, and after 60 years of statehood, we have all the reasons and justification in the world to trust the ongoing friendship of the United States, even in times when we were alone and you didn't have the support of other people, and I think it goes deep in the roots of our perceptions and commitment and (inaudible) be continued.

To be more pragmatic, I do believe that once we shall have a government, and it may happen quite soon, we have not only to see what to do in Gaza; we don't like to repeat—as we didn't want to attack the Hamas in Gaza before (inaudible)—and even now, they continue to fire. We don't know the reasons why are they doing it. We don't know the goals they want to achieve. We know their intentions, which is basically negative—to destroy peace. We know that we are not alone in criticizing the Hamas; the rest of the Arab world feels exactly like it.

But while doing what is necessary in Gaza—I hope it won't be necessary to do more—we want to renew right away the talks of peace. I believe whatever government will be elected will respect the existing commitments of Israel. I think there is nobody in this country, right or left, that wants to control the life of the Palestinians. I think—also understand they have the right to have their own life and their own control. In fact, also, there is a realistic map that exists; not everything should be organized from the beginning. And also, I share the view of the Secretary as it was declared yesterday by her in Cairo, that time is of the essence. We shouldn't postpone, because any postponement will open other problems and other dangers. I believe that the United States, whatever her policies with Iran will be, will include a commitment not to permit—to create a nuclear danger in the Middle East. It's not an Israeli problem, it's a world problem. I heard likewise from the Europeans and the Russians; it's a very serious situation. So Hillary, I want to appreciate, first of all, your position until now; wherever you were, your responsibilities have shown understanding and sympathy and friendship. We don't take it lightly, the burden that is now lying on your shoulders, but I think they are strong, and you will find in us a real and sincere partner in the double purpose to prevent and stop terror and achieve peace for all of the people in the Middle East. It is in that spirit that I would like to welcome you to Jerusalem and the country. Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you, my dear and old friend for that warm welcome and for the extraordinary example that your life sets, as someone who has devoted yourself to the state of Israel, to its security, and to the cause of peace.

I always come away from my times with you both inspired and encouraged to think more deeply and more broadly. And I also am silently challenged by your ceaseless optimism about the future. This is a man for whom the expression “The glass is half full” was invented.

I have been coming to Israel for nearly 30 years. I actually relish the fact that my first visit was when I was as close to a private citizen as I have been in those 30 years. I was last here in 2005 and remember with great emotion the reception that Bill and Chelsea and I received. We have so many great memories over all of those visits. So this is truly a visit among friends, and it is my first visit as Secretary of State for my country and on behalf of our new President.

I'm looking forward to the meetings that I will have today. It is important that the United States always underscore our unshakable, durable, fundamental relationship and support for the State of Israel. I will be going from here to Yad Vashem to pay respects to the lost souls, to remember those who the Holocaust took, to lay a wreath, and to say a prayer. During today's visit, I want to emphasize the continuing strengths of the United StatesIsraeli relationship and our unrelenting commitment to Israel's security.

I will be sharing my impressions from the meeting I attended yesterday at Sharm el-Sheikh, and the individual exchanges that I had with many leaders from the region. During the conference, I emphasized President Obama's and my commitment to working to achieve a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and our support for the Palestinian Authority of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. As you know, our Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, Senator George Mitchell, is accompanying me. He's already been here, he's already had extensive conversations, and he will continue as a new government is created.

At the conference, I noted once again that the continued rocket attacks against Israel must cease. I don't, like Shimon, understand the provocation that Hamas is determined to present. But on behalf of the people who are in Gaza, these rocket attacks are cynical, and as I pointed out yesterday, there is no doubt that any nation, including Israel, cannot stand idly by while its territory and people are subjected to rocket attacks.

On behalf of the United States, I would like to congratulate Israel on your recent elections, showing once again the vibrancy of your democracy. I know this is a sensitive time in Israeli politics as the process of forming a new government unfolds. This is, of course, a matter for the Israeli people to decide under Israeli law, but we want you to know that we will work with the government of Israel that represents the democratic will of the people of Israel. The democratic process has its ups and downs, but the United States and Israel share a common bond that strengthens our relationship as fellow democracies to address the challenges that we each face.

Our relationship is more than just one of shared interests. It is of shared values. And President Obama and I look forward to working with Israel's new government.

We have a full day today, but I wanted to start off the day by catching up with an old friend, and listening to his extraordinary discussion of the range of concerns that confront Israel, but also the undying hope that Israel embodies, that there isn't any problem or any challenge that cannot be addressed by free people working together. Thank you so much for this warm welcome once again back to Israel.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and President Mahmoud Abbas delivered these remarks in Ramallah

President Abbas. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, we welcome Mrs. Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, in her first visit to the Palestinian territories, and we thank her for the positions, the supporting positions towards the Palestinian question, and for what His Excellency President Obama has expressed and demonstrated in terms of such positions, particularly what happened during the Sharm el-Sheikh conference, which—and the support to this vital conference for the reconstruction of the Palestinian territories in Gaza Strip.

And we also thank President Obama for this dynamism and for this vitality, and pushing the peace process forward, whether during the visit of Mrs. Clinton or during the visits of Mr. Mitchell to the region. And we have reiterated to Mrs. Clinton our insistence to move forward with the peace process according to the international legitimacy and the Roadmap plan and the two-state vision and our firm commitment towards that.

And we have also discussed the Palestinian national dialogue that has been taking place and continues to take place in Cairo, and about the formation of a Palestinian unity that abides by our obligations fully and works towards overseeing presidential and legislative elections in—with-in—no longer than the 24th of January 2010.

I believe that the time has become opportune now to put all the final status issues on the negotiation table, and also to conclude and finalize them and reach a final solution. And I'm talking about Jerusalem, the borders, refugees, water, security, and other issues, as well as the issue of prisoners, that we believe it is very important to release them all at the end of this process.

As we have also discussed, the Israeli Government—the new Israeli Government—and we have reiterated that we respect the choice of the Israeli people, and we respect the elections that took place in Israel. But we demand that the Israeli Government also commits itself to the Roadmap plan and the two-state vision and solution, and for the Israeli Government to work towards ending all settlement activities and lifting the checkpoints and end the settlement projects, particularly what is happening these days in E1 area, and the displacement that was decided in C1 area. These are issues that we cannot accept or tolerate. We have also stressed that we are waiting—awaiting from President Obama's Administration and from the Quartet to work to push the two parties towards abiding by these commitments.

There's also another important issue that has taken place at Sharm el-Sheikh conference regarding the aid, the assistance that is going to be provided to the Palestinian people. But we have talked with Mrs. Clinton about the need to open the crossing points and the borders, and to lift the siege that is imposed upon our people in Gaza Strip and allow the humanitarian and basic needs to flow into Gaza Strip, because the Palestinian people are suffering a lot. And the time is passing by and people are suffering and in need, and that is not tolerated.

We reiterate again that we are committed to the complete and comprehensive and final solution that was described in the Roadmap plan, and we hope that peace can be concluded at all other tracks—the Syrian track and the Lebanese track—so that we have a comprehensive peace and genuine and just peace in the region. We also reiterate here that the Arab Peace Initiative that was endorsed by more than one Arab and Islamic summit would be ready for implementation, but we hope that no longer time passes by before we can implement it. And I—we think that it is a sure opportunity and only opportunity for a peace to be achieved in the Middle East region and in the whole world.

Again, I'd like to welcome you, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, and I thank you for your visit.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, President Abbas. It is a pleasure and an honor to be back here and to have the opportunity to meet with you, a leader of courage and dedication to the Palestinian people. And I am very proud to stand beside President Abbas to deliver a message from my country and our President.

The United States supports the Palestinian Authority as the only legitimate government of the Palestinian people. And as a partner on the road to a comprehensive peace, which includes a two-state solution, our support comes with more than words. As I pledged in Sharm el-Sheikh, we will work with President Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad, and the government of the Palestinian Authority to address critical humanitarian, budgetary, security, and infrastructure needs, both in Gaza and in the West Bank.

As I said in Sharm el-Sheikh, a child growing up in Gaza without shelter, healthcare or an education, has the same right to go to school, see a doctor, and live with a roof over her head as a child growing up in any country. That a mother and a father here in the West Bank, struggling to fulfill their dreams for their children, have the same right as parents anywhere else to have a good job, a decent home, and the tools to achieve greater prosperity.

The United States aims to foster conditions in which a Palestinian state can be fully realized, a state that can provide these opportunities, a state that is a responsible partner, is at peace with Israel and its Arab neighbors, and is accountable to its people. That is the state that this government is attempting to build.

I met with Prime Minister Fayyad this morning and I expressed to him the appreciation we had for his presentation at Sharm el-Sheikh, which outlined the specific needs of the people in Gaza. I also believe that it is imperative we continue to do the reform work that the president is leading in order to bolster the credibility of the government and to serve the needs of the people.

I'm very grateful that President Abbas has remained firm in his commitment to move forward on a comprehensive peace and a two-state solution. President Abbas is offering the Palestinian people the chance, finally, to fulfill the aspirations to be free, independent, prosperous, and peaceful, flourishing in a state of your own. And the only way to achieve that goal is through negotiations. So all who believe in this comprehensive peace, we urge you to work with the Palestinian Authority and with us, because we are determined to move forward.

Time is of the essence. We cannot afford more delays or regrets about what might have been had different decisions been made in the past. The Obama Administration will be vigorously engaged in efforts to forge a lasting peace between Israel, the Palestinians, and all of the Arab neighbors. I will remain personally engaged. As I said in Sharm el-Sheikh, this is a commitment that I carry in my heart, not just in my portfolio as Secretary of State.

And Senator George Mitchell is the President's and my Special Envoy. As you know, he has been here already. He is here today. And he will return soon. We all know and respect that in the end, it is up to the parties themselves to make peace. We offer you our support, not just today, but for all the tomorrows to come until the goal is realized. We believe that you have begun to establish the base on which the comprehensive peace can be built. And we will encourage and support you as you continue to advance the cause of the Palestinian people.

Earlier today, I met with some young Palestinians, young men and women who are furthering their education, and I was very impressed. We talked about women, because it's Women's History Month, and then I answered questions. And they asked about what I admired when I was growing up and what their dreams were, and then I was interviewed by two young Palestinian broadcasters. And they asked me what I would say to a young woman living in a village outside of Ramallah who might be losing hope, who might believe that there is no future.

And what I would say to her is what I have said and will say to young people everywhere. There is never reason to give up hope. There are many obstacles and challenges that lie in the way of realizing dreams, whether it's individual dreams or the dreams of a people. But persevering, rethinking, regrouping, being committed will eventually result in the goal that we are seeking together.

So perhaps even more than the wonderful meeting that I had with President Abbas and the prior meeting with Prime Minister Fayyad, my meeting with those young Palestinians, Mr. President, made it very clear what is at stake and how important it is that we complete the journey we have begun. Thank you very much.

Q. Mr. President Abu Mazen, did Mrs. Clinton convey a letter or a message to you from President Obama about their strategy for ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? And did they—did she convey a message from you—from Olmert to you that—or Netanyahu that you—they are ready to solve the problem?

Mrs. Clinton, the peace process had started since the presidency of Bush, Sr. And are you going—are you ready to do something tangible on the ground to end this conflict? The second part of this question: Netanyahu refuses a Palestinian state and he will have Lieberman on his government, and he was a member of Kach, a group that was considered at one time as a terrorist group. Are you going to deal with this government, this new Israeli Government?

President Abbas. The message that we received and we received today from His Excellency President Obama is that he is committed fully to the peace process, and that he will exert all efforts in order to realize peace, and that he supports the Palestinian National Authority in all its efforts and provide support at all levels, and that he supports the Roadmap plan and the Arab Peace Initiative. This is what we've heard, yet every time we met, last time we heard that also from President Obama himself.

As for the Israeli prime minister, I believe that he is in a situation where he is forming his government. And so we might hear from him something that is clearer and straightforward after he forms this government and after he presents his program to—for his people for their approval and after he presents his plans and his electoral program.

Secretary Clinton. Well, the president is right. The United States, through President Obama, is committed to a comprehensive peace, including a two-state solution. I have said that publicly. I have said that privately. There is no difference in any message that I am delivering in public or in private.

As the president also said, the Prime Minister-designate Netanyahu is forming his government. As soon as that government is formed, Senator Mitchell will return to begin meeting with that government. We are not waiting. We are moving forward. And we believe that there will be very constructive talks with the new Netanyahu government.

Q. Yes. Madame Secretary, Israel last week approved the demolition of 88 Palestinian homes in Jerusalem and, as you arrived, another 55 homes were slated for demolition, the largest number in one area since 1967. Will you, as James Baker did in 1991, urge a halt to such unilateral actions?

And President Abbas, what do you think of these demolitions, and has the U.S. been too silent on this issue?

Secretary Clinton. Well, Glenn, clearly, this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the roadmap. It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the Government at the municipal level in Jerusalem, because it is clearly a matter of deep concern to those who are directly affected. But the ramifications go far beyond the individuals and the families that have received the notices you referenced. So yes, this will be taken up with the Israeli government.

President Abbas. These measures that the Israeli Government has decided to go forward with are completely rejected and at all levels. And we believe that it is a clear message to us that whoever is undertaking these measures does not want peace. And therefore, the Israeli measures, we have told everyone and we've sent messages to everyone, to all concerned parties, that such measures are clear signals to us that they do not want peace.

And I've mentioned earlier in my speech that the Israeli Government—the new Israeli Government—should abide by the Roadmap obligations and the two-state solution and to end all activities related to settlement and activities and demolition of homes. Otherwise, we cannot consider— they cannot consider themselves as partners in the peace process.

Q. Mr. President, first of all, how do you view this attack launched against you by Iran, and particularly, the latest statements by the—one of the senior spiritual leaders of Iran?

Mrs. Secretary of State, as we've heard from President Abbas, settlement is one of the main obstacles, but the American administrations in the past have promised but was unable to end the settlement activities. Are there new tools for the new American Administration to end these settlement activities?

President Abbas. We tell the Iranians and all others that they should keep off our internal affairs and not interfere with our affairs. All these interferences are negative and do not serve the best interest of the Palestinian people or the Arab world. They should stop and refrain from all these kinds of interferences. But we even consider that such interferences are to obstruct and to put obstacles in the Palestinian national reconciliation process. And Iran nor Khamenei have the right to say such—to make such statements, and we reject it utterly and completely.

Iran has to see its own affairs and manage its own affairs and stay away from interfering into the Palestinian affairs. They are interfering only to deepen the Palestinian divisions. And since their interference began, they have always tried to deepen the intra-Palestinian divisions and not to help the Palestinians to reach their goals and objectives.

Secretary Clinton. We will certainly be raising that issue. We will be looking for a way to put it on the table, along with all the other issues that need to be discussed and resolved. And at this time, I think we should wait until we have a new Israeli government. That will be soon, and then we will look at whatever tools are available.

Q. Thank you. Madame Secretary, the newspaper Al Haaretz reported today that you told Defense Minister Barak that Israel needed to do more to open border crossings, and that you told Prime Minister-designate Netanyahu that his plan to offer economic peace to the Palestinians would not work without a political track. Can you confirm now that you—now that your meetings are over, that you made those points to the Israelis?

And for President Abbas, do you have concerns with the U.S. sending envoys to Syria and also, focused on Iran, that the Palestinian track will not receive the attention it deserves going forward? Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Well, let me say that I have not said anything differently in private that I've said in public. We have obviously expressed concerns about the border crossings. We want humanitarian aid to get into Gaza in sufficient amounts to be able to alleviate the suffering of the people in Gaza. That's been a public and a private message that I have carried with me in numerous different settings.

On each of these matters, we are expressing the view of the United States Government in a way that we hope proves helpful. Obviously, we are trying to express constructive ideas that we think will, on the one hand, alleviate the immediate crisis in Gaza, and on the other, give us an opportunity to set the table for a constructive and eventually successful resolution of the issues between the Israelis and the Palestinians and reach the goal of two states living in peace and security side by side.

President Abbas. We are not concerned at all about sending envoys—American envoys to Syria, but we feel comfortable about that. Yes, we are comfortable about that, that an American delegation has visited Damascus. And at the same time, we are saying that if we want a comprehensive and a fair peace, just peace, then all the tracks need to be resolved—the Palestinian, the Syrian, and the Lebanese tracks.

And we also believe that it would not be possible for any track to be—to move forward on the account of the Palestinian track or vice versa. We know clearly that the Palestinian track is moving on, as well as the Syrian tracks and they run in parallel, and they will not be taking away from the progress in one against the other.