Secretary Hillary Clinton and Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. Good afternoon. I'm delighted to welcome His Excellency here today. The United Arab Emirates is a country with whom we have a very close and constructive relationship that encompasses a broad array of important issues. I'm looking forward to deepening and strengthening that partnership.

Foreign Minister Abdullah. I'm delighted to be here in Washington, D.C., but—with you, Madame Secretary, I certainly wish you all the very best in your great job, but I am here as well to show you how the UAE will continue to be a very strong friend and an ally to your great country.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Minister Elias Murr delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. Well, I am very pleased to welcome Defense Minister Murr from Lebanon to the State Department. He has been in Washington for the last several days speaking with a number of officials. It is very important that the United States stand firmly and strongly on behalf of Lebanese democracy. We are very supportive of what the Lebanese Government is doing in its efforts to make sure that the upcoming elections are free and fair.

And we are very encouraged by the efforts that the Lebanese Government has been making to comply with international obligations and to continue to make progress on a whole range of issues which I'm looking forward to discussing with the defense minister.

Defense Minister Murr. Thank you. I want to thank Mrs. Clinton for receiving me, for the backup that the State of Department and the U.S. Administration is giving to Lebanon, to the Government of Lebanon, and to the Lebanese army. And I hope that for the next coming time, the U.S. policy—and this is what I heard, and I can confirm it today—the U.S. policy will remain the same concerning Lebanon. Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you all very much.

President Barack Obama and King Abdullah II bin al-Hussein delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

President Obama. First of all, I just want to welcome His Majesty King Abdullah to the White House. This is a first visit by a leader of another state; in part, it's reciprocity for the extraordinary hospitality that the King and Queen showed me when I visited Jordan prior to the election—in which the King [] personally drove me to the airport. And I won't tell you how fast he was going.

But more importantly, it's representative of his excellent leadership internationally, as well as a[n] unmatched friendship with the United States upon a whole range of issues. I think that King Abdullah represents a modern approach to foreign policy-making in the Middle East, a[n] approach that is able to see many different sides of an issue, that is obviously constantly mindful of Jordanian interests, but also seeks to resolve issues and conflicts in a peaceful and respectful fashion.

We are very pleased to have been able to work so closely with his government for many years. It is a great friendship between two great countries and two great peoples. And I am confident that that friendship will only be strengthened.

Very briefly, we spoke obviously about a Middle East peace process, my commitment as well as his to moving that process forward with some sense of urgency. We spoke about the broader hope on a range of issues related to Iran and Afghanistan; the issues of terrorism in the region. We spoke about the impact that the economic crisis may be having on both our countries and the need to promote effective international cooperation around those issues. And I'm confident that in the months and years to come our partnership and our friendship will continue to grow.

So I'm grateful to him for having visited and look forward to seeing him back in his own country sometime soon.

King Abdullah. Thank you. Mr. President, again, thank you very much for this very kind welcome. We had a wonderful meeting just recently and I believe it was a meeting of the minds. We are both committed to bringing peace and stability to our part of the world. The President again reaffirming the need for a two-state solution and to move both parties to good negotiations as quickly as possible. He has the full support of my country and the Arab League on this issue. We believe that it is important for all of us to keep our eyes on the prize, and the prize is peace and stability finally for all the people of our region.

I'd also like to extend a warm thanks on behalf of many Arabs and Muslims who really had an outstanding response to the President's outreach to the Muslim Arab world. It has gone on extremely well and really begins I believe a new page of mutual respect and mutual understanding between cultures. And I will—I continue to commit Jordan and myself to working with you, Mr. President. You have given us hope for a bright future for all of us. And America can't be left by itself to do all the heavy lifting, so a group of countries, including Jordan, will do all we can to support you, Mr. President, in your endeavors. And hopefully under your tremendous leadership we will find some peace and stability in our region.

President Obama. Thank you.

Q. Mr. President, you've raised a lot of positive signals and interest in your commitment to peace and to a two-state solution. What other actions will you be taking to bring about peace, and when do you expect that action to happen? And how does the Arab Peace Initiative feature in such a plan?

President Obama. Well, first of all, we have gone out of our way to complement the efforts of those Arab states that were involved in formulating the Arab Peace Initiative as a very constructive start. And obviously King Abdullah has taken great steps to ensure that that sustains itself, in terms of Arab support, even while we have seen a breakdown in negotiations. And that's a significant achievement for which King Abdullah and others deserve credit. So we want to continue to encourage a commitment on the part of the Arab states to the peace process.

I have assigned a Special Envoy, George Mitchell, who is, you know, I think as good of a negotiator as there is, and somebody who through assiduous work was able to accomplish or help achieve peace in Northern Ireland. We want that same perseverance and sustained effort on this issue, and we're going to be actively engaged.

We have obviously seen the Israeli government just form recently. Prime Minster Netanyahu will be visiting the United States. I expect to have meetings with him. I've had discussions with Palestinian counterparts as well as other Arab states around this issue.

My hope would be that over the next several months, that you start seeing gestures of good faith on all sides. I don't want to get into the details of what those gestures might be, but I think that the parties in the region probably have a pretty good recognition of what intermediate steps could be taken as confidence-building measures. And we will be doing everything we can to encourage those confidence-building measures to take place.

Q. What are your—what is your comment on the rhetoric yesterday from the Iranian President directed towards Israel? And given that kind of talk and the recent imprisonment of the U.S.-Iranian journalist, do you think that will make it more difficult for you to push forward your diplomatic outreach to Iran?

President Obama. Well, sadly, the rhetoric is not new. This is the kind of rhetoric that we've come to expect from President Ahmadinejad. When I said, during the course of the campaign and repeated after the election, that we were serious about engagement with Iran, it was with no illusions. I was very clear that I found many of the statements that President Ahmadinejad made, particularly those direct with—directed at Israel, to be appalling and objectionable.

As I've also said before, Iran is a very complicated country with a lot of different power centers. The Supreme Leader Khamenei is the person who exercises the most direct control over the policies of the Islamic Republic, and we will continue to pursue the possibility of improved relations and a resolution to some of the critical issues in which there have been differences, particularly around the nuclear issue.

But there's no doubt that the kind of rhetoric you saw from Ahmadinejad is not helpful; in fact, it is harmful—but not just with respect to the possibility of U.S.-Iranian relations, but I think it actually undermines Iranians' position in the world as a whole. We weren't at the conference, and what you saw was a whole host of other countries walking out and that language being condoned by people who may be more sympathetic to the long-term aspirations of the Iranian people. So I think it actually hurts Iran's position in the world.

But we are going to continue to take an approach that—tough, direct diplomacy has to be pursued without taking a whole host of other options off the table.

Q. I just want to follow on the previous question. You sent Senator Mitchell to the region to listen. Is he done with the listening now and—because all the signals we have from the Israeli government basically that they are not in favor of the two-state solution. The opposition is strongly advocating that.

So I wanted to ask also His Majesty, President Obama said that there is positive elements within the Arab Peace Initiative, but he didn't say what he disagree about. Can you tell us if you have noticed any tangible results, what the disagreement with that, and can the Arab Peace Initiative be the base now for a peace process in the Middle East?

President Obama. Well, first of all, I think it is very important to recognize that the Israelis now have had a government for a few weeks and it was a very complicated process for them to put a coalition together. So I think more listening needs to be done. They are going to have to formulate and I think solidify their position. So George Mitchell will continue to listen both to Arab partners, to the Palestinians, as well as the Israelis.

But I agree that we can't talk forever; that at some point, steps have to be taken so that people can see progress on the ground. And that will be something that we will expect to take place in the coming months and we will help hopefully to drive a process where each side is willing to build confidence.

I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution. I have articulated that publically and I will articulate that privately. And I think that there are a lot of Israelis who also believe in a two-state solution. Unfortunately, right now what we've seen not just in Israel but within the Palestinian Territories, among the Arab states, worldwide, is a profound cynicism about the possibility of any progress being made whatsoever.

What we want to do is to step back from the abyss; to say, as hard as it is, as difficult as it may be, the prospect of peace still exists—but it's going to require some hard choices, it's going to require resolution on the part of all the actors involved, and it's going to require that we—we create some concrete steps that all parties can take that are evidence of that resolution. And the United States is going to deeply engage in this process to see if we can make progress.

Now, ultimately, neither Jordan nor the United States can do this for the Israelis and the Palestinians. What we can do is create the conditions and the atmosphere and provide the help and assistance that facilitates an agreement. Ultimately they've got to make the decision that it is not in the interests of either the Palestinian people or the Israelis to perpetuate the kind of conflict that we've seen for decades now, in which generations of Palestinian and Israeli children are growing up insecure, in an atmosphere of hate.

And my hope is, is that—that the opportunity will be seized, but it's going to take some more work and we are committed to doing that work.

King Abdullah. I couldn't have said it better myself, Mr. President. I think we're looking now at the—at the positives and not the negatives and seeing how we can sequence events over the next couple of months that allows Israelis and Palestinians and Israelis and Arabs to sit around the table and move this process forward.

Q. I want to ask you about the interrogation memos that you released last week; two questions. You were clear about not wanting to prosecute those who carried out the instructions under this legal advice. Can you be that clear about those who devised the policy? And then quickly on a second matter, how do you feel about investigations, whether special—a special commission or something of that nature on the Hill to go back and really look at the issue?

President Obama. Well, the—look, as I said before, this has been a difficult chapter in our history, and one of the tougher decisions that I've had to make as President. On the one hand, we have very real enemies out there. And we rely on some very courageous people, not just in our military but also in the Central Intelligence Agency, to help protect the American people. And they have to make some very difficult decisions because, as I mentioned yesterday, they are confronted with an enemy that doesn't have scruples, that isn't constrained by constitutions, aren't constrained by legal niceties.

Having said that, the OLC memos that were released reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings. That's why I've discontinued those enhanced interrogation programs. For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate for them to be prosecuted.

With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.

As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.

And so if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines, to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.

I'm not suggesting that that should be done, but I'm saying, if you've got a choice, I think it's very important for the American people to feel as if this is not being dealt with to provide one side or another political advantage but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way.

And the last point I just want to emphasize, as I said yesterday at the CIA when I visited, what makes America special in my view is not just our wealth and the dynamism of our economy and our extraordinary history and diversity. It's that we are willing to uphold our ideals even when they're hard. And sometimes we make mistakes because that's the nature of human enterprise. But when we do make mistakes, then we are willing to go back and correct those mistakes and keep our eye on those ideals and values that have been passed on generation to generation.

And that is what has to continue to guide us as we move forward. And I'm confident that we will be able to move forward, protect the American people effectively, and live up to our values and ideals. And that's not a matter of being naive about how dangerous this world is. As I said yesterday to some of the CIA officials that I met with, I wake up every day thinking about how to keep the American people safe. And I go to bed every night worrying about keeping the American people safe.

I've got a lot of other things on my plate. I've got a big banking crisis, and I've got unemployment numbers that are very high, and we've got an auto industry that needs work. There are a whole things—range of things that during the day occupy me, but the thing that I consider my most profound obligation is keeping the American people safe.

So I do not take these things lightly, and I am not in any way under illusion about how difficult the task is for those people who are on the front lines every day protecting the American people.

So I wanted to communicate a message yesterday to all those who overwhelmingly do so in a lawful, dedicated fashion that I have their back.

All right? Thank you, everybody.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Minister Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. It is a treat for me to see the minister again. We met in Sharm el-Sheikh during the donors' conference on Gaza. And I'm very pleased that he could be here for a bilateral visit. There are a number of important issues that we discussed. And the relationship between Oman and the United States is a positive one, and we intend to build on the relationship and broaden it so that we can do even more together, not only between ourselves, but on behalf of regional and global issues.

Thank you, Your Excellency.

Minister bin Alawi. Thank you. Thank you. (Inaudible), as the Secretary has said, we—our relations are strong enough based on very important principles to continue on this. We have discussion, of course, for—regional issue and we hope to keep this contact going on as we go forward.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you. Thank you all very much.

Minister bin Alawi. Thank you.

Secretary Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Fox in Baghdad, Iraq

Q. Let's talk about Iraq—you have spoken on this trip about the need to stand up a nonsectarian police force. You heard from a questioner at the town hall today about an apparent lack of trust amongst some segments of the population toward the police force. What is the difficulty in setting—standing up a nonsectarian police force? How far along are we toward that goal, and what's hindering us?

Secretary Clinton. Well, James, we have made a lot of progress with both the army and the police. I think that the army has actually progressed further in professionalizing itself and in working to establish a nonsectarian force and presence throughout the country. The police which, by its very nature, is a more decentralized, localized institution, takes more work.

This is one of the challenges we face, not just in Iraq, but around the world. I hear it in Haiti, in Liberia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq and elsewhere. Police are often not given the respect, don't have the esprit de corps, don't have the training, aren't paid well, and, therefore, it is harder to recruit and retain a police force that is non-corrupt, which is professional, and nonsectarian.

But we've made progress. And what we have to do is to continue working with the Iraqi security forces, both military and police, and where there are problems, remedy those problems, help the government understand the absolute essential nature of the nonsectarian importance. And we are doing that every day now. There are still a lot of questions. There's a lot of mistrust. You don't rid a population of that quickly, but we've made progress.

Q. I'm going to try and get to all of my brilliant questions in the time remaining, which is sometimes a nerve-wracking process. It has been, I think, more than a month since Messrs. Feltman and Shapiro traveled to Syria, and I wonder if you have, in that time, been able to observe any change in Syria's conduct in the areas which divide our two countries, and by which I mean the influx of foreign fighters into Iraq, the support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and also the role that Syria plays in Lebanon. Any changes?

Secretary Clinton. You know, James, there has been some slowing down of the foreign fighters. We're not satisfied. In fact, we think that some of the recent suicide bombers most likely came across the border through Syria, and we're raising that, as has the Iraqi Government, with the Syrians.

But there has been some noticeable slowing down. We are also pushing them hard to normalize their relations with Lebanon, and they have made progress on that, exchanging ambassadors, for example. But again, proof is in the pudding, as they like to say, and I'm going to watch to see what the pudding looks like, in terms of what they do in this upcoming Lebanese election, what they do with the results of that election.

Certainly, we are just at the beginning of any kind of discussion with Syria. There's a long list of issues that you named a few of that we are concerned about. But we have consulted broadly with our partners in the region, eliciting their concerns about Syria. And we've also been very careful to keep our partners informed about anything we do with Syria. We're not in any way trying to make, just paper-thin progress with Syria at the expense of anyone else.

And so it's at the beginning of this. But we get back a lot of feedback from visits by members of Congress, other Americans who have gone to Syria, that the Syrians are struggling with how much they really want to be engaged with us, because it would require them beginning to pull away from Iran and their support of terrorism, and that's what we're looking for, is that kind of debate within Syria.

Q. How confident are you in the security, the lock-down security, the inviolability of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?

Secretary Clinton. You know, that's an issue that we have very adamant assurances about from the Pakistani military and government. We have done a lot of work over the years, evaluating that, and I think the current thinking of our government is that it is safe, but that's given the current configuration of power in Pakistan.

One of our concerns, which we have raised with the Pakistani government and military, is that if the worst, the unthinkable, were to happen, and this advancing Taliban, encouraged and supported by al-Qaeda and other extremists, were to essentially topple the government for failure to beat them back, then they would have the keys to the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan, and we can't even contemplate that. We cannot let this go on any further, which is why we're pushing so hard for the Pakistanis to come together around a strategy to take their country back.

Q. I'm being told to wrap this up. I wanted to pursue one more area, if I may.

Without getting hung up on the name that is attached to it, do you and President Obama subscribe to the Bush doctrine, by which I mean, roughly speaking, for the purpose of our conversation, the view that if you harbor, clothe, feed, or otherwise materially aid a terrorist, then you, yourself, are a terrorist? Is that a doctrine to which you and President Obama subscribe?

Secretary Clinton. Well, as you've heard from us in the last nearly 100 days we will not deal with Hamas unless they renounce violence, recognize Israel, and agree to abide by prior Palestinian Authority agreements. We do not in any way support the kind of extremists that you see. What we are looking for is to separate out those who are, as we found in Iraq, part of an armed campaign for political reasons that can be reconcilable.

We began to turn Iraq around, as you remember, under President Bush, even with that doctrine, when the military began to work with groups of people, particularly the so-called Sons of Iraq, and The Awakening, who, months before, had taken up arms against Americans and other Iraqis. And the thinking was, we need to separate out those who are there for reasons having to do with their own political and cultural and historic ties, as opposed to the hard core extremists and terrorists.

I think that the general principle that we don't associate with these people is absolutely the same. But the opportunity, as we found under the Bush administration, in Iraq, is worth exploring with those elements of the Taliban that are there because they pay better than the Afghan police force pays, for example.

So, what we're attempting to do is to follow what turned out to be a smart strategy in Iraq and other places, with the same level of caution, the same level of skepticism, but understanding that we don't do business with the terrorists, but we may do business with people who got swept up in some kind of move that doesn't necessarily define their attitude toward the United States, or the use of violence.

Q. I am out of time. I just want to say that the reason I brought the question up was because you responded in the context of the Taliban and The Awakening in Iraq—but the reason I asked the question was an entirely different reason, which is, essentially, to—by way of asking whether you believe right now that North Korea is actively proliferating to any terrorist entities or nations that the State Department identifies as state sponsors of terrorism.

Secretary Clinton. Well, we know that North Korea, in the past, has proliferated. There is—

Q. I meant actively, now.

Secretary Clinton. No. As of right now, we do not have any evidence. But we don't get satisfied by that, because we consider North Korea to be a rogue regime that has, in the past, aided and abetted rogue regimes, as well.

And one of our highest priorities is to keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorist networks. And part of the reason we are encouraged by the strong stance we got out of the United Nations with all of the participants in the six-party talks, and the recent agreement on very tough sanctions on entities and goods, is because we're not going to be blackmailed by the North Koreans. We're not going to let them pretend that they are in compliance, and then, under the table and behind the back, they are continuing to proliferate.

We are going to crack down in conjunction with the Chinese, the Russians, the Japanese, South Koreans, and other allies to try to tighten the band around North Korea, so that they cannot do that.

Q. Madam Secretary, thank you once again.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you. Good to talk to you.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and President Michel Sleiman delivered these remarks in Beirut, Lebanon

Secretary Clinton. Let me begin by saying how pleased I am to be here in Lebanon on a beautiful day. I appreciated the opportunity that I had to meet with the president, with the minister, and other members of the government. I am grateful for this chance to deliver a letter to President Sleiman from President Obama, expressing the Obama administration's strong support for a free, sovereign, and independent Lebanon.

And it is important that I stress this special bond that exists between the United States and Lebanon. My country has been enriched by the contributions of many Lebanese Americans. And, even more than that, we have been enriched by a diversity of communities. I know how diverse Lebanon is, and I know that that diversity is a source of strength as it is in my own country.

Over the past several years, Lebanon has gone through many challenges. And I want to commend the many courageous citizens from all different groups who have worked to build an independent and democratic nation. The parliamentary elections that are coming up in June will mark another milestone.

We believe strongly that the people of Lebanon must be able to choose their own representatives in open and fair elections without the specter of violence and intimidation, and certainly free of outside interference. And we join the international community in supporting the Lebanese government's efforts to achieve that goal. We will continue to support the voices of moderation in Lebanon and the responsible institutions of the Lebanese state that they are working to build. Our ongoing support for the Lebanese armed forces remains a pillar of our bilateral cooperation.

The United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that the Lebanese armed forces is the only legitimate armed force in Lebanon, the only force that is accountable to all of the Lebanese people. And I want to commend the Lebanese armed forces for its efforts to defend Lebanon's borders to fight terrorism and fully implement Security Council Resolution 1701.

I also am here to pledge our continuing support for the special tribunal for Lebanon. I will go from here to pay a call of respect at the memorial of former Prime Minister Hariri. There needs to be an absolute end to an era of impunity for political assassinations in Lebanon. It cannot, must not, be used as a bargaining chip. When I visit former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's memorial, I will honor his memory, and pay my respects to all those who have been killed while defending Lebanon's sovereignty and independence.

The guiding principles from the Cedar Revolution that followed his death, sovereignty and freedom for the Lebanese people, is a core value that we respect and will honor and work to translate into a perpetual reality.

I believe that Lebanon has a key role to play in the long-term efforts to build lasting peace and stability in this region. And President Obama and I and the administration that I represent, as well as the government and people of the United States look forward to ongoing partnership and cooperation.

Thank you very much, and I will happy to take your questions.

Q. You mentioned the forces of moderation and your visit happens two months before the elections and on the very anniversary day of the Syrian withdrawal. I was wondering, coming here today, if you intend to express your support for the current majority.

Secretary Clinton. I intend to express my support and President Obama's support for the people of Lebanon, and for a free, independent, and sovereign Lebanon, and for elections that will be free of any intimidation and outside interference, so that the people of Lebanon are able to peacefully make their decisions in these upcoming elections.

Q. How can you (inaudible) is going to deal with the new Lebanese government in case the opposition or Hezbollah wins the election?

Secretary Clinton. Well, I am not going to speculate on the outcome of your election. That is for the people of Lebanon to decide. The Lebanese people have a lot at stake in this election. And I know how seriously all of the candidates are campaigning throughout the country.

But we certainly hope that the election will be free of intimidation and outside interference, and that the results of the election will continue a moderate, positive direction that will benefit all the people of Lebanon. That is our hope. We want to see a strong, independent, free, and sovereign Lebanon. And we believe that this election will be, obviously, an important milestone on that path.

Q. Madam Secretary, welcome to Lebanon. (Inaudible) on this question. I know you don't want to speculate about the results of the elections, but it does look likely that Syria's allies, including Hezbollah, will make a strong come-back. How will that affect your support for the Lebanese army that you just discussed, you said it was a pillar of cooperation between the two countries? Would you re-evaluate that cooperation with the Lebanese army?

Secretary Clinton. Well, Kim, first let me say that it's a great delight to have you with me on this trip. As some of you know, Kim is Lebanese, and has been so excited about coming back to a country that she loves, and I am pleased that I could be the reason she got to come back at this particular time.

I don't want to speculate about the outcome of the elections. Obviously, as an outsider, which is all that I am, and representing our President and our government, we hope that the election is free and fair of intimidation, we hope that the people of Lebanon make a decision that will continue the progress that we have seen over the last several years.

It won't surprise you to hear that I think moderation is important in the affairs of states, because that gives people from all backgrounds, and all different beliefs and convictions, an opportunity to participate. So that is up to the Lebanese people to decide, but we certainly look forward to working with and cooperating with the next Lebanese government.

Q. Any settlement with Syria—that Lebanon could be paying the price for—especially regarding the international tribunal and why you don't meeting (inaudible)?

Secretary Clinton. Well, first, with respect to my schedule, this was a very short trip, because of the necessity that I have to turn around and get back to Washington after having been in Iraq and Kuwait. But I really was here to send a very strong signal of our support for the free, fair elections, and of the state of Lebanon, symbolized by the president. And, therefore, I met with the president. I was very honored to be received by him and other ministers in the government of Lebanon.

I hope to return. I told the president that I feel very unhappy that I could come for such a short period of time. It's like seeing this great banquet laid out, and all I am permitted to do is eat a tiny little appetizer. Because I have heard so much about this beautiful country, I have so many Lebanese-American friends that have told me about the beauty of Lebanon and the hospitality of the people. So I do hope to come back and spend more time here.

With respect to Syria, we are heartened by the exchange of ambassadors that was agreed to between Lebanon and Syria. Obviously we think it's important that Lebanon have good relations with their neighbors, including Syria, but that Lebanon is an independent, free, sovereign nation. And there is nothing that we will do in any way that would undermine Lebanon's sovereignty. We don't have a right to do that, and we don't believe that would be the right thing to do.

So, I want to assure any Lebanese citizens, that the United States will never make any deal with Syria that sells out Lebanon and the Lebanese people. You have been through too much, and it is only right that you are given a chance to make your own decisions, however they turn out, amongst the people who call Lebanon home, who love this country, who are committed to it, who have stayed here and done what you can to navigate through these difficult years. It's a complicated neighborhood you live in, and you have a right to have your own future. And we believe that very strongly.

Thank you very much.

Secretary Robert Gates delivered these remarks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Secretary Gates. Most of all, it's good to be here and to have a chance to spend some time with the men and women of U.S. Military Training Mission, OPM Saudi Arabian National Guard, OPM Facilities Security Forces, and the 64th Air Expeditionary Group.

First, I want to thank you for your service and for volunteering to serve. For a number of you who are veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom, this is not your first tour of duty in this part of the world. Whether you are military or civilian, I appreciate the sacrifices that you make, including long separation from friends and family.

There are a number of changes under way affecting your mission here—the change of Saudi Arabia from a combat to a non-combat designation, the return of the Gulf dependents, the possibility of building a new compound, and potential sales of more U.S. military equipment to Saudi Arabia. I want to tell you that although you do not work in a direct combat zone, your mission remains essential to America's security. Multiple administrations of both parties, including all eight presidents I have worked for, have believed that America's prosperity and security is closely tied to the prosperity and security of this part of the world.

The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia has been one of the mainstays of stability in the Middle East for more than 60 years. A regional leader in the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia continues to be an important partner for the U.S. on counterterrorism and a range of other issues.

U.S. Security Assistance Mission in Saudi Arabia dates back to the 1940s, and continues to grow. Saudi armed forces have [] become more professional and effective organization due to the work of the U.S. Military Training Mission—(inaudible)—(plans, organizations, training and equipment.

The modernization program conducted by OPM SANG—(inaudible)—command and control, logistics, training, medicine, and with the LMB brigades, are helping the Saudi National Guard develop into a more full-spectrum force.

As you know, in the last several years, we have begun an initiative to train Saudi Arabia's interior forces so they can better protect the kingdom's energy infrastructure and vital installations. I'm told that the facility forces—security forces are projected to increase from 5,000 to 35,000, an ambitious and impressive effort.

And the 64th Air Expeditionary Group continues the work going back more than a generation, has built a formidable Saudi Air Force, and forged close military-to-military ties between our two air services.

I should note that your work here is also an example of the kind of capacity building effort that we would like to see more of by the U.S. military in other parts of the world. The United States will increasingly look to rely more on the capabilities of our partners rather than direct U.S. military action—(inaudible)—to deal with the diverse array of security challenges we face.

Those challenges include the transition of responsibility in Iraq, the ramp-up of military forces and civilian efforts in Afghanistan, and the potential perils posed by Iran's nuclear program, and a broader campaign against violent terrorist networks. All of those challenges, to varying degrees, are affected by the work you do here to sustain and strengthen our partnership with Saudi Arabia and build their security capabilities to provide a crucial measure of stability and deterrence in the Gulf.

I have a little history here myself. My first visit to Saudi Arabia, when I was working for the NSC, was in 1977, 32 years ago, when King Khalid was still king, and to prepare a visit by President Carter. And then I was here several times in the interval, but was back again early August 1990 when then-Secretary of Defense Cheney and General Norman Schwartzkopf to tell the Saudis what we were prepared to do to help stop Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. I've been here a number of times, and always have been appreciative of the work that you all do.

And with that, I want to thank you again for your service and commitment to this important mission. One of the things I look forward to during my visit to military installations at home and abroad is to hear directly from servicemen and—women their questions and concerns. So even though this is a big group, and both military and civilian, I want to stop here, invite your questions, and ask you to speak up with what's on your minds because the truth of the matter is, sometimes when you ask a question and I don't know the answer, when you get the answer, it's probably a more positive one that you might have got otherwise—because I have a tendency to go back and ask, “Well, what is the answer to this question?” And somehow sometimes has more of an impact when I ask the question than when you ask the question.

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

President Obama. Well, listen, I first of all want to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for making this visit. I think we had a[n] extraordinarily productive series of conversations, not only between the two of us but also at the staff and agency levels.

Obviously this reflects the extraordinary relationship, the special relationship between the United States and Israel. It is a stalwart ally of the United States. We have historical ties, emotional ties. As the only true democracy of the Middle East it is a source of admiration and inspiration for the American people.

I have said from the outset that when it comes to my policies towards Israel and the Middle East that Israel's security is paramount, and I repeated that to Prime Minister Netanyahu. It is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel's security as an independent Jewish state is maintained.

One of the areas that we discussed is the deepening concern around the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon by Iran. It's something the Prime Minister has been very vocal in his concerns about, but is a concern that is shared by his countrymen and women across the political spectrum.

I indicated to him the view of our administration, that Iran is a country of extraordinary history and extraordinary potential, that we want them to be a full-fledged member of the international community and be in a position to provide opportunities and prosperity for their people, but that the way to achieve those goals is not through the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. And I indicated to Prime Minister Netanyahu in private what I have said publicly, which is that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.

We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon and that they should change course. But I assured the Prime Minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious. And obviously the Prime Minister emphasized his seriousness around this issue as well—I'll allow him to speak for himself on that subject.

We also had an extensive discussion about the possibilities of restarting serious negotiations on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians. I have said before and I will repeat again that it is I believe in the interest not only of the Palestinians, but also the Israelis and the United States and the international community to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.

We have seen progress stalled on this front, and I suggested to the Prime Minister that he has an historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure. That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they've previously agreed to. Those obligations were outlined in the road map; they were discussed extensively in Annapolis. And I think that we can—there is no reason why we should not seize this opportunity and this moment for all the parties concerned to take seriously those obligations and to move forward in a way that assures Israel's security, that stops the terrorist attacks that have been such a source of pain and hardship, that we can stop rocket attacks on Israel; but that also allow Palestinians to govern themselves as an independent state, that allows economic development to take place, that allows them to make serious progress in meeting the aspirations of their people.

And I am confident that in the days, weeks and months to come we are going to be able to make progress on that issue.

So let me just summarize by saying that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu has the benefit of having served as Prime Minister previously. He has both youth and wisdom—

Prime Minister Netanyahu. I'll dispute youth, but—

President Obama.—and I think is in a position to achieve the security objectives of Israel, but also bring about historic peace. And I'm confident that he's going to seize this moment. And the United States is going to do everything we can to be constructive, effective partners in this process.

Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Obama, thank you. Thank you for your friendship to Israel and your friendship to me. You're a great leader—a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world, a great friend of Israel, and someone who is acutely cognizant of our security concerns. And the entire people of Israel appreciate it, and I speak on their behalf.

We met before, but this is the first time that we're meeting as President and Prime Minister. So I was particularly pleased at your reaffirmation of the special relationship between Israel and the United States. We share the same goals and we face the same threats. The common goal is peace. Everybody in Israel, as in the United States, wants peace. The common threat we face are terrorist regimes and organizations that seek to undermine the peace and endanger both our peoples.

In this context, the worst danger we face is that Iran would develop nuclear military capabilities. Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable by any standard. It threatens the moderate Arab regimes in the Middle East. It threatens U.S. interests worldwide. But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, or worse, it could actually give terrorists nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril.

So in that context, I very much appreciate, Mr. President, your firm commitment to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear military capability, and also your statement that you're leaving all options on the table.

I share with you very much the desire to move the peace process forward. And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians immediately. I would like to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world, if we could, Mr. President, so—this (inaudible) that one shouldn't let go, maybe peace with the entire Arab world.

I want to make it clear that we don't want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel. And for this there has to be a clear goal. The goal has to be an end to conflict. There will have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike. We're ready to do our share. We hope the Palestinians will do their share, as well. If we resume negotiations, as we plan to do, then I think that the Palestinians will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; will have to also enable Israel to have the means to defend itself. And if those conditions are met, Israel's security conditions are met, and there's recognition of Israel's legitimacy, its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, in security, and in peace.

And I look forward, Mr. President, to working with you, a true friend of Israel, to the achievement of our common goals, which are security, prosperity, and above all, peace.

President Obama. Thank you. We're going to take a couple of questions. We're going to start with Steve.

Q. Mr. President, you spoke at length, as did the Prime Minister, about Iran's nuclear program. Your program of engagement, policy of engagement, how long is that going to last? Is there a deadline?

President Obama. You know, I don't want to set an artificial deadline. I think it's important to recognize that Iran is in the midst of its own elections. As I think all of you, since you're all political reporters, are familiar with, election time is not always the best time to get business done.

Their elections will be completed in June, and we are hopeful that, at that point, there is going to be a serious process of engagement, first through the P5-plus-one process that's already in place, potentially through additional direct talks between the United States and Iran.

I want to reemphasize what I said earlier, that I believe it is not only in the interest of the international community that Iran not develop nuclear weapons, I firmly believe it is in Iran's interest not to develop nuclear weapons, because it would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and be profoundly destabilizing in all sorts of ways. Iran can achieve its interests of security and international respect and prosperity for its people through other means, and I am prepared to make what I believe will be a persuasive argument, that there should be a different course to be taken.

The one thing we're also aware of is the fact that the history, of least, of negotiation with Iran is that there is a lot of talk but not always action and follow-through. And that's why it is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we're not going to have talks forever. We're not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear—and deploying a nuclear weapon. That's something, obviously, Israel is concerned about, but it's also an issue of concern for the United States and for the international community as a whole.

My expectation would be that if we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there's a good faith effort to resolve differences. That doesn't mean every issue would be resolved by that point, but it does mean that we'll probably be able to gauge and do a reassessment by the end of the year of this approach.

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Aren't you concerned that your outstretched hand has been interpreted by extremists, especially Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Meshal, as weakness? And since my colleague already asked about the deadline, if engagement fails, what then, Mr. President?

President Obama. Well, it's not clear to me why my outstretched hand would be interpreted as weakness.

Q. Qatar, an example.

President Obama. I'm sorry?

Q. The example of Qatar. They would have preferred to be on your side and then moved to the extremists, to Iran.

President Obama. Oh, I think—yes, I'm not sure about that interpretation. Look, we've been in office a little over a hundred days now—close to four months. We have put forward a clear principle that where we can resolve issues through negotiations and diplomacy, we should. We didn't expect—and I don't think anybody in the international community or anybody in the Middle East, for that matter—would expect that 30 years of antagonism and suspicion between Iran and the United States would be resolved in four months. So we think it's very important for us to give this a chance.

Now, understand that part of the reason that it's so important for us to take a diplomatic approach is that the approach that we've been taking, which is no diplomacy, obviously has not worked. Nobody disagrees with that. Hamas and Hezbollah have gotten stronger. Iran has been pursuing its nuclear capabilities undiminished. And so not talking—that clearly hasn't worked. That's what's been tried. And so what we're going to do is try something new, which is actually engaging and reaching out to the Iranians.

The important thing is to make sure that there is a clear timetable of—at which point we say these talks don't seem to be making any serious progress. It hasn't been tried before so we don't want to prejudge that, but as I said, by the end of the year I think we should have some sense as to whether or not these discussions are starting to yield significant benefits, whether we're starting to see serious movement on the part of the Iranians.

If that hasn't taken place, then I think the international community will see that it's not the United States or Israel or other countries that are seeking to isolate or victimize Iran; rather, it is Iran itself which is isolating itself by willing to—being unwilling to engage in serious discussions about how they can preserve their security without threatening other people's security—which ultimately is what we want to achieve.

We want to achieve a situation where all countries in the region can pursue economic development and commercial ties and trade and do so without the threat that their populations are going to be subject to bombs and destruction.

That's what I think the Prime Minister is interested in, that's what I'm interested in, and I hope that ends up being what the ruling officials in Iran are interested in, as well.

Don Gonyea. Where's Gonyea?

Q. Right here. Thank you. Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, can you each react to King Abdullah's statement of a week ago that we really are at a critical place in the conflict and that if this moment isn't seized and if a peace isn't achieved now, soon, that in a year, year and a half, we could see renewed major conflict, perhaps war? And do you agree with that assessment?

Prime Minister Netanyahu. I think we have to seize the moment and I think we're fortunate in having a leader like President Obama and a new government in Israel and perhaps a new understanding in the Arab world that I haven't seen in my lifetime. And you're very kind to be calling me young, but I'm more than half a century old and in my 59 years in the life of the Jewish state, there's never been a time when Arabs and Israelis see a common threat the way we see it today and also see the need to join together in working towards peace while simultaneously defending ourselves against this common threat.

I think we have—we have ways to capitalize on this sense of urgency and we're prepared to move with the President and with others in the Arab world if they're prepared to move, as well. And I think the important thing that we discussed, among other things, is how to buttress the Israeli-Palestinian peace tracks, which we want to resume right away, with participation from others in the Arab world; how we give confidence to each other that would—changes the reality, it changes the reality on the ground, changing political realities top-down, as well, while we work to broaden the circle of peace.

And I think that the sense of urgency that King Abdullah expressed is shared by me and shared by many others and I definitely know it's shared by President Obama.

President Obama. Look, I think there's an extraordinary opportunity and the Prime Minister said it well. You have Arab states in the region—the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Saudis—who I think are looking for an opportunity to break this long-standing impasse but aren't sure how to do it, and share concerns about Iran's potential development of a nuclear weapon. In order for us to potentially realign interests in the region in a constructive way, bolstering, to use the Prime Minister's word, the Palestinian-Israeli peace track is critical.

It will not be easy. It never has been easy. In discussions, I don't think the Prime Minister would mind me saying to him—or saying publically what I said privately, which is that there is a recognition that the Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kinds of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution; that, you know, the leadership of the Palestinians will have to gain additional legitimacy and credibility with their own people, and delivering services. And that's something that the United States and Israel can be helpful in seeing them accomplish.

The other Arab states have to be more supportive and be bolder in seeking potential normalization with Israel. And next week I will have the Palestinian Authority President Abbas as well as President Mubarak here and I will deliver that message to them.

Now, Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well, and I shared with the Prime Minister the fact that under the roadmap and under Annapolis that there's a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements. Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward. That's a difficult issue. I recognize that, but it's an important one and it has to be addressed.

I think the humanitarian situation in Gaza has to be addressed. Now, I was along the border in Sderot and saw the evidence of weapons that had been raining down on the heads of innocents in those Israeli cities, and that's unacceptable. So we've got to work with the Egyptians to deal with the smuggling of weapons and it has to be meaningful because no Prime Minister of any country is going to tolerate missiles raining down on their citizens' heads.

On the other hand, the fact is, is that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can't even get clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for Israel's long-term security or a constructive peace track to move forward.

So all these things are going to have to come together and it's going to be difficult, but the one thing that I've committed to the Prime Minister is we are going to be engaged, the United States is going to roll up our sleeves. We want to be a strong partner in this process.

I have great confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu's political skills, but also his historical vision and his recognition that during the years that he is Prime Minister this second go-around, he is probably going to be confronted with as many important decisions about the long-term strategic interests of Israel as any Prime Minister that we've seen in a very long time. And I have great confidence that he's going to rise to the occasion and I actually think that you're going to see movement in—among Arab states that we have not seen before.

But the trick is to try to coordinate all this in a very delicate political environment. And that's why I'm so pleased to have George Mitchell, who is standing behind the scrum there, as our special envoy, because I'm very confident that as somebody who was involved in equally delicate negotiations in Northern Ireland, he is somebody who recognizes that if you apply patience and determination, and you keep your eye on the long-term goal, as the Prime Minister articulated—which is a wide-ranging peace, not a grudging peace, not a transitory peace, but a wide-ranging, regional peace—that we can make great progress.

Q. Mr. President, the Israeli Prime Minister and the Israeli administration have said on many occasions—on some occasions that only if the Iranian threat will be solved, they can achieve real progress on the Palestinian threat. Do you agree with that kind of linkage?

And to the Israeli Prime Minister, you were speaking about the political track. Are you willing to get into final status issues/negotiations like borders, like Jerusalem in the near future, based on the two-state solution? And do you still hold this opinion about the linkage between the Iranian threat and your ability to achieve any progress on the Palestinian threat?

President Obama. Well, let me say this. There's no doubt that it is difficult for any Israeli government to negotiate in a situation in which they feel under immediate threat. That's not conducive to negotiations. And as I've said before, I recognize Israel's legitimate concerns about the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon when they have a president who has in the past said that Israel should not exist. That would give any leader of any country pause.

Having said that, if there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians—between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat.

Having said that, I think that dealing with Iran's potential nuclear capacity is something that we should be doing even if there already was peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And I think that pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace is something that is in Israeli's security interests and the United States' national security interests, even if Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon. They're both important.

And we have to move aggressively on both fronts. And I think that based on my conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, he agrees with me that they're both important. That's not to say that he's not making a calculation, as he should, about what are some of the most immediate threats to Israeli's security, and I understand that.

But, look, imagine how much less mischief a Hezbollah or a Hamas could do if in fact we had moved a Palestinian-Israeli track in a direction that gave the Palestinian people hope. And if Hezbollah and Hamas is weakened, imagine how that impacts Iran's ability to make mischief, and vice versa.

I mean, so obviously these things are related, but they are important separately. And I'm confident that the United States, working with Israel, can make progress on both fronts.

Q. Thank you.

Prime Minister Netanyahu. We've had extraordinarily friendly and constructive talks here today, and I'm very grateful to the President for that. We want to move peace forward, and we want to ward off the great threats.

There isn't a policy linkage, and that's what I hear the President saying, and that's what I'm saying too. And I've always said there's not a policy linkage between pursuing simultaneously peace between Israel and the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world, and to trying to deal with removing the threat of a nuclear bomb.

There are causal links. The President talked about one of them. It would help, obviously, unite a broad front against Iran if we had peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And conversely, if Iran went nuclear, it would threaten the progress towards peace and destabilize the entire area, and threaten existing peace agreement.

So it's very clear to us. I think we actually—we don't see closely on it, we see exactly eye to eye on this—that we want to move simultaneously and then parallel on two fronts; the front of peace, and the front of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability.

On the front of peace, the important thing for me is to resume negotiations as rapidly as possible, and to—and my view is less one of terminology, but one of substance. And I ask myself, what do we end up with? If we end up with another Gaza—the President has described to you there's rockets falling out of Gaza—that is something we don't want to happen, because a terror base next to our cities that doesn't call—recognize Israel's existence and calls for our destruction and asks for our destruction is not arguing peace.

If, however, the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, if they—if they fight terror, if they educate their children for peace and to a better future, then I think we can come at a substantive solution that allows the two people to live side by side in security and peace and I add prosperity, because I'm a great believer in this.

So I think the terminology will take care of itself if we have the substantive understanding. And I think we can move forward on this. I have great confidence in your leadership, Mr. President, and in your friendship to my country, and in your championing of peace and security. And the answer is, both come together—peace and security are intertwined. They're inseparable.

And I look forward, Mr. President, to working with you to achieve both.

President Obama. Thank you, everybody.

Secretary Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Al Jazeera in Washington, DC

Q. Madame Secretary, thanks for your time, first of all, for talking to this program on Al Jazeera. The meeting yesterday between President Obama and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after the meeting, President Obama could not have made it any clearer that he wanted a two-state solution. On the other hand, Prime Minister Netanyahu sort of danced around the issue without using the terminology, which has raised concerns in the Arab world. How concerned are you about the fact that he didn't actually mention once “two-state solution”?

Secretary Clinton. Well, this is the beginning, and we see this as an intensive period of our outreach and of our frankly laying out what we want to see happen. You rightly point out that the President underscored our commitment to a two-state solution and also called for a stop to the settlements. We have made that very clear. I reinforced that last night at a dinner that I hosted for Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Now the hard work starts. But I think it is significant that the Obama Administration is not waiting. We are starting this intensive engagement right now, very early in our Administration. We have consulted broadly already. Both George Mitchell and I have spoken with many Arab leaders, as well, of course, with the Palestinians and the Israelis. And we are determined to forge ahead on what we believe is in the best interests of the Israelis, the Palestinians, the larger region, and the world, as well as what we think is right. And the President—our President has often said, “Judge us on our actions, not our words.” But his words were very strong, and now we intend to match those words with our actions.

Q. Madame Secretary, when President Obama yesterday talked about the issue of settlements and he said that he wanted the Israelis to freeze the building on the West Bank, does that mean that he wants the settlements, the existing settlements, to be rolled back to the 1967 border, specifically?

Secretary Clinton. Well, there are two pieces to that question. First, we want to see a stop to settlement construction, additions, natural growth—any kind of settlement activity. That is what the President has called for. We also are going to be pushing for a two-state solution which, by its very name, implies borders that have to be agreed to. And we expect to see two states living side by side, a state for the Palestinians that will be sovereign and within which the Palestinians will have the authorities that come with being in charge of a state with respect to such activities as settlements. So it's really a two-step effort here. We want to see a stop now, and then, as part of this intensive engagement that Senator Mitchell is leading for us, we want to move toward a two-state solution with borders for the Palestinians.

Q. Madame Secretary, on the issue of the division, the split within the Palestinian body, Fatah and Hamas, can you envisage a scenario where you would be able to achieve a two-state solution without talking in some way, in some form, to Hamas?

Secretary Clinton. I believe that Hamas has to comply with not only the Quartet principles but the underlying principles of the Arab Peace Initiative. You cannot expect either Fatah or the Israelis or Arabs who wish to see this matter resolved, with a two-state solution, to work with a group that does not believe in the outcome of these efforts. And in any peace negotiation that I'm aware of anywhere in the world, groups that are resistance groups, insurgent groups, guerilla groups, when they come to the peace table have to commit to peace. And we would expect Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist, to renounce violence as the way to the achievement of a homeland for the Palestinian people, and to recognize the prior agreements that have been entered into by the Palestinians either through the PLO or the PA.

I think that's an incredibly reasonable request. Now, it is truly up to Hamas. The unity efforts that Egypt has been leading have been difficult because, clearly, there are very strongly divergent opinions that are being expressed. My hope is that I will see, you will see Palestinian children in their own state having a chance to lead normal lives, being given the opportunity to fulfill their own God-given potential, to get an education, to get the healthcare they need, to have good jobs and pursue their dreams. I don't want to see them consigned to years more of conflict that just destroys that future.

And I think we have an opportunity now. We have a President of the United States who has already reached out and said here is what I'm committed to doing. I am committed. We have a team in this Administration, and we are looking for partners. We think that the Palestinian Authority is ready to be a partner. We believe through our efforts we will get the Israelis to make the kind of commitment to a two-state solution that is absolutely necessary. We know that many leaders in the Arab world see this in a different way, as the Arab Peace Initiative suggests. So let's try to bring people to that recognition, and that includes Hamas.

Q. Madame Secretary, thanks for the time, and I hope we can have you again on Al Jazeera.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much. Nice to talk to you.

Q. Great to see you. Thank you very much.

Vice President Joe Biden delivered these remarks in Beirut, Lebanon

Vice President Biden. President—President Sleiman, thank you very much for your gracious welcome. I do bring greetings on behalf of President Obama. As you know from your personal discussions with him, and he's contacted you, that our commitment to your country is real and it's enduring.

But I must (inaudible) be back in Lebanon. I've been here many times since 1973. And you are an ancient land that has, through a very vibrant, very vibrant Lebanese American community, enriched the United States—not to say the least of which is with George Mitchell, our new envoy to head up the Middle East peace effort.

This is my first visit to Lebanon and to the Middle East as Vice President of the United States. And it is not an accident that the President asked me to come to Lebanon (inaudible) to demonstrate to you, to personally demonstrate to you and the people of Lebanon, our commitment to Lebanon. It is meaningful, it is real, and it is enduring.

We support your sovereignty, Mr. President. We support—admire your democratic process, and will do all in our power to help you enforce your democratic institutions.

We appreciate the broad support in Lebanon and around the world for you, President Sleiman; for your efforts to produce a—pursue a national unity dialogue and to revitalize the vision of a peaceful Lebanon, a democracy that obviously cannot be strong without strong institutions.

And therefore the United States remains committed to making sure that Lebanon's institutions are as strong as possible. That's why it's so important that the people of Lebanon participate in your democratic elections in June, Mr. President.

In my own country, our recent election brought millions and millions of new people to the polls—people who had not voted in the past—because they believed that their voices would make a difference. And obviously they did make a difference in the outcome of the election.

I hope that we are going to be able to see, and the world will see, a fair, free, and transparent election that will reflect the will of all the people of Lebanon. I do not come here to back any particular party or any particular person. I come to demonstrate a strong United States backing for certain fundamental principles: the principle that the Lebanese people alone, the Lebanese people alone should choose their leaders; a principle that Lebanese sovereignty cannot, will be—and will not be traded away; a principle that the Lebanese state, accountable to the Lebanese people, is the defender of Lebanese freedom.

To the extent that Lebanon adheres to these principles enshrined in the Security Council resolutions, the United States looks forward to being your strong and enduring partner. The shape and composition of Lebanon's government is for the Lebanese people to decide, to state the obvious—for no one else to decide but the Lebanese people.

What I do know, as has happened throughout world history, the election of leaders committed to the rule of law and economic reform opens the door to lasting growth and prosperity, as it will here in Lebanon. I know, for the United States at least, we will evaluate the shape of our assistance programs based on the composition of the new government and the policies it advocates. You've made much progress, and I have every confidence, Mr. President, that you will keep moving in the right direction.

I also have every confidence that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon will bring justice to those responsible for financing, planning, and carrying out the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri and so many others. That's why we've committed over $20 million to the workings of that tribunal.

I also want to convey to you that the Obama-Biden administration is committed to comprehensive peace in the region that benefits all people, including the Lebanese. That's why within the first 50 days of our administration we made it clear that we were fully, totally committed and will stay committed to pursuing a lasting peace.

Lebanon has suffered terribly from war. We have a real opportunity now, Mr. President, in my view, for peace. So I urge those who would think about standing with the spoilers of peace not to miss this opportunity to walk away from the spoilers.

Mr. President, you know it and I know it: Lebanon has immeasurable potential. And as I said to you and your colleagues earlier, I can't envision peace in the Middle East without a stable, strong Lebanon. The potential for a vibrant democracy, the potential to be a model for other Middle Eastern nations moving toward freedom and reform is, I think, within your grasp.

A famous Lebanese poet wrote the words—and I want to get them exactly right—”Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what will be.” Not in what is, but in advancing toward what will be.

I'm confident, Mr. President, that what will be is a sovereign and democratic Lebanon that is stronger tomorrow than it is today. And I'm determined—and President Obama is determined—that Lebanon and America will advance together toward a better future.

Once again, on behalf of the President of the United States, I thank you for this welcome, and I assure you we stand with you in guaranteeing a sovereign, secure Lebanon with strong institutions.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Minister Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. Good afternoon. We just had a very good working lunch with the foreign minister, General Suleiman, and the delegation from Egypt. I had the opportunity to thank them for their commitment to working with us and strengthening and deepening our bilateral relationship, and for the leadership that Egypt is showing on both regional and global matters.

I asked them to extend our thanks to President Mubarak and others in the Egyptian Government who are working to resolve conflicts and bridge divides. And I assured them that President Obama and I are fully committed to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, to a two-state solution, and that we regard Egypt as an essential partner in helping us to realize that vision.

We appreciate the leadership that Egypt has shown in recent months, including convening the convention in Sharm el-Sheikh that I attended, as well as undertaking sensitive mediation among various parties in the region. I know that the President is looking forward to his trip to Cairo next week and the opportunity to speak about America's relationships, not only in the Middle East and not just in the Islamic world but to people everywhere about what our common concerns are and how to seek common ground and realize our common objectives. And I look forward to continuing to work with the foreign minister and others in the Egyptian Government to address the full range of bilateral and mutual concerns.

So, Foreign Minister Gheit, thank you so much for being here.

Foreign Minister Gheit. Thank you very much, Secretary. As you have rightly stated, it was a very fruitful discussion today. And in all honesty, it has been also a very fruitful discussion over the last two days. We have met American officials on the highest level, and we feel encouraged on the insistence and the determination of this Administration to push forward for a peace effort that ultimately we would hope will allow the Palestinians to have their state.

The message we were carrying to you is that the Middle East is looking forward for a determined action on your part to bring the idea on the two-state to fruition, that the core of the problems in this part of the world is the Palestinian problem. And we have to keep working together, and we promise that we will be doing our part of the job, and hopefully soon we would have a job well done. That is an aspect.

The second aspect that we touched over the last two days is we are full of expectations for the President's visit to Cairo on the 4th of June, and we are determined also to keep building up Egyptian-American relations as well as our cooperation with you on all levels of activity in relation to bilateral as well as problems tormenting this region.

Thank you very much.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you.

Mr. Kelly. We'll take a few questions. First, Elise from CNN.

Q. Thank you, Madame Secretary, Mr. Foreign Minister. Madame Secretary, on North Korea, Pyongyang is threatening to go to war with South Korea over joining the PSI. Do you take those threats seriously? And how will the U.S. protect your ally, South Korea? There are also reports that North Korea is restarting its reprocessing facility. Would that be a violation of the U.S. agreement through the Six-Party Talks, and what should the consequences be?

Mr. Foreign Minister, the Bush Administration was very rhetorical and very critical on issues about human rights and democracy, particularly with Egypt. Have you noticed a difference in the way the Obama Administration approaches these issues? And how has the conversation been different here in Washington?

Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Do you want to start?

Foreign Minister Gheit. Yes. They are no more rhetorical. They are discussing issues, showing their concerns, but they also listen. And that is very important to listen and to understand where you come from and what are the reason and the reasoning behind this or that action. I think they are very much different than the Bush Administration. I wouldn't characterize by that as good or bad, but there are differences, in attitude at least.

Secretary Clinton. Well, as the foreign minister said, we raised issues pertaining to democracy and human rights, as we have consistently in our bilateral discussions. And we will continue to do so. We are interested in working constructively with the Egyptian Government, and I think that there is a great opportunity to not only work together but listen to each other and figure out the best way forward to achieve common objectives.

With respect to North Korea—North Korea has made a choice. It has chosen to violate the specific language of the UN Security Council Resolution 1718. It has ignored the international community. It has abrogated the obligations it entered into through the Six-Party Talks. And it continues to act in a provocative and belligerent manner toward its neighbors.

There are consequences to such actions. In the United Nations, as we speak, discussions are going on to add to the consequences that North Korea will face coming out of the latest behavior, with the intent to try to rein in the North Koreans and get them back into a framework where they are once again fulfilling their obligations and moving toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

But they have chosen the path they're on, and I'm very pleased that we have a unified international community, including China and Russia, in setting forth a very specific condemnation of North Korea and then working with us for a firm resolution going forward.

I want to underscore the commitments that the United States has and intends always to honor for the defense of South Korea and Japan. That is part of our alliance obligation, which we take very seriously. So we hope that there will be an opportunity for North Korea to come back into a framework of discussion within the Six-Party process, and that we can begin once again to see results from working with the North Koreans toward denuclearization that will benefit, we believe, the people of North Korea, the region, and the world.

Q. The reprocessing plant, Madame Secretary (inaudible)?

Secretary Clinton. We're working on bringing together the international community to determine our steps forward.

Mr. Kelly. All right. Next question is (inaudible).

Q. Madame Secretary, with your appreciated new efforts on the peace process, do you consider the previous commitment from the administration of Mr. Bush to the foreign—to the prime minister of Israel, Mr. Sharon, concerning the ‘49 lines and the situation on the ground? Is it—do you consider it invalid now, especially that the Palestinians had refused it then?

Secretary Clinton. We are working very hard. And certainly, Senator Mitchell is leading our efforts to create a context for the negotiations to resume and go forward. Each of the parties, the Israelis and the Palestinians, have in the past committed themselves to certain undertakings that we expect them to be responsible for honoring. And we will be working together with partners like Egypt to bring about a comprehensive approach that can lead to a two-state solution that will give the Israelis and the Palestinians the chance to have a peaceful and secure future. But we're just at the beginning of that process. And obviously, there is much work to be done before we have any results we can point to.

Q. Well, what is the status of the previous commitment, the previous—

Secretary Clinton. We are looking at all of that.

Q. Thank you.

Mr. Kelly. Next question, Kirit from ABC.

Q. A question, Madame Secretary, about settlements. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that he is going to freeze settlement expansion—new settlement expansion, excuse me—but he's not made any commitment towards freezing existing settlement growth. Do you think that's enough?

And then a question on Egypt, if I may. In the case of Janet Greer, a mother whose daughter was abducted by his—her abusive father and brought to Egypt 12 years ago. Mr. Minister, successive court rulings (inaudible) the daughter should be with the mother. Can you tell us why those court rulings have not been enforced?

And Madame Secretary, can you tell us whether you plan to raise such things, this case in specific, with the Egyptian Government?

Foreign Minister Gheit. Yes. I am—I investigated that issue. And it seems that there is still a court appeal from the father. So a decision, I think, will be made in the next few days. If it will be finally judged that the child would be returned to the mother, I'm sure that the Egyptian Government would abide by the court ruling. But it is not yet—up till now, is not yet a final decision.

Secretary Clinton. I would only add that the State Department and Consular Affairs, particularly the Children's Bureau, has been working with the family, particularly the mother, on this case for many years. It has gone through the Egyptian judicial system. My understanding is that the mother has won.

But as the foreign minister said, there's one more step to go through. We're hoping that this is resolved. I mean, as a mother, the idea that I wouldn't be able to see my daughter for 12 years is extremely painful to me just to think about. So we are very hopeful that this will be resolved and, as the foreign minister said, we're confident that the Egyptian Government will react appropriately once it is.

With respect to settlements, the President was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here. He wants to see a stop to settlements—not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions. We think it is in the best interests of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly, not only to the Israelis but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point.

Foreign Minister Gheit. Thank you.

Mr. Kelly. And the last question to Sanaa Youssef.

Q. Madame Secretary, you expressed your appreciations of the partnership and the experience of Egypt in bringing—in helping the peace process. And you did mention the principle of a peace process, you know, how it should be done. But isn't it time to bring up a plan of action with a timetable and to move it ahead so really, the people in Egypt and in the whole Arab world would be appreciative of the work?

And for the minister of foreign affairs, did you discuss at all the Iranian folio with the Secretary?

Foreign Minister Gheit. I have been responding all the time. Respond first and then I will come back to you.

Secretary Clinton. We are going to be putting forward very specific proposals to the Israelis and the Palestinians. That's what Senator Mitchell has been doing over the last several days. I will be meeting with President Abbas and his delegation tonight. We've also been reaching out to governments of Arab nations asking what they could be expected to do as we move forward to build confidence and to create a good atmosphere for decisions to be made.

But I'm not going to negotiate in public. We are making a very concerted effort. We have a well thought-out approach that we are pursuing. We have a lot of support from countries such as Egypt. But ultimately, this is up to the two parties. Israel and the Palestinians have to decide that they will take a commitment toward a resolution of their outstanding concerns. And the international community, led by the United States, will be very supportive of that.

So we are working to get the Israelis and the Palestinians into a negotiation where we can see the positive steps that you're referring to take place.

Foreign Minister Gheit. Yes. I think all issues related to the Middle East have been discussed today and over the last two days, including the so-called Iranian nuclear file and the position of Iran in relation to the region. We have been also stressing the need for an American measure—action to expedite the process, or expedite the action itself—the efforts.

The—what is needed today is not only to allow the parties to renegotiate, but what is needed is to allow the parties as they negotiate—we, all of us, the Quartet, the international community, the Arab countries—to show support, understanding, and to push them together, allowing them to negotiate in direct negotiations that are—we are hopeful that would lead to the emergence of the Palestinian state as soon as possible. In the absence of such negotiations and the success of the negotiations and seeing the emergence of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel, then I think the situation will worsen in this part of the world, and we will be—all of us, not only people in the region or countries in the region, but also the United States and the Western world as well as the world at large—we will be all witnessing a very difficult situation.

So there is an opportunity, a window of opportunity, and let's act and act decisively now, not tomorrow or the day after.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you all very much.

Foreign Minister Gheit. Thank you very much.

President Barack Obama and President Mahmoud Abbas delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

President Obama. Hello, everybody. Well, it is a great pleasure to welcome President Abbas to the Oval Office. We had—we just completed an extensive conversation, both privately as well as with our delegations, about how we can advance peace in the Middle East and how we can reaffirm some core principles that I think can result in Palestinians and Israelis living side by side in peace and security.

As I've said before, I've been a strong believer in a two-state solution that would provide the Israelis and Palestinians the peace and security that they need. I am very appreciative that President Abbas shares that view. And when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here last week I reiterated to him that the framework that's been provided by the road map is one that can advance the interests of Israel, can advance the interests of the Palestinian people, and can also advance the interests of the United States.

We are a stalwart ally of Israel and it is in our interests to assure that Israel is safe and secure. It is our belief that the best way to achieve that is to create the conditions on the ground and set the stage for a Palestinian state as well. And so what I told Prime Minister Netanyahu was is that each party has obligations under the road map. On the Israeli side those obligations include stopping settlements. They include making sure that there is a viable potential Palestinian state. On the Palestinian side it's going to be important and necessary to continue to take the security steps on the West Bank that President Abbas has already begun to take, working with General Dayton. We've seen great progress in terms of security in the West Bank. Those security steps need to continue because Israel has to have some confidence that security in the West Bank is in place in order for us to advance this process.

And I also mentioned to President Abbas in a frank exchange that it was very important to continue to make progress in reducing the incitement and anti-Israel sentiments that are sometimes expressed in schools and mosques and in the public square, because all those things are impediments to peace.

The final point that I made was the importance of all countries internationally, but particularly the Arab states, to be supportive of a two-state solution. And we discussed how important it is that the Arab states, building off of some of the recognition of the possibilities of the two-state solution that are contained in the Arab Peace Initiative continue to provide economic support, as well as political support, to President Abbas's efforts as he moves the Palestinian Authority forward, as he continues to initiate the reforms that have taken place, and as he hopefully is going to be able to enter into constructive talks with the Israelis.

So, again, I want to thank President Abbas for his visit and a very constructive conversation. I am confident that we can move this process forward if all the parties are willing to take on the responsibilities and meet the obligations that they've already committed to, and if they keep in mind not just the short-term tactical issues that are involved, but the long-term strategic interests of both the Israelis and the Palestinians to live side by side in peace and security.

So, thank you again, Mr. President.

President Abbas. Thank you very much, Mr. President, for receiving us here at the White House. We came here to tell you first of all that we congratulate you for the confidence that was expressed by the American people in electing you President of the United States. And we wish you all success in your mission.

Mr. President, you referred to the international commitment as we stipulated in the road map. I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm to you that we are fully committed to all of our obligations under the road map, from A to Z. And we believe, like you, Mr. President, that carrying out the obligations of all parties under the road map will be the only way to achieve the durable, comprehensive, and just peace that we need and desire in the Middle East.

Mr. President, I believe that the entire Arab world and the Islamic world, they are all committed to peace. We've seen that through the Arab League Peace Initiative that simply talks about land for peace as a principle. I believe that if the Israelis would withdraw from all occupied Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese land, the Arab world will be ready to have normal relationships with the state of Israel.

On our part, we are carrying our security and responsibility in the West Bank, and have law and order in that areas under our control because we believe that it is in our interest to have security. It's in the interest of stability in the region. And here I would like to pay tribute and thank you to General Dayton and all those who work with him in helping and supporting and training our security organizations to carry out their duties and responsibilities.

Mr. President, I believe that time is of the essence. We should capitalize on every minute and every hour in order to move the peace process forward, in order to cement this process, in order to achieve the agreement that would lead to peace.

Thank you very much.

President Obama. Thank you. We got time for a couple of questions. Julianna.

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to ask you a question about your trip next week to Riyadh. Reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a cornerstone of your energy policy. And when you meet with Riyadh's King Abdullah next week, what message will you take to him about U.S. energy policy, oil prices, output quotes, and the like?

President Obama. Well, you know, Saudi Arabia has been an important strategic partner in providing us with our critical energy needs. We appreciate that. It's a commercial relationship as well as a strategic relationship.

And I don't think that it's in Saudi Arabia's interests or our interests to have a situation in which our economy is dependent, or better yet, is disrupted constantly by huge spikes in energy prices. And it's in nobody's interest, internationally, for us to continue to be so heavily dependent on fossil fuels that we continue to create the greenhouse gases that threaten the planet.

So in those discussions I'll be very honest with King Abdullah, with whom I've developed a good relationship, indicating to him that we're not going to be eliminating our need for oil imports in the immediate future; that's not our goal. What our goal has to be is to advance the clean energy solutions in this country that can strengthen our economy, put people back to work, diversify our energy sources.

And, you know, interestingly enough, you're seeing the Saudis make significant investments both in their own country and outside of their country in clean energy, as well, because I think they recognize that we've got finite—we have a finite supply of oil. There are going to be a whole host of countries like China and India that have huge populations, need to develop rapidly.

If everybody is dependent solely on oil as opposed to energy sources like wind and solar, if we are not able to figure out ways to sequester carbon and that would allow us to use coal in a non-polluting way, if we don't diversify our energy sources, then all of us are going to be in trouble. And so I don't think that will be a difficult conversation to have.

Q. Mr. President, if Israel keeps declining to accept the two-state solution and to freeze the settlement activities, how the U.S. would intervene in the peace process?

President Obama. We'll, I think it's important not to assume the worst, but to assume the best. And in my conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu I was very clear about the need to stop the settlements; to make sure that we are stopping the building of outposts; to work with the Palestinian Authority in order to alleviate some of the pressures that the Palestinian people are under in terms of travel and commerce, so that we can initiate some of the economic development plans that Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has said are so important on the ground.

And that conversation only took place last week. I think that we don't have a moment to lose, but I also don't make decisions based on just the conversation that we had last week because obviously Prime Minister Netanyahu has to work through these issues in his own government, in his own coalition, just as President Abbas has a whole host of issues that he has to deal with.

But I'm confident that if Israel looks long term—looks at its long-term strategic interests, that it will recognize that a two-state solution is in the interests of the Israeli people as well as the Palestinians. And certainly that's how the United States views our long-term strategic interests—a situation in which the Palestinians can prosper, they can start businesses, they can educate their children, they can send them to college, they can prosper economically. That kind of situation is good for Israel's security. And I am confident that the majority of the Israeli people would see that as well.

Now, obviously the Israelis have good reason to be concerned about security, and that's why it's important that we continue to make progress on the security issues that so often end up disrupting peace talks between the two parties.

Q. President Abbas, you've met with President Obama, and perhaps you shared some of your ideas about permanent status resolution. What was in these ideas, and what kind of appropriate mechanism that you have discussed to realize them and carry them out?

President Abbas. We have shared some ideas with the President, but all of them basically are embodied in the road map and the Arab League Initiative, without any change, without any modification.

Regarding the mechanism to carry it out, of course, there is a mechanism through the Quartet as well as the follow-up committee from the Arab nations. Such a proposal will need to be looked at, studied; then we'll see where to go from here.

Q. Mr. President, do you plan to unveil any part or all of your proposal for Mideast peace when you're speaking in Cairo next week, or is it some other message you intend to deliver?

President Obama. I want to use the occasion to deliver a broader message about how the United States can change for the better its relationship with the Muslim world. That will require, I think, a recognition on both the part of the United States as well as many majority Muslim countries about each other, a better sense of understanding, and I think possibilities to achieve common ground.

I want to emphasize the importance of Muslim Americans in the United States and the tremendous contributions they make, something that I think oftentimes is missed in some of these discussions. But certainly the issue of Middle East peace is something that is going to need to be addressed. It is a critical factor in the minds of many Arabs in countries throughout the region and beyond the region. And I think that it would be inappropriate for me not to discuss those.

I'm not going to give you a preview right now, but it's something that we'll certainly discuss.

One thing that I didn't mention earlier that I want to say I very much appreciate is that President Abbas I think has been under enormous pressure to bring about some sort of unity government and to negotiate with Hamas. And I am very impressed and appreciative of President Abbas's willingness to steadfastly insist that any unity government would have to recognize the principles that have been laid by the Quartet.

In the absence of a recognition of Israel and a commitment to peace, and a commitment to previous agreements that have already been made, it would be very hard to see any possibility of peace over the long term. And so I want to publicly commend President Abbas for taking that position because I think it's a position that's in the interest of the Palestinian people, in the interests of peace in the region, and it's something that the United States very much agrees with.

Q. Mr. President, if I may, President Bush hoped that you would have a Palestinian state by the time he leaves office. It didn't happen. Do you have a time frame when this Palestinian state is going to happen? Are you talking about a timetable for negotiation?

The first question to President Abbas.: Mr. President, did you receive any kind of clear-cut commitments from President Obama, or any pledges that would help you to strengthen your hands when you are dealing with the Palestinian public and opposition among Palestinians that this peace process activities could be viable and could be actually productive?

And the second question was, did President Obama ask you to have a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu?

President Abbas. President Obama basically talked and reaffirmed the international commitments that we all agreed to, and they are all embodied in the road map. He talked about the necessity to have two states, he talked about the importance of stopping settlement activities, and he also talked about the importance of achieving peace through negotiating all permanent status issues.

Obviously without discussing and negotiating permanent status issues there will be no progress. We know that all the six issues of permanent status were discussed with the previous Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Olmert, and what is needed right now is to resume the discussions with the current Israeli government.

President Obama. And in terms of a timetable, I have not put forward a specific timetable. But let me just point out, when I was campaigning for this office I said that one of the mistakes I would not make is to wait until the end of my first term, or the end of my second term, before we moved on this issue aggressively. And we've been true to that commitment.

From the first week that I arrived in this office, I insisted that this is a critical issue to deal with, in part because it is in the United States' interest to achieve peace; that the absence of peace between Palestinians and Israelis is a impediment to a whole host of other areas of increased cooperation and more stable security for people in the region, as well as the United States. And so I want to see progress made, and we will work very aggressively to achieve that.

I don't want to put an artificial timetable, but I do share President Abbas's feelings and I believe that many Israelis share the same view that time is of the essence, that we can't continue with a drift**, with the increased fear and resentments on both sides, the sense of hopelessness around the situation that we've seen for many years now—we need to get this thing back on track. And I will do everything I can, and my administration will do everything I can—my special envoy, George Mitchell, is working as diligently as he can, as is my entire national security team, to make sure that we jumpstart this process and get it moving again.

All right.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. Well, I am so honored to receive this group here at the State Department. This is a group of young men and women from Egypt who are committed to improving the lives of the Egyptian people, providing more economic opportunity, greater growth in democracy, respect for human rights. They come from a variety of backgrounds. Each of them brings a special experience, an expertise to their interests and their efforts.

I am excited about going to Egypt next week with President Obama for his speech. I've enjoyed the opportunities that I have had to work with my Egyptian counterparts on how we're going to deepen and broaden our relationship between our two countries. But the most important part of that relationship is between the American and Egyptian people. And I think that a number of our visitors have made their first trip to the United States with this trip. So it's wonderful to have you here and to be part of this.

I'm going to take a question or two, and then we'll go this way and have a chance to talk. Okay?

Q. Madame Secretary?

Secretary Clinton. Yes.

Q. What progress has Egypt made toward democracy and human rights? Is it the main stumbling block, this emergency law that's been enforced for decades? And finally, how much of an issue will it be on your trip and the President's trip next week?

Secretary Clinton. Well, we always raise democracy and human rights. It is a core pillar of American foreign policy. And I think that there is a great awareness on the part of the Egyptian Government that with young people like this and with enhanced communications, it is in Egypt's interest to move more toward democracy and to exhibit more respect for human rights. And so we're going to continue to engage in that dialogue.

Under Secretary Bill Burns will be going to Egypt soon to put in place a framework for a comprehensive discussion between our two countries on the whole range of issues. We're very appreciative of the strong role that Egypt is playing in looking for a way to bring Palestinians together. We appreciate what Egypt has done to try to support counterterrorism efforts which threaten Egypt and threaten many other countries.

And we are very committed to doing what we can to promote economic opportunity inside Egypt. We consider that a key part of our providing assistance to Egypt. We've spent, as you know, many billions of dollars over the last years promoting NGOs, promoting democracy, good governance, rule of law. And I want to stress economic opportunity because out of economic opportunity comes confidence, comes a recognition that people can chart their own future. So this is all part of what we will be discussing.

Q. You had some very strong words yesterday about settlements and that the Israelis are going to have to play their part in this. Could you please tell us how your dinner was last night with President Abbas? Do you feel that you're making progress? And what are your expectations sort of in the near term of how to push the process forward? How are you going to get the Israelis to do what they need to do, plus the Palestinians?

Secretary Clinton. We had a very productive dinner last night with President Abbas and other officials from the Palestinian Authority. We discussed a full range of concerns. Senator Mitchell reported on his recent discussions with Israeli officials as well as Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit.

We believe strongly in the two-state solution, and we are committed to doing all that we can to work with Israelis and Palestinians and others, like Egypt, to try to push that forward. We have laid out some ideas that we've shared with both the Israelis and the Palestinians. And as you know, President Abbas will be meeting with President Obama this afternoon in the Oval Office.

This is a difficult, complex undertaking. But we are committed to it, and we think it's in the best interest of both Palestinians and Israelis. We think this effort to obtain a two-state solution is the best way for Israel to have the peace and security that they are seeking and deserve, and we think it is the best way for Palestinians to have a sense of empowerment and authority over their own lives and to give them the chance to raise their families and to have the kind of future that the children of the Palestinians deserve. So we see this as very much in not only our interests and the interests of the region, but of Israel and the Palestinians as well.

Thank you all very much.

President Barack Obama was interviewed by NPR in Washington, DC

Q. Mr. President, welcome to the program.

President Obama. Thank you so much.

Q. Mr. President, thank you for joining us—that we could join you, in this case. If you want to improve relations with the Muslim world, do you have to change or alter in some way the strong U.S. support for Israel?

President Obama. No, I don't think that we have to change strong U.S. support for Israel. I think that we do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace, and that that's going to require, from my view, a two-state solution; that it's going to require that each side—Israelis and Palestinians—meet their obligations.

I've said very clearly to the Israelis both privately and publicly that a freeze on settlements including natural growth is part of those obligations. I've said to the Palestinians that their continued progress on security and ending the incitement that I think understandably makes Israelis so concerned—that that has to be—those obligations have to be met.

So the key is to just believe that that process can move forward and that all sides are going to have to give. And it's not going to be an easy path, but one that I think we can achieve.

Q. Mr. President, you mentioned a freeze on settlements. The Israel Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is quoted today saying to Cabinet members in Israel that he will not follow your demand for a freeze on settlements in the West Bank, that it's not going to happen. What does it suggest that Israel is not taking your advice?

President Obama. Well, I think it's still early in the process. They formed a government, what, a month ago? I think that we're going to have a series of conversations. Obviously the first priority of a Israeli Prime Minister is to think in terms of Israel's security. I believe that strategically the status quo is unsustainable when it comes to Israeli security; that over time, in the absence of peace with the Palestinians, Israel will continue to be threatened militarily and will have enormous problems along its borders.

And so it is not only in the Palestinians' interest to have a state; I believe it is in the Israelis, as well, and in the United States' interest as well.

Q. But if the United States says for years that Israel should stop the settlements, and for years Israel simply does not, and the United States continues supporting Israel in roughly the same way, what does that do with American credibility in the Muslim world, which you're trying to address?

President Obama. Well, I think what is certainly true is that the United States has to follow through on what it says. Now, as I said before, I haven't said anything yet because it's early in the process. But it is important for us to be clear about what we believe will lead to peace and that there's not equivocation and there's not a sense that we expect only compromise on one side; it's going to have to be two-sided.

‘And I don't think anybody would deny that in theory. When it comes to the concrete, then the politics of it get difficult both within the Israeli and the Palestinian communities. But, look, if this was easy it would have already been done.

Q. Many people in the region are concerned; when they look at the U.S. relationship with Israel, they feel that Israel has favored status in all cases. And what do you say to people in the Muslim world who feel that the U.S. has, repeatedly over time, blindly supported Israel?

President Obama. Well, what I'd say is there's no doubt that the United States has a special relationship with Israel. There are a lot of Israelis who used to be Americans. There is huge cross-cultural ties between the two countries. I think that as a vibrant democracy that shares many of our values, obviously we're deeply sympathetic to Israel.

And I think I would also say that given past statements surrounding Israel—the notion that they should be driven into the sea, that they should be annihilated, that they should be obliterated, the armed aggression that's been directed towards them in the past—you can understand why not only Israelis would feel concern, but the United States would feel it was important to back this stalwart ally.

Now, having said all that, what is also true is that part of being a good friend is being honest, and I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory in the region is profoundly negative not only for Israeli interests, but also U.S. interests. And that's part of a new dialogue that I'd like to see encouraged in the region.

Q. Does it undermine your effort, reaching out to the Muslim world, which you'll do with the speech in Cairo, that you'll be speaking in a country with an undemocratic government that is an ally of the United States?

President Obama. Well, keep in mind I already spoke in Turkey. They have a democracy that I'm sure some Turks would say has flaws to it, just as there are some Americans who would suggest there are flaws to American democracy—

Q. Are you about to say Egypt is just a country with some flaws?

President Obama. No, no, what I'm about—don't put words in my mouth, Steve, especially not in the White House. You can wait until the postscript.

There is a wide range of governments throughout the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world, and the main thing for me to do is to project what our values are, what our ideals are, what we care most deeply about—and that is democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion.

Now, in every country I deal with, whether it's China, Russia, ultimately Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, allies as well as non-allies, there are going to be some differences. And what I want to do is just maintain consistency in affirming what those values that I believe in are, understanding that we're not going to get countries to embrace various of our values simply by lecturing or through military means. We can't force these approaches. What we can do is stand up for human rights; we can stand up for democracy. But I think it's a mistake for us to somehow suggest that we're not going to deal with countries around the world in the absence of their meeting all our criteria for democracy.

Q. Michele Norris.

Q. You've mentioned many times the importance of reaching out to Iran with an open hand, trying to engage that country. Are you also willing to try to engage with Hezbollah or Hamas, entities that have now had significant gains in recent elections?

President Obama. Well, let's just underscore a point here. Iran is a huge, significant nation state that has, I think, across the international community been recognized as such. Hezbollah and Hamas are not. And I don't think that we have to approach those entities in the same way. In the—

Q.—does that change with their electoral gains?

President Obama. Well, look, if at some point—Lebanon is a member of the United Nations—if at some point they are elected as a head of state—or a head of state is elected in Lebanon that is a member of that organization, then that would raise these issues. That hasn't happened yet.

With respect to Hamas, I do think that if they recognize the Quartet principles that have been laid out—and these are fairly modest conditions here—that you recognize the state of Israel without prejudging what various grievances or claims are appropriate, that you abide by previous agreements, that you renounce violence as a means of achieving your goals—then I think discussions with Hamas could potentially proceed.

And so the problem has been that there's been a preference oftentimes on the part of these organizations to use violence and not take responsibility for governance as a means of winning propaganda wars or advancing their organizational aims. At some point, though, they may make a transition—there are examples of—in the past, of organizations that have successfully transitioned from violent organizations to ones that recognize that they can achieve their aims more effectively through political means, and I hope that occurs.

Q. Mr. President, because you mentioned Iran I want to ask a question about that and about your efforts to engage with the Muslim world in a different way. I'd like to know which development you think would be more harmful to America's prestige in the Muslim world, which is worse.: An Iranian government that has nuclear weapons, or an Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities?

President Obama. Well, I'm not going to engage in these hypotheticals, Steve, but I can tell you that my view is that Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing to the region—not just with respect to Israel's response, but the response of other Arab states in the region, or Muslim states in the region that might be concerned about Iran having an undue advantage.

More broadly, I've got a concern about nuclear proliferation generally, something that I talked about in my speech in Prague. I think one of the things that we need to do is to describe to the Iranians a pathway for them achieving security, respect and prosperity that doesn't involve them possessing a nuclear weapon. But we have to be able to make that same argument to other countries that might aspire to nuclear weapons, and we have to apply some of those same principles to ourselves, so that—for example, I'll be traveling next month to Moscow to initiate START talks, trying to reduce our nuclear stockpiles, as part of a broader effort in the international community to contain our nuclear weapons.

Q. And you want other nations to restrain themselves until you can complete that process?

President Obama. Well, that's going to be the challenge. That's why we're so busy around here all the time.

Q. Let me ask about one other challenge if I might.

Forgive me, Michele, go ahead.

Q. No, go ahead.

Q. Is your effort to engage the Muslim world likely to be complicated or even undermined by the fact that you're escalating a war in a Muslim country, Afghanistan, with the inevitable civilian casualties and other bad news that will come out of there?

President Obama. Well, there's no doubt that anytime you have civilian casualties that always complicates things, whether it was a Muslim or a non-Muslim country. I think part of what I'll be addressing in my speech is a reminder that the reason that we're in Afghanistan is very simple, and that is 3,000 Americans were killed and you had a devastating attack on the American homeland; the organization that planned those attacks intends to carry out further attacks and we cannot stand by and allow that to happen.

But I am somebody who is very anxious to have the Afghan government and the Pakistani government have the capacity to ensure that those safe havens don't exist. And so it's—I think will be an important reminder that we have no territorial ambitions in Afghanistan. We don't have an interest in exploiting the resources of Afghanistan. What we want is simply that people aren't hanging out in Afghanistan who are plotting to bomb the United States. And I think that's a fairly modest goal that other Muslim countries should be able to understand.

Q. Mr. President, you have talked about creating a new path forward on Guantanamo, on the relationship that the U.S. has with countries in the Muslim world, and on several fronts. But at the same time, the former Vice President has been out talking about the policies in the former administration. He's forceful, he's unapologetic, and he doesn't seem willing to scale back his rhetoric. How much does that undermine or complicate your effort to extend a hand, to explain the Obama doctrine and draw a line of demarcation between that administration and yours?

President Obama. Well, he also happens to be wrong. Right? And last time, immediately after his speech, I think there was a fact check on his speech that didn't get a very good grade.

Does it make it more complicated? No, because I think these are complicated issues and there is a legitimate debate to be had about national security. And I don't doubt the sincerity of the former Vice President or the previous administration in wanting to protect the American people—and these are very difficult decisions. If you've got a—as I said in my speech, if you've got an organization that is out to kill Americans and is not bound by any rules, then that puts an enormous strain on not only our intelligence operations, our national security operations, but also our legal system.

The one thing that I'm absolutely persuaded by, though, is that if we are true to our ideals and our values, if these decisions aren't made unilaterally by the executive branch, but rather in consultation and in open fashion and in democratic debate, that the Muslim world and the world generally will see that we have upheld our values, been true to our ideals, and that ultimately will make us safer.

Q. It's unusual for the debate to be playing out in a public forum, though. Have you picked up the phone? Have you talked to him? Have you had a conversation?

President Obama. I don't think it's that unusual. As I remember, there were some speeches given by Vice President Gore that differed with President Bush's policies. And I think that's healthy; that's part of the debate. And I don't in any way begrudge, I think, anybody in debating, sometimes ferociously, these issues that are of premium importance to the United States. And I am constantly listening and gauging whether or not there's new information out there that I should take into account.

I will tell you that based on my reviews, I am very confident about the policies that we've taken being the right ones for the American people.

Q. We're told that our time is up. So you've been very generous.

President Obama. Thank you, guys.

President Barack Obama was interviewed by the BBC in Washington, DC

Q. Mr. President, thank you very much for talking to the BBC.

President Obama. Thank you. Thank you very much for having me.

Q. It's really good to be here. Let's turn straight to your big speech—a hugely important speech you're making in Cairo on Thursday. Many Muslims think they're owed an apology, actually, for the Bush years and the sins that, in their view, were committed by the United States during those years. Is this speech in any way an apology?

President Obama. No, I think what we want to do is open a dialogue. And, you know, there are misapprehensions about the West on the part of the Muslim world and obviously there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West. And it is my firm belief that no one speech is going to solve every problem, there are no silver bullets. There are very real policy issues that have to be worked through that are difficult, and ultimately it's going to be action and not words that determine the path of progress from here on out.

But it did seem to me that this was an opportunity for us to get both sides to listen to each other a little bit more and hopefully learn something about different cultures.

Q. You say “both sides,” so I take from that that Muslims listening to this speech you are hoping will also be changed by it and their attitude to the United States perhaps change. What needs to change on the behalf of those you're actually speaking to?

President Obama. Well, I mean, look, let's just take one small example—the U.S. Muslim population is more numerous than the populations of many majority-Muslim countries. So, you know, we have a huge and thriving Muslim American community. We have Muslim Americans represented or who are serving in Congress. We've got a President who's got family members who are Muslim.

So this notion that somehow America is detached, is removed, sees some clash of civilizations as inevitable—I think a lot of the propaganda and dogma that's churned out there is inaccurate.

Now, the flip side is, is that in the wake of 9/11 what is also true is that in a whole host of our actions, and sometimes in our words, America has not been as careful to distinguish our very real need to hunt down extremists who would do us harm—something that's necessitated by our self defense—and broader policy differences or cultural differences that exist that are best approached through diplomacy and conversation and some self-reflection on our part. And so that's the kind of back and forth that I think is going to need to take place.

And the last point I made, because I should actually correct myself, when I said “both sides,” there are actually many sides to this because one of the misapprehensions about—misperceptions about the Muslim community is that it's somehow monolithic. And, you know, setting aside differences between Shia and Sunni, the Muslim country that I lived in when I was a child, Indonesia, obviously is very different from Pakistan, is very different from Saudi Arabia. And so we have to also recognize that there are going to be differences based on national identity and not just faith.

Q. You're making this speech in Cairo. Amnesty International says there are thousands of political prisoners in Egypt. How do you address that issue?

President Obama. Well, look, obviously in the Middle East, across a wide range of types of governments, there are some human rights issues. I don't think there's any dispute about that. The message I hope to deliver is that democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion—those are not simply principles of the West to be hoisted on these countries, but rather what I believe to be universal principles that they can embrace and affirm as part of their national identity.

Now, the danger I think is when the United States or any country thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture. Our job is—

Q. But you can encourage—

President Obama. Absolutely we can encourage, and I expect we will be encouraging—

Q. You will.

President Obama. And I think the thing that we can do most importantly is serve as a good role model. And that's why, for example, closing Guantanamo, from my perspective, as difficult as it is, is important, because part of what we want to affirm to the world is that these are values that are important even when it's hard, maybe especially when it's hard, and not just when it's easy.

Q. Do you regard President Mubarak as an authoritarian ruler?

President Obama. No, I tend not to use labels for folks. I haven't met him; I've spoken to him on the phone. He has been a stalwart ally, in many respects, to the United States. He has sustained peace with Israel, which is a very difficult thing to do in that region, but he has never resorted to unnecessary demagoguing of the issue and has tried to maintain that relationship.

So I think he has been a force for stability and good in the region. Obviously there have been criticisms of the manner in which politics operates in Egypt and, as I said before, you know, the United States' job is not to lecture but to encourage, to lift up what we consider to be the values that ultimately will work not just for our country but for the aspirations of a lot of people.

Q. A lot of people are looking for specifics in your speech, and one of the areas they're going to be fascinated by, hanging on your every word, is Israel and the Palestinians and what you say about that. You've made it very clear in recent weeks to the Israeli government that you want settlement building to be frozen in existing settlements. They've made it equally clear that they're not going to do that. So what happens now?

President Obama. Well, it's still early in the conversation. I've had one meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I think that we have not seen a set of potential gestures from other Arab states or from the Palestinians that might deal with some of—some Israeli concerns. I do believe that if you follow the road map approach that has been laid out, if Israel abides by its obligations that includes no settlements, if the Palestinians abide by their obligations to deal with the security situation, to eliminate incitement, if all the surrounding Arab states, working with the Quartet, are able to encourage economic development and political development, then I think that we can actually make some progress.

So, you know, one of the things that in the 24/7 news cycle is very difficult to encourage is patience, and diplomacy is always a matter of a long, hard slog. It's never a matter of quick results.

Q. I accept that, but you have the Israeli—a senior member of the Israeli cabinet, the transport minister saying, “I want to say in a crystal-clear manner [that] the current Israeli government will not accept in any fashion that legal settlement activity ? be frozen.” I mean, you've got a job of work, can I at least put it like that?

President Obama. Always have a lot of work, yes. I mean, nobody thought this was going to be easy. If it was easy, it would have been done. But I do think that we're going to be able to get serious negotiations back on track and we're going to do everything we can because not only is it in the interests of the Palestinian people to have a state, it's in the interests of the Israeli people to stabilize the situation there, and it's in the interests of the United States that we've got two states living side by side in peace and security.

Q. What George Bush senior did to concentrate the minds of the then-Israeli government was freeze loan guarantees to Israel. Is there—I don't want to ask you about specifics, because obviously you don't want to say at this stage, but are there potentially sanctions, if I could put it like that, that you could employ, that you would consider employing against Israel if this Israeli government doesn't do what you want it to do?

President Obama. I think that I've said my piece on this matter. We're going to continue negotiations. We think that it's early in the process, but we think we can make some progress.

Q. What the Israelis say is that they have managed to persuade you at least to concentrate on Iran and to give what's—behind the scenes they're calling it a bit of an ultimatum to the Iranians.: By the end of this year there must be some real progress.

President Obama. Well, the only thing I'd correct on that is I don't think the Israelis needed to convince me of that, since I've been talking about it for the last two years. What I have said is that it is in the world's interests for Iran to set aside ambitions for a nuclear weapon, but that the best way to accomplish that is through tough, direct diplomacy.

And what I was very clear about was that although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that by the end of this year we've actually seen a serious process move forward, and I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious.

My personal view is that the Islamic state of Iran has the potential to be a extraordinarily powerful and prosperous country. They are more likely to achieve that in the absence of nuclear weapons—they could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, not just responses from Israel, by the way, but potentially other states in the region—and that if what's preventing them from seeing that reality is 30 years of loggerheads between Iran and the United States, then this may be an opportunity for us to open the door and see if they walk through.

Now, there's no guarantees that they respond in a constructive way. That's part of what we need to test.

Q. A couple of former members of the National Security Council actually suggest that you should go further, though, and that Iran should be regarded in the same way as Japan; in other words, nuclear reprocessing should be accepted and monitored by the international community. Is that remotely possible?

President Obama. I think that the key right now is to initiate a process that is meaningful, that is rigorous between not only the United States and Iran bilaterally, but also continuing with the P5-plus-one discussions in a way that's constructive. Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region. Now one—

Q. But could Iran have the right to reprocess energy?

President Obama. One point that I want to make is that in my speech in Prague I talked about how we need to reinvigorate a much broader agenda for nuclear nonproliferation, including the United States and Russia, drawing down our stockpiles in very significant ways.

To the extent that Iran feels that they are treated differently than everybody else, that makes them embattled. To the extent that we're having a broader conversation about how all countries have an interest in containing and reducing over time the nuclear proliferation threat, that I think has to be part and parcel of our broader agenda.

Q. You're going on to Europe, to Normandy, scene of a great ally coming together. Have you convinced European leaders, do you think, taking a sort of broad look at Europe as a whole, that it is necessary sometimes to use force to get your way in the world? And I'm thinking, obviously, particularly of Afghanistan, but almost in a wider sense, a kind of Venus and Mars issue. Are the Europeans going to be more onboard now to the American way of thinking?

President Obama. Well, look, I think any student of European history understands that the devastation of not just two world wars but centuries of war across the continent and across the Channel means that Europeans understand better than anybody the costs of war, and it is legitimate and understandable that they are hesitant. I think the United States has a similar attitude; that we should be thinking in terms of our national defense, not where can we initiate war.

We had an attack against the United States that killed 3,000 Americans. There had been multiple terrorist attacks planned, and some successfully executed, against European states. And at some point we have to make sure that we are eliminating those networks that would—could do our citizens harm. That is our first job as a state, as a government, and—

Q. And European leaders are onboard for that?

President Obama. And I think that they are onboard on that. Now, there are going to be tactical issues and strategies, and the politics of this can sometimes be difficult. Listen, the idea of U.S. troops in Afghanistan seven years after 9/11—or eight years after 9/11 is hardly popular. At some point we have to make the case that it is necessary, and I think that—you know, what we tried to do with our strategic review was to give a broader framework of not just military but also diplomatic and development initiatives that would move in tandem with the military. And that framework, I think, is one that was heartily embraced by European leaders, by NATO. Now we've just got to execute, and executions are always tough, especially in a world recession where people are looking at their budgets.

President Barack Obama and King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz delivered these remarks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Q. Mr. President, what's your message, sir, here?

President Obama. This is my first visit to Saudi Arabia, but I've had several conversations with His Majesty. And I've been struck by his wisdom and his graciousness. Obviously the United States and Saudi Arabia have a long history of friendship, we have a strategic relationship. And as I take this trip and we'll be visiting Cairo tomorrow, I thought it was very important to come to the place where Islam began and to seek His Majesty's counsel and to discuss with him many of the issues that we confront here in the Middle East.

So I just want to again thank him for his extraordinary generosity and hospitality. And I m confident that working together the United States and Saudi Arabia can make progress on a whole host of issues and mutual interests.

King Abdullah. I thank you, Mr. President, for the kind words and the kind sentiments expressed within them. I am not surprised, given the historic and strategic ties between our two countries, I believe that go back to the time of the meeting between the late Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the late King Abdul-Aziz.

I also want to express my best wishes to the friendly American people who are represented by a distinguished man who deserves to be in this position.

President Obama. Shukran.

President Barack Obama delivered these remarks in Cairo, Egypt

President Obama. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world—tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles—principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do today—to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam—at places like Al-Azhar—that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities—it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers—Thomas Jefferson—kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words—within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum—”Out of many, one.”

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores—and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt. Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations—to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes—and, yes, religions—subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite. We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms. In Ankara, I made clear that America is not—and never will be—at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security—because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake. We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military—we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths—but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as—it is as if he has killed all mankind. And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism—it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future—and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people—I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed—more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction—or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews—is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people—Muslims and Christians—have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations—large and small—that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt. The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers—for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth. The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. The obligations—the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them—and all of us—to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra—as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation—including Iran—should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know—I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear. Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments—provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power. You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

Audience Member. Barack Obama, we love you!

President Obama. Thank you. The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld—whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit—for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action—whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue—the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. I know –- I know—and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now, let me be clear. Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity—men and women—to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations—including America—this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities—those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century—and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek—a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many—Muslim and non-Muslim—who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort—that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country—you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort—a sustained effort—to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion—that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples—a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

President Barack Obama and President Hosni Mubarak delivered these remarks in Cairo, Egypt

President Mubarak. I'd like to welcome President Obama to Egypt. This is his first—our first meeting together. We discussed so many issues—the Middle East issues—interests in the region. We also discussed all problems here in the region, the situation and everything related to Iran and to the region.

I repeat welcoming Mr. Obama. We discussed everything candidly and frankly, without any reservation. But there are other meetings that will take place later either in the United States of America or anywhere else.

Thank you very much.

President Obama. Well, I just want to thank President Mubarak, as well as the people of Egypt, for their wonderful hospitality. I'm very much looking forward to speaking at the university this afternoon. I wanted to first sit down with President Mubarak, who obviously has decades of experience on a whole range of issues.

As the President has indicated, we discussed the situation with Israel and the Palestinians. We discussed how we can move forward in a constructive way that brings about peace and prosperity for all people in the region. And I emphasized to him that America is committed to working in partnership with the countries in the region so that all people can meet their aspirations.

And I'm very much looking forward in the months and years to come to continuing to consult with the President. And I've communicated to him and I want to communicate to the Egyptian people our greetings from America.

Thank you.

President Barack Obama was interviewed by regional reporters in Cairo, Egypt

Q. Well, thank you for your speech. I'm sure that the Palestinians are overwhelmed by some of the things that you have said regarding the Palestinian issue, specifically about the settlements. We have not heard a U.S. President, or any U.S. official before, saying the United States does not recognize the legitimacy of settlements.

However, the Palestinians want to see—want you to show them how different you are from other Presidents. Are there measures that the United States will take in order to ensure that settlement expansion is—

President Obama. I think you pressed play instead of record—you're getting somebody's interview on that.

Q. I'm so sorry.

President Obama. No, no, no. Go ahead.

Q. Anyway, so if the Israelis do not stop the settlements as specified in phase one of the road map, are there measures that you plan to take in order to enforce that?

President Obama. Well, I think it's premature for me to go beyond the principles that I've laid out in the speech. And let me explain why. Prime Minister Netanyahu has only been in office now for a month, month-and-a-half. President Abbas I just met with two weeks ago. I'm still in the process of consulting with Arab states throughout the region.

And so I think it's very important for all the parties to listen, to take measure of what they can do, how far they're willing to go, before I make any reactions or pre-judge what direction the negotiations should go in.

The one thing I know is this. This is a difficult issue across the board. I don't think we should underestimate the difficulties; passions are very high on both sides; the politics are very difficult on both sides. But one of the things that I committed to during my campaign was that I would not wait until my sixth or seventh or eighth year in office—or, if I only get four, my third or fourth year in office, but that I was going to start right away. And I think that's what's required, is serious, long-term U.S. engagement.

I've assigned a special envoy, George Mitchell, who is traveling back and forth between all the various interested parties. And we've set out some clear parameters in terms of how we are going to approach the problem. And my hope and expectation is that there is going to be some difficulties; but ultimately both the Israelis and Palestinians are going to recognize this is in their interests.

That's the main thing that I wanted to emphasize in the speech. The United States cannot impose a solution; but perhaps because we're not immediately in the heat of the passions involved, perhaps we can see why it's so important for both Israelis and Palestinians to resolve this and resolve this soon, and not continue to let it fester. And that's what I'm committed to.

Q. Is there a timeline or time frame for U.S.—

President Obama. I don't want to impose an artificial timeline, but I think that all of us probably had a sense in our gut of, “Are things moving forward?” or “Have they stalled?” There's historically been a rhythm to negotiations in the region. And when things stall, everybody knows it. People may say a lot of words, but everybody knows that nothing is happening. Right now things have been stalled for quite some time. When things are moving, people also know that.

And so what I want to—I want to have a sense of movement and progress. And I think that can be achieved.

Okay. Magdy—and I'll listen to my translation.

Q. I think your speech was wonderful and more—above and beyond everybody was expecting. And you have talked about the Middle East and the future of this region. You also spoke about the commitment of the United States towards achieving progress towards special issues. I also believe there are some difficulties. I might want to be much more precise.

I have one question. How is your administration going to deal with the current Israeli government and with Hamas as a part and parcel of the Palestinian portfolio? And I think so many believe that Hamas is a difficult question that the previous administration did not deal with. What is your vision and your view in dealing with Hamas and dealing with the hawks in the current Israeli government?

The other issue is your clarity and your vision makes me want to ask you, who are your partners in the region that you can rely on to achieve your objectives—either on the Palestinian issue or the Iraqi issue or the Afghanistan issue? Thank you, sir.

President Obama. First of all, I tried to make clear in my speech that when it comes to Hamas, there is no doubt that Hamas has some support among Palestinians—that was shown in the last election; that cannot be denied. What I also said is that Hamas has responsibilities to those people it represents to have a responsible approach to actually delivering a Palestinian state.

If Hamas's approach is based on the idea that Israel will cease to exist, that's an illusion. And what that means is that they are more interested in talk than in results. If they are serious about delivering a Palestinian state, then they should renounce violence, accept the framework provided by the previous agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist. That still leaves enormous room for them to negotiate on a whole host of issues.

But at minimum they can't provide the results for the people they claim to represent if they're not acknowledging reality. So, you know, this is really a decision for Hamas to make.

Now, with respect to the Israeli government, I've had three meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The first two was while I was a United States senator, and one in the White House just recently. In each case I found him to be a very intelligent, very engaging person, a excellent communicator. And I think because this is the second time that he's serving as Prime Minister, I think he feels a very real historic sense about the task before him.

Obviously it was a very close election in Israel. It took some time to put that coalition together. That means that politics are complicated. And I think that just as so many Palestinians have lost confidence and faith that the process can move forward, I think there are a lot of Israelis who have lost confidence and faith that they will ever be recognized by Arab states, or that there will be security that is meaningful—where rockets aren't fired into Israel.

And so I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu will recognize the strategic need to deal with this issue. And that in some ways he may have an opportunity that a labor or more left leader might not have. There's the famous example of Richard Nixon going to China. A Democrat couldn't have gone to China. A liberal couldn't have gone to China. But a big, anti-communist like Richard Nixon could open that door.

Now, it's conceivable that Prime Minister Netanyahu can play that same role. But it's going to be difficult—and I don't want to diminish the difficulties for any of the parties involved in making these decisions because, as I said, there are a lot of passions in the people. But part of leadership is being able to push beyond immediate politics to get to where, ultimately, the people need to go.

And in terms of partners more broadly, my attitude at this point is I want to work with everybody I can to get things done.

Nahum.

Q. First of all, Mr. President, I want to congratulate you for a great speech.

President Obama. Thank you.

Q. Sorry. You didn't mention the word “normalization” between Israel and the Arab world in your speech. Is it—does it indicate something?

President Obama. It doesn't indicate anything. I think the working assumption—and that's why I added the issue of Arab state responsibilities, not just Israeli and Palestinian responsibilities. I added that paragraph because I thought it was very important to reinforce the notion that the region as a whole has to take responsibility for solving this issue. And I think from Israel's perspective, the importance of knowing that as a consequence of making the necessary compromises to achieve a two-state solution they are not only making peace and doing what is just with respect to the Palestinians, but that they are also securing—that they are also meeting their own security needs, and broader threats that might come from beyond Gaza or the West Bank—that's a very important element.

It also, by the way, would allow I think the entire region to prosper much more effectively. If you think about the possibilities of commerce and trade in the Middle East if a country like Israel, as powerful as it is, were able to have normalized commercial relations with Gulf states, with a Palestinian state that is full of talent, and you suddenly have all the Palestinian diaspora coming back and investing, and businesspeople throughout the region, you could see huge economic benefits, as well as security benefits.

But we're very far from that vision, so right now I just want us to start taking that step down the road. You know, there's the well-known saying that the hardest step on any journey is always the first one.

Yes.

Q. Mr. President, why have you chosen—why did you choose Cairo as the venue for the speech? Because the Arab population, after all, make up only about 20 percent of the Muslim population, and Indonesia—

President Obama. I should have gone to Kuala Lumpur.

Q. Or Indonesia, which is the biggest country. And also—I mean, the expectations on you are really, really high doing something to heal the rift. Do you find that a burden at all? And what would be your yardstick of success in mending ties in your first year—first term of office?

President Obama. Okay. Well, I thought it was important to come to Cairo because I think, if we're honest, the greatest tension when it comes to the relationship between the Muslim world and the United States in recent years has centered around the Middle East. In some ways, going to Indonesia would almost be cheating—because I would have a home court advantage. Not only am I personally close to the culture and have a sister who's half Indonesian, but I think that, frankly, the relationship between the United States and Indonesia has generally been strong. It was weakened for a time immediately after the Iraqi invasion, but generally speaking, there have been strong lines of communication.

And so, my tendency is to go to the source of the problem and not try to avoid the problem. And I think that the source of the problem in this situation has to do with the United States and countries in the Middle East not communicating effectively.

And in terms of expectations, I tried to be very clear that one speech alone does not solve all these problems. What I wanted to do was simply to start a conversation, not just between me and the Muslim world, but within the Muslim world and within America and the West about how do we finally start being honest about some of these problems. And that—once you diagnose a problem, it still may take a long time to actually cure the problem. But you're never going to cure it unless you diagnose it. And so what I was trying to do was at least to get us to start thinking about what are the real three, four, five, six things that are at the heart of the argument. And let's go ahead and look at those directly and see are there ways where we can at least agree to what the nature of the problem is. That's how we can begin to solve it.

But it's going to take a long time to solve many of these issues, and I don't expect that some of these problems will ever go away completely.

Q. Mr. President, first, thank you for your excellent speech.

President Obama. Thank you.

Q. Second, I would like to ask you a question about American policy. I go often to the United States in my work, and I meet a lot of people. And my last trip—and it was after your inauguration, a few weeks—you met with the key members of your party in the Congress at that time. And we read in the papers that what you did is you convinced them of your approach to the peace in the Middle East. And everybody was—then the expectation rose in the Arab world and in the Muslim world.

When they saw Mr. Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, “refusing” a two-state solution, “refusing” the freeze of the settlements, and the not talking about this issue, and then when we saw this letter of 300 members of the Congress, some of the Arabs thought that maybe it was AIPAC again, which is trying to influence the Congress. So my question is, do you feel that, as an administration, can you pressure Mr. Netanyahu, if need be, domestically and can you—do you think that also Mr. Netanyahu can endanger the historic alliance and relation between his country and the United States?

President Obama. Well, first of all, I tried to make very clear in the speech, the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable. It transcends party; it will be there if there's a Democratic President or a Republican President, if there is a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress. The ties are just very deep. They're cultural, they're historic, they're familial. I mean, I think Nahum would be the first one to acknowledge, I don't know what number of American-born Jews are now Israeli citizens, but it's a pretty high number. There's constant—I mean, there's constant flow back and forth. So there's just—they're very close ties.

So expecting a break between the United States and Israel is I think not something that people should anticipate.

I think that—the second thing I want to emphasize is, it's only been four months—five months. Netanyahu has only been in office, what is it, a month and a half? I mean, since the government formed. I mean, he was elected April 1st. So, two months. We've been waiting 60 years. So we maybe might just want to try a few more months before everybody starts looking at doomsday scenarios.

This is difficult, and it's going to take some time. Now, it's going to take time for Palestinian leadership. We just discussed the issue of how Palestinians unify around some core principles that could facilitate talks from going forward. That's not an easy task. There are some very deep-seated arguments between Hamas and Abbas and Fatah. And I think we would be naive to think that somehow overnight those problems are going to be solved.

If Hamas wants to participate, it's going to have its own political problems internal to Hamas, because there are some who will never agree to recognizing Israel, in part because they would prefer being in the role that they're in now, which is in opposition and obtaining financing and support and living in Damascus and doing what they do to governing. And I think that's going to have to be tested. They're going to have to make some decisions. That's going to be difficult.

For Israel, these are also difficult decisions. I believe that, as I said in the speech, these settlements are an impediment to peace. But that's not to deny the fact that there are people who are already living in some of these settlements; that there is a momentum to some of these settlements. Turning back those settlements involves very tough choices.

So all these things are going to take time. But this is why I say America can't—we cannot do this for the parties. I mean, I do think that sometimes there is a schizophrenic view in the Middle East of America. On the one hand, everybody wants America to stop meddling, don't interfere, don't be imperialist. And then, on the other hand, when is America going to solve the Palestinian crisis? Why haven't they done this? Why haven't they created democracy and human rights in—throughout the Muslim world? Well, you can't have it both ways, right? We can't, on the one hand, be the respectful partner who's listening to other countries, and on the other hand you expect us to solve every problem, and nobody else makes an effort. And part of what I've tried to do today is to instead say, we will be a partner, we will work with you, but everybody is going to have to carry their own weight on this thing.

Q. Are the Arabs who are now the allies of the United States of America, are they ready to be real partners? Because in the past, some of them were not partners, real partners, especially—

President Obama. Give me an example.

Q. For example, in the time of Yasser Arafat and the meetings between President Clinton, I think, and Mr. Arafat and maybe Mr. Barak. Most of the Americans I met said, well, it was Arafat who backed off, although some people say, no, this is not the story—but this is what I heard. And when I asked some of my friends in the States, they said, well, the Arabs, which means at that time Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who were the allies of Yasser Arafat and allies of the United States, did not force him or did not try to convince him just to accept what was the parameter of solution, which was at that time offered and I don't think described something better.

President Obama. Let me just say this. One of the things I've learned about being President is I always read about things that I don't remember happening, even though I was in the room—probably because they didn't happen. So I don't try to guess or speculate on what happened a decade ago with respect to why a peace deal was not completed. What's more important from my perspective is how do we now move forward.

And I think that all the parties involved are going to have to seize this moment. And it's going to require some risks. And part of the reason that I tried to emphasize this in a public speech is leaders have to have followers and it's important for the publics in Muslim communities to be supportive of the efforts of Arab states to solve this problem and ultimately help to create a two-state solution and better—or normalized relations with Israel; just as it's important for the Israeli population to provide space for their leadership to make difficult decisions; and it's important for the Palestinian people to provide an atmosphere in which the Palestinian leadership can make difficult decisions.

You know, politicians, they lead but ultimately they can't be so far ahead of their people that those bonds between the leader and the people are ruptured. And so if we're going to be serious about this, then the people have to at least try to keep pace with what I hope will be leadership across the board.

Jamal, last question.

Q. All right, Mr. President. In your speech, you made a reference to the conflicts which are poisoning the relations between the Muslim world and the West, and America in particular. You just came from a partner country, a strategic partner, Saudi Arabia. In your effort to resolve conflicts in Iraq, in Afghanistan—maybe you have noticed that Saudi Arabia keep its distance with the previous administration from those two countries. Did you develop any plans with King Abdullah, who will share the same views as you so you would work together, in your work in Iraq and Pakistan and Afghanistan?

President Obama. Well, I certainly discussed these issues with His Majesty. I try not to disclose the contents of private meetings unless there's been a joint decision that we will discuss them, because I want to always have frank conversations with these leaders. But I can say this. Saudi Arabia is obviously absolutely critical to solving a range of problems in the Middle East. It is an economic leader because of not only its oil wealth but its broad-based development strategies. It is a thought leader and a religious leader because of Mecca and Medina.

And so if we are talking about Iraq, for example, I think normalizing relations and exchanging ambassadors between Saudi Arabia and Iraq will be helpful to Iraq and its stabilization. With respect to Pakistan and the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan, we're seeing a lot of displaced people. Making sure that there are resources that are put in place so that those displaced persons don't experience enormous suffering, but also so that you don't have further radicalization of an entire population that has been uprooted because of conflict, Saudi Arabia is going to be critical.

So on all these issues, I think Saudi leadership is something that is desirable. I also happen to have what I consider, and I hope he considers as well, a very good and warm relationship with His Majesty. I think he is a very wise man and he is a very honest man, and I have great respect for him.

Q. A question about the other audience who were not here at the gathering. You spoke to a very receptive, cheerful—they declared their love to you, also. But the radicals, whom we need to address, Osama bin Laden is alive. They have their influence, they have—

President Obama. Yes, of course, yes, absolutely.

Q.—but they have their influence. What are you going to do about that? And a king like King Abdullah and others—

President Obama. Well, al Qaeda we will defeat because they kill innocent people. And so I hope I've made that very clear. I am a strong believer in dialogue, but I don't think that any nation should tolerate an international network that is willing to murder men and women and children who have done nothing.

That can't be the basis for justice. That can't be the basis for any governing ideology. I mean, who would live like that—that I decide somebody lives with a different religion or has a different skin color or looks like somebody that I don't like, and I'm just going to go ahead and target them, deliberately? That philosophy is bankrupt. And so we will go after them.

Now, that's not easy, obviously. And part of the reason it's not easy is because they are adept at exploiting the very real tensions that exist that I discussed today.

So my audience is not them. I don't expect to change their minds, obviously. My audience is, though, say, the 20-year-old young man in Cairo in maybe one of the poorer sections of Cairo or in Gaza or in Damascus or in Tripoli who is still searching, is still looking for a way. And my message to that young man or that young woman would be, it is possible for you to be true to your faith, true to your traditions, but instead of destroying you can build. And if you see injustice, then the way to achieve the changes you seek is not through violence, but is through persuasion. And if I reach a few of those 20-year-olds or I reach their parents and maybe they have a conversation and debate with those young men and women, then perhaps that can make a difference when somebody tries to recruit that person to join an extremist organization.

Q. Any quick solutions to Gaza?

President Obama. No quick solutions to Gaza, but by the end of this year my country will have invested $900 million, almost a billion dollars, in humanitarian relief in Gaza. I think it's very important that we find ways to loosen the borders so that more supplies, more medicine, more infrastructure development, can get into Gaza for rebuilding. I think part of that is the international community working to ensure that the smuggling of weapons that are then fired into Israel are no longer taking place. That's going to be a difficult task, but it's one that we're going to have to work on, because in the absence of that we're not going to solve it.

Okay, everybody, I have to go see the Pyramids.

Regarding the elections in Lebanon

I congratulate the people of Lebanon for holding a peaceful election yesterday. The high turnout and the candidates – too many of whom know personally the violence that has marred Lebanon – are the strongest indications yet of the Lebanese desire for security and prosperity. Once more, the people of Lebanon have demonstrated to the world their courage and the strength of their commitment to democracy.

The United States will continue to support a sovereign and independent Lebanon, committed to peace, including the full implementation of all United Nations Security Council Resolutions. It is our sincere hope that the next government will continue along the path towards building a sovereign, independent and stable Lebanon.

Government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Commitment to these principles of peace and moderation are the best means to secure a sovereign and prosperous Lebanon.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Minister Avigdor Lieberman delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. Good afternoon. It is my pleasure to welcome Foreign Minister Lieberman to the State Department today for his first official visit to Washington in his new role. Minister Lieberman's visit gave me the opportunity to reaffirm the United States deep, unshakable friendship and bond with Israel. Our commitment to Israel's security is and will remain a cornerstone of our foreign policy, and I was pleased to have this chance to express that personally to the foreign minister. The United States has no greater ally in the Middle East and no greater friend than Israel.

Because our countries are close friends, we spoke honestly and openly about a range of issues. And we are looking forward to continuing that dialogue in the U.S.-Israel strategic dialogue, which has provided a useful forum for discussion of shared concerns and challenges over recent years. We exchanged views on the Middle East, including Iran, and reiterated the need for Iran's leaders to comply with obligations to the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency to suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. And we look forward to Iran's response to our offers of engagement.

And of course, we also focused on efforts to bring about a comprehensive peace between Israel and her neighbors in the region. Israel's right to exist in peace and security is undeniable and non-negotiable. Both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace and security in two states that will entail both parties fulfilling their obligations under the Roadmap.

Building on the Arab Peace Initiative, Arab states must do their part to support the Palestinian people as they develop the institutions that will sustain their state. And they must recognize Israel's legitimacy and, in doing so, choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

The United States will never do anything to undermine Israel's security, and the United States also supports a viable Palestinian state. We do not believe that these two objectives are incompatible. In fact, we believe they are both critical elements of a comprehensive and secure peace.

Minister Lieberman, I hope that you enjoy your first visit to the United States as your country's foreign minister, and I look forward to continuing our conversation and working with you more on these issues in the future.

Foreign Minister Lieberman. Madame Secretary, at the outset, I would like to say to you how much the people and the Government of Israel appreciate your consistent support of Israel. We value your friendship greatly. We remember the many contributions you have made personally, even before you became a United States senator from New York. We thank you, Your Excellency, for your longstanding commitment to Israel and to strengthening the American-Israeli special relationship and friendship.

I think that we have had a good discussion today covering a broad spectrum of regional and global issues. We also covered a wide range of important bilateral topics. Madame Secretary, I thank you for your very kind hospitality today, and I look forward to our future friendly dialogue, both in Washington and in Jerusalem. Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you.

Mr. Kelly. Our first question goes to Lachlan Carmichael.

Q. Yes, Minister—

Secretary Clinton. Here comes the microphone, Lachlan.

Q. Minister Lieberman, first, Ambassador Oren, the new ambassador to Washington, is talking about some interesting proposals on settlements. Could you elaborate on what they might be? And then for Secretary Clinton, does that mean there is some wiggle room to your statement that there should be no such settlement activity?

And finally, for both of you, did you discuss previous President George Bush's letters, private letters to the Israeli Government? Is that issue over with?

Foreign Minister Lieberman. Thank you. It's a long question.

Secretary Clinton. It's actually three questions.

Foreign Minister Lieberman. Three questions, yeah. First of all, we really don't have any intention to change the demographic balance in Judea and Samaria. But we think that, you know, as—in every place around the world, baby are born (inaudible), people get married, some pass away. And we cannot accept—we cannot accept this vision about absolutely completely freezing call for our settlements. I think that we must keep the natural growth. Prime minister spoke about this in his speech. I think that this position, it's—this view, this approach, it's very clear.

And also, we had some understandings with the previous administration and we tried to keep this direction. And we are, of course, ready for immediately direct talks with the Palestinians.

Secretary Clinton. Well, as President Obama, Senator Mitchell and I have said, we want to see a stop to the settlements. We think that is an important and essential part of pursuing the efforts leading to a comprehensive peace agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state next to a Israeli-Jewish state that is secure in its borders and future. We believe that this process which Senator Mitchell is quarterbacking for us has just begun. There are a number of critical concerns, many of which overlap in their impact and significance, that will be explored in the coming weeks as Senator Mitchell engages more deeply into the specifics as to where the Israelis and the Palestinians are willing to go together.

I think that the whole issue that you've raised is one that we've expressed our opinion on. And in looking at the history of the Bush Administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the Administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility. Our former ambassador Dan Kurtzer has written an op-ed that appeared in the last few days that lays out our position on that.

Mr. Kelly. Our next question, Israeli television, Channel 2.

Q. Thank you. Madame Secretary, I'm interested to know, how do you envision any progress, any chance for achievement of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track when the Israeli prime minister and the foreign minister have put so many conditions on the existing of a Palestinian state, conditions that are all—all-out refused by their Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians? And when you hear that the Israeli—current Israeli Government refuses totally to talk about your demand of freezing the settlement activity, how do you envision a progress on that track?

Secretary Clinton. Well, I think if one looks at Israeli history, there have been prime ministers going back to the beginning of Israelis' statehood that have staked out positions which have changed over time. I personally have known such prime ministers from Labor, Likud and Kadima, who started in one place, but in the process of evaluating what was in the best interests of Israel, and that has to be the primary obligation of any leader of Israel: What is in the best interests of my people and the future of my state?

And these prime ministers have moved to positions that they never would have thought they could have advocated before they started looking hard and thinking hard about what the future should be. But that's what negotiations are for.

Q. Do you hold out that Netanyahu and Lieberman will follow through (inaudible)?

Secretary Clinton. Well, I leave that to them to decide. I'm just reflecting on history and on people who have been in these positions over the last 30, 40 years. And there has been an evolution in thought. And I thought Prime Minister Netanyahu, in recognizing the aspirations of the Palestinians for a state of their own in his speech on Sunday night, said something that many people were waiting to hear him say.

Mr. Kelly. Next question, Charlie Wolfson from CBS News.

Q. Madame Secretary, on Iran, and also for the foreign minister. The Iranians have protested U.S. actions through the Swiss ambassador today. Could you bring us up to date on those protests? And there have also been criticisms or reports of criticisms about U.S. interference in Iranian affairs because of the call to Twitter, if you could comment on that.

And for the foreign minister, does the outcome of the Iranian election change Israel's position in any way, and were your discussions today—did they touch on that, and any actions you asked the Administration to do?

Secretary Clinton. That's four questions for the foreign minister. We have very creative reporters on both sides here.

The United States believes passionately and strongly in the basic principle of free expression. We believe that it is a fundamental human right for people to be able to communicate, to express their opinions, to take positions. And this is a view that goes back to the founding of our country, and we stand firmly behind it.

And therefore, we promote the right of free expression. And it is the case that one of the means of expression, the use of Twitter, is a very important one not only to the Iranian people, but now increasingly to people around the world, and most particularly young people. I wouldn't know a Twitter from a tweeter—but apparently, it is very important. And I think keeping that line of communications open and enabling people to share information, particularly at a time when there was not many other sources of information, is an important expression of the right to speak out and to be able to organize that we value.

Foreign Minister Lieberman. Thank you. As somebody said before you, we support evolution, not a revolution, and we never interfered in any internal affairs of the different countries. And what it's important for us, not the personal creation, but the creation of policy. And what we saw during this elections, it was only one point that every candidates were united: it's achieving, quote, nuclear capability; and maybe the other point, the hatred to Israel. What it's important for us, it's real—not the domestic problems of Iran, but their policy. And we hope that they will change their policy.

Mr. Kelly. Last question for Channel One, Israel Television.

Q. Thank you. Madame Secretary, given the latest unrest in Iran and the very brutal way the regime there is moving to quash these protests, does the Administration still believe there is room to engage diplomatically with Iran? And are you concerned that such engagement might embolden actually Ahmadinejad and his regime?

Secretary Clinton. Well, first let me say that the people of Iran deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted. The outcome of any election should reflect the will of the people. And it is for the Iranians to determine how they resolve this internal protest concerning the outcome of the recent election. But it is a fundamental value that the United States holds with respect to free and fair and credible elections.

With regard to engagement, obviously we intend to pursue engagement because we think it's in the interests of the United States and the world community to discuss with the Iranian Government important matters such as the one Minister Lieberman raised concerning their intentions for their nuclear program, their support of terrorism, their interference with the affairs of their neighbors and other states.

So yes, we think there is much to talk about. And I would think it's a useful exercise to look back on history and to see where countries, most particularly my own, have engaged in ongoing diplomatic discussions with countries whose regimes we've disapproved of, that we rejected. We never stopped negotiating with the former Soviet Union. They invaded countries. They promoted unrest. But we knew we had an opportunity to learn more, to discuss fully, and perhaps to reach better understandings than we might have in the absence of such engagement, so we pursued it.

We are doing this out of what we view as our interest and the interests of friends and allies such as Israel. So now we are obviously waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes, but our intent is to pursue whatever opportunities might exist in the future with Iran to discuss these matters.

Thank you all.

U.S.—Israel Joint Economic Development Group Joint Statement

Delegations of the United States and Israel held useful, in-depth discussions on the progress of Israel's economic reforms and the Israeli economy during the annual meeting today of the U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG).

The U.S. delegation was led by Andy Baukol, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, and David D. Nelson, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. The Israeli delegation was led by Yarom Ariav, Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Finance. Representatives from the Bank of Israel also participated.

At the outset of the meeting, Director General Ariav presented an overview of the Israeli economy and discussed recent economic developments. Additional topics discussed during the course of the meeting included fiscal policy and lessons learned from U.S. and Israeli budgetary management processes.