now, to the point of congruence or attention, it is a mental shift. if you are a very traditional leader who believes that the only way you can help your society grow is by directing it from the top down. but that is not the only form of legitimacy. even for a monarch. so the traditional pathway may be i am the source of social goods, i distribute them, but you can also be the source of opportunitys, you can be the source of dyamamism and that is a shift in mentality but entirely possible. >> i think one other thing though that has to be put in the mixture, and again, egypt is a perfect example, is to what extent is it the freedom of disaggregated voices in tahrir

square or order. at a certain point, i've been saying, for instance, the young people in tahrir square were all having an incredibly interesting time, got there by social media and the older man who cannot get to his stall in the marketplace says, i can't stand this anymore. i need some order. and so i think one could actually be persuaded that sisi was elected or that there was really a movement to have that happen because people were fed up with the chaos. and i think the hard part is how inclusivity and getting what -- participation, whether people are tolerant enough to go through the chaos time until they get to the proper time. >> yeah. >> i want to go to amr on that. i want to rephrase it a bit. and that will be our last question, then we'll go to the

audience. if you remember lawrence of arabia at one point, one of the figures, said i am a river to my people. that's the sort of an old traditional form of legitimacy. what you're really saying is a legitimacy based on satisfying what the people expect from their government and incruisingly that includes participation and a role in fashioning their own future. i get that. of so let's go to sisi. i've spent three three-hour sessions with him in the last 12, 14 months and i have tried to make this argument, that this is a source of legitimacy, this is what he must do if over the long term he's going to be able to bring stability and prosperity. i have not yet made the sale. and what you hear is what you would expect from someone given the trauma that egypt has been through. it is, i understand what you're siing but you need to understand this is a difficult time, there is extreme at the door.

and we cannot -- the middle east cannot stand a breakdown in order of a country of 90 million people because if you think the refugee flows are bad now to syria, you just wait if egypt breaks down. so what is the argument you make to a sisi who sees himself as defending his country in the region against extremism, that that is his vocation, one in which i think he sincerely believes in which he is ricskin his life, how do you make the argument to him that actually this is where he's got to go if he's going to bring long-term stability to his country? >> well, this is basically the debate we're having in tunisia. since 2011, but even every year on, and we do have enough historical precedence and enough

cases across the region to push forward a very clear not only argument for out took crass sis cannot provide for long-term stabilitys. they never manage to do so. now, egypt was governed autocratically before 2011. what happened after 2011, starting, of in fact, to be accurate it did not begin simply on january 25th, 2011, we had years of activism, young people primarily protesting and demanding that their voices should be heard, their concerns should be addressed. again, the background of a failing government which cannot address these concerns people took to the street. it's not only young people. maybe in the beginning it was young people. but increasingly people with grievances which you do a great job in the paper highlighting and outlining social economic

grievances and impact. in an economy where you have 30% rate of poverty, unemployment of young people over 40%, among female -- young female citizen, over 45% and more. grievance, they bring people to take to the streets and go to tahrir square and elsewhere. the argument is auto crass sis never manage for long-term stability. i take it very seriously that there are risks. security challenges, not only terrorism but different security challenges in the region that need to be accounted for. now, the question is how to get governments, and the only way to get them is by listening to civil society actors. so we need an organized presentation of citizens to get governments to listen, to how to do what's right. i believe egyptian society actors offer some solutions. you do not have to undermine more trust among citizens by harassing, violating key human rights, by imprisoning and by killing citizens in police

custody and elsewhere and not providing enough social and economic solutions to improve the living conditions. if they listen, if ruler, governments, listen to their own constituents, not only is their military and security establishments, not only is there businesses that thrive on the system that do exist is they listen to civil society actors, they will find solutions. finally, the irony of the modern state is, in fact, it was at a modern state which pushed forward the development that leaps you were referring to. it's 1950s and 1960s. 24 w this was create bid the modern state. this a way the modern state enabled the government to work to happen, enable leaps in education and health care and elsewhe elsewhere. and, yes, it is a healthier and more connected generation of young arabs we are looking at. but in a way these governments have become -- that know longer

address the concerns and they've got to listen to what these voices are demanding, in different manners. >> one last comment and then we'll go to the audience. >> will do. i think that it's a false choice between mass mobilization atta rir square and authorityian order and i would not say that it's the leader are a river for its people but the people are a river and like water they're going to find an outlet. so the challenge is whether you can create channels and mechanisms and pathways for people to have the influence they want to have over their own lives and the lives of their communitys or whether, left with no alternative, they will spill into the streets. and the failure of reforms in the period leading up to the uprisings, is what compelled that mass mobilization. so what we see in egypt today that troubles me very much, and

that i think itself is quite destabilizing and dangerous, is a leader who believes that he, by putting a lid on it, has lowered the boil in the pot. as you all know, when you put a lid on a pot, the boil increases. and that's what i think we've got in egypt right now. we have no civil society channels. we have no effective political channels because the parliament and the party system are so tightly managed. we have no free speech channels. and so that pot is boiling very fast in a way that i think is far more dangerous in many ways than the situation that egypt was in before the uprising. >> i love your phrase, the leader isn't the river to his people, the people are a river which if the leader does not channel will spill over into the streets. that's not a bad way to summarize this. >> try it on sisi. see how he likes it?

>> i'll wait until madeleine is with me. so let's -- do we have microphones? >> yes, we have microphones. >> good. yes, ma'am. right here in the front. in the fourth row. please identify yourself so we can get a lot of questions in, if you will keep the questions short, we'll keep the answers short and we'll get a lot more questions? >> short questions but long answers. university of washington. and my research is on civil military relations in turkey, egypt, and israel. and i think -- listening to you, it's fascinating how you're describing an litically egypt and the arab world, but a lot of what you are saying actually applies to other cases on the periphery of this arab world or the core of the arab countrys. turkey in particular, i argue that it's going through a regimist turn where it's turning into the making of the mubarak

regime all the staifling of civl society. it's as if there is a ping-pong kind of regional order, om equilibrium of imitating one another. so i guess i wonder -- because i have read the report is perhaps, is tr there center for middle east policy, is there a peripheral vision to other countrys within the region including turkey, including israel, of course, and the crack down of the civil society in israel as well, the laws that, you know, you have to account for who is founding you internationally? a lot of what you've been describing seems to me like bits of conversations everywhere in the region at large. and is that part of a frame work you would encourage adopting? and i'll just looking at the arab countrys but also other countrys in the entire neighborhood, if you will.

>> tamara, do you want to take that one? >> sure. yes, politics is politics. and while every region and every country has its own history and culture that shaped the way the politics express, there are certain common feature, right? so, and, yes, there are comm r, effects, both positive and negative. in the paper i talk about the competing models of governance in the middle east today, the fragile democratic experiment of tunisia, the effort at renewed authoritarianism symbolize bid egypt, and the brutal savage order of isis, which is also a model competing for adherence in the region today. that's part at what's at stake, is what are people going to embrace in the midst of this turmoil. and i do think it's having an affect on those on the periphery of the region, but i also think that some of those dynamic, for example, the global push back

against civil society in oceanal freedom doesn't start in the middle east and it hasn't stopped in the middle east. we see it in russia. we see it in india and elsewhere. >> you do indeed. >> thank you. dcm jer machb embassy. congratulations to the task force and to the working group for completing this. my government, i think, finds a lot to agree with in this report. we think that it addresses a key aspect. implementing it is going to be hard work because i do think that someone who has worked in the region until recently a lot of people are afraid of challenging the order because there's such a level of chaos and disintegration around them. and i think that's something that needs to be looked at. but i would go a step back and i wonder whether you address it in the report, in a sense to me the most basic point is, are we doing enough as governments were

take an interest in the region but we're not part of the region to stress the importance of human rights, for example, bringing out arbitrary detention, extra judicial killing, these kind of things which come way before, in a sense, we talk about freedom of association, freedom of association is very important. we would absolutely support that. but the human rights and rule of law part to me is absolutely fundamental. and that's where we see such grave misbehavior and violations all around the region. >> madeleine? >> let me just say, i believe we do, or at least we try. but i think that the problem comes having tried it, i won't say in which country, that we can't help you if you don't really do something about your laws and human rights, that was kind of mind your own business. and -- but i do think that we have to do that, even if it is not received well.

and it is argued that it actually, by those who don't want to do it, that it adds to the chaotic situation. the question is, and this has come up over and over again, is our human rights, democracy, participation of people, a western concept or is it a global concept? i have argued it's global. we're all the same. people want to be able to make decisions about their own lives and they want to have some absence of arbitrariyness, but it's not an easy message to deliver. and, frankly, if it's not delivered alongside with practical assistance, whether it's to their security or aid programs, but it does have to go together. and if we don't do it, your country and ours, then we are not fulfilling our responsibilitys. but it's not happily received. steve can testify to that. >> if i could say one thing that you touched on very important

point. the -- those countrys that are making steps in the direction of what tammy has talked about, and you see it in uae most of all. you're beginning to see it in saudi arabia with saudi 230, jordan has tried some. certainly tunisia is doing it. it's hard to do that and to keep your society together in a benign security and regional environment. think about the environment in the middle east today and to say to a leader we need you to take the risks of reform and moving in this direction in a region that is, in many respects melting down, this is a hard thing we're asking of leaders and we have to recognize it. one of the things we say is, though, that the attitude of the international community ought to be, if you're willing to make those hard decisions, we, the international community, will support you financially, diplomatically, with technical assistance. if you don't, we won't.

not because we're being punitive but because of our judgment it would be a bad investment, that the good investments are going to be those states that are willing to make these kinds of steps on behalf of their people because we think it is -- they are the most likely to result and achieve long-term prosperity and stability. i think we have to recognize the difficulty of what we're asking and we need to be engaged and be willing to really step in and support those countrys that are willing to make the right decisions. >> steve? >> yes, ma'am. >> hi, janet smith. i was structure presenter at y leey and lived in saud drink arabia 2009-2013. i have two issues. one is trust. my observation based on my experience in saudi is one of the issues to think about is trust among people themselves.

they have the freedom to express to each other how they struggle with these issues. so it's not just government people but it's that key issue of trust. how do you provide a comfort level where saudis, jordanians, egyptians, can talk to each other without fear? and the second related issue to me is that one of the -- some of of the most moving conversations i had starts with the premise of finding the political philosophy foundation within islam, within the region, within the culture that asks two question, especially obviously among muslims, is what are the values of muslim that have the deepest meaning to you? and that's a conversation. and then the second -- which is your dialogue issue. and then the second part is, how do you want to see them expressed in society? and to me when you then ground it within the culture and, as

you mentioned, things come from bottom up, the cultural component and religious component is obviously key to this. but those two issues combined i think are a different take on what's in your report. thanks. >> thank you. just a quick reflection, janet, on a very, very thoughtful comment, which is that absolutely and i do in the paper talk about social trust within and between communitys, not just between citizens and government. if you're thinking about a case like libya or syria where the society has truly collapsed into sectarian civil war or tribal civil war, you have to think about that. and there are things that can be done even now while these conflicts are ongoing to build forums and platforms for dialogue, for trust building, for conflict resolution. there are successful programs including some u.s. ip programs done in iraq where communitys

came together around dialogue before idps were brought back into a town so that the idps didn't have to immediately justify themselves or feel themselves under threat on their return and communitys could feel comfortable with their return. so i think their examples we can build on and programs we can do. one half sentence on the previous point from our german colleague. and i wanted to echo something that my colleague general john allen has said a number of times, which is, from his perspective as someone who spent the last years of his military and then civilian career fighting terrorism, if we external actors who have invested so much in the military fight, if we do not also invest in the governance piece, we're essentially going to be playing whack-a-mole with extremists on a global scale because this problem will recreate itself again and again. >> other comments, questions?

yes, ma'am. >> hi. i'm dorea with the private firm now that works in the middle east. my question is actually expanding on the notion of social trust. and i think you framed it so well in talking about the breakdown in the middle east and particularly when we think about the relationship that a government has with its citizens and the expectations or the relationship that a citizen has back with its government, that citizens have with their government. and one could certainly argue now not just with the middle east but here in the united states that we are beginning to some extent an erosion of social trust with certain groups who may be feeling more marginalized or more uncertain with relation to their government. and i would just ask if you can comment about what can a citizen do in terms of rebuilding social trust and how would that be most

effective? >> why don't you take that and comment on the earlier question, too. >> sure. to the region, not commenting on the u.s. it's striking that the two countrys which witnessed the emergence and the explosion of tribal conflict, multi-ethnic conflict leading to civil wars, libya and syria, are the two countrys where dictatorships, organizations between governments and citizens. now, the big difference between a place like tunisia and egypt as opposed to libya and syria is we were approaching 2011 tunisia and egypt having an established civil society arena in tunisia with trade unions, professional organization, human rights

defenders and bit less in egypt, in terms of their automy and dependence, but libya and syria dictatorships crushed these intermediary layers between citizens and the states. so in a way citizens woke up to dictators who did not feel like departing the scene and the only way for citizens to organize was unfortunately to listen to militant ideologys because there was no alternative given to them by civil society actors, there was no channels. once again, the question of social trust when we look at it and why a feeling of what's happening in libya and syria should not be happening elsewhere in the region, the key response to it is not to trust in the might and power of a general or autocratic leader but create channels between citizens and governments seriously to enable civil society to exist, to enable civil society to strive. this is the only way to manage

multi-ethnic tensions. so why is that it morocco, for example, and this is not a full-fledged democracy, it's a multiethnic society. why is it that we're not hearing much, of course, thank god, about civil strife in morocco? we do have an established arena where citizens can bring in their grievances, difficulty, demands from the government and the feeling that they are listened to, at least in that extent. >> other question, comments? the gentleman way in the back and then the two women here. >> thank you, greg with american university. my question is for amr. i really appreciate your comments on civil society and the need for civil society organizations outside the region to help those inside the region. but as you know, especially in egypt, the government portrays us as a foreign conspiracy and

we'll play up the hyper nationalism and prevent that type of assistance. so how do you get around that problem to have civil society, the united states or in europe, helping those on the ground in egypt? thank you. >> thank you, jack. very briefly, i believe, a, we do not need to shy away from pushing forward the counter narrative. we do not have to submit to the hyper nationalist type of populist, narrative of, oh, what happened is a conspiracy. it was not. it's not. and if they would like to look at themselves, government, they should recognize the failure, deficits, would they have been sustaining and enduring for a long time. so, a, we should push forward the counter narrative way to prioritize civil society not only vis-a-vis governments but enable them to create trust among different segments and groups of populations. secondly, there are cases where it's very difficult to operate,

as in egypt right now. there are case which are less difficult, tunisia, morocco, even for all odd reasons some countries as opposed to egypt. finally, once again, this is a question of the battle over narratives. what is it? what does it take to fix this region? it's not only security, it's not only autos crass si, it's to enable civil society to exist, to thrive, and to represent citizens and then for the demands to be addressed, to be responded to by accountable governments. >> so we're running shy on time, so what i'm going to do is take the two women i pointed to here and i'm going to take two from this side and we're going to just go through those questions and then we're going to try to answer the four questions on the panel and then we're going to be out of time, i'm afraid. ma'am, you had one? the woman two behind you and

then we'll take you, ma'am, afterwards. >> hi. marissa. i'm a jordanian consultant in development with the focus on governance. in going back to the gentleman's question recording civil society. i have a lot of hope in civil society. but in the absence of political will on the part of governments, this space is very limited. and amr, you discussed options beyond foreign governments assisting but perhaps nongovernmental organizations. i want to throw another group out there in the mix and perhaps this could be one other way of looking at it. the role of daspar communitys, case studys of economic development but also promoting and strengthening governance. thank you. >> and then two rows up. >> hi. zana balea, concerned citizen from texas. the social contract, what secretary albright was speaking

about, seems impossible without dealing with all the corruption. to me that seems like such an underlying problem. if you can't trust your police or your judges and -- if you could just buy them off, how do you even trust anyone? i think that's why there's so much discontent? how do deal with that. >> yes, ma'am? right back there. three rows from the end. great. >> hi. allison good with u.s. department of energy. so you all -- you've definitely done a great job of addressing the political governance issues but it seems to me there are bigger macro economic issues that cannot be solved by nations themselves alone, such as tagging oil prices and currency crises and how do you all see the u.s. and the rest of the international community, how can they best serve those countrys and helping them to bridge that gap to foster better governance? >> very good question.

one more from this side? yes, sir. >> i'm elliott, former state department, oil bank pg and intelligence community person. i want to thank the panel for a great presentation. i have not yet had time to read the report. on the periphery of the arab world the only arab country i've been to is yemen, which no one has mentioned. it's particularly pertinent to u.s. policy. so i would like anyone on the panel at all to comment on yemen and/or u.s. policy toward it. >> we've got four issues. the role of diaspora corruption, macro issues and their impact, and yemen. any takers? >> i think amr will do diaspora. >> let's go it quickly. one-minute answers and get

people out on time. >> spot on, yes. one of the key spaces which we still have available in country where's the public space has been closed off, very. the question becomes how to do it in a manner which does not undermine the credibility, the legitimacy of domestic actors. the question becomes how to do it away from government-to-government relations. i believe it's more power if it's done nongovernment-to-nongovernment actors. finally, once again, how to justify the interest, not from a former perspective but political perspective for the arab communities to get interested in what's happening in domestic polices the and arab countrys. you need to fashion a narrative. the narrative cannot be exile opposition. i believe because it has been tried out in the region and failed completely. so we need a smart narrative to push it forward. but, yes, this is one of the key

spaces. >> tammy, do you want to do corruption? >> yes. and the headline here coming out of the report i would say is sunshine is the best disinfectant. one of the reasons why i focus on transparency is because it is such an important antidote to that kind of behavior. but more broadly, corruption exists typically because those in power, those with power, are trying to solve problems that they have. they're trying to grease the wheels of their own lives or the people above them in the chain. so you got to look at how to fix the political dysfunctions that create incentives for corruption, whether that's paying policemen higher salarys or making sure that there are expectations from outside as well as from inside. and this goes to the point on globalization, just allison, to highlight for you, there's a side bar in the report on economic globalization, its impact on state sovereignty. it is a problem for every state but there's a reason why arab

states are -- were and are, i think, particularly ill positioned to deal with the effects. >> well, i'm not an expert on yemen but i have to say this, is that in in ways it's a country that is a victim of all kinds of meddling. one in terms of north and south yemen being united when they actually were not very excited about it but it was pressure coming from the neighbors. then, the fact that it was on its way in terms of looking at having some governance work when then it became the playground of proxy war between the -- iran and saudi arabia. and so that is what's going on now. and it is really -- it's a victim country, is the only way that i think it can be described. and very hard for the outside powers that would like to do

some good there to actually get any purchase on it in some ways. because it's not big enough and it is, in fact, absorbing a lot of the problems that can't be dealt with somewhere else. >> we've come to the end of our time. thank you, tammy, for a great paper. thank you all for coming and for your questions. and please join me in thanking the panel.

later today on c-span, israeli and egyptian foreign ministers talk about the middle east and the incoming trump administration. that's live at 6:30. and at 8:00 on c-span2 supreme court oral argument on immigration detention if court will decide if detained immigrants facing deportation can be held for longer than six months without a bail hearing. a lower court ruled that the government must provide individualized bond hearings to determine their danger and flight risk. the justices heard the case this weeks. more now on the middle east with a palestinian authority ambassador to the united nations. he talked about where palestinian goals and objectives stand at the u.n.

good morning. all right. i'd like to invite those who may be outside to come in since we're ready to start. for those of you whom i have not had the pleasure of meeting, i'm subhi ali, chairman of the jerusalem fund and palestine center. it's a pleasure to welcome every one of you here. i see some familiar faces on a lot of newcomers. it's a delight to have you at our annual conference, which has been an annual happening for many years we have an excellent program for you today.

but before i start that, i'd like to do some -- a few housekeeping items. first, this is instructions from the staff, and i better do it. you know if you have one of those that sing and music and classic music, beethoven, please silence it, please. i did silence mine. there will be a question and answer period after the keynote speaker, as well as the panels. there will be adequate time for question and answers.

for the audience, they can tweet their questions to @palestinecenter. and those on twitter, the handle is #pcconf2016. again, #pcconf2016. i hope that every one of you has picked up one of these. it has the bio of every speaker that we have today, as well as some other formation about our programs, about our donors, and committees and so on. i hope that nobody would leave the building without one of the programs. this year's palestine center annual conference will examine the current situation of

palestine within overlapping, historical, sociological and political contexts. the panelists, and every one of them is an expert in his or her field, will examine the developments over the middle east over the past century. and the deep impact they have had on palestinian national aspirations all the way from the sykes -- i like to call it the infamous sykes-picot agreement. another one. we just had 99 years, november 2nd was the 99th anniversary of

the bell for declaration. and the unfortunate -- that's my auditorium -- british mandate to the arab spring. i don't know what to call it, arab spring, arab fall, all of you are familiar with that. and it's unfulfilled promises. experts will also offer perspectives on washington's policys on israel and palestine in light of this year's presidential election. i think all of you are aware that we've just had an election. as well as the challenges to the growing pds, investment, sanctions movement to the united states and internationally. today we will open our conference with a keynote

address delivered by a friend of mine for many, many years. dr. riyad mansour, dr. riyad mansour is the permanent observer of the state of palestine, to the united nations, as well as the nonresident ambassador to costa rica and the dominican republic. he actually joined the permanent observer mission of the plo to the united nations in 1993 as deputy permanent observer and has since been on several committees and bodies of the united nations. dr. mansour also has spent some time since that time in the private sector and served as an adjunct professor in the

political science department of the university of central florida. he holds a ph.d. in counseling from the university of akron, ohio, and has published several studies and articles about the palestinian community in the united states. i really don't know who in the united states can deliver a better perspective and so on and serve as keynote better than dr. mansour. please join me in welcoming dr. riyad mansour. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> thank you very much, dr. subhi.

subhi is a good friend of mine, and i'm always, every time we meet, whether today or a few years ago, or years before that, i always have a wonderful personal exchange with him as friends. and we also have family relations, because my nephew is married to his niece. and that sort of strengthened the relationship between us further in the palestinian style. you know, when you have people, you know, married from. different familys, you know, then they tend to become even closer. so i am very delighted to be here. i have seen also a few of my old

friends. and i just want to commend you, dr. subhi, and your board and organization of jerusalem fund, for all the wonderful things you do in advancing the cause of justice for the palestinian people. we thank you very much for your work, and of course we know that you will continue this course even if things become more complicated and more difficult. and i will always support your efforts, and i will always be with you in doing whatever i can in order to allow you to accomplish your objective in the best possible way. we immediate today -- it's becoming like a cliche for palestinians officials when we meet. we say we meet at critical time. every time we meet at a critical time. of course, you know, next year

will mark the 50th anniversary of israeli occupation to the land of the state of palestine, including jerusalem, of course. 50 years of occupation is way too long of occupation. occupations usually are supposed to be of a temporary nature. they last for a few years and then they should end to allow for reversing the situation to the way it was before occupation. so 50 years of occupation is way too long for the palestinian people to endure this ruthless system of oppression against the total population of the palestinian people who live in the occupied territory and for those also who live

in the diaspur. next year also we will note 70 years of nakda, the creation of the state of israel, and the catastrophe that the palestinian people went through and are still going through, including the millions of us who lived in refugee camps, particularly in lebanon, syria, and jordan. and, of course, at the end of next year also, we will remember with tremendous amount of pain, the infamous belfour declaration, in which our national homeland was promised by a colonial power to address issues in europe at the expense of the palestinian people on one hand and also at the expense of jews in europe, instead of dealing with their tragedies in

europe, on the basis of those who had the strategys of them and dealing with those who created the tragedies for them. but yet they decided to expel many of them and add to their tragedies and create for us an akbar in 1948. so it's a double whammy for us and for them. now this is the moment or the time for us that we will be going through next year which put us in a situation at the mission of the state of palestine at the u.n., myself and my team to legislate a few things, including the community on the exercise of the inalienable rights of the palestinian people, to conduct many identities in collaboration of u.n.

agencys, with countrys, with civil societys, with, you know, regional organizations, to do activitys with the view of ending this occupation. and the community, on the exercise of the unalienable rights of the palestinian people, will do all of its activities and all of you are invited to be involved in your own capacities in the way that you wish to be active under the banner of 2017 will be international year to end israeli occupation. so this is one piece of legislation that we will adopt at the united nations. now, one can say that the situation of the palestinian people is so difficult and so miserable, and it is. and occupation has been there for way, way too long.

and there are walls, there are settlements, there is the isolation and the blockade which is immoral and illegal against 2 million palestinians in the gaza strip. east jerusalem is being severed from the remaining part of the occupied palestinian territory. jerusalem is the heart of palestine. so when you cut the heart from the rest of the body, the heart will not function, nor the rest of the body will be functioning. so one can say that our situation could be characterized as very miserable, very frustrating, and very difficult. but yet we, the palestinian people, have a certain quality about us that we are resilient, we do not give up. we always rise up from it the ashes and tend to articulate our strategies and tactics to continue the struggle. and in this connection i can tell you that i have been

personally involved in the last, i don't know how many years, in articulating a strategy to counter the israeli strategy on the ground. their strategy is to create illegal factual wrong, stealing our land, building settlementing. this is illegal from the point of view of international law. unfortunately, there is no political will in the international community. particularly in the security council, to hold those who are violating international law and committing all these crimes accountable, because, you know, we have the law so that thieves to be deterred from not stealing. but yet, we have the law so that if somebody tried to break that law, to steal, then they will be held accountable. they go to jail. in our case, international humanitarian law, which was invented, by the way,

specifically by europeans, in order to conduct their behaviors when they fight, that occupiers and occupied people to be following certain patterns of international law of civilization. so that there are things that the occupier can do and things cannot do. one of them you cannot transfer part of our population from your land to the occupied territory to build settlements. that is illegal. they say that to us all the time in the security council. in fact, there is unanimous position on illegality of settlements. but they tonight tell us in the security council what are they going to do about this behavior of israel, which is conducting itself in this manner. meaning they tell us that we have in the books law to say that it is illegal to steal or to kill.

and we know that there are killers and thieves. but they don't tell us what they are going to do with those killers and thieves when they violate the law. and here i'm referring, for example, in the case of on settlements. so their strategy is to create illegal facts on the ground. illegal. and without being held accountable because there is a powerful country, particularly in the security council, that is shielding them and protecting them from accountability. so they don't care what the security council, the u.n. does. and they continue in this illegal behavior. so our strategy has been for i don't know how many years, at least the last five, six years, maybe longer. you create illegal facts on the ground. our people are steadfast. they are staying on their land. they're resisting peacefully. a shining example of what our

people do every week in a village by the name of blain in which they struggle peacefully with passivists from israel, with internationals, in order to push the wall away from their land of their village and to liberate their land and to push closer to the green line. and there are many examples of people in the occupied territory. but in my field at the united nations the strategy han you are creating illegal facts on the ground. i want to create legal, diplomatic, political facts at the international arena. and this is why we decided in 2011 and 2012 to go to the general assembly to legislate

the borders of palestine and to change status to observerer state. meaning we resolved whether the state of palestine exists or not. so we acquire recognition of more than two-thirds majority in the international level in the u.n. to recognize the state of palestine and therefore to change the status of observer state. that opened the door for us to join so many conventions, including international criminal court. so while they are creating illegal facts on the ground, we are creating legal facts by becoming equal as a state party in so many things like the climate change, the law of the sea, the whole package of human rights, the right of women, the right of children, the right of

disabled so on and so forth. they fight us and even us of what they are doing. they call it diplomatic terrorism. and their action, which is blunt, clear violation of the law and they should be held accountable for it. if you transfer part of our civilian population and plant them in the land of the occupied territory, it's a war crime. so they are committeeing war crimes according to the the articulation of international law. and we are committing legal, civilized, peaceful action by changing our status to strengthen the pillars of the state and the international arena and creating diplomatic and political realities. sometimes they say to us,

including one time bolton said that before he was removed as ambassador of the u.s. to the united nations. by the way, we hear rumors that he might be coming back again to new york. when he fights against our resolution, in order to convince people not to vote in favor of these resolutions, and when he is defeated, he says they are meaningless. they are just written pieces of paper. no, they are not. it is not a joke. it is is something serious. so while we are deepening the pillars of the state of palestine in the international arena, one might ask, what is the value of that? i can tell you the value is tremendous. maybe for those who are not in the trenches to see the meaning and the value of the state of palestine as a state is marching slowly in the direction of

eventually washington and tel aviv cannot deny the fact that we exist as a nation, we can exist as a state. and the land of our state is under occupation. and it will be a matter of time before they have to accept this reality. because when the world accepts us as a state, when the world is excited about us when we put ballots in the boxes and we vote as a state, when the world is accepting us to be a responsible state and to elect us, a vice president of this conference, a vice president of that convention, these are but small steps in the direction of saying, you cannot deny our existence. you can build more settlements. but you cannot deny that the palestinian people exist and they are recognized by the great majority of nations as a state and we are continuing this march. now, in this connection we

started the process about a month and a half ago of trying to legislate something in the security council particularly around settlements. because they are telling us that settlement is illegal. i said, fine, if this is your position and we agree with you, tell us what you are going to do about it. they are not telling us what they want to do about it. then we said the palestinian observer is going to tell us what we are going to do about it. we are going to legislate something to that effect. in fact, just a few days ago, we had it in the committee on settlements. we used and succeeded in negotiations, all of them voted unanimously in favor of that. if israel does not abide by its obligation under the provisions

of the charter with regard to settlements, then the option of considering accountability is an option to be put on the table. that is good for you, fellows, with regard to be the u.s. and other things. if there is a possibility of small door to be opened for sanctions, quote, unquote, they are forcing us to go that route. if you are not listening to the law you are not listening to what everybody is telling you to do. after a long they are acceptable the concept that if you don't abide by the law, then we will be possibly entertaining the concept of accountability. of course they don't use sanctions. i know this is a big world and they are afraid of it. but the march in that direction

you have to do with step at a time. and i believe some of these steps are taking place. so it is not as glammy as one can think. although the government is working day and night to have the position at the united nations. they might be influencing one african country, influencing another place. but in general, they are not funding at succeeding in this arena. so that's part of our strategy as we move forward. now, with regard to this resolution, as i said on settlements, we had very constructive consultations with all members of the security council. and we gave them a sheet of paper, one page, that constitute the elements where we believe that should be contained in such a resolution. of course some in washington,

d.c. they are saying wait until the election because they were thinking that hillary clinton would win. and they were insinuating that the president, before he leaves, he might put on the table a draft resolution and parameters. so in the negotiation with i said we have two products for you when i went with the ambassador as part of our negotiation with members of the security council. here we have a draft resolution on settlements. president barack obama is saying he wants to preserve the two-state solution. the main obstacle is settlements. settlements would serve his objective of trying to preserve a two-state solution. if you don't like that, we have another product for you. allow our application in the

security council for admission as a full member of the state of palestine. you don't like option a, you don't like option b. tell us what you have. but if you tell us after the election, you're not going to do anything. we're not going to accept that option. we're not going to accept wait until the trump administration to take place in january. because if we wait until that, we know that administration will tell us wait, wait, wait. we are not going to wait. so it is is either you put on the table something that we look at or we are going to advance our plans for having a resolution and settlement. of course we send to foreign ministers all the details of all the position of all 15 countries on these two drafts.

and we are waiting instructions from them. and i sincerely hope that they have the guts and the spine to say proceed with a draft resolution and settlement. and you will see we are not looking for a veto but we want the u.s. administration, including president barack obama, before he leaves, to do something congruent with his position and what he articulates every day, that he wants to preserve the two-state solution. we think a resolution and settlement is extremely useful to receive a strong political message from the international community that the international community cannot continue to tolerate their disregard to international law and the wish of international community. so we will see. hopefully soon something will happen. and i personally, sincerely hope we can proceed in the security council and try to have a

resolution adopted on settlements. that's on the security council front. if the new administration, and i hope they the do not show against us more than what we have seen. but if they want to start attacking us left and right, moving the capital to jerusalem and to condone settlements and what have you, then nobody should blame us from unleashing all the weapons that we have in the united nation toss defend ourselves. and we have, believe me, a lot of weapons. and we are not a small something at the united nations. we are a strong, well respected, well supported by more than 150, 160, 170 countries that vote occasionally in favor of our resolutions against handful of countries, including israel and

the united states. and i don't want to on count micronesia and other countries that do not reach even the number of both of our hands. five, two, three, six. canada is among them. of course we hope that canada would change its behavior and conduct itself in a different way. and we are engaging them. and if you can also engage them, by all means. and also engage the new administration not to on show more of an excessive unfair, negative position against the palestinian people. they need as balanced as possible if they want to solving this conflict after 50 years of occupation, after 70 years. i think they should result into

a balanced approach. and by all means we invite all of our friends who have influence with washington or could have influence with washington to work in this regard. for us internally, we need to put an end to our division. we need to put an end to the fact that we -- we need national unity in the national interest of the palestine people. we should not divide the house. we should put an end to this division. we need to have national unity. and we need, of course, to agree the details of the strategy of how we conduct ourselves as we move forward, particularly after the american elections and after we put our house in order, and also taking into account what is

really happening in the middle east. finally, to our friends in the civil society organizations, including bds, i think we appreciate what you do and you are playing a very important role in complementing the palestine people. we are all complementing each other for the same objective of accomplishing the alienable rights of the palestinian people. we will do more things in new york with all civil society organizations, including those in the united states of america working including bds. it was israeli ambassador who brought 5,000 jewish-american students to new york to combat bds. when journalists asked me what do you think of that i said he

is the one who is bringing this issue to the agenda of the u.n., and it is not the agenda of the u.n. and i said bring it on. so i invite our friends in bds and other society organizations. you are welcome to come to new york. we will help you there to help the people of the palestinian people to put an end to this tragedy i think i spoke enough. i don't want to be gloomy, that we are helpless. we can do a lot. and we are helping. thank you very much. [ applause ]. >> we have agreed to take questions. and we have actually a lot of time for questions. that's the way it was structured.

and i believe we have time for all the questions. >> i have one question. in the united states government -- (inaudible). i raised this up to the undersecretary in one of the meetings, and he did not answer. and i want to know from those who are experts in this language, what's the difference. >> do you want me to take a few questions and deal with them

together? maybe three or four and i will respond to them altogether. okay. make sure there's a gender balance. >> of course, yes. >> thank you. that w you raised a lot of important questions. these days with palestine and the arab governments, you mentioned going to the arab regimes at the u.n. there's been lots of changes, obviously, in the last several years of those governments. i'm wondering if you could give us an overview of where palestine stands in terms of those governments that are trying very hard to win support in washington particularly.

>> thank you very much for your time. one question. you mean dean of studies. i know we're all talking about the new leadership in the u.s. with president-elect trump. there is new leadership at the united nations. the new secretary-general start will start in january as well. how is the palestinian leadership feeling about any role that he might have regarding an active, more serious approach for the u.n. to deal with palestine compared to general ban ki-moon? >> i work for the nyed nations, refugees. and from my perspective, it

seems like there's already a two-state that exist in palestine. it is is that the international community might not recognize it. i do believe you're in the same position as formerly south africa was on apartheid and india under the british rule. and i think regardless who does it does not recognize you, you do exist. and if you exert your dominion as a sovereign nation externally to other nations, i think in due time that cloud that colonialism will break and we will also have to subside. >> these are four excellent questions. i will answer these before we go to the next. >> you talked about this

linguistic. the difference between illegal and legitimate. i think this new language used by the united states was relatively new. there are records that have voted in resolutions related to a legality of settlement activities. and i believe of course 14 members of the security council they used the language illegal. the secretary-general of the united nations ban ki-moon, and the new secretary-general elect antonio gutierrez also used illegal. we are not yet defining the

language of the text. what we we need from the united states of america to accept that the security council has a role to play and it has to ledge slate a new resolution on on settlements. if they are involved, then we will begin the exercise of the language. but yet we need to get commitment from them that, yes, they will allow the security council to show it is the responsibility and adopt a resolution there. if you translate both of them in arabic, they translate to basically the same thing. in english, it appears there are differences. they are too close to the each other but i don't believe they are synonymous with each other. there is no need for us to engage in a lynn guess particular discussion. we need to reach the moment of a political decision.

yes, the security council has a role to play and it has to ledge slate a resolution to deter israel from continuing on this path. that is part of the sequence of israel continuing this illegal behavior. and if we are all on board, including the united states of america, then we need to find the appropriate language that would address that issue. phyllis, put your finger on something very important. we wanted, as palestine, to go to the security council at the beginning of the year on the question of settlements. in fact, i have a very, very tedious exercise through the council of am abbas doors to move in that direction. some of them sometimes use big language but they have not necessarily kosher attentions.

we have had resolutions in the past on settlements so powerful, so strong, why do we need a diluted new resolution. but the essence of that argument is don't go to the security council on settlements. of course we had a resolution, say, in 1980 that called even for dismantling the settlements and having a reporting mechanism to the security council to the fact that we have that strong resolution. does this mean we should not go back to security council to have resolution and settlement? i don't believe that. we have to go always to the security council to show it is the responsibility to put israel in the corner with regard to this illegal behavior with a view that this illegal behavior has to stop. because we cannot have opening doors for peace as long as this illegal behavior continues to exhibit itself.

and ronald said that we could be moving into a situation similar to south africa. those who are continuing this illegal behavior on settlements are creating the one-state reality with two political systems, which is appetite. that has been acknowledged by many including the secretary-general of the u.n., special representative. even if the white house and in washington, d.c. in their defense to israel, they are saying the path that you continue on one state reality you are destroying the dream of zionism, having a state that is jewish or a jewish state. so therefore, you know, the arabs at that time, some of them used that argument. others used the argument we don't want a veto. as if we are the ones who decide

if a veto will be cast or not. we will negotiate in good faith. we will use all the possible arguments to convince the united states of america to be on board and to legislate. but at the end of the day, the united states is responsible for its action whether it will allow a resolution to be adopted or obstructed. if they are obstructed, they should be held responsible for their obstructionist policy inside the security council. then i floated a draft resolution in march. and they said, we cannot proceed until we get authorization from the arab ministerial committee. there is a small arab ministerial committee. and that arab ministerial committee did not meet for six months. when we made a huge stink over this issue, they authorized us to begin the consultation.

now, why are the arabs behaving this way over some of our countries? they are our brothers. we appreciate their health. we belong to that group. they are our strategic depth. and the arabs, if they are unified to a certain extent on any issue they are unified on the question on of palestine. but they exhibit this behavior because there are those among them who think if they go to the security council in the current conditions and push the united states and they use a veto in the environment of russians using vetoes versus syria, then from their perspective as it relates to the issues as they relate to syria or iran, then that is important to them. and unfortunately, when they think a lot that way, in certain ways it is at the expense of the

palestine question. now, here we go again. they were also floating an idea that after the election, and when hillary clinton wins, then president barack obama will put something more important than settlement parameters. i think that that reality is not with us anymore. there is going to be a new person in the white house. it's not hillary clinton. now, what will president barack obama do before he leaves? will he allow something to be put on the table i think that if we do not work hard, if we do not continue with the momentum that we generated, not only through the consultation but we had a very important meeting, an unofficial open meeting for the security council in which they bring experts. and they brought among the experts two very important

individuals. one is from washington, d.c. from american peace now. both of them said very clearly to the security council, you have to act. settlements are illegal. you have to act to stop it. and occupation has to end. israeli ambassador made a statement at the head who participated is engaging in diplomatic terrorism. and there are now trying to have a piece of legislation to deprive him of israeli citizenship. we're talking about fascism. talking about crazy things. those cannot even tolerate a jew, israeli to agree with them on this issue. and they are entertaining the idea of taking their citizenship away from them. the u.s. representative in both areas defended the lady from,

you know, american peace now. and in the two occasions. but will that mean that the united states of america will allow the security council to legislate something on settlement remains to be seen. so the issue with my brother the arabs is not easy. they are fixated on other areas, syria, yemen and by, you know, a derivative of that, the palestine question is on the back burner. for me i have always to keep the palestine question alive. front burner. i have to keep it alive in the united nations. we created this, as i said, during the course of the month of october. we need to continue with it and not to accept a new form of delay. let's wait until the new

administration take place in washington, d.c. we cannot wait. we need to act and we need to act now. as the representative said to the members of the security council. now, with regard to gutierrez. antonio gutierrez is a very, very smart diplomat. and he worked for the u.n. for a long period of time. very, very smart. very quick on his face. he was the prime minister of portugal. he speaks many languages. i was in a meeting and they were asking questions, and he was answering in english, in french, in spanish, in portugese. very fluent in all of these languages. and he was quick. understanding the essence of every question. responding to the essence of every question in a very concise way. and i spoke at the end, and i was frustrated when i spoke at

75 because i'm an opener. i said i speak at the end. when will i speak free at last, free at least. you know, the speech of martin luther king. i don't want to keep speaking at the end. i said what are you going to do differently than other sgs to see the end of occupation of the state of palestine and therefore saving the two-state solution. and he said in front of everyone, that nothing will give me more pleasure than celebrating the moment to see the independence of the state of palestine and to see palestine and israel being in peace and security next to each other. i invited him to palestine, and he will visit us hopefully soon next year. let's hope that in his time watch we will see something good happening to palestine. and with regard to palestine,

president carter wrote a famous group. one state solution, extremists in israel keep pushing for one state reality. then they are bringing with it the virus of appetite. if they think that appetite in our area will survive, they need to think again. it did not survive in south africa. i don't think it can survive in palestine, israel. >> you made a very good statement yesterday. i'm wondering why our position is explained to americans. is it the question of the media? of course the media is not very friendly. i understand that. i'm a media person.

why not the obvious way of doing it, which is advertising. as you will know, in the last two months, the israeli side had eight full pages in the "new york times". to cover your remarks today. highlight them. you're an excellent speaker, excellent spokesman. i've heard a lot about you. but we need to get the american public aware of what's going on. >> i tried to put an op ed in the "new york times". >> what about a full page ad? money i know. i'll tell you what, i have a follow-up. we can campaign for financial

support for a full page ad. >> all right. we'll have a question here and then we will move to this side. >> i want a gender balance. i see, one, two. >> mr. ambassador, hi. mark harrison with the united methodist church office in washington. the u.n. had these conferences mainly pushed by african governments on ending apartheid. and white majority rule. what do you think of the committee for the inalienable rights of palestine to have an international conference during the 50th year of the occupation and to bring international ngos and others together. and i know that the u.n. always says they have regional conferences on this issue. but do you think there is a need for international conference in

solidarity? >> all right. >> there are two ladies. >> thank you so much for being here and for your talk. i'm from georgetown university and also running a start-up called build palestine, which i can tell you all about later. i wanted to ask you about -- you talked about the weapons we have in the u.n. in working with a lot of young palestinian activists there is a bit of a disillusionment with the u.n. structure, feeling that because of the way the security council has veto power, because of u.s.'s inability to make any progress in its decision-making, we'll nephew be able to push these kinds of fantastic resolutions forward. so what are those weapons that we have if the u.s. pushes back and we can't push the resolution

forward with the veto? >> okay. mr. kalani. then we will take a fifth question from the left. >> board member of the (inaudible) fund. today donald trump said that he is going to move from tel aviv to jerusalem. what impact would that do and that can be done? >> the last question, the young lady on the left. >> my name is nini. i come from houghton, michigan just to attend. i am passionate about palestinian issues. i would like to know what

ambassador said those secret weapons? why have they not been used before? because we are really desperate right now. and then also, from year to year i always attended this national council in october. and when i hear, for example, turkey talking about palestine, it was heart warming. i'm afraid from year to year we are just talking. and now two administrations have gone by by obama and nothing has materialized. what i would to know is about this arab government. we know at the same time that a few countries like uae, qatar, they have relationship with israel under the table. and also yesterday i heard that donald trump said that

settlements are not an obstacle. so could you respond to all of that? thank you. >> thank you. these are five excellent questions. >> okay. with regard to the question asked by my friend hashmir, there are those who thing advertising is a good thing to do to put in the "washington post". if you have the means, by all means, do it. for us we do things as -- we fight the united nations. people listen to us. people vote in favor of our resolutions. we organize conferences and meetings. and we do things to articulate our position. of course we cannot publish our position everywhere. that's why we rely on friends like you and others to do some of that work.

and maybe good campaigns to have one page advertisement of anything that you wish. and if you want help from us in terms of articulating the message, we will be more than delighted to do so. but i think there is a tremendous amount of opportunity for all those who want to work. why are you here, all of you, this large number. because you want to do something. you're eager to do something. and this is a wonderful spirit. and you can do whatever you think is a good idea, get the people who believe in that idea and try to make it a reality. i think it could be done. i said to you from our side we try to sometimes publish op ed, whatever we can, or interviews in order to convey our message to the largest number of audience that we can reach.

the gentleman back there is mark hysen from methodist. we have the bureau of the palestine committee and kpezing alienable rights of the palestinian people. we are thinking of doing it in june to mark the 50th anniversary. you are all invited. you, your friends. we have good relationship with them in new york city. but the activity is not only in new york which we are intending to do but organize as many activities in washington, in chicago, in san francisco and older cities everywhere. try, you know, to mobilize all of your friends, all the organizations to do as many

activities as possible in the year 2017, which will be the year to end the israeli occupation. but from the point of view of the palestinian of the u.n., we will have an international conference in june to commemorate that occasion. with regard to the disillusionment of young palestinians, i can understand that. when you are young you tend to be more radical. i was young and super radical. when you get older, you try to balance between the heart and the brain. and i think the suggestion was right when he said when you are young you have to think from your heart. when you are old you have to think from your brain. i think i am trying to use both of them, trying to balance it. of course the young want more things. it is good to have them.

it is good that they push and they push and they push more. if keep us on track if we are complacent and not try as hard as we should. i'm delighted that half of our team are young. i say challenge me. don't agree with he me. it doesn't i will agree with you but always don't be afraid to say what you believe in. this is how we take into account all the positions and opinions and therefore serve palestine in the best possible way, as we should because it is a noble cause. now, have we used the weapons? i just gave an example of our strategy. and we in new york, myself and my team, we were able to influence leadership thinking to push for that direction. i was a junior, young, very

radical diplomat in 1988 when we declared independence. i pushed for doing what we did in 2012. i was leading a minority faction then in 1988. and we, because i felt when we declared independence in 1988 we could have gone directly to the general assembly to change our status. unfortunately, i was overruled because i was among the minority. when i came back in 2005 as an ambassador, that was one of the issues in my head. and we were able to articulate the strategy that the leadership accepted, promoted and worked for it. and it was culminated in a historic resolution adopted 29 october 2012 in which the general assembly recognized the state and changed the status. now, what are some of these potent weapons? from 2012 now, when you see palestine is a state party equal to the all other states in all

of these treaties and convention, this is part of that work. and even, you know, when i go to conferences in which we have to sit in alphabetical order, they are used to us to sit in the back as observers. and with the organizer of conferences, palestine, the state of palestine sit in the back i said, no, i sit in alphabetical order. i train my team, open your eyes. every conference you go to, potentially they could make these mistakes. correct the mistakes. go outside the building. see if our flag is out or not. if our flag is at the end, make sure to tell the organizer it should be in alphabetical order. i was in a meeting and i went outside and our flag was at the end i am calling ban ki-moon now. who is in charge? they were terrified. they said we made a mistake in

the protocol i said i need it to be corrected. they said at 8:00 in the morning we will correct it. i was there at 8:00 in the morning with my camera to make sure they corrected it. these are remarkable things. when you see that the flag of palestine as we legislated that last year, to be flying in front of the u.n. is inspiring to me examine to my team and to all of those who come and visit. these are the kind of things we do. now, i said that we are using peaceful diplomatic legal civilized methods. but if people attack us by trying to move jerusalem -- the embassy to jerusalem, which is a violation of security council resolution, it is a violation of resolution 181, which was drafted by the united states of america. if the administration wants to

violate the legal things that they were leaders in legislating, they are showing belligerence against us. you want me to accept it peacefully? no. what can i do? maybe i cannot have resolution in security council, but i can make their life miserable every day with a veto on my admission as a member state. italy, for example, in 1949, received three consecutive vetoes on their admission on the united nations from the soviet union. the united states would come today, we are putting the application for italy to admission. the soviet union would do a veto. if they are going to do these things, these are the kinds of things i can do. show belligerence against me i will do the things i can. i can have emergency meetings.

i can open the pandora's box with all the regimes and settlements. so i will do what i can do. i do it legally. they do illegal things. because it is illegal to defy a security council resolution. the united states is party to it saying that the unilateral action of annexing east jerusalem is a leader and it is null and void without legal ramifications. that is international law. if the u.s. administration wants to defy international law, they are doing something illegal. my retaliation will be legal. i hope we do not see that reality. because many candidates during the election promised a similar promise but they did not implement it. because what you do when you are campaigning is something. but when you deal with the legal things, it is is something else. we sincerely hope they don't go that route. we sincerely hope they don't do

that. and we sincerely hope they don't move from illegal to illegitimate to the an obstacle -- it is not an obstacle piece. which is israeli language. if the new u.s. administration, as the young lady who came from michigan. and we thank you to come from michigan to washington for this conference. if she thinks they are going to say, in essence, settlements are condoned, that is not violation of international law. we hope they don't do that. we hope this is only talk. but if they want to go the path of trying, you know, to act illegally, nobody should blame us for defending ourselves legally. that's what i meant by the important weapons we have. this is on the resolution.

one time i was interviewed by gentlem jazeera what am i doing. he said i think these are all meaningless. i said when we have resolutions for example for the mandate and for making this organization that looks after the palestine refugees in which it spends more than a billion dollars annually to educate half a million palestinian children is and to provide some health care for palestine refugees and in the social services, to me this is important. he screamed at me. he said i don't care who eats and who gets educated. did you liberate palestine? i said, no, i did the not liberate palestine. i am doing useful things.

we would not have been having the contemporary palestinian national movement. because it came from the refugee camps. we are grateful for doing all of these things. when i negotiate with the europeans and my team language to the try to stabilize the financial situation and we succeed in some language to that effect and maybe to have a portion of the budget as part of the permanent budget of the u.n. and not to keep it, you know, at the mercy of voluntary contribution, i think this is a contribution in a concrete way to the struggle of the palestinian people. these are the things we do. if some of the people see it is irrelevant, too bad. this is important we need to do it. it is the responsible thing to do to try to minimize the pain of our people with while we are steadfasting and continuing the struggle until we succeed in putting an end to the occupation

and accomplishing the inalienable rates of the palestinian people. >> sir, we have other --. >> (inaudible). >> there is one more question. staff is nudging me over there. otherwise, we would be here all day. >> shall we have the last one? >> no. we really don't have time for it. did you want to say anything? >> -- governments under the table. >> yes. i'm sorry. >> and then we have a break. >> listen, you know -- it's not our job to add more misery to our people and to have more problems and to invite more enemies. we are part of the arab nations. we know how some of them think

because they have their own calculations. including those who might think that they are in the same camp with israel, objectively speaking, not intentionally speaking. because they are afraid of iran, for example, in the region. so they just some of these activities based on that. of course, as i said, this tends to push our question into the back burner. that doesn't mean that, you know, they are becoming our enemies, those arab countries. we don't look for enemies. we have a formidable enemy supported by the united states of america. thats important enough. so we are in the business of always trying to have more friends. even who will accept is half a friend better than nothing. because, you know, this is our responsibility in defending the rights and minimizing the pain of our people.

and that is a responsible way of being a leader in looking for ways to minimize the pain of our people and to maximize the gains. again, thank you very much. and good luck with the conference. [ applause ]. >> thank you very much. we have two panels. we need to stay on time. there are some refreshments over there. let's have a 15-minute break. and then come back for the first panel. thank you. >> later today on c-span2, israeli and egyptian ministers talk about the middle east and the incoming trump administration live at 6:30. and supreme court oral argument on immigration detention. the court will decide if detained immigrants facing deportation can be held for longer than is six months without a bail hearing. a lower court ruled the

government must provide individualized on danger and flight risk. >> advisers on the importance of u.s.-led alliances such as that of nato. former chief of naval operations gary ruffhead, michael green, security. >> adrian: to president bush, and contact lynn hicks, former principal deputy secretary for president obama take part. >> good afternoon. i hope everyone had a good thanksgiving break. appreciate you getting back to work with ernest and joining us for this discussion today. i'm mike green, be center vice president for asia "csi" s. it is a real delight to hold the rollout for csis.

a long record of distinguished service in the australian government, including stints with previous advisers. andrew joined us here at csis. and together with john, myself and others conceived and designed this project which is to look at american leadership and alliances. and the two of course go together. and are at a point of some transition, turbulence, questioning, given events around the world. given the pressures of globalation and the domestic services of alliances, given our own presidential transition. and it seems a good time to get back to some of the fundamentals why we built this alliance system over 50 years ago. what sustains it. what it is in it for our allies. what are the things we have to do to make it more effective for

all of us. andrew is going to tell us about the fundamentals, mechanics, the strategy beginning with this event with our distinguished panel. so i'm going to turn it over now to the director for this project and let andrew tell us about the rest of today. thank you. andrew. >> thank you, mike. and thank you, everyone, for coming. mike in particular, i would like to thank you for your support for this project which i think is important and comes at an important time. mark has been not only a great colleagues but also as we like to say, a good mate. i'm very grateful for that. i would also like to acknowledge this afternoon the support for the project of dr. john hemray,

csis, slept advisory board we have been able to pull together to support this project. and my colleagues carla cronin and jake douglas, helping me out on the project team. following the catastrophe of the second world war, far-sighted statesmen worked with their counter parts around the world to build and maintain a global network of regional and bilateral alliance unsurpassed in history. starting in ney toerbgs encompassing the most powerful arab states in the middle east, for 70 years these alliances have supported liberal international order, made possible and unprecedented period and contributed immeasurabl

immeasurably. none of this, however, was preordained. isolation itch and the urge to withdraw from conflict and commitments abroad and foreign policy since the earliest days of the republican. coming to the service in the 1930s, the early 1950s and the mid 1970s, after the war in vietnam. and of course, at different time, over the same period, it was domestic politics in allied countries, rather than america, that roiyaled alliances across asia and the middle east. despite these periods of contention and significant costs alliances entail, they have enjoyed bipartisan political support in the united states. and solid public backing for decades. notwithstanding a bitterly election campaign in which president-elect trump openly

questioned the value of nato, and the united states most important alliances in asia and sitting president barack obama publicly criticized some allies for free riding, a recent survey by the chicago council on global affairs shows the american public overwhelmingly support alliances, and american leadership in the world. overall, 90% of americans, including many trump supporters, consider maintaining existing alliances and effective way of achieving america's foreign policy goals. and nearly as many support building new alliances with other countries. nurturing and renewing this support is vital, because today, the united states and its allies face an unprecedented range of threats. these include russian aggression in eastern europe and adventurism in the middle east. north korea's rapidly developing

nuclear and ballistic missile programs, continuing support for terrorism, and spreading influence and the mand yet the united states and its allies are si psychologically prepared for these threats. there is complacency about the threats we face and a loss of perspective of the freedom of choice and of our prosperity. alliances require sustained hard work, investment and give-and-take on both sides. former u.s. secretary of state, george schultz used to cause this tending the garden. today, however, our alliances are not keeping place, resource

constraints, such as the sequester here in the united states and internal challenges. in europe, the dis integrative process are present today in many other nato countries. in asia, the most recent takeover, while the president has declared the philippines separation from the united states, and the implication of the political crisis engulfing governor park's administration in south korea are unclear. the future alignment of turkey, long critical partner of it middle east and asia is also unclear, while israel and traditional arab alienated by the u.s. nuclear deal with iran. america's credibility as a security g

security g secure guarantor, unless they pay for for their defense. everywhere, there is a sense that the west is in retreat, and that the liberal international order is framed. this is the projects jumping off point, to go back to first principles and examine the roles that date back to the earliest days of the cold war. whether they offset the benefits today and how can they adapt to face the challenges we face. the key to alliances is that the sum is more than the parts. alliances in hard security by combining allies military power and increasing their cooperation, and hence, they boost adherence. they also play an important role in supporting the international order and in restraining allies, a relationship that works in both directions. alliances build relationships

and mutual trust over time that ad hoc coalitions simply cannot replicate. the incoming trump administration's foreign policy team and policy direction are a work in progress. but allies should welcome some of the early signs. the president-elect has spoken with many allied leaders. his administration is likely to work with congress to restore u.s. defense spending, build a larger navy, and modernize the u.s. nuclear arsenal. all important steps that will increase deterrence and should reassure america's allies. yet for the first time in decades, the commitments and the future are at issue. for decades, the united states was so dominant globally that allies and even american policymakers often tended to see the alliance system as some sort of free international public good, and i guess particularly

for allies to an extent it was. today, though, things are very different. the united states is still the world's dominant military power, but rivals such as china are closing the gap and profound military challenges. this environment, the united states will be instinctivly tempted to flirt with unilateralism, and deal with convenience with regionals of great powers and a more transactional approach to alliances. for all the costs and challenges posted by alliances and managing allies, america needs to think hard today about how attractive a world without allies really would be. after all, there is nothing russia, china and iran would like more than to see the dismantling of america's alliances in europe, asia and the middle east. that reality alone should give serious pause for thought.

former australian minister and architect of the andes treaty observed that it is difficult and at times exceedingly so to understand precisely what the united states thinking is. i have no doubt that many diplomats here will agree this is certainly one of those times. the purpose of this project is to provide answers to some of these questions, based around three research themes. the first is leadership. what role do alliances play today in deterring threats, supporting the international order and restraining allies. is there still a viable concept of the west, and if so, what part do als help in upholding it. how do alliances help u.s. national interests today. do alliances need to be

overhauled. how can informal security partnerships contribute. what is the role of u.s. leadership at home and abroad in building support for alliances. the second theme is about alliances in operation. the day-to-day management of alliances. how should we think about burden sharing today. which allies are pulling their weight, and in which areas do alliances need to lift their game. how can alliances build military and address external capability gaps. how can they boost extended deterrence in a world where nuclear weapons are making an unfortunate come back. what approaches should alliances take to combating coercion, hybrid threats and cyber attacks and to exchanging intelligence and increasing defense, industrial collaboration. what major alliance management challenges are we likely to confront and how can we overcome them. the third and i think in some ways, the most important

research theme is about understanding and engaging public opinion. notwithstanding the positive polling i cited earlier, we cannot take continuing public support for alliances for granted in the united states or in allied countries. in a recent interview with the atlantic, henry kissinger pointed to a gap in foreign policy perceptions between the american public and elites. in polls in the number of countries, including my own country, australia, suggested a degree of anxiety about the future direction of american policy and alliances. we have to do a better job of understanding public opinion and of making the case for alliances, and not just here in washington, d.c. in short, it is time we rediscovered what former secretary of state used to call our duty to explain, which of course brings us full circle. back to the importance of leadership. today's event is the first in a

program of public events, policy roundtables and publications that will examine these important questions, and seek to provide answers, but to stimulate discussions and to guide american and allied policymakers. they seek to never gain the challenging environment that confronts us. we hope you will stay involved in the project, and in particular, the input and engagement of allied governments will be essential. ladies and gentlemen, it is now my pleasure and honor to introduce our guest speaker today, admiral gary ruffet, the robert and marion military fellow at the hoover institution and one of the united states most distinguished senior officers. the recipient of numerous u.s. and foreign awards. the 29th chief of naval operations, leading important organizational reforms and row introduced numerous