so the view i see right now -- i am watching the tv, and i viewed it, and it is a beautiful sight, actually, memorable point. host: william, we thank you very much for calling in and sharing your story with us. that's your dog brinkley has -- let's hear what doug brinkley has -- guest: i also want to thank you for your service, and it is important that you record your memories, to get it down and have something specific about normandy. the actual idea forhis memorial came from somebody from your state, oo, a man named roger bergeron, who had been a veteran at the battle of the bulge, and as i mentioned earlier, the iwo jima memorial, as wonderful as it was, was the marines memorial. what about other people who served in uniform during the second world war? with a congressperson from ohio,

italy started -- it really started. one thing led to another, and we have a lot of differen people at different times. tom hanks got very involved after "saving private ryan" to bring the public consciousness to the need for this. it has alwayseen a bit of a struggle, and this wonderful area behind us is a reflecting pool, which is getting the revamping. i think in time for the martin luther king memorial which will be coming up, but also, 2013, august, will be 50 years of martin luther king's famous "i have a dream" moment. host: that is the world war ii memorial and a lincoln monument. guest: and there was concern that you were taking up space,

cluttering up the mall. nobody says that anymore, because you come here and see the capitol, the monument, and wonderful fountain system here surrounding it. there is an incredible waterworks operation going on in order to get thiincredibly wonderful reflecting place. to spend any time here with these school kids and think about the fact that world war is quite moving, and its roots are back in ohio, a jerusalem county, ohio, where mr. durbin is from. host: about 2 million a world war ii vets still survive. the veterans administration predicts that in 2015, 85,000 vetsill survive, and 2025, only 20,000 vets will still be alive. our next call is from a vet, frank in washington state br. caller: hi. host: please go ahead, sir.

caller: i am 86 years old. i was on about five different islands, went in on the invasion. i was on a seaplane basin. i came back stateside a couple of years later. i got to get an address to a friend. he got to ride back to see the memorial, and i got a friend out and maybe if i could get a chance to do that, i would sure love to come back and see that. host: all right, thank you, frank. do you know anything about this a free ride? guest: i don't know about the free ride. this weekend, rolling thunder is coming, vietnam war vets usi

this to celebrate memorial day weekend. i want to emphasize that when we started this idea of this memorial, one of the other concerns was that we were losing about 1100 world war ii veterans a week. people were dying off on a regular basis. the idea was that there needed -- we needed to capture the voices of people like -- people like tom brokaw with "the grtest generation" and stephen ambrose with the book on d-day. there was this idea of people, like the people calling in today, and make sure you get your reminiscence recorded at a local library or something. it is like imagining we get that tape recordings of people at gettysburg -- we could have that tape recordings of people at gettysburg. people are dying off in that generation, in their 80s and 90s now, and at this point we are looking at will war ii -- world

war ii veterans as survivors of that generation. host: that caller talked about his experience in the pacific theater. it seems in many ways that your it seems to get a block of the press. -- europe seems get the bulk of the price. guest: fdr's first objective was to win europe. only in recent years has it wore a scholarship caught up -- war scholarship caught up, not the least being that we are a western civilization, judeo- christian society. many americans had a background of dutch ancestry, or german or english. there was a priority to win the war in europe. it has an apartment in the past years, including this past year -- has been heartening in the

past years, including this past the pacific." there have been novels like norman mailer's "the naked and sehe dead," vonnegut' "slaughterhouse," "from here to eternity." i mentioned elie weisel. some of these memoirs and novels are as powerful as any history someone like myself could write. the problem with what war ii is that it is losing some of the trauma. -- the drama. interpreting the second world war is a challenge, because it is so all encompassing. this memorial tries to do it in a fitting way that brings everybody in and it has been

very successful in its inclusiveness. host: this is "washington journal" on c-span and we are live at the world war ii memorial. dr. brinkley, well-known hiorian, is joining us for this hour. our next call is from robin in oregon. caller: my question is about the mehant marines. arthey included in the memorial? can you give us back out on in them? thank you. guest: merchant marines, yes. anybody who served in the war efforts -- again, it is not just for soldiers. a memorial is for a generation that came togher. it is not able, when you are seeing a look around, to give any kind of historical depth to the role of the merchant marines in the world war, but it is

reflected on here. if you have a member of your family who was one of the merchant marines and he wanted to, to bring your grandchildren or friends to think about it, this would be reflective place, a place of prayer. you are not going to get world war ii history by coming to walk around this memorial. you are coming to pause imminent and contemplate the sacrifice of everybody in the second world war -- pause a minute and contemplate the sacrifice of everybody in the second world war. host: next to this flag is ua pow/mia flag. guest: everything is mentioned on that particular part of the memorial. host: they came to liberate, not to conquer. where does that come from? guest: it is the famous saying of world war ii, when " we are

liberators, not conquerors." it was the thrust of what eisenhower and pac-10 and marshall believed, that it was important -- and patton and marshall believe, that it was important to believe that we will liberating europe, liberating japan. the united stes has had an influence in japan and germany. we demilitarized those countries. ifou go, you see american bases all over. we did not conquer, but we did it demilitarizing japan and germany after world war ii. host: the cmander in the pacific was -- guest: you mean -- host: who was our supreme commander ? guest: to eisenhower was the supreme commander for our allied forces.

host: next call for dr. brinkley, william, a veteran -- doug brinkley, william, a veteran. caller: i served in world war ii. my story is much different than what i am hearing. i have a copy of the history of might unit -- my unit. but it does not tell the story that i know. i live it every day, and the outfit that i went to, i never hear on holidays, but other units within the series before and after i hear. the outfit that i was with when i got there, the first thing i

heard was that the outfit was going to be in new guinea five years after the war. i don'tnow if i should go along with the rest oft, but also i have been hearing good stories, but being a person of color in ose days, you had two armies. one, you did not get on -- host: william, if you could, please turn down of the volume of new tv and very quickly tell us where you served in world war ii, ok? caller: yes, sir. i left under the bridge and there was a submarine that was

ahead. i don't know whether he went with us are not -- or not. but we bypassed and went to the canal, and i landed in the army day. this outfit was the first american unit. from the bay to another bay, and to -- host: you know what, william, we will have to leave it there. we appreciate you calling in. doug brinkley. guest: a couple comments. we tried to do at the memorial is remind people of everybody's service. there were african-american

units in the world war and we -- only now people now beginning to understand their servic medgar evers, who went into the civil rights uni -- movement. in worldamericans' role war ii is starting to get scholarly attention and it is long overdue. host: were african-americans in combat -- guest: very much in combat. we are talking v for victory. they had to come back aft fighting, say, germany, and come back to alabama and south carolina and a face the jim crow system. one of the great things and dwight eisenhower did during world war ii -- he said, look,

we are all americans. there was a lot of racism in the american military in the second world war, but there were also a lot of courageous people within the military saying no more. you would be amazed at how many african-american service men and women in the world war fought with the civil-rights movement. host: every one of the veterans all in this morning recounted his experice in detail. guest: the reason i mention these oral histories -- there is the sameying, the fog of war. it is impossible to have one version of world war ii. it is possible to have millions of russians, because there was some much -- happening. -- millions of a version, because there was so much happening.

we just lost the last a veteran of the second world war and then that will be distant history. collecti primary source material from people like a few of our callers. host: it is about 90 degrees out here and doug brinkley is doing yeoman's service for us on c- span. jim in ohio. caller: good morning, gentlemen. my dad was a world war ii navy vet and served in the pacific. i am a vietnam vet. i have not got back to see the memorial is yet. my father passed away bomb before it was billed. but my question is -- my father passed away long before it was built. but my question is, on the columns, the transcript of fdr's december 8 speech he gave before congress is on there, and it was edited -- the last four words

have been added off of the speech. is that correct? guest: it is not on that column behind me. most of the engravings are very truncated in very short-term -- very short to go around, but the point you raised has been made by some people, that they thought there should have been an extra line. i am not a designer of the memorial, so i don't know why that happened, but it did. host: we do want to point out this book, though, dug up brinkley, the author -- >doug brinkley, the author. very much a coffee table book, hundreds of the photographs, etc. guest: we work on this with john eisenhower, and he is the son of and white eisenhower. then, of course, wead incredible contributions from some of our best historians.

ho: how many books have you written altogether? guest: i don't count them anymore. the one i am wking on right now, cronkite -- he is a typical example of a journalist in world war ii, there for the battle of the bulge, therefore normandy -- there forormandy, there for the nuremberg trials. a good frid of his was killed in the second world war just trying to cover the story there. host: next call for doug brinkley, tom in north carolina. caller: i was in the pacific, 32nd infantry division. i went all the way up to quite a few lennings in new guinea. i think six.

some were d1, some d2 and 3. i was also down in the philippines, manila, when the war ended. yet, but i was in manila. i cannot recall where the hell i was, but i was over there for three years, and we did not have any phone calls to call home. we had v-day letters, so we did not have it very easy. thank you very much. host: thank you for sharing your experience. guest: i find that the letters some of the most moving documents. and your caller -- thank you for your service -- talks about communication being tough.

there is a saying, historians read other people's mail. i read some stories from the second world war. each person before the d-day mission basically wrote a death note home -- "fix the barn" -- because they were basically being sent on a suicide mission, and yet you cannot tell anybody what emthe mison was because it would give away the plan. if anybody has letters at home from - if you are a veteran or a member of a family that has them in a shoebox of something, look to the smithsonian institute or world war ii to donate them. we are constantly trying to make sure those letters are not turnout. hos -- not thrown out. host: jack in new jersey.

caller: good morning. let me know when i am to talk. host: jack, you are on the air and we are listening to you. caer: i was in the u.s. merchant marine in world war ii. i know we got a raw deal. we were not recognized as veterans until 1988. i might say tt our casualty rate was higher than any service. over 10,000 of our men got killed. i have had decorations -- gorbachev w in, and medvedev of russia awarded us. we made a very dangerous runs towards the black sea, romania,

supplying soviet services and military. if it wasn't for us, i don't think we would and have one of the war, because theoviet union played a big part in it also. we got a raw deal -- white, one more thing. we have two bills in the house and senate, to get just compensation. we were denied gi bill of rights. our lives may have been changed if we did get some benefits now, those two bills -- if we did get some benefits. those two bills are right now in congress and we hope the people of the united states call their congressmen and senators to support the bill. host: thank you for calling in. guest: the caller is absolutely correct. the merchant marines did get a

bit of a raw deal. they were not in the gi bill, and they should have been. i want to restress that this memorial day, we of not forgotten the merchant marines. i believe it began in it 17 70's, the founding of our country, and it is included with the marines and army and navy, on and on. the merchant marines are represented here. i agree with the color that they have been short shrifted in history, and a lot of scholars have overlooked how risky it was. they were an extraordinarily important group in our victory, particularly in europe. host: jack mentioned the soviet union that the russians lost 20 million people. guest: isn't underplayed a story in the united states, how -- it is an under played story in the

united states, how important the russian role was. joe stalin, one of the thugs of history, was at one point "time's" m of the ye. oliver stone has an upcoming history of what was going on during the war. a lot of scholars don't focus on the role russia play in supporting the advance. -- thwarting the advance. do you know how ma japanese were killed? guest: if i get something off, i will get emails. with the hiroshima and nagasaki, and the killing of civilians, should those civilians in considered wartime casualties

areor not? it becomes a controversial subject. the fact of the matter is a man a-et who drop one of the bombs -- he is living in ohio, and meeting him was interesting, because this man who had a role of dropping the bomb on hiroshima was just shopping and grocery stores and nobody knew. that is something about the world war ii generation, that a lot of these great heroes are a round us all the time. i talked to a lot of veterans who said that in the 1950's and 1960's, they were booed and hissed. by the 1980's, people were cheering them. our country has done a great turnaround in honoring these minimum of the second world war. this is kind of theain place that helped with the turnaround. host: on memorial day weekend,

we are live at the national war ii morrow, opened in 2004 to the public -- the national world war ii memorial, opened in 2004 to the public. you are on with his s andtor -- historian doug brinkley. caller: let me say that yr objective the and frankness make you an american icon, cultural hero. i have a hard question and an easy question. i am pro-military, but when they dropped the bomb, werthere any apprehensions regrets after a, just based on the fact that cizens were killed? my last, easy question, how does it feel being in houston? i only said that becae i used to be there and i walked through rice university all the time and i loved it. i will take that answer off the air and thank you for listening.

guest: i do teach at rice and i teach classes on dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. students are very divided. the pro-truman view, and he said he did not lose any sleep, that he saved american lives, and he would have had to invade japan and that his view that anything at his disposal to win the war was essential. remember, russia, the soviet union, was starting to be seen as an enemy, and they were moving in joining us in japan . critics of hiroshima-nagasaki say, why did you drop it on -- didn't yourop it on a fly speck island in the pacific and tell the japanese to watch it? they would have seen the mushroom cloud. there are some people who say

that hiroshima was okay but nagasaki wasn't. this is hotly debated, as well it should be. keep in mind, though, the only time the united states had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, any country who had a monopoly, the west 45 -- the u.s. had from 1935-1949. then at -- 1945-1949. then the soviet union added and the cold war was on full blast. host: what was the darkest part of the 1945-1949 period? guest: there are many. when the soldiers started realizing what happened at buchenwald at auschwitz and the frustration that we could not have done something sooner. to be talking about the bottom rung of evil, when you talked about what was going on at

auschwitz, using human skin as lampshades, biological experiments, just massive murder and genocide. on o hand, we felt so good, we won, we beat germany an japan. to realize that humanity to be so ghastly and evil, just how we dicked the nazi regime was, as i say, if you ever visit those cans, you recognize that it teaches you -- those camps, you recognize that it teaches you just how essential the war was b. anybody who says we should not have been involvedn t world war does not know what they're talking about. eisenhower wrote a letter taking full responsibility -- it could have leaked out, the great armada, the allied invasion. things could have gone terribly wrong.

it is easy now to say, what a great american, british, canadian,, but the truth of the matter was, we didn't know. th was the tning point, because it stars the liberation, the battle of normandy, of europe. we had to go to the battle -- and was a larger march to berlin. used -- the battle of the polls, and it was a larger march to -- battle of the bulge, and it was eight longer march to berlin. and that we were able to successfully test an atomic weapon in new mexico and dropped over hiroshima. it was clear that american technology and the industrial mobilization that won the war. it is important to stress here that we are honoring not just the soldiers and fallen heroes, but the american people, because people were working 12 hours a day making, manufacturing,

working on assembly lines in detroit or chicago, our heroes, too. we had to have the home front effort to win the second world war. host: about 10 minutes left in "washington journal" this morning. matt in wisconsin. caller: good morning. hello? host: please go ahead. caller: i am talking as hard as i can. host: sir, i apologize. we are having a little trouble hearing you. we are going to move on to texas. charles in texas, you are on the air. caller: what you want me to say? i can tell you a lot. i was in hiroshima 30 days

after the bomb, i was on my way to japan. we were not killed. god bless harry trun, and to hell with the rest of the world. host: 30 days after the bomb. guest: were you worriedt all about radiation? caller: there was nothing standing but a few little brick pieces -- [unintelligible] guest: were you wried about your health? caller: that is just a bunch of baloy -- guest: i was just wondering, one of the things that interested -- again, thank you for your service -- to see if the soldiers who went into the stands had any negative of the

tax from radiation from going into nagasaki, a horsham, in the first wave after the bomb went off -- nagasaki, hiroshima, in the first right after the bomb went off. anyway, thank you it must've been a powerful thing to walk into that city and see what the power of the atom unleashed. host: do you know how many pow's were held by the japanese and the germans? guest: well, again, i don't want to give a wrong figure, but the book "slaughterhouse fiv by kurt vonnet, who was in dresden -- dresden just got wiped out. go in withjob w to a will bear out and take all the -- wheelbarrow and take all the bodies and build a masgraves

with them. it ruined his life. he was haunted his whole life by seeing that amount of carnage host: next call for doug brinkleys with fred in texas. caller: thank you, c-span, for great program, and mr. brinkley, you are a very knowledgeable inarticulate historian. -- a particu -- and articulate historian. i remember as a youth following veterans to the local cemetery, where there were speeches and gun salutes. i knew as a teenager that these men had given their lives unselfishly for democracy, and it is important that we remember that. my neighbor is an 87-year-old veteran, who was a goner for 36

missions over germany. -- gunner for 36 missions er germany could it took me awhile to get him to sit over coffe and relate his experiences, because they are true heroes and they don't talk about it. but to do missions at night over germany, watching some of the other planes go down -- these are true heroes,nd we should always remember that they fought for our freedom and democracy. it is important that this memorial be a tribe to them. thank you very much. guest: that was beautifully id, and really, what this is is about a saving of our democracy. i was listening to some of the broadcasts of edward r. murrow with the cbs newsat

would broadcast while on a bombing mission, actually, or standing on a rooftop in london during the blitz. bringing that drama on to the radios -- people would listen to eric sevareid, murrow, and you listen to that and you realize how lucky we were in the united states that people pulled together. if it had not been for the moving of the assembly lines, the model t, radio and television --e just developed that in the 1940's -- the world had never seen a center like the united states for engineering and technological innovation. you took that, and what our caller just said, the

selflessness of the so many americans wanted to protect their way of life, and the combination of it is the defining moment of recent history, the way the united states pulled together as a country and put everything they had into defeating the truly evil forms of government, the nazi third reich and the japanese warlords. we can argue the nuances of the second world war, but there is no arguing that the marci is the best form of government, and defeating -- that democracy is the best form of government, and defeating fascism in the second world war was an extraordinary achievement. in this book, a great mural painter was in cincinnati and got the word of pearl harbor, and quit his tour, went back to kansas city, did a whole series of paintings of the horros ors

the japanese military and rallied poets like archibald macleish, robert frost, people from every walk of life, it didn't mter. can-doism of the second world war was remarkable, and our country had that for a while. even after the war, with the marshall plan, the berlin blockade, the building of nato, eisenhower with the interstate highway system, kennedy -- we are at the 50th anniversary of the kennedy moon speech. we feel today, standing here, that our country has lost some of its can-doism, become a polarize the nation instead of working on big things together. why this memorial reminds you is that it is not republican,

democrat, liberal or conservative, is american. when you come here, you go to a cathedral where you are saying a prayer off remembrances for every american, not dividing them by race or nationality or political affiliation. host: in 1971, decoration day was a three-day holiday. -- was established as a three-day holiday. you are on the air with historian doug brinkley. caller: 101st cavalry reconnaissance group. it is a long story. we had tough time, but the war was supposed to have been over, and yet they had refused to surrender. we found ourselves, the 101st

cavalry reconnaissance -- we were billetted on one side of the street, a on the other side of the street was the ss and three ss generals who were negotiating with the general, and our outstanding commanding officers -- col mclellan at west point. they finally agreed and signed, at the officer came up to me and said "george, you are the only guy. you have got to cook a meal for these guys." i replied to the captain, "over these mountains are my grandparents, dying of hunger." "george, you have got to do this." so i cook a nice meal, and i

presented it, and i stood in front of the three germans -- they were good soldiers. there were on the wrong side, but there were admirable soldiers. host: george, thank you, we are almost out of time it again, the detail we are getting in his story 60 years later. guest: well, that is why i keep going back to saying that world history -- keep in mind that when we are looking at the history at where we are at today, this was paid for by the taxpayers, it was bipartisan. two former senators, bob dole, republican of kansas, george mcgovern, it democrat of south dakota, both alive, but world war ii vets, stepped up and started lbying for this. ed under bush but a

lot of the energy for this started under the clinton years in the 1990's. getting to the spirit of what this memorial is about here, thanking the people who came before us for their service to our country. we do not want to forget the cost of our freedom. host: in the years since world war ii, had there been meetings japanese soldiers and german soldiers and american soldiers? guest: yes, it has been happening more and more. there is a friend of mine who is stars in onwon bronze vietnam, and he is taking people island-hopping to a lot of people are engaging with the japanese on what happened in those battles. it was a ltle slow in the pacific theater. the european situation has been dealt with for decades, but it

is only in the past few years that we are dealing with the pacific and the united states. host: we are so pleased to have doug brinkley here athe world war ii memorial. thank you for being with us. part of the national park >> tomorrow, and political roundtable on the 2012 election with the chairman of the college republican national committee. richard with the new york university's center for cooperation. and a writer has an update on the state of the u.s. housing market. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span.

next, defense secretary robert gates gives the commencement address at the naval academy. and the french president on the g-eighth summit. the impact of the middle east protest on the palestinians. next, defense secretary robert gates gives his last commencement address at the u.s. naval academy's graduation ceremony in annapolis, maryland. he describes how tough it is to send young soldiers into harm's way. gates is retiring on june 30. this is about 20 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, secretary. a distinguished guests, members of the public, leaders of the

navy, past, present, and the future. it is a special honor to join you today for this long anticipated and well-deserved celebration. how to welcome and thank the family numbers that are here today, in your support and encouragement have made this day possible for these young men and women. more importantly, you have molded their character. yet instilled in them love country and willingness to serve. now you entrust to the nation year most treasured possessions. thanks to sponsor families. of the past four years, you open your homes to these young men and women providing a good meal or respite from academy life or a shoulder to lean on. your guidance in their caring helped make to a possible. to the class of 2011,

congratulations. as the first order of business, and will exercise my authority on united states secretary of defense whose antics led to a minor conduct offenses. [applause] as always, admiral miller has the final say on what constitutes minor. they oppose the speech represents my final commencement speech as defense secretary culminating the month of five commencement addresses. the most recent being last sunday at notre dame. from my brief time and, i can report to you, and the student body is moving through the grief to the nile to anchor over the pounding navy football gave them last october.

[applause] on a related note, whenever ready finally throws his hat in the ring for president of the united states, he will have my endorsements. i like to start by thanking each of today's graduates for choosing to serve your country and your fellow citizens. and everything he did hear from studying for exams and training sessions with your upperclassman who have grown together as a team. if the results have been something bigger, your willingness to take on a difficult and dangerous path in the service of others. i made my first academy commencement address in here and a half of 2007. a short time later, you arrive here to began a remarkable

educational experience, one that concludes today. all of you made the decision to enter the military service -- you reported here when casualties were at their highest and the prospects for success uncertain at best, and the same time, and they were making a comeback in afghanistan in history's most notorious terrorist was still at large. as a result of the skill and sacrifice of countless young warriors and patriots, many of them graduates of this institution, i am proud to say that we face a different set of circumstances today. iraq has a real chance at a peaceful and democratic future. and the momentum has been halted and reversed.

and osama bin laden is finally where he belongs. while many people in this history, those a step forward to serve in a time of crisis have a place for history. he joined a long line of patriots in a noble calling. you have your chance to leave her mark on history. almost 100 years ago, president roosevelt observed in the long run our society's success or failure will be conditioned on the way in which the average man, the average woman does his or her duty. the average citizen must be a good citizen if the republic is to succeed. roosevelt went on to say that the average cannot be kept high

unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher. the graduates of this institution are not average citizens. you can never be content to be merely good citizens. he must be great citizens. in everything you do, you must make sure that you live up to the highest personal and professional standards of duty, service, and honor. the values of the best traditions of our country. and many are called the league, which are called to stand in defense of your country, you must hold your values and your honor close to your heart. 46 years ago, i graduated from college having committed to public service. in the decade since, about the

pentagon, i have served under eight presidents and have the opportunity to observe many great leaders along the way. from this experience, i learned the real leadership is a rare and precious commodity. and requires call these and many people might possess piecemeal to varying degrees, but few exhibits in total as a star year career as leaders today, how like to offer some brief thoughts on those qualities. great leaders must have vision. the ability to get your eyes off of your shoelaces every level of rank and responsibility and see beyond the day-to-day tasks and problems, to be able to look beyond tomorrow and discern a world of possibilities had potential. have you take any outfit to a higher level of excellence. you must see what others do, cannot, do not, and be prepared

act on your vision. the quality necessary for leadership is deep in conviction. true leadership is a fire in the mind that transforms all the feel its warmth. all who seek its shining light in the eyes of a man or woman. it is a strength of purpose or belief and because the reaches out to others that makes them eager to follow. self-confidence is the other qualities of leadership. not what we read and see about all the time. rather, is the quiet self assurance that allows a leader to give others real responsibility and real credit for success. the ability to stand in the shadow and let others receive attention and accolade. a leader is able to make decisions but delegated and trust others to make things happen. it doesn't mean turning your back after making a decision and

hoping for the best. it does mean trusting in people at the same time you hold them accountable. a self confident leader is not cast such a large share of that no else can grow. a further quality of leadership is courage. not just the physical courage of these guys in the trenches, but moral courage to chart a new course. courage to do what is right and not just what is popular. the courage to stand alone, the courage to act. the courage as a military officer to speak truth to power. in must academic curriculum today, most training programs, there is great emphasis on team building. you have learned a lot about that.

the time will inevitably, and you must stand alone. or disagree with all of you and because i have the responsibility, this is what we will do. don't kid yourself. that takes real courage. leadership -- nowadays, it seems like integrity or honor or character is kind of a curious old fashioned notion. and we have all to many successful government people in and out of government that succumbed to the easy rahm rather than the hard right. whether from a sense of entitlement, the notion that rules are not for them. but for really there. personal virtues, and self

control, honor, truthfulness, morality. they are absolute. these are the building blocks of character, integrity, and only on that foundation and real leadership be built. a final quality of real leadership i believe is a common decency. above all, your subordinates. those you out rank of the [unintelligible] whatever the military specialty might be, use your skills and advanced, ease their hardships whenever possible. all of this can be done without

compromising discipline, mission, or authority. common decency builds respect and that is what prompts people to give their 04 leader, even at great personal sacrifice. i hope you keep these thoughts with you as you advance in your careers. above all, remember the true measure of leadership is not how you react in times of peace or times without peril. the true measure of leadership is how you react when the wind leaves your sales and the tide turns against you. just to get accepted to the naval academy, most of you have probably succeeded in many cases a brilliantly at pretty much everything you have done. in the classroom, or other activities. i know this institution has challenged you in new ways, but from here on out, it just gets harder.

the risk of setbacks will grow only as a responsibilities grow. and with them, the consequences of your decisions. at some point along their path, you will surely encounter failure and disappointment. nearly all of us have. if you hold true to those standards, you will always succeed if only knowing he stayed true and honorable. in the final analysis, what really matters are not the failures and disappointments themselves, but how you respond. about 40 years ago, he ran his gasoline tanker into a belief fouling the propeller in the process. typically a career killer. i worked with and that naval officer every day. he is now chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen. to be able to respond to setbacks and perseverance, it

provides -- i will never forget the night of april 24, 1980. i was executive assistant to the cia director at the time and was in the white house during the secret mission to rescue american hostages in tehran. i had been on the planning from the beginning. i honestly believed it will work. it did not. soon, images of burned helicopters and the charred remains of u.s. servicemen slashed around the world. it was truly a low end for our nation and from a military that was a recovering from vietnam. the special operations committee and the community as whole reform the way it was trained and organized, taking on the corrosive the service parochialism.

and just under one month ago, i spent in nerve wracking afternoon in the white house as a risky special operations mission was underway. when word of the downed helicopter came back, my heart sank. remembering that awful night 30 years ago. but this time, of course, there was a very different resort. a mass murder was brought to a fitting end. a country relieved that justice was done and frankly that the government could do something hard and do it right. a powerful blow struck on behalf of democratic civilization against this most lethal and common enemy. [applause] and so i want each of you to take that lesson of adaptability and responding to setbacks by

improving yourself and your institution as you go for into the navy and the marine corps you will some day lead. the qualities of leadership by have described this morning cannot emerge fully developed overnight are after you have assumed important responsibilities. these qualities have their roots in the small decisions you have made here in the academy and will make early in your career. and must be strengthened along the way to resist the temptation of self before service. this is my last address to america's service academies. to engage the future leaders of our military as your defense secretary. if i looked out upon you this morning, i am reminded of what so struck can remove me what i went from being a university president the u.s. secretary of defense and the time of war.

at texas a&m, i would walk the campus and see thousands of students aged 18-25, typically wearing t-shirts and shorts and backpacks. the day after i became secretary of defense, i made my first visit to the theater. there, i encountered other young men and women also 18-25. putting their lives at risk for all americans. and i knew that some of them would not make it home whole, and that some would not make it home at all. i knew then that soon all those in harm's way would be there because i sent them. ever since, i have come to work every day with a sense of personal responsibility for each and every young american in uniform as if you were my

own sons and daughters. my only prayer is that you serve with honor and come home safely. i personally thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service. serving and leading you has been the greatest honor of my life. may i have fair winds and following seas, congratulations. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, french. nicolas sarkozy on the g-8 summit. after that, the impact of the middle east protest on palestinians. and then arthur douglas lass brinkly on world war ii. >> tomorrow on "washington

journal," a round table with zach howell, and ian blue, from the college democrats of america. richard gowan talks about the g-8 summit and who should be the next head of the international monetary fund. and wall street writer kalita has an update on the housing market. "washington journal" live on c-span. >> french president and host nicolas sarkozy says g-8 members are committed to providing billions of dollars in aid to democracies in the arab world. no details were announced. during the 40-minute news conference, he answered questions about military intervention in libya, the migration of tunisian immigrants to france. and the i.m.f. chief. this is 45 minutes.

>> good afternoon, mr. president, russian television. in the communique you say that gaddafi must leave. but gaddafi refuses to leave. so what? >> well, we are going to step things up militarily in order to protect the civilian population. there is a wide-ranging unity on the objective and the specifics regarding mr. gaddafi

are very clear and very tough and have been endorsed by all the members of the g-8, including russia. furthermore, all our african partners have shown tremendous solidarity vis-a-vis the actions we have taken with respect to gaddafi and libya. he has his own fate in his own hand. if he steps down and leaves, he avoids must suffering for his people, the libyan people. if he digs his heels in, he will have to pay the consequences himself personally. >> president, the final communique reference to 20 billion, and yt the prime minister says you mentioned a figure of 40 billion.

>> i can give you the actual figures. it is $20 billion from the multinational banks, within which we do not include the i.m.f. we felt it would be more honest not to include the i.m.f. in this figure because the i.m.f. makes loans -- is prepared to make loans to egypt and tunisia. so we dependent include it. now to that you must add some roughly $10 billion of bilateral commitments that we have not mentioned in the communique. speaking for france, that will represent one billion euros for egypt and tunisia. and lastly, $10 billion of contributions from the gulf

states, saudi arabia, qatar and kuwait, which we will put into a trust fund specifically dedicated to these two countries. so if you total all that up, it amounts to $40 billion, including multilateral banks, bilateral commits and gulf states. >> mr. president, after your talks with president medvedev and president obama, with respect to the security council resolution on syria, the position on syria, do you think that this resolution will be passed? as you know, more demonstrators have been killed in syria today

and recently. but before you answer, mr. president, may i ask you a question about the possible conference before the end of june? dow have the sense that after your talks with president obama that president obama has accepted the principle of a conference, an israeli-palestinian conference where the peace process could be relaunched? >> now as i said yesterday, the situation in syria is totally unacceptable. the attitude of the authorities is deeply shocking. the language we have used in the g-8 communique is unambiguous. it condemns totally what is the attitude and the actions taken by the syrian authorities, vis-a-vis the demonstrators. it has toughened that overnight

and our russian friends have validated that. who would have thought it possible to write -- the g-8 mitt lead to a different position at the united nations? of course no. as to the peace process, this morning we spent a long time discussing that with president obama along with the foreign secretary. we believe that the palestinian reconciliation is good news. we believe that there is an opportunity to unlock the situation, and above all, there is a sense of urgency because the arab revolutions, revolts and democracy in certain arab states has given peace an opportunity. the very characteristic of democracy is that they don't go to war on one another. we want to persuade our israeli

friends that they need not worry about this recent development. quite the korea -- contrary, because it will enable negative energy mobilized against the dictatorship will be channeled into positive energy for peace and growth. we agreed on the fact that the war was a sense of urgency. the urgency rises from the fact that we are talking today, and we have the u.n. general assembly coming up in september . so we can have differences of opinion as to whether the urgency is june or july. as you know, my foreign secretary is going to the middle east next thursday, and we will be in a position to talk stock more precisely at

that point upon his return. in the month of june he will be in washington, and we have agreed with our american friends that we will be working very closely. we cannot -- france cannot agree to this conflict continuing endlessly. we know perfectly well what the parameters of peace are, and they were called very lucidly, courageously and boldly by president obama in a recent speech. there has to be a minimum of goodwill on the part of all the parties to build peace. france is prepared to take initiatives to try and get this process rolling again. suggestions have been put on the table, and you will find them in the g-8 communique.

>> is the voice of southern african heard clearly? >> this is the first time i believe there is a common decoration on the part of the g-8 and africa on such considerably important issues. we are in the run-up to the turban conference where there is so much at stake. france clearly wants to prepare for the post kyoto era. this doesn't mean there is a draw-down in commitment. we up hold our commitments with respect to protecting our planet. that has to be discussed.

we have to discuss the way we organize the world trade organization. whatever the pro's text -- prospects of success or failure, we do not wish the poorest countries to be caught between the rock and the hard place. in other words, the disagreements between the rich countries and the emerging economies. then there is the whole issue of how we build the infrastructure that africa needs. that is going to be the focus of a very important chapter to be discussed. we have been pushing forward with the prime minister. i was delighted to here that the president said he would be making a proposal. france is prepared to make a very strong commitment and

and lastly it was very moving to have three african states who have had recent democratic elections, come and attend this meeting. clearly our african friends have understood that we would give priority assistance and help to those who fight corruption and try and support democracy. that is the new basis of our cooperation with africa, tbs from the north right down to the south. >> a question on europe and greece. is the restructuring of the greek debt, would it be very bad for europe? must it be avoided at all costs? is it something you discussed with angela merkel? >> no, this is not something we discussed within the g-8,

because this doesn't come within the g-8 remit, although we are partners with the euro zone. the point we made is the eurozone is a stable zone where growth has actually picked up quite rapidly. ricing .8% in the first half of the year. we must be on average at about 4.5% of average deficit. the paradox of talking about euro at a time when the euro is almost unprecedentedly strong. might i draw the attention of one and all that the euro versus the dollar has ranged

from 140 to 150, in other words, way above what it was launched at. i cannot remember that a weak currency is a currency trading at those sorts of rates. nambing, this is almost a source of problems vis-a-vis our exports. >> so there was no going into the nitty-gritty of the situation was greece as they were not here and the other partners were not here. of course we did discuss it with others. what did we say? we expressed total endorsement, our firm support for the euro. in terms of its credibility and stability. the french, the germans have long been saying that the euro is a non-negotiable issue because the euro represents europe. it is europe. and anything that might jeopardize the future of the

euro would jeopardize the future of europe and would therefore jeopardize the future of france and germany. so everything that needs to be done will be done when the time comes in partnership with our german friends. and at that point i will of course explain whatever decisions we need to take and will have taken. >> mr. president, simply to go back to the previous question on syria, would you be prepared to send to the president a statement as president obama just accept him in his recent speech, either you support democracy or you step down? >> could i have said that? yes. but president obama said it, and he was right to say is. it seems to me that oned

already said it. but if you want to make me say that we follow in the excellent footsteps of president obama, i have no problems in saying that. france is in quite a strong position to do so, because we have done everything we could to bring syria back into the fold of the international community. everything. we talked with them, we discussed with them, we tried to help them. we tried to understand that. thanks to this new relationship, we were able to make progress in lebanon, and unfortunately it shah grins me to say -- chagrins me to say that the leadership seems to be backing down and backing off. therefore, france is criticizing what needs to be criticized and withdraws its trust. the president knew perfectly well that would be france's

position once he started backing away from democracy, and that is exactly what is happening. >> i wanted to ask you, sir, the following question. it would appear that russia is prepare to mediate over libya. i would ask what would be your views on the subject. also, in italy we would be very interested -- i know you don't like to talk about your private life, but first of all congratulations. do you know if it is a boy or girl? >> well, you said you didn't want to know my private life. what would it have been had you wanted to know about my private life? >> i congratulate you on being an italian, from a country we are so fond of in france. now, on president medvedev,

what does mediation mean? there can be no mediation with president gaddafi. gaddafi's troops have to go back to the barracks, and gaddafi has to leave. now we can discuss the ways and means in which he leaves. where he goes, which country he goes it, which part of libya he might go to, that can be discussed. and as for president medvedev, why not use his persuasive powers as long as he agrees to condemn what is going on in libya and what mr. gaddafi is doing. yes, we need president medvedev's help. we so needed it that they scurnl, he was the one who made it possible for us to adopt the resolution. any help he can give on this or

anything else is welcome. he has been extremely useful on the issues. russia is a great partier. >> i am not going to talk to you about your wife, but about greece, which is a fascinating matter because things seem to be getting worse day by day in greece. the i.m.f. said it may not be prepared to go ahead with the second part of the loan. i want to know if you have discussed this with the chancellor? it would appear that this new down grading is a result of the german position. germany is firmly against the restructuring of the greek debt . did you discuss with president obama the general concern about

the continuing instability of the eurozone? >> no, president obama did not talk to me about his uncertainties or concerns because he is very familiar with the situation in the united states. one of obama's characteristics is that he is a reasonable man. how could he be worried of a zone whose average deficit is 4.5%? that would not make sense. secondly, germany is a major country, a major player, and a strategic partner for france. i will say nothing that would in any way hinder cooperation with angela merkel based on trust and confidence. i think the word restructuring is not used in its proper

exception. if restructuring means a european country is not in a position to repay its debt, if that is the case, then this is a word france will not choose, quite clearly. if the question is can we think about the way in which private partners, private players might endorse or take part of the burden, shoulder part of the talking about restructuring. there are other words and other forms. that is the direction we all need to be heading in. what matters is that we will defend, support and endorse the euro and solidarity within the eurozone. the credibility of european countries is of the essence. we cannot give in on this notion of credibility, and we will not give in.

as to the participation of the private sector, there are many ways of going about it without in any way undermining this credibility. so i agree with you. france rejects the word restructuring. we think it is a word we shouldn't use, and it is not a fact that we should even contemplate. >> mr. president, earlier the tunisian prime minister in his press conference taked about the tunisian refugees coming to europe, saying he did not think that 20,000 to 28,000 tunisians arriving in europe is a source of major democrat graphic -- demographic imbalance in europe. do you think this is a matter or not? >> well, coming from you to hear in the same sentence risk,

danger and immigration. i wouldn't have phrased things the way you did, sir. but you did, and you are entitled to do so. i have never claimed that we should have zero immigration, and i am not going to start now. i believe that the south of the mediterranean and the north of the mediterranean have to manage and handle together migratory flows. immigration has to be thought through by people who have a sense of responsibility. our tunisian friends want us to train their elites, and we would be delighted to do so if only because we will be able to continue maintaining french as

a language in tunisia. but it takes 10 years to train a medical student. in the meantime, you meet people, whether you are a boy or a girl. so the idea is not that all tunisians studying medicine in france stay in france or the reverse. we need to discuss and put our heads together. things are moving forward quietly and smoothly. we have been to tunisia recently, and we are striking the right balance. there is no tension to my knowledge on the subject, and i can tell you that the tunisian prime minister wants me to go quite soon at his invitation to tunisia. furthermore, it seems to me that the tunisian news was quite sensitive to the fact that the french presidency and the g-8 invited them to the g-8. that is quite a strong signal

we are sending. >> mr. president, could you say a few words about your conversations on the possible of entry of russia into the w.t.o.? >> well, those are matters that need to be settled, but we said as to the ultimate objective, we were in favor of russia joining the w.t.o. by and large, a partnership between france and russia, and russia and europe, is getting and is going to continue to get closer and closer in the months and years to come. once russia takes on its share of responsibility for handling some of the major international issues, as it is doing, there is absolutely no reason why we should in any way delay the resolution of russia's request to join the w.t.o. and the

world of market economies. >> mr. president, coming back to what you said yesterday, can you tell us what came out of your discussions with president obama today? what has been happening over the last two weeks at the i.m.f. and the candidacy. >> i cannot speak for president obama, and it is not for me to announce his decision. i believe that his decision is taken, has been taken, and he is waiting for the right opportunity and moment to make an announcement. i think it would have been very ill-advised to give the impression that the g-8 countries have agreed on a candidate and to have taken no account of what the emerging

countries have to say on the subject. meanwhile, i read the excellent statement made by hillary clinton, and i cannot imagine that she and president obama are not in agreement. >> i would like to come back to the middle east. do you believe, sir, that it is useful to talk about the 167 lines and borders when you want to address the issue of a settlement in the middle east? in other words, a return to the 1967 lines. and secondly, do you not believe that the measures that have been taken have swept the iranian question under the carpet even though you discussed it at the g-8. do you regret that? >> duo think it is relevant to talk about the 196 borders and lines. you can't talk about borders and lines without specifying which borders and lines.

then it is just hot air. i think what makes president obama's speech so bold, so courageous, is that he referred specifically to the 1967 lines. iran is evidently trying to reap the benefits of these events in certain arab countries in order to get us to turn a blind eye to its unfaltering moving towards acquiring nuclear weapons, and we are going to do whatever it takes to toughen up sanctions. >> mr. president, at the g-8 summit you talked about a responsible dialogue between the captains of the interpret industry and heads of state and government. you talked about the sector as

fragile and powerful. something else that is fragile and powerful are young people. i wanted to ask you how you see this initiative developing and how you see countries such as the arab states and spain finding the place on the international scene and within the international community? >> look, frankly you cannot compare the youth of tunisia and egypt and young people in spain. you can only compare like and like. it is one thing to demonstrate in egypt and tunisia, which were not under democracy, but which aspired to become so. as to the youth g-8 or the eg-8 -- the ig-8, i mean.

it is the internet big players and corporations that have to make suggestions, not ourselves, not heads of states and government. they have to meet every year and consider proposals because they have agreed to take this responsibility. we can suggest ideas. we can get a ball rolling, but it is not up to us to keep it alive. otherwise it would simply be artificial. so there has to be an ig-8 for internet, for youth, and we can think of others, for sportsmen, artists or creators. there can be many such ideas. it takes two to tango. if this ig-8 summit was such a success, it was because the internet players endorsed it and fleshed it out. millions or moron millions of

internet users followed it. the president -- the french president put the idea on the table, but it is not our idea. i hope that every year there will be such a meeting in the future. i don't want to be constantly pumping air into the air chamber of this particular tire or wheel. it is the internet players and the users who have to keep this one going. >> mr. president, let me go back to what was said by a colleague about the i.m.f. and what you said to president obama this morning. do you not think that france's image has been very damaged,

and do you not think the present circumstances in the house he is living is particularly shocking given the circumstances? >> personally i have refused to adopt a position on this particular issue as you know perfectly well. whatever is said on the subject, i would be criticized. you know this very well, and i am not criticizing you for having put the question to me, but i believe that all of this is sufficiently miserable and hard for the whole of the political world, to remain dig inside in what they say and the stand they adopt. one has mixed feelings, mixed feelings, quite contradictory,

that belong to each president's responsibility. that is why i don't think i need to or should adopt a position. you say that this deeply harms the image of france. i didn't know mr. strauss-kahn was representing france. he was representing the i.m.f.. so basically you are saying this has harmed the image of the i.m.f. the deputy director was there, we talked about it, and we want to help the i.m.f. i will stick to this position. i will stand back, and i am an observer. i very much hope we can rise above the nitty-gritty about the facts and wait for things to pan out. but frankly, some of the things i have heard have made it even more imperative, i feel, to

keep my distance. certain things we have heard we would rather not have heard, and certain things we have seen we would rather not have seen. it nothing to do with politics. it is not a position, left, right or whatever. but some words that have been uttered have been deeply shocking, and i will say no more on that. and i apologize for not saying anymore. >> mr. president, with president medvedev you announced the sale of an important technology transfer. this has led to concern in russia neighboring states. what can you say to those states to reasure them, and can

you say if this is a quid pro quo for russian support on the libyan dose yea? >> no. there is no quid pro quo with a country as great as russia. if my memory serves me well, russia is 46 times the size of france and twice the size of the united states. it has between 300 million and 400 million inhabitants. it is diminishing in population. as the population dwindles or is reduced, it is moron unlikely that it would have any intention of invading its neighbors. if the european union's only

foe were russia, frankly i would say the situation is very fable and we can sleep peacefully. secondly, russia is a great country with a lot of commodities, raw materials. europe has a lot of technology. we can do a lot together. we saw the president of the united states and the president of russia together at the nato summit, we thought ah, at long last the berlin wall has indeed come down and the cold war is over once and for all. but if russia are indeed our alleys, then why should we not sell ships to them? and do you think it is with these they are going to invade who? who would they invade? >> as to my many friends in georgia, since i have been invited to go to georgia, they

have moved on from the 2008 agreement, and they know full well it was because france was in the presidency of the european union that georgia is a free country. we stopped the tanks at 40 kilometers away, and medvedev kept his word. so either we are friend or foes. if we are friends, we are friend. if we are alleys, we are alleys, and why should we not have -- allies, we are allies. what do you mean by massive? in this day and age, whatever country, when they sell something to them, they ask for technology transfer. if we hadn't done so, others would have been only too happy to do so, and i am thinking of our spanish friends. so frankly, i take full responsibility for the decision that has been taken, but i have

never said anything else. there is no hidden agreement. there was a time when we concluded the agreement. the libyan business had not seen started. we were at the ship yards, and we were in no way engaged in libya. there is no reason why you >> but when mr. medvedev abstained on resolution 1793, we had not actually completed our negotiations on the contracts. >> a few weeks ago, sir, you agreed to accept an invitation to go to benghazi issued by the transition council. can you talk more about this? >> well, i have discussed it on several occasions with a man of

great quality who is heading the national transition council. i will indeed be going when the time comes to benghazi. what we want is that when the time is right, we should go there to have a working meeting and meet all those who wish to build the democratic country of tomorrow. >> and we should do this hand in glove with the members of the transition council. we have discussed this with david cameron. this should be a french-british initiative. we are linked, and we have the same belief. it would be ill-conceived to go there separately. yes, it is still on the table, but for null of reasons, we haven't set a date yet. perhaps there are a couple of questions you wish to ask?

>> why is the -- why has the g-8 not canceled tunisian debt totally? is the eg-8, the eg-9 now because mark zuckerberg from facebook was there? would you consider it a new format? concerning the last remark, i will replay that back to mark zuckerberg. we are not closing the door, but we are not able to do that here in the framework of the g-8. it is something from paris. maybe it is a little heavy for our friend in tunisia. there are a lot of poor countries that are counting on aid that are less advantaged than tunisia. if we decide unilaterally for one country to cancel the debt,

then all the other countries will see that as a signal. we haven't closed the door. we are going to have the occasion to speak about that. they have called together all the foreign ministers of the g-8 with the foreign minister of egypt and tunisia, and we are also going to do the same thing for the finance ministers of the economy. we have made a commitment, but we have to implement it, and that requires technical work. perhaps a last question then? a last question? >> good morning. a question on libya again. today there are froden assets and cash around the world that belong -- frozen assets and cash around the world that belong to the libyan

leadership. have you in the g-8 talked about unfreezing these funds to help the t.n.c. with its work, to free the funds up for the transition government, and is it your personal view on this question -- >> i think it should go quicker. that is my first point. the t.n.c. needs those funds. those were assets that were illegally held at the foreign banks by a certain number of personnel and staff of the former libyan government or leadership. but there are legal issues here, and we are states that have rule of law. therefore, the ends not only have to justify the means, but the means have to be proper. he is going to be very actively involved in the t.n.c. we are going to look at that issue very soon.

before i thank you for covering this g-8, i want to thank our friends of the region of normandy and the local population who have been very inconvenienced, i am sure by everything. it hasn't been easy for the city to manage it, but they are certainly aware that their city and the region have been put in the forefront no the projectors and spotlights of the world. i think normandy has given us some beautiful moments with weather that was knox did i -- thause was perfect normandy weather. there were some sunny moments and a breeze. i know the farmers and those in agriculture around here would like to see more rain. we had a little bit. there is a great evolution and

dyma mism here. for those of us who love normandy like us, we were dining late. we were on the beach, and there was an incredible sky out front, and during the dinner we all remarked about how it changed colors, changed moods. angela merkel in particular noticed how beautiful it was. if she is happy and touched by the environment at the g-8, then it is a successful g-8 for me. i can tell you thatch. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> next, the impact of this year's protests on palestinians. and then a conversation on world >> ii. after that a conversation with treasury secretary timothy excite ner. >> next a political discussion on the unrest in the middle east. he is a member of the palestinian legislative council. she is also a member of the executive member of the p.l.o. she spoke at the carnegie endowment for peace in washington, d.c. this is about 90 minutes.

>> good afternoon and welcome to another event on the arab stream that we have at carnegie. it is a particular pleasure of mine to welcome to carnegie, a doctor who is not only known to you and the rest of the world, but also someone i can claim as a close friend. she needs no introduction. >> she is an elected member of the palestinian legislative council, the palestinian executive authority. she is more things than i can

even start to count. but one particular trait that i truly like about her is she is someone who has always spoken truth and someone who was always interested in not just in peace, but also in democracy , reform and institution-building, and someone who has devoted all her life for these noble causes. and so it is a particular pleasure of mine to introduce her. she will talk to us about the arab spring, and then we can all engage in a conversation about this and other issues that i am sure you are concerned with. welcome to carnegie. >> thank you. [applause] >> i thought the topic was

palestine in the context of the arab spring. you are not going to avoid palestine, especially in the arab spring. >> certainly. >> it is certainly a pleasure to be here, and to be with you, and to be with you. if by now you haven't head his book, those of you haven't read it very carefully should read it because you would have been prepared for the arab spring. what happened earlier was they moderated the political agenda on peace, but they didn't adopt an agenda on human rights and democracy. it seems to me that book certainly forecast what is wrong with the arab world, and it would have been a very good introduction for what is happening. also, those of you who haven't read his national reform plan

in jordan -- the first time i saw that, i felt it was something that could be the basis for national reform plans all over the arab world. we tried to incorporate it in our national reform plan in palestine. so you are the pioneer, and you have a sense of foresight that should have been listened to very, very carefully throt the arab world, and -- throughout the arab world, and i think you for being such a good friend and for being a person of such astute foresight. for those of you who ralph -- who have read the umdp reports should not have been surprised by the uprising of the young people, feeling oppressed.

we knew that with the demographic changes there certainly would be serious upheave always before long in the arab world. all were in the making, but unfortunately most people were taken by surprise even though certain currents were beneath the surface, and movements brewing with a certain inevitability. however, again, people were surprised. >> we are used to talking about the arab world as a polarized one and arab systems as polarized in the sense you have a national regime that is often seen as corrupt and inandy pettitte, autocratic and so on. the only other alternative would be political islam. and that people who get crushed in the middle generally are the democratic forces.

this certainly is true. we had hoped in palestine that we would avoid this, but ultimately the arab rift reflected on palestine, and we can talk about that later. again, client regimes that relied on external recognition were losing credibility and standing. they were seen by their own people as autocratic. but certainly another aspect that is ignored is the fact that they seemed to be helpless before israeli violations and before the ongoing injustice done to the palestinians. they seemed to be incapable of standing up for arab rights and causes. many of these were seen as using the security excuse, that we have an external enemy to avoid any kind of internal

reform, to evade democracy and human rights, accountability and to persist with a system of ee because of power and corruption and misuse of funds. all this contributed to the deepening rift in palestine. the arab rift in competition and polarization reflected themselves within palestine, particularly in the 1990's after the rise of hamas. the rift was used for personal order and national self interests by different countries. now, when we talk about the arab spring, of course we know it is not monolithic. it is a rote term. each country has different

conditions, and there is a great deal of diversity within the arab world, and also a major feature is that we are in the midst of a period of flux, of changes, of transition, which means by definition that it is painful. in many cases the outcome is not certain, the specifics of the kraut come. but what is certain is that we are seeing a change, a definite break with the past and a definite in many countries a breaking of the barrier of fear, which is very important within the context of the arab peoples or arab masses. now, many people look at it as receiving the internal reform and change, a cry of course for dignity, for freedom, for economic reform, for empowerment, sharing the resources and wealth, for participating in democracy. but still, as we have said, a great deal of arab dignity, a

great deal of the national arab dignity has been affected in the face of the continuing indignity of the occupation. so palestine has never been absent from the contemporary discourse of the arab spring. even though many people say that the regimes exploited the issue of palestine for their own sake, but yet people have a very emotional vitriol relationship to palestine. they held regimes accountable for being none -- unable to do anything about it. we had meetings with youth grooves from jordan, lebanon, egypt, tunisia, several places, and it was amazing how the young was really committed to the cause of palestine, putting

our house in order as a way of liberating palestine. this is something that people like netanyahu and israel tried not only to ignore, but trying a forced disassociation, saying the arab spring has nothing to do with palestine. those who know better say it has a lot to do with the anger brewing in the arab world. now the sense of reform and empowerment will reflect on palestine. again, any emerging representative democratic government will respond to people's priorities, of course. both internally as well as on the national level in the palestinian case. and the same principles apply to all, which bodes well for

energizing future arab engagement. they are standing up to mayor marginization. >> this resonated among the palestinian people as a whole. in many ways it was seen as reminiscent as the first time where you show the public spirit, solidarity, a spontaneous uprising, a sense of self respect, dignity, standing up, unarmed protest movements, men, women and children facing armed israeli soldiers. this is the kind of invigorating energy that palestinians went through in the late 1980's and early 1990's, and they saw something in the arab spring that was reminiscent of that kind of

movement, and it resonated with the arab youth and the palestinian youth and in the palestinian public opinion. and of course all the means of communication, networking, sharing information, providing mobilization have come to be used not just by arab youths, but by palestinians. we use the internet because we are divided, separated, subject to checkpoints, besieged and so on. cyberspace has always been very expansive, and the arab spring provided motivation, but also in a sense a common means of mobilization and sharing of information. identification and solidarity, and it triggered further action. the thing is palestine is unique because we are still under occupation.

people are saying when are you going to rise? we say rise where? against what? against whom? the movement for reform in palestine is a very, very active movement, and the movement for change is still a very active movement. civil society has always been among the most intrusive and critical of all civil societies in palestine, as you know. so there is that sense, and people who are looking for the right objective, the right slogans at this time, some young people talk about -- focused on the need to end the division, ending the rift. this became a slogan and rallying cry, ending the rift as a means of ending the occupation. you have the internal domestic needs of putting one's out no order, but you also have the need to stand up to the occupation and to get rid of the occupation.

and could not face theamong thee era of reform is reconciliation within palestine. as i said, they continue to exploit the palestinians. now the arab spring is contributing to the here -- healing. first because of the pressure on public opinion, two because of the energized draw of egypt. and the dissident role within egypt. and 3, because of the syrian crisis and what that is doing to hamas. there is recognition that neither agenda delivered.

agenda of armed resistance, a total commitment to negotiation. there was this problem with both. now, the arab spring also enhance the nonviolent action or protest and resistance. this gave people the sense that this kind of approach would produce fruit for the others could not. the most visible is the example of the may 15 marches, not just within palestine but without. as a result of the communication and mobilization, may 15 approved -- proved the popular

unity of the palestinian people even in exile. people always looked at palestinians under occupation. in the west bank and jerusalem. but may 15 mobilized everybody. even the palestinians within israel. there was a sense of complete -- collectivity and cohesion. we have the same message. this is something new. it is part of the arab spring. some people tried to exploit it, but this is important. you will see a growing movement there. again, and other outcome of the awakening is the redefining of nationalism. this is important at least two

of route 2 so we can explore it. this is a new bottom up, the grass roots position on the basis of shared values and aspirations. but also claimed by the arab world as part of their own people's writes. -- rights. democracy, a dignity, system of a good government, accountability, and so on. these were seen a means of reactivating the arab world and resolving longstanding grievances and injustices within the arab system but as well as inter-arab issues. this was seen as more affective and global rating than the

entire cliche of traditional slogans and the political elite. now there is a new sense of an active redefinition of arab nationalism which is closely connected to the sense of arab identity and that we are not left behind. we're not part of the 19th century but catching up to the 21st century. another redefinition is that of leadership. the source of legitimacy and credibility. quite often arab regimes and leaders use external connections proven by western countries as the source of their power. rather than their own constituencies, and rather than responding to their own people's needs.

this is shifting. the leadership and credibility do not come at the expense of security or wealth, natural resources, or control over information and media at or even arms. all of the definitions. they are now available and accessible. also it is no longer inherited. or a sense of distinction and privilege within society. also, membership in the ruling party, egypt and tunisia demonstrated that membership was corrupt and controlling. it is a liability in the long run. this is what happened. in palestine, it will be a

greater, a complex situation. it is no longer just belonging to different sects. or how many times you have been to jail. the usual sort of nationalistic credentials. but new elements. based on the new definition of progressive as being a meritocracy, access to information, as well as a national commitment and the part of the group. this meant that new leadership does not have the access of the old leadership. to grass roots movement, to

connections and mobility. they have not been engaging in actual organizations on the ground in party politics. this has become a wager weakness. they have the theoretical and no house. they have the ideas. they're not entirely true, but at least they have them. they still do not have the experience of organization, of the building parties, real movements, and so on. you need them to participate. and to bring about a leadership that can really takeover. with the weakness of the traditional opposition, as we saw in egypt and other places and even palestine, still, the lack of total prepared this, they knew there would be a time of transition, but we know the system certainly is moving ahead in favor of the new definitions of leadership we

talked about and also, there is a new coordination and identification with civil society, whose role is growing and whose influence is growing throughout the arab world. because it was the more oppressed in many ways for it was the most coopted in the arab world. now, it can sort of be part of shaping the agenda. palestine, as i said earlier, exposed be failure of the two agendas. we saw the armed resistance and unilateral cease-fire in gaza and changes within the political agenda of hamas and the ineffectiveness of only negotiations as a means of solution, given the fact that tremendous pressure was exercised on the leadership and on the -- in order to carry out or accept certain things that totally undermine them.

in the eyes and minds of their own people. the agenda of empowerment, a popular action and resistance, but also a need for innovative political programs, linking to the energized arab world and engaging the international community as an equal -- read engaging, so to speak. it is not enough to say that we have popular empowerment. you do have to have an agenda that works. you have to have a political vision of where you are going. this is important if the new leadership wants to succeed. there is an agenda here in palestine that is committed to going to the united nations, for example, but in itself, it is not an end. it is a means, going to get membership and international organizations is a way of validation and a way of trying to achieve recognition of your borders, your capital, and get

access to international organizations that would hold israel accountable. certainly, our agenda should involve nation-building and good governance. regionally, again, the arabs spring showed limitations of the role of non-arab players. i think it was in many cases exacerbated. that bears further study, but we believe it weakened the influence of non-arab players, and, of course, it exposed israel's failures. something we knew all along -- and occupation cannot be really democratic. but they were caught entirely off guard in the sense that they were desperately trying to resist change. remember when people were calling for regime change and getting rid of mubarak? it was netanyahu calling the

americans and saying, "keep him. make sure that you protect him. house democratic are you if you are asking the u.s. to intervene in domestic, democratic popular movement in egypt? the whole approach of israel is only what is good for israel and how it can subjugate the countries around and the leadership in order to maintain the status quo, which is an impossible task. if they have any sense, they know the status quo is certainly not sustainable. it cannot be maintained at all. even in syria, there were voices coming out saying, "we have a very calm border with syria. not a shot was fired." and so on. everybody was a lot to say that because you will condemn the city and the regime's --

everybody was saying not to say that. an understanding why they are being isolated or why the occupation with delegitimizing israeli policies, claiming that the movement in the arab world is a movement to delegitimize and isolate israel, and this is absolutely misguided. instead of looking at themselves and understanding that the occupation and repression, violence and so on, the worst instruments that israel could use, and themselves being exposed as even obama said, themselves exposed the true nature of israel to an international public opinion that now is watching and that follows what is happening. netanyahu in essence presented himself and his policies as being very regressive, out of step with the times, trying to hold onto obsolete forms of power and control, trying to maintain in place a system of domination that has no place in the modern and contemporary realities of the arab world.

this certainly missed an opportunity to catch up, to engage by presenting a bold vision, and plan -- just present a peace plan, rather than this sense of presenting an overbearing, deceptive smear campaign and engaging in evasive tactics and so on and trying to really cloud the issues. his agenda certainly is totally in contradiction with everything that is emerging now in the region. so he front loaded now his position with all sorts of preconditions, including the palestinians to become not just zionists but extreme right-wing zionist by acknowledging the

state we are being asked to deny our history and the rights of palestinians and so on by saying we will now accept the exclusivity in israel. he has a precondition that will not be accepted. he presented security as security for israel. security is the defining principle. he wanted it to maintain a presence in the jordan valley. early-warning stations. demilitarized palestinian state. he decided on the outcome of

the negotiation by saying no to the refugees, a note to jerusalem. he decided he was granted an axe of the settlement blocks. by condemning palestinian unity, while on the one hand he said the palestinians are divided. in gaza we do not talk to hamas. we have no partner. if your uniting, this means you have the unity with the palestinian equivalent of al qaeda. this is so and wrong and misleading and such an excuse of avoiding in gains been. you do not ask every single country to adopt this platform.

. we have a formula that puts together government that is not a political address but is a government providing services to the palestinian people, building institutions. it is going to be made independent. it is not card-carrying members of any party. nobody is asking them to negotiate. we remain the political address for political negotiations. it has not changed. it is best for anybody knows anything about this situation -- you would know this is just a very flimsy pretext, an excuse that is baseless, actually. it is a non argument and i do not see why it was presented or even believe it. so, palestinian unity was

another pretext he used. and of course, he entered into -- i don't know, maybe in our society we tend to be much more polite, but it was a very rude confrontation with the u.s. administration. i do not know if you can go to of the white house and keep insulting the american president and get away with it. of course, he has always worked on this issue as having tactical gains at the expense of long-term strategic goals. he may have scored another point against president obama but i doubt whether this is going to bode well for the future relationship or even for his own standing in israel. because he thought this was one way he could address the likud and the right of likud. i don't think in a long run it will work. already i think it is beginning to backfire. hearing voices and israel and and that u.s. that it is a clear case of overkill and you

don't get away with itself in the present. lecturing people and coming to the states as if you own it. i doubt rather he would get such a reception anywhere in the world, including the knesset. another feature of the ict revolution is the compression and acceleration of time. i am saying this just to emphasize that there is a very pressing need within these changes in the arab world. either we move fast, decisively, and seriously and substantively on the issues and conclude a just peace or real peace or you lose the opportunity for a very long time. i don't think this is open- ended. i think it is a very strict time frame. ironically, obama was trying to

persuade israel that peace is in its own interests. he gave three reasons. remember? demographic argument that the palestinians are not going to stay a minority -- they will be a majority in the long run. it then talk about arab spring and regional development. and then of course he talked with the technological revolution, the knowledge that the whole world sees what is happening and israel is being isolated or criticized and it is losing its friends, so to speak. but even that does not move israel. one thing we did not say is a bold vision of a real plan that is workable. first of all, we need to contextualized -- the u.s. must understand the context of the palestinian question within the arab spring and the arab world. this has to happen with if we don't understand it -- we

cannot constantly talking about self-determination, dignity, freedom, and so on, and then put it aside and talk about the palestinians. because the palestinians are part of this. we are part of the need for freedom and self-determination. the same principle should apply. again, things like the rejection of going to the u.n., postponing jerusalem -- accepting the jewishness of the state. identification with israel and values -- guaranteeing security. all of these we heard. but i doubt obama said anything new when he talked about the 1967 boundaries and i am really shocked 19 -- netanyahu reacted with such hysterical abandon. totally unthinkable because every president in the last 20 years has been talking about 1967. george bush said the occupation that began in 1967 must end.

it is in the road map, the annapolis agreement and everywhere. it means that it netanyahu does not read or listen because the 1967 boundary is nothing new. to netanyahu, obama had the audacity of talking about 1967. it is is a route that has to set the agenda and boundaries -- israel has to set the agenda unilaterally. where do we go from here? more negotiations? two decades of negotiations produced more settlements, more suffering, loss of land, and ethnic cleansing in jerusalem, changing the character of jerusalem. what we need would be either a clear, bold plan that would change the dynamic on the ground and come to grips with the requirements of peace or you have to go with the palestinians for pollock -- positive construction alternative.

if you block us from the u.n., from getting accountability for israel, trying to get protection for the palestinians by peaceful means, non-violent means, then it seems to me you leave us with the option of violence as the only thing that works. even though we believe that violence is a non-option. but at the same time you cannot block a whole nation, keep it in activity under israeli domination which is, by the way, much worse than having your own regime oppress you because this is the type of oppression that is so pervasive that it affects every aspect of your life. it has to stop. it is time it stops. we have a timeframe. people have to understand the gravity of the situation between now and september. either we move ahead of opportunity is lost and we have either a break out of violence or a breakdown.

the forces that have been unleashed cannot be contained and the momentum is there. people are also acting with a new sense of self-respect, confidence, hope. this is what it takes to make peace. not a sense of defeatism or being broken. so we think the next move we need to discuss further has to be a collective multilateral global effort. perhaps with europe, expand the quartet, with an arab initiative that would produce new language and a new vision in the end time before matters get out of hand. thank you very much. [applause] >> putting the microphone on. let me start by picking up on your last comment about mr. netanyahu and what has taken

place in this town in the last few weeks. it is obvious that this town has witnessed a debate, may be behind closed doors, between those who wanted to move more proactively and in fact a package may be along the lines you outlined, and between -- that the president to wait until maybe after the presidential election. obviously the debate has been decided in favor of the second approach. the president did not have any steps outlined in his speech. even the general principles that he outlined received, as he said, a lot of criticism, both from mr. netanyahu and from the hill as well.

what is on everyone's mind is what would the palestinian response be? if in the context of -- in the context of the arab uprising. in other words, the issue of the arab sreet, as he pointed out, has not been a factor in u.s. decision making. people in this town feel that there is time. and that we can wait until the u.s. presidential campaign before we pick this up later on. what is your assessment of this? while has -- why has it not moved in a way that people thought it would? what is your -- [laughter] of the future, particularly

given the context of the arab spring. >> that is what i was saying, the sense of urgency. to say that we do not have unlimited time. within what is happening in the arab world there definitely is an acceleration of time. things are moving very rapidly. what you can take for granted today you can't take for granted tomorrow. it can't think anything for granted except change. the fact we are undergoing a people of change and the way people react. some react to it by shooting their own citizens and killing people at will. some trying to prevent them by carrying out a reform plan and so on. others sort of stepping down, liked in egypt and tunisia. in the face of overwhelming popular uprising. what the u.s. used to rely on -- the client regimes, so to speak, they cannot rely on.

they are not going to carry out the bidding of the u.s. anymore. even those who traditionally have done it have seen what happened to regimes who were seen as only clients of the u.s. rather than leaders who are generally doing the bidding of their own people or responding to the needs of their own people. so, that is the way in which the regimes are discredited and ultimately dislodge. whether the u.s. is willing to understand it or not is a serious issue. you do not have time. any new regime coming up will have of course on its plate a really have a domestic agenda, much of it having to do with the economic reform, economic prosperity, job creation. but it also will need to signal to its own people that it is a departure from the old pattern of behavior with the west.

we saw that leave egypt because the mubarak regime was procrastinating, was told we do not need palestinian unity, so they really didn't engage effectively. the mubarak regime closed the borders and so on in gaza. many egyptians were telling us, this is a source of shame for us, humiliation. we wanted a regime that was good for palestine, for their own people, not what the regime was told to do by the west and israel and so on. all the new regime is coming up it seems to me will try to carry out a domestic agenda, reform and so on, and to reestablish national credentials along the new lines we are talking about and to take steps pertaining to palestine.

and these steps are not going to be to accommodate priorities by the u.s. or others or to put pressure on the palestinians to accept what the u.s. needs or wants. we saw things happening before. that is a real change. it seems to me -- that is why we said the u.s. must contextualize what it is doing and the reason, must understand palestine is not outside the a question the way netanyahu said. there were not demonstrating for palestine or against israel. but if you look hard you know it is the motivating factor. two, there is a time frame. we cannot afford to wait until 2012. we cannot afford to wait until election campaigns and so on. there is a choice. you could either have a bold

vision and a clear plan of action and be willing to expend your credibility and your credit on affecting genuine change and making peace. or you can tread water and allow the dynamics. those are the two options. choosing to tread water means that the situation is going to deteriorate. it is not going to get any better. the other factor is the israeli factor. you had in israel one of the most extreme hard-line militaristic coalitions -- with a racist policies, of course. it certainly has an anti-peace agenda. anybody who heard netanyahu -- coming with a peace agenda, certainly has not heard him clearly. he came to say aye and closing

all doors, that is it. there is no peace unless you capitulate, you and the u.s. and we in palestine and accept what netanyahu things is best for everybody. this is certainly a recipe for disaster and instability and conflict and for violence. this government in israel -- now there are voices, people right thing in israel saying this is a very dangerous and irresponsible approach. relying on pr tricks and retain and scoring point is against the president and show on -- so on and showing you can go over to the congress. what next? where did you go from here? nothing. you have nothing to offer except more of the same of the situation that has cost the u.s. a great deal. it has cost of the best its credibility, standing, and a great deal of interest in the arab world, among the arab public, even if it managed to tame a few leaders.

it did not manage to tame the arab public. it is a new ball game, i think. >> another question -- this town a few months ago, mr. abbas was weak because he did not represent all the palestinians at any solution that the not include hamas would not last. now that he has made an agreement with hamas, the debate shifted, as you also said. how do you see the next steps moving forward after the government is established with hamas? do you see this as a positive or negative? >> i think this is extremely positive and a very badly needed step. when talk about empowerment, responding to the palestinian people's needs.

talking about repairing our democracy, an active, pluralistic system. putting hamas as part of the system and not as a replacement. we always said hamas belongs within this democratic and pluralistic system, not as a substitute for a replacement. that is the only way you can have a functioning political system that can claim to democracy. we started that unity with technical steps. we need a government that is a government of independents, professionals, that would deliver the services and build institutions and so on, and take care of people's needs. it has also additional task, prepare for elections. this is very important. so long as it is divided, we cannot have elections.

whether local government, legislative, national, or even national elections for the plo. we need it these elections because, first of all, it has brought into question the legitimacy of institutions. we needed elections. the legislative council -- the residential election. everybody attacking everybody else. hamas saying president is not legitimate. everybody's saying legislative council is no longer legitimate because it has run its course. people were saying the plo was obsolete because the president had elections and the needed to have elections in order to represent all of the palestinians, including hamas and others. that has to be done in a way to include palestinians in exile. to do that, which is a real requirement for a democratic

system in palestine, -- i do not what does the government because we are unique in that our government is not political. that meant we needed to move ahead and we needed to have this unity to carry out elections. otherwise it is very easy to stop the elections. we said local government elections, hamas said no, prevented the election commission's from working in gaza and that is it. you cannot have elections in one place and not the other. the same thing with presidential and so on. the other task is gaza. the situation is absolutely drastic. it is in humans. gaza has been destroyed, devastated. and yet under siege and without the ability and the materials and funding to rebuild it.

we can start rebuilding -- under the moves and start -- to start rebuilding and get the funding. the problem is there were lots of funds pledged to rebuild gaza but they were not delivered, were not materialized. and because of the -- because of the rift and division, no one was able to start rebuilding gaza. now we can get the alleviation of the human suffering and gaza is very crucial. then you have to have a plan for the reunification of the institutions within the west bank and gaza. other than the elections as well. and further along this would be not just the service departments but security. we have a reform plan, as you know, a couple of one that we worked very hard since the 1990's in which we set the security forces after the

reforms in a sense that they have to be merged. we need no more than three and a need to be totally de- politicized and totally subjects to the political executive authority. that is why you have to guard our own unity. we have to tell them this is not about security. it does not mean i have so many in hamas. by putting in the professionals. it is a long agenda. we already have problems about using even the names of the prime minister. you do everything by consensus. when you do it by consensus, you will have people objecting.

i think there is enough determination to understand if we do not succeed, it could be suicide domestically. this message has to be understood by the rest of the world. i think the americans are beginning to see this. the fact that hamas has accepted the prime minister's elections. it has designated the presidency as the political -- it would allow for the palestinians to make decisions without talking to everybody. it comes to negotiations, it will have to be presented by the public. >> let's open it up. if you can identify yourself. >> i come from the

international crisis group. my first question is, the strategy of buying time which has been opted for for 40 years, it is coming to an end. my question -- my second question is, at the plo, are you considering, one way or another, how to stimulate the dormant influence of saudi arabia over the united states? >> we will take another question. >> i what -- your introduced by

someone as saying who speaks truth to power. it might also be useful to speak truth to the powerless. i'm speaking about palestinian refugees. whether there is worry is not a universal right to return regardless of the language of the universal declaration or in the general assembly resolution. it seems the israeli public is united against the fact of the palestinians returning. at what point do you have a conversation with refugees about alternative futures so there is not another generation of people languishing in refugee camps. thank you. >> i am an egyptian american living here. you describe the prime

minister's visit, even after he offended the public present -- the president publicly, and gave his awful speech at the congress, i am sad about the joint session of congress, senators and representatives, giving him 26 standing ovations. >> i did not count them. >> you were saying the american public opinion is changing. i do not think it is. if these are the people, and the media again, obama talked about the middle east. everybody talked about how bad obama is for mentioning the dirty word "1976." i would hope to change this

subject. >> one more question. >> a recovering journalists from the atlantic council. whenever i see you remember meeting you 20 years ago when there were the post-madrid talks. >> the good old days. >> we were a good team. >> the question is about not violence, but non-violence. you spoke about the new tactics that were being used. is there thought to mobilize palestinians to march in east -- east jerusalem in the old city? and not to throw rocks but to use non-violence to press the case. when you talk about -- you know the united states will veto any declaration of independence.

is this going to be -- the plo has representation around the world. what is the point of pushing it? >> your first question is absolutely right. we have no more time. the conditions on the ground make any solution impossible. that is it. when you talk about the state solution coming to an end, the option is not a one state solution. it is not something we can work on. there has to be a more confrontational and more control. would that generate more violence or not? would that insight public opinion or not? would that change the relationship between governments that have agreements

with israel? those are questions that are going to be raised if we do not understand there is no more time to be bought. on the issue of the -- of saudi arabia, it is not just saudia arabia but the whole arab world. it has resources. it should be able to use all of these and not just its relations with the u.s. so far they were neutralized in many ways. saudi arabia probably understands the next phase is different. there are people talking about the new alignment of the arab world. whether it is a monarchical system, the axis of the ball or the access of momentum and

modernization. it is still too early to predict. there are certainly alignment's within the region. saudi arabia understands that. they have to, in many ways, use their power to try to do justice to the palestinians and bring about peace. we are not asking for them to invade israel and liberate us. we need peace before it is too late. speaking to the powerless, you cannot make it a precondition to abandon the rights of the palestinians and get the leaders to say we will violate international law and the rights of our own people and we will tell them you have no rights. the only way to deal with the refugee question, you have to

acknowledge their history, their suffering, its responsibility with the palestinian refugees. they did not become refugees because the arab world told them, we know what happened. 1948 is clear. that is the first step. the second is acknowledging their right. you could not exclude them from the protection of international law. because the israelis are afraid, you do not have any rights. you cannot do that. that is not the issue. the issue is, you have to acknowledge their rights. 194 un charter. the palestinians are no exception. you cannot cast them out the

protection of the law. when you have the third option, then you can discuss alternatives and options provided you give them the right to choose. once these steps are done, then you can discuss all sorts of options and alternatives and so on. and give them the right to choose. that is the only way this will be solved. but to deny this, it means you're telling every palestinian leader, negate their rights. in order to be able to talk to us. the arab initiative had the formula that, a mutually agreed solution to the refugees -- refugee question based on the u.n. resolution 194. let's look at the different ways we can implement to save

the refugee's writes -- rights so they will not be bereft of any recognition. the steps are essential. that has to be said by everybody. the joint meeting, not a joint session. there is something legal about session versus meeting. it was a joint meeting. a session is only when the president is there. unless netanyahu thinks he can become the president. [laughter] a joint meeting. i will give you my point of view. i do not want to insult anybody. it was demeaning. if i were an american, i

certainly would not accept this type of treatment where somebody who is insulting the president, who is defined the american system -- defying the american system. we take this seriously. to go to the representatives of the public and get them to cheer him against their president. regardless the pot -- party politics or anything. i felt that was insulting and demeaning. if i were a congressman or senator, i would not have done that. i would have been careful about safeguarding my national interests as opposed to israel's.

public is opinion -- public opinion is shifting. if you go to universities, people are learning more. they have access to dissident information sources. they are seeing what is happening. they are engaging more. they're expressing a will to challenge the process and the problems. the obscure the facts and the truth. american public journalists have a sense of fair play. how come we did not know these things? i get out of the time. they have to hold representatives accountable. representatives think they can take -- make policy decisions on behalf of the executive rather than understanding what the goal is. the public has to hold them accountable, not just on issues

of education and health care, but also where they are meddling in areas that are extremely dangerous and that could threaten, as the american military said, matters of natural -- national interest. this sort of blind allegiance is -- ah. what is funny now, there are certain people who will take whatever netanyahu says and turn it into the gospel truth. there are people like that. there are also critical people in the media. i have been reading all sorts of articles and so on that are questioning this kind of attitude and are criticizing the fact that when you do things that go against your national interests, that ours

for short-term gratification, that this is a serious indulgence that could backfire. in the long run, yes, american public will make a difference. think tanks will make a difference. access to information will take -- make a difference. there is an inherent bias. we have always been the "other." of the strange. we are. we have to challenge misconceptions. the language that presents us to them, as terrorists and all that, maybe it is ignorance. people should know the truth. you cannot hide this. this is not 1948. this is the 21st century. people can get to the facts. we should make sure they do.

it is our greatest ally, the truth. it might not be enough to set us free, but it is a beginning. non-violence did break up. remember the intafada? we were beaten up. we were arrested. we went day after day after day. we faced a strong army. we exposed the limits of power of the military occupation. when faced with a people's will to be freed. acts of violence and song, -- so on, it was exploited against us. that change the equation. we stood up and condemn the violence. especially against civilians.

it was used as a pretext to carry out violence against us. as extremists justify everything that happened afterward,it will happen. you saw how we mobilized. as i said on may 15, this is something new. it is not to palestinians in the west bank. palestinians in lebanon and united states. there is a sense of solidarity and identification. the pride of the palestinians. we will not be silenced. we will not be oppressed and excluded. we have a message. this is something that israel has to understand. and the u.s. both. there is an opportunity to resolve this. we gave them that opportunity. the arab world gave them that opportunity. if you do not take it, it will

not be to anybody's liking. it will be painful. you will see that the palestinians will resort to a popular non-violent action. can anything be worse than the settlements done by the u.s.? the u.s. said settlements are illegal. they have to stop, right? and yet when we went to the u.n. to get a resolution, using american language, the u.s. was in an awkward situation of having to veto a resolution that was based on their own policy. for the sake of israel. that is something that is i cannot believe. this is the greatest power in the world so far.

it might not be there for long, but still, you are violating your own policy for illegal actions of israel. this is unheard of. they put so much pressure on all of us using their arab allies, not to go to the u.n. the pressure was very great. they used all of our friends to tell us we should. we have to have access. we have to have recourse. we cannot constantly be shut down. the strategic alliance is playing against our rights and against its jerusalem. if they want to veto the right to persuade the europeans not to support our recognition, i want to explain this.

what we are asking for is not recognition. we do and have 116 countries that recognize us. that kind of reckoned -- recognition we are getting and we will accumulate recognitions, whether from latin america or the arab world. we will accumulate recognitions. we want to safeguard our land, our borders. we go to the u.n. it is not a unilateral declaration of independence. it is going to the address of international law. where we going? it is not unilateral. we, as victims, as palestinians of occupation who have had no support on the issue of our own

freedom and independence, we are going to the source of international law. this is where the international community is. please accept this as a member. we are going -- we are an observer. we are always punished because we do not have the rights or access. once you get membership, it means you have access. you have access to all the judicial accountability within the system. then you have the recognition you do have the boundaries, 1967 are your banters. that you do have rights. if they veto, we will resort to the 1914 peace provision and go to the assembly and ask for a majority to accept us as a

member of the assembly. that is what we need to do. uniting for peace is an american invention. during the cold war, the korean crisis. we have been slapped with about 30 vetoes by the americans only for the sake of israel. it is time there is a recognition the palestinians have some humanity and rights. there is a consensus emerging in the international community. you cannot stop the flood. you cannot keep holding back recognition and human rights and awareness and solidarity for the sake of all the things israel is doing. theet's take a question in back. >> i am from the imf. we have seen fm