Transcript
MICHAEL ARMACOST: His Majesty King Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein, ministers of the Jordanian government, members of the Royal Court, excellencies of the diplomatic corps, representatives of Congress, Mr. Haim Saban, Mr. Hasib Sabbagh, trustees of the Brookings Institution and ladies and gentleman, it's a great honor for me to welcome you all to this very special occasion: the inaugural address for the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, delivered by His Majesty King Abdullah II ibn Al-Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
We are particularly grateful to you, Your Majesty, for accepting our invitation to deliver an important policy address to this very distinguished audience.
The event today is a confluence of many factors, some calamitous, some fortuitous. The calamitous factors are all too familiar. Since September 11th, the terrorist attacks on our nation, the escalation of Israeli-Palestinian hostilities renewed concerns about the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups, and the commencement of planning for the second phase of the war on terror that will all combine to place the Middle East at the very top of the American foreign policy agenda.
The fortuitous factors are perhaps less evident. In September last year, just a week before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we welcomed Martin Indyk, Middle East scholar with a distinguished career in government and two stints as our ambassador in Israel, to our scholarly staff at Brookings. Just three months thereafter, Haim Saban came knocking on Martin's door with the idea of promoting a new Middle East think tank. And so was born the idea of creating the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.
We think we were a logical place for such a center, for through the work of such distinguished specialists as Hal Saunders, Bill Quandt, Richard Haass, and many others, we've long been recognized for excellent research and analysis on this region. We have a reputation for independence, nonpartisanship that lends credibility to our work. We have the solid infrastructure of an established institution.
The Saban Center was conceived of as a place where we'll gather the best minds to address the critical issues confronting the Middle East: scholars and practitioners already associated with Brookings like Martin, Shibley Telhami, Phil Gordon, and visiting scholars, and people from the policymaking communities in both the United States and the Middle East. Through a very major and generous founding grant from Haim Saban, the Brookings Institution will now be able dramatically to expand its research and analysis of developments in the Middle East, and to generate the innovative approaches to policy that have long been the hallmark of our institution. We are particularly grateful for Haim Saban's support at such a crucial moment for U.S. policy in that troubled region.
Under the direction of Martin Indyk, the Saban Center will focus its research and educational projects on the promotion of Arab-Israeli peace; regional economic integration and good governance; and on countering terrorism, tyranny and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Center's work will be balanced, it will be objective, it will be independent and nonpartisan. It will be open to a range of views as it seeks a better understanding of the dynamics in the region and their impact on U.S. interests.
The Saban Center will also house the ongoing Brookings project on U.S. policy toward the Islamic world, which is being funded in part by Brookings and by the generosity of the Ford Foundation and the government of Qatar. We at Brookings are very proud to launch such an important and ambitious project, and I'm delighted and honored to introduce the man who has made it possible, Haim Saban.
(Applause.)
HAIM SABAN: Thank you very much, Mike. You humbled me with all your kind words.
Your Majesty King Abdullah II ibn al Hussein, Marhaban Bikkum, Ahcan Wasahlan, distinguished members of His Majesty's delegation and the diplomatic corps, members of Congress and administration officials, Brookings President Michael Armacost and trustees of the Brookings Institution, Ambassador Indyk, distinguished guests.
Your Majesty, I would like to begin by thanking you for gracing us with your presence here today. When we met in Los Angeles a few weeks ago, you told my wife that I had kept you on your toes with my very pointed questions, and a little bit of chutzpah, but I promised her that today I would be on my best behavior. And this is only a reflection of how much I admire the courage and determination that have been the hallmark of your reign.
As we say in America, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and I have no doubt that your father, King Hussein, and your great-grandfather, King Abdullah, would be very proud of the way you are carrying on the Hashemite tradition of leadership in the face of adversity. (Applause.)
Your example inspires hope in the midst of all the bloodshed and despair that we are witnessing today in the Middle East, unfortunately. As a proud American who was born in Egypt and raised in Israel, I too want to see hope triumph over despair in the Middle East. In particular, I wanted to find better ways for the United States to promote peace and nurture coexistence and cooperation in a region that is vitally important to this country.
I wanted to help bring together the best minds from the Middle East and the United States to generate the ideas and market them to the policymaking community in Washington. That's why I came to Martin Indyk and to Brookings. Today I am delighted that we are embarking on such an important and timely endeavor together in launching the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the Brookings board of trustees for making it all possible, and in particular to express my appreciation to Mike Armacost, the president of Brookings. I also want to thank Martin Indyk, who will be the director of the Center and was absolutely responsible for bringing me to Brookings.
Martin, I applaud you and I thank you. (Applause.)
We are deeply grateful and honored that His Majesty King Abdullah has agreed to deliver the inaugural address to the Saban Center at Brookings. From my perspective, there couldn't be a more appropriate way to launch the Center because King Abdullah is the first of a new generation of leadership in the Arab world, the embodiment of the union between Western ideas and Arab tradition.
Since assuming the throne in 1999, King Abdullah has been unrelenting in his search for peace and stability in the region. His commitment to finding solutions to the region's many problems, above all the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is an inspiration to all who seek a better future for the people of the Middle East. Indeed, he played a critical role in the launching of the Saudi and Arab League peace initiatives.
In just a few short years, King Abdullah has already put a solid foundation in place that will make Jordan part of the global economy under His Majesty's leadership. Jordan entered the World Trade Organization and signed a free trade agreement with the United States and an association agreement with the European Union. King Abdullah is making Jordan a model for those in the Arab world who wish to bring their own nation into the 21st century while preserving the traditions and values of their heritage. So thank you, Your Majesty, for your courage and leadership.
Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pride to welcome to the Saban Center at Brookings His Majesty King Abdullah II ibn al Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
King Abdullah.
(Applause.)
HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH II [transcript is of his prepared remarks]: Ambassador Indyk, Friends, Thank you for your warm welcome, and Ambassador, thank you for your kind introduction. I am grateful for this opportunity to share with all of you my thoughts, concerns and aspirations on this, the last day of my current visit to the United States.
I came to Washington, bringing an urgent message about the need for America to lead the peace in the Middle East. At no time since 1948, has there been a greater need for outside intervention, to solve the Palestinian-Israeli problem, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time, have the regional players been more aware, of the heavy price of this crisis, and more ready, for a solution. And certainly, at no time, has there been such a wide international consensus, about America's leadership role.
I also came to talk, in practical terms, about how to get the peace process back on track. Because this is not a case where we have simply gotten stuck, down a siding, and all we have to do is retrace our way to the main line, and blow the horn, and get going again. I think it is fair to say we have had a train wreck, a serious train wreck, with enormous destruction and the loss of many innocent lives. And we cannot now, just hoist the old mechanisms back on the old negotiating tracks, and expect to make any forward progress. We need a new engine of change, and, I suggest, some new tracks as well. So let me talk about that.
To begin, I want to say a word about where we have been. I won't review the entire peace process. Brookings publishes a distinguished, 425-page book, in order to cover this whole topic. I want to focus on a much narrower point, namely, the last time when a fundamentally changed peace process began. And that was 1991, the time of the Madrid Peace Conference.
It began, as you will remember, with a joint invitation from the United States and the Soviets, after consultations with the Arab States, the Palestinians, and Israel. Three developments had paved the way for that breakthrough. The Cold War, with its global focus, was over. The just-ended Gulf War, had provided a new regional context for addressing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And there was a growing international consensus about Palestinian independence, a consensus, that could give the Madrid process a firm foundation, in Terms of Reference, based on international legality, and United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.
Many of you know the results. The tracks emanating from Madrid succeeded in establishing the Palestinian National Authority in Palestine; in concluding a Treaty of Peace between my country, Jordan, and Israel; and in getting closer to real understandings on the Syrian and Lebanese fronts. The multilateral aspect of the Madrid process charted a new path in addressing issues, that related to sustaining peace in the region. These covered economic development and cooperation, arms control and regional security, water resources, the environment, and refugees. Of course, no one was deluded, into thinking that the solutions would be easy. Yet, the promise was there for a comprehensive, lasting peace that would end the conflict once and for all.
This is certainly not the time to assign blame for our collective failure to bring that process to its final fruition. Many were quite sincere in getting that difficult process on track. Many exerted all possible efforts to ensure its success. I lived through that period, watched as my late father challenged the constraints to realize a dream, and witnessed change, that seemed at times, almost impossible. And I believe that what is positive today, is a result of that achievement.
What we need to do now, is to draw the right lessons from this experience. The process ultimately crashed, not because its Terms of Reference were unclear or ambiguous, not because it was flawed or insincere, not because the hopes were misguided. The process hit a wall when it failed to win credibility and trust on the ground among the people.
Let us recall that the 1990s peace process never explicitly stated what the endgame was, nor when it would be achieved. The promise always was, that final-status matters would be negotiated at a later stage, delaying the resolution of thorny issues, until sufficient confidence was built up among the parties. For many participants, the result was almost the opposite. Confidence was not built, because the process did not seem to promise real resolution. Indeed, for too many, confidence actually eroded. The peace process became viewed as yet another way to delay and therefore deny justice. By the time discussions on permanent solutions were attempted, at Camp David 2000, the gap between the process and the reality was huge.
Just as important, perhaps, the rules of the game could not be institutionalized as long as the endgame was hazy. The process therefore remained hostage to the whims and wills of individual leaders, who might opt to pursue peace, or choose to obstruct it. In this environment, peace could be, and indeed was, constantly threatened, by actions and reactions, on the ground, events, that could not always be controlled by the stakeholders themselves.
All of this combined to undermine the process so carefully crafted in the fall of 1991. Bombings, settlements, deportations, and other actions revealed the failure of the parties to accept each other, as partners, and neighbors. It was only a matter of time before the escalating violence and hatred overturned the efforts of the peace camps, on both sides, to win the popular support needed to sustain the process. In its place, misguided perceptions emerged again, on both sides: that suicide bombings are a productive road to freedom, for instance, or the equally mistaken idea, that tanks can subdue a legitimate, popular cry for independence.
Friends,
The incremental negotiating model has run its course. Now more than ever, people need to see results, real security, viable independence, and a future of hope. A peace that resonates with both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, independent of the wills of leaders. A peace that once again focuses on timely, practical results. Skeptics might argue that this is not possible, given the hardening that has emerged in public opinion on both sides. To these I respond, that if today's crisis has made the divisions deeper, it has also made the issues clearer than ever before. Indeed, even while the conflict rages on, there is an internalization process in the minds of peoples on both sides, of the proposed solutions. Both peoples are exhausted, and are ready for peace, a peace that will allow an Israeli mother to send her child to school without fear, a peace that will allow a Palestinian mother to deliver her newborn, alive, at a hospital and not at an Israeli roadblock.
To end today's violence, conflict resolution must replace conflict management. This requires that we focus sharply on the ultimate goals and principles of peace. We must go straight to final prizes. The mechanism that is adopted must re-launch negotiations on final status issues, and, as important, complete them, within a reasonable timeframe. That means translating the visions articulated in Madrid, Louisville, Washington and Beirut, into a detailed time-line, a plan of action that will rekindle hope and make it reality.
I believe that a strong basis for such a deal was articulated at the recent, precedent-setting Arab Summit. There, Arab states articulated a vision for peace that explicitly recognizes the interests of Israel while it fulfills the hopes of the Palestinians. Through a collective Peace Treaty with every Arab State, Israel would receive the security guarantees it needs. The Jewish character, security, legitimacy, international recognition, Arab acceptance, and peaceful future of Israel would be positively addressed. At the same time, Arab States would have their core requirements met, an end to the Israeli occupation of all Arab lands, the guarantee of independence, freedom, dignity, equality and security for the Palestinians, and an agreed solution to the refugee question.
I believe that this is the kind of fair deal that could stick. Both Israel and Palestine would be ensured of their viability, security, and territorial integrity. The Jerusalem question would be answered, by providing for a shared open city to all faiths. There would be an agreed solution to the refugee problem that is fair to Palestinians and that does not threaten the sovereignty of the Israeli state.
Friends,
More than seven years ago, my father, His Late Majesty King Hussein, concluded a Treaty of Peace with Israel, establishing normal relations between our countries. Now, for the first time, all Arabs have directly addressed Israeli citizens as neighbors who deserve to live in dignity, security and peace. We told Israelis at the Arab Summit in plain language: "We want to permanently welcome you in our neighborhood. Look at the Arab peace proposal seriously, for the sake of the present, and for the future for all our peoples."
I believe that many Israelis are listening. Despite the difficult situation, more than half of the Israeli public believe that an end to occupation and the dismantling of settlements will help to establish peace. An opinion poll released last week found that 63 percent of Israelis felt that peace negotiations were necessary to resolving terrorism, and 56 percent support a U.S.-led international force for the Palestinian territories.
But success will require more. It will indeed require American leadership, policy and will to pull the region back from the brink. Only the United States has the political and moral authority to bring people together to take the risks that peace requires. In the Middle East, an active U.S. role is indispensable, not only to guide the Palestinians and the Israelis out of conflict, but also to protect your own vital national interests and those of your moderate allies, allies who are a bulwark against extremism in our region and around the world. The fact is, that given present conditions, neither Israelis nor Palestinians are capable of taking the steps needed to reach a reasonable final compromise. Only the international community, under strong American leadership, can guide the parties across the divide.
Last week, I called on the United States to seize this historic moment to create a new Peace Alliance for the Middle East. Under its umbrella, a U.S.-led coalition of European, Arab, and other countries would provide the support that is needed, security, economic, and political, by both Israelis and Palestinians. The parties would be told in no uncertain terms that while suicide bombings will not be rewarded, neither will occupation. Most important, the Peace Alliance would bring its clout to the bargaining tables, brokering a comprehensive, fair and lasting deal.
All I have witnessed and heard in the past few months, convinces me of the need, and the opportunity, to act decisively, quickly and clearly. Core to our success will be respect and understanding for the peoples on both sides, an understanding, I am glad to see, that is reflected in your work here at Brookings.
The former British Minister Chris Patten, who was involved in the peace process for Northern Ireland, often says that the beginning of wisdom in that conflict, was to recognize that there are two authentic cries of pain and rage. The same applies in the Middle East. What is now required is real moral and political leadership, leadership that articulates a vision and takes risks to persuade people to share it. Today, more than ever, the world looks to the United States to lead.
Thank you very much.
MR. MARTIN INDYK: Your Majesty, thank you very much for, again, your courage and leadership, as you have expressed today in your very fine remarks. I have a number of questions from the audience that I'm going to ask you to address, if you would do us the honor.
First of all, a kind of detailed question about the idea of a regional conference: "There seem to be quite a gap between the positions of the Arab and the Israelis when it comes to this conference. The Arab League Initiative says June 4th, 67 lines; Prime Minister Sharon says 242 and 338. The Arab League Initiative says final status negotiations, as you have argued today; Prime Minister Sharon says it should be an interim negotiation. The Arab League insists, I think, on Syria being involved; Prime Minister Sharon says not until it stops harboring terrorists. So how do you imagine that all these things can be resolved and these gaps bridged?"
HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH II: Well, sir, it's quite obvious that if we delay the process, if we don't articulate a vision, whatever it is, violence will continue. The word that we keep hearing in the press, whether it's viewing the bombings or the role of the Israeli army, is retaliation. We have to get away from retaliation because that is going to continue unless we get a process moving forward.
Now, there is a lot of initiatives out there, going back to 242, 338, 1397, George Mitchell, George Tenet. What we have to be able to do — and the Arab Initiative — is create an umbrella and articulate a series of steps in the next several weeks, which is why we came to Washington to talk to the administration, so that at least by the beginning of the summer you could have a low-level conference that engages the economic security and political matters that need to be resolved between the Israelis and Palestinians on one hand, but just as important, the Arab-Israeli position.
The Arabs at Beirut, and more so in Cairo, over the weekend have really started trying to put a mechanism together to offer Israel 100 percent of what it's ever wanted from the Arabs. But at the end of the day, we need to be able to reach out to the peoples. Everybody has a different view of how to do things, but at the end of the day it's the peoples who are suffering, both the Israelis and the Palestinians. They're paying for the lack of a process with their lives.
Now, what we're asking the American administration — and I believe that the vision will be articulated, I hope, in the next several weeks — is to bring the three factors I mentioned, political, economic and security, together to give a hope to the Israelis and the Palestinians. If we don't articulate a hope, how do you expect a Palestinian or an Arab to stick his neck out to try and curb terrorism, because there's such a level of frustration — I have to be honest about the feeling on the ground — that nobody is willing to take the risk for peace because peace has not been identified clearly. And the same goes for the Israeli people. If they don't believe that the Arabs are going to embrace them into the neighborhood, why should they try to accommodate the Palestinians?
So I believe that what is going to happen on the ground will be a series of articulations over the next couple of weeks to get a low-level meeting, at least to start with, that brings Israelis, Palestinians and Arab countries together for what I would hope to see probably on two tracks: the Israeli-Palestinian track on one level, supported by moderate Arab countries maybe negotiating with them or being there while it is going on, but at the same time, the Arab-Israeli track. If we can get the initial meeting together, then I think you can create a momentum where the publics have a say and realize what they choose to lose if they don't have their leaders move forward.
MR. INDYK: Thank you.
There are quite a few questions here that run along the same theme, so I'll ask this one and I think it captures most of them: "Your Majesty, how do you propose reconciling the U.S. president's call for a Palestinian state with the recent vote of the Likud Party against such a state?"
HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH II: Well, you're going to hear different positions, whether it's Israeli-Palestinian or Arab, that suggests maybe a hazy future, and I think we just have to go beyond that.
I read an article in one of the New York magazines the other day about an Israeli soldier. They interviewed two Israeli soldiers that had been operating inside the West Bank, and there was one that struck me as really probably a good way of explaining what I think the majority of Israelis understand, especially in the military.
This young man went in to arrest a 19, 20-year-old Palestinian who was suspected, obviously, of doing something wrong. So he went into this man's house and he arrested him. As he's walking out, he saw the look in the eyes of this man's younger brother, who must have been about 14 or 15. And what he said — he said, it came to me as a shock that here I am arresting this brother because he's doing something against the State of Israel, but I see the anger and frustration in this young boy's eyes. I know that I am going to have to come back in a couple of years to arrest him.
And so, are we going to continue that cycle or are we going to be bigger than that and realize once and for all what the Israelis need is security? What they want to be able to do is be able to live safely in the region, not just to the borders of the countries that border Israel. And the Arabs also want to have that future, but the core issue is the Palestinian state.
So I would suggest that maybe we're talking too much to what the leaders have to say and not listening enough to what the people want.
MR. INDYK: Thank you.
A follow up to this: "What does reform of the Palestinian Authority consist of in your mind, and what role would Chairman Arafat play in a reformed Palestinian Authority?"
HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH II: Well, obviously that's for the Palestinian people to decide, but I believe that there is a lot of discussions within the Palestinian peoples in the West Bank and Gaza, and even those who are living on the outside, who believe that if we're going to move forward as a Palestinian state that has a chance, we have to have a transparent government; we have to have an efficient, transparent judiciary, an ability to move our economy in the right decision. And I believe that the Palestinian Authority and the leadership there, from the top down, are going to have to seriously think in the next couple of weeks how they're going to articulate the visions of the people. People want to be given a chance to move their country forward in the right way.
Now, you have to understand, the Palestinians are one of the most educated, capable societies that we have ever seen. Smart people; they know what they need for their future. And I think what you will see more and more is them demanding of their leaders to bring that about.
MR. INDYK: Thank you.
"Your Majesty, your father said a few years ago that, 'Sovereignty over the holy places in Jerusalem should be divine.'" Actually, I don't remember him saying that, but—"Do you agree?"
HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH II: The holy city of Jerusalem, at the turn of this century, should be a city that is open to all of us. If we're going to be a symbol, not only to our region but the rest of the world, Jerusalem could encapsulate the vision for the next hundred years of Jews, Muslims and Christians living together. I personally believe — and this is as a Hashemite — that Jerusalem should be a city that's open to all. And what a terrific symbol it would be of understanding and breaking down barriers if that was to happen, and I hope it happens soon.
MR. INDYK: Thank you.
"Your Majesty, how are you going to reconcile public Arab opinion with your stated goals? Is there going to be a concerted Arab effort to help change the Arab mindset, knowing that the Arab street is boiling?"
HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH II: Well, we have to remember that over the past several weeks there is anger, rage throughout the Middle East and on all sides. And I want to warn, as I think I've tried to do in the past week, that although there's a slight calm in the Middle East, whether it's Israeli, Palestinian or Arab, that is temporary. The reason why it's temporary is because when Colin Powell came out to the region, human beings being as they are, there was hope; and when there is hope, people tend to hold back. And therefore, it is so important for us to be able to articulate the prizes for the Israelis and the Palestinians as quickly as possible. Otherwise, the rage, anger, frustration, desperation in the Middle East will come back and it will be much stronger.
Now, how do you reconcile the publics? Well, you reconcile the publics when they know what the endgame is. You have to win them over logically by explaining to them that they will have their aspirations met. And as I alluded to in my discussion beforehand, Israeli security, a future for the Palestinians will bring everybody together in the region.
And I might also add that our Arab colleagues that have been meeting under the leadership of Crown Prince Abdullah in Egypt, with the presence of Hosni Mubarak, was a conference to try and get the Arabs to articulate even more a series of steps that could reach out to the Israeli public and to the Arab public by identifying to them what is at stake and what is needed from everybody.
MR. INDYK: Here is one on the right of return: "Israelis point to the reference in the Arab League statement to the right of return in the preamble, even though there is a reference to an agreed solution in the operative paragraphs. How do you reconcile this? Is the Arab League saying that it's willing to give up supporting the right of return for Palestinians to Israel?"
HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH II: I guess whenever there's a statement it depends on whether you want to read from your point of view, or that the glass is half empty or half full. I think what we need to look at is, from my point of view, the agreed solution. In other words, giving enough flexibility for both sides to solve the problems.
And I would say that, again, as we move forward with all the different resolutions, whether United Nations or the efforts of George Tenet, George Mitchell, the Arab Summit, the point is that people want to come to the solutions. And so, the language I would imagine — again, instead of talking about the past, let's look at the near future, I hope when the Americans will bring, I hope, all the parties to play. The language, to an extent, will be ambiguous enough to allow the parties to come together and solve their problems. At the end of the day, it's the agreed solution to all these problems that will find a way out. I think people know what the parameters are. They know where the red lines are. Now we have to sit down and bring the parties closer together.
MR. INDYK: Your Majesty, the last question is on Iraq. You'll be glad to know it's the last question. "The Bush administration seems intent on pursuing its efforts to topple" —
HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH II: Some members of the American administration, I think. (Laughter, applause.)
MR. INDYK: That wasn't in here. I'll correct it.
HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH II: I think we just answered the question, so do you want to move on to another one? (Laughter.)
MR. INDYK: Okay. The question was: "With your call for dialogue, how do you propose to avoid Jordan and yourself being placed in the same situation as your father was when the last war between Iraq and the United States broke out?"
HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH II: Well, that question was asked to me on "Meet the Press" yesterday. And, again, I wanted to re-articulate, sort of — I remember living through that period with His Late Majesty King Hussein when Iraq and Kuwait went into the conflict with each other. My father always believed that dialogue and reason, not war and violence, was the option out. And he had not only trouble around the Arab world, but to the West and to the Americas in particular to say, look, there is a diplomatic way out of this to solve the problem. Not war, because once you start a military confrontation, you don't know to what extent it will develop.
And it was unfortunate that I think a lot of people, going back — and I was a major — a young man in the army in those days, and I remember seeing my father so depressed coming back from the United States. And I said, "How successful were you?" And he said, "Well, I tried to explain that we're opening Pandora's Box here. We don't know where it will lead to, when I believe there is a political solution for this; there is dialogue to try and get the problem solved." And I said, "Well, where did you stand?" And he said, "Well, basically I've been told that if you're not with us, you're against us, and that's not what I'm all about. I'm trying to say that there is a way out of this using dialogue." And so, a series of events led us to be isolated as Jordan.
Looking back in hindsight, I can't say that His Majesty was right, but I think you all agree that we can't say that he was wrong either. And so, at this day and age, you know, 12 years later, with the Israeli-Palestinian crisis going on, with the anger and frustration throughout the Middle East really at levels that people cannot take anymore, another armed conflict in the region would be too much for people to bear. And I think that let's give dialogue a chance.
And I hope to God that the — you know, the Iraqis need to know that international public opinion is very strongly against them; that they need to make the right calls to move them out. We in the international community need to encourage them in that respect, but if anybody has any sensitivity to what's going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and how it's affecting the Arab street, to add Iraq onto the menu now I think would be devastating.
MR. INDYK: Your Majesty, there are many more questions, but you've been very kind to subject yourself to such a grilling. Thank you very much for your inspirational remarks, and thank you very much for giving us so much food for thought. Now we have some food to eat. Thank you.
HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH II: Thank you very much.