 From Germany, welcome. Anthony Blinken, Secretary of State, the US, nice to have you. And Subramanian Jashankar, Minister of External Affairs, Republic of India. I hope that based on the topic of the session that you will not all agree with each other and we can have some sparks, we have about 43 minutes and I will prepare your questions because I'll ask a few questions and then I'll turn to the audience. Minister Baerbock, I'm going to start with you. Germany's national security strategy calls for expanding global partnerships and is quite open about the multi-polarity of the world today. How do you go about it at a time when there are so many divisions and particularly when increasingly we feel the global south and the western world are not on the same page? Well, first of all, good afternoon. Very good to have this important session with my dear colleagues. In a nutshell, it's more important than ever because we are not naive. Obviously there are ruthless actors who don't want to grab up the title of our panel and negotiate the slice of the pie but they want to rob the whole bakery. And having that in mind, I believe it's even more important than ever that those who are at the table negotiating about the slices of the pie stay there. First of all, resolute, respectfully and also reflective. And this is the core also of our national security strategy which we have drafted as the German government making very clear in the light of this ruthless war of aggression against Ukraine that we are resolute in defending international law. It's the best protection for everybody around the world. So there is no question about negotiating whether Ukraine has the right of self-defense or not. We all agreed and not only, I don't like that word, but Western actors, we all agreed in our charter of the United Nations, there is the right of self-defense. And we all agreed on the universal declaration of human rights. Having said that, obviously we have to be respectful that especially within Ukraine, and I think this is the lesson we have learned and it was very important to speak to partners like India and so many around the world, Brazil, South Africa, we have to be respectful that obviously in this moment, when we said we need the whole international security, others asked some questions like, where have you been when we needed you? Or asked some question, so actually, what does it mean for the future? Do you also stand with us? And this is, I would say, maybe something new in the attitude, at least from our foreign politics from Europe to say, okay, we cannot take for granted that everybody just agrees with our European or transatlantic vision. And the third part, I think it's the most easy, but it's a strong asset for democracies. The strength of democracy, in my point of view, is that we can be self-reflective and self-critical. So asking in a moment, when others, for example, war for aggression, we're not saying automatically, okay, we support you, not saying why don't you get it, but asking ourselves why they cannot support us. And I think this is the critical part but the most powerful part. And at least, again, in our national security strategy, we try to do it, talking about, for example, our colonialism past. Understanding why South Africa was mentioning the whole time their ties with Russia in the apartheid dream. And being self-critical and saying, oh yeah, not all democracies have stood back in time at their time. And taking that as something where we said, yes, we might have made mistake in the past, but we cannot change the past, we can only change the future together. I think this is the strength of multilateralism and we see around the world the majority believes in it. Do you find that increasingly people are questioning more when it comes to let's stick to Ukraine and we'll get to Gaza in a minute. But on Ukraine, are people coming around to your point of view or are they distancing themselves more? Well, to see it over the last two years, I mean, we've seen the 142 voting in the General Assembly, so it is a majority of states because most of the countries in the world, like mine, we're not the biggest country in the world, we don't have the biggest military means. And this is for most of the countries, they know that the charter of the United Nations, the rule of law is their life insurance. So we see this big majority there, we see also the support. Many have traveled and I think this is really important to give always the question of war of aggression, a human face. It was not that we can convince some other actors in the world by saying now you have to stand with that. But when delegation traveled to Kiev, and not only Kiev, to Butcher, to Irpin, when they spoke like we did to the parents of those where their child had been kidnapped by Russia, then we give this situation a human face and that's all about. And this is why it's so important to not only talk about state, but we talk about the people, talk about also the question of the rule of law in front of the International Criminal Court for example, bringing crimes against humanity in front of the court. And there we see again the majority of the states is pushing for that one. Secretary Blinken, there is a feeling that it's more than a feeling, it's what we see happening on the ground that the US-China tensions are leading to greater fragmentation and that you're almost competing for alliances, who's our ally. And we see this within the UN, in various UN institutions, but we just see it all around the globe. To what extent do you feel that you are challenged in your travels around the world on the fundamental questions? Well first, it's wonderful to be with my friends, wonderful to be back in Munich at the Security Conference known among all of us as speed dating for diplomats. But we've done a couple of things and I'll come quickly to your question. From the start of this administration, we've made an investment, a reinvestment in our alliances, in our partnerships and in the multilateral system. We've reinvested, we've reengaged, we've tried to rejuvenate, we've even reimagined. And the reason for that is simple, it's because it's in our interest to do it. Not a single one of the challenges that we have to face and that are so important to the interests of the American people, can we effectively deal with a loan as powerful and as resourceful as we are. And so across the board, we've seen our comparative advantage as having a strong network of voluntary alliances, voluntary partnerships, and if you're not at the table in the international system, you're gonna be on the menu. So it was very important for us to reengage multilaterally and we've done that. When it comes to strategic competition and there's no doubt that we have one with China, there are a few things to be said. First, we have an obligation to manage that relationship responsibly and I think that's something that we hear from countries around the world and it's clearly unergist to do so and that's exactly what President Biden is doing. And when it comes to other countries, the point is not to say to country X, Y, or Z, you have to choose, the point is to offer a good choice. And if we can do that, and I believe we can and we have and we'll continue, then I think the choice becomes fairly self-evident. Over the last six or seven months, we have engaged in a sustainable way with China I just met my counterpart Wang Yi here in Munich but that follows a series of meetings, notably, most importantly, President Biden and President Xi. And I think we've brought greater stability to the relationship. Not moving away from ignoring the fact that, yes, we have a competition, there are areas where we are contesting each other but there are also areas where we can and should cooperate because it's in our interest to do that. One of the best examples of that is the agreement we've with China on fentanyl, the single largest, the number one killer, number one killer of Americans aged 18 to 49 is a synthetic opioid, fentanyl. Now we have meaningful cooperation from and with China and fentanyl, that's gonna make a difference in the lives of Americans. And you think it is sustainable to have cooperation on in some areas, climate being one of them but to have a strategic competition, the strategic competition that defines geopolitics today and that will go on for a very long time. Do you think that that is sustainable, that both sides sort of can find rules of engagement? This is where we compete and this is where we cooperate? Some fundamentals haven't changed. Countries will act in their self-interest. Where we have to compete, we will. Where we have to contest, we will. Where it makes sense to cooperate, we will. And I think you can do all of the above at the same time. But there's something else that's, I think, changed and it goes back to the first part of the question. The very fact that we've re-engaged and rejuvenated as well as re-imagined some of our alliances and partnerships, along with the investments that we've made at home in the United States, the investments we've made in our infrastructure, the investments we've made in science and technology and chips, the building blocks of the 21st century economy, the investments we've made in climate technology. You put those two things together. Investments at home, much greater alignment with partners and allies across the board in Europe, in the Indo-Pacific, in Asia, on how to approach a question as complicated as relations with China. That puts us in a position of much greater strength in dealing with all of the challenges that we have to deal with. Minister Jaishankar, India has more of a multiple choice mindset, would that be right? From non-alignment to, I think you may have called it or somebody else called it, all alignment. So you can pick and choose alliances, but you can also pick and choose topics on Russia. For example, you still buy Russian oil. Is that okay with your counterpart from the US? Everything is, your relationship is fine. You can do whatever you want, whenever you want. Okay, first of all. You're sitting next to each other. No, no, first of all, delighted to be here. And I couldn't find a better set of people to be with on the stage. So thank you for whoever put us all together. Your question, do we have multiple options? Answer is yes. Is that a problem? Why should it be a problem? If I'm smart enough to have multiple options, you should be admiring me. You shouldn't be criticizing me. Now, is that a problem for other people? I don't think so. I don't think so, certainly in this case, and in that case, because look, we try to explain what are the different pulls and pressures which countries have. And it's very hard to have a uni-dimensional relationship. Now, again, different countries and different relationships have different histories. If I were to look, say, between the US and Germany, it is rooted, you know, there's an alliance, nature to it, there's a certain history on which that relationship is grounded. In our case, it's very different. So I don't want you to even inadvertently give the impression that we are purely and you know, unsentimentally transactional. We are not, you know, we get along with people, we believe in things, we share things, we agree on some things, but you know, there are times when, you know, when you're located in different places, have different levels of development, different experiences, all of that gets into it. So life is complicated, life is differentiated. And I think it's very important today not to reduce the entire complexity of our world into very sweeping propositions. I think that era is today behind us. So I agree very much with what Tony said, which is good partners provide choices. Smart partners take some of those choices. But sometimes there will be choices on which you say, well, you know, I think I'll pass up on that one. It's a very good point, which brings me to the bricks and the rise of middle powers because that is one of the shifts that we see today. To what extent do you think that that is a challenge to the West? Or maybe that can be sort of the bridge, especially in a world where we will see continued competition between the US and China? And I'm going to ask Minister Zhezhankar first, but I'd love for both of you to come as well. I thought maybe the bricks one you wanted, the US. After you, Jack, please. But, look, again, I think it's important to go back to how it began. The bricks started in an era where Western dominance was very strong. The premier gathering of the world was the G7. And you had a number of significant powers in the world who felt that, well, they were not part of the G7, but maybe they also brought value to the table by sitting and discussing with others. So, in a sense, you had a collection of these countries. It was originally for South Africa joined later. And if you look at it, it's a very interesting group because it's geographically as disparate as it can be. Yet, it is bound by the fact that these discussions we've had over a decade and a half have been very useful for all of us. Now, like any product you tested in the market at some point, we tested it last year and asked people, so how many of you want to join bricks? And we got almost 30 countries who were willing to join bricks. So clearly, if 30 countries saw value in it, there must be something good we've done. So, I think it's important today to make a distinction between being non-West and anti-West. I would certainly characterize India as a country which is non-West, but which has an extremely strong relationship with Western countries getting better by the day. Not everybody else necessarily in that grouping might qualify for that description. But the contribution the bricks has made, you know, if one looks at the G7 and how it evolved into the G20. I think in a way, those additional 13 members who came into this bigger grouping, five of them are bricks members. The fact that there was another group which was meeting regularly and discussing and debating, I think certainly was a input into the expansion of the G7 into the G20. So, I think we did a service to the world. Secretary Blinken. I'm tempted to say what my friend said and leave it at that. Look, what we don't need to do and what we're not doing is trying to somehow design the world into rigid blocks. Each and every one of the issues that we have to deal with and deal with in the interest of the American people may have different collections and coalitions of countries that are focused on it. That brings certain experiences, certain capacities. And I think about it as variable geometry. We're putting together a puzzle with collections of countries and not just countries. Organizations of different sizes and different shapes to deal with a given problem. As Jai said, we have, and of course the fact that the relationship between our countries, I would argue, is the strongest it's ever been. Makes no difference that India happens to be a leading member of bricks. We're a leading member of the G7. We have the G20 and we have a multiplicity of things that we're doing together every single day in different ways of organizing ourselves. India and the United States working together in AUKUS, and the Quad working together in a variety of other fora. All of this goes to the point that the complexity and the multiplicity of the challenges we have demands that we find different ways to work together and they shouldn't be done on an exclusive basis. Look, our default, of course, is to work in the first instance with fellow democracies. That's only normal and natural, but we are not only willing, we are actively working with any country that wants to solve a particular problem and wants to do so within the context of a rules-based order. That's the way we approach things. Speaking of a rule-based order, major powers today are criticized for sort of upholding the rule-based order and upholding values in certain areas, but not in others, and a lot of people around the world, and particularly in the global south, but I would say not only in the global south, even within our Western democracies, are confused. They look at what's happening in Gaza and at the intensity of the killing and they ask, where are human rights? Where are these Western values? I'm sure you're having here today and yesterday a lot of similar discussions, Minister Baerbock. Yes, and they are so productive because many of them are not only speed-dating, but behind closed doors very trustfully. And I think the most important job for those who believe in a rules-based international order, be it politicians, be it journalists, be it citizens, is to not be pushed into this speed-dating into this black and white world in all our bubbles because easily, and this is a double-standard question, if you only look and you mentioned the situation in Gaza, if I only see the whole time on YouTube what's happening in Gaza, and I do that every second day, every day I cannot stand it because otherwise I couldn't get out of my bed anymore. Your reality is obviously the only thing what we can and have to do right now is to go in a total ceasefire to rescue these innocent children dying there every day. And you're 100% right by that. But the question is to really come to this reality is to force myself, not myself, but all these persons are saying this is the moral right thing to do, to then also ask, so how do we come to that? And this is then when some might ask so why you German Foreign Minister didn't call for immediate ceasefire the last month ago because I also looked at the other side, at the other YouTube videos, at the other bubbles, where we saw, I saw four days after the 7th of October I didn't really see it, I spoke to the father whose wife and two little girls had been kidnapped by terrorists from Hamas. I saw the video where women have been not only raped but murdered afterwards. And in that moment for me it was clear again that we can also not only relate to the past saying okay we know how negotiations with terrorists are working because if you saw that video and if you were ready to see these women suffering there you understand that this is not only military logic because those people who are doing this raping a woman and killing her afterwards they don't want to exchange soldiers or political prisoners they enjoy slaughtering women. I'm saying that because I think this is really important bringing it down to the people because then you understand in this kind of situation how do we come now to the ceasefire that the release of hostages the release of these women is crucial because otherwise we can never save the children in Gaza. So this comes all back to what my dear colleague Rechenka has said if we're not capable of stepping out of right or wrong yes or no, black or white we will in this world of dilemmas never do what our job I would say the three of us here is to do all the best to rescue people and this is why we have been working so intensively for those partners, Arab partners in the last three months to see how we can come together for the most important point right now freeing the hostages having a humanitarian pause to bring in humanitarian support into Gaza and not stopping even though the headlines are there every day you cannot fix it anyhow. I think the biggest favour for those who do not care for human rights in the international order is that we are giving up and that we are not being ready to look at these different topics from our different side and this is why at least for me I would say for all the three of us use our competencies use our channels we are having and there's again diversity is beneficial if we are not all the same but if we are trying to solve this horrible war in the Middle East from our different perspectives then we can also bring security both for the people in Israel and the people in Gaza. I have to say I fully subscribe fully subscribe to everything that Annalena said and I think as people in positions for a brief period of time of responsibility but also and maybe foremost as human beings as mothers, fathers, children brothers and sisters we are intensely driven to try to prevent or stop human suffering including the suffering of men, women and children in Gaza the question is how to do it most effectively and how to take account of the incredible complexity that Annalena just outlined so well but there's another element to this that we have a responsibility to do something about the greatest poison in our common well is dehumanization and we see that in all directions and if you lose sight of the humanity of someone else then your heart is hardened to a point where anything is acceptable and anything is possible part of our responsibility is to do what we can to push back to avoid to call out dehumanization wherever it's coming from in whatever direction because if we can't get at that it's very hard if not impossible to do other things One of the criticisms that I think I'm sure you hear a lot is that U.S. policy has of course shifted in the last couple of months but yet you want the fighting to stop but there is no sign whatsoever that you're not willing to send weapons to Israel for example so that also confuses people when they look at the rhetoric versus the action what would you say to that? Social security that's been clear from day one it remains clear and we understand and support the proposition that Israel has to find ways to make sure that what happened on October 7th never happens again so we start there but we've also said and not only said we've acted on the proposition that of course the way Israel does that matters profoundly the way it does it in terms of trying to ensure greater protection for civilians who are caught in a crossfire of Hamas' making that's absolutely essential making sure that people in need get the assistance they need we are working on this every single day and as we've seen this evolve over the last four months things have happened as a result of our engagement our intervention that I would say probably would not have happened almost certainly wouldn't have happened without it but it's not enough it's insufficient and that's why we're at it almost literally 24 hours a day may I add something on that? yes sure because for the full picture and this is what we are discussing and this is a good thing in these horrible times I'm always trying to see the glimpse of hope at the horizon the good thing is that over the last three months all these discussions were helpful in a way first we didn't have any humanitarian support now we have at least a few trucks not enough trucks but also from the other understanding and this is why I totally agree with the security guarantees for Israel you cannot just say we need a ceasefire and the Israeli government the IDF has to stop and then we just wait and see what happens to the regrouping of Hamas no we have to give an answer to both legitimate security concerns so our part of discussion is for example in the north if people go back to the north how do we as an international community secure that Hamas is not regrouping there misusing against civilians as human protection shield and this is also part of our common international security response Minister, what is the view from India what would you if you had some advice for your colleagues what would you tell them well I don't have advice from my colleagues though I particularly I think all of us follow the enormous efforts which Tony is putting in right now but look the way we look at it there are different dimensions different elements to this number one we must be clear that what happened on October 7th was terrorist no caveats, no justification, no explanation it was terrorist number two as Israel response it is important that Israel should have been very mindful of civilian casualties that it has an obligation to observe international humanitarian law number three the return of hostages is today imperative number four there is a need for a humanitarian corridor a sustainable humanitarian corridor to provide relief and eventually there has to be a permanent fix a long-term fix otherwise we're going to see a recurrence and I think today suddenly India has long believed in a two-state solution we have maintained that position for many decades and I think today many more countries in the world today feel not just that the two-state solution is necessary but it is more urgent than it was before let me take a couple of questions I think there's a film in there and then there and there okay let's take all three questions actually we'll take four questions very quickly yes four is there Natalie touchy Rome a question in fact both secretary Blinken and her foreign minister I mean the logic of the argument of being somewhat reticent on pushing for a ceasefire as far as I understand is basically that of saying well one needs to make sure that what happened on the 7th October does not happen again and so the question that I ask you is do you think that what is happening now what has happened over the last four months will actually reduce the chances of what happened on the 7th October happening again will it actually make Israel more secure or not okay so there's okay I thought that question was that that side but okay thank you very much Alexei Gintryenko Member of the Parliament of Ukraine Secretary Blinken you said those who are not at the table are in the menu Ukraine was at the table in Budapest when we voluntarily gave up our nuclear weaponry now we are in the menu so the question is what is the way for us we are confronted with the nuclear power either we will become member of NATO alliance with the nuclear power or we should restore our nuclear status I don't see any other option what option do you prefer and what you will answer on this thank you very much there's a question here question there and then we'll do one round would that be okay yes I mean I have time here we go thank you my name is Shafiq I'm from Egypt my question is to Secretary Blinken you've invested an incredible amount of time trying to bring a settlement in the issue of Gaza and at the very same time we all feel in the region that things can spill over in a very dramatic way especially there are many excuses of why not to have a solution but to do things step by step that is not going to work so my question to you is sir why with all the countries including the United States including the UK just what Cameron has just said proclaiming a two state solution is not something the United States puts on the floor now and be able to achieve thank you finally there's a question there and then I'm afraid I have a loud voice I don't need a microphone hello my name is Masih Alina Jad I'm an Iranian troublemaker for Mullahs and I have a simple question we cannot talk about global security by forgetting about Iran by burying human rights abuse under the carpet I'm here today with a woman who was in the front line of last year uprising she was shot in her eyes she lost her eyes because of the revolutionary guards so my question is very clear how we can reach to peace and security in the world without designating the revolutionary guards as a terrorist organization which the United States of America did that thanks but why the allies are not following the United States the democratic countries are not as united as autocracy because Islamic Republic is helping Putin is helping Hamas all the proxies in Yemen unfortunately dictators are more united than democratic countries do you have any common strategy to isolate Islamic Republic and address Khamenei and his gang of killers the way that you address Putin thank you so much to all three of you I know one was directed a couple were directed at Secretary Blinken so maybe maybe you start so to the question is Israel more secure now after 4 months after October 7 I think the answer is in the near term in the immediate yes it is in terms of dealing with the immediate threat the horrific terrorist group that attacked it in the most unimaginable ways on October 7 is it more secure for the long term that's a different question because the fundamental question we have to ask ourselves is and Jai mentioned this how do we make sure that the cycle one way or another doesn't repeat itself whether it's a year from now, 5 years from now or 10 years from now I think there's an extraordinary opportunity before Israel in the months ahead to actually once and for all and that cycle and it's because there's some new facts that didn't exist before when there were efforts to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians starting with the fact that virtually every Arab country now genuinely wants to integrate Israel into the region to normalize relations if they haven't already done so to provide security assurances and commitments so that Israel can feel more safe and more secure at the same time there are genuine efforts underway led by Arab countries to reform, revitalize, revamp the Palestinian Authority so that it can be more effective in representing the interests of the Palestinian people and could be a better partner for Israel in that future and there's also I think the imperative that Jai mentioned that's more urgent than ever to proceed to a Palestinian state one that also ensures the security of Israel and makes the necessary commitments to do so if you put all of that together you have an integrated region where people are actually working together for the common good in which Israel is secure in ways that it's never been before and where the number one threat to its security as well as the security of many of us just alluded to in the last question, Iran is isolated along with all of its proxies that future, that path is there it's clear it's hard, it's complicated but it's real the alternative is an endless repetition of the cycle that we've seen year after year, decade after decade generation after generation it's incumbent upon all of us who have relationships with and responsibility for different countries in the in the region things that we bring to the table ourselves to make the hard decisions do the difficult things to actually make that path clear, real and one that whose attraction is overwhelmingly powerful I think the more we're able to do that and the more we distinguish between that path and the alternative the greater the chance we'll actually see movement in that direction I'll say just very quickly on Ukraine I think you've heard throughout this conference including by the fact that we have an extraordinary delegation from the United States Congress here Republicans, Democrats, Senate, House that there is enduring support for Ukraine and that's not just from the United States it's from country after country in Europe and well beyond for a whole variety of reasons starting of course with the aggression that the Ukrainians have suffered but also because that aggression to the very principles at the heart of the international system that each of us has a stake in preserving and that's not going away so there's a tremendous determination on the part of dozens of countries to do two things first, to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs to deal in the immediate with the ongoing Russian aggression but second, to put Ukraine on a path where increasingly in the months and years to come and strongly on its own two feet militarily, economically and democratically that is the strongest possible rebuke to Putin it's the strongest possible rebuke to all those who would seek to undermine Ukraine and I'll just conclude with this the real lesson to be drawn from what we've seen including as you rightly said what we're currently tearing up and then spitting on the Budapest memorandum among many many other agreements is that this aggression against Ukraine has been an absolute strategic debacle for Vladimir Putin and for Russia Russia is weaker militarily it's weaker economically it's weaker diplomatically Europe has ended its energy dependence on Russia in the space of two years more united than they've ever been including against Russia which was not the case certainly in 2014 not desirable but it's a result of Russia's actions and certainly since 2022 we have a NATO alliance a defensive alliance with no intent of ever attacking Russia only there to defend its members that is now stronger and larger all of this a result of actions that Russia has taken precipitating the very things it said it wanted to prevent so I think as those lessons are digested not to mention the horrific losses that Russia has suffered as a result of Vladimir Putin throwing its young men into a meat grinder of his own making I think the more those lessons are digested the more you're going to see that this is not repeated but that requires all of us to maintain the solidarity that we've demonstrated with Ukraine the solidarity that is important not just for Ukraine but for all of us the stakes couldn't be higher so my belief again listening to everyone here over the last couple of days talking to our members of Congress who are with us is that not only is that support there it will be sustained and Ukraine will succeed Thank you Secretary Minister Berbock I guess the question from Iran was for us so the question was why do you not follow the example and list them as terrorists in a terrorist sanction regime the revolutionary guard we have discussed it quite often but the quick answer is because I'm defending rule of law trying without any double standards and our legal situation in the European Union whether we like it or not but this is how in which context we are working in our European legal system we have a sanctioned system for listing under terrorism if terrorism occurs in another country especially in the European Union it was after the attacks on the US on the 9th of September so we need a legal ground to list them so far we do not have proof that there have been this terrorist attacks in the European Union there were different cases it's a different legal system in the years and this is important for me because I hear this argument again and again this is not because we shy away with regard to the revolutionary guard or the crimes against the women use civil society its own population no, we use the instruments we are having as a European Union to defend human rights we set up for the first time in history of the European Union a sanctioned system because of human rights violation and for me this is even stronger in the past it was the same with Daesh and the crimes against Yazidi women they have been brought to court not slaughtering women not saying these are the worst sexual violence crimes you commit but under terrorism I think this is wrong and the crimes and the crime is targeted directly to women directly to human rights we say we sanction you because of what you have done to you shooting in your eyes killing your friends killing your sisters and it's the same effect and this it comes all down to me for me politics it's not about symbolic action it's about what matters for the people and under this sanctioned system human rights sanctions from the EU revolutionary guards we named them cannot enter the European Union we have frozen their asset so the result is exactly the same what the US has done under the terrorist sanctioned system so if you ask me do we act as a result in the same way yes we do but we call it human rights sanctioned system because these are the worst human rights violations you can see and this comes also back to the other question about symbolic politics or what matters in reality we would have been at a total different state if after the 7th of October this was a question from Italy after the 7th of October we could have had a common resolution we were in Cairo at the so called peace summit together with different countries many Arab partners and also from the European Union we tried to fix a text where we would say okay after these horrible crimes of the 7th of October there could be the momentum now for whatever generations have dreamt of a two state solution pathway but in order to do that we have to guarantee that the 7th of October never happens again to Israel and we have to guarantee that Palestinians have the security to live in peace and security for them unfortunately those meeting there together not everybody was ready to name the 7th of October what it was a terrorist attack from Hamas on Israeli people and this is why we passed this momentum I regret it but this is how life is so now again we have to work again if we now after 4 months where we see that the current situation only brings misery for everybody if we can regroup again and this is why what we have described before for us it's so important to work together as European Union, as the US with Arab partners to find what we need guarantees that Israelis can live forever in security that the 7th of October can never happen again and the same counts for Palestinian people it has to be a reversible path towards a two state solution and this is our job which we have to do right now and we can only do it together with the different partners neither the US, definitely not Germany but also not one Arab country alone can go this path we have to group and unite together for the peace in the Middle East Insha'Allah as they would say one minute I think a very large number of countries especially of the global south believe that terrorism shouldn't be countenanced or justified but they equally strongly believe that a two state solution should not be delayed these are not choices these are both musts and unless we are able to address both these issues we are not going to really solve the problem well thank you all I know that we've gone over time so apologies for that and thank you to the audience