 Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador, for those very generous remarks. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your presence and for your warm reception. Those were exceedingly, indeed, excessively generous remarks. And I'm very grateful. It brought to mind after I completed my service in Northern Ireland, I wrote a book about it. And when the book was published, I took what we in the United States regard as an obligatory book tour around the country to promote sales of the book. And I then learned for the first time that there are more Irish-American clubs in the United States than there are Irish-Americans. And I was invited to each one. And in each one, the introductions got more and more lengthy, more excessive, more separated from reality. And I loved it. My wife said she was worried that I was getting a swelled head. I assured her that wasn't the case until the last stop was in Stamford, Connecticut at the Stamford Irish-American club when my head was so swollen, I could just barely squeeze it through the door. But when we went in, the very first person I encountered was an elderly woman who rushed up to me. She's very excited. She said, I'm so pleased to meet you. She said, I don't live anywhere near here, but I drove 2 and 1 half hours just to come here, to shake your hand, and to ask you to sign my poster. And I said, well, of course, she handed me a poster with a large photograph on it. And I looked at it and I said to her, well, ma'am, I'm very happy to sign your poster. But of course, you should be aware that I'm not Henry Kissinger, whose photograph was on the poster. She said, well, you're not. She said, well, who are you, anyway? So I told her who I was, and both her face and her words expressed her disappointment. She said, oh my god. She said, this is terrible. She said, I'm so disappointed. I drove 2 and 1 half hours to meet Henry Kissinger, and all I've got is you. So that brought me back down to earth. And it actually, while I'm at it, I'll tell you most of it reminded me of an early time where I got a little bit of humility when I was campaigning for reelection to the US Senate. Maine is a rural state with very few large urban areas, but a lot of farmers. And so I was campaigning in an area of Maine for a couple of days at farms. And I stopped at one farm. And if you campaign enough in politics, you can tell almost at the moment of meeting whether you're going to get a good or a bad reception from the initial reaction. And the initial reaction was very good of this farmer. And he invited me in and asked me if I would have a picture taken with two of his cows. Now, one of the secrets of success in politics is the ability to make a fool of yourself gracefully. So of course I said as though it happened every day, sure I'll take my picture with your cows. And he explained to me that he had two very prized cows, which he had just sold to the government of Saudi Arabia, which was in the process of upgrading its dairy herd and had an emissary for Saudi Arabia, traveled the country and found the best dairy cows the American bought them to send back. So I had my picture taken and I continued on my way. And the next morning in a local newspaper in the rural area, sure enough, right on the front page, nice big picture of me and two cows. So early that morning I was out making my rounds again with farmers and I went to stop at a farm and it was a very long way off the highway, long gravel drive to get to it. And as soon as the farmer, now very elderly general, I had a sense this wasn't going to go well. So groping for small talk, I said to him, gee, I said, you've got a very long driveway to get here off the highway. He said, well, he said, if it was any shorter, it wouldn't reach my house. I said, so I stuck out my hand and I told him who I was. He said, oh, I know who you are. I said, how do you know that? He said, I seen your picture in the paper with them two cows. I said, what did you think about it? He said, senator, I'm a Republican. I think we should keep the cows here and send you to Saudi Arabia. So anyway, now that I'm back down to Earth distancing myself from your introduction, I will say a few words generally at the outset. A little bit about Europe. I'm here primarily to speak at an OSCE conference tomorrow and then specifically about the Middle East and in particular the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And then I'll be very pleased to try to respond to your questions afterwards. I begin by asking you to go back to the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, when in an effort to secure the peace and to promote stability, the United States and the Democratic peoples of Europe established new international institutions and alliances. The United Nations was created, NATO was established, the European Union was founded, a host of new international institutions from the World Bank to the IMF and others were created. Germany and Japan were rebuilt and became resurgent. The intention was to embed the nations of Europe into political, economic, and military alliances that would make it less likely that Europe's long history of war and conflict would be repeated. Everyone had in mind, of course, that in the preceding three quarters of a century, from 1870 to 1945, three major land wars devastated Europe. In the last and greatest of them, the Second World War, in countries whose populations were, for the most part, much smaller than they are today in that conflict worldwide between 55 and 60 million people were killed. And large areas of continental Europe, including many major cities, were laid to waste. In the three quarters of a century since then, that Europe has been largely at peace. There have been, of course, some local and regional conflicts, but measured against its prior history, the absence of major war, or now even of its possibility, particularly among the larger countries in Europe, is a heartening and a new development. And that's why it's so important, not just the Europeans or Americans, but important worldwide, that the EU's current financial crisis be resolved in a manner that does not undermine that impressive political achievement. The American people understand that decisions regarding Europe's future will be made by Europeans for Europeans. In the process, however, you will receive our full support, our encouragement, and whatever assistance we can provide. I believe that the North Atlantic Alliance and what flowed from it is an extraordinary example of leadership and collaboration at an important turning point in history. We now face new challenges, but we still need extraordinary leadership. One enormous challenge new to human history did not exist prior to the Second World War is, of course, the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons. The United States led the world into the nuclear age and has led the efforts to contain these highly destructive weapons with some degree of success. There are now in the world many countries with the capacity to develop nuclear weapons who have refrained from doing so voluntarily. But North Korea has raised the number of countries with such weapons to nine. And Iran appears on a track to make it 10. Iran's program in particular, but also possibly in conjunction with North Korea's, could trigger a collapse in the non-proliferation regime and result in a large increase in a number of nuclear powers in a relatively short period of time. So it remains of the highest importance on the international agenda that the effort to limit the spread of nuclear weapons be sustained and indeed intensified. If you go back over human history, it's in large part a tale of conflict. How it began, how it was brought to an end. The reason it's different now is that we're there to be in all-out nuclear exchange. It might be the end to conflict, as opposed to an end to a conflict. And there's greater urgency now even beyond the threat of nuclear warfare. The number of people on earth is increasing rapidly. The number of nation-states continues to grow and is now nearly 200. The number of non-state organizations which rely on acts of terror to initiate or extend conflict is also increasing. And sad to say, inequality, injustice, the absence of freedom, poverty, famine, and disease, all are the reality of life for vast numbers of people in the world. It took 18 centuries following the birth of Christ for the world's population to reach one billion. The most recent billion was added in 15 years. Think about that, 1,800 years for the first billion, just under 15 years for the seventh billion. Although the rate of increase has recently slowed, most credible estimates are that by the middle of this century, less than 40 years from now, there will be between 9 and 1 half and 10 billion people on earth. And most of that growth will take place in poor and less developed countries, especially in Africa. And that means more competition for land, for water, for growth, for power, and inevitably more conflict. Much as we would hope otherwise, I think it unlikely or unrealistic to expect a world free of conflict. To the contrary, I think increasingly, the challenge will be to prevent local and regional conflicts from extending further. And all of this is occurring at a time when technology has enhanced the human ability to kill eboloja numbers of other men and women. Let me turn now to the Middle East, the Arab Spring First, and then Israel and Palestine. The Arab Spring represents a turning point in the history of the region. While the countries involved are predominantly Muslim and most are Arab, each has a unique history. And it is a profound mistake to think of them as all the same. There will be uncertainty and instability. There'll be different outcomes for different countries. And there will, I think, at least judged by our standards, be some good results and some bad results. History tells us first that revolutions are unpredictable and often require years, even decades, to play out. In my own country, the United States in a much less complicated time, seven years elapsed after the end of fighting before the United States was established. And unfortunately, history also tells us that it is often the case that very bad governments that are removed by revolutions are replaced by even worse governments. The most obvious example, of course, being Russia, where people were oppressed by the Tsarist for centuries, and then along came the Bolshevik Revolution and the murderous dictatorial regime of Stalin. So we have to be patient and realistic in our expectations, even as we do all we can to support the transition to democracy where possible in the Middle East. And we must always bear in mind that these changes came from within and will succeed or fail from within. We also must continue our effort to help end the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Pessimism is now widespread and justifiably so. There are many, many reasons to be skeptical about the prospect for success, the most recent of which is the Arab Spring itself. The upheavals across the Arab world, especially in Egypt and Syria, have created anxiety and uncertainty among both Israelis and Palestinians, making progress in resolving their conflict more difficult than ever. Even before the Arab Spring, the conflict had gone on for so long, had engendered so much hostility and mistrust, had said such devastating effects that many in the region and outside regard it as not capable of being resolved. But from our perspective, the pursuit of peace is so important that it demands our continuing and maximum effort. The key is easy to state, very difficult to achieve. It requires the mutual commitment of Israel and the Palestinians and the active participation of the United States government with the support and assistance of the many other governments and institutions who can and want to help. The task is to reconcile the Palestinian goal of a viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Early in 2009, just before leaving office, President George W. Bush traveled to Jerusalem where he made a speech setting forth American policy. It, in fact, described the policy that existed before he took office and continued after he left office. In part, he said, and I quote, the point of departure for permanent status negotiations is clear. There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized and defensible borders and they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent. It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other's fundamental objective is a key to a successful agreement. Security for Israel and viability for the Palestinian state are in the mutual interest of both parties. If I could reframe the President's words in a different way, Israel has a state, a very successful state, but they don't have a security. They want it and they deserve it. The Palestinians don't have a state and they want that and they deserve that, not just to have the right to self-governance but the dignity that comes with being able to exercise that right. Neither can attain its objective by denying to the other side its objective. Palestinians are not going to get a state until Israel has a reasonable and sustainable sense of security. And I don't believe Israel can achieve that unless and until the Palestinians get a state. When President Obama took office in 2009, he publicly reaffirmed that basic policy. But it seemed then that the culture of peace, which had been so carefully nurtured during the years of the Oslo process, had disappeared and had been replaced by a sense of futility and of the inevitability of conflict. Just four days before President Obama was sworn in, the conflict in Gaza had ended. The Palestinians were deeply divided and Israel was in the middle of an election campaign and the result was highly uncertain. There were very few then who believed that there was any chance of restarting peace negotiations, let alone achieving an agreement. And unfortunately, three years later, that remains largely the case, despite an intense effort. A solution cannot be imposed externally. The parties themselves must negotiate with the active and sustained support of the United States and other friendly countries. This will require of them compromise, flexibility, and most of all, extraordinary leadership. I still believe that the conflict can be ended. In part, because while negotiating a peace agreement will be very painful for the political leadership in both countries, in both societies, because both are deeply divided, I believe that the pain that their societies will endure if they do not reach an agreement will be much, much greater. There is no course that is risk-free. There is a risk to Israel from negotiating an agreement, the possible failure of the Palestinian state. But in my judgment, the risk is far greater if they don't reach an agreement. So it's going to be very difficult, but I think it can be done. There is a lull now, and it has created a false sense of security. But if history is any guide at all, that won't last. And if the conflict continues, both societies face dangerous and uncertain futures. Let me mention just a few beyond the dramatic and devastating results of a renewal of conflict. In particular at a time when given the tension between Iran and the Arab Gulf states and other countries in the region, between Sunni and Shia, the upheaval in Syria, the upheaval in Egypt, the possibility of further upheaval in other countries, an outbreak of violence now could spread in ways that have not occurred in the past and cannot now be perceived. There are many challenges on both sides. I'll mention just a couple in the interest of time. For the Israelis, the first is demography. There are now just a little more than five and three quarters million Jews living in the region between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. In the same space, there are a little more than five and one quarter million Arabs if you include West Bank, Gaza, and Israeli Arabs. The two sides disagree on almost everything, but on demographics, there is no disagreement. The Arab birth rate overall is much higher. And in a very short time, talking about just a few years, the number of Arabs will exceed the number of Jews. The most recent population estimate from the region is that in the year 2000, there will be 500,000 more Arabs than Jews in that region. And when that happens, if the two state solution has been lost, then Israel will have to make the choice between being a Jewish state or a democratic state. It cannot be both in the absence of a two state solution. Now, this is not much discussed in the United States. I don't know about Europe, but in Israel, it's very actively discussed. Most recently and forcefully by Ehud Barak, the former prime minister and now defense minister who has described it as a painful choice that Israel should not have to make. The second challenge is the result of technological developments. Keep out suicide bombers. Israel built a large wall around the country. And it does keep out suicide bombers. But the threat to Israel's existence does not come from suicide bombers. It comes from rockets. Hamas has about 8,000 of them, crude, lacking in range and accuracy and destructive power, but nonetheless creating fear and anxiety. And that cannon should be no doubt that if the conflict goes unresolved, Hamas's rockets will increase in number and accuracy. Hezbollah has a very large number just on Israel's northern border. The public estimates are between 30,000 and 50,000. While they also have limited range, they are more accurate and they have more destructive power. And Hezbollah prior to the Syrian upheaval was engaged in a major upgrade campaign, not to increase the numbers of rockets, but to increase their range and accuracy and destructive power. But the biggest change is that Iran has now passed the technological threshold and moved from liquid fuel to solid fuel rockets with the range and the capability of reaching anywhere in Israel. They don't have the precision weapons that the United States and some of our lives possess that enable them to target and strike a specific building or a specific military unit. But they have sufficient accuracy that they could cause enormous, devastating death and destruction in large cities. Now the United States is fully committed to Israel's security. That's a firm and unshakable commitment to honor it. We have provided Israel with vast sums of money and military support, most recently in the development and deployment of an anti-missile system. But never in human history has a war occurred in which tens of thousands of targeted rockets were launched simultaneously against a country. And so no one can say with certainty whether an anti-missile system would intercept all, none or some, or how many of them would reach their targets. And so it's possible that Israel's very existence could then be threatened. The Palestinians also face serious problems. The first of course is the indefinite continuation of an occupation which has gone on now for 60 years under which they do not have self-governance and do not have the dignity that comes from self-governance. In 1947, the United Nations proposed a partition plan of the region. Israel was to get 55% of the land, Palestinians 45% of the land, and Jerusalem was to become an international city with access to all. Israel accepted the offer. The Arabs rejected it. Six Arab countries invaded Israel and the first of several wars began. All of them won by an increasingly strong Israel. Every Arab leader with whom I talked and I talked with many, many of them in the last few years would today gladly accept that UN partition plan if it were still available, but it is not available. And it never again will be available because the circumstances have changed so dramatically. And since then, each of the plans offered to the Palestinians have been less attractive and they've rejected them all. I told Chairman Arafat and President Abbas both on several occasions that there is no evidence, not a shred of evidence to suggest that the offers are going to get better in the future. To the contrary, all of the evidence is overwhelmingly that the offers are going to decline in attractiveness the more time passes. So I believe that they should sit down, participate in and stay in direct negotiations to get the best deal they can to create a state. Even though it will not be 100% of what they want. That's the way they can bring the occupation to an end. They can get a state that they can build on and under the exemplary leadership of the current Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, they have demonstrated that they can lay the foundation by building the institutions needed for a viable and independent state. Unfortunately, the state building effort cannot succeed absent progress on the political track. There is no possible way that they can get a state just through the building of those institutions. They need progress on the political track and the two are inextricably linked. It's an enormous challenge, especially given the extremely high level of mistrust between the two sides, the disbelief and the hostility that comes from such a long and painful and bitter conflict. But I believe that with the kind of extraordinary leadership that was demonstrated here in Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War, it is possible and we have to help them find a way to renew hope and to get an agreement. Thank you very much. With that, I'll conclude my remarks and I welcome any questions or comments and if you may have.