 Let me be very direct. Isn't hope an opium for the Palestinian people? We have seen President Obama speaking about hope, and then a few years later that fired back maybe. I'm a musician, I work with musicians in Palestine, and they told me like in the 90s they made music with Israelis and singing in Hebrew and Arabic and then together in English. But now they stop because they say, we don't want any more creating the symbols of living together. Normalization, yeah. Like normalization, yes. So what about hope? Quite frankly, while conceding the point at the philosophical level, I cannot accept it at the practical level. I guess my short answer is, and this is something I thought about before, I mean these are not really words I use. That's my state of mind. You have absolutely no choice if you're a Palestinian, but to be optimistic. There is no choice. This is a matter of conscious decision making. Optimism to me is not a state of mind. It's an act of conscious determination and decision making. You can choose to be optimistic. You can choose to be pessimistic. In my view, you have to choose to be optimistic. It's a matter of choice. I can't defend it only in those terms, but I cannot be justified on any other ground superior to the content of your own comment. But when you think about it, what this is about is about building a nation. This is about building a state. This is about ending occupations. It's about getting our people to enjoy that, which is an absolute right for all people around the world to live as free people with dignity in a country of our own. This is not small. Now, I submit respectful to you that you cannot get there if you're down. You have to lift your spirit up. You have to think it's possible. There is no way that the possible will happen if impossible will begin to look less certain than it does look generally unless you are in that high state of spirit. So you really have to first inspire yourself. And if you are in government, obviously, it's to give responsibility of yours to inspire people around you. And if you really fail to do so, that's a major failure because this is about doing something that's really big. Oh yeah, from time to time people feel down. I mean, there's a lot in the Palestinian context to complain about. There's a lot to complain about if you are Palestinian. There's a lot to even cry about if you are Palestinian. I do that, but I do not. I choose not to stop there. You have to really go beyond. You have to go beyond. You have to really change this reality by defying it. You reject status quo by doing something about it and not just complaining about it. Build, you know, project reality of status on the ground. That process itself is rejuvenating. It really builds character and it really reinforces the sense of possibility in ways that I think can be extremely transformative. We read the million dialogue and what first struck me was its relevance today. And let me give you an example. When I was in Amman recently, I spoke to this Syrian human rights lawyer and she told me what's happening in Damascus at this moment where the regime has besieged parts of the city belonging to the opposition and belonging to those people demanding freedom and democracy and justice. And due to this siege, nothing can enter these areas of the city. So no goods, no food. And as a result, the people face starvation. So the regime has given them a choice and has portrayed it on these huge banners hanging throughout the city saying hunger or on your knees. So I was struck by the similarities of the situation of the million people and I wonder today, two and a half thousand years later, when idealism and realism clash, who wins? Realism in the short run, idealism in the long run. How about that? And I think those in power should really keep that in mind. But unfortunately, going back to Rob's point, democracy, people are not going to be there forever in government. That's a good thing. The downside to this is that they tend to think in terms of quick gratification. You're not going to find it easy to look at a political cycle where those who are in power are not interested in making a difference and to make it quickly. Now, this in itself is a good thing. But when it comes to international relations, it's a lot more challenging. I mean, in order to satisfy as many people as you possibly can, I think it's really good to get into the job with some sense of urgency that you really want to make a difference. You really are not going to take forever to think about things. You have already thought them through before you ran for office. You have a good idea as to what to do with the taxation regime, et cetera, et cetera. So there's nothing wrong with trying to really go for a quick solution as quickly as you possibly can, but of course not at the expense of long-term prospects of sustainability. What I do not understand is, you know, why politicians, not person to you in the Fatah party, we always talk about we need to keep hope. We need to keep dreaming. You always go to United Nations. You ask, please give us our country. Please recognize us. And you say, you've got to dress like you. You don't walk with it. You don't go with the wave. You've got to be yourself. And I ask myself, why don't you take your freedom? Just say we've been oppressed for more than 65 years. You seek for democracy, but here in Holland democracy didn't come. They don't start with democracy. Democracy comes after the rebellion, you know? And you talk about Libya, you talk about South Africa. They already were states. Then they're going to look for the freedom. And I don't understand how you can look for democracy before you got a state. It's a choice as to the instruments that you choose to deploy in your struggle for justice. That's the determination that people make. Now, to my way of thinking, I said, for example, attainment of our national rights is something that we should continue to pursue on the strength of stubborn nonviolence. That's the doctrine that I stand on. And I think it's superior. And I think in a practical sense, definitely, one can really engage in debate on this. But my own view is that you will find that it has really served our cause a lot better, although I'm for it again on principle. That's the choice that you make. There's nothing wrong with appearing to what international law says. International law, after all, is that you're codified, you know, a set of rules that the world has agreed on in terms of what is permissible, precisely to put brakes on what is powerful and mighty, would otherwise do all by themselves. Is it a perfect system? I was asked the question, did not respond to this before. I mean, it's been there for many, many decades. And I think it's really time to really take another look at it to really see the extent to which it is adequate for world affairs to continue to be governed this autocratically, if you will, where, you know, one country or select group of countries because of who they are, you know, can shape outcomes so unilaterally without taking into account, you know, what the rest of the world thinks, the overall sentiment, the sense of the consensus of humanity when it comes to the justness or injustice what goes on whether or not part of the world or elsewhere. So, you know, I think that's really a choice that countries make, people make. I'm not really here to really say that I should really force this on others or all I'm saying with modesty is that this is something that I believe is a lot more reasonable. But as I said, I agree with you on something fundamental. You do not just park it there. You don't go to New York or to the Hague or places and seek justice and international law and complain about things without beginning with what you need to do consistent with your own national objectives. Our freedom is not really going to be given to us. It's going to be earned by us. It's up to us to win that freedom. And I think we can win it on the strength of what we do every day. I believe we are closer to that goal. Every day we succeed in keeping one Palestinian family on the ground where it is. Every day we succeed in securing access by one Palestinian child to a school or someone who is sick in need of healthcare, access to healthcare facility or safe drinking water. Isn't this about perseverance? Isn't this about withstanding the adversity under occupation? Is it not the highest responsibility facing any responsible government in Palestine to ensure the capacity of our people to persevere and withstand the adversity of occupation? The answer is yes to all of these questions. And I think that's a very important part of resistance if you will. To resist in this sense is to exist. You can't expect people to withstand this adversity on the strength of speeches or appealing to some ideas in the abstract. You have to provide the means, the world with them that would make that steadfastness possible in the form what we do every day to take a step closer and another one toward our goal of freedom with dignity. I thank you, Mr. Allen, for this opportunity. Thank you. It's a pleasure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks.