The Latest from Iran (3 September): Qods Day and the Karroubi Siege

2250 GMT: Before shutting down, we have posted the claimed video of Thursday night/Friday morning's attack on Mehdi Karroubi's house.

2220 GMT: Ending with Gratitude. EA took the night off for a music festival (yes, an EA Music Corner special may be coming in the morning).

Thanks to all for contributing information and ideas on an interesting day.

We'll be back early in the morning with the latest news and a series of special analyses on what this Qods Day meant for the Iranian regime and the opposition.

NEW Latest Iran Video: The Claimed Attack on Karroubi’s House (2/3 September)
NEW Iran Video and English Summary: Mehdi Karroubi after 5th Night of Pro-Regime Siege (3 September)
NEW Iran Urgent: Breaking News with Video on Day 5 of Karroubi “Siege”
Latest Iran Video: The Rooftop “Allahu Akbars” (2 September)
Pro-Regime Media Asks, “Which is Worse: Stoning or Prostitution?”
NEW Iran Document: Karroubi-Mousavi Meeting on Eve of Qods Day (31 August)
The Latest from Iran (2 September): Karroubi, Mousavi, and Qods Day

1930 GMT: Larijani Talks Tough on US. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, speaking to a Qods Day audience, has maintained his public line that it is not possible to hold direct talks with U.S. officials.

“Negotiation with the US is not possible and no one has the right to make compromise with the Great Satan,” said Larijani.

However, on the wider (and relevant) issue of whether Tehran would discuss uranium enrichment with the 5+1 Powers, which include the US, Larijani was ambiguous. He said that, according to the Supreme Leader’s guidelines, Iran’s policy is negotiation but not with the US.

1900 GMT: Checking in from a music festival in the centre of Britain, I find Press TV giving me the truth on the Karroubi siege.

It is largely a straightforward report of "groups of people...preventing (Karroubi) from leaving his residence in Tehran" to attend the Qods Day rally, although the casualties --- a Karroubi bodyguard is reportedly in a coma --- are reduced to "four people were reported wounded".

Then the blame sets in: "Mehdi Karroubi was one of the controversial figures following the 2009 presidential election in Iran and the frenzy that followed the vote in the wake of baseless fraud allegations against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election.

Public anger against Karroubi were intensified after his and other opposition supporters attempted to obstruct last year's Day of Quds rallies by invoking purely nationalistic slogans.

He also created controversy and public rage by airing rumors of jail-rape by unidentified individuals that had claimed to have been detained during the post-election riots."

1620 GMT: How Big Was That Rally? Fars News' lead story is that the Associated Press has reported on Iran's anti-Israel protests today, with "millions" on the streets. Earlier today, Iranian media were concerned that outlets of the "West" were minimising the crowd.

So it would seem the regime is getting very concerned that the world know that today proves it has a lot of support from its people. I'm looking for the proof: so far I can't track down the Associated Press report.

1615 GMT: Karroubi Watch. Mehdi Karroubi's Saham News, down for a few hours this afternoon (see 1445 GMT), is back on-line.

1600 GMT: How Big was the Regime Rally? Iranian Students News Agency posts a set of photographs of today's march in Tehran for Qods Day. This is the largest crowd shot in the set:



1555 GMT: Attacking the Clerics. Aftab News offers a pro-Government version of the clash today in which a pro-regime crowd --- reported by Rah-e-Sabz as "200 to 300 Basij" (see 1400 GMT) --- entered and shut down the Qoba Mosque in Shiraz, the base of Government critic Ayatollah Dastgheib.

The Facebook site supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi posts photos of those injured in the attack.

1445 GMT: Attacks on Karroubi. Mehdi Karroubi's website Saham News (see 1420 GMT) has been taken down by an apparent attack diverting readers to a "dummy" site on financial matters.

1435 GMT: Today's Alice-in-Wonderland Statement. Tabnak accuses foreign media --- who operate, if they can report at all, under strict Government oversight --- of "censoring" reports on the turnout for the Qods Day rally. Mehr levels a similar charge at CNN.

Am I sensing regime worry that the rally may not have been the grand success it wanted? Fars attacks the BBC and al-Arabiya for minimising the turnout.

1430 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. Aftab News reports that former President Hashemi Rafsanjani joined today's march for Qods Day.

1425 GMT: Sanctions Watch. Japan has imposed new sanctions on Iran over Tehran's nuclear programme, banning transactions with some Iranian banks and targeting energy-related investments.

Japan approved sanctions against Iran last month, but US officials have been pressing Tokyo to adopt tougher measures.

Despite the pressure, Japan --- a major importer of Iranian crude oil --- but did not impose any restrictions on its oil imports.

1420 GMT: Karroubi Watch. Mehdi Karroubi's Saham News, a primary source of information about the siege of the Karroubi house, has been off-line for the past hour, first with a blank screen and now with a "403 Forbidden" error.

1405 GMT: Perspective. An EA source from Iran offers the following, "The deaths are going on all the time; recently two people from my town were killed by the regime. The families are forced to say they died of natural causes, but everyone knows that the regime killed them. And that is going on in every city, town, and village of the country. People are just disappearing. And those who are being killed are the people no one hears of, and those who do have a voice are being silenced.'

1400 GMT: Shutting Down the Clerics --- Clash in Shiraz. Rah-e-Sabz provides more information on the closure of the Qoba Mosque in Shiraz, the base of Government critic Grand Ayatollah Dastgheib (see 1050 GMT), this morning. The website claims that 200-300 Basij entered the mosque and proceeded to attack the cleric’s students.

1355 GMT: Academic Corner. Iran’s Deputy Minister of Higher Education, Bagher Khorramshad, has cancelled his trip to the Netherlands after protests by the Dutch-Iranian community.

The visit, organized by Clingendael (the Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and the Iran's Embassy was scheduled for 17 September.

1340 GMT: The Karroubi Siege. It looks like this story may take over from the Government's Qods Day showpiece. The latest is that Grand Ayatollah Bayat Zanjani has called Mehdi Karroubi to express his support and praise his resilience, according to reliable sources. Bayat Zanjani denounced the attacks on the Karroubi house and hoped that the pro-regime crowd would cease their activities.

One of Imam Khomeini’s grandsons, Seyed Yasser Khomeini, also visited Mehdi Karroubi to express his condolences and denounce the assailants.

1215 GMT: The Karroubi Siege. The Assembly of Teachers and Researchers of Qom Seminary School has issued a statement strongly condemned the attacks by a pro-regime crowd on Mehdi Karroubi's home.

Karroubi's Etemade Melli party have also put out a statement of condemnation.

1210 GMT: More Tough Talk (see 1040 GMT). General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, the commander of the Basij military, has complained that "our hands are closed due to treaties" when it comes to actions of Zionists. Naqdi continues, "We are waiting for a foolish move by Israel to erase it."

1050 GMT: Controlling the Clerics. The Qoba Mosque, the base of Grand Ayatollah Dastgheib, is closed for prayers, even though it is a Friday.

Dastgheib, far from coincidentally, is a prominent critic of the Government.

1040 GMT: Today's Tough Talk. Let's hand over to the head of Iran's armed forces, General Hassan Firouzabadi: ""Our developed weapons can hit any part of the Zionist regime....We hope not to be forced to attack their nuclear facility [at Dimona]."

0950 GMT: Karroubi Watch. More information from Saham News on last night's violence by the pro-regime crowd surrounding Mehdi Karroubi's house: the website claims a husband and wife were beaten. The incident allegedly began when the woman, who had her headscarf removed, was spotted using a mobile phone.

Saham News also claims the couple were detained.

Mir Hossein Mousavi and his wife Zahra Rahnavard, in a phone call to Karroubi, offered their full support "and strongly condemned the hideous and foolish actions of a group of thugs pretending to be Muslims".
0920 GMT: Rah-e-Sabz reports that security forces have flooded 7 Tir and Enghelab Squares and lined roads leading to 7 Tir from the north. Several people have been detained, one allegedly for wearing a Green bandana.

The website also claims security forces with batons are boarding metro cars in Tehran to seek out any Greens. Forces at checkpoints in Tehran and are stopping and searching people.

Mehdi Karroubi's son Hossein says his family home is still surrounded, preventing his father from getting to the Qods Day rally.

0833 GMT: Ahmadinejad's speech ends. Nothing new in a statement which was meant to whip up crowd sentiment against Israel, and certainly no references to the internal situation (apart from the President's repeated, unintended ironies on allowing the people to choose and the media to speak and on the flaws of the West in supporting "sham elections").

The far more important issue, I suppose, will be the reaction that the President's speech gets from others in the Iranian establishment as well as from the population.
0825 GMT: I'm sorry, but I can't keep a straight face when Ahmadinejad enjoins the "West" to "listen to your people" and "let the media speak": "Do not silence them. Let them raise their voice."

0820 GMT: Ahmadinejad, addressing "the US and the West", challenges them --- as the authors of the United Nations Human Rights Charter --- to support a referendum in Palestine and to hold referenda amongst their peoples over Palestine policy.

0815 GMT: Ahmadinejad now appealing to Arab leaders to "let your people be free" to "bring down the Zionist regime". He says, "Instead of relying on American and the West, you should rely on God."

0810 GMT: Ahmadinejad says, "Israel-Palestine direct talks have already failed."

0808 GMT: Ahmadinejad now criticising sham elections in Iraq. (No, he showed no sense of irony or self-reflection with that statement.)

0803 GMT: Now Ahmadinejad gets confident saying that, with the rise of Qods Day, the Zionists are under pressure and "are on the verge of collapse".
0800 GMT: More of the same from Ahmadinejad, as crowd breaks in with "Death to Israel".

0755 GMT: Karroubi Watch. Saham News reports that more than 20 motorcyclists have surrounded Mehdi Karroubi's residential complex.

0748 GMT: More from Ahmadinejad on "moral corruption" and "cultural devastation" of the "Zionist regime": "No culture is immune".

Ahmadinejad says the Zionists have "manipulated history of World War II" with the symbols of the Holocaust", which he calls a "likely crime". He adds that politicians in Europe or North America are "selected by the Zionists".

0740 GMT: President Ahmadinejad is now speaking at Tehran Friday Prayers, commenting on the repression of the Palestinian people and the "occupation" of the area over the past 60 years.

0710 GMT: Press TV is now featuring crowd shots from Kerman in central Iran and Oroumiyeh in northwestern Iran as well as Tehran.

No significant action, so Press TV is playing up the presence of Lauren Booth (the half-sister of Cherie Blair, wife of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair) as their correspondent in the centre of Tehran. She is enthusiastic, opening, "Well, I've never seen so many people take to the streets of a capital city in my life. Here we are...on Al-Qods Day 2010 with a million people expected....The message coming from Tehran today, not just to Palestine but to the world, is one of steadfastness, a message of solidarity."

0645 GMT: MediaWatch. No real movement yet, so we settle for the unintended irony of analyst Seyed Mohammad Marandi in Press TV's studio: "After the Revolution, people power is more important."

The host and Marandi continue to talk about "people power, a factor, a big factor". At no point do they reflect, as they speak in post-election Iran, that the term might hold significance in a context different from that of Palestine.

0635 GMT: The Karroubi story continues to hold centre stage as we wait for the Qods Day rallies for the regime. We have posted the video and English summary of the cleric's TV interviews after the violence on the fifth night of the siege of his house by a pro-regime crowd.

0535 GMT: Today is Qods (Palestine) Day in Iran. Established by Ayatollah Khomeini on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan, the occasion traditionally shows solidarity with the Palestinian people as they seek independence. Last year, however, the day took on a different tone, as those protesting the 2009 Presidential election and the Government's actions demonstrated on the streets.

A year later, after the regime's suppression of dissent and amidst the continuing turmoil within the system, there is unlikely to be a significant show of opposition. Instead, the question is: can the regime and Government offer an enthusiastic demonstration of support for their legitimacy? The showpiece will be Friday Prayers in Tehran, where President Ahmadinejad will take the podium before Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami offers the Friday Prayer speech.

Already, however, the Government's effort has been complicated, if not overshadowed, by the events of Thursday night outside the residence of Mehdi Karroubi. The fifth night of the siege by a pro-regime crowd escalated into violence that caused damage and injures, as assailants tried to get into the Karroubi house.

An EA correspondent gets to the heart of the issue and thus the possible difficulties for the regime, even as it tries to parade its authority today:

Either Ayatollah Khamenei knews and approved the attack, or he is unable to stop it. Ahmadinejad on the other hand probably knev and secretly approves.This whole sordid affair casts a sorry light over the government's insecurity and its reliance on intimidation and threats in order to cow the opposition into silence.

We have continuing coverage of the Karroubi siege in a separate entry.

Israel-Palestine Transcript: George Mitchell on the Direct Talks (3 September)

Following Thursday's trilateral meeting between Israeli Prime Minister George Mitchell, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama's special envoy George Mitchell briefed the press. He did not give any detail on the substance of direct talks, he did put out a few markers.

*Washington expects a "comprehensive" peace for a "viable Palestinian state and a secure Israel" within one year

*The Israeli and Palestinian delegations will meet once every two weeks. The next discussion will be 14-15 September, with Mitchell and Clinton present. Meanwhile, talks will continueat other levels in Washington.

The first aim of the meetings is to reach a framework for settlement between the parties.

*Iran is presenting a threat to the peace process but both parties can convert this into encouragement for agreement.

NEW Israel-Palestine Analysis: “Security” Moves to the Front in Direct Talks (Yenidunya)
Israel-Palestine Video & Transcript: Clinton-Abbas-Netanyahu Statements and Meeting (3 September)

TRANSCRIPT:

MR. MITCHELL: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The parties have just concluded the first round of trilateral talks. The meeting lasted about an hour and a half. It began with a plenary session involving the full U.S., Israeli, and Palestinian delegations on the eighth floor of the State Department and then broke to a smaller meeting in the Secretary of State's personal office involving Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Abbas, Secretary Clinton, and myself. Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas then went into a separate meeting for a direct discussion. That meeting is still going on right now.

In the trilateral meeting, there was a long and productive discussion on a range of issues. President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed their intent to approach these negotiations in good faith and with a seriousness of purpose. They also agreed that for these negotiations to succeed, they must be kept private and treated with the utmost sensitivity. So what I and they are able to disclose to you today and in the future will be limited, but I will now describe some of the key items that were addressed in the trilateral meeting.

Both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas condemned all forms of violence that target innocent civilians and pledged to work together to maintain security. They reiterated their common goal of two states for two peoples and to a solution to the conflict that resolves all issues, ends all claims, and establishes a viable state of Palestine alongside a secure state of Israel. President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed that these negotiations can be completed within one year and that the aim of the negotiations is to resolve all core issues.

The parties agreed that a logical next step would be to begin working on achieving a framework agreement for permanent status. The purpose of a framework agreement will be to establish the fundamental compromises necessary to enable them to flesh out and complete a comprehensive treaty that will end the conflict and establish a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The parties agreed that in their actions and statements they will work to create an atmosphere of trust that will be conducive to reaching a final agreement.

They agreed to meet again on September 14 and 15 in the region and roughly two weeks thereafter - every two weeks thereafter. Of course, continued interactions at other levels between the parties and also yet others involving the United States will take place between those meetings. In fact, a preparatory trilateral meeting to plan for that second meeting in the region has already begun at another location in this building and will continue here and in the region between now and September 14th, as is necessary.

As both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have said, the United States pledges its full support to the parties in these talks. We will be an active and sustained partner throughout. We will put our full weight behind these negotiations and will stand by the parties as they make the difficult decisions necessary to secure a better future for their citizens.

As we saw this week, there are those who will use violence to try to derail these talks. There are going to be difficult days and many obstacles along the way. We recognize that this is not an easy task. But as the President told the leaders, we expect to continue until our job is complete and successful.

And with that, I'll be pleased to take some of your questions.

QUESTION: Senator, I'm Jeff Napshin with CCTV News out of Asia. I would like to know what was their personal relationship. At times when you saw them next to each other, it seemed like they were kind of distant. Did they seem to interact? Did they seem to develop any kind of bond or relationship together?

MR. MITCHELL: The relationship was cordial. As you know, these men have known each other for a long time. This is not the first meeting between them. They are not in any way strangers politically or personally. And I felt that it was a very constructive and positive mood, both in terms of their personal interaction and in terms of the nature of the discussion that occurred.

QUESTION: Thank you. Nadia Bilbassy with MBC Television. Senator, President Obama yesterday talked about some progress when asked, and I appreciate the fact that you don't want to divulge too many details, but today, Prime Minister Netanyahu talk about the Jewishness of the state, which is considered nonstarter issue for the Palestinian. Just generally, do you think that these issues can be - can you bridge the gap considering there is obviously so many difficulties? But since re-launching the negotiation today, do you think this is - could be an issue that could be an explosive for the whole issue - for the peace process?

MR. MITCHELL: First, I believe very strongly, deeply, and personally that this conflict can be resolved and that these negotiations can produce a final agreement that enables the establishment of a Palestinian state and peace and security for both peoples.

Secondly, it is, of course, self-evident that the reason for a negotiation is that there are differences. The differences are many, they are deep, they are serious, and it will take serious, good-faith negotiations, sincerity on both sides, a willingness to make difficult concessions on both sides if that agreement is to be reached.

But I don't think that any human problem can be solved if one begins by viewing the problems as insurmountable, as suggesting that the mountains are too high and the rivers are too wide, so let's not undertake the journey. There has to be a sincerity and a seriousness of purpose combined with a realistic appraisal and understanding of the difficulties, but a determination to overcome them.

I believe that exists. I believe these two leaders, President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu, are committed to doing what it takes to achieve the right result.

MR. CROWLEY: Major.

QUESTION: Hello, Senator Mitchell. Major Garrett, Fox News. You remember well from your life on Capitol Hill the phrase, whenever a tough negotiation was going on, "Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to." Will that be the operative approach, you believe, for this process? And as a result, will you be reluctant to talk about anything that's agreed upon until everything is agreed upon? That's one process question.

The second one is you discussed the framework; is the deadline for the framework one year? Or is the framework something we're likely to see much earlier and the one year still governs the entire solution to all remaining issues?

MR. MITCHELL: In terms of process, that and other questions will be resolved by the parties. The - you cannot separate process from substance in these discussions. There is an interaction that affects both and we've made it clear that these issues are to be determined by the parties. We have had extensive discussions with them on that and many other issues, and those will continue.

Our goal is to resolve all of the frame - all of the core issues within one year. And the parties themselves have suggested and agreed that the logical way to proceed, to tackle them is to try to reach a framework agreement first. And as I said - and I think this ought to be made clear because there has been a good bit of misunderstanding or not a full meeting of minds publicly regarding a framework agreement - a framework agreement is not an interim agreement. It's more detailed than a declaration of principles, but is less than a full-fledged treaty. Its purpose is to establish the fundamental compromises necessary to enable the parties to then flesh out and complete a comprehensive agreement that will end the conflict and establish a lasting peace.

MR. CROWLEY: Charlie.

QUESTION: Thank you. Charlie Wolfson with CBS News. You mentioned that a number of issues were talked about today, but can you mention specifically that settlements was among them? And do you plan to be in the region for the talks that will take place on the 14th and 15th and at the table as well? Though you said the U.S. would be a part of the talks, take an active role, do you plan to be there for those talks, and can you tell us where they're going to be?

MR. MITCHELL: As I said at the outset, what I will be able to disclose to you, that the parties will disclose will be limited. And so you've given me the first opportunity to invoke that principle with respect to the first part of your question, for which I thank you. (Laughter.)

Secondly, both Secretary Clinton and I will be at the meeting in the region on September 14th and 15th, and one of the subjects now being discussed in the trilateral preparatory meeting that's ongoing in another room in this building, to which I must go in a few moments, is that subject. So a determination has not yet been made. That will be made, I believe, obviously in the near future and well in advance of the meeting.

MR. CROWLEY: Kirit, and then we'll go there and then come back.

QUESTION: Kirit Radia with ABC News. I would like to take another crack at it after Charlie. I understand and appreciate that you can't get into specifics about what was talked today, but I'm curious whether you could say - could speak about the scope of today's talks, whether they did involve any substantive discussions on any of the core issues or whether this was strictly to lay out the plan for the coming year. Thanks.

MR. MITCHELL: As I mentioned in my response to Major's questions, I don't think one can neatly characterize process and substance as though they're two separate things in these matters. They do interact and relate. You can't discuss a process issue in any meaningful way without some relations to the substance that's being discussed.

And so as I appreciate you said you're taking another crack at Charlie's question, and that gives me the chance to say for the second time that I'm not going to be able to get into the substance. But yes, there were discussions that touched on subject - on substance, although I don't want to suggest to you that the meeting was such that there was a detailed and extended discussion or debate on a specific substantive issue.

MR. CROWLEY: We'll move over here and then we'll wrap up.

QUESTION: Ron Kampeas from JTA. It appears from this morning that obviously there weren't any substantive concessions. There were - there have been rhetorical concessions. President Abbas talked about security, which is something that Netanyahu has wanted him to talk about, and Netanyahu yesterday at the dinner talked about recognizing the Palestinian claim that they're - that the Palestinians live there.

Is that something that you've noticed? Is that something that the Americans have been encouraging? Have you played a role in asking the leaders to get out those statements?

MR. MITCHELL: We have encouraged the parties to be positive in their outlook, in their words, and in their actions. Any realistic appraisal of the situation, including the recent history - by which I mean the last two decades - makes clear that there are very serious differences between the parties, that there are many difficulties which lay ahead both in terms of the substance of the issues, the impact on their domestic politics, the needs and interests of their societies. We have not, of course, attempted to prescribe what they can or should say about any issue. These are independent and extremely able leaders representing the interests of their societies.

What we have sought to convey in innumerable conversations that I have had personally with both leaders over many, many months is President Obama's conviction that despite all of the difficulties - near term, long term, political, substantive, personal, and otherwise - the paramount goal of making the lives of their citizens more safe, more secure, more prosperous, more full can best be achieved by a meaningful and lasting peace between the parties and in the region; that the alternative to that poses difficulties and dangers far greater to the individuals, to the leaders, to their societies, than those risks which they run in an effort to reach an agreement that brings about their lasting peace; that any realistic evaluation of the self-interest of the people of Israel and the Palestinian people must, in our judgment, conclude that they are far better off living side by side in two states in peace and security than in a continuation of the current situation.

MR. CROWLEY: Two last questions here (inaudible).

QUESTION: Yeah. Mohamed Ouasi of France 24 Washington. Senator, Prime Minister Netanyahu mentioned Iran this morning. Wouldn't that be making things more difficult for you to close the gap between the two parties?

MR. MITCHELL: In every aspect of human life, including your personal life and mine, the world is much different today than it was 10 years ago and vastly different than it was 20 years ago. And that is certainly true of the Middle East. It is an area of rapid change, of many conflicting currents that historians and analysts have described far better than I could in any exchange we have here.

But obviously, the actions and policies of the current Government of Iran have an effect in the region and in the wider world, and they influence what is occurring here. And in my judgment, they add another argument to those which I've already made and which many others have made as to why this conflict should be resolved. It is in the interests of the people involved, and in this respect, the word "comprehensive peace" is directly relevant. Please recall that when President Obama announced my appointment two days after taking office, he specifically identified comprehensive peace as the objective of U.S. policy in the region: Israel and the Palestinians, Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon, Israel at peace with all of its neighbors in normal relations.

And obviously, one of the factors that makes that desirable, in my judgment necessary, for all of these parties is, in part, the actions and policies that have been and are being taken by the Government of Iran. Yes, so it is a factor. Even if it didn't exist, there would be a compelling reason for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but that's an additional factor.

MR. CROWLEY: Last question.

QUESTION: Senator, Laurie Ure, CNN. Peace negotiations between the parties have taken place, obviously, several times in the past. What is Secretary Clinton doing differently than her predecessors, including President Clinton?

MR. MITCHELL: Although my comment on that is not constrained by the agreement which I earlier described - (laughter) - there are other constraining factors - (laughter) - which come into play that somehow come right into my head as you completed the question. (Laughter.) Since I was not a part of the immediately preceding administration, although I did serve at the request of President Clinton and the then prime minister of Israel and the president of the Palestinian Authority as chairman of an international commission in 2000 and 2001 following the eruption of the second intifada, I'll tell you my own belief.

First, we can't be deterred by the fact that previous efforts didn't succeed. The cause of peace is so important, so just, indeed - I'm not trying to use hyperbole - so noble, that it must continue notwithstanding prior efforts at failure. Indeed, an argument can be made to the reverse that the prior failures create an even more compelling imperative to proceed now.

Secondly, with respect to past efforts, as I said previously, not today but at an earlier briefing, we think that the best approach is to carefully review them, as we have done, and to try to draw the best lessons out of each one, not be bound by any particular practice or process or procedure, and always trying to keep in mind the dynamic changes in the region that have occurred in what is, in historical terms, a very short period of time.

So we don't - I've been asked often, "Is this a continuation of Annapolis? Is it a continuation of some other process?" Our view is this is an effort that will try to learn from the lessons of the past, take the best and bring them forward, but not be bound by any label or category or previous process. Everything should be judged on the basis of what it will do to advance - help us advance to achieve the ultimate goal of peace in the region.

Now, one obvious difference is that President Obama is the only president in recent times, to my knowledge, to have established this as a high priority immediately upon taking office and to have acted immediately at that time. There have been many very well-written books on the history of the past 20 years. I think I've read most of them. And it's very clear that at least in a couple of instances, time ran out. Indeed, the authors of several of these books used exactly those words to describe the problem: They ran out of time at the end.

Well, this President, I believe, will succeed. But as he said yesterday, neither success nor failure is predetermined or guaranteed, but it isn't going to be because time ran out at the end. So that's a vast difference.

I have a high opinion of the men and women who served in these tasks in the past. I know most of them personally, and I don't think you can attribute inability to achieve a result to their individual or collective failures. They are the product of the difficulty and what many regard as the intractability of the problems and issues. But we believe that there are dynamic changes that occur. There are the more obvious difficulties that lie ahead for both sides if they don't reach agreement that may be even more obvious than they were five or eight or 12 years ago.

You have to remember that these leaders must weigh two things. They must weigh the difficulties they face in getting agreement and they must weigh the difficulties they will face if they don't get an agreement. And we believe it's a very powerful argument that if you subject these to careful, reasoned, and rational analysis, to conclude that the latter difficulties, if they don't get an agreement, will be much greater and have a much more profound impact on their societies than those they face in trying to get an agreement.

Thank you all very much. Been a pleasure to see you and I look forward to reporting to you on a regular basis.