Where Hosni Mubarak Is

As we watch history unroll, and with a quiet State Department today (I do not mean to imply nothing is going on. Probably too much is going on behind the scenes for them to be making public statements until after the White House press briefing), I thought I would re-post part of what I put up back in September before the rolling Quartet meetings on and in the Middle East (Where Hillary Clinton is going). According to various news sources, Hosni Mubarack left Cairo and and is thought to have fled to Sharm El-Sheikh at some point today.

This map shows where Sharm El-Sheikh is located on the Red Sea at the tip of the Sinai Peninsula.

In the original Sharm El-Sheikh post I had written this:

Located at the tip of the Sinai Peninsula between Mount Sinai and the Red Sea, Sharm el Sheikh is known as the City of Peace due to the many peace conferences it has hosted and making it a perfect spot for these talks to resume. The Sinai itself has been contested territory through the latter half of the 20th century having gone from Egyptian to Israeli hands and back a few times. As it is solidly Egyptian now, Sinai provides Egypt entrée to the list of countries that occupy more than one continent spanning the northeast corner of Africa into Asia.

Today is a new independence day, a new national day for the people of Egypt, and the whole world watches as their peaceful demonstrations have given way to rule by the people. Those of us who follow the work of our magnificent Secretary of State know how hard she has been working behind the scenes to midwife the birth of this new democracy.

When the going gets tough, Hillary Clinton works quietly and diligently without any fanfare, but I want to say here that I know how hard the work was, what a toll it took on her, and how proud I am to have her speaking for all of us on this historic day. Thank you, Madame Secretary, for a job well done!

Hillary Clinton About Egypt On Five Sunday Morning TV Talk Shows Tomorrow

Thank you, Hal Boedeker!

Hillary Clinton to discuss Egypt on five Sunday shows

ABC, CBS, CNN, Face the Nation, Fox News Channel, Meet the Press, NBC, State of the Union, This Week, WESH, WFTV, WKMG, WOFL — posted by halboedeker on January, 29 2011 11:28 AM

The crisis in Egypt has the Sunday morning programs revising their guest lineups.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit five Sunday morning programs:

***”State of the Union starts at 9 a.m on CNN.

***”Fox News Sunday” starts at 9 a.m. on WOFL-Channel 35.

***NBC’s “Meet the Press” begins at 9 a.m. on WESH-Channel 2.

***CBS’ “Face the Nation” begins at 10:30 a.m. on WKMG-Channel 6.

***ABC’s “This Week” starts at 11 a.m. on WFTV-Channel 9.

Secretary Clinton: Two Interviews

Secretary Clinton gave an exclusive interview to Jackie Northam of NPR at the Fairmont Hotel before leaving Cairo. On the plane, she answered some questions from her press corps traveling with her. Both transcripts are below.

Interview With Jackie Northam of NPR


Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Fairmont Hotel
Cairo, Egypt
November 4, 2009

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton’s trip was initially intended to shore up American credentials in Pakistan, but a Middle Eastern leg was added to her tour and ended up becoming the focus of her week overseas. I spoke with her shortly before she was to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Madame Secretary, thank you very much for taking the time.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

QUESTION: You’re here in Cairo and about to meet with President Mubarak. Even though you started in Pakistan, most of your nine-day trip has been spent focusing on the Middle East. Now, as you’re about to head back home, do you feel that you have made any progress in that area? Do you feel that you’ve been able to nudge the Israelis and the Palestinians a little bit closer to the negotiating table?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jackie, I think that I had always intended to end in Morocco for the Forum for the Future and meet with my Middle Eastern and Arab counterparts. And it was, I think, a good opportunity, since I was in the region, to visit in depth with both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas, as well as others who have been involved in this effort from around the region.

I think it’s important to just put this in a broader perspective. The President always knew that this would be hard, and is committed and is absolutely determined that the United States will stay very involved and working to bring the parties together. Our goal is to re-launch negotiations as soon as practical. And on the way to that, we’re going to keep talking and listening and encouraging and prodding, because I’ve been around this issue in a very close and personal way for, gosh, 16 years now. And I know that when the United States leaves the field and basically says, “Well, the parties have to work this out themselves,” we don’t get the kind of forward movement that we think is necessary.

QUESTION: Great, thank you. If you were able to convince both sides to at least take a couple steps forward and sit at that table and restart the peace negotiations, wouldn’t Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas look weaker than ever?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think so, but of course, what matters is not what I think, but what he thinks. And there’s been a sequence of actions which have complicated the effort for him. I, however, believe that getting into negotiations, having his negotiators discuss with the Israeli negotiators what are called the final status issues, which President Obama listed in his United Nations speech in September in New York – everything from borders to Jerusalem to refugees – has to be resolved between the parties.

So I think his getting into negotiations would actually change the dynamic and give him a very strong platform. But for all kinds of reasons, most particularly his willingness to work with the Israeli Government to postpone the so-called Goldstone report, has made it very difficult for him to go forward at this time.

QUESTION: Okay. Just to switch gears a bit, you spent a lot of time explaining to Arab states and others over the past few days what you meant in Jerusalem when you were talking about the Israeli West Bank settlements. And your comments were viewed by quite a number of people as praising Israel’s proposal to slow rather than halt the construction. And yesterday, you acknowledged that perhaps you should have been a bit more clear when you were explaining President Obama’s policies on that.

How much of a problem did your comments in Jerusalem create?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t think it created a long-term problem, but it certainly created a lot of questions. And the reason is because President Obama has tried to do something which no previous American president, including my husband, tried to do, which was to make absolutely clear what has been American policy for 40 years – namely that we view Israeli settlement activity as not legitimate. We think that their changing the facts on the ground, so to speak, is something that should be ended.

So when President Obama said look, we want to see an end to settlement activity, that was unprecedented. And then when the Israeli Government, under this prime minister, said we will agree to end all new settlement activity, that was really unprecedented as well.

I have taken the position that when the Israelis or when the Palestinians make a positive step, they should be encouraged, so that – I have said to the Israelis, I’ve said publicly and privately that the Palestinians have made real progress on security, something which people did not expect, and to this day, a lot of people don’t give enough credit to. So I think my job is to try to keep people focused on what is actually both possible and positive. And the Israeli offer was not at all what we would prefer. It did not go far enough, but it went further than anybody has before.

QUESTION: Were you surprised at the – how big a stir that created, though?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, no, I’m not surprised by anything – (laughter) – because this is the tightrope of all tightropes, and I’m well aware of that. But I also think it’s important to make the case. Settlements have never been a precondition by anyone – Palestinian or Arab or the United States – to getting into negotiations, because what is so clear is that once borders are decided, the settlement issue goes away. The Israelis build whatever they want in their territory, the Palestinians build whatever they want in theirs.

But what President Obama tried to do was to say look, this is such an irritant, it is such a terribly – it’s a terrible flashpoint for people in the region. And I was surprised that the Israelis went as far as they did. The Arabs and the Palestinians said it wasn’t far enough. I understand both sides.

QUESTION: Just a couple more questions if you don’t mind, if we could just switch over to Pakistan. And again, you spent time earlier on this trip explaining comments that you made in Pakistan as well, that al-Qaida had been in there since 2002, and that you found it hard to believe that no one in the government there knew where al-Qaida leaders were, and also – al-Qaida leaders were and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to.

Can I ask you, was that just – were those just spontaneous remarks or was that --

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, not at all, no. I mean, as you saw, the whole purpose of my trip was to try to clear the air with the Pakistani people and government, to reassert our support for Pakistan, particularly in this very difficult conflict they’re engaged in with the Taliban, and to listen and absorb all the criticisms they have. They had this sort of pent-up frustration with the United States. And as you know and as you saw, I listened and under – and tried to convey understanding of all of their questions about our policy, going back years.

But at the same time, I wanted to stress that we’re looking for a partnership, and they have to listen to our concerns as well as we listen to their concerns. I feel strongly that as we move forward in these very complex areas that pose real concerns to our national security, concerns to partners like Pakistan’s security, that it is important to make clear to the people – not just the leaders – that we have to speak openly with each other.

And the reaction that I got in Pakistan was overwhelmingly positive – and I’ve been reading a lot of the blogging and the reaction on the press – in part because they’re not used to anyone from the United States Government coming and opening herself to their concerns. They’re just used to saying – to having somebody say, take it or leave it, with us or against us, go forward or not. And so I think we’re building a stronger base for our relationship.

QUESTION: I have just one last question. We’ve seen Hamid Karzai be declared the winner of Afghanistan’s presidential elections while you were on this trip. There have long been concerns about his credibility and whether he can be counted upon as an ally of the U.S. And now that he has been reelected, is the Obama Administration more confident now that it can depend on him as a reliable ally, or is this sort of a wait-and-see situation?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I spoke with President Karzai after the election results were announced. And I told him that we now had a lot of work to do, and there were expectations on both sides. But certainly, from the American perspective, we believed it was important for him to establish a compact with the people of Afghanistan that would commit him and his new government to an anti-corruption campaign, to more accountability and transparency, to a recognition that there has to be more cooperation with local officials, that they have to work with us to build an adequate Afghan security force to protect and defend their country.

So we are laying out very clear expectations. We’re willing to offer our assistance, but we’re going to hold the Government of Afghanistan accountable for what they claim they want, which is the United States and the international community’s assistance in providing security for their people and in producing results for them as well.

QUESTION: Does he appear to be on board with all these initiatives that the --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, he certainly – he and I have a long relationship, and I have met with him many times over the last eight years, both in Afghanistan, in Washington, even in New York when he came to visit Fort Drum in upstate New York, where a lot of the soldiers who were part of the first wave of the invasion against the Taliban and al-Qaida in 2001 were based.

So he and I know each other. I have been waiting for the election, frankly, to finally be over. It has caused a delay in our policy, because how do you decide on important matters that are going to depend upon whatever agreements you make with the government until you finally get a result? So that is, thankfully, over. And our people, both Ambassador Holbrooke and Ambassador Eikenberry and the people working with them, are working to implement what we see as the necessary assurances we require from him.

QUESTION: Secretary of State Clinton, thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Jackie. Good to talk with you.

Remarks on The Plane in Cairo, Egypt


Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Cairo, Egypt, DC
November 4, 2009

QUESTION: There seems to be a little confusion over whether the Egyptian position, which, as expressed by the foreign minister earlier in the week, seemed quite harsh, was very much (inaudible) Palestinians (inaudible), that the (inaudible) take up an opportunity to (inaudible), said fine, (inaudible), yeah, we’re not going to come out and scream and yell anymore, and maybe we’re going to tell them they shouldn’t do it, or he was just being polite? How did you interpret it?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I thought it was a very productive meeting. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Candid, cooperative?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Candid, cooperative, productive, constructive – and shows the value of consultation and listening and sharing ideas and hearing the other side and putting forth your views and explaining. I thought it was a very, very (inaudible).

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, in order to get the Palestinians to the negotiating table for – to start talking about full – about final status issues, would you – are you able to give them a guarantee that the negotiations would be about a state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are working – and I don’t want to get into negotiating details, but we are working to really fulfill what were, in essence, the terms of reference for any negotiations set forth in President Obama’s speech to the United Nations. I don’t think enough attention may have been paid to exactly what the President said and the importance of what he reaffirmed as the American position. And it obviously is about the territory occupied since 1967, it is about Jerusalem, it is about refugees, it’s about all of those final status issues.

So we want to be facilitating the return to negotiations. We don’t think that there’s any question in anybody’s mind about what’s going to be talked about.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I just want to clarify something the Egyptian foreign minister said. On the one hand in the briefing, he said that any more settlement activity is completely unacceptable, but then in another breath, he said we’re focused on the endgame; we don’t want this issue or that issue to impede getting there. So in your private conversation with him, how did you understand the resolution of those seemingly conflicting comments?

SECRETARY CLINTON: The --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) one issue means don’t let settlements get in the way –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but that’s our position. We don’t think there should be continued settlement activity either. We would like to make it as clear as possible, which, as you heard, I repeated for the question from the Egyptian media. Our position has not changed. We have the same position. There is a desire to get into these final status negotiations, and we think taking advantage of a stop to all new settlement construction happens to be in the best interests of the negotiations.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton --

QUESTION: So then it wouldn’t be a precondition anymore? The Egyptians might go along with saying, okay, then don’t have a precondition, get it back to the table?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t want to speak for the Egyptians.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And I think that you should let the foreign minister’s words stand for themselves. And Jeff speaks Arabic, so he can go into more detail about that. But I think it was very clear that the – and this is not very different from what I heard from my counterparts in Morocco. We have to figure out a way to get into the re-launch of negotiations.

And things have happened along the way, the Goldstone report being the most recent and the most difficult for everybody. And that was not – and you saw what happened is the Palestinians tried to postpone so that it wouldn’t be an issue and then they got criticized for that. And I mean, so – but that doesn’t take away from what the ultimate objective is, and that’s what I think you heard from Aboul Gheit and what you heard from me.

QUESTION: Have you talked with --

QUESTION: But how – where does Abbas get the cover to take that heat? Where does Abbas get the cover to drop the precondition?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Go ahead, (inaudible).

U.S. OFFICIAL: But he does not have to sign up for this deal. This is something that the Israelis are putting on – are talking about putting on the table. He doesn’t have to sign up for it at all. No one’s asking him to bless it.

QUESTION: No, you’re asking him to sign up for talks though, right?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, but that’s slightly different. The Israelis are offering this. It can be rejected by everyone. There’s no imposition of it, no requirement for it. The Israelis will decide whether or not they want to go forward with it. That’s up to the Israelis, obviously. But at the end of the day, this discussion about settlements will be mooted by getting into negotiations about borders. Because then, you can build what you want in your state and the other can build what they want in their state.

QUESTION: So just to follow up on my question very quickly, some Palestinians – some Palestinian officials have said that if you were – if the Americans were to give guarantees that negotiations would be about a state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, they would consider this as an encouragement to sit down at the table of negotiations.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, and I think that’s --

QUESTION: Is that one way of getting around the settlement issue?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that’s a very welcome suggestion, and it is something that --

QUESTION: Is that something you’ve talked – discussed with them?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We have. We have discussed it with nearly everyone.

STAFF: I think it’s time to buckle up, guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

Secretary Clinton Remarks with Egypt's Foreign Minister Gheit

Remarks With Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Presidential Palace
Cairo, Egypt
November 4, 2009


FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: (Via interpreter) I would like to welcome the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We had – she has had – just finished now a meeting with President Mubarak, a meeting that lasted more than an hour. We also met with Secretary Clinton yesterday evening, myself personally, as well as Omar Suleiman (inaudible). These were two-hour – that was a two-hour meeting of very intensive work. Our consultations between the U.S. and Egypt touched on the issue of the situation in Palestine, the effort for peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and how we can put back the negotiations on track.

We have also talked about the regional issues, such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan and Lebanon. And also our consultations between the two countries are productive, are frank, candid, and are clear. And we have a good understanding of all the issues. Each side put forth his own vision. And we also report our vision of the Egypt vision for the peace – for pushing peace forward, and our consultations keep on being productive.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. It is a pleasure for me to be here with my counterpart Foreign Minister Gheit. He and I have had numerous meetings and telephone conversations ever since I assumed the position of Secretary of State. As he has just said, we’ve had a very productive, comprehensive meeting last night with the foreign minister and with General Suleiman, and then, we had a constructive and very positive meeting with President Mubarak.

The United States sees Egypt as an essential partner, not only in the Middle East, but on global and regional issues, as well. And we are committed to working with Egypt to strengthen and deepen our cooperation and our partnership on these vital matters.

Our main focus today with President Mubarak was, of course, on Middle East peace efforts. I emphasized to the president that President Obama, Special Envoy Mitchell who is here with me today, and I are all deeply and personally committed to achieving a two-state solution and comprehensive peace between Israelis, Palestinians, and all of their Arab neighbors. It is a commitment that brought us to the region this week and to Cairo specifically last night and today. We are working hard to help the parties come together in negotiations that can yield progress toward our shared objectives. And we regard Egypt and other Arab neighbors as critical partners in helping to move this effort forward. I assured the president, the minister, and the general that the United States shares their deep concerns about the people of Gaza.

As I said in Marrakech two days ago, I believe we can find a way through the difficult and tangled history that too often prevents us from making progress for a comprehensive peace and a two-state solution. We can maintain an allegiance to the past, but we cannot change the past. No matter what we say about it, it is behind us. So we must follow the (inaudible) that has been put forward by President Obama and help shape a future that will be vastly better for the children of both Palestinians and Israelis.

I came to Sharm el-Sheikh shortly after becoming Secretary of State and expressed that deep commitment in a very personal and public way. So as we work together on this critical issue, we are also cooperating in a spirit of mutual respect to build a better future for the people of Egypt. As part of that effort, President Obama and I are committed to realizing the vision of the Cairo speech: education, human development, economic partnership, the promotion of human rights. We support the efforts of civil society, political parties, and minority communities, and we support improvements in the lives of everyday Egyptians.

I also expressed our gratitude for Egypt’s leadership on regional and global issues. We discussed the threat that Iran poses to regional stability, including the nuclear file. As President Obama has said, it is time for the Iranian Government to decide what kind of future it seeks. And we have made very clear to them that patience does have its limits. We also consulted on matters ranging from Afghanistan to Yemen, and in particular, on our shared support for the formation of a strong, sovereign government in Lebanon that can advance the aspirations of all of the Lebanese people. So Mr. Minister, thank you again. Thank you also to President Mubarak for a very good and fruitful discussion. And I look forward to the continuing good work that we can do together.

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: Thank you very much, Secretary. We will answer two questions – one from the Egyptian side and one from the American side, if there will be any questions from the Americans. So you will make the selection from (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, you have to choose.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you choose me? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you. Thank you. Madame Secretary, my question is President Obama’s lecture in the Cairo University gives us some hope that you are backing the position that Israel has to stop settlements. What is the reasons for this change in the position that (inaudible) through the hard work? And a second point, if I can.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: What’s your view concerning the Egyptian ideas of having the paper of guarantees given to the Palestinians concerning a deadline for the negotiations? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, and thank you for asking. First, I want to start by saying our policy on settlements has not changed. And I want to say it again, our policy on settlement activity has not changed. We do not accept the legitimacy of settlement activity. And we have a very firm belief that ending all settlement activity, current and future, would be preferable, and that is what we have put forth, and that is what we have continued to support.

What we have received from the Israelis to halt all new settlement activity – and I’ll repeat that again, too – to halt all new settlement activities and to end the expropriation of land, and to issue no permits or approvals, is unprecedented. It is not what we would prefer, because we would like to see everything ended forever. But it is something that I think shows at least a positive movement toward the final status issues being addressed. Just as when the Palestinians made progress on security, I stand and say that is a positive step, even though some may not believe it, I think it’s a positive step, and I say that.

So what we’re looking at here is a recognition that getting into the final status negotiations will allow us to bring an end to settlement activity because we will be moving toward the Palestinian state that I and many others have long advocated and worked for. So I think that that perhaps clarifies where we are on this, and I appreciate your question.

Secondly, on the paper of guarantees, we discussed in great detail what is a productive way forward. And there are some ideas that we’ve received from our Egyptian counterparts that we are going to be taking back today to the President and to the White House, and we very much appreciate the suggestions that they have put forward to us.

QUESTION: And make the choice of the American (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’ll delegate that to Colonel Crowley. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Hi, I’m Andy Quinn from Reuters. First thing, a quick follow-up to the previous question, and this is a question for Mr. Aboul Gheit: Secretary Clinton has just described the U.S. policy as unchanged on settlements. After your discussions today and yesterday evening, are you persuaded that the U.S. still backs a freeze on Israeli settlement activity, or do you feel that there’s some backtracking going on?

And the second question is for both of you: The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to condemn the Goldstone report which goes before the United Nations General Assembly shortly. To what extent do you believe that the Goldstone report has become an impediment to the resumption of peace talks?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’ll start because he’s an American – (laughter) – and then I’ll let Ahmed finish.

We believe that it is important to focus on the long-term aspirations of the Palestinian people. I have said this before, and you will not be surprised to hear me say it again, it is very painful to me personally, that with Egypt’s help when my husband was President, we came so close. And the last meeting in Taba laid out what would have been a path toward a Palestinian state that would be operating today. So I carry with me a personal conviction that nothing can be allowed to interfere with our determination and our resolve and our commitment to move this forward.

So yes, are there impediments along the way? You mentioned one; there are many others. But we cannot let anything deter us. In talking with President Mubarak, we were reminiscing about some of the hard decisions that we have seen that had to be faced in this area over the past years, and of course, he has so many years of experience. And he was telling us about how even at the very end of the Camp David agreement that ended the difficulties between Israel and Egypt, there were still people who wanted to change it, derail it, and prevent it.

So this is something that, when you are doing the work we are doing, the foreign minister and I, you have to stay focused on what is the ultimate outcome you are seeking, and I think we share that commitment. We want to see a Palestinian state. We want to see Israel living in security. We want to see the Palestinian people given a chance to chart their own destiny. So we’re not going to let anything deter us or prevent us from working as hard as we possibly can, going forward.

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: May I answer? I will respond in Arabic after your permission, for the benefit of the Egyptian and Arab news media, and then we would have a translation. (Speaking in Arabic.) She will be translating, and I think I spoke at length. (Laughter.)

(Via interpreter) About the U.S. position towards the settlements, we have listened with great interest to the reaction of the U.S. Secretary of State yesterday and today about the concessions or the status, if you will, that there has been a sort of backtracking from the side – from the U.S. side. We talked about this very clearly and very candidly. We listened to the U.S. vision. The United States holds on – is committed to its vision that there is no legitimacy to settlement, that the United States rejects settlements. And we also listened that Israel has not been responsive to the desires of the United States, that it rests opposed to them. The United States has not changed its position of rejecting settlements and the settlement activities. And the United States is calling on the resumption of negotiations.

So now I give you the answer that you gave them about our – the Egyptian answer. We feel that Israel is hindering the process. Israel is putting conditions for the – in order to benefit – to continue the settlement activities even and – if these settlement activities will be limited. Therefore, the United States and Secretary Clinton feel that there has been a progress nevertheless by – about the issue of freezing the settlements, even if it’s not fully complete. And here, we feel that we need to focus on the end of the course. We have listened to the U.S. position that we also – and it has been conveyed to us we need to focus on the end of the road and on the road. We should not waste time. The United States is --

QUESTION: What is the end game?

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: (Via interpreter) And the U.S. is committed to see the negotiations move forward on clear basis.

Now about your second segment of the question about the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Congress calling – not considering the Goldstone report, I’ll tell you this: This report is at the UN General Assembly. It’s been under discussion. There will be a resolution issued in a few hours about it. And we will move forward on this particular course. Nevertheless, and I can tell you that Egypt or the broader international community had anything to do with the views of the members of congress, as also I can tell you that members – some members of congress have also said that this report needs further deep studying and examination, and that there should be an extra effort, as this report has taken a lot of time to be (inaudible) and should not be thrown out of the window.

STAFF: Another – two questions, as the Secretary has agreed.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) My question is addressed to Secretary of State Clinton and those who go to the region see that isolating, separating wall, look that the Palestinian areas and the – some territories in the West Bank, some large chunks of it is in the West Bank. In those areas, it is forbidden for the Palestinians to build anything. The Israelis continue on a daily basis to confiscate land.

So talking also about the greater Jerusalem picture, knowing that this would – there is a split between the north and the south of the city, what would be the shape of the Palestinian state in the U.S. opinion? And would it have a lot of antiquity – would it be an impact to shape, or also can we say that it would look like the Native American entity or status within the United States?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I can repeat to you what President Obama said in his speech at the United Nations and what he said here in Cairo – that the United States believes that we need a state that is based on the territory that has been occupied since 1967. And we believe that that is the appropriate approach. It is what has been discussed when my husband was president with Yasser Arafat, and it is what has been discussed between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the Bush Administration when President Abbas has been there.

I think that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that moving toward a state that reflects the aspirations and the rights of the Palestinian people must include all of the issues that have both been discussed and mentioned by President Obama, and that includes Jerusalem. And I would only repeat that (inaudible) such an emotional issue for me. We would not be having this discussion if we had reached a deal, because as you remember, the parameters that were laid out would have recognized a state on the ’67 borders with some swapping of land agreeable to both sides, and it would have also established the capital for the Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, and it would have created a shared responsibility with international support to protect the holy places that are holy to all three major religions of Abraham.

So we want to assure you that our goal is a real state with real sovereignty with the kind of borders that will enable the people of Palestine to make decisions about where they live and what they do on their own. And it is important to us, and we know that it is vitally important to the people of the region and particularly, most especially, the Palestinians and the Israelis.

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: May I follow up on what the Secretary has just stated?

(Via interpreter) Here, this position that was just stated by Secretary Clinton – we say that we approve it and we are in agreement totally with it. We support it fully, we support fully this U.S. position because it reflects a conviction that – of a Palestinian state that is capable, that will be on all of the territories that were occupied in 1967 and that will be a hundred percent of those territories, because a hundred percent of those territories goes to the Palestinians despite the (inaudible) that would happen.

And with this, also East Jerusalem is for the Palestinians. With this, this is clear and with this such position, we support the U.S. fully.

STAFF: Finally, Robert Burns from AP.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: Over to your question of your trip --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: Looking back over the past eight or nine days – somehow it seems longer than that. (Laughter.) You’ve dealt with a wide range of the major issues affecting the entire region, from Pakistan and Afghanistan to the Middle East and North Africa. I wonder if you could give us an assessment of areas in which you feel you made some advancements and areas where you fell short or stumbled?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, of course, I think I only made advancements – (laughter) – and I happen to believe that, not just responding to your question. I think that the level and intensity of the discussions that I have taken part in over the last days, starting in Pakistan, have certainly been productive, constructive, and helped to clarify the approach that the United States is taking and is committed to taking in all of the different settings that I was part of.

I think that in talking about this with President Mubarak earlier, every issue that we touched on during this trip is complicated and difficult. Each requires patience, perseverance, and determination to see them through. There are – if these were easy questions with simple answers, I would not have made this trip. I know how challenging they are. We have some of the best people in the United States with Ambassador Holbrooke and Senator Mitchell working on these complicated matters.

But it is important to recognize that after a period of time in which the United States’s position was rejected, or was certainly questioned, what we are doing is very carefully and consistently rebuilding those bonds, creating those partnerships, finding common ground so that we and our international partners will be able to make progress.

And so I feel very satisfied by what we accomplished on this trip in every one of our settings. I am not someone who is in any way affected by difficulty, who is living in a world apart from the real world in which we inhabit where it takes just an enormous amount of effort to get to where we are headed. The two-state solution is one of the most difficult. We know that from years of efforts. But I have a great team. I have a lot of confidence in the team of people working on these matters. And we have a president who is 100 percent committed. And so I think that’s exactly the combination that we need.

STAFF: Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, what happens now? How far or close are we toward the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks, if you (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are working hard to see that happen.

QUESTION: Weeks, months?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not going to make predictions. One of the things that President Mubarak and I were talking about is how we have to be so focused on what we’re doing, but we also have to try, the best we can, to answer questions. So I will say we’re working hard to get there.

Secretary Clinton in Egypt

There are no press releases yet, but there are a few media takes on this extension of her trip.

Short-Term Fixes Sought in Mideast

Clinton: U.S. Wants Israel Settlement Halted 'Forever'

Clinton says Egypt key in Mideast talks

Press Briefing on the Plane to Cairo

As I mentioned in a post yesterday, the news broke about this time last night that, although the Secretary was supposed to be on her way home right now for a full schedule tomorrow, instead she is on her way to Egypt, her trip extended by one day, for a meeting with President Mubarak. President Clinton has alluded to Mid-East negotiations as walking a tight-rope, and now it is, like The Flying Wallendas, another Clinton up there on the high wire.

On her plane to Egypt, P.J. Crowley, Bureau of Public Affairs, gave a press briefing outlining the agenda, and the issues.

Briefing En Route Cairo
Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs
Cairo, Egypt
November 3, 2009

MR. CROWLEY: Just to kind of give you a little bit of a sense of when we land in Cairo, George Mitchell will just have flown over from Amman, Jordan. He’ll come on the airplane, and the Secretary and he will spend a few minutes comparing notes on what each has done since we last saw them Saturday night. George stayed in Jerusalem, had some additional meetings with Israeli officials on Monday, and then traveled over to Amman and – for meetings with Jordanian officials.

From our standpoint, Egypt has a 30-year history of direct involvement in peace in the Middle East going back to the historic treaty of 1979. So from the Secretary’s point of view, given that Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit was not able to come to the Forum for the Future – he was hosting some Iraqi officials in Cairo – that we thought it was just very important that before leaving the region that we touch base with one of the key players in the peace effort.

So the Secretary will first meet with General Suleiman, the national security advisor to President Mubarak. He has been focused on the reconciliation effort among the Palestinians, and he’ll have the opportunity to update us on his efforts. Then the meeting will be joined by Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit, and then they’ll have dinner, and then tomorrow morning before we depart Cairo for home, the Secretary will meet with President Mubarak and I think there’ll be a press availability for all of you before we head back to the States.

QUESTION: Sorry. You were talking about the meetings that Senator Mitchell had. Can you tell us who all he met with? I understand King Abdullah. Did he meet with Abu Mazen again? And what happened differently than in the meeting with – in Abu Dhabi with the Secretary?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not aware that he met with Abu Mazen. I believe he did meet with King Abdullah. I have not gotten a readout, to be honest with you, on what they discussed.

QUESTION: P.J., this may seem obvious, but can we – do you – the totality of what the Secretary is saying recently about how positive it is for Israel to offer a halt to settlements and no more expropriations, can we deduce from that that part of what’s going on here is she’s asking the Palestinians to drop the precondition and to consider what Israel has done as important and something that they can sell as a freeze to their public and get on with the peace talks? Is that what she’s doing?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let me start from a different place and come back to that. As we’ve said throughout the trip, there’s clearly a gap between the two parties. We’ve been encouraging for several weeks now for negotiations to begin as soon as possible. That remains our hope. So on the standpoint, we’re simply trying to chip away at this gap. And as she has said yesterday and today, any steps that we feel narrow this gap and move the parties forward to a negotiation we see as a positive development.

So certainly, she – in her meeting with President Abbas the other day, she suggested very directly that, in our view, his best interest is to get to negotiations as soon as possible. And obviously, in her meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, while their offer falls short of what we had suggested, obviously that is, in her view – the word again – unprecedented. And so – but certainly, we’ll have the opportunity with President Mubarak to compare notes on – he’s a very adroit reader of the parties. He’s had his own interaction. President Mubarak has a very good working relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

QUESTION: Just as a follow, so is it too strong for us to report that she’s become an advocate for them dropping the precondition?

MR. CROWLEY: Let me get there a different way. We do not think that there should be preconditions to negotiations, and we do not think – and we believe that it – that both parties will be best served by getting into negotiations as quickly as possible. But we do understand how the settlement issue is important to the Palestinians. It’s important to the Israelis. It’s important to others in the region. And what we’re trying to do, what we were doing in our consultations with various leaders in Morocco is to try to just figure out what is the best way forward. How can we help move the parties towards the start of negotiations? So I wouldn't – I just wouldn't say it as directly as that, but our view is, on the one hand, there should be no preconditions. On the other hand, we want to see negotiations start as quickly as possible, and we’re just simply trying to see how we can move the two closer to where they feel comfortable with making that decision.

QUESTION: Two questions. One, the Palestinians say that it’s not a precondition that they’re putting to restart the talks. They’re simply saying Israel has to fulfill its obligations under the Roadmap, and if they can’t even do that, why should we sit down to talk to them? But another question is you’ve said several times that you’re looking at creative ideas to kickstart this process. Can you tell us a little bit more? I mean, what is the way around this issue of settlement freeze? It’s – neither side is really budging enough to satisfy the other.

MR. CROWLEY: I suppose I would just say this will take political courage on both sides. These are very difficult issues. As the Secretary has reflected at various times, they’ve been close before and for whatever reason, or a combination of circumstances, they’ve just never been able to get over the finish line. So this is a – I mean, there are specific technical issues involved here. They’re well known. But this is also a political challenge, and so it does take what kind of confidence-building measures can we establish that, whether or not they’re perfect – and the Secretary has said again today in the interviews – we can’t – in this process, you can’t afford to make perfect an obstacle to the very good. So if you take absolute positions, then it’s unlikely that negotiations are going to start. We feel very strongly that both parties are best served by getting to negotiation, putting all of these issues on the table. And if you get to an agreement, then you’ve solved – you have, in fact, solved these various issues, including settlements, including borders, including refugees, and obviously including Jerusalem.

So I’m not sure I can answer it any – in a different way, but to the extent that we can take steps, encourage them to take steps that then give them confidence, provide some momentum to this effort that gets them to a point where they might say it’s not everything we were looking for, but it’s enough, there’s enough of an investment or they’re beginning to have enough confidence that the dynamic will begin to – they’ll see the dynamic as constructive. So we’ll be looking at a variety of ways that increase the interaction between the parties in some form, find ways that they can begin to address the issues. If we can do that, then we think that at some point baby steps then create a momentum of their own and the effort can pick up steam. So we recognized coming into the region that things have stalled, and we’re just looking – keep looking to see how we can begin to create some forward momentum again.

QUESTION: P.J., you mentioned that General Suleiman will be – is focusing a lot on this issue of Palestinian reconciliation and unity government. Does – do you have any particular message that you will be giving him on that issue?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t think so. We have a fairly clear stated position, which is we look for whatever combination of circumstances make negotiation more feasible and success more likely. Clearly, you have a situation now where you have a divided Palestine between the West Bank and Gaza. There’s a – obviously, the president, Abu Mazen, has requested of his electoral body to evaluate whether elections are even feasible at this point in time given the situation on the West Bank and Gaza. And I think they’re due to report back to him sometime in the next couple of weeks.

A national – a government of national unity, we feel would be clearly more effective. But obviously, that government would – has to be guided by the well-established Quartet principles fundamentally including recognizing Israel’s right to exist. But – so we will be comparing notes with General Suleiman on where the reconciliation process stands, and then charting out how that fits into some of the other pieces of the puzzle that we currently see.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask – I mean, given all the difficulties over the Goldstone report which you have talked about, plus the – on both sides, and the challenges that are coming up with the planned Palestinian election, tell us what is the real feasibility of anything happening before January, and to what extent is it taking all of your effort to simply just keep this alive?

QUESTION: Why not wait?

QUESTION: Yeah, and that’s the other question. Why not wait, as Jay said?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Palestinian Authority that sorts themselves out of it because it’s so fluid?

QUESTION: It’s its life support.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, on the first question, I don’t want to get ahead of the Palestinian electoral bodies. I mean, they’re evaluating the feasibility of elections under the current circumstances. They could come back and say, look, Hamas refuses to even hold it in Gaza. So let’s wait and see. That’s a pretty effective body. Let’s wait and see what their determination is.

On the other issue, Jay, I just think those who are experienced in these issues, waiting is never a good thing. I mean, we always carry a sense of urgency into the Middle East because if there’s a vacuum, there are lots of spoilers very willing to take advantage of that vacuum. Sometimes the effort has an impact in and of itself. As you – it does give people a sense of hope that there’s something better out there. In the absence of that hope, we too often in the past have seen events spiral into violence. And so with so much unresolved, we just think that this is part of the commitment that the Obama Administration made that they would tackle this issue on day one. And so this is just – this is a continuation of that because we just think that without this effort, it’s likely that things will go from difficult to worse.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: There is value in having a process, even though sometimes it will advance more rapidly and sometimes it will advance at a snail’s pace.

QUESTION: I was just wondering – I mean, Middle East peace talks have taken place often over the last few years, and most people agree that both parties know what the final settlement is going to look like, what the deal is really going to look like. It’s just about making it happen and crossing that finish line. Has the time come for Washington to say to put a deal on the table, say okay guys, come to the table, this is what we’re going to negotiate, just come and sit down, enough of all this going back and forth about settlements and et cetera, et cetera?

MR. CROWLEY: We have constructed this phase to have discussions with the parties to see what they might be able to put forward together with other countries in the region and to see if that combination of confidence-building measures would get the parties to negotiation. That’s still where we are. And as the President said, as the Secretary reported to the President a couple of weeks ago, there has been some progress, but clearly, at this point, not enough. I think that's part of why the Secretary is here. She wanted to look Prime Minister Netanyahu in the eye, face to face. She wanted to look President Abbas in the eye, face to face. She wanted to talk directly to key players in the region, as she will President Mubarak tomorrow morning. And then based on these discussions, we'll say is there still potential in this current structure or do we need to look at other alternatives. They are available. But I think for the moment, we will – we're going to keep on this path as long as we think it has promise.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) I'm sorry, so you're actually opening up the possibility that she's going to – that the result of this analysis and these consultations might be that there is not hope in this particular way you're doing it now, that there might be a better way to do it? So I didn't realize you were even thinking of maybe scrapping this (inaudible).

MR. CROWLEY: Let's not leap ahead of ourselves. I mean, we're still on the path we've been on for several months, dealing directly with the Palestinians, the Israelis, working the various countries in the region. We think we've pocketed some actions that countries are willing to take if the parties get to negotiation. We want to see the parties get to negotiation as quickly as possible. And if this particular path we don’t think can get there, then we'll look at other opportunities.

I mean, clearly, as the Secretary said, we believe the only way to solve these issues is through a negotiation. And only through a negotiation will you get to the aspirations of the two sides – security on the one hand and a state on the other hand. The United States has in the past put forward its ideas to the parties. But I don't want to – we're on this current path. I don't want to project too far ahead.

QUESTION: P.J., it's pretty clear what you're asking the Palestinians is to drop the demand for a freeze. Are you making an analogous demand to the Israelis? What are you asking them to do or to sacrifice, specifically right now, to get to negotiations? And – well, let's just leave it at that.

MR. CROWLEY: I think I'll defer and not do the negotiation in public. I mean, that's one of the reasons George Mitchell stayed behind is to continue the conversation with the Israel side on the ideas that they have put forward and to see what else might be there. And we've had the same – similar conversations with various leaders in the region. But we think we've closed the gap some in these last few days coming up. And – but that gap is still there, so there's still more work to be done.

QUESTION: Can you just give us a readout on her bilat with the Libyan and give us the spelling of his name?

MR. CROWLEY: Hold on a second. All right. We'll branch off a little bit. She did two bilaterals this morning. The first was with Foreign Minister Frattini of Italy. They talked about three subjects – the situation in Afghanistan, the Middle East peace, and Iran.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: Iran.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let me – the vast majority of the discussion was on Afghanistan. Obviously, the Italians have some efforts that they're already doing, and they kind of traded ideas on what the international community can do specifically on building different kinds of capacity within Afghanistan as the new government takes office, things like the rule of law. The Secretary obviously mentioned the importance of security forces, judges, and so forth. So it's just simply now you're beginning to get – we are in that transition period where – now it's – and as – I mean, you heard from the Secretary in terms of raising our expectations in terms of the performance of the Afghan Government.

I won't speak for the Italian Government, but they were also just trading some ideas on how the international community can be supportive of a Palestinian Authority from a – in terms of helping build further technical capacity within the PA in support of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad.

On Iran, I think it was mostly the Secretary just reporting on our view of the current situation, and quite honestly, it tracked, in fact, very directly to what she said to you all last night.

And then she met with Foreign Minister Musa Kusa -- M-u-s-a, K-u-s-a – who's a – he's a graduate of Michigan State University. At one point, he said, Spartans and gave a thumbs up.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Wasn't Musa Kusa indicted for terrorism at one point? Can you check, because was the intelligence chief before he became the foreign minister?

QUESTION: I thought he was indicted for killing Americans.

QUESTION: Were you going to tell us about this? Can I have the next question?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Why was this not on the schedule and why was there no photo opportunity of this?

MR. CROWLEY: The short answer is it happened almost – let me back up. I mean, we had a limited time and we had a number of potential candidates for bilats. And in some cases, there were a couple countries that we were looking at bilats. And for example, and – but the Secretary was able to have pull-asides during the GCC meeting, for example. I mean, Libya is a country that we are – we have an emerging relationship with. And we think it's best to continue talking to them and seeing where we can continue to advance the relationship.

And that – but I mean, it was something that – this was just a – kind of like a target of opportunity where the ministers found themselves with a similar hole and they got pulled into a room and sat for about 15 minutes.

QUESTION: Did they discuss the Lockerbie bomber's recent release back home?

MR. CROWLEY: I was in the meeting; that did not come up. They --

QUESTION: She didn't bring it up? I mean, you guys – excuse me, sorry. I mean, you and Ian were having to brief for about 10 days straight to us. Every single day we were asking you – hammering you guys with questions about the seeming welcome parade that he got and how upset people were about that, and you guys kept saying how upset the U.S. was about that. She didn't bring that up when she had an opportunity?

MR. CROWLEY: We didn't bring up the tent either. (Laughter.) Sorry.

QUESTION: The tent's a little bit less of foreign policy issue.

MR. CROWLEY: No, the – I mean, Libya has a perspective on the region. They have been very helpful and integrally involved in developments in Sudan, so we did talk about Sudan, talked about Darfur. There has been cooperation from the countries on counterterrorism. And they continue to talk about advancing our relationship. But it was about a 10- or 15-minute meeting.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Sorry, you just said it was only 10 or 15 minutes. Was that the first time (inaudible)?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: I'll check.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, that's the first time that they've met.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Is the Secretary talking with the President by phone during this?

MR. CROWLEY: We're staying in close contact with the White House throughout this, but I can't say that she has talked to the President. But I'll double check that.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: I think – I don't think so, other than the press conference.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: Tonight, I think, you go relax in the hotel, and we go to dinner. But we'll see you in the morning. Okay.

But just to close the loop, obviously, while the issue of Megrahi did not come up, we – our views on that have not changed and our view – the Libyans understand our concerns very, very well. The Libyans understand our concern about Megrahi very, very well.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: It did not come up

Secretary Clinton in Morocco at The Forum for the Future

Well there were plenty of pictures taken at this event today where Secretary Clinton spoke and conferred with Foreign Ministers of many Arab states as well as some European representatives. We see her here with dignitaries from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, among a few, and the gentleman joking with her and making her laugh is the King of Morocco.

According to this press release from the State Department, she will deliver a speech at the forum tomorrow.

Secretary Clinton To Deliver Speech at the Forum for the Future on Tuesday November 3, 2009


Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
November 2, 2009

Secretary Clinton will deliver remarks at the opening session of the Forum for the Future in Marrakech, Morocco at 4:00 am ET / 9:00 am LOCAL tomorrow, Tuesday, November 3, 2009. Video of the Secretary's remarks will be available shortly after the speech concludes.

The Forum for the Future is a joint civil society initiative of the countries of the Broader Middle East and North Africa region (BMENA) and the Group of Eight (G8). It brings together leaders from government, civil society and the private sector to exchange ideas and form partnerships to support progress, reform, and expanded opportunities for the people of the region.

The Secretary’s speech will reaffirm the commitment of the United States to broad engagement with Muslim communities around the world and outline concrete steps the United States is taking to follow up on the “New Beginning” that President Obama launched in Cairo

Despite the fact that all looks rosy in these photos, the Secretary has drawn some serious fire from Arab leaders due to statements she made in Jerusalem over the weekend. Many negative reviews poured forth yesterday, and I will not link the many I saw, but here are a few examples:

From the Jerusalem Post: PA to US: Coerce settlement freeze
From Firedoglake: Somewhere, Khaled Meshal Is Laughing
From the BBC: Obama yet to deliver on Middle East


Finally, today there were these.
From Foreign Policy Magazine: From Washington and Jerusalem: more bad news
From People's Daily Online: Egypt supports Palestinian demand for settlement freeze

The Secretary released the following clarifications today which, I believe were stated at the Forum since I just saw her on PBS saying some of what is in the text:

Secretary Clinton on the Middle East


Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Marrakech, Morocco
November 2, 2009

Secretary Clinton delivered the following remarks Monday morning at a camera spray upon meeting with Moroccan Foreign Minister Fassi-Fihri in Marrakech, Morocco:

For 40 years, successive American administrations of both parties have opposed Israel’s settlement policy. That is absolutely a fact.

And the Obama Administration’s position on settlements is clear, unequivocal. It has not changed. And as the President has said on many occasions, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. Now, the Israelis have responded to the call from the United States, the Palestinians and the Arab world to stop settlement activity by expressing a willingness to restrain settlement activity. They will build no new settlements, expropriate no land, allow no new construction or approvals.

And let me just say this offer falls far short of what we would characterize as our position, or what our preference would be. But if it is acted upon, it will be an unprecedented restriction on settlements and would have a significant and meaningful effect on restraining their growth.

Let me take a step back because I want to put this into the broader context. I will offer positive reinforcement to the parties when I believe they are taking steps that support the objective of reaching a two-state solution.

I will also push them as I have in public and in private to do even more. And in my report to the President last month, I talked about Israeli willingness to restrain settlement activity as a positive step.

In the same report, I praised President Abbas’ leadership of the Palestinian Authority for their courage and the security measures on the West Bank. The steps being taken under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayed are also unprecedented and we have never seen such effective security. I have on many occasions going back – as you know in Sharm El Sheikh - praised the accomplishments that the Palestinian Authority has demonstrated in building, training, and reforming their security forces.

I told Prime Minister Netanyahu that these positive steps on the part of the Palestinians should be met by positive steps from Israel - movement and access, operations by the IDF and on Israeli security arrangements on the West Bank. Israel has done a few things in that regard but they need to do much more. And President Abbas has shown leadership and determination on this issue and Israel should reciprocate.

I just want to clarify that what we are trying to achieve is a two-state solution with a state that represents the aspirations of the Palestinian people – the sovereignty and to have control over their own future, and provide the security guarantees to Israel for their own future. That is my goal. And when either party takes any steps that looks like it moves us in the right direction – even if it is not what I would like or what I would prefer - I’m going to positively reinforce that.

This is an opportunity for both sides to try to move forward together, to get into negotiations, and to realize the goal that many of us around this table have supported and worked for for many years.

She was scheduled to return to D.C. on Wednesday, but Gwen Ifill just announced on the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer that her trip has been extended one day in order for her to go to Egypt and meet with President Mubarak. This Reuters story, Clinton to fly to Egypt for Mubarak meeting appears to corroborate that report.

Videos: Signing of the Armenia Turkey Protocols

Here's another one that Stacy of Secretary Clinton blog found and shared with me.



Our favorite Turbo-Secretary of State was multitasking in Zurich! According to this AP report, she also spoke with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak while she was there.

Clinton talks to Mubarak; US envoy busy in Mideast

(AP)

ZURICH — U.S. officials are keeping in touch with Mideast leaders in hopes of getting the faltering peace process back on track.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Saturday. She was in Zurich, where Turkey and Armenia signed an accord to establish diplomatic relations.

Read more...