FOREIGN MINISTER ABDULLAH: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. This morning, of course, it is the morning of the peace in the Middle East. I hope it will be a morning of useful to put together efforts so we can understand the future of the Middle East, and then we can work together in making this peace reality. It is reality, but we want to see it reality as soon as we could make it reality. The Sultanate of Oman has committed our policy to support peace process. Sultanate of Oman was the first to see the best way for all of us to in peace. To live in peace is to sit together as we are sitting around the table and talk very honest to each other and blend and shape our future. We are glad to see, after so many years, this is happening.

Today and yesterday and tomorrow, the Arabs and the Israelis will enjoy a very convenient and decent life instead of those days of the past where violence, loss, were part of the past of our region. When President Sadat of Egypt decided to go to Jerusalem and to talk to the Israeli leadership on this, his majesty, the sultan of Oman, Sultan Qabus bin Said, was the first among all of the leaders of the Middle East to support this move. And that is the view of the future. The only way people can live is to change views and express themselves to each other and to accept that mutual benefit is the base of living on the globe. So that's what happens.

Today, with no condition, we support fully peace process. And therefore, unexpected and unprecedented move, Oman developed a very beneficial and fruitful relationship with Israel. Why we did that? Because we felt very strongly that the leadership in Israel working for peace and they want to achieve peace with their partners, with their neighbors, with those who are living together.

In 1983, I was in Kuwait and I had a press conference with number of the press representatives in that country, and I've been asked by one of those representatives how Oman sees the resolving of what was so-called at the time the Middle East conflict. And without hesitation, I said to every one of those representatives, "The only way is that the Palestinians to take the decision and to go and sit around the table with the Israelis and discuss their future. That is their path and that is their destination. Nothing more than that is going to give them the benefit."

I'm glad to see this is what's happening today. Tremendous progress has been achieved between the Palestinian Authority leadership and the state of Israel. The Jordanians, with the courageous move of his majesty, King Hussein, have taken their own responsibility and signed the peace treaty with Israel. And I think this is a step and position should be commended for his majesty, King Hussein.

Further, (to track?) the Syrians and the Lebanese as an immediate neighbor to Israel, and to their Arab brothers, Jordanians and the Palestinians, we are confident that the end of this track will be equally a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon and Syria. Yet it is not as fast as we would want to see, but it is going to happen because we are sure that the leadership in those two countries, Syria and Lebanon, equally believes in the peace and in the future. So let us hope that the peace has a lot of future and the peace has leadership. But those who thought that it can be easy for them to distract peace, I think now they come to realize this is not possible. Their thought is the thought of the past. But what is today is that thought of today and the thought of tomorrow. And the thought of today and thought of tomorrow is strong cooperation between all the son of Abraham in the Middle East.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Thank you again for those very encouraging words. You were as eloquent this morning as you were last night. I must say, I should also acknowledge the presence of the ambassador, and we're very glad to have him with us this morning, too. (Applause.)

It's our normal practice to ask questions freely and furiously, but I think, given the time pressures of the morning, I'd like you to hold those for a while and let me go on to the next stage in this proceeding and introduce to you Itamar Rabinovich, the ambassador of Israel. Itamar has been on this platform many, many times and he's well-known to all of you; a distinguished scholar from Tel Aviv University, the ambassador of the state of Israel to the United States, and significantly, for these purposes, with major responsibilities for the negotiations in Syria.

Ambassador Rabinovich. (Applause.)

AMB. RABINOVICH: Good morning, Mr. Minister, Ambassador, Mr. President. Let me begin with an apology from both Ambassador Ross and myself. As you probably recall, when the fighting in Lebanon ended, mercifully, it ended with a set of understandings that was worked out by the United States secretary of state and his peace team headed by Ambassador Ross. And the set of understandings included an understanding about the formation of a monitoring group that should help us and the Lebanese avoid relapse into extended periods of violence in the event of violations of the understandings.

The first meeting in which the five participants are to convene and lay the groundwork for the monitoring group happens to be this morning at the State Department building in Washington, hosted by Ambassador Ross. I have the honor of representing Israel in that meeting, and I think that both of us better be there. (Laughter.) So we will have to apologize and leave earlier than planned, but I'm sure we will have your full understanding.

It is a pleasure to be here next to the foreign minister of Oman. And his presence here and the relationship that has developed between Oman and Israel and Oman and the American Jewish community, as represented by the committee, bears testimony to two very important facts that have to do with the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict and with the nature of the present peace process.

It has been said academically many years ago that the core of the conflict was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that Israel did not really have a real conflict with countries like Oman, that a country like Oman found itself involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it has been said, first academically and analytically, that once the Israelis and the Palestinians find a way of discussing with each other and putting an end to their conflict, the other participants in the Arab-Israeli conflict that have no direct border with Israel, that have no direct conflict of interest with Israel, could accommodate with Israel and build a normal relationship with Israel.

And this is precisely what has happened. The fact that we signed the framework agreement with the Palestinians, the fact that it included an element of mutual recognition, the fact that the Palestinians have now formally abolished those elements of the charter that militate against the legitimacy of the state of Israel, have made it possible for us and countries like Oman -- and Oman is not the only one, but like Oman -- to start normalizing our relationship. This is very gratifying to us Israelis.

The second fact has to do with the very nature of what we call the Madrid process. Sometimes we use terms like the peace process, the Madrid process, almost ad nauseum. But corroded as they may have been by usage and overusage, they still have very important significance. And built into the Madrid process, into the content of Madrid, was the notion of the two-track negotiation. Ambassador Ross is one of the planners of the Madrid process and had a lot to do with thinking about it and putting it into place in the Bush- Baker administration.

And built into this was the assumption that Israel will negotiate directly with its neighbors, the Arab partners with whom it has direct border, but that countries that have no direct border with Israel, like Oman, like Saudi Arabia, like Qatar, like Morocco and Tunisia, will participate in the peace process through the multilateral negotiations to discuss future issues -- cooperation, like water, which is an issue on which Oman and Israel have discovered a lot of common ground -- and that this will enable Israelis and Arabs to start normalizing relations. And this has been happening. The multilateral track in many respects has been the surprising element of the peace process, and (a time?) in which the bilateral negotiations were not necessarily doing very well, multilateral track has been doing very well.

Not that the bilateral negotiations are not there. The negotiations with the Palestinians continue. As we all noted on the 5th of May, one day later than scheduled because of the Sabbath, the permanent status, final status issue negotiations with the Palestinians began. Of course, they will not accelerate before our elections, but they began, and I'm sure they will proceed.

We do not negotiate the basic issues or the fundamental issues with Syria and Lebanon right now, but the very meeting of the monitoring group that I mentioned earlier, in which Lebanon, Syria and Israel will negotiate directly and participate directly, are promising in that regard. There is still a very significant spark left in these negotiations, and the residue of understandings that have accumulated over the past four years can easily be galvanized into fruitful negotiations. I'm confident that when the circumstances allow for the resumption of direct Israeli-Syrian negotiations, the promise that is there in these negotiations could be turned into real negotiations, and then into fulfillment.

As I said briefly last night, we discovered that one political cycle in Israel did not suffice to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it did suffice to lay a very important, very promising foundation for continuation. And I remain confident that after our elections, when conditions are ripe again for resumption of negotiations, they will be resumed, and with a very, very promising start. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Thank you, Ambassador Rabinovich. To round out a sort of tripartite view of these developments, there could not be a more appropriate representative of the American perspective than Dennis Ross. He has been, over a long period of years now, the architect of the American perspective. As a special adviser to Secretary Christopher, as director of the policy planning staff at the Department of State, having served on the National Security Council staff and in many other capacities, he has played a key role here.

And in his present role as special Middle East coordinator, he is the man who gives direction to the American position as significantly as any other person on the American scene. And I must say, we owe him a special debt of gratitude for the absolutely tireless trekking and hauling and heaving he has done and the extraordinary intelligence he has brought to that very difficult assignment. I ask you to receive now and express your gratitude to Dennis Ross. (Applause.) AMB. ROSS: Thank you very much. Thank you for that introduction. It would make my mother happy. (Laughter.) And I see the cameras back there, so maybe on C-SPAN she'll see it at some point. (Laughter.)

You know, I have spoken to this group on a number of occasions in the past, and I'm sure that many who have heard me in the past came, they heard me, and they felt, "Boy, is he an optimist." But I wonder how many of you have sat there and would have anticipated that we'd have a meeting like this where the foreign minister of Oman is sitting here with the Israeli ambassador and their discussion is a very natural discussion.

I bet on a number of occasions, when people left and said, "What an optimist," you didn't anticipate that you'd have this kind of a setting. And yet you do, and there are few things -- (applause) -- there are really few things that more clearly demonstrate how much the landscape of the Middle East has changed over the last few years.

Those of us who have worked this tirelessly -- although I would tell you that we do get tired -- (laughter) -- those of us who have worked this process have constantly had a basis to see a new source of inspiration. And the new source of inspiration is provided by new forms of cooperation that begin to emerge, either because of the bilateral agreements that have been reached or because of the multilateral process where Oman, with what I will call the inspired leadership of this minister and the sultan, have been also tireless in terms of promoting real progress, meaningful progress, concrete progress, especially in areas like water.

When I come here in this kind of a setting and I try to take a step back and try to account for why is it that hte landscape has changed the way it has, I come to a certain kind of conclusion. And it is, with all the ups and downs of this process, it has continued. And I have come to describe the process using two kinds of words. One is durability and the other is disruption. They're what I call the two Ds of the peace process.

Now, again, if I were to think back to September 13th, 1993, and I was to speak to this group without my two colleagues up here, and I were to outline to you on that day, September 13th, 1993, the day that the declaration of principles was concluded and the famous handshake on the White House, and I was to tell you that we're going to have a process, it's going to produce profound changes not only in the psychological map of the Middle East but in the physical map of the Middle East, at least in terms of changing relationships, but I would also at the same time tell you there will be a number of events and they won't be happy events; they'll be traumatic events; if I were to have told you that, in the following year, that a Jewish settler would have gunned down Palestinians praying in a mosque, if I were to tell you at that time that two weeks before the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty, a bus would be blown up in Tel Aviv on Diesengov (sp) Street, if I were to tell you that there would be a suicide bombing at -- (inaudible) -- that would kill a number of young Israeli soldiers, if I were to have told you that Yitzhak Rabin was going to be assassinated, if I were to have told you that there would be four bombs in nine days in Israel, and as a result of that, in response to that, because of Israel's security needs, there would be a very severe closure imposed on the territories, if I were to have told you that there would be an Operation Grapes of Wrath, if I had told you all those things on September 13th, 1993, I think everybody here would have said, if I had said after that that this process will continue, it will build, it will progress, you would have said, "He's not just an optimist; he's crazy."

But I stand here today with the two of them here, with all those events having taken place, all of those traumas having taken place, all of those shocks having taken place, and the process does continue. (Applause.) Now, it continues not because I want it to or because the foreign minister of Oman wants it to or because the ambassador to Israel wants it to -- which is true; we do want it to -- it continues not because a narrow set of leaders want it to. It continues because it responds to the fundamentals.

The vast majority of the peoples of the Middle East want peace. They want a normal life. They want a life with security. They want their region to progress. They do not want their region to lag behind. They do not want the price of conflict to be a price that continues to deny a normal life and continues to ensure that the region doesn't progress economically. They want a different future. This process could not continue with all the shocks we have seen, with all the traumas we have endured, if, in fact, the vast majority of the peoples of the area didn't want it to. So they want it to, and it responds to a certain fundamental. And that's why you've seen this kind of, to use the term, durability.

Now, at the same time, there are those, the enemies of peace, who don't want that kind of a future, who prefer to see the Middle East trapped in a different kind of era, because they prey on frustration and conflict and violence. They cannot compete in the realm of ideas. Where they can compete is with the use of the one instrument at their disposal, and that's violence and terror. And they don't have the ability, as we've seen, to stop the process. But they do have the ability to use a second 'd' word, to disrupt the process. And that's what we've seen.

Now, it shouldn't have been surprising to anybody that we would have had a process that woudl have had setbacks. There is too much of a legacy of fear and violence and suspicion. And the combination of that with very determined enemies of the process who use violence was bound to ensure that there would be setbacks. So they have the ability to disrupt, and you can see that.

Go back to February 24th, the day before the first of the four bombs. And at that time, you found between the Israelis and the Palestinians a very high degree -- in fact, the highest degree at any point in the process -- of mutual confidence. That was clearly set back by the bombings. And yet, as Itamar referred to, there have been a very strong series of steps taken by the Palestinians since that time, including on Israeli Independence Day. In the midst of Operation Grapes of Wrath still going on, the Palestinians adopted at the PNC, on Israeli Independence Day, a position in which they canceled those parts of the covenant that were inconsistent with the mutual recognition embodied in the letters of September 9th and 10th of 1993. That was in itself a demonstration of the commitment to move forward. And on the Israeli side, the agreement to go ahead with the beginning of the permanent status negotiations was also a demonstration of the commitment to move forward, notwithstanding the setbacks, notwithstanding the traumas.

So the ability to press forward in the face of disruption reflects a commitment of the leaders and reflects also and responds also to the desires of the publics. Now, many people ask, will we stick with it? Will the U.S. stick with it? Will we continue these kinds of tireless and exhausting efforts? Yes, we will, because it's important to do so, because having a Middle East at peace is in America's national interest, because we see the possibility of being able to move forward.

Itamar described the fact that the ability to press ahead in the negotiations exists. We had made headway in the negotiations between the Israelis and the Syrians prior to the suspension of the negotiations. We will be meeting today to follow up on the understanding that was just brokered to bring about an end to the crisis. And we do, in fact, see the potential to move ahead and complete the circle of peace, close the circle of peace, and achieve a comprehensive peace in the area.

As long as we see that both sides are serious, you're going to see that we remain serious and we are committed. It is too important to us. The stakes are too real and meaningful, and the value of a peaceful Middle East is too important to the world.

If you needed to have any indication of how strongly the international community feels about Middle East peace, look at the Sharm el-Sheikh. conference. This was organized in one week. All the leaders of Europe, the leader of Russia, 13 members of the Arab League, sat there with the prime minister of Israel to condemn acts of terror in Israel. Very few things could more clearly demonstrate how the landscape of the Middle East has changed than what happened at Sharm el-Sheikh, because what it embodied fundamentally was that a new view was emerging in the Middle East that peace and security were indivisible. Suddenly a threatened Israel was a threat to many of Israel's neighbors. Vulnerability in Israel was a sense of vulnerability felt by many of Israel's neighbors. That was a real psychological threshold to cross. But the fact that so many of the world's leaders wanted to be there and came on a moment's notice was an indication of how the world feels about the importance of Middle East peace.

So we will persevere as long as we see that there's an ability and a possibility and an opportunity. And it exists, and we will continue to pursue it, so that the next time I come back to this group, those on the dais will once again reflect something that looked impossible before but now is becoming routine.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Ambassador Ross, Justice Holmes once said that the inevitable comes to pass only through human effort. And in this case, we know that that -- what may now seem inevitable came to pass very largely through your effort. And your mother didn't need to hear that from me.

We're not obtuse, I think. You're not missing either the substantive or the symbolic significance of what we have been sharing here at the American Jewish Committee for the past 14, 16 hours. It gives one a sense of participating in history, and I want you to know that I have informed the fundraising department that as we raise funds for the rebuilding of our building in New York, I've asked for a small rose garden all of our own. (Laughter.)

Our guests are willing to answer some questions while their time permits. And I recognize Ms. Komay (sp).

Q: Estelle Komay from Pittsburgh. Ambassador Rabinovich, do you think that a Likud victory in the upcoming elections at the end of the month will change the results of the peace process in terms of the Golan, Jerusalem, the West Bank or otherwise?

AMB. RABINOVICH: Thank you for the question. You know, I've collected many interesting episodes in my years of service. One of the funniest of them was about two years ago. Because of the seven- hour difference with Israel, the phone rings at very strange hours. One very early morning, at 3:00 a.m., the phone rang. I picked it up and the girl said, "This is the prime minister's office." I was quite alarmed, 3:00 a.m. in the morning, the prime minister's office. What could it be?

Then i heard the prime minister's chief of staff's voice. Sort of angrily he said, "Not the Israeli ambassador in America. The American ambassador in Israel, I said." (Laughter.) And this type of question should also be addressed to the American ambassador in Israel, please. (Laughter/applause.)

MODERATOR: That's a lesson in diplomacy. Yes, could you identify yourself?

Q: Yes. First I would say it's hard for a journalist to ask a question after a remark like that. (Laughs.)

MODERATOR: You don't have to. (Laughter.)

Q: I can't resist, though. Ambassador Ross is here. My name is Jeffrey Winnegratt (sp). I edit two independent newsletters. One is called Focus Israel and the other one is called Yellow Dog Democrat. And I have a question directed at Ambassador Ross. There are many Republicans who claim that the administration is soft on Syria, whether it be the peace process, narcotics and so forth. How would you respond to that criticism? AMB. ROSS: Well, A, I wouldn't say that we're soft on Syria. I'm quite confident that the Syrians would not say that the United States is soft on Syria. What we are about is, on the one hand, pursuing peace with those who are prepared to pursue it. Syria has been prepared to engage in direct negotiations with the Israelis, which itself demonstrates a recognition that the way to solve problems is through negotiation. And in the past in the Middle East, that was not always the case. So we are prepared to work with the Syrians and the Israelis to see what can be promoted on that end. That doesn't mean that we don't have differences. The fact that hte Syrians are, in fact, on the drug list and on the terrorism list is a pretty clear indication that we do have differences. So, you know, I have heard criticisms at times that, you know, how could we take 20 trips to Damascus, as if every time we went to the region, all we did is go to Damascus. Yes, that was one of our stops.

But I would note that one of the reasons that the landscape of the Middle East has changed is because we have taken 20 trips to the area. You would not have three agreements between the Israelis and Palestinians if we had not taken those trips. You would not have an Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement if we had not taken those trips. You would not have the Casablanca summit, the Amman summit, and what will be the Cairo summit, which brings together the public and private sectors economically to try to build an economic underpinning for peace. You wouldn't have that if we hadn't taken 20 trips to the area.

So those who applaud us for helping to transform the landscape, part of the effort is taking those trips. And that includes going to Damascus. Part of the effort is trying to ensure that the circle of peace gets closed. We're not going to apologize for trying to make peace in the Middle East. And we're also not going to surrender our values. And if you look at the way we've behaved, I think we've been consistent on both. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: In the interest of equalizing the labors up here, I'd like a question for the gentleman on my left. Does anyone have a question for the foreign minister? Why don't you go next, and then we'll rotate, giving everyone a rest.

Q: Mr. Abdullah --

MODERATOR: Could you identify yourself?

Q: My name is Maurice Bronstein (sp). I'm from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Mr. Abdullah, your appearance here today and last night and your presence at this conference apepar like a magnificent work of art. Your words are like beautiful music to our ears. And you and I, I'm sure, know -- we all know -- that we live by our hearts and our minds. And I simply want to say that we are very grateful to you for making our hearts feel good. (Applause.)

We live by our minds as well, and I -- my question to you is not meant to sound pessimistic or cynical at all. I, too, have great hope for peace. But if you would, sir, could you tell us what gives you cause to believe and what reasons do you have to believe the words that you spoke -- and I'm sure you have reasons -- that hte leadership of Syria desires peace?

MR. ABDULLAH: Well, thank you very much for all the words you expressed on my wording and -- (inaudible). It's indeed expressed my deep beliefs. What words I said, I truly believe. It comes from very deep of my heart, and I know it is also my government and my people.

If I might say that what makes me believe that the leadership in Syria believes in peace and wanted peace, it's very simple. One, they have seen that the only option remaining is to make peace. They have seen that in the past, the war does not give anyone any benefit. They care about their generation to come, and they really want to see that they gain back their territory which they lost in the war. And I think this is sufficient reason to believe that they really want the peace now.

As Mr. Ross said, when this is going to happen, this is a matter of negotiation. Equally, they in Syria finally, or at least now, seriously believe that the leadership in Israel are really working for achieving peace with them. And that is fundamental, and we have heard it from the highest leadership in Syria. I myself once was -- I was in a meeting with President Assad, and he told me in very clear terms -- he doesn't need to tell me that, but he did, that really they want to make peace with Israel. But, of course, he has his own domestic problems as well, and one can understand it.

So I think let us be optimistic that everyone will be kept to his words and his views. And I am optimistic that this is the final destination of the whole Middle East. I hope I answer your question. Thank you. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Yes, sir.

Q: Alvin Starr (sp), Chicago. Ambassador Rabinovich, sir, perhaps I can ask you a question that you can answer. In arguing with my friends on the right, who call me their favorite liberal, I find that I'm a little confused by something you stated, and perhaps you could clarify it for me. You stated that the PLO had amended its charter to delete the offending language on elimination of Israel. Yet my friends on the right say that they have done no such thing; all they've done is appointed a committee. Perhaps you can clarify this for me.

AMB. RABINOVICH: Sir, the answer is quite clear. The PNC, the Palestinian National Council, abrogated those paragraphs in the charter that contradict the commitments made by Chairman Arafat to Prime Minister Rabin in September 1993. And in the letter in which he sent to Prime Minister Peres attaching the text, he said that "This is hereby amended," so that, you know, in Arabic, you sometimes do not have a clear-cut distinction between the present tense and the future tense, if the minister will bear me out, and there can be some confusion. And in order to eliminate that in the letter, he said, "hereby amended." So there's no question that this has happened.

Now, a new charter will be written, and this will happen -- this needs here to happen in the future and, of course, we will continue to look at what happens in the new charter. So your friends from the right, as you refer to them, are speaking to you about what the Palestinians need to do in the future about writing a new charter.

But there's no question that they lived up to their commitments to delete from the existing charter those attitudes that contradict the commitments given to us or imply in other words call for the destruction of Israel. We have no doubts that this has happened.

And which brings me to the larger perspective from which you have to look at this peace process. It is a process that has many more years to come. They have three years within which to complete the final status negotiations with the Palestinians. It may have been earlier, or it may take the full three years, and there's also the undesirable possibility that at the end of three years there'll be no agreement. These all are open possibilities. I very much hope that we will complete the agreement within the period of three years.

Furthermore, after -- even after you complete an agreement, there is a relationship that needs to be continued. Now, we made peace with Egypt in 1979. Our relationship with Egypt since then has seen ups and downs, but the fundamentals of the relationship and the legal commitments taken by both sides have been kept. It's only the nature of the political relationship that's changed.

Likewise, we have made peace with Jordan. We now have a major investment to make that peace work in the best of terms, just an indifferent peace relationship with Jordan will not be satisfactory to us.

And with the Palestinians, you know, we are doomed to be neighbors to the Palestinians, or destined, to take another perspective. And I say "doomed" because it is not a happy relationship. It's not of our choice or the Palestinians' choice that we live intimately together. Probably given a free choice, everybody would have chosen a different -- a different track. But destiny has provided that we and the Palestinians will live together closely.

Some cases -- some Palestinians, the Arab Israel -- citizens of Israel are citizens of Israel and they will exercise, by the way, a very preponderant influence in the next election. So Israelis and Palestinians will live together. They hopefully will keep up legal and contractual commitments that they make to each other, but beyond that, there is the question of the political, social, human relationships that will exist within Israel and the Palestinians, and this is not a one-day affair.

Finally, to your friends on the right who are concerned, from the point of view of the United States, there is a law that was passed by Congress that governs this relationship, and the amendment of the charter is part of this law. The commitment is not kept, then the U.S. government is obliged by law to reconsider its relationship with the Palestinians.

And we too. You know, we are not -- we are not vanishing. If for some reason the commitment would be broken later on for some reason, we are there with multiple resources to deal with the problem. There is clarity with regard to what happens now, and there's no -- there's no ambiguity about meeting that commitment. There is certain ambiguities with regard to the political relationship in the future, and there still is an open negotiation that I can tell you with certainty will have its ups and downs. And we'll need, first of all, nerves, but second, belief -- belief and a will to make this work. And if people approach that negotiations with disbelief or without good will and a will to have peace, then the process of making it work of course are reduced. Thank you. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Yossi Alfer (sp.)

Q: Before I ask my question, I just -- Itamar, with your permission, I'll add one other factor with regard to the revolutionary nature of what the PLO did. To anyone who has any doubts, read the reaction in the Iranian press, in the press organs of the radical Islamic and Marxist organizations if you -- to see the anger and the very sharp attacks that they leveled at the PLO, as I think perhaps the most conclusive proof as to how fellow Arabs see the -- the cancellation of those clauses in the charter.

I have two questions for the distinguished foreign minister of Oman. As you can see, sir, we ask difficult questions to our guests. These are two very different questions. The first concerns Oman's very unique relationship with its very close neighbor, Iran. As I'm sure you -- (audio break due to equipment malfunction.)

MR. ABDULLAH: -- controlled the most sensitive waterway, and that's the Strait of Hormuz, where most of the oil comes from that region (that's true ?). So that by itself gives us all the reasons maintain a reasonable contact with Iran, but that is something which is a permanent sort of situation.

But Iran are an important country. The Iranian people are very important people not only in our region, but also in the Islamic world. But Iran, like anywhere else, has black and white. We are dealing with the white. We are not dealing with the black. And we hope to see the dimension of black and white, white will increase and dark will decrease.

Yes, we are not happy with all the relationship with Iran in the region. We are not happy with all the qualities of Iran. We disagree. The Middle East, the relationship with Israel is one of the major differences, disagreements, between us and Iran, and we have discussed this in very clear, direct terms.

When Madrid conference started, I myself went to Teheran and I met all the leaders, from the president down, and we have discussed this and it was very clear that there are total disagreement on this issue.

But we have accepted that. They accepted that and we accepted that, that we should not all the time being on one view. But there is no hard feelings, and this is one of the places where we have established our relationship. I think it's very solid because it's realistic. And we are working with others to make it is possible for Iranians to give them proper advice on what their foreign policy should be, vis-a-vis the affairs in their immediate region, and that is the Middle East.

Having said that, we are not pessimistic on the possible changes in the Iranian policy in the future. Everyone will be then accepting the reality, and, as I said at the beginning, peace is reality of today and it will be reality of tomorrow, and I think they will come to that reality, as well. On the recent events in Lebanon, yes, as you said, it has created a very vast unhappiness in the Arab world and the Islamic world, and even in Israel everyone in Israel says this is a mistake. They regret it, and we can understand that. I'm talking here not in the form of propaganda or media. We are in that part of the world subjected as a victim of the media, but I think that's as Ambassador Ross have said, there is a very wide -- very wide changes in the minds of the people in the Middle East, in the Arab world. I hope these incidents will not be repeated in the past -- in the future. It happens, it happens. But both sides are realized then that uncalculated moves could lead to a similar situation, and I think the Lebanese government and even the Hezbollah have realized that this is not the way to protect the civilians, their own civilians, and everyone is understand that there is actions and reactions. So let us hope that the past actions and reactions will be the final. Thank you. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: And, as was stated earlier, Ambassadors Ross and Rabinovitch now need to leave us. Let it never be said that the proceedings of the American Jewish Committee delayed the peace process even by a fraction of a second.

And so I -- we thank them for being with us in this program this morning, but we release them now to do their important work. Thank you. (Applause.) I think, since we have been -- it is not lost on you that we have been joined by His Excellency the foreign minister of Qatar, whom you met last night, as we have met on several occasions in the past, I think this is an appropriate time to hear from him. He is very welcome again before us, and without further introduction, let me ask you to receive Sheikh Hamad (ph), the foreign minister of Qatar. (Applause.)

FOREIGN MIN. AL-THANI: Ladies and gentlemen, excellencies, I am very glad to be here this morning to address here. And I am wishing and willing that these speeches and these dialogues can lead to a better future for the area. I am sure that my great friend, Mr. Alawi, he covered a lot of the issue, and the purpose of our relations with Israel and the purpose of insistence on the peace process to keep it going.

As you know, the area has passed some difficult situations from the '40s until previously in the '92 until we have the Madrid summit. And passed through a lot of wars, a lot of suffers, a lot of anger. If we start in the past and see that we don't have any results from what has happened, and all these wars, either any party wins these wars, in the end the wars cannot lead to stability, cannot lead to a life, normal life, for any nation.

People have to do a dialogue between each other, even if they are small or big, even if they are strong or not strong, because the strength always it is not with the weapon and with the mass weapon, but strength is with the nation and with the people of the nation, and we have to give our children these strengths. Our children, or our age is grow in the time of the hate and time of war, and I am very glad to see between us people which they've changed their minds and know that this doesn't achieve and doesn't present anything and doesn't lead us to anywhere. And all of us discover, both sides discover, that there is a right for both sides to live in the area, there is a right for both sides in the land, and this right has to be given to whom belongs. And from that aspect and from that base, I think we can achieve the peace. The Madrid summit, when everyone went there, there is two or three different people, people thought that the peace could be achieved within a six month or one year, people thought that it's impossible and it is propaganda, maybe it's for the election here or there or just to show that they are willing to do, and there is no end. And people whom realistic know that 50 years of hate, it need at least five, six, seven years until everything return normal.

We in Qatar think that the peace need time. There will be obstacles, there will be up and down in the peace, like my friend, which he mentioned about what has happened in Lebanon. This has brought the morale down of the people, but we have to keep forward. We have to look at the future. We have to avoid what happened to us, avoid our children to suffer from this, avoid our nation to suffer from this, and we are in Qatar decided to go forward with the peace and we commit ourselves with the peace.

As you know, we invite a multilateral meetings in Qatar and we receive in high rank in Qatar many officials and also we received Mr. Peres in Qatar. We opened up a offices, straight offices between us and Israel.

All of this for a small country, it's a difficult decision. It's not an easy decision in our Arab world. If you take it -- if you take it in your side in United States or in other big nations, you think that's something decision, normal decision. But among our country, I have to tell you, it's a very difficult decision and vital decision. But we decided in our government in Qatar that we are not going to do any relation under the table with Israel or with any other country. If we met, we'll tell our people and we'll tell the nation that we met. If we agreed about something, we will say it.

As you know now, we are studying the commercial relations to be done in a base of an agreement for a double taxation for guaranteeing the investment between Israel and Qatar and there is a lot of Israelis and Qataris exchanging visits in the country and without any hesitation from our side.

One year ago, we opened our telephone lines to Israel, and this is also towards the major events or major step we taked at that time. This show that we would like to normalize our relation with Israel. We need to reach a solution with Israel, and this also shows that Qatar is small country, but it have a view about the peace. And our view about the peace, we have to show the Israelis that our problem -- it is our brother problem in the area, and if this problem is solved, we have to normalize our relation. And what we did with Israel now, we thought it's example of the relationship how it can be with Israel, because I think the people in Israel also asking why -- what they will gain from this peace. Are they going to gain normal relations -- and I think this is their right to ask this -- or are they going to give the land and to sign treaties or things like this and they will not have a normal relation with their neighbors. We need to tell them, yes, you can have a normal relation with your neighbors.

Yes, this is your right to ask these things, and this is also why we start a major project which I think by the end of the year will achieve the final study of it or the final signature for it, with Enron company and with the Israeli government to export gas from Qatar to Israel. And we signed this in Amman summit last year, and we think that this project is going well. We hope that we can achieve to start to implement the work by the end of this year.

And this example -- (applause) -- and this is example of our view in Qatar about the relation with Israel. But in the same time, Israel have to know that we are taking this in the good faith -- good faith that we will achieve a peace with all the other parties like Syria and Lebanon, and if we don't get - - achieve this party, then our position will be difficult, because like we say in our country, we sell a fish on the sea. And I would like, and I encourage the Israeli government, and I encourage also the other parties, that this opportunity of the peace, the momentum of the peace, they have to take it and they have to go forward with the peace.

I think if there is a good faith and a good willness from both sides to reach peace, I think they can achieve it within a few weeks. And we are in Qatar encouraging both sides for the peace, as we are encouraging also the Palestinian and the Israeli now to complete the third stage of their agreement and to make the final settlement in Palestinian area.

AJC, I think it's a remarkable place to talk about these remarkable also ideas they have. We met them in (Doha ?), and we did a lot of meetings either in New York or here and we exchange a view how we can develop the relations, where is the difficulties. And we found that this difficulties cannot solve by the last event, as my friend Mr. al-Alawi said in Lebanon. It has to be solved by a dialogue.

I know what happened in Lebanon tragedy. Myself, when I saw the children being killed in Lebanon, it was a big tragedy and I couldn't sleep, believe me, that night.

I think we have to find a way how to govern our anger when we reach a stage that we have to retaliate. And the retaliation have to be on the people which they've caused the problem -- on both sides. This is my opinion. We have to keep the civilian away.

What happens now in Israel or inside the Gaza and West Bank or inside Lebanon, the severe attack is happening for the civilians, which they have nothing to do with any party, and I think this is a tragedy, and I think this is make us feel like we are 200 years back. When we start kill each other, either we are victims or not victims.

I can say if somebody do something for a responsible guy, I don't believe in these events, I don't believe in these assassination like what happened to Mr. Rabin. I think he was a great man and a great friend, and what happened is something great tragedy.

But it is more great tragedy to go for a bus full of children and to kill them or women and all people, to kill them which they don't know what's going on. And for that reason, I think we should fight the terrorism anywhere else -- (applause) -- we should fight it in any place. (Applause.)

And when I say "the terrorism," I mean the terrorism on the Muslims and the Jews and the Christians. There is terrorism everywhere. There is bad events happen everywhere -- in the United States and the Middle East and Japan, as we see, and everywhere.

So these people, they have to know we shouldn't negotiate, we shouldn't deal with them. They have -- they have to give up -- they have not to do this. They have to know that this will not lead them to any solution, no negotiation with them.

This is our view in Qatar and this is His Highness, Sheik Hamad's view. (Applause.)

We have not to forget the role of United States government in the peace process and the effort of President Clinton and his administration in this peace process, and I think without them, there would be a major obstacles which cannot be solved in the peace process. And I think United States government have demonstrate that they are partner for both sides which they can rely on them and they can deliver what they promised, and we hope that they can continue -- continue their effort to achieve the comprehensive peace in the area.

I would like to mention in the end our relation with the United States, as Qatar and as the GCC countries. United States is an old partner, an old friend for the area, and we respect them and we think that the last events which happened in Kuwait, they demonstrate that they can deliver to their friends the peace in the area. That event teach us a lot of things, and I think we understand who's our friend, who's our enemy. We are forgetting if somebody did any mistakes, or take any sides. I think we have to pass this and to put this in our back and we have to go forward. Otherwise, if we are going to make counts, who's with us and who's not with us, I think this is -- the role will not work, the machine will not work.

We have sometimes to avoid, sometimes forgetting, sometimes not to hear what's been going on so we can keep this momentum to go. And I think the most important thing that the United States government knows, that their partner in the Gulf also need things from them. We are providing things for them for the security. When we say the security in the Gulf, it doesn't mean the security for ourself, it means the security of the most important energy place in the world, which, if you don't have this oil flow from that area, then there would be crisis everywhere in the world. And sometimes when they say, "We come to help you in your crisis," we say, "Thank you for that, but also you came to help yourself also."

I remember some countries they participate in money, which we thank them for that -- like Japan, like Germany, like some other countries during the crisis -- they put up substantial money. But this substantial money, it's an investment for them, and it's part of the duty of all the countries, because all the countries -- we always guarantee that they receive the oil, and a good price. We also in the OPEC, and the GCC, we try to keep the price normal when everybody was thinking to pull the price up. So there is time which we help, and there is time which you have to help us.

And I think as partners we have to understand this, and we have to work in this concept. And also the benefits have to be both ways. The benefits have to be for the Gulf and for the United States, for any other nation, and this is just an example what I am saying about the United States.

And then I would like to thank everyone here. And I appreciate your coming, and I appreciate all the people which organized this wonderful meeting and wonderful dinner yesterday, the reception. And we hope that we meet in better conditions, and we hope that we meet sometimes in the Middle East area, either in Israel or in any other Arab country. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Sheikh Hamad, thank you very much for extending your remarks of last night in such a -- from our point of view, very moving fashion, and for demonstrating why you and Mr. Alawi are from our point of view such admirable participants in the dialogue in which we are pleased to be engaged.

Our guests are prepared to continue with the question period. George Gruen (sp)?

Q: George Gruen (sp) from New York, Columbia University. I heard with interest, and I've been reading about the efforts that Oman has been making, and I am sure Qatar is involved as well, in the multilaterals in helping to relieve the water shortage, especially that's facing the Israeli's, the Palestinians, and the Jordanians. And I wonder if you could enlighten us, A, as to what the research program is that you are involved in; and, secondly -- I was going to ask this to Ambassador Ross, but he's left -- what can the multilaterals do, for example, to improve the technology? There is at the moment a river in Turkey, the Manavgat (ph), that has surplus water that the Turks are prepared to sell to the region, but there's -- you need a feasibility study to see whether these large plastic balloons, the medusas, can work, and this has not yet been funded. And I was wondering whether that and other strategies that could help alleviate the water shortage -- what your views are. And I would like both of the foreign ministers, if they'd like to comment.

MR. ABDULLAH: Thank you very much. I appreciate the question on the Center for Research on the Waters. When we first met in Moscow after Madrid, Oman, the first to initiate the proposal for the multilateral groups to discuss the possible creation of Center of Research for Sea Waters. As it is going, the Middle East countries are either desert or semi-desert countries, and the waters in all the countries are not going to be sufficient for demands of the people in the future.

We thought that the present resources of water are not of any kind of permanent sources, so we thought that we need to develop the technology through scientific research, which can then in the future can help to meet the challenge of the shortage of water. And this proposal was accepted by the multilateral groups. We worked with the United States and others to develop structures. We now have completed almost all the required structures. They are meeting at the moment in Muscat, an interim board of directors, from those who are donating to the center.

We are collecting contributions from various countries. We are glad to see that Oman and Israel and the United States, the European Union, Japan and South Korea have committed themselves to contribute something around $17 million to develop the center. This center is going to sponsor scientific research on the water distilling from the sea, as well as draining programs around the globe. And there finally is going to be -- we hope to make a breakthrough where we can distilling water from the seas with a reasonable cost. So then we can meet our demand.

I think this is the first center of its kind. We understand that industrial countries are not invested in this sector, in this research, because simply they don't need waters. I understand now in the United States there are efforts to do something similar on the West Coast, in California and elsewhere, because those places are having shortages of water. So this is a first step forward for scientific research to that purpose. We call on all the research centers and universities in the United States to help in getting these programs off the ground so the benefit can be for the Middle East and else -- not only the Middle East in the future. There are countries in Africa, in Asia, in which they are having shortages of water. And there will be a shortage of water on those countries even more than in the past.

On the rivers, I'm not sure whether I can help you in answering this. But because of the political situations in the Middle East, government in the Middle East does not trust that they can depend on their building (pipes ?) from sources of water which is controlled by other nations. So at least in the GCC countries, which we have a shortage of water -- we need a lot of water -- we decided that the best way for us at this particular time where we have available energy, is to concentrate on these very nations, instead of building pipelines through Turkey or through India, or through Himalayas -- I don't know. There was also studies done on possibly towing the icebergs the South Pole. (Laughter.) So there are all sorts of ideas. But we came to the point that at the time being the best thing to meet our demand is to concentrate on these very nations, the waters from the sea. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Do you want to (add ?) something about that? You're welcome to.

MR. AL-THANI: No, I'm just having one comment about this. I think the companies which are involved in the desalination, I am sure they have a new technology which they are hiding it. (Laughter.) When they will bring it, I don't know. I hope the research center in Oman, with academic people which they don't care about money a lot, they can bring for us these ideas more quickly. Thank you. (Applause.)

MR. : Let me make a small contribution. (Laughter.)

MODERATOR: Madam, would you identify yourself?

Q: (Inaudible) -- from Belgium. Forgive my accent. I have a question for His Excellency, the foreign minister of Oman, concerning the role of Iraq in the Middle East, because as I have noticed nobody seems to speak about what is going to be the future of Iraq in the peace process. And as you are currently -- (inaudible) -- in the GCC, the question I will ask to you. I have two questions. The first one is: How long do you think -- what is your assessment that the international community will keep its sanctions on Iraq? And what is your view on a possible war for Iraq in the Middle East process? Thank you.

MODERATOR: I assume that's addressed to both ministers.

MR. AL-THANI: Well, if we are talking about Iraq, I just mentioned in my speech a little about the crisis which (happens in the area ?). I think the Iraqi problem, according to my assessment, which I wish it's not right -- that it will take longer than what we think. About selling the oil, which the deal is negotiating in the U.N. now, I think this is -- we might see a result, a very quick result. This is my also own assessment -- that I think this will pass.

The main thing which we have to know, that the Iraqi people now are suffering from hunger, from sickness. And we sent our own delegation to Iraq to assess the situation. And I can tell you the assessment is tragedy, what's happened in Iraq. We are not talking now who is causing this, or because of what this happened, but this situation is there, and there is people and children are dying in Iraq. We are in Qatar contributing to that through the U.N., and we send the medicine and the food, according to our capacity, according to what we can, to help the Iraqi nation.

Iraq is a very important country in the Middle East area, and Iraq has over 20 million -- the population of Iraq. We cannot avoid Iraq. We cannot isolate Iraq forever.

I know the mistake which has happened in Kuwait. We cannot accept it. We didn't accept it at that time, we don't accept it now. There is nothing changed in our principle in that. But what we have to realize -- that there is a nation that is suffering now. And if this nation is suffering, and if the boy which he was five years old, now he is 10 years old or 11 years old, and remembering that his family, part of his family died from sickness or hunger, or they are suffering, they are selling their furniture, their dress, to eat and to go to the hospital, that means the hate will grow. And the seeds -- we will put the seeds for this hate for the future.

If we are talking about the participation of Iraq in the peace process, I think if I am on the Iraqi side I would say I have more important things for myself to be concerned about. I am concerned about my situation. And as you know, a man if he doesn't have sufficient food, sufficient medicine, even his thinking is disturbed -- how he thinks. But we think Iraq has to follow in the peace process. This is our advice to them. This is our view -- that everybody in the Middle East has to follow this -- everybody in the Middle East has to participate in this. I think the Israelis and the Arabs now know what they need from each other, and the leaders have to decide to put an end to this, and to give rights to each nation. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Ron Wiener (sp).

Q: Thank you. First of all, I too would like to thank you again for being here this morning. I am most curious as to the reaction of Saudi Arabia to the decisions of your respective governments to fully engage in the peace process and come to agreements, and their sense of their reaction also to the decision of Jordan. And lastly, as a follow-through, when you think Saudi Arabia will ultimately commit itself fully to the peace process itself.

MR. ABDULLAH: This is a very difficult question. (Laughter.)

MODERATOR: At last.

MR. ABDULLAH: At last, yes. But I am not going to -- please do not consider that I am responding on behalf of the Saudis. The Saudis should express themselves whenever they are available -- but they are not available here. But I would try to describe our analysis on the Saudi Arabian positions.

I know for a fact -- this is a fact -- maybe you are not aware of it, but this is a fact -- when at first President Bush proposed the Madrid Conference, His Majesty King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, he was the first of among the GCC leaders to lobby for it. And this I know possibly because I have worked through. The Saudi Arabian commitment toward achieving peace is very strong -- very strong indeed. Saudi Arabia is one of the major contributors to the Palestinian Authority, and that expresses itself. Saudi Arabia has developed a new relationship with Jordan, right after Jordan signed the peace treaty with Israel. I'm giving these facts because I want to demonstrate to everyone here that the Saudi Arabian commitment toward peace is very strong, unchangeable, and it is part of our collective policy within the GCC to support the peace process.

Thank you. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Yes, ma'am?

Q: My name is Betty Ruth Walter (sp), and I am from Philadelphia -- or I live in Philadelphia. And I'd like to make a comment, and then ask a question if I might, because I'm the last one maybe I can do that. My comment is that I couldn't help but notice that all of us here in this room stood for all of our guests except the Israeli ambassador. And I hope that he didn't take it as a personal offense, from -- being from the South, I'm aware of manners, and of course that would be a terrible breech of manners where I am from, and I hope that we can convey to him that we think of him as a brother, that it was like a member of our family, and perhaps that's why we didn't stand, and so --

MODERATOR: (?) Itamar knows misspache (sp) when he sees it. (Laughter.)

Q: Yes, I hope he does. I was a bit uncomfortable. My question is that -- to the minister of Oman and the minister of Qatar -- that I feel more hopeful about the Israeli future than I have for a very long time. And since my daughter lives there, and my grandchild is there -- she married an Israeli -- I am very, very hopeful for that part of the world, and I have trepidation, to be sure. All seems to be going well, and Mr. Ross is optimistic. But there is one problem, and when I think of it I can only visualize Sisyphus rolling that large rock up the hill, and that is Jerusalem. What happens when these deliberations get to Jerusalem?

MR. AL-THANI: Mr. -- (inaudible) -- when he said the first question, the question about Saudi was difficult -- and then is more worst, not difficult. (Laughter.) I hope he can back me up later, and if I did a mistake he can correct this for me.

Jerusalem is a very important matter -- I agree with you. But if we need to make a big issue, both nations, both sides, we can. If we want to make it not small issue, but an issue solvable, we can also do that. I think there is a very important thing which we understand from the United Nations resolution and from the Madrid Summit. The Madrid Summits stand, and the United Nations resolution, and stand also, and the land which was taken at '67.

So if we come to this conclusion, that means we came to the problem of Jerusalem. And I think even these solutions cannot solve the problem, because we know that there are three religions involved in that peace, in that area. We know the Christian, and we know the Jew, and the Muslim. And I am not talking now on behalf of my government, or on behalf of the Muslims. And Al Aqsa Mosque is very important for us as Muslims. And your part -- (inaudible) -- part, is very important for your side, for the Jew. And also the Christians, they have their place also there. So politicians -- political people cannot find a solution, because everyone wants to show his muscle and he gains something, and he doesn't accept this. But both the nation, the religious people, the political people, have to agree together that they have to find the solution. And the solution is that every religion takes their part on their own. This is a personal view.

But Al Aqsa Mosque, it's vital for the Muslim. And when I say the Muslim, I say 1.5 billion Muslims -- not for the Arab nations which there are 150 or 160. So if we need to solve this problem forever, we have to solve this problem. And it is not a completely Palestinian issue; it is a Muslim issue. Like your part a Jew problem -- it is not an Israeli problem. Like the Christians, it is not a Christian problem -- it's for all the nations, all the people which are Christians.

So I think we should be very careful about this. And I think it's (advisable ?) that this stage is the last stage, because at least everything can be solved, and if there is one problem it could be solved by the dialogue. But I can tell you it's a difficult decision, it's a difficult problem. And this is why the politician people, to achieve the peace and to go forward, they put it in the end, because if they put it in the first, it will be an obstacle to -- there will not be peace. But I think everybody has to solve this problem inside or not to mix it with the political position. If we mix it with a political position, then we have a problem. We should know it is important for the Muslims as a religion. Leave the politics aside. Thank you very much. (Applause.)