Mark Regev:  First question, Israel Channel Two, Udi Segal.

 Udi Segal:  Mr. President, may I ask you about Syria a practical question and a moral one?  Morally, how is it possible that for the last two years, tens of thousands of innocent civilians are being massacred, and no one in the world, the United States and you, are doing anything to stop it immediately.  On a practical level, you have said today and also in the past that the use of chemical weapons would be crossing of a red line. It seems that this red line was crossed yesterday. What specifically do you intend to do about it?

 Pres.: I'll answer the question in reverse order, if you don’t mind. I'll talk about the chemical weapons first and then the larger question.  With respect to chemical weapons, we intend to investigate thoroughly exactly what happened. Obviously in Syria right now you've got a war zone, you have information that's filtered out, but we have to make sure that we know exactly what happened, what was the nature of the incident, what can we documented, what can be proved. So I've instructed my teams to work closely with all other countries in the region and international organizations and institutions to find out precisely whether or not this red line was crossed.

I will note, without at this point having all the facts before me, that we know the Syrian government has the capacity to carry out chemical weapon attacks; we know that there are those in the Syrian government who expressed a willingness to use chemical weapons if necessary to protect themselves; I am deeply skeptical of any claim that in fact it was the opposition that used chemical weapons.  Everybody who knows the facts of the chemical weapon stockpile inside of Syria as well as the Syrian government's capabilities, I think would question those claims, but I know that they're floating out there right now.

The broader point is that once we establish the facts, I have made clear that the use of chemical weapons is a game changer, and I won't make an announcement today about next steps because I think we have to gather the facts.  But I do think that when you start seeing weapons that can cause potential devastation and mass casualties and you led that genie out of the bottle, then you are looking potentially at even more horrific scenes that we've already seen in Syria, and the international community has to act on that additional information. But as always the case when it comes to issues of war and peace, I think having the facts before you act is very important.

More broadly, as I said in my opening statement, I believe that the Assad regime has lost all credibility and legitimacy and I think Assad must go and I believe he will go. It is incorrect for you to say that we have done nothing. We have helped to mobilize the isolation of the Assad regime internationally; we have supported and recognized the opposition; we have provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support for humanitarian aid; we have worked diligently with other countries in the region to provide additional tools to move toward a political transition within Syria.

If your suggestion is that I have not acted unilaterally militarily inside of Syria, well, the response has been or my response would be that to the extent possible, I want to make sure that we're working as an international community to deal with this problem because I think it's a world problem, not simply a United States problem or an Israel problem or a Turkish problem. It's a world problem when tens of thousands of people are being slaughtered including innocent women and children. And so we will continue to work in an international framework to try and bring about the kind of change that's necessary in Syria. Secretary Kerry has been working nonstop since his came in his current position to try to help mobilize and organize our overall effort and we will continue to push every lever that we have to try to bring about a resolution inside of Syria that respects the rights and the safety and security of all people regardless of whatever sectarian lines currently divide Syria.

The last point I'll make, which is probably obvious, is this is not easy.  When you start seeing a civil war that has sectarian elements to it and you've got a repressive government that is intent on maintaining power and you have mistrust that has broken out along sectarian lines, and you have an opposition that has not had the opportunity or time to organize itself both politically as well as militarily, then you end up seeing some of the devastation that you've been seeing.  And we're going to do everything we can to continue to prevent it, and I know that the vast majority of our international partners feel the same way.

White House Press Secretary:   From the White House Press Corps, Matt Spetalnick of Reuters.

Matt Spetalnick:  Yes, thank you.  There was some friendly banter between you two gentlemen on the tarmac today about red lines, and I'm wondering how much of a serious matter that actually became in your talks, and will be in your talks to come tonight?  President Obama has said it will take Iran at least a year to build a bomb.  That's months longer than the Prime Minister believes.  Mr. President, are you asking the Prime Minister to be more patient, to hold off for at least a year on any kind of military action against Iran?  Mr. Prime Minister, has President Obama's words, have they convinced you that he is putting forth  the credible military threat that you have repeatedly asked for or does he need to go further?

Pres.:  Bibi, why don't you go?  Take the first swing at this.

PM:  Well, first of all, there are so many strips of different colors on the tarmac that we did have a joke about that, but obviously this matter is no joke.  It relates to our very existence, and to something also that the President correctly identified as a grave, strategic threat to the United States and to the peace and security of the world.  I'm absolutely convinced that the President is determined to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  I appreciate that.  And I also appreciate something that he said, which I mentioned in my opening remarks: that the Jewish people have come back to their own country to be the masters of their own fate.  And I appreciate the fact that the President has reaffirmed, more than any other President, Israel's right and duty to defend itself by itself against any threat.

We just heard those important words now, and I think that sums up our, I would say our common view: Iran is a grave threat to Israel, a grave threat to the world – a nuclear Iran.  The United States is committed to deal with it.  Israel is committed to deal with it.  We have different vulnerabilities, obviously, and different capabilities.  We take that into account, but what we do maintain, and the President, I think, is the first to do so, is that Israel has a right to independently defend itself against any threat including the Iranian threat.

Pres.:  I think the only thing I would is that our intelligence cooperation on this issue, the consultation between our militaries, our intelligence, is unprecedented, and there is not a lot of daylight between our countries assessments in terms of where Iran is right now.  I think that what Bibi alluded to, which is absolutely correct, is each country has to make its own decisions when it comes to the awesome decision to engage in any kind of military action, and Israel is differently situated than the United States.  And I would not expect that the Prime Minister would make a decision about his country's security and defer that to any other country, any more than the United States would defer our decisions about what was important for our national security.

I have shared with Bibi, as I've said to the entire, as I've said to the Iranian people and Iranian leaders, that I think there is time to resolve this issue diplomatically.  The question is will Iranian leadership seize that opportunity.  Will they walk through that door?  And it would be in everybody's interests, not just Israel's interests, not just the United States' interests – it would be in the interests of the Iranian people if this gets resolved diplomatically.  Because the truth of the matter is the most permanent solution to the Iranian situation is ultimately going to be their decision that it is not worth it for them to pursue nuclear weapons.  That'll be the lasting change.  If we can get that, that's good for everybody, including Iran, because it would allow them to break out of the isolation that has hampered their society and their economic development for many years.

But I don't know whether they're going to be willing to take that step, and obviously their past behavior indicates that, in a play on words on what Ronald Reagan said: we can't even trust yet, let alone verify.  But we do have to test the proposition that this can be resolved diplomatically, and if it can't, then I've repeated to Bibi what I've said publicly, and that is that we will leave all options on the table in resolving it.

Mark Regev:  From Channel One Israel, Ayala Hasson.

Ayala Hasson:  Thank you.  Welcome, Mr. President.  On your way back to Washington on Friday, what will you consider a successful visit?  Convincing the Israeli leaders that they can rely on you on the Iranian issue, especially that I learned that there are differences between Israel and the United States concerning the enrichment of the uranium?  Or convincing both sides, Israelis and Palestinians, to revive the floundering negotiations, reviving the floundering peace process?

Pres.:  Well, my main goal on this trip has been to have an opportunity to speak directly to the Israeli people at a time when, obviously, what was already a pretty tough neighborhood has gotten tougher, and let them know that they've got a friend in the United States, that we have your back, that we consider Israel's security of extraordinary importance to us, not just because of the bonds between our peoples, but also because of our own national security interests.  In that context, what I have also sought to achieve here is further consultations, building on what we've already discussed – as Bibi has just formed a new government, as I am entering my second term – that we continue to have close consultation around some of these shared interests that we've already discussed, Iran being obviously a prominent shared concern.

I want to make sure that the Israeli people and the Israeli government consistently understand my thinking and how I'm approaching this problem.  And I want to understand how the Israeli government and the Prime Minister is approaching this problem – to make sure that there are no misunderstandings there.

With respect to the peace process, as I said, I'll have more to say about this tomorrow, but I think you are absolutely right that over the last year, year and a half, two years, two and a half years, we haven't gone forward.  We haven't seen the kind of progress we would like to see.  There's some elements of good news.  I mean, the fact of the matter is that even with all that's been happening in the region, the Palestinian Authority has worked effectively in cooperation with the international community, in part because of some of the training that we the United States provided to do its part in maintaining security in the West Bank.  We have seen some progress when it comes to economic development and opportunity for the Palestinian people.  But the truth of the matter is, trying to bring this to some sort of clear settlement, a solution that would allow Israelis to feel as if they've broken out of the current isolation that they're in in this region that would allow the incredible economic growth that's taking place inside this country to be a model for trade and commerce and development throughout the region at a time when all these other countries need technology and commerce and jobs for their young people; for Palestinians to feel a sense that they too are masters of their own fate; for Israel to feel that the possibilities of rockets raining down on their families has diminished.

That kind of solution we have not yet seen, and so what I want to do is listen, hear from Prime Minister Netanyahu.  Tomorrow I'll have a chance to hear from Abu Mazen.  To get a sense from them, how do they see this process moving forward?  What are the possibilities and what are the constraints, and how can the United States be helpful?  And I purposely did not want to come here and make some big announcement that might not match up with what the reality is and what the possibilities on the ground are.  I wanted to spend some time listening before I talked, which my mother always taught me was a good idea.  And so hopefully, I'll consider the success if when I go back on Friday, I'm able to say to myself: I have a better understanding of what the constraints are, what the interests of the various parties are, and how the United States can play a constructive role in bringing about a lasting peace and two states living side by side in peace and security.

Thank you.

White House Press Secretary:  Chuck Todd, from NBC.

Chuck Todd:  Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister.  Mr. President, I want to follow up a little bit on the peace process.  You began your first term, big fanfare, the Cairo speech to talk to the Muslim world, the decision to have a Middle East Envoy early.  You said you weren't going to let this slip to your second term.  We're in your second term with the Mideast peace process.  What went wrong?  Why are we further away from a two state solution?   I know you said you want to talk more about this tomorrow, by I am curious: what do you believe went wrong?  Did you push Israel too hard?  What do you wish you would have done differently?

And Mr. Prime Minister, I want to help out my colleague over here, and the follow up that he had which had to do with: do you accept the President's understanding that Iran is a year away when it comes to nuclear weapons?  And then another question I had for you is why do you…

Pres.:  Chuck, how many… yeah.  Do you guys do this in the Israeli press?  You say you get one question, and then you add like five?  You see how the young lady from Channel One, she had one question.  She was very well-behaved, Chuck.

Todd:  I've got one for you, and…

PM:  These are Talmudic questions.  They have reiterations, yeah.

Todd:  Apparently.  I thought I had four questions.  Passover starts in a couple of days; I get four questions, right?

PM:  Look, this is not a kosher question, but don't hog it.

Todd:  I guess my question to you was going to be: why do believe the Israeli people have not embraced President Obama the same way they embraced our last two U.S. presidents?  Thank you.

Pres.:  So you had to get a polling question in there right at the very end, huh?  Chuck, I mean, you're just incorrigible.

Well, look, the opening premise to your question was that having failed to achieve peace in the Middle East in my first term, that I must have screwed up somehow.  And I will tell you, I hope I'm a better president now than when I first came into office, but my commitment was not to achieve a peace deal in my first year, or in my second year, or in my third year.  That would have been nice.  What I said was I was not going to wait to start on the issue until my second term because I thought it was too important.  And that's exactly what I did.

I'm absolutely sure that there are a host of things that I could have done that would have been more deft and would have created better optics, but ultimately this is a really hard problem.  It's been lingering for over six decades, and the parties involved have some profound interests that you can't spin, you can't smooth over, and it is a hard slog to work through all of these issues.

I will add that both parties also have politics just like we do back home.  There are a whole bunch of things that I'd like to do back in the United States that I didn't get done in my first term.  And I'm sure I could have been more deft there as well, but some of it's just because it's hard, and people disagree and it takes, I think, a confluence of both good diplomatic work, but also timing, serendipity, things falling into place at the right time, the right players feeling that this is the moment to seize it.  And my goal here is just to make sure that the United States is a positive force in trying to create those opportunities as frequently as possible, and to be as clear as possible as to why we think that this is an important priority.  Not only because of some Pollyannaish views about, "Can't we all get along and hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya'", but because I actually believe that Israel's security will be enhanced with a resolution to this issue.  I believe Palestinians will prosper and can channel their extraordinary energies and entrepreneurship in more positive ways with a resolution to this issue.  The entire region, I think, will be healthier with a resolution to this issue.

So I'm going to keep on making that argument, and I will admit that, frankly, sometimes it would be easier not to make the argument and to avoid the question precisely because it's hard.  That's not the approach that I've tried to take, and there have probably been times where when I've made statements about what I think needs to happen, the way it gets filtered through our press, it may interpreted in ways that get Israelis nervous, just like there are folks back home who sometimes get nervous about areas where they aren't sure exactly where I stand on things.  That's why I always like the opportunity to talk directly to you guys.  Hopefully, you'll show the live film as opposed to the edited version.

With that, I think you've got four questions to answer, Bibi.

PM:  I think that there's a misunderstanding about time.  If Iran decides to go for a nuclear weapon, that is to actually manufacture the weapon, then it will take them about a year. I think that’s correct. They could defer that a long time but still get through the enrichment process. That is… To make a weapon you need two things. You need enriched uranium of a critical amount and you need a weapon. You can’t have the weapon without the enriched uranium but you can have the enriched uranium without the weapon.

Iran, right now, is enriching uranium. It’s pursuing it. It hasn’t yet reached the red line that I had described in my speech at the UN. They’re getting closer though. The question of manufacturing the weapon is a different thing. The President said correctly that we have, on these issues that are a little arcane, they sound a little detailed to you, but on these matters we share information and we have a common assessment.

In any case, Iran gets to an immunity zone when they get through the enrichment process, in our view. Whatever time is left, there’s not a lot of time. And every day that passes diminishes it. But we do have a common assessment on these schedules, on intelligence. We share that intelligence and we don’t have any argument about it. I think it’s important to state that clearly.

I think that people should get to know President Obama the way I’ve gotten to know him and I think you’ve just heard something that is very meaningful. It might have escaped you but it hasn’t escaped me and that is the president announced that in addition to all the aid that his administration has provided, including iron Dome, including defense funding for Israel during very difficult times, he has announced that we’re going to begin talks on another ten-year process arrangement to ensure American military assistance to Israel.

I think this is very significant. And I want to express my thanks for everything that you have done and I want to thank you also for that statement you just made. I think it’s very, very important.

So I think Israelis will judge this by the unfolding events and by what’s happening, what is actually taking place. And for this, you know, there’s a very simple answer to your question – the gentleman from NBC, right?

For this you need, you see, a second term as President and a third term as Prime Minister. That really fixes things.

Pres.: All right. Thank you very much everybody.