CLINTON SPEECH ON MIDEAST PEACE PARAMETERS
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT ISRAEL POLICY FORUM GALA
The Waldorf Astoria Hotel New York, New York
January 7, 2001
9:45 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT:
Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.) I want
to thank all of you for making me feel so welcome
tonight, and also for making Hillary and Chelsea feel
welcome. I thank Michael Sonnenfeldt who, like me,
is going out after eight years -- (laughter) -- and
will doubtless find some other useful activity. But
he has done a superb job, and I'm very grateful to
him. (Applause.)
I thank my friend, Jack Bendheim, for his many kindnesses
to me and to Hillary. Yesterday, he had a birthday
and now, like me, he's 54. Unlike me, he has enough
children to be elected President of the United States.
(Laughter.) And he's had a wonderful family and a
wonderful life, and I'm delighted that he's so active
in the Israel Policy Forum. (Applause.) I'd like to
thank Judith Stern Peck for making me feel so welcome
and for her leadership.
I thank Lesley Stahl; it's good to see you, and thank
you for your kind remarks. I thank the many members
of Congress who are here; and also the members of
my Middle East peace team, Secretary Albright and
Sandy Berger and others have been introduced. But
Secretary Dan Glickman is here and Kerry Kennedy Cuomo
is here, and I thank them for being here. (Applause.)
I want to thank the New York officials who are here
-- Carl McCall, Mark Green and any others who may
be in the crowd for your many kindnesses to me over
the last eight years. New York has been great to me
and Al Gore and even greater to my wife on Election
Day, so I thank you for that. (Applause.)
We just reenacted her swearing-in at Madison Square
Garden. And I was reminded of one of the many advantages
of living in New York -- Jessye Norman sang, Toni
Morrison read and Billy Joel sang. Meanwhile, at least
at half time, the Giants were ahead. (Laughter and
applause.) And so I said, I felt sort of like Garrison
Keillor did about Lake Wobegone. I was glad to be
in New York where all the writers, artists and sports
teams were above average -- (laughter) -- and all
the votes were always counted. (Applause.)
Let me also say a word of warm welcome and profound
respect to the Speaker of the Knesset, Speaker Burg,
for his wonderful and kind comments to me. (Applause.)
And to Cabinet Secretary Herzog, for his message from
the government of Israel. I want to say a little more
about that in a moment.
I want to congratulate Dwayne Andreas, my good friend
-- I wish he were here tonight -- and thank him for
his many kindnesses to me. Congratulations, Louis
Perlmutter; Susan Stern who has been such a great
friend to Hillary, and you gave a good talk tonight,
I think you've got a real future in this business.
And your mother sat by me and she gave you a good
grade, too. (Laughter.)
And Alan Solomont, who has done as much for me as
I suppose any American, and he and Susan and their
children have been great friends, and I thank you
for what you've done, sir. I thank all of you. (Applause.)
I'd also like to say how much I appreciated and was
moved by the words of Prime Minister Barak. He was
dealt the hard hand by history. And he came to office
with absolute conviction that in the end, Israel could
not be secure unless a just and lasting peace could
be reached with its neighbors, beginning with the
Palestinians. That if that turned out not to be possible,
then the next best thing was to be as strong as possible
and as effective in the use of that strength.
But his knowledge of war has fed a passion for peace.
And his understanding of the changing technology of
war has made him more passionate, not because he thinks
the existence of Israel is less secure -- if anything,
it's more secure -- but because the sophisticated
weapons available to terrorists today mean even though
they still lose, they can exact a higher price along
the way.
I've been in enough political fights in my life to
know that sometimes you just have to do the right
thing -- and it may work out and it may not. Most
people thought I had lost my mind when we passed the
economic plan to get rid of the deficit in 1993. And
no one in the other party voted for it, and they just
talked about how it would bring the world to an end
and America's economy would be a disaster. I think
the only Republican who thought it would work was
Alan Greenspan. (Laughter.) He was relieved of the
burden of having to say anything about it.
But no dilemma I have ever faced approximates in
difficulty or comes close to the choice that Prime
Minister Barak had to make when he took office. He
realized that he couldn't know for sure what the final
intentions of the Palestinian leadership were without
testing them. He further realized that even if the
intentions were there, there was a lot of competition
among the Palestinians and from outside forces, from
people who are enemies of peace because they don't
give a rip how the ordinary Palestinians have to live
and they're pursuing a whole different agenda.
He knew nine things could go wrong and only one thing
could go right. But he promised himself that he would
have to try. And as long as he knew Israel in the
end could defend itself and maintain its security,
he would keep taking risks. And that's what he's done,
down to these days. There may be those who disagree
with him, but he has demonstrated as much bravery
in the office of Prime Minister as he ever did on
the field of battle and no one should ever question
that. (Applause.)
Now, I imagine this has been a tough time for those
of you who have been supporting the IPF, out of conviction
for a long time. All the dreams we had in '93 that
were revived when we had the peace with Jordan, revived
again when we had the Wye River accords -- that was,
I think, the most interesting peace talks I was ever
involved in. My strategy was the same used to break
prisoners of war, I just didn't let anybody sleep
for nine days and, finally, out of exhaustion, we
made a deal -- just so people could go home and go
to bed. (Laughter.) I've been looking for an opportunity
to employ it again, ever since.
There have been a lot of positive things, and I think
it's worth remembering that there have been positive
developments along the way. But this is heartbreaking,
what we've been through these last few months, for
all of you who have believed for eight years in the
Oslo process; all of you whose hearts soared on September
19, 1993, when Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin signed
that agreement.
For over three months we have lived through a tragic
cycle of violence that has cost hundreds of lives.
It has shattered the confidence in the peace process.
It has raised questions in some people's minds about
whether Palestinians and Israelis could ever really
live and work together, support each other's peace
and prosperity and security. It's been a heartbreaking
time for me, too. But we have done our best to work
with the parties to restore calm, to end the bloodshed
and to get back to working on an agreement to address
the underlying causes that continuously erupt in conflicts.
Whatever happens in the next two weeks I've got to
serve, I think it's appropriate for me tonight, before
a group of Americans and friends from the Middle East
who believe profoundly in the peace process and have
put their time and heart and money where their words
are, to reflect on the lessons I believe we've all
learned over the last eight years, and how we can
achieve the long sought peace.
From my first day as President, we have worked to
advance interests in the Middle East that are long
standing and historically bipartisan. I was glad to
hear of Senator Hagel's recitation of President-elect
Bush's commitment to peace in the Middle East. Those
historic commitments include an ironclad commitment
to Israel's security and a just, comprehensive and
lasting agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis.
Along the way since '93, through the positive agreements
that have been reached between those two sides, through
the peace between Israel and Jordan, through last
summer's withdrawal from Lebanon in which Israel fulfilled
its part of implementing U.N. Security Counsel resolution
425 -- along this way we have learned some important
lessons, not only because of the benchmarks of progress,
because of the occasional eruption of terrorism, bombing,
death and then these months of conflict. I think these
lessons have to guide any effort, now or in the future,
to reach a comprehensive peace. Here's what I think
they are. Most of you probably believed in them, up
to the last three months. I still do. First, the Arab-Israeli
conflict is not just a morality play between good
and evil. It is a conflict with a complex history,
whose resolution requires balancing the needs of both
sides, including respect for their national identities
and religious beliefs.
Second, there is no place for violence, and no military
solution to this conflict. The only path to a just
and durable resolution is through negotiation. Third,
there will be no lasting peace or regional stability
without a strong and secure Israel, secure enough
to make peace, strong enough to deter the adversaries
which will still be there, even if a peace is made
in complete good faith. And clearly that is why the
United States must maintain its commitment to preserving
Israel's qualitative edge in military superiority.
Fourth, talks must be accompanied by acts -- acts
which show trust and partnership. For goodwill at
the negotiating table cannot survive forever ill intent
on the ground. And it is important that each side
understands how the other reads actions.
For example, on the one hand, the tolerance of violence
and incitement of hatred in classrooms and the media
in the Palestinian communities, or on the other hand,
humiliating treatment on the streets or at checkpoints
by Israelis are real obstacles to even getting people
to talk about building a genuine peace.
Fifth, in the resolution of remaining differences,
whether they come today or after several years of
heartbreak and bloodshed, the fundamental, painful,
but necessary choices will almost certainly remain
the same whenever the decision is made. The parties
will face the same history, the same geography, the
same neighbors, the same passions, the same hatreds.
This is not a problem time will take care of.
And I would just like to go off the script here,
because a lot of you have more personal contacts than
I do with people that will be dealing with this for
a long time to come, whatever happens in the next
two weeks.
Among the really profound and difficult problems
of the world that I have dealt with, I find that they
tend to fall into two categories. And if I could use
sort of a medical analogy, some are like old wounds
with scabs on them, and some are like abscessed teeth.
What do I mean by that? Old wounds with scabs eventually
will heal if you just leave them alone. And if you
fool with them too much, you might open the scab and
make them worse. Abscessed teeth, however, will only
get worse if you leave them alone, and if you wait
and wait and wait, they'll just infect the whole rest
of your mouth.
Northern Ireland, I believe, is becoming more like
the scab. There are very difficult things. If you
followed my trip over there, you know I was trying
to help them resolve some of their outstanding problems,
and we didn't get it all done. But what I really wanted
to do was to remind people of the benefits of peace
and to keep everybody in a good frame of mind and
going on so that all the politicians know that if
they really let the wheel run off over there, the
people will throw them out on their ears.
Now, why is that? Because the Irish Republic is now
the fastest-growing economy in Europe, and Northern
Ireland is the fastest-growing economy within the
United Kingdom. So the people are benefiting from
peace, and they can live with the fact that they can't
quite figure out what to do about the police force
and the reconciliation of the various interests and
passions of the Protestants and Catholics. And the
other three or four things. Because the underlying
reality has changed their lives.
So even though I wish I could solve it all, eventually
it will heal, if it just keeps going in the same direction.
The Middle East is not like that. Why? Because there
are all these independent actors -- that is, independent
of the Palestinian Authority and not under the direct
control of any international legal body -- who don't
want this peace to work. So that even if we can get
an agreement, and the Palestinian Authority works
as hard as they can, and the Israelis works as hard
as they can, we're all going to have to pitch in,
send in an international force like we did in the
Sinai, and hang tough, because there are enemies of
peace out there, number one.
Number two, because the enemies of peace know they
can drive the Israelis to close the borders if they
can blow up enough bombs. They do it periodically
to make sure that the Palestinians in the street cannot
enjoy the benefits of peace that have come to the
people in Northern Ireland. So as long as they can
keep the people miserable, and they can keep the fundamental
decisions from being made, they still have a hope,
the enemies of peace, of derailing the whole thing.
That's why it's more like an abscessed tooth.
The fundamental realities are not going to be changed
by delays. And that's why I said what I did about
Ehud Barak. I know that -- I don't think it's appropriate
for the United States to deal with anybody else's
politics, but I know why -- you can't expect poll
ratings to be very good when the voters in the moment
wonder if they're going to get peace or security,
and think they can no longer have both and may have
to choose one. I understand that.
But I'm telling you, the reason he has continued
to push ahead on this is that he has figured out,
this is one of those political problems that is like
the abscessed tooth. The realities are not going to
change. We can wait until all these handsome young
people at this table are the same age as the honorees
tonight, and me, we can wait until they've got kids
their age, and we've got a whole lot more bodies and
a lot more funerals, a lot more crying and a lot more
hatred, and I'll swear the decisions will still be
the same ones that will have to be made that have
to be made today.
That's the fundamental deal here. And this is a speech
I have given, I might add, to all my Israeli friends
who question what we have done, and to the Palestinians.
And in private, God forgive me, my language is sometimes
somewhat more graphic than it has been tonight. But
anybody that ever kneeled at the grave of a person
who died in the Middle East knows that what we've
been through these last three months is not what Yitzhak
Rabin died for and not what I went to Gaza two years
ago to speak to the Palestinian National Council for
either, for that matter.
So those are the lessons I think are still operative,
and I'm a little concerned that we could draw the
wrong lessons from this tragic, still relatively brief,
chapter in the history of the Middle East. The violence
does not demonstrate that the quest for peace has
gone too far or too fast. It demonstrates what happens
when you've got a problem that is profoundly difficult
and you never quite get to the end, so there is no
settlement, no resolution, anxiety prevailed, and
at least some people never get any concrete benefits
out of it.
And I believe that the last few months demonstrate
the futility of force or terrorism as an ultimate
solution; that's what I believe. (Applause.) I think
the last few months show that unilateralism will exacerbate,
not abate, mutual hostility. I believe that the violence
confirms the need to do more to prepare both publics
for the requirements of peace, not to condition people
for the so-called glory of further conflict.
Now, what are we going to do now? The first priority,
obviously, has got to be to drastically reduce the
current cycle of violence. But beyond that, on the
Palestinian side, there must be an end to the culture
of violence and the culture of incitement that, since
Oslo, has not gone unchecked. (Applause.) Young children
still are being educated to believe in confrontation
with Israel, and multiple militia-like groups carry
and use weapons with impunity. Voices of reason in
that kind of environment will be drowned out too often
by voices of revenge.
Such conduct is inconsistent with the Palestinian
leadership's commitment to Oslo's nonviolent path
to peace and its persistence sends the wrong message
to the Israeli people, and makes it much more difficult
for them to support their leaders in making the compromises
necessary to get a lasting agreement.
For their part, the Israeli people also must understand
that they're creating a few problems, too; that the
settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in
the heart of what they already know will one day be
part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the
Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.
(Applause.)
And restoring confidence requires the Palestinians
being able to lead a normal existence, and not be
subject to daily, often humiliating reminders that
they lack basic freedom and control over their lives.
These, too, make it harder for the Palestinians to
believe the commitments made to them will be kept.
Can two peoples with this kind of present trouble
and troubling history still conclude a genuine and
lasting peace? I mean, if I gave you this as a soap
opera, you would say they're going to divorce court.
But they can't, because they share such a small piece
of land with such a profound history of importance
to more than a billion people around the world. So
I believe with all my heart not only that they can,
but that they must.
At Camp David, I saw Israeli and Palestinian negotiators
who knew how many children each other had, who knew
how many grandchildren each other had, who knew how
they met their spouses, who knew what their family
tragedies were, who trusted each other in their word.
It was almost shocking to see what could happen and
how people still felt on the ground when I saw how
their leaders felt about each other and the respect
and the confidence they had in each other when they
were talking.
The alternative to getting this peace done is being
played out before our very eyes. But amidst the agony,
I will say again, there are signs of hope. And let
me try to put this into what I think is a realistic
context.
Camp David was a transformative event, because the
two sides faced the core issue of their dispute in
a forum that was official for the first time. And
they had to debate the tradeoffs required to resolve
the issues. Just as Oslo forced Israelis and Palestinians
to come to terms with each other's existence, the
discussions of the past six months have forced them
to come to terms with each other's needs and the contours
of a peace that ultimately they will have to reach.
That's why Prime Minister Barak, I think, has demonstrated
real courage and vision in moving toward peace in
difficult circumstances while trying to find a way
to continue to protect Israel's security and vital
interests.
So that's a fancy way of saying we know what we have
to do and we've got a mess on our hands. So where
do we go from here? Given the impasse and the tragic
deterioration on the ground, a couple of weeks ago
both sides asked me to present my ideas. So I put
forward parameters that I wanted to be guide toward
a comprehensive agreement; parameters based on eight
years of listening carefully to both sides and hearing
them describe with increasing clarity their respective
grievances and needs.
Both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat have
now accepted these parameters as the basis for further
efforts. Both have expressed some reservations. At
their request, I am using my remaining time in office
to narrow the differences between the parties to the
greatest degree possible. (Applause.) For which I
deserve no applause. Believe me, it beats packing
up all my old books. (Laughter.)
The parameters I put forward contemplate a settlement
in response to each side's essential needs, if not
to their utmost desires. A settlement based on sovereign
homelands, security, peace and dignity for both Israelis
and Palestinians. These parameters don't begin to
answer every question, they just narrow the questions
that have to be answered.
Here they are. First, I think there can be no genuine
resolution to the conflict without a sovereign, viable,
Palestinian state that accommodates Israeli's security
requirements and the demographic realities. That suggests
Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza, the vast majority
of the West Bank, the incorporation into Israel of
settlement blocks, with the goal of maximizing the
number of settlers in Israel while minimizing the
land annex for Palestine to be viable must be a geographically
contiguous state. (Applause.)
Now, the land annexed into Israel into settlement
blocks should include as few Palestinians as possible,
consistent with the logic of two separate homelands.
And to make the agreement durable, I think there will
have to be some territorial swaps and other arrangements.
Second, a solution will have to be found for the
Palestinian refugees who have suffered a great deal
-- particularly some of them. A solution that allows
them to return to a Palestinian state that will provide
all Palestinians with a place they can safely and
proudly call home. All Palestinian refugees who wish
to live in this homeland should have the right to
do so. All others who want to find new homes, whether
in their current locations or in third countries,
should be able to do so, consistent with those countries'
sovereign decisions. And that includes Israel.
All refugees should receive compensation from the
international community for their losses, and assistance
in building new lives.
Now, you all know what the rub is. That was a lot
of artful language for saying that you cannot expect
Israel to acknowledge an unlimited right of return
to present day Israel, and at the same time, to give
up Gaza and the West Bank and have the settlement
blocks as compact as possible, because of where a
lot of these refugees came from. We cannot expect
Israel to make a decision that would threaten the
very foundations of the state of Israel, and would
undermine the whole logic of peace. And it shouldn't
be done. (Applause.)
But I have made it very clear that the refugees will
be a high priority, and that the United States will
take a lead in raising the money necessary to relocate
them in the most appropriate manner. (Applause.) If
the government of Israel or a subsequent government
of Israel ever -- will be in charge of their immigration
policy, just as we and the Canadians and the Europeans
and others who would offer Palestinians a home would
be, they would be obviously free to do that, and I
think they've indicated that they would do that, to
some extent. But there cannot be an unlimited language
in an agreement that would undermine the very foundations
of the Israeli state or the whole reason for creating
the Palestinian state. (Applause.) So that's what
we're working on.
Third, there will be no peace, and no peace agreement,
unless the Israeli people have lasting security guarantees.
(Applause.) These need not and should not come at
the expense of Palestinian sovereignty, or interfere
with Palestinian territorial integrity. So my parameters
rely on an international presence in Palestine to
provide border security along the Jordan Valley and
to monitor implementation of the final agreement.
They rely on a non-militarized Palestine, a phased
Israeli withdrawal, to address Israeli security needs
in the Jordan Valley, and other essential arrangements
to ensure Israel's ability to defend itself.
Fourth, I come to the issue of Jerusalem, perhaps
the most emotional and sensitive of all. It is a historic,
cultural and political center for both Israelis and
Palestinians, a unique city sacred to all three monotheistic
religions. And I believe the parameters I have established
flow from four fair and logical propositions.
First, Jerusalem should be an open and undivided
city, with assured freedom of access and worship for
all. It should encompass the internationally recognized
capitals of two states, Israel and Palestine. Second,
what is Arab should be Palestinian, for why would
Israel want to govern in perpetuity the lives of hundreds
of thousands of Palestinians? Third, what is Jewish
should be Israeli. That would give rise to a Jewish
Jerusalem, larger and more vibrant than any in history.
Fourth, what is holy to both requires a special care
to meet the needs of all. I was glad to hear what
the Speaker said about that. No peace agreement will
last if not premised on mutual respect for the religious
beliefs and holy shrines of Jews, Muslims and Christians.
I have offered formulations on the Haram Ash-Shareef,
and the area holy to the Jewish people, an area which
for 2,000 years, as I said at Camp David, has been
the focus of Jewish yearning, that I believed fairly
addressed the concerns of both sides.
Fifth and, finally, any agreement will have to mark
the decision to end the conflict, for neither side
can afford to make these painful compromises, only
to be subjected to further demands. They are both
entitled to know that if they take the last drop of
blood out of each other's turnip, that's it. It really
will have to be the end of the struggle that has pitted
Palestinians and Israelis against one another for
too long. And the end of the conflict must manifest
itself with concrete acts that demonstrate a new attitude
and a new approach by Palestinians and Israelis toward
each other, and by other states in the region toward
Israel, and by the entire region toward Palestine,
to help it get off to a good start.
The parties' experience with interim accords has
not always been happy -- too many deadlines missed,
too many commitments unfulfilled on both sides. So
for this to signify a real end of the conflict, there
must be effective mechanisms to provide guarantees
of implementation. That's a lot of stuff, isn't it?
It's what I think is the outline of a fair agreement.
(Applause.)
Let me say this, I am well aware that it will entail
real pain and sacrifices for both sides. I am well
aware that I don't even have to run for reelection
in the United States on the basis of these ideas.
I have worked for eight years without laying such
ideas down. I did it only when both sides asked me
to, and when it was obvious that we had come to the
end of the road, and somebody had to do something
to break out of the impasse.
Now, I still think the benefits of the agreement,
based on these parameters, far outweigh the burdens.
For the people of Israel, they are an end to conflict,
secure and defensible borders, the incorporation of
most of the settlers into Israel, and the Jewish capital
of Jerusalem, recognized by all, not just the United
States, by everybody in the world. It's a big deal,
and it needs to be done. (Applause.)
For the Palestinian people, it means the freedom
to determine their own future on their own land, a
new life for the refugees, an independent and sovereign
state with al Quds as its capital, recognized by all.
(Applause.) And for America, it means that we could
have new flags flying over new embassies in both these
capitals. (Applause.)
Now that the sides have accepted the parameters with
reservations, what's going to happen? Well, each side
will try to do a little better than I did. (Laughter.)
You know, that's just natural. But a peace viewed
as imposed by one party upon the other, that puts
one side up and the other down, rather than both ahead,
contains the seeds of its own destruction.
Let me say those who believe that my ideas can be
altered to one party's exclusive benefit are mistaken.
I think to press for more will produce less. There
can be no peace without compromise. Now, I don't ask
Israelis or Palestinians to agree with everything
I said. If they can come up with a completely different
agreement, it would suit me just fine. But I doubt
it.
I have said what I have out of a profound lifetime
commitment to and love for the state of Israel, out
of a conviction that the Palestinian people have been
ignored or used as political footballs by others for
long enough, and they ought to have a chance to make
their own life with dignity. (Applause.) And out of
a belief that in the homeland of the world's three
great religions that believe we are all the creatures
of one God, we ought to be able to prove that one
person's win is not, by definition, another's loss;
that one person's dignity is not, by definition, another's
humiliation; that one person's work of God is not,
by definition, another's heresy. There has to be a
way for us to find a truth we can share. (Applause.)
There has to be a way for us to reach those young
Palestinian kids who, unlike the young people in this
audience, don't imagine a future in which they would
ever put on clothes like this and sit at a dinner
like this.
There has to be a way for us to say to them, struggle
and pain and destruction and self-destruction are
way overrated, and not the only option. There has
to be a way for us to reach those people in Israel
who have paid such a high price and believe, frankly,
that people who embrace the ideas I just outlined
are nuts, because Israel is a little country and this
agreement would make it smaller; to understand that
the world in which we live and the technology of modern
weaponry no longer make defense primarily a matter
of geography and of politics and the human feeling
and the interdependence and the cooperation and the
shared values and the shared interests are more important
and worth the considered risk, especially if the United
States remains committed to the military capacity
of the state of Israel. (Applause.)
So I say to the Palestinians: there will always be
those who are sitting outside in the peanut gallery
of the Middle East, urging you to hold out for more,
or to plant one more bomb. But all the people who
do that, they're not the refugees languishing in those
camps -- you are. They're not the ones with children
growing up in poverty whose income is lower today
than it was the day we had the signing on the White
House Lawn in 1993 -- you are.
All the people that are saying to the Palestinian
people: Stay on the path of no, are people that have
a vested interest in the failure of the peace process
that has nothing to do with how those kids in Gaza
and the West Bank are going to grow up and live and
raise their own children. (Applause.)
To the citizens of Israel who have returned to an
ancient homeland after 2,000 years, whose hopes and
dreams almost vanished in the Holocaust, who have
hardly had one day of peace and quiet since the state
of Israel was created, I understand, I believe, something
of the disillusionment, the anger, the frustration
that so many feel when, just at the moment peace seemed
within reach, all this violence broke out and raised
the question of whether it is ever possible.
The fact is that the people of Israel dreamed of
a homeland. The dream came through; but when they
came home, the land was not all vacant. Your land
is also their land, it is the homeland of two people.
And, therefore, there is no choice but to create two
states and make the best of it.
If it happens today, it will be better than if it
happens tomorrow, because fewer people will die. And
after it happens, the motives of those who continue
the violence will be clearer to all than they are
today.
Today, Israel is closer than ever to ending a 100-year-long
era of struggle. It could be Israel's finest hour.
And I hope and pray that the people of Israel will
not give up the hope of peace.
Now, I've got 13 days and I'll do what I can. We're
working with Egypt and the parties to try to end the
violence. I'm sending Dennis Ross to the region this
week. I met with both sides this week. I hope we can
really do something. And I appreciate more than I
can say the kind, personal things that you said about
me.
But here's what I want you to think about. New York
has its own high-tech corridor called "Silicon
Alley." The number one foreign recipient of venture
capital from Silicon Alley is Israel. Palestinians
who have come to the United States, to Chile, to Canada,
to Europe, have done fabulously well -- in business,
in the sciences, in academia.
If we could ever let a lot of this stuff go and realize
that a lot of -- that the enemies of peace in the
Middle East are overlooking not only what the Jewish
people have done beyond Israel, but what has happened
to the state of Israel since its birth, and how fabulously
well the people of Palestinian descent have done everywhere
else in the world except in their homeland, where
they are in the grip of forces that have not permitted
them to reconcile with one another and with the people
of Israel -- listen, if you guys ever got together,
10 years from now we would all wonder what the heck
happened for 30 years before.
And the center of energy and creativity and economic
power and political influence in the entire region
would be with the Israelis and the Palestinians because
of their gifts. It could happen. But somebody has
got to take the long leap, and they have to be somebodies
on both sides.
All I can tell you is, whether you do it now or whether
you do it later, whether I'm the President or just
somebody in the peanut gallery, I'll be there, cheering
and praying and working along the way. (Applause.)
And I think America will be there. I think America
will always be there for Israel's security. But Israel's
lasting security rests in a just and lasting peace.
I pray that the day will come sooner, rather than
later, where all the people of the region will see
that they can share the wisdom of God in their common
humanity and give up their conflict.
Thank you and God bless you. (Applause.)
Distributed by the Office of International Information
Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site:
http://usinfo.state.gov.
|