[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 43 (Monday, April 14, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E643-E646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU'S ADDRESS TO AIPAC

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, April 14, 1997

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, last week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin 
Netanyahu made a major speech at the annual AIPAC policy conference 
dinner. This event is the pre-eminent pro-Israel activity in our 
Nation's capital, and was attended by over 150 Members of Congress. 
Because the Prime Minister's remarks are very timely and deserving of 
special attention, I would like to share them with my colleagues, and 
therefore request that they be reprinted at this point in the 
Congressional Record.

[[Page E644]]

Remarks of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, AIPAC Dinner, Washington 
             Hilton, Washington, DC, Monday, April 7, 1997

       PRIME MIN. Netanyahu (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank 
     you. I want to say to Melvin Dow that you should give me 
     these introductions in the Knesset. (Laughter.) I thank you 
     for that, and I thank you for your leadership. I thank you 
     for having AIPAC and for its support for Israel and for 
     Israeli-American relations and for peace. You are doing a 
     magnificent job. Thank you. (Applause.) You know that Melvin 
     is the last--well, not the last--there will be others--but he 
     is the most recent of a distinguished line of heads of AIPAC 
     who are here. I've worked with all of them in some form or 
     capacity or the other--Ed Levy and Bob Asher and Larry 
     Weinberg whom I remember from our first meeting--it must be 
     20 years ago--you haven't changed--(laughter)--and Barbara 
     Mitchell and Steve Grossman. It's the best people you could 
     find. And they are joined here by some very good friends that 
     I have had. First of all, the two ambassadors--the ambassador 
     of Israel to the United States, Eli Ben Elissar--(Applause)--
     and the ambassador of the United States to Israel, Martin 
     Indyk. (Applause.) He should stay the ambassador of the 
     United States to Israel, if it were up to me--but I don't 
     decide these things. Did I spill out anything? You should 
     stay the ambassador of the United States to Israel as far as 
     possible (Applause.) These are exceptional diplomats, and we 
     are joined today by many other exceptional diplomats. And I 
     thank you on behalf of the state of Israel for giving us an 
     opportunity to speak to all of you not at the U.N. 
     (Laughter.) This is a distinct advantage. (Applause.)
       I want to say to my friends Leon Levy and Art Sandler, and 
     of course my old-time friends Jonathan Mitchell and Sheldon 
     Edelson--this goes on the order of the length of our 
     acquaintance that it is wonderful seeing all of you here 
     today. And it is a great honor for me to be on the stage that 
     you provided so kindly, Howard, with your excellent staff 
     that shepherded us--corralled us right in here--and 
     prevents us from seeing all these extraordinary people in 
     the audience. But I do see the people on the stage, and it 
     is a privilege to be with Senators Ted Stevens and John 
     Kerry--(applause)--two great friends of the state of 
     Israel--(applause)--who represent over 40 senators and 
     over 90 congressmen and congress women who are here. And I 
     am very, very, very, very appreciative of the support that 
     you are rendering Israel. And believe me there is not a 
     person in Israel who does not share that same appreciation 
     and wants to extend the same thanks.
       I have to also confess to you that this is my first--I 
     think it is--yes, it is my first AIPAC conference as the 
     prime minister of Israel--(applause)--which--now, wait a 
     minute, wait a minute. What this means in that in this 
     capacity I have only seven more conferences to go--
     (laughter)--in this capacity. And I look forward to every one 
     of them.
       But I was discussing this with Jonathan Mitchell outside. 
     And he said, ``Well, what's it like being the prime minister 
     of Israel?'' And I said, ``Well, it's like a walk in the 
     park.'' (Laughter.) And he said, ``You mean Central Park at 
     midnight?'' (Laughter. Applause.) And I said, ``No, it's like 
     a bed of roses but with a lot of thorns.'' But it is with all 
     the challenges of this particular job, it has great rewards, 
     first to see the things we want to see accomplished, and we 
     are accomplishing them however difficult it is--the quest for 
     peace. And Melvin put it correctly: the only meaningful 
     peace, peace with security. And also a small idea that we 
     have to make Israel--and this should not shock you--
     economically self-sufficient--(applause)--and a place where 
     Jewish people make money by being good businessmen. These are 
     all things that are happening in Israel. And the country is 
     undergoing a tremendous revolution. It is becoming a 
     technological power of the first order, and the world--we are 
     marrying our special capabilities--technological 
     capabilities--with the idea, with the strange idea of free 
     market principles. And the combination is explosive. It is 
     producing unparalleled investment in Israel. And I think it 
     will be a tremendous boon for peace. It will help all of us. 
     (Applause.)
       I think that we in Israel--and I think all of humanity--
     extraordinary lucky that as we enter the 21st century the 
     United States is the only superpower. It is a great force--a 
     force for more clarity, for democracy, for justice and for 
     peace. (Applause.) And I think Israel is especially lucky 
     that AIPAC exists in this country to present Israel's case. I 
     don't think anyone is more knowledgeable than you about the 
     Middle East as it really is. And I think no one can present 
     our case better. And I must say that no one does it with 
     greater dedication. It is not enough to marshal the facts. It 
     is not enough to muster the arguments. In order to persuade 
     and make a difference you have to bring conviction. You have 
     to couple the heart with the mind. And that is what you do--
     you give your heart and your mind to Israel, and for this I 
     thank you from the bottom of my heart. (Applause)
       I met with President Clinton today and with Secretary of 
     State Albright, and we had very good meetings. We had I 
     thought open talks--excellent talks--because we tried to get 
     to the root of what it is that we can do to secure the peace. 
     And I think that Israel and the United States share a common 
     view. I found a real understanding for our position that 
     there must be strong resolve in both our parties, but I think 
     also elsewhere, to give the fight against terrorism the top 
     priority it deserves. (Applause.) We all agree terrorism is 
     the enemy. It is the enemy of the United States, it is the 
     enemy of Israel, it is the enemy of peace, it is the enemy of 
     our civilization. And it is an enemy that rears its head, and 
     it must receive an answer. It must be stopped. Terrorism must 
     be stopped and terrorism can be stopped. And we are the ones 
     who ultimately will decide if it wins the day or loses 
     ground. And I believe that it's within our capacities--when I 
     say our capacities I mean not only the government of Israel 
     and the government of the United States, but I think the men 
     and women in this hall can each do their part to ensure that 
     everyone does their part to wage the battle against 
     terrorism.
       We have I think a true friend in the White House--actually 
     true friends--the president and the vice president. 
     (Applause.) We have true friends in the State Department with 
     the secretary of state. We certainly have true friends on 
     Capitol Hill--that demonstrated aptly tonight. (Applause.) 
     And I am sure that all of us--the administration, Congress, 
     the government of Israel--will each be doing his part to pull 
     together for our common cause. And with your help, which I 
     think is indispensable, we will achieve the goal that we 
     seek, which is a secure peace between Israel and its 
     neighbors.
       Now, this is not an easy task, because peace is elusive, 
     and it cannot be captured merely by repeating the word 
     ``peace'' like a mantra. For peace to exist in our part of 
     the region of the world--we live in a difficult neighborhood 
     as you no doubt ascertained--for peace to exist and survive 
     and thrive in our part of the world, it must--it must be--the 
     quintessential idea of peace which exists anywhere else is an 
     obvious thing. Peace means the absence of violence. Otherwise 
     there is no meaning to it. (Applause.) Peace means the 
     absence of terror. If I were to say peace and terror cannot 
     co-exist, this ought to be a redundancy. This shouldn't be 
     said because it is so obvious. And yet it has to be said 
     again and again and again, because we are asked to accept the 
     notion that we can have peace on the one hand and terrorism 
     on the other hand, both in the same process, both co-
     existing. It cannot be. One drives out the other, and we have 
     to decide if peace drives out terrorism, and not that 
     terrorism drives out peace. (Applause.)
       Now, we are engaged today in an effort to rescue the Oslo 
     process. This is a process which was based on two parallel 
     ideas. The first idea was that the Palestinians--the 
     Palestinian Authority would undertake to stop terrorism from 
     its domains. And the second was that Israel would withdraw 
     from the population centers which would become the 
     Palestinian domains. Two ideas. Fight terrorism, leave the 
     population centers. That's the basic deal of Oslo. 
     Everything else is elaboration. And you have to ask how 
     was this cemented. It was cemented not only in the 
     provisions of Oslo that states this quite clearly; it was 
     so important for Israel that the late Prime Minister 
     Yitzhak Rabin refused--refused to sign onto Oslo until he 
     got in addition to the provisions of the agreement a 
     specific written commitment from the chairman of the PLO, 
     Yasser Arafat, promising that he would combat terrorism, 
     and the Palestinian Authority would fight terrorism. In 
     other words, this is for Israel from the start this was 
     the most fundamental aspect of Oslo.
       I can say here tonight that had the Palestinians lived up 
     to this assurance we would not be busy today trying to save 
     the peace process. (Applause.) Now, it's widely believed that 
     I am against Oslo--this is how it is portrayed. And I made my 
     peace with Oslo. I made my peace with Oslo before the 
     elections, and I said we will keep Oslo. It is not Oslo we 
     are against; it is the idea that we alone shall keep Oslo, 
     and the other side has agreed not to keep Oslo. (Applause). 
     (Audio break)--most of them before I came to office. But I 
     completed the hardest one, the redeployment in Hebron, which 
     as you know is the oldest point of Jewish settlement on 
     Earth, going back almost 4,000 years to the time of Abraham. 
     We did that.
       But when we look at the other side of Oslo, did the 
     Palestinian Authority fulfill its part, then the answer is 
     not a recent no, because in the 30 months that preceded the 
     elections, since the signing of Oslo--the first 30 months of 
     the Oslo agreement Israel suffered the worst terrorist waves 
     in its history from terrorist groups based in those same PA--
     Palestinian Authority domains that were provided by the 
     Israeli government. And this culminated in a week of 
     incredible savagery, the suicide bombings of February and 
     March of last year which cost the lives of 60 people.
       I know this is redundant, but I'll say it anyway: This was 
     before the rise of hard-line Netanyahu government. You can't 
     have just Netanyahu--hard-line Netanyahu government, of the 
     intransigent Likud government, as it is commonly known. It 
     was before all of this. And I can tell you--and I suppose 
     this means reminding too in some quarters--this was also 
     before Har Homa. There was no Har Homa. There was no, quote, 
     ``Provocation'' in Jerusalem. There was nothing. In fact, 
     there was the most conciliatory--okay, dovish--(laughter)--
     the most conciliatory government in Israel's existence. It 
     took extra pains not to do anything that would be perceived 
     by the Palestinian Authority as a provocation. And yet we 
     have these incessant attacks from terrorist groups which

[[Page E645]]

     were not stopped by the Palestinian Authority. And this is 
     what the people of Israel asked us to correct. They didn't 
     say abandon Oslo. They said correct Oslo--make sure that they 
     fulfill their side of the bargain as well. (Applause.)
       I should tell you that when those waves of terrorist 
     attacks took place last March the peace process was in danger 
     of complete collapse. The Labor government at the time 
     suspended the redeployment in Hebron, and in effect it 
     stopped all of the negotiations. And it was then, and only 
     then, that the Palestinian Authority began to do something 
     about terrorism. They began to act then against the terrorist 
     organizations, because they understood that failing to do so 
     would stop the Israeli withdrawal. I have to tell you that 
     this activity was partial, because the PA did not--did not 
     dismantle the terrorist organizations and did not disarm the 
     terrorists. But its efforts, however partial, coupled with 
     the cooperation between our security agencies--and there was 
     important cooperation--all of that was enough to demonstrate 
     that if it wanted to the Palestinian Authority could control 
     the situation and significantly curb terrorism. And indeed 
     this was the case in the following months. And in fact this 
     was the case for a full year, until there was a decision to 
     change the policy. And now we are faced again, once again, 
     with terrorism and violence. The excuse of course is that we 
     are building a housing project in Har Homa. You have heard--
     well, it's hard to say who of us has heard more nonsense 
     about Har Homa, you or I--but you have heard a lot of 
     nonsense about Har Homa. So let me tell you the facts. Har 
     Homa is not an area in Arab East Jerusalem. (Applause). It is 
     a barren hill in the southern part of Jerusalem, and it is on 
     land that is mostly private land--75 percent private land 
     owned by Jews. (Applause.) It is not a settlement. I said 
     this morning that I have nothing against settlements, but it 
     happens to be--that is a joke, by the way--(laughter)--but 
     that--that there is a difference between a neighborhood in a 
     city within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem and a 
     settlement is something that is obvious to you. But of course 
     this is not obvious to anyone who watches most of the news 
     media of the world, because this is deliberately obfuscated, 
     the word ``settlement'' connoting something bad. And Har Homa 
     is not a settlement; it is a neighborhood designed to 
     alleviate the severe housing shortage in Jerusalem. And it is 
     matched by our plans to have ten such projects of differing 
     size altogether culminating in even more housing units for 
     the Arab residents of Jerusalem, because we consider it our 
     obligation to take care of the city's residents, whether they 
     are Jewish or Arab, with equal effort. (Applause.)
       And finally, the building of this residential neighborhood 
     in no way contravenes the Oslo agreement. Oslo doesn't forbid 
     in any way the construction of neighborhoods in Jerusalem--no 
     government in Israel--not the Labor government or Likud 
     government--would ever sign onto an accord that would limit 
     our right to build in our ancient capital. And indeed I have 
     to say the Labor government did not do this. (Applause.)
       But Oslo does stipulate something about Jerusalem. It says 
     that Jerusalem will be--the issue of Jerusalem will be 
     negotiated and decided on in the final settlement 
     negotiations, but pending the conclusion of those 
     negotiations. There is only one stipulation about 
     Jerusalem, and it is the curbing not of Israeli activity 
     in Jerusalem but of Palestinian activity. The Palestinian 
     Authority is prohibited--specifically prohibited under 
     Oslo--to have any governmental offices in Jerusalem or any 
     governmental activities of the Palestinian Authority. 
     (Applause.)
       So it is not Israel that is violating the Oslo Accords vis-
     a-vis Jerusalem; it is the Palestinian Authority which 
     maintains illegally and contravening the Oslo Accords those 
     offices in Jerusalem. It's a small point that I thought I 
     should get across, because I didn't see it on the nightly 
     news. (Applause.)
       Now, we are told that building houses in Har Homa is 
     introducing instruments of terror. This is a new concept of 
     terror. It's called condominium terror--(laughter)--or terror 
     of the walk-up rentals. (Laughter.) Or apartment--what is 
     this? You can laugh, but it's not funny, because the attack 
     on basic human values is always preceded--always preceded by 
     a corruption of language. (Applause.) You twist people's 
     minds by twisting the meaning of words. And once you can 
     twist it--once you can say that there is this terrorism of 
     the bulldozers--and that's what they say--then you can 
     prepare the way for the acceptance by millions who listen to 
     this pulp day in and day out that there is some kind of 
     equality between a grievance that the Palestinians may have 
     unjustly--unjustly as far as the agreement is concerned--
     that's for sure. In my opinion, as far as history and as far 
     as justice is concerned, but that's not the point. Suppose 
     they have a grievance. We have a grievance against them in 
     Jerusalem. But that grievance cannot be used to vitiate the 
     meaning of the word ``terrorism,'' to apply it where it 
     doesn't belong, and indeed to legitimize the blowing of 50 
     people in a cafe in Tel Aviv, and the murder of three young 
     women, one with an unborn child, and the other leaving aside 
     a scarred baby girl that will never grow up a normal human 
     being, that will always be scarred, whether her physical 
     wounds heal or not--her mother she will never see.
       I said on another occasion that nothing justifies 
     terrorism. And the attempt to exculpate terrorism, the 
     attempt to excuse it or explain it, understand it, is an 
     attempt, however, unwittingly applied by some, to justify war 
     crimes. (Applause.) Terrorism is a war crime. War crimes--the 
     basic concept of a war crime is that even though mankind is 
     consigned for the foreseeable future to engage on occasion in 
     armed conflict we call wars, we proscribe--we prohibit armed 
     combatants to deliberately attack the other part of humanity 
     outside the war--that is, defenseless civilians--women, 
     children, men, babies. They might be hurt accidentally, but 
     they cannot be deliberately and systematically attacked. 
     That's the whole idea behind the convention outlawing war 
     crimes. If you don't have these limits, then anything is 
     permissible. If you don't have these limits on attacking 
     deliberately and purposefully and systematically, men and 
     women and children and babies, then there are no limits that 
     tell you that you cannot throw a million babies into ovens, 
     or five or six.
       And therefore the attempt to in any way explain terrorism--
     an insidious attempt that we are witnessing today--is an 
     attempt essentially to do what I call--what I recall I must 
     say is Pope John Paul's magnificent statement. He said the 
     greatest danger of terrorism is that it can murder man's 
     sense of sin. And we must never accept this attempt, using 
     Jerusalem or any other excuse, to in any way limit or 
     diminish the horror of the savagery committed buy these 
     terrorists. And we will never accept terrorism. Nothing 
     justifies terrorism. Nothing, period. (Applause.)
       I think that for the peace process to proceed amid the 
     difficulties that still lie ahead it is important on every 
     occasion that each one of you without exception make your 
     outrage of this obscenity known. It is important that you 
     home--continuously home the perception and understanding of 
     citizens, but especially of political leaders and government 
     leaders, of the absolute unacceptability of terrorism.
       Now, it's now a month--almost a month--since the 
     Palestinian Authority has made it clear to the terrorist 
     organizations that they can resume operations. The results 
     are known. I can tell you that a week after the bombing in 
     Tel Aviv only a miracle prevented the slaughter of scores of 
     young children, ranging in age from four to twelve, and I saw 
     them on the same day in my office, and I was deeply moved and 
     deeply gratified that such a miracle took place. I think that 
     we should make clear that we cannot accept what we are being 
     told. We are being told that if we want the terror to stop we 
     must stop building in Jerusalem. You are familiar in this 
     country with this procedure. In the United States it is 
     called a protection racket. It's extortion. And it never 
     ends. It's something that we reject. We are not going to be a 
     part of it. (Applause.) We are not going to pay a price for 
     the privilege of not being killed. (Applause.)
       I've been talking about terrorism, because I think it's 
     important to understand that no peace negotiations can take 
     place under its threat. I think that's understandable to you 
     too. It's the position of another foreign government--foreign 
     to the United States, but a close ally as well. Britain is 
     now considering negotiating with the Sinn Fein. And it is 
     said that they are demanding the complete cessation of 
     terrorism before the British government sits down and 
     negotiates with the Sinn Fein. We are not taking that 
     position. We are not taking that position because we 
     recognize that in our part of the world there are enough 
     fanatics who can crawl out of the woodwork and try to 
     obstruct peace negotiations. We don't demand from our 
     Palestinian partners 100 percent success. We do demand 100 
     percent effort. (Applause.) We don't attribute the presence 
     or the perpetration of occasional isolated acts as a 
     necessary breakdown of our partner's will.
       I'll give you an example. Three weeks ago we had a terrible 
     terrorist incident. A Jordanian soldier killed in a terrible 
     act of savagery seven schoolgirls aged 12 and 13. We didn't 
     point an accusing finger at Jordan. We knew that the army of 
     Jordan, the security forces of Jordan, the government of 
     Jordan, and the king of Jordan make every effort--and 
     spare no effort--in order to fight terrorism. And you saw 
     how movingly King Hussein expressed this attitude when he 
     came to Israel to comfort the relatives of the slain 
     girls. (Applause.)
       So as much as we'd like to have 100 percent success, what 
     we are asking from our Palestinian partners is 100 percent 
     effort.
       And right now what we are receiving is close to zero 
     percent. And that has to change. (Applause.) And if it 
     changes--if it changes in the coming days and weeks, I can 
     assure you that I will be the first one to welcome this 
     change. (Coughs.) One thing I didn't take is Contac on the 
     plane. (Laughter.)
       So it is the fulfillment of the most basic provision of 
     Oslo that we seek. But I don't want to leave you with the 
     sense that we have given up on the other provisions. We have 
     stated that we would keep our side of the bargain. And we 
     should be judged on whether we have done so. Well in the last 
     three months--actually in the last two and a half months, we 
     have done the following: We have redeployed in Hebron--not 
     easy. We have released female terrorist prisoners--some of 
     them with a lot of blood on their hands--a commitment taken 
     by the previous government--not easy, but we did it. We 
     passed over significant funds to the Palestinian Authority, 
     even though they still owe us a lot--they don't pay their 
     phone and gas bills--not easy, but we did it. We lifted the

[[Page E646]]

     closure. We encountered a situation where there were 25,000 
     workers, Palestinian workers, entitled to work in Israeli 
     cities. We raised it to 56,000--some risk--not easy, but we 
     did it. We did all these things--and other things--because 
     these were solemn commitments that we took, and I said we 
     keep Oslo.
       Now, look at what happened on the other side. You have 
     already heard Palestinian offices in Jerusalem--violation of 
     the agreement. The fact that we have terrorists that are 
     released rather than incarcerated--violation of the 
     agreement. The fact that there is hostile incitement towards 
     terrorism and violence--contrary to the agreement. The fact 
     that the military size, the size of the military forces and 
     the police forces of the Palestinian Authority well exceeds 
     the limit set by the agreement--violation of the agreement. 
     All of this, and other violations, are shunted aside. And the 
     equation is put forward in the following way: Israel, which 
     keeps the Oslo Accords, is accused of violating them. And the 
     Palestinian Authority, which violates the Oslo Accords, is 
     credited with keeping them. This is the reality within which 
     we find ourselves. I don't have many opportunities to reach 
     such an important audience, so I have gone through in some 
     elaboration on this point. But it is very, very important 
     that the truth come out. We cannot fight this battle for 
     peace if we don't fight the battle for truth. And you are our 
     ambassadors for truth. (Applause.)
       So if you want to be truthful, then there are two essential 
     conditions for peace. One of them is the mutual fulfillment 
     of obligations, which I call reciprocity. And the other is 
     the abandonment of violence and terror and the systematic 
     fighting against terror which can enable us to proceed down 
     the road for peace. We have to assure ourselves that this 
     battle against terrorism is not episodic, it's not ephemeral, 
     it's not something that is done for the next three weeks, but 
     is something that is consistent and remains a permanent 
     feature of Palestinian policies and attitudes. And this 
     requires us to be convinced that the sword is not unsheathed 
     to be used periodically every time we have an argument and 
     then sheathed again for a few weeks until we've reached the 
     next impasse. (Applause.) What we want is this sort of terror 
     to be beaten into plowshares and to pruning forth into 
     computers, into anything but terror. And that I think 
     encapsulates the twin expectations that we have from our 
     negotiating partners.
       And if that is achieved, if we can have an assurance of a 
     change of policy and a change of heart, then we can proceed 
     towards final settlement negotiations. That is not a diktat; 
     it's an option. It's an idea. And the idea basically says 
     that rather than spend time on a protracted path, eroding 
     mutual confidence, that we try to telescope the final 
     settlement process and try to engage all our energies, all 
     our efforts, on trying to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli 
     conflict altogether. One can spend an enormous amount of 
     effort on a small thing, or one can spend an enormous amount 
     of effort on a big thing. I'd rather spend it on a big thing 
     and get to the end of this conflict. Both our peoples--
     Palestinians and Israelis--deserve such a solution. 
     (Applause.) And I believe it is within which--I am convinced 
     that an accelerated process will benefit both sides But this 
     is an option that must be considered alongside other options. 
     And the United States and President Clinton are considering 
     their ideas. I am sure they will be presented to us in full 
     form over the next days and weeks and months, and I am sure 
     the same will apply to the Palestinian Authority. I trust the 
     United States to be not only an indispensable partner for 
     peace--it has been the mainstay of all our successful efforts 
     for peace--all of them, from Camp David on--and it will be in 
     this successful effort as well.
       But I think the key ingredient to assure that these peace 
     talks succeed is the narrowing of the distance between the 
     size. And this requires of necessity tailoring expectations 
     to reality. It's not easy to do that. It's the main job of 
     leaders to do that, because your constituents will always 
     demand more.
       Now, we had to take a significant move, and we took it 
     before the elections and after the elections. We recognized 
     that we could not fulfill all of our dreams. We recognized 
     there were facts on the ground. We recognized there were 
     agreements that had been signed. And we said that we would 
     honor those agreements and recognize those facts--and it 
     wasn't easy--not before the elections, not after the 
     elections, not before Hebron and not after Hebron--not 
     today. But that is the job of leaders. They have to tell 
     their people the truth and make them see the vision 
     forward and the reality present. We do not see yet such a 
     movement on the Palestinian leadership's part. (Applause.) 
     They still cling--you clap for that? They still cling to 
     an impossible idea. They cling to the idea that we will 
     return to the '67 boundaries, that we will redivide 
     Jerusalem, that we will build a Palestinian state. I have 
     to tell you we are not going back to the '67 boundaries. 
     (Applause.) We will not risk ourselves and the lives of 
     future generations. (Applause.) And we are not going back 
     to those insecure and indefensible lines. We oppose the 
     Palestinian state because those sovereign powers that 
     accrue to statehood--such as control of the airspace or 
     control of the borders, and the importation of weapons of 
     mass destruction, or even focused destruction--could 
     endanger the very survival of the state of Israel. And we 
     certainly under no circumstances will ever redivide 
     Jerusalem. (Applause. Cheers.)
       You hear references today--references today that you hear 
     about Jerusalem or Arab East Jerusalem as a separate city--
     there is no such thing. Jerusalem is one city. It was divided 
     for 19 years. It was reunited in the Six Day War. It shall 
     stay united. (Applause.) I spent my childhood in that city 
     from Day Two--when I was two days old. And so I grew up in 
     that city, and I remember it. I remember it as a city, a 
     walled city. In the middle of the city there was a wall with 
     barbed wire and sniper positions. And I remember that people 
     could not sit on the terraces of the King David Hotel without 
     fear of being shot from the Old City. They preferred always 
     the rooms facing the other way. Now thank God it has changed. 
     It will remain changed. (Applause.)
       And the fact of our bond with the city of Jerusalem is 
     something that all of humanity recognizes, and certainly 
     those that don't recognize it--they don't do so because they 
     don't know our special bond. We have a bond with that city 
     unlike any other bond of any other people to any other city 
     in the world. It is a bond that has existed for 3,000 years. 
     And no other people had Jerusalem as its capital during those 
     three millennia except the Jewish people. No other people 
     will have Jerusalem as their capital for the coming millennia 
     as well. (Applause.)
       I don't think there is any other body in the world that 
     recognizes our attachment to Jerusalem and our rights to 
     Jerusalem than the U.S. Congress, the Senate and the House 
     together. (Applause.) Since the Six Day War, since Jerusalem 
     was reunited, Congress has recognized the unity of Jerusalem 
     in 30 special and separate initiatives, and this includes 
     initiatives by such extraordinary figures in American life as 
     Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen and 
     Immanuel Seller (sp)--the youngsters here don't remember 
     those names, but I remember those names--wonderful, wonderful 
     Americans. And Jacob Javits (sp) and Hugh Scott (sp) and 
     Edward Kennedy and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Joseph 
     Lieberman, and Connie Mack, and Newt Gingrich, and Daniel 
     Inouye and many, many others who have raised their voice in 
     Congress on behalf of Jerusalem. (Applause.)
       And there are many, many leaders here tonight who are doing 
     and who will continue to do much with the unity of Jerusalem. 
     I think that some of them have spoken in remarkably moving 
     ways. I think of--since this is a bipartisan meeting--that 
     Dick Gephardt's description of Jerusalem as the crown jewel 
     of modern civilization is a wonderful penetration of the 
     truth of what Jerusalem encapsulates in people's aspirations. 
     He called it a triumph of faith and freedom--not just for the 
     Jewish people, but for all people. And on the other side of 
     the aisle Trent Lott, in another house, talked from this 
     podium on his next visit to Jerusalem, and he said to touch 
     those great stones of the Western Wall that still speak to us 
     over all the tragic ages--stones which remained the enduring 
     foundation of faith that has survived the unthinkable and 
     accomplished the impossible.
       These are words that come from the heart of people who 
     share our aspirations, because Jerusalem is more than a city. 
     It is a great ideal. It is sacred to the three great faiths 
     of the world--to Islam, to Christianity and to Judaism. And 
     it is something that we will always hold as precious for them 
     as it is for us. (Applause.) It is the city on the hill. It 
     is often the city of harsh reality and conflict, but it's 
     also the city of light and dreams. And it is the city of song 
     and prayer--prayer for a better world, prayer that there will 
     be peace for men and women of good will, that we will see 
     this peace in our lifetime and bequeath it to our children 
     for all time. The people of Israel and the government of 
     Israel are determined to do whatever is possible to realize 
     this hope for peace--peace for Jerusalem, peace for Israel, 
     peace for Israel's neighbors. And with your help--all of your 
     help--I am sure we will succeed in this effort. Thank you. 
     (Applause.)
       I want to thank Senators Stevens and Kerry for having the 
     patience to endure. And I have to apologize to them and to 
     you--I have a plane to catch. It's mine--(laughter)--but I 
     have an appointment in Jerusalem. So I want to say thank you 
     again, and see you soon in Jerusalem--not next year, but this 
     year. Thank you. (Applause.)

                          ____________________