[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000-2001, Book III)]
[January 7, 2001]
[Pages 2838-2846]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks at an Israel Policy Forum Dinner in New York City
January 7, 2001

    Thank you very much. Thank you. 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 8 years--[laughter]--and will doubtless 
find some other useful activity. But he has done a superb job, and I'm 
very grateful to him.
    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. 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.
    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 8 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.
    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

[[Page 2839]]

Billy Joel sang. Meanwhile, at least at half 
time, the Giants were ahead. [Laughter] And so I said, I felt sort of 
like Garrison Keillor did about Lake Wobegon. 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. [Laughter]
    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, 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.
    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.
    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 talk I was ever involved in. My 
strategy was the same used to break prisoners of war: I just didn't let 
anybody sleep for 9 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 8 years in the Oslo 
process, all of you whose hearts soared on September 13,

[[Page 2840]]

1993,* when Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin signed that agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *White House correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For over 3 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 2 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 8 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 the 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 3 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 good will 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 
2 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

[[Page 2841]]

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 
work 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 3 months is not what 
Yitzhak Rabin died for, and not what I went to Gaza 2 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. 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.

[[Page 2842]]

    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. 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.
    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 6 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 a 
guide toward a comprehensive agreement, parameters based on 8 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, though 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

[[Page 2843]]

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 
annexed. For Palestine, to be viable, must be a geographically 
contiguous state. 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.
    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, and 
that if the government of Israel, or a subsequent government of Israel 
ever there--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. 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. 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 nonmilitarized 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 al-Sharif 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

[[Page 2844]]

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.
    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 8 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 
Yerushalayim, recognized by all, not just the United States, by 
everybody in the world. It's a big deal, and it needs to be done.
    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.
    And for America, it means that we could have new flags flying over 
new Embassies in both these capitals.
    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; 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 worship of God is not by definition 
another's heresy.
    There has to be a way for us to find a truth we can share. 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.
    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

[[Page 2845]]

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.

    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 peoples. 
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. 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.

Note: The President spoke at 9:45 p.m. in the Grand Ballroom at the 
Waldorf Astoria Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to Michael W. 
Sonnenfeldt, chair, Jack Bendheim, president, and Susan Stern, vice 
president, Israel Policy Forum; Judith Stern Peck, former chair, United 
Jewish Appeal Federation of New York; dinner emcee Lesley Stahl; Kerry 
Kennedy Cuomo, wife of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew 
M. Cuomo; New York State Comptroller H. Carl McCall; Mark Green, New 
York City public advocate; musicians Jessye Norman and Billy Joel; 
author Toni Morrison; Garrison Keillor, host of ``Prairie Home 
Companion''; Speaker of the Knesset Avraham Burg, Cabinet Secretary 
Yitzhak Herzog, and Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel; dinner honorees 
Dwayne O. Andreas, chair, Archer Daniels Midland Co., Louis Perlmutter,

[[Page 2846]]

former chair, Brandeis University, and Alan D. Solomont, chair and 
founder, A.D.S. Group; Mr. Solomont's wife, Susan; Chairman Yasser 
Arafat of the Palestinian Authority; President-elect George W. Bush; and 
Ambassador David Ross, Special Middle East Coordinator. A portion of 
these remarks could not be verified because the tape was incomplete.