[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 37, Number 2 (Monday, January 15, 2001)]
[Pages 28-36]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
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 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]

[[Page 29]]

    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, 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

[[Page 30]]

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 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

[[Page 31]]

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.
    Now, what are we going to do now? The first priority, obviously, has 
got to be to drastically reduce the current cycle of violence.

[[Page 32]]

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 
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

[[Page 33]]

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.
    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. 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. 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 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

[[Page 34]]

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 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

[[Page 35]]

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 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 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. 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

[[Page 36]]

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; Israeli Cabinet 
Secretary Yitzhak Herzog; dinner honorees Dwayne O. Andreas, chair, 
Archer Daniels Midland Company, Louis Perlmutter, former chair, Brandeis 
University, and Alan D. Solomont, chair and founder, A.D.S. Group; Mr. 
Solomont's wife, Susan; Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel; 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.