SECRETARY
CLINTON: I am somewhat overwhelmed, but I’m obviously thinking I should
sit down. (Laughter.) I prepared some remarks for tonight, but then I
thought maybe we could just watch that video a few more times.
(Laughter.) And then the next time, I could count the hairstyles, which
is one of my favorite pastimes. (Laughter.) I think I now know what it
feels like to be one of Haim’s Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.
(Laughter.)Well, I guess we should expect nothing less from Haim Saban,
who’s a friend, a colleague, a mentor, an inspiration to so many of us
here tonight. He certainly has always challenged me to make the most of
America’s place in the world and especially our close friendship with
Israel. And it is extremely humbling to be honored by the Saban Forum in
front of so many Americans and Israelis whom I know and respect so
greatly. And I am so appreciative of all those very much too kind words.
I can’t wait to show my husband. (Laughter and applause.) And speaking
of spouses, I want to acknowledge my dear friend, Cheryl Saban –
(applause) – who’s being doing heroic work as a public delegate with our
team at the United Nations.
There are so many friends here, and
it’s always a little dangerous – in fact, a lot dangerous – to
acknowledge or point out any. But obviously, I want to thank Martin
Indyk and Tamara Wittes and all the thinkers and scholars whose insights
help us navigate this very difficult, challenging time.
I also
want to say a special word to two friends who are retiring. One, Senator
Joe Lieberman, – (applause) – who is leaving the Senate and going into
standup comedy, I’m told. (Laughter.) He’s got a lot of good lines; I’ve
heard many of them over the years. But he and Hadassah deserve some
very well merited time for themselves. And of course, Ehud Barak, who’s
announced his retirement. And so we want to wish you very much happiness
in the future as well.
Let me also acknowledge the Chairman of my
authorizing and oversight committee, Senator John Kerry. (Applause.)
Thank you, John. And Teresa Heinz, it’s wonderful seeing you here as
well. (Applause.) My Congresswoman, Nita Lowey – (applause) – who does
such a great job in every way and is, as they say, moving on up, which
we’re happy to hear. I saw Howard Berman here, and I think we all want
to pay a great acknowledgment – (applause) – and gratitude to Howard.
There are some others that I just want briefly to mention, other members
of Congress. I know there are some here, but I can’t see everyone.
I
want to also acknowledge Foreign Minister Lieberman, Deputy Prime
Minister Meridor, Ambassador Oren, our Ambassador Dan Shapiro, my former
Deputy Secretary Jim Steinberg, everyone who’s made this journey to be
with us tonight.
And I think that we have a lot to celebrate,
because for years we have told you, our Israeli friends, that America
has Israel’s back. And this month, we proved it again. (Applause.) When
Israel responded to a rain of rockets, when sirens sounded and schools
emptied and air raid shelters filled, America’s next move was never in
question. President Obama and I stood before the international community
and supported Israel’s right to defend itself from a threat no country
would tolerate. The Iron Dome system – invented by Israel, underwritten
by America – knocked rockets out of the sky like never before.
We
supported regional and international efforts to de-escalate the conflict
and then seized on a diplomatic opening when it came. Working closely
with President Obama from halfway around the world, I left the East Asia
Summit in Cambodia to fly to Tel Aviv, to drive to Jerusalem, to meet
with the Prime Minister and members of the inner cabinet, to go the next
day to Ramallah, then back to the Prime Minister’s office, and then to
Cairo, and we were able to play a role in enabling the ceasefire to
occur. That fragile ceasefire is holding. The skies above Israel are
clear. And we are beginning to see the efforts to rebuild and resume
daily life. But the world knows – and always will know – that whenever
Israel is threatened, the United States will be there.
Now, that’s
a good thing, because we believe in our shared values. We understand we
both live in a complicated and dangerous world. We’re in the midst of a
transformative moment in the Middle East, one that offers as many
questions – in fact more questions than answers – and one that poses new
challenges to Israel’s place in the emerging regional order. As the
story unfolds, all of us must work together to seize the promise and
meet these challenges of this dynamic, changing Middle East.
In
the past month alone, we’ve seen both the promise and those challenges.
We’ve seen post-revolutionary Egypt work with the United States to help
Israel broker a ceasefire and protect Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel.
We have seen cutting-edge defenses protect Israel, cities and rural
areas. We have seen Israel fight for and win a stop to rocket fire from
Gaza. But we’ve also seen the challenge of turning a ceasefire into a
lasting calm; of helping Palestinians committed to peace find a more
constructive path to pursue it; of putting Israel’s peace with Egypt on a
stronger foundation; of making sure that Iran can never acquire a
nuclear weapon. And just yesterday, as you know, the United Nations
General Assembly voted to grant the Palestinian Authority non-member
observer state status, a step that will not bring us any closer to
peace.
When it comes to a region full of uncertainty, upheaval,
revolution, this much is constant and clear: America and Israel are in
it together. This is a friendship that comes naturally to us. Americans
honor Israel as a homeland dreamed of for generations and finally
achieved by pioneering men and women in my lifetime. We share bedrock
beliefs in freedom, equality, democracy, and the right to live without
fear. What threatens Israel threatens America, and what strengthens
Israel strengthens us. Our two governments maintain not just the formal
U.S.-Israel Strategic Dialogue, but a daily dialogue, sometimes an
hourly dialogue, at every level.
In a season of tight budgets,
U.S. assistance to Israel is at a record high. And over the past few
weeks, I have heard from Israelis the gratitude they felt when, after
hearing the sirens, they saw a second rocket launch, and knew that was
Iron Dome, making them safer. America has helped keep Israel’s
Qualitative Military Edge as strong as ever. And Prime Minister
Netanyahu has described our security cooperation and overall partnership
with Israel as “unprecedented.”
Our shared obsession with
innovation is also bringing us closer together. Google Executive
Chairman Eric Schmidt recently called Israel “the most important high
tech center in the world, after the United States.” So it is no surprise
that our diplomatic challenge is not only about a dialogue of strategic
and political interests, including not just our soldiers and our
politicians, but increasingly including our techies and our venture
capitalists and our entrepreneurs. And it’s no surprise that since
Israel signed America’s first-ever Free Trade Agreement back in 1985,
trade between us has increased from 5 billion to more than 35 billion.
But
all that we hope to accomplish together depends on keeping Israelis
safe to pursue their passions in peace and security. It depends on
ensuring Israel’s future as a secure, democratic, Jewish state. So
tonight I want to speak about four of the goals that our countries must
pursue together to make that happen in a new Middle East.
First,
Iranian-made missiles and rockets launched from Gaza at Tel Aviv and
Jerusalem only drove home what we already know: America, Israel, and the
entire international community must prevent Iran from acquiring a
nuclear weapon. (Applause.) This is a commitment that President Obama
has made and repeated, because we know very well the Iranian regime
already exports terrorism, not only to Israel’s doorstep, but across the
world. If we had a map I could put up there, I could show you what we
track and plot on that map – the evidence of terrorism – mostly,
thankfully, plots foiled or unsuccessful. Unfortunately, as in Bulgaria,
some that succeeded. But those plots, those activities of Iran directly
and through their agents, stretches from Mexico to Thailand.
We
see Iran bringing repression to Syria. We see Iran brutalizing their own
people. So a nuclear Iran is not simply a threat to Israel. It is a
threat to all nations and risks opening the floodgates on nuclear
proliferation around the world. When it comes to Iran’s nuclear threat,
the United States does not have a policy of containment. We have a
policy of prevention, built on the dual tracks of pressure and
engagement, while keeping all options on the table.
The United
States is ratcheting up the pressure to sharpen the choices facing
Iran’s leadership. We’ve had our own sanctions in place for many years.
But we never had a coalition like the one we have built over the last
four years. We convinced all 27 nations of the European Union to stop
importing Iranian oil and all 20 major global importers of Iranian oil –
including Japan, India, China, and Turkey – to make significant cuts.
Iran today exports more than one million fewer barrels of crude each day
than it did just last year. Iran’s currency is worth less than half of
what it was last November. The pressure is real and it is growing.
And
let me add, we take pride in the coalition we have assembled, but no
pleasure in the hardship that Iran’s choices have caused its own people
to endure. We are making every effort to ensure that sanctions don’t
deprive Iranians of food, medicines, and other humanitarian goods. I
travel the world working to help people everywhere take part in the
global economy, and we never lose sight of the fact that Iranians
deserve this no less than any other people.
America’s goal is to
change the Iranian leadership’s calculus. We have worked with the P-5+1
to put a credible offer on the table. If there is a viable diplomatic
deal to be had, we will pursue it. And should Iran finally be ready to
engage in serious negotiations, we are ready. When Iran is prepared to
take confidence-building measures that are verifiable, we are prepared
to reciprocate. What we will not do is talk indefinitely. The window for
negotiation will not stay open forever. President Obama has made that
clear, and by now I think it should be clear this is a President who
does not bluff. He says what he means, and he means what he says.
The
second shared goal I want to discuss is this: Now that rocket fire from
Gaza has stopped, America and Israel have to work together with
partners in the region to turn the ceasefire into a lasting calm. Now,
we have no illusions about those who launched the rockets. They had
every intention of hiding behind civilians in Gaza and killing civilians
in Israel. And they would have killed more of each if they could have.
They even fired poorly aimed rockets at Jerusalem, endangering
Palestinians as well as Israelis, Muslim holy sites as well as those of
Christians and Jews. As we said throughout the crisis, Israel retains
every right to defend itself against such attacks.
But a lasting
ceasefire is essential for the people of Israel, whose communities lie
in the path of these rockets. The people of Gaza deserve better, too.
Half the Gaza population are under the age of 18. These children, who
didn’t choose where they were born, have now seen two military conflicts
in the last four years. Like all children, our children, they deserve
better. Just as Israel cannot accept the threat of rockets, none of us
can be satisfied with a situation that condemns people on both sides to
conflict every few years.
Those who fire the rockets are
responsible for the violence that follows, but everyone, all parties in
the region, and people of good faith outside of the region, have a role
to play in keeping or making peace. Israel can keep working
energetically with Egypt to implement the ceasefire to keep the rockets
out but also work to try to advance the needs of the people of Gaza. For
its part, Egypt can use its unique relationship with Hamas and the
other Palestinian factions in Gaza to make clear that it opposes
provocation and escalation on its borders. And we look to Egypt to
intensify its efforts to crack down on weapon smuggling from Libya and
Sudan into Gaza. I am convinced that if more rockets are allowed to
enter Gaza through the tunnels, that will certainly pave the way for
more fighting again soon. We are ready to help and to support Egyptian
efforts to bring security and economic development to the Sinai.
Others
who are close to Hamas and the other factions in Gaza, including Turkey
and Qatar, can and should make clear that another violent confrontation
is in no one’s interest. Hamas itself, which has condemned those it
rules to violence and misery, faces a choice between the future of Gaza
and its fight with Israel. America has shown that we are willing to work
with Islamists who reject violence and work toward real democracy. But
we will not, we will never, work with terrorists. Hamas knows what it
needs to do if it wishes to reunite the Palestinians and rejoin the
international community. It must reject violence, honor past agreements
with Israel, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.
Of course, the
most lasting solution to the stalemate in Gaza would be a comprehensive
peace between Israel and all Palestinians, led by their legitimate
representative, the Palestinian Authority. Which brings me to the third
goal we must pursue together: At a time when violence commands
attention, America and Israel must do better at demonstrating not just
the costs of extremism but the benefits of cooperation and coexistence.
For
example, we have to convince Palestinians that direct negotiations with
Israel represent not just the best but the only path to the independent
state they deserve. America supports the goal of a Palestinian state,
living side by side in peace and security with Israel. But this week’s
vote at the UN won’t bring Palestinians any closer to that goal. It may
bring new challenges to the United Nations system and for Israel.
But
this week’s vote should give all of us pause. All sides need to
consider carefully the path ahead. Palestinian leaders need to ask
themselves what unilateral action can really accomplish for their
people. President Abbas took a step in the wrong direction this week. We
opposed his resolution. But we also need to see that the Palestinian
Authority in the West Bank still offers the most compelling alternative
to rockets and permanent resistance.
At a time when religious
extremists claim to offer rewards in the hereafter, Israel needs to help
those committed to peace deliver for their people in the here and now.
The leaders of the West Bank – President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad
– deserve credit for their real achievements on the ground. They made
their streets safe again; they brought a measure of peace; they
overhauled governing institutions. They have cooperated with Israel to
help enhance Israel’s security. And we have to be honest with ourselves
that, right now, all of this needs our political and economic support to
be sustainable. It also needs a political horizon.
So
particularly in light of today’s announcement, let me reiterate that
this Administration – like previous administrations – has been very
clear with Israel that these activities set back the cause of a
negotiated peace. We all need to work together to find a path forward in
negotiations that can finally deliver on a two-state solution. That
must remain our goal. And if and when the parties are ready to enter
into direct negotiations to solve the conflict, President Obama will be a
full partner.
Now, some will say that, given the disappointments
of the past and the uncertainties of today, now is not the time even to
contemplate a return to serious negotiations, that it should be enough
for Israel just to muddle through dealing with whatever crisis arises.
But the dynamics of ideology and religion, of technology and demography,
conspire to make that impossible. Without progress toward peace,
extremists will grow stronger, and moderates will be weakened and pushed
away.
Without peace, Israel will be forced to build ever more
powerful defenses against ever more dangerous rockets. And without
peace, the inexorable math of demographics will, one day, force Israelis
to choose between preserving their democracy and remaining a Jewish
homeland. A strong Israeli military is always essential, but no defense
is perfect. And over the long run, nothing would do more to secure
Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic state than a comprehensive
peace.
And that leads me to my fourth goal. At a time when the
Arab world is remaking itself right before our eyes, America and Israel
have to work together to do what we can to ensure that democratic change
brings the region closer to peace and security, not farther away. But
there is no going back to the way things were. We are not naive about
the risks these changes are bringing. And we recognize that for Israel,
they hit close to home.
And so, even as the United States supports
democratic transitions in Egypt and Tunisia, in Libya and Yemen, we are
also making clear that rights and freedoms come with responsibilities.
All states must address threats arising from inside their borders; fight
terrorism and extremism; and honor their international commitments. And
working closely with them on these critical issues does not mean we
seek a return to the old bargain. Honoring obligations abroad does not
lessen the need for these governments to respect fundamental rights,
build strong checks and balances, and seek inclusive dialogue at home.
Egypt’s
recent declarations and the decision to hold a vote on the
constitution, despite social unrest and a lack of consensus across
Egypt’s political spectrum, raise concerns for the United States, the
international community, and most importantly for Egyptians. To redeem
the promise of their revolution, Egypt will need a constitution that
protects the rights of all, creates strong institutions, and reflects an
inclusive process. Egypt will be strongest – and so will our
partnership – if Egypt is democratic and united behind a common
understanding of what democracy means. Democracy is not one election one
time. Democracy is respecting minority rights; democracy is a free and
independent media; democracy is an independent judiciary. Democracy
requires hard work, and it only begins, not ends, with elections. And
let me add that the work of building consensus does not belong to new
democracies alone. America will need broad-based support to end our
impasse over our budget. Israel will need the same to solve your
challenges.
Next door, the Syrian people are fighting for their
rights and freedoms. A violent struggle against a tyrant is unfolding so
close to Israel you can see it from the hilltops of the Golan Heights.
Instability in Syria threatens all of us. But the safest and best path
forward for Syria and its neighbors is to help the opposition build on
its current momentum and bring about a political transition within
Syria. The United States is using humanitarian aid, non-lethal
assistance to the opposition, intensive diplomatic engagement, working
with the Syrian people to try to bring about that political transition.
So
there’s a lot on our plates. And for me, this is a remarkable moment in
history, if we were just to step back for a time and look at what is
happening around the world. But it is also a time that is fraught with
anxiety and insecurity, uncertainty, and danger. So we need to
strengthen our consultations and collaboration on all of the issues that
we face together. And we need to support the men and women in our
militaries, in our diplomacy, who represent the United States and Israel
at every turn so well. There is a lot of hard work ahead of us. But for
me, there is no doubt that, working together, we are up to whatever
task confronts us.
Protecting Israel’s future is not simply a
question of policy for me, it’s personal. I’ve talked with some of you
I’ve know for a while about the first trip Bill and I took to Israel so
many years ago, shortly after our daughter was born. And I have seen the
great accomplishments, the pride of the desert blooming and the
start-ups springing up. I’ve held hands with the victims of terrorism in
their hospital rooms, visited a bombed-out pizzeria in Jerusalem,
walked along the fence near Gilo. And I know with all my heart how
important it is that our relationship go from strength to strength.
As
I prepare to trade in my post as Secretary of State for a little more
rest and relaxation, I look forward to returning to Israel as a private
citizen on a commercial plane – (laughter) – walking the streets of the
Old City, sitting in a cafe in Tel Aviv, visiting the many Israelis and
Palestinians I’ve gotten to know over the years. And of course, it is no
state secret that I hope to become a grandmother someday. (Laughter.)
And one day, I hope to take my grandchildren – (laughter) – to visit
Israel, to see this country that I care so much about. And when I do, I
hope we will find a thriving Israel, secure and finally at peace
alongside a Palestinian state, in a region where more people than ever
before, men and women, have the opportunity to live up to their
God-given potential. That, and nothing less, is the future we must never
stop working to deliver.
Thank you all very much. (Applause.)
MS. WITTES:
Madam Secretary, thank you so much. Your comments tonight, I think,
reminded us – you used the phrase “hard work” more than once, and I
think it’s a reminder to all of us that, as tough as we may find our
environment, our challenges, we can never be satisfied. So thank you.
We’ll
start with a few questions here, and then we’ll open up – you’ve kindly
agreed to take some questions from the audience as well.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I mean, after that tribute, what could I say. I have to take some questions. (Laughter.)
MS. WITTES:
You have often used Max Weber’s line that politics is the hard and slow
boring of hard boards. So looking at the array of challenges that you
laid out just now, and the array of challenges that you’ve worked on in
your term as Secretary of State, what is the hardest board that you have
worked away at?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Iran. I think
Iran is the hardest of the hard boards, because of the dangers that its
behavior already poses and the geometrically greater danger that a
nuclear-armed Iran would pose. I mean, it is an issue that has consumed a
significant part of my time as Secretary of State, before that as a
senator from New York. It’s a deeply vexing set of interconnected
problems. But it, I think, deserves to be labeled as, among a lot of
very hard problems, the hardest.
MS. WITTES: And you
focused tonight on the nuclear negotiations with Iran and the necessity
of testing their intentions. But of course, we see other problems in
Iranian behavior as well. Do you think that there is a way to tackle
these issues together?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think
that they are being tackled together. They require constant vigilance.
When we reported the plot against the Saudi Ambassador here in
Washington, which was so outlandish I think many people around the world
basically thought it was unbelievable – I mean, what do you mean the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard got this Iranian American to go try to hire
an assassin, and it turned out the guy he tried to hire was a Mexican
cartel member, who also happened to be an informer for us, and so
therefore we found out about the plot? I mean, who would believe this?
And yet, it was all true.
And when the plotter pled guilty, it got
very little coverage. And in his guilty plea, he implicated
high-ranking Iranian Revolutionary Guard officials. And people have
become so used to bad behavior from the Iranians that it was like a big
sigh – what do you expect; that’s what the Iranians do. That is totally
unacceptable. The entire world should be absolutely at a high pitch of
rhetorical denunciation of what the Iranian regime is up to.
Because,
as I said, you look at the map of the world and you see where they are
plotting, and yet, like, I travel places and I meet with officials and
governments who tell me about arresting two Iranians, two Lebanese
Hezbollah, a group who blew themselves up trying to wreak damage on
someone else. It is an incredibly dangerous, aggressive behavior that is
going on every single day.
Secondly, their concerted efforts to
undermine governments, to create havoc from Bahrain to Yemen and beyond,
is equally troubling and dangerous. And so, we are constantly working
with friends and allies to try to prevent that. And we see how Iran
tries to insinuate itself into many societies with all kinds of
promises, many of which are never fulfilled. I cannot tell you how many
promises of infrastructure investment in Venezuela have been made
without building an outhouse. It’s just a ridiculous record of promise
with no follow-up. But they keep doing it. They are relentless in their
desire to exercise influence and to build a very intimidating, even
hegemonic, presence in the Gulf.
And then, you get to what they
are doing internally, with the oppression of the Iranian people. And
then you’ve got the nuclear program. So, I mean, it’s a never-ending
requirement of extraordinary vigilance, reaction, good intelligence
work, and intelligence sharing with so many countries. But it’s also
necessary to out them, to get more nations and more organizations to see
them for what they are, to try to limit the reach of their activities,
which is important to get their attention on the nuclear file, as well.
MS. WITTES:
Let me turn to the Israeli-Palestinian arena, and your comments tonight
about the need to demonstrate that cooperation brings positive results.
We had a film screening last night for a new documentary about the
Palestinian state-building project called State 194. And Prime Minister
Fayyad spoke to the group afterwards. And in his comments, he said that
the recent violence in Gaza and the outcome of that crisis was a
doctrinal failure for the peaceful path to Palestinian statehood and for
the arguments that he’s been making.
And this morning, over at
Brookings, we released a new poll by my colleague, Shibley Telhami,
showing that Israelis, by and large, are giving up hope on a negotiated
two-state solution. It seems that the spoilers have an ability to set
the agenda by firing a rocket that far outweighs our ability to push
back with the slow work of diplomacy.
So, what more do you think we can do to strengthen moderation and to strengthen the political center in Israel and in Palestine?
SECRETARY CLINTON:
Well, as you might guess, I have had many, many hours of conversations
about this with my Israeli friends. And my view of the Palestinian
Authority in the West Bank is that, with very little money, no natural
resources, not a very deep bench, they have accomplished quite a bit in
building a security force that I know works every single day with the
IDF keeping Israel safe, as well as the West Bank. They have
entrepreneurial successes, some of which some of the people in this room
have helped to support. And they are still secular – nationalistic,
yes, but secular – and largely modern.
And so, for me, it has
always seemed clear that the more Israel can do to help support that,
the better for Israel. But I know there’s a debate in Israel. Some
people say, “Well, President Abbas is not a partner for peace. He’s not
somebody that could make a deal and stick with it.” But I think that
should be tested. And I think while it is being tested there can be a
concerted effort to kind of win over some of the Palestinians in the
West Bank with a very clear distinction between the lives they’re able
to lead now compared to the lives of their cousins in Gaza.
And I
think that the more generous Israel can be on everything from expediting
the tax revenues that Israel collects and then remits to the
Palestinians, the more investment that Israel can try to help catalyze
inside the West Bank, the more opportunities for people to feel like
they have a real stake in a more positive future, helps provide a
bulwark for Israel’s security, whether or not there is a comprehensive
agreement in the near future.
So I think a lot of the
confidence-building measures that we have discussed over the years are
ones that should be revisited, even now as part of a, if not explicit,
certainly an implicit, agreement about what the aftermath of the
resolution passing in the UN will be, what more might be put on a back
burner or totally forgone in return for some kind of negotiation and
some kind of positive steps on the ground, which are still, I believe,
in Israel’s interests.
MS. WITTES: Thank you. We focused
quite a bit in that video on your travel. And a lot of that travel has
been to the Middle East or about the Middle East. This is a region that
is undergoing tremendous change, not only in politics, as you pointed
out, but also within society.
And one of your hallmarks as
Secretary has been the time that you’ve spent meeting with people from
society, from women’s groups, young people, students, business groups.
You’ve met with ordinary citizens on just about every trip you’ve made.
So
I wonder if you can give us a sense of what are your hopes for them as
they deal with this tremendous societal change. And what are your fears?
SECRETARY CLINTON:
Well, my hopes are that the energy and the real potential, particularly
of young people in everywhere from Egypt to Libya and Tunisia, even
Yemen, Jordan, certainly, that they can be freed from the yoke of
repression, but not oppressed by a new form of social management, either
because of religion or ideology. They did not launch and support
revolutions to trade the dictator for the dictatorship of the mob or a
new face on the dictatorship.
So, when I meet with these young
people, particularly – I’ve been with young people in Tunis and Tripoli,
in Cairo and Alexandria – a lot of them are very excited about what
lies ahead, but quite worried that the leaders they have in place now
will not be able to deliver the changes that they are seeking. And one
of our problems is that when you think about who the leaders are, there
aren’t political parties that create a Tzipi Livni or an Ehud Olmert or
Avigdor Lieberman. There are no political parties. And so, a lot of
these people emerged into this post-revolutionary period without any
political experience or organization. The only organized entities, other
than in the state, were the Islamist groups that were tightly bound
together because they organized an opposition to the prevailing
authorities prior to the revolution. And they don’t – and so many of the
people who are trying to hard don’t know how to do this.
It
reminds me a little bit of what it was like when the Soviet Union fell.
And I traveled extensively at that time, during the ’90s. And I remember
so clearly. I remember being in Minsk. And it was after Belarus became
independent. And Bill and I were at a lunch. And the people who were
temporarily in charge were the academics, the artists. And they were so
unpolitical. (Laughter.) And Bill and I sat there and we watched the old
Communist apparatchiks go around slapping people on the back, having a
joke, talking about something funny that happened, making conversation.
And I said to Bill, I said, “Those are the guys who are going to end up
in charge.” Because there’s a political gene. You got to know how to
relate to people, whether you’re in Israeli politics, Egyptian politics,
or Belarusian politics.
And, unfortunately, that is just not the
experience of most of these leaders. One of the things we’re trying to
figure out how to help with, which is difficult – look at what Libya
did. They had an election. They rejected the Islamists. They voted for
moderates. But they can’t figure out how to make the necessary
compromises to put together a government that will function.
And
think about it. I mean, this shouldn’t be surprising. We didn’t kind of
emerge full-blown out of the head of George Washington. It took a lot of
work to do what we had to do. And we are still fighting some of the
unfinished business of the Federalist Papers. But we’ve created systems
that enable us to do that. These countries are desperately trying. And
the organized forces that want to take over and influence what they’re
doing are the Islamist forces and the extremists. So it’s very much in
our interest to keep engaging, keep educating, keep talking about what
it means to run a democracy, what it means to compromise. And if you
come to politics from religion, compromise is unacceptable because you
think you know what you’re supposed to be doing based on your theology.
So
I think we all need to put ourselves into the shoes of these, mostly
men, trying to create the governments in these countries, and understand
how hard this is. And young people see this, and they want faster
progress. They want to lift all of the barriers to being in business or
travel or whatever they’re seeking. And we just have to do more to be on
the side of those aspirations.
MS. WITTES: Thank you.
Let’s take a couple of questions from the floor, if you’re willing. I
see one hand in the back, there, David Makovsky. If we could get a
microphone to David.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, thank you for that fabulous speech and for honoring us with your presence.
MS. WITTES: David, could you just take that mic that’s next to you? Thank you. (Laughter.)
QUESTION:
Could you let us know if – could you let us know – Madam Secretary, you
mentioned about a U.S. offer to Iran. There is an expectation of
diplomacy of the 5+1 being resumed. Do you see a situation, an end-state
offer to Iran that would be early on in the negotiations? People think
there’s limited time. Given what you’ve talked about, and other American
officials have talked about, is the fate of the Iranian nuclear program
to have an end-state offer sooner, rather than later, so we can focus
the diplomacy of the P-5+1 on something (inaudible) an end-state
proposal? Cut to the chase.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David,
thank you. And thank you for your years of work on this and other
difficult issues. We are deeply engaged in consultations right now with
our P-5+1 colleagues, looking to put together a presentation for the
Iranians at the next meeting that does make it clear we’re running out
of time, we’ve got to get serious, here are issues we are willing to
discuss with you, but we expect reciprocity.
Now, I would also
add, David, that we have, from the very beginning, made it clear to the
Iranians we are open to a bilateral discussion. And we have tried. You
know the President tried to reach out. Dennis Ross is here. He was
instrumental in those first two years in trying to create some kind of
opportunity for dialogue on the nuclear issue. So far there has not yet
been any meeting of the minds on that. But we remain open. And we’ve
certainly tried quite hard in the P-5+1 context to have a bilateral
discussion, and they’ve not been willing to do so. But we understand
that it may take pushing through that obstacle to really get them fully
responsive to whatever the P-5+1 offer might be. Right now, we’re
working on the P-5+1 and making our willingness known that we’re ready
to have a bilateral discussion if they’re ever ready to engage.
MS. WITTE: Thank you. I see a question over here. I think it’s Ilana, Ilana Dayan.
QUESTION: Thank you. I wondered if you look back --
MS. WITTE: Yeah, hold it right up there, Ilana.
QUESTION:
Yeah. That works now. I wonder, if you look back four years, at your
four years as Secretary of State – but you know what? – even two
decades, as you’ve been watching Israelis and Palestinians, both as a
Senator and even as a First Lady, was there a moment of grace? Was there
a moment in which you saw that the spark can enlighten everything, it
can make it happen?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION:
And I wonder, when you look upon those two decades, and you try to
explain to yourselves and to us what is it, in the psyche of Israelis –
and you have this warm sentiment, and you have this rich dialogue – what
is it in our society, in our fears, in our historic traumas, that
somehow makes us so suspicious? And can it be dismantled? Have you ever
sensed that you are close to it?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well,
look, I think Israelis have good grounds to be suspicious. And I would
never be one who tries to rewrite or dismiss history. The Palestinians
could have had a state as old as I am if they had made the right
decision in 1947. They could have had a state if they had worked with my
husband and then-Prime Minister Barak at Camp David. They could have
had a state if they’d worked with Prime Minister Olmert and Foreign
Minister Livni.
Now, would it have been a perfectly acceptable
outcome for every Israeli and every Palestinian? No. No compromise ever
is. But there were moments of opportunity. And I will also say this.
When Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to a 10-month settlement freeze I
flew to Jerusalem. We’d been working on this. George Mitchell had been
taking the lead on it. And when Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to a
10-month settlement freeze, it wasn’t perfect. It didn’t cover East
Jerusalem, but it covered much of the contested area in the West Bank.
And
I stood on a stage with him at 11 o’clock – Israelis always meet late
at night, I don’t understand it – (laughter) – but 11 o’clock at night,
midnight, and I said it was unprecedented for any Israeli prime minister
to have done that. I got so criticized. I got criticized from the
right, the left, the center, Israeli, Jewish, Arab, Christian, you name
it. Everybody criticized me. But the fact was it was a 10-month
settlement freeze. And he was good to his word. And we couldn’t get the
Palestinians into the conversation until the tenth month.
So,
look, I’m not making excuses for the missed opportunities of the
Israelis, or the lack of generosity, the lack of empathy that I think
goes hand-in-hand with the suspicion. So, yes, there is more that the
Israelis need to do to really demonstrate that they do understand the
pain of an oppressed people in their minds, and they want to figure out,
within the bounds of security and a Jewish democratic state, what can
be accomplished.
And I think that, unfortunately, there are more
and more Israelis and Palestinians who just reject that idea out of
hand: Why bother? Why try? We’ll never be able to reach an agreement
with the other. But in the last 20 years, I’ve seen Israeli leaders make
an honest, good-faith effort and not be reciprocated in the way that
was needed.
Now, I’ve told this story before. It always makes Ehud
cringe. But after Yasser Arafat said no at Camp David – and I don’t
care how many people try to revise that history, the fact is he said no
at Camp David – some months later he calls my husband, when Bill is no
longer President, and says, “You know that deal that you offered? I’ll
take it now.” (Laughter.) And Bill goes, “Well, that’s terrific. Why
don’t you call the White House and tell them that?” And what was the
lesson that President Bush learned? Why try? Bill Clinton spent so much
time and effort; Ehud Barak put his political life on the line. Why try?
Because you’ll never get where you’re trying to go, so work on
something else.
So I think that – I really believe this with all
my heart. I think that even if you cannot reach a complete agreement
that resolves all these incredibly hard issues, it is in Israel’s
interest to be trying. It gives Israel a moral high ground that I want
Israel to occupy. That’s what I want Israel to occupy, the moral high
ground. (Applause.)
And so from my perspective, all those efforts
of the past – I mean, I do believe there would have been a Palestinian
state if Yitzhak Rabin had not been murdered. I believe that. Because I
think the Israeli people would have trusted him to take the hard
decisions that were needed. So for the 20 years that I’ve been watching
this very closely, I give credit to a lot of Israeli leaders, trying to
figure out how to manage this difficult situation. But I really am
saddened when the conclusion is it’s just not worth trying and walk
away, build the wall higher, more Iron Dome – all of which is essential,
but is not sufficient. Because more and more technology is going to
impose greater and greater burdens that over time will be very
difficult.
MS. WITTES: Okay. I think we have time for maybe
one more question. Is someone volunteering Nahoon? Let’s take Danny
Diane. Back here, please.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, one of
your most famous quotes regarding the conflict in the Middle East is
that the status quo is not sustainable.
SECRETARY CLINTON: What?
QUESTION: That the status quo is not sustainable.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah.
QUESTION:
Now what if all the other viable alternatives, the principal
alternatives, are worse than the status quo. We are with the status quo
for the last at least 10 years, since Operation Defensive Shield in
2002. And putting wishful thinking aside, I think that most observers
will agree today that we are going to be with the status quo in the next
10 years. So maybe instead of putting self-fulfilling prophecies that
will make the status quo collapse, we should work together – Israel, the
United States, and the Palestinians – to make the necessary
improvements in the status quo regarding human rights, freedom of
movement, et cetera, et cetera, economy, rehabilitation of refugee
camps, and strengthen the status quo instead of undermining it.
SECRETARY CLINTON:
Well, I think you’ve got a short-term and long-term challenge. In the
short term, I agree, improvements should be made to the status quo.
That’s what I said in the very beginning. I think that more investments,
more confidence-building measures, the kinds of things you were
mentioning, I think Israel should be doing that, and I think it’s very
much in Israel’s interest.
I do not believe in today’s world,
however, that that creates a sustainable status quo for the long term.
Now, you and I may disagree about that, but that is how I see it. I
think that if you look at increasing extremism – which is not your
father’s extremism, it’s a different variety that is linked into what is
happening in the region in a way that it was not before – if you look
at demography, you see the population shifts and the problems that that
will cause for Israel. And if you look at technology, it’s very
difficult to constantly stay ahead of the advances in weaponry. I mean,
that’s one of the hallmarks of human history is weapons just keep
getting better and more deadly every decade.
So perhaps by
investing in improving the status quo in the short term, you can
possibly improve the status quo for longer. It certainly is worth
trying, and I would urge that be undertaken, for on the merits, I think
it can bring Israel some benefits. But I just personally believe that
it’s going to be difficult if you think about what could be facing
Israel in three to five years – either a failed state or all or part of
Syria under control of extremists; instability in Jordan or all or some
part of Jordan under control of extremists; continuing political
instability in Lebanon with the growing power of Hezbollah; Hamas
basically becoming a proxy of Iran; and Sinai becoming a danger to Egypt
as well as to Israel. Where does one look to try to get some benefit in
that equation?
And I think that there is still an opportunity
with the West Bank Palestinians to have a different status quo that is
very much in Israel’s interest. So that’s a debate that goes on every
day in Israel, it’s a debate that goes on here in the United States, but
I think it’s a very important one to have. (Applause.)
MS. WITTES:
Madam Secretary, thank you. You have been such a friend to this forum
and to Haim and Cheryl. And I dare say this is a room full of friends
who wish you well and we know that the best is yet to come. Thank you so
much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all. (Applause.)
