(applause)
- Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you very, very much.
(clears throat)
Excuse me.
Thank you for your patience, all of you.
For those of you who celebrated Christmas,
I hope you had a wonderful Christmas,
happy Hanukkah.
And to everybody here,
I know it's the middle of a holiday week, I understand.
But I wish you all
a very, very productive and happy new year.
Today, I want to share candid thoughts
about an issue which for decades
has animated the foreign policy dialogue
here and around the world,
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Throughout his administration,
President Obama has been deeply committed to Israel
and its security,
and that commitment has guided his pursuit of peace
in the Middle East.
This is an issue which all of you know
I have worked on intensively during my time
as secretary of state for one simple reason:
Because the two-state solution is the only way
to achieve a just and lasting peace
between Israelis and Palestinians.
It is the only way to ensure Israel's future
as a Jewish and democratic state,
living in peace and security with its neighbors.
It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity
for the Palestinian people.
And it is an important way
of advancing United States interests in the region.
I'd like to explain why that future
is now in jeopardy,
and provide some context for why we could not,
in good conscience, stand in the way
of a resolution at the United Nations
that makes clear that both sides must act now
to preserve the possibility of peace.
I'm also here to share my conviction
that there is still a way forward
if the responsible parties are willing to act.
And I want to share practical suggestions
for how to preserve and advance the prospects
for the just and lasting peace that both sides deserve.
So it is vital that we have an honest,
clear-eyed conversation
about the uncomfortable truths and difficult choices,
because the alternative
that is fast becoming the reality on the ground
is in nobody's interest.
Not the Israelis, not the Palestinians,
not the region,
and not the United States.
I want to stress that there is an important point here.
My job, above all,
is to defend the United States of America.
To stand up for and defend
our values and our interests in the world.
And if we were to stand idly by
and know that in doing so
we are allowing a dangerous dynamic to take hold
which promises greater conflict and instability
to a region in which we have vital interests,
we would be derelict in our own responsibilities.
Regrettably, some seem to believe that the U.S. friendship
means the U.S. must accept any policy,
regardless of our own interests,
our own positions, our own words, our own principles,
even after urging again and again
that the policy must change.
Friends need to tell each other the hard truths,
and friendships require mutual respect.
Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations,
who does not support a two-state solution,
said after the vote last week, quote,
"It was to be expected that Israel's greatest ally
"would act in accordance with the values that we share,
"and veto this resolution,"
I am compelled to respond today
that the United States, did in fact vote
in accordance with our values,
just as previous U.S. administrations
have done at the Security Council before us.
They fail to recognize that this friend,
the United States of America,
that has done more to support Israel than any other country,
this friend that has blocked countless efforts
to delegitimize Israel,
cannot be true to our own values,
or even the stated democratic values of Israel,
and we cannot properly defend and protect Israel,
if we allow a viable two-state solution
to be destroyed before our own eyes.
And that's the bottom line.
The vote in the United Nations
was about preserving the two-state solution.
That's what we were standing up for:
Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state,
living side by side
in peace and security with its neighbors.
That's what we are trying to preserve,
for our sake and for theirs.
In fact, this administration
has been Israel's greatest friend and supporter,
with an absolutely unwavering commitment
to advancing Israel's security
and protecting its legitimacy.
On this point, I want to be very clear.
No American administration
has done more for Israel's security than Barack Obama's.
The Israeli prime minister himself
has noted our, quote,
"Unprecedented military intelligence cooperation,"
Our military exercises are more advanced than ever.
Our assistance for Iron Dome
has saved countless Israeli lives.
We have consistently supported
Israel's right to defend itself, by itself,
including during actions in Gaza
that sparked great controversy.
Time and again we have demonstrated
that we have Israel's back.
We have strongly opposed boycotts, divestment campaigns,
and sanctions targeting Israel in international fora,
whenever and wherever its legitimacy was attacked,
and we have fought for its inclusion across the UN system.
In the midst of our own financial crisis
and budget deficits,
we repeatedly increased funding to support Israel.
In fact, more than one half
of our entire global foreign military financing
goes to Israel.
And this fall, we concluded an historic $38 billion
Memorandum of Understanding that exceeds
any military assistance package
the United States has provided to any country, at any time,
and that will invest in cutting edge missile defense,
and sustain Israel's qualitative military edge
for years to come.
That's the measure of our support.
This commitment to Israel's security
is actually very personal for me.
On my first trip to Israel as a young senator in 1986,
I was captivated by a special country,
one that I immediately admired
and soon grew to love.
Over the years, like so many others
who are drawn to this extraordinary place,
I have climbed Masada, swum in the Dead Sea,
driven from one biblical city to another.
I've also seen the dark side
of Hezbollah's rocket storage facilities
just across the border in Lebanon,
walked through the exhibits
on the hell of the holocaust at Yad Vashem,
stood on the Golan Heights,
and piloted an Israeli jet over the tiny airspace of Israel,
which would make anyone understand
the importance of security to Israelis.
Out of those experiences came a steadfast commitment
to Israel's security that has never wavered
for a single minute in my 28 years in the Senate
or my four years as secretary.
I have also often visited West Bank communities,
where I met Palestinians
struggling for basic freedom and dignity
amidst the occupation,
passed by the military checkpoints
that can make even the most routine daily trips
to work or school an ordeal,
and heard from business leaders
who could not get the permits that they needed
to get their products to the market,
and families who have struggled to secure permission
just to travel for needed medical care.
And I have witnessed first-hand
the ravages of a conflict that has gone on for far too long.
I've seen Israeli children in Sderot
whose playgrounds had been hit by Katyusha rockets.
I've visited shelters next to schools in Kiryat Shmona
that kids had 15 seconds to get to
after a warning siren went off.
I've also seen the devastation of war in the Gaza Strip,
where Palestinian girls in Izbet Abed Rabbo
played in the rubble of a bombed-out building.
No children, Israeli or Palestinian,
should have to live like that.
So, despite the obvious difficulties,
that I understood when I became secretary of state
I knew that I had to do everything in my power
to help end this conflict.
And I was grateful to be working for President Obama,
who was prepared to take risks for peace
and was deeply committed to that effort.
Like previous U.S. administrations,
we have committed our influence and our resources
to trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict
because, yes, it would serve American interests
to stabilize a volatile region
and fulfil America's commitment
to the survival, security and well-being of an Israel
at peace with its Arab neighbors.
Despite our best efforts over the years,
the two-state solution is now in serious jeopardy.
The truth is that trends on the ground,
violence, terrorism, incitement,
settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation,
they are combining to destroy hopes for peace on both sides
and increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality
that most people do not actually want.
Today, there are a similar number
of Jews and Palestinians
living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
They have a choice.
They can choose to live together in one state,
or they can separate into two states.
But here is a fundamental reality:
If the choice is one state,
Israel can either be Jewish or democratic,
it cannot be both.
And it won't ever really be at peace.
Moreover, the Palestinians
will never fully realize their vast potential
in a homeland of their own with a one-state solution.
Most on both sides understand this basic choice,
and that is why it is important
that polls of Israelis and Palestinians
show that there is still strong support
for the two-state solution, in theory.
They just don't believe that it can happen.
After decades of conflict,
many no longer see the other side as people,
only as threats and enemies.
Both sides continue to push a narrative
that plays to people's fears
and reinforces the worst stereotypes,
rather than working to change perceptions
and build up belief in the possibility of peace.
And the truth is,
the extraordinary polarization in this conflict
extends beyond Israelis and Palestinians.
Allies of both sides are content to reinforce this
with a you're-with-us-or-against us mentality,
where too often anyone who questions Palestinian actions
is an apologist for the occupation
and anyone who disagrees with Israeli policy
is cast as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic.
That's one of the most striking realities
about the current situation.
This critical decision about the future,
one state or two states,
is effectively being made on the ground every single day,
despite the expressed opinion of the majority of the people.
The status quo is leading towards one state
and perpetual occupation,
but most of the public either ignores it
or has given up hope that anything can be done to change it.
And with this passive resignation,
the problem only gets worse,
the risks get greater,
and the choices are narrowed.
This sense of hopelessness among Israelis
is exacerbated by the continuing violence,
terrorist attacks against civilians, and incitement,
which are destroying belief in the possibility of peace.
Let me say it again:
There is absolutely no justification for terrorism,
and there never will be.
And the most recent wave of Palestinian violence
has included hundreds of terrorist attacks in the past year,
including stabbings, shootings, vehicular attacks,
and bombings, many by individuals
who have been radicalized by social media.
Yet the murderers of innocents
are still glorified on Fatah web sites,
including showing attackers next to Palestinian leaders
following attacks.
And despite statements by President Abbas
and his party's leaders making clear
their opposition to violence,
too often they send a different message
by failing to condemn specific terrorist attacks
and naming public squares, streets, and schools
after terrorists.
President Obama and I have made it clear
to the Palestinian leadership countless times,
publicly and privately,
that all incitement to violence must stop.
We have consistently condemned violence and terrorism,
and even condemned the Palestinian leadership
for not condemning it.
Far too often,
the Palestinians have pursued efforts
to delegitimize Israel in international fora.
We have strongly opposed these initiatives,
including the recent, wholly unbalanced,
and inflammatory UNESCO resolution regarding Jerusalem.
And we have made clear our strong opposition
to Palestinian efforts against Israel at the ICC,
which only sets back the prospects for peace.
And we all understand that the Palestinian Authority
has a lot more to do to strengthen its institutions
and improve governance.
Most troubling of all,
Hamas continues to pursue an extremist agenda.
They refuse to accept Israel's very right to exist.
They have a one state vision of their own:
all of the land is Palestine.
Hamas and other radical factions
are responsible for the most explicit forms
of incitement to violence,
and many of the images that they use are truly appalling.
And they are willing to kill innocents in Israel
and put the people of Gaza at risk
in order to advance that agenda.
Compounding this, the humanitarian situation in Gaza,
exacerbated by the closings of the crossings, is dire.
Gaza is home
to one of the world's densest concentrations of people
enduring extreme hardships with few opportunities.
1.3 million people out of Gaza's population of 1.8 million
are in need of daily assistance,
food and shelter,
most have electricity less than half the time,
and only 5% of the water is safe to drink.
And yet, despite the urgency of these needs,
Hamas and other militant groups continue to re-arm
and divert reconstruction materials to build tunnels,
threatening more attacks on Israeli civilians
that no government can tolerate.
Now, at the same time,
we have to be clear
about what is happening in the West Bank.
The Israeli prime minister
publicly supports a two-state solution,
but his current coalition
is the most right-wing in Israeli history,
with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements.
The result is that policies of this government,
which the prime minister himself just described as
"more committed to settlements than any in Israel's history"
are leading in the opposite direction.
They're leading towards one state.
In fact,
Israel has increasingly consolidated control
over much of the West Bank for its own purposes,
effectively reversing the transitions
to greater Palestinian civil authority
that were called for by the Oslo Accords.
I don't think most people in Israel,
and certainly in the world,
have any idea how broad and systematic
the process has become.
But the facts speak for themselves.
The number of settlers
in the roughly 130 Israeli settlements
east of the 1967 lines has steadily grown.
The settler population in the West Bank alone,
not including East Jerusalem,
has increased by nearly 270,000 since Oslo,
including 100,000 just since 2009
when President Obama's term began.
There's no point in pretending
that these are just in large settlement blocs.
Nearly 90,000 settlers
are living east of the separation barrier
that was created by Israel itself,
in the middle of what by any reasonable definition
would be the future Palestinian state.
And the population of these distant settlements
has grown by 20,000 just since 2009.
In fact, just recently
the government approved a significant new settlement
well east of the barrier,
closer to Jordan than to Israel.
What does that say to Palestinians in particular,
but also to the United States and the world,
about Israel's intentions?
Let me emphasize,
this is not to say that the settlements
are the whole or even the primary cause of the conflict.
Of course they are not.
Nor can you say
that if the settlements were suddenly removed
you'd have peace without a broader agreement.
You would not.
And we understand that in a final status agreement,
certain settlements would become part of Israel
to account for the changes that have taken place
over the last 49 years.
We understand that.
Including the new demographic
realities that exist on the ground.
They would have to be factored in.
But if more and more settlers
are moving into the middle of the Palestinian areas,
it's going to be just that much harder to separate,
that much harder to imagine transferring sovereignty,
and that is exactly the outcome
that some are purposely accelerating.
Let's be clear:
settlement expansion
has nothing to do with Israel's security.
Many settlements
actually increase the security burden
on the Israeli Defense Forces.
And leaders of the settler movement
are motivated by ideological imperatives
that entirely ignore legitimate Palestinian aspirations.
Among the most troubling illustrations of this point
has been the proliferation of settler outposts
that are illegal under Israel's own laws.
They're often located on private Palestinian land
and strategically placed
in locations that make two states impossible.
There are over 100 of these outposts, and since 2011,
nearly one third have been, or are being, legalized,
despite pledges by past Israeli governments
to dismantle many of them.
Now leaders of the settler movement
have advanced unprecedented new legislation
that would legalize most of those outposts.
For the first time,
it would apply Israeli domestic law to the West Bank,
rather than military law,
which is a major step towards the process of annexation.
When the law passed first reading in the Israeli parliament,
in the Knesset,
one of the chief proponents said proudly,
and I quote,
"Today the Israeli Knesset
"moved from heading towards establishing a Palestinian state
"towards Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria."
Even the Israeli attorney general
has said that the draft law is unconstitutional
and a violation of international law.
Now, you may hear from advocates
that the settlements are not an obstacle to peace
because the settlers who don't want to leave
can just stay in Palestine,
like the Arab Israelis who live in Israel.
But that misses a critical point, my friends.
The Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel,
subject to Israel's law.
Does anyone here really believe
that the settlers will agree to submit to Palestinian law
in Palestine?
Likewise, some supporters of the settlements
argue that the settlers
could just stay in their settlements,
and remain as Israeli citizens in their separate enclaves
in the middle of Palestine, protected by the IDF.
There are over 80 settlements
east of the separation barrier,
many located in places
that would make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible.
Does anyone seriously think
that if they just stay where they are
you could still have a viable Palestinian state?
Some have asked,
"Why can't we build in the blocs
"which everyone knows will eventually be part of Israel?"
Well, the reason building there
or anywhere else in the West Bank now
results in such pushback
is that the decision of what constitutes a bloc
is being made unilaterally by the Israeli government,
without consultation,
without the consent of the Palestinians,
and without granting the Palestinians
a reciprocal right to build
in what will be by most accounts, part of Palestine.
Bottom line, without agreement or mutuality,
the unilateral choices become a major point of contention,
and that is part of why are here, where we are.
You may hear that these remote settlements aren't a problem
because they only take up
a very small percentage of the land.
Again and again we have made it clear
it's not just a question
of the overall amount of land available in the West Bank,
it's whether the land can be connected
or is broken up into small parcels like Swiss cheese
that could never constitute a real state.
The more outposts that are built,
the more the settlements expand,
the less possible it is to create a contiguous state.
So in the end,
a settlement is not just the land that it's on,
it's also what the location does to the movement of people,
what it does to the ability of a road to connect people,
one community to another,
what it does to the sense of statehood
that is chipped away with each new construction.
No one thinking seriously about peace
can ignore the reality
of what the settlements pose to that peace.
But the problem obviously goes well beyond settlements.
Trends indicate a comprehensive effort
to take the West Bank land for Israel
and prevent any Palestinian development there.
Today, the 60% of the West Bank known as Area C,
much of which was supposed to be transferred
to Palestinian control long ago under the Oslo Accords,
much of it is effectively off-limits
to Palestinian development.
Most today, has essentially been taken
for exclusive use by Israel
simply by unilaterally designating it as state land,
or including it within the jurisdiction
of regional settlement councils.
Israeli farms flourish in the Jordan River Valley,
and Israeli resorts line the shores of the Dead Sea.
A lot of people don't realize this.
They line the shore of the Dead Sea
where Palestinian development is not allowed.
In fact, almost no private Palestinian building
is approved in Area C at all.
Only one permit was issued by Israel
in all of 2014 and 2015,
while approvals for hundreds of settlement units
were advanced during that same period.
Moreover, Palestinian structures in Area C
that do not have a permit from the Israeli military
are potentially subject to demolition.
And they are currently being demolished
at an historically high rate.
Over 1,300 Palestinians,
including over 600 children,
have been displaced by demolitions in 2016 alone,,
more than any previous year.
So the settler agenda is defining the future of Israel.
And their stated purpose is clear.
They believe in one state, Greater Israel.
In fact, one prominent minister
who heads a pro-settler party
declared just after the U.S. election,
and I quote,
"The era of the two-state solution is over,"
end quote.
And many other coalition ministers
publicly reject a Palestinian state.
And they are increasingly getting their way,
with plans for hundreds of new units in East Jerusalem
recently announced,
and talk of a major new settlement building effort
in the West Bank to follow.
So why are we so concerned?
Why does this matter?
Well ask yourselves these questions:
What happens if that agenda succeeds?
Where does that lead?
There are currently about 2.75 million Palestinians
living under military occupation in the West Bank,
most of them in Areas A and B,
40% of the West Bank,
where they have limited autonomy.
They are restricted in their daily movements
by a web of checkpoints,
and unable to travel into or out of the West Bank
without a permit from the Israelis.
So if there is only one state,
you would have millions of Palestinians
permanently living in segregated enclaves
in the middle of the West Bank,
with no real political rights,
separate legal, education, and transportation systems,
vast income disparities,
under a permanent military occupation
that deprives of them of the most basic freedoms.
Separate and unequal
is what you would have.
And nobody can explain how that works.
Would an Israeli accept living that way?
Would an American accept living that way?
Will the world accept it?
If the occupation becomes permanent,
over time the Palestinian Authority could simply dissolve
turn over all administrative and security responsibilities
to the Israelis.
What would happen then?
Who would administer the schools and hospitals,
and on what basis?
Does Israel want to pay
for the billions of dollars of lost international assistance
that the Palestinian Authority now receives?
Would the Israel Defense Force police the streets
of every single Palestinian city and town?
How would Israel respond to a growing civil rights movement
from Palestinians demanding a right to vote,
or widespread protests and unrest across the West Bank?
How does Israel reconcile a permanent occupation
with its democratic ideals?
How does the U.S. continue to defend that
and still live up to our own democratic ideals?
Nobody has ever provided good answers to those questions
because there aren't any.
And there would be an increasing risk
of more intense violence between Palestinians and settlers,
and complete despair among Palestinians
that would create very fertile ground for extremists.
With all the external threats that Israel faces today,
which we are very cognizant of,
and working with them to deal with,
does it really want an intensifying conflict
in the West Bank?
How does that help Israel's security?
How does that help the region?
The answer, it doesn't.
Which is precisely why
so many senior Israeli military and intelligence leaders,
past and present, believe the two-state solution
is the only real answer
for Israel's long-term security.
One thing we do know:
If Israel goes down the one-state path,
it will never have true peace
with the rest of the Arab world,
and I can say that with certainty.
The Arab countries have made clear
that they will not make peace with Israel
without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
that's not where their loyalties lie.
That's not where their politics are.
But there is something new here.
Common interests
in countering Iran's destabilizing activities,
in fighting extremists,
as well as diversifying their economies
have created real possibilities for something different
if Israel takes advantage of the opportunities for peace.
I have spent a great deal of time
with key Arab leaders exploring this,
and there is no doubt that they are prepared
to have a fundamentally different relationship with Israel.
That was stated in the Arab Peace Initiative years ago,
and in all my recent conversations,
Arab leadera have confirmed their readiness,
in the context of Israeli-Palestinian peace,
not just to normalize relations,
but to work openly on securing that peace
with significant regional security cooperation.
It's waiting.
It's right there.
Many have shown a willingness
to support serious Israeli-Palestinian negotiations
and to take steps on the path to normalization of relations,
including public meetings,
providing there is a meaningful progress
towards a two-state solution.
My friends, that is a real opportunity
that we should not allow to be missed.
And that raises one final question.
Is ours the generation that gives up on the dream
of a Jewish, democratic state of Israel
living in peace and security with its neighbors?
Because that is really what is at stake.
That is what informed our vote
at the security council last week:
the need to preserve the two-state solution.
And both sides in this conflict
must take responsibility to do that.
We have repeatedly and emphatically
stressed to the Palestinians
that all incitement to violence must stop.
We have consistently condemned all violence and terrorism.
And we have strongly opposed unilateral efforts
to delegitimize Israel in international fora.
We've made countless public and private exhortations
to the Israelis to stop the march of settlements.
In literally hundreds of conversations
with Prime Minister Netanyahu,
I have made clear that continued settlement activity
would only increase pressure for an international response.
We have all known for some time
that the Palestinians were intent
on moving forward in the UN
with a settlements resolution,
and I advised the prime minister repeatedly
that further settlement activity only invited UN action.
Yet the settlement activity just increased,
including advancing the unprecedented legislation
to legalize settler outposts that the prime minister himself
reportedly warned could expose Israel
to action at the security council
and even international prosecution,
before deciding to support it.
In the end, we could not in good conscience,
protect the most extreme elements of the settler movement
as it tries to destroy the two-state solution.
We could not in good conscience
turn a blind eye to Palestinian actions
that fan hatred and violence.
It is not in U.S. interests
to help anyone on either side create a unitary state.
We may not be able to stop them,
but we cannot be expected to defend them.
And it is certainly not the role of any country
to vote against its own policies.
That is why we decided not to block the UN resolution
that makes clear both sides have to take steps
to save the two-state solution while there is still time.
And we did not take this decision lightly.
The Obama administration has always defended Israel
against any effort at the UN and any international fora,
or biased and one-sided resolutions
that seek to undermine its legitimacy or security.
And that has not changed.
Didn't change with this vote.
But remember, it's important to note
that every United States administration,
Republican and Democratic,
has opposed settlements
as contrary to the prospects for peace.
And action at the UN Security Council
is far from unprecedented.
In fact, previous administrations
of both political parties
have allowed resolutions
that were critical of Israel to pass,
including on settlements, on dozens of occasions.
Under George W. Bush alone,
the council passed six resolutions that Israel opposed,
including one that endorsed a plan
calling for a complete freeze on settlements,
including natural growth.
Let me read you the lead paragraph
from a New York Times story dated December 23nd.
I quote,
"With the United States abstaining,
"the security council adopted a resolution today
"strongly deploring Israel's handling
"of the disturbances in the occupied territories,
"which the resolution defined as including Jerusalem.
"All of the 14 other security council members
"voted in favor."
My friends, that story was not written last week.
It was written December 23, 1987,
26 years to the day that we voted last week,
when Ronald Reagan was president.
Yet despite growing pressure,
the Obama administration held a strong line
against any UN action.
Any UN action.
We were the only administration since 1967
that had not allowed any resolution to pass
that Israel opposed.
In fact, the only time in eight years
the Obama administration exercised its veto
at the United Nations
was against a one-sided settlements resolution in 2011
and that resolution did not mention incitement or violence.
Let's look at what's happened since then.
Since then,
there have been over 30,000 settlement units advanced
through some stage of the planning process.
That's right.
Over 30,000 settlement units advanced,
notwithstanding the positions of the United States
and other countries.
And if we had vetoed this resolution just the other day,
the United States would have been giving license
to further unfettered settlement construction
that we fundamentally oppose.
So we reject the criticism that this vote abandons Israel.
On the contrary,
it is not this resolution that is isolating Israel.
It is the permanent policy of settlement construction
that risks making peace impossible.
Virtually every country in the world other than Israel
opposes settlements.
That includes many of the friends of Israel,
including the United Kingdom, France, Russia,
all of whom voted in favor
of the settlements resolution in 2011 that we vetoed,
and again this year,
along with every other member of the council.
In fact, this resolution simply reaffirms
statements made by the security council
on the legality of settlements over several decades.
It does not break new ground.
In 1978, the State Department legal advisor
advised the congress of his conclusion
that the Israeli government's program
of establishing civilian settlements
in the occupied territory
is inconsistent with international law.
We see no change since then
to affect that fundamental conclusion.
You may have heard some criticize this resolution
for calling East Jerusalem occupied territory.
But to be clear,
there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution
on that issue.
It was one of a long line of security council resolutions
that included East Jerusalem
as part of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967,
and that includes resolutions passed by the security council
under President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush.
And remember that every U.S. administration since 1967,
along with the entire international community,
has recognized East Jerusalem
as among the territories that Israel occupied
in the Six-Day War.
Now, I want to stress this point:
We fully respect
Israel's profound historic and religious ties to the city
and to its holy sites.
We've never questioned that.
This resolution in no manner prejudges the outcome
of permanent status negotiations on East Jerusalem,
which must of course reflect those historic ties
and the realities on the ground.
That's our position.
We still support it.
We also strongly reject the notion
that somehow the United States
was the driving force behind this resolution.
The Egyptians and Palestinians
had long made clear to all of us,
to all of the international community,
their intention to bring a resolution to a vote
before the end of the year.
And we communicated that to the Israelis,
and they knew it anyway.
The United States
did not draft or originate this resolution,
nor did we put it forward.
It was drafted by Egypt.
It was drafted and, I think, introduced by Egypt,
which is one of Israel's closest friends in the region,
in coordination with the Palestinians and others.
And during the time of the process as it went out,
we made clear to others,
including those on the security council,
that it was possible
that if the resolution were to be balanced,
and it were to include references to incitment
and to terrorism,
that it was possible the United States
would then not block it.
If it was balanced and fair.
That's a standard practice
with resolutions at the Security Council.
The Egyptians, and the Palestinians,
and many others understood
that if the text were more balanced,
it was possible we wouldn't block it.
But we also made crystal clear
that the president of the United States
would not make a final decision about our own position
until we saw the final text.
In the end,
we did not agree with every word in this resolution.
There are important issues
that are not sufficiently addressed,
or even addressed at all.
But we could not in good conscience veto a resolution
that condemns violence and incitement,
and reiterates what has been, for a long time,
the overwhelming consensus and international view
on settlements,
and calls for the parties
to start taking constructive steps
to advance the two-state solution on the ground.
Ultimately, it will be up to the Israeli people
to decide whether the unusually heated attacks
that Israeli officials
have directed towards this administration
best serve Israel's national interests
and its relationship with an ally
that has been steadfast in its support
as I described.
Those attacks,
alongside allegations of a U.S.-led conspiracy
and other manufactured claims,
distract attention from what the substance of this vote
was really all about.
We all understand that Israel faces very serious threats
in a very tough neighborhood.
Israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure
that there is not a new terrorist haven
right next door to them,
often referencing what's happened with Gaza.
And we understand that.
And we believe there are ways
to meet those needs of security.
And Israelis are fully justified in decrying attempts
to delegitimize their state
and question the right of a Jewish state to exist.
But this vote was not about that.
It was about actions
that Israelis and Palestinians are taking
that are increasingly rendering
a two-state solution impossible.
It was not about making peace with the Palestinians now,
it was about making sure peace with the Palestinians
will be possible in the future.
Now we all understand
that Israel faces extraordinarily serious threats
in a very tough neighborhood.
And Israelis are very correct in making sure
that there's not terrorist haven right on their border.
But this vote, I can't emphasize enough,
is not about
the possibility of arriving at an agreement
that's gonna resolve that overnight,
or in one year or two years.
This is about a longer process.
This is about how we make peace with the Palestinians
in the future,
but preserve the capacity to do so.
So how do we get there?
How do we get there, to that peace?
Since the parties have not yet been able to resume talks,
the U.S. and the Middle East Quartet
have repeatedly called on both sides
to independently demonstrate a genuine commitment
to the two-state solution.
Not just with words,
but with real actions and policies,
to create the conditions for meaningful negotiations.
We've called for both sides
to take significant steps on the ground
to reverse current trends
and send a different message, a clear message
that they are prepared to fundamentally change the equation,
without waiting for the other side to act.
We have pushed them to comply with their basic commitments
under their own prior agreements
in order to advance a two-state reality on the ground.
We have called for the Palestinians
to do everything in their power
to stop violence and incitement,
including publicly and consistently
condemning acts of terrorism
and stopping the glorification of violence.
And we have called on them to continue efforts
to strengthen their own institutions
and to improve governance, transparency,
and accountability.
And we have stressed that the Hamas arms build-up
and militant activities in Gaza must stop.
Along with our Quartet partners,
we have called on Israel
to end the policy of settlement construction and expansion,
of taking of land for exclusive Israeli use,
and denying Palestinian development.
To reverse the current process,
the U.S. and our partners
have encouraged Israel to resume the transfer
of greater civil authority to the Palestinians in Area C,
consistent with the transition
that was called for by Oslo.
And we have made clear that significant progress
across a range of sectors,
including housing, agriculture, and natural resources,
can be made without negatively impacting Israel's
legitimate security needs.
And we've called for significantly easing
the movement and access restrictions to and from Gaza,
with due consideration for Israel's need
to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks.
Let me stress here again:
none of the steps that I just talked about
would negatively impact Israel's security.
Let me also emphasize
this is not about offering limited economic measures
that perpetuate the status quo.
We're talking about significant steps
that would signal real progress towards creating two states.
That's the bottom line.
If we're serious about the two-state solution,
it's time to start implementing it now.
Advancing the process of separation now, in a serious way,
could make a significant difference
in saving the two-state solution,
and in building confidence
in the citizens of both sides
that peace is indeed possible.
And much progress can be made in advance of negotiations,
that can lay the foundation for negotiations
as contemplated by the Oslo process.
In fact, these steps will help create the conditions
for successful talks.
In the end, we all understand
that a final status agreement can only be achieved
through direct negotiations between the parties.
We've said that again and again.
We cannot impose the peace.
There are other countries in the UN
who believe it is our job
to dictate the terms of a solution in the security council.
Others want us to simply recognize a Palestinian state
absent an agreement.
But I wanna make clear today,
these are not the choices that we will make.
We choose instead,
to draw on the experiences of the last eight years,
to provide a way forward
when the parties are ready for serious negotiations.
In a place where the narratives from the past
powerfully inform and mold the present,
it's important to understand the history.
We mark this year and next
a series of milestones
that I believe both illustrate the two sides of the conflict
and form the basis for its resolution.
It's worth touching on them briefly.
120 years ago, the First Zionist Congress
was convened in Basel by a group of Jewish visionaries
who decided that the only effective response
to the waves of anti-Semitic horrors sweeping across Europe
was to create a state in the historic home
of the Jewish people,
where their ties to the land went back centuries.
A state that could defend its borders,
protect its people, and live in peace with its neighbors.
That was the vision.
That was the modern beginning
and it remains the dream of Israel today.
Nearly 70 years ago,
the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
finally paved the way
to making the State of Israel a reality.
The concept was simple:
to create two states for two peoples,
one Jewish, one Arab,
to realize the national aspirations
of both Jews and Palestinians.
Both Israel and the PLO referenced Resolution 181
in their respective declarations of independence.
The United States recognized Israel
seven minutes after its creation,
but the Palestinians and the Arab world did not,
and from its birth Israel had to fight for its life.
Palestinians also suffered terribly in that 1948 war,
including many who had lived for generations
in a land that had long been their home too.
When Israel celebrates its 70th anniversary in 2018,
the Palestinians will mark a very different anniversary:
70 years since what they call the Nakba, or catastrophe.
Next year will also mark 50 years
since the end of the Six-Day War,
when Israel again fought for its survival.
And Palestinians will again mark just the opposite:
50 years of military occupation.
Both sides have accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242,
which called for the withdrawal of Israel
from territory that it occupied in 1967
in return for peace and secure borders,
as the basis for ending the conflict.
It has been more than 20 years since Israel and the PLO
signed their first agreement, the Oslo Accords,
and the PLO formally recognized Israel.
Both sides committed to a plan
to transition much of the West Bank and Gaza
to Palestinian control during permanent status negotiations
that would put an end to their conflict.
Unfortunately,
neither the transition nor the final agreement came about,
and both sides bear responsibility for that.
Finally, some 15 years ago,
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
came out with the historic Arab Peace Initiative,
which offered fully normalized relations with Israel
when it made peace,
an enormous opportunity then and now,
which has never fully been embraced.
That history was critical to our approach
to trying to find a way to resolve the conflict.
And based on my experience with both sides
over the last four years,
including the nine months of formal negotiations,
the core issues can be resolved
if there is leadership on both sides
committed to finding a solution.
In the end, I believe the negotiations did not fail
because the gaps were too wide,
but because the level of trust was too low.
Both sides were concerned that any concessions
would not be reciprocated,
and would come at too great a political cost.
And the deep pubic skepticism
only made it more difficult to be able to take risks.
In the countless hours that we spent working
on a detailed framework,
we worked through numerous formulations
and developed specific bridging proposals.
And we came away with a clear understanding
of the fundamental needs of both sides.
In the past two and a half years,
I have tested ideas
with key regional and international stakeholders,
including our Quartet partners,
and I believe what has emerged from all of that
is a broad consensus on balanced principles
that would satisfy the core needs of both sides.
President Clinton deserves great credit
for laying out extensive parameters
designed to bridge gaps
in advanced final status negotiations 16 years ago.
Today, with mistrust too high to even start talks,
we're at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Neither side is willing
to even risk acknowledging the other's bottom line,
and more negotiations that do not produce progress
will only reinforce the worst fears.
Everyone understands that negotiations
would be complex and difficult,
and nobody can be expected
to agree on the final result in advance.
But if the parties could at least demonstrate
that they understand the other side's most basic needs,
and are potentially willing to meet them
if theirs are also met
at the end of comprehensive negotiations,
perhaps then enough trust could be established
to enable a meaningful process to begin.
It is in that spirit that we offer the following principles,
not to prejudge or impose an outcome,
but to provide a possible basis for serious negotiations
when the parties are ready.
Individual countries
may have more detailed policies on these issues,
as we do, by the way,
but I believe there is broad consensus
that a final status agreement
that could meet the needs of both sides
would do the following:
Principle number one:
Provide for secure and recognized
international borders between Israel
and a viable and contiguous Palestine,
negotiated based on the 1967 lines
with mutually-agreed equivalent swaps.
Resolution 242,
which has been enshrined in international law for 50 years,
provides for the withdrawal of Israel
from territory it occupied in 1967
in return for peace with its neighbors
and secure and recognized borders.
It has long been accepted by both sides,
and it remains the basis for an agreement today.
As secretary,
one of the first issues I worked out with the Arab League
was their agreement that the reference
in the Arab Peace Initiative to the 1967 lines
would from now on include the concept of land swaps,
which the Palestinians have acknowledged.
This is necessary
to reflect practical realities on the ground,
and mutually-agreed equivalent swaps
that will ensure the agreement is fair to both sides.
There is also broad recognition of Israel's need
to ensure that the borders are secure and defensible,
and that the territory of Palestine
is viable and contiguous.
Virtually everyone I have spoken to
has been clear on this principle as well:
No changes by Israel to the 1967 lines
will be recognized by the international community
unless agreed to by both sides.
Principle two:
Fulfill the vision
of UN General Assembly Resolution 181
of two states for two peoples,
one Jewish and one Arab,
with mutual recognition and full equal rights
for all their respective citizens.
This has been the fundamental foundational principle
of the two-state solution from the beginning.
Creating a state for the Jewish people
and a state for the Palestinian people,
where each can achieve their national aspirations.
And Resolution 181 is incorporated
into the foundational documents
of both the Israelis and Palestinians.
Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state
has been the U.S. position for years,
and based on my conversations in these last months,
I am absolutely convinced that many others
are now are prepared to accept it as well,
provided the need for a Palestinian state is also addressed.
We also know there are some 1.7 million Arab citizens
who call Israel their home
and must now and always be able to live as equal citizens,
which makes this a difficult issue for Palestinians
and others in the Arab world.
That's why it is so important
that in recognizing each other's homeland,
Israel for the Jewish people
and Palestine for the Palestinian people,
both sides reaffirm their commitment
to upholding full equal rights
for all of their respective citizens.
Principle number three:
Provide for a just, agreed,
fair and realistic solution
to the Palestinian refugee issue,
with international assistance,
that includes compensation,
options and assistance in finding permanent homes,
acknowledgment of suffering,
and other measures necessary
for a comprehensive resolution
consistent with two states for two peoples.
The plight of many Palestinian refugees is heartbreaking,
and all agree that their needs have to be addressed.
As part of a comprehensive resolution,
they must be provided with compensation,
their suffering must be acknowledged,
and there will be a need to have options and assistance
in finding permanent homes.
The international community
can provide significant support and assistance,
I know we are prepared to do that,
including in raising money to help ensure the compensation
and other needs of the refugees are met,
and many have expressed a willingness
to contribute to that effort,
particularly if it brings peace.
But there is a general recognition
that the solution must be consistent
with two states for two peoples,
and cannot affect the fundamental character of Israel.
Principle four:
Provide an agreed resolution for Jerusalem
as the internationally-recognized capital of the two states,
and protect and assure freedom of access to the holy sites
consistent with the established status quo.
Jerusalem is the most sensitive issue for both sides,
and the solution will have to meet the needs
not only of the parties,
but of all three monotheistic faiths.
That is why the holy sites that are sacred
to billions of people around the world
must be protected and remain accessible,
and the established status quo maintained.
Most acknowledge that Jerusalem should not be divided again
like it was in 1967,
and we believe that.
At the same time,
there is broad recognition
that there will be no peace agreement
without reconciling the basic aspirations
of both sides to have capitals there.
Principle five:
Satisfy Israel's security needs
and bring a full end, ultimately, to the occupation,
while ensuring that Israel can defend itself effectively
and that Palestine can provide security for its people
in a sovereign and non-militarized state.
Security is the fundamental issue for Israel,
together with a couple of others I've mentioned.
But security is critical.
Everyone understands that no Israeli government
can ever accept an agreement
that does not satisfy its security needs
or that risks creating an enduring security threat
like Gaza transferred to the West Bank.
And Israel must be able to defend itself effectively,
including against terrorism and other regional threats.
In fact, there is a real willingness
by Egypt, Jordan, and others
to work together with Israel
on meeting key security challenges.
And I believe these collective efforts,
including close coordination on border security,
intelligence sharing, joint operations,
can all play a critical role in securing the peace.
At the same time,
fully ending the occupation
is the fundamental issue for the Palestinians.
They need to know that the military occupation itself
will really end after an agreed transitional process.
They need to know they can live in freedom and dignity
in a sovereign state
while providing security for their population
even without a military of their own.
This is widely accepted as well.
And it is important to understand
there are many different ways, without occupation,
for Israel and Palestine
and Jordan and Egypt
and the United States
and others to cooperate
in providing that security.
Balancing those requirements
was among the most important challenges we faced
in the negotiations,
but it was one where the United States
has the ability to provide the most assistance.
That is why a team that was led by General John Allen,
who is here,
for whom I'm very grateful for his many hours of effort,
he is one of our foremost military minds,
and dozens of experts from the Department of Defense
and other agencies,
all of them engaged extensively
with the Israeli Defense Force
on trying to find solutions
that could help Israel address
its legitimate security needs.
They developed innovative approaches
to creating unprecedented, multi-layered border security,
enhancing Palestinian capacity,
and enabling Israel to retain the ability
to address threats by itself
even when the occupation had ended.
General Allen and his team
were not suggesting one particular outcome
or one particular timeline,
nor were they suggesting that technology alone
would resolve these problems.
They were simply working on ways
to support whatever the negotiators agreed to.
And they did some very impressive work
that gives me total confidence
that Israel's security requirements can be met.
Principle six:
End the conflict and all outstanding claims,
enabling normalized relations
and enhanced regional security for all
as envisaged by the Arab Peace Initiative.
It is essential for both sides
that the final status agreement
resolves all the outstanding issues
and finally brings closure to this conflict,
so that everyone can move ahead to a new era
of peaceful coexistence and cooperation.
For Israel,
this must also bring broader peace
with all of its Arab neighbors.
That is the fundamental promise
of the Arab Peace Initiative,
which key Arab leaders have affirmed
in these most recent days.
The Arab Peace Initiative
also envisions enhanced security for all of the region.
It envisages Israel being a partner in those efforts
when peace is made.
This is the area where Israel and the Arab world
are looking at perhaps the greatest moment
of potential transformation in the Middle East
since Israel's creation in 1948.
The Arab world faces its own set of security challenges.
With Israeli-Palestinian peace,
Israel, the United States, Jordan, Egypt,
together with the GCC countries,
would be ready and willing
to define a new security partnership for the region
that would be absolutely groundbreaking.
So ladies and gentlemen,
that's why it is vital that we all work
to keep open the possibility of peace,
that we not lose hope in the two-state solution,
no matter how difficult it may seem,
because there really is no viable alternative.
We all know that a speech alone won't produce peace.
But based on over 30 years of experience
and the lessons from the past four years,
I have suggested, I believe,
and President Obama has signed on to and believes in,
a path that the parties could take.
Realistic steps on the ground now,
consistent with the parties' own prior commitments,
that will begin the process of separating into two states,
a political horizon to work towards
to create the conditions for a successful final status talk,
and a basis for negotiations that the parties could accept
to demonstrate that they are serious about making peace.
We can only encourage them to take this path,
we cannot walk down it for them.
But if they take these steps,
peace would bring extraordinary benefits
in enhancing the security, and the stability,
and the prosperity
of Israelis, Palestinians,
all of the nations of the region.
The Palestinian economy has amazing potential
in the context of independence,
with major private sector investment possibilities
and a talented, hungry, eager to work, young workforce.
Israel's economy could enjoy unprecedented growth
as it becomes a regional economic powerhouse,
taking advantage of the unparalleled culture
of innovation and trading opportunities
with new Arab partners.
Meanwhile, security challenges could be addressed
by an entirely new security arrangement,
in which Israel cooperates openly with key Arab states.
That is the future that everyone should be working for.
President Obama and I know
that the incoming administration
has signaled that they may take a different path,
and even suggested breaking
from the long-standing U.S. policies on settlements,
Jerusalem, and the possibility of a two-state solution.
That is for them to decide.
That's how we work.
But we cannot, in good conscience, do nothing,
and say nothing,
when we see the hope of peace slipping away.
This is a time to stand up for what is right.
We have long known what two states,
living side by side, in peace and security looks like.
We should not be afraid to say so.
I really began to reflect on what we have learned,
and the way ahead,
when I recently joined President Obama in Jerusalem
for the state funeral for Shimon Peres.
Shimon was one of the founding fathers of Israel
who became one of the world's great elder statesmen.
A beautiful man.
I was proud to call him my friend,
and I know President Obama was as well.
And I remember the first time I saw Shimon in person,
standing on the White House lawn
for the signing of the historic Oslo Accords.
And I thought about the last time,
at an intimate, one-on-one Shabbat dinner
just a few months before he died
when we toasted together to the future of Israel
and to the peace he still so passionately believed in
for his people.
He summed it up simply and eloquently,
as only Shimon could, quote,
"The original mandate gave the Palestinians 48%,
"now it's down to 22%.
"I think 78% is enough for us,"
As we laid Shimon to rest that day,
many of us couldn't help but wonder
if peace between Israelis and Palestinians
might also be buried
along with one of its most eloquent champions.
We cannot let that happen.
There is simply too much at stake,
for future generations of Israelis and Palestinians,
to give in to pessimism,
especially when peace is in fact still possible.
We must not lose hope in the possibility of peace.
We must not give in
to those who say what is now must always be,
that there is no chance for a better future.
It is up to Israelis and Palestinians
to make the difficult choices for peace,
but we can all help.
And for the sake of future generations
of Israelis and Palestinians,
for all the people of the region,
for the United States,
for all those around the world
who have prayed for and worked for peace for generations,
let's hope that we are all prepared,
and particularly Israelis and Palestinians,
to make those choices now.
Thank you very much.
(applause)
Thank you very much, appreciate it.
Thank you.
For more infomation >> How To Be Steady And Good - Duration: 2:43. 
For more infomation >> How To Be Smarter Than That Genius Everybody Knows - Duration: 1:47. 
For more infomation >> How To Be Social At A Party When You Don T Know Anyone There - Duration: 4:45. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét