What Sanders Would Have Told AIPAC... In Which He Talked About Palestinian
Rights
Published on
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
by
Common Dreams
What Sanders Would Have Told AIPAC... In Which He Talked About Palestinian
Rights
"To be successful, we have also got to be a friend not only to Israel, but
to the Palestinian people," declared Sanders in a speech that offered stark
contrasts with those of his presidential rivals
by
Jon Queally, staff writer
Speaking at a school in Utah, Bernie Sanders delivered the speech he would
have made to the AIPAC conference in Washington, D.C. had he chosen to
attend. (Photo: berniesanders.com)
Though Bernie Sanders was the only presidential candidate credited for
skipping the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention in
Washington, D.C. on Monday, he gave a speech on the campaign trail in Utah
which he says is the same one he would have given to the powerful pro-Israel
lobbyists and their allies if he had attended.
Compared to the speeches given by Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and the
remaining Republican candidates-Donald Trump, Gov. John Kasich, and Sen. Ted
Cruz-Sanders embraced ideas otherwise missing, including: resuming
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks; championing the nuclear deal between major
powers and Iran as a positive development for both Israeli and regional
security; making military options in the Middle East a last resort; and
emphasizing the need to understand the legitimate needs of Palestinians in
terms of human rights, equal treatment, and international law.
Speaking at a school in Utah, Sanders talked about the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict by saying that "difficult subjects" for U.S. and Israeli
politicians-including the right of Palestinians to control their own water
supplies and ending the economic blockade of Gaza-can no longer be avoided
if peace is to be achieved.
"I am here to tell you that, if elected president, I will work tirelessly to
advance the cause of peace as a partner and as a friend to Israel. But to be
successful, we have also got to be a friend not only to Israel, but to the
Palestinian people, where in Gaza, unemployment today is 44 percent and the
poverty rate is almost as high," Sanders said. "That cannot be ignored."
Watch the full speech:
Text of prepared remarks follow:
I was invited along with other presidential candidates to be at the AIPAC
conference in Washington, but obviously I could not make it because we are
here.
The issues that AIPAC is dealing with are very important issues and I wanted
to give the same speech here as I would have given if we were at that
conference.
Let me begin by saying that I think I am probably the only candidate for
president who has personal ties with Israel. I spent a number of months
there when I was a young man on a kibbutz, so I know a little bit about
Israel.
Clearly, the United States and Israel are united by historical ties. We are
united by culture. We are united by our values, including a deep commitment
to democratic principles, civil rights and the rule of law.
Israel is one of America's closest allies, and we - as a nation - are
committed not just to guaranteeing Israel's survival, but also to make sure
that its people have a right to live in peace and security.
To my mind, as friends - long term friends with Israel - we are obligated to
speak the truth as we see it. That is what real friendship demands,
especially in difficult times.
Our disagreements will come and go, and we must weather them constructively.
But it is important among friends to be honest and truthful about
differences that we may have.
America and Israel have faced great challenges together. We have supported
each other, and we will continue to do just that as we face a very daunting
challenge and that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am here to tell the American people that, if elected president, I will
work tirelessly to advance the cause of peace as a partner and as a friend
to Israel.
But to be successful, we have also got to be a friend not only to Israel,
but to the Palestinian people, where in Gaza unemployment today is 44
percent and we have there a poverty rate which is almost as high.
So when we talk about Israel and Palestinian areas, it is important to
understand that today there is a whole lot of among Palestinians and that
cannot be ignored. You can't have good policy that results in peace if you
ignore one side.
The road toward peace will be difficult. Wonderful people, well-intentioned
people have tried decade after decade to achieve that and it will not be
easy. I cannot tell you exactly how it will look - I do not believe anyone
can - but I firmly believe that the only prospect for peace is the
successful negotiation of a two-state solution.
The first step in that road ahead is to set the stage for resuming the peace
process through direct negotiations.
Progress is never made unless people are prepared to sit down and talk to
each other. This is no small thing. It means building confidence on both
sides, offering some signs of good faith, and then proceeding to talks when
conditions permit them to be constructive. Again, this is not easy, but that
is the direction we've got to go.
This will require compromises on both sides, but I believe it can be done. I
believe that Israel, the Palestinians, and the international community can,
must, and will rise to the ocassion and do what needs to be done to achieve
a lasting peace in a region of the world that has seen so much war, so much
conflict and so much suffering.
Peace will require the unconditional recognition by all people of Israel's
right to exist. It will require an end to attacks of all kinds against
Israel.
Peace will require that organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah renounce
their efforts to undermine the security of Israel. It will require the
entire world to recognize Israel.
Peace has to mean security for every Israeli from violence and terrorism.
But peace also means security for every Palestinian. It means achieving
self-determination, civil rights, and economic well-being for the
Palestinian people.
Peace will mean ending what amounts to the occupation of Palestinian
territory, establishing mutually agreed upon borders, and pulling back
settlements in the West Bank, just as Israel did in Gaza - once considered
an unthinkable move on Israel's part.
That is why I join much of the international community, including the U.S.
State Department and European Union, in voicing my concern that Israel's
recent expropriation of an additional 579 acres of land in the West Bank
undermines the peace process and, ultimately, Israeli security as well.
It is absurd for elements within the Netanyahu government to suggest that
building more settlements in the West Bank is the appropriate response to
the most recent violence. It is also not acceptable that the Netanyahu
government decided to withhold hundreds of millions of Shekels in tax
revenue from the Palestinians, which it is supposed to collect on their
behalf.
But, by the same token, it is also unacceptable for President Abbas to call
for the abrogation of the Oslo Agreement when the goal should be the ending
of violence.
Peace will also mean ending the economic blockade of Gaza. And it will mean
a sustainable and equitable distribution of precious water resources so that
Israel and Palestine can both thrive as neighbors.
Right now, Israel controls 80 percent of the water reserves in the West
Bank. Inadequate water supply has contributed to the degradation and
desertification of Palestinian land. A lasting a peace will have to
recognize Palestinians are entitled to control their own lives and there is
nothing human life needs more than water.
Peace will require strict adherence by both sides to the tenets of
international humanitarian law. This includes Israeli ending
disproportionate responses to being attacked - even though any attack on
Israel is unacceptable.
We recently saw a dramatic example of just how important this concept is. In
2014, the decades-old conflict escalated once more as Israel launched a
major military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli
offensive came after weeks of indiscriminate rocket fire into its territory
and the kidnapping of Israeli citizens.
Of course, I strongly object to Hamas' long held position that Israel does
not have the right to exist - that is unacceptable. Of course, I strongly
condemn indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israeli territory, and
Hamas' use of civilian neighborhoods to launch those attacks. I condemn the
fact that Hamas diverted funds and materials for much-needed construction
projects designed to improve the quality of life of the Palestinian people,
and instead used those funds to construct a network of tunnels for military
purposes.
However, let me also be very clear: I - along with many supporters of Israel
- spoke out strongly against the Israeli counter attacks that killed nearly
1,500 civilians and wounded thousands more. I condemned the bombing of
hospitals, schools and refugee camps.
Today, Gaza is still largely in ruins. The international community must come
together to help Gaza recover. That doesn't mean rebuilding factories that
produce bombs and missiles - but it does mean rebuilding schools, homes and
hospitals that are vital to the future of the Palestinian people.
These are difficult subjects. They are hard to talk about both for many
Americans and for Israelis. I recognize that, but it is clear to me that the
path toward peace will require tapping into our shared humanity to make hard
but just decisions.
Nobody can tell you when peace will be achieved between Israel and the
Palestinians. No one knows the exact order that compromises will have to be
made to reach a viable two-state solution. But as we undertake that work
together, the United States will continue its unwavering commitment to the
safety of Israeli citizens and the country of Israel.
Let me just say a word about an overall agenda for the Middle East.
Of course, beyond the Palestinian question, Israel finds itself in the midst
of a region in severe upheaval.
First, the so-called Islamic State - ISIS - threatens the security of the
entire region and beyond, including our own country and our allies.
Secretary of State Kerry was right to say that ISIS is committing genocide,
and there is no doubt in my mind that the United States must continue to
participate in an international coalition to destroy this barbaric
organization.
While obviously much needs to be done, so far our effort has had some
important progress, as airstrikes have degraded ISIS' military capacity, and
the group has lost more than 20 percent of its territory in the past year.
So we are making some progress.
But we are entering a difficult period in the campaign against ISIS.
The government in Baghdad has yet to achieve a sustainable political order
that unites Iraq's various ethnic and sectarian factions, which has limited
its ability to sustain military victories against ISIS. Unless there is a
united government, it's going to be hard to be effective in destroying ISIS.
More inclusive, stable governance in Iraq will be vital to inflict a lasting
defeat on ISIS. Otherwise, ISIS could regain its influence or another,
similar organization may spring up in its place.
In Syria, the challenges are even more difficult. The fractured nature of
the civil war there has often diluted the fight against ISIS - exemplified
by the Russian airstrikes that prioritized hitting anti-Assad fighters
rather than ISIS. And, just like in Iraq, ISIS cannot be defeated until the
groups that take territory from ISIS can responsibly govern the areas they
take back. Ultimately, this will require a political framework for all of
Syria.
The U.S. must also play a greater role disrupting the financing of ISIS and
efforts on the Internet to turn disaffected youth into a new generation of
terrorists.
While the U.S. has an important role to play in defeating ISIS, that
struggle must be led by the Muslim countries themselves on the ground. I
agree with King Abdullah of Jordan who a number of months ago that what is
going on there right now is nothing less than a battle for the soul of Islam
and the only people who will effectively destroy ISIS there will be Muslim
troops on the ground.
So what we need is a coalition of those countries.
Now, I am not suggesting that Saudi Arabia or any other states in the region
invade other countries, nor unilaterally intervene in conflicts driven in
part by sectarian tensions.
What I am saying is that the major powers in the region - especially the
Gulf States - have to take greater responsibility for the future of the
Middle East and the defeat of ISIS.
What I am saying is that countries like Qatar - which intends to spend up to
$200 billion to host the 2022 World Cup - Qatar which per capita is the
wealthiest nation in the world - Qatar can do more to contribute to the
fight Against ISIS. If they are prepared to spend $200 billion for a soccer
tournament, then they have got to spend a lot spend a lot more against a
barbaric organization.
What I am also saying is that other countries in the region - like Saudi
Arabia, which has the 4th largest defense budget in the world - has to
dedicate itself more fully to the destruction of ISIS, instead of other
military adventures like the one it is pursuing right now in Yemen.
And keep in mind that while ISIS is obviously a dangerous and formidable
enemy, ISIS has only 30,000 fighters on the ground. So when we ask the
nations in the region to stand up to do more against ISIS - nations in the
region which have millions of men and women under arms - we know it is
surely within their capability to destroy ISIS.
Now the United States has every right in the world to insist on these
points. Remember - I want everybody to remember - that not so many years ago
it was the United States and our troops that reinstalled the royal family in
Kuwait after Saddam Hussein's invasion in 1990. We put these people back on
the throne. Now they have the obligation to work with us and other countries
to destroy ISIS.
The very wealthy - and some of these countries are extraordinarily wealthy
from oil money or gas money - these very wealthy and powerful nations in the
region can no longer expect the United States to do their work for them.
Uncle Sam cannot and should not do it all. We are not the policeman of the
world.
As we continue a strongly coordinated effort against ISIS, the United States
and other western nations should be supportive of efforts to fight ISIS and
al-Qaeda. But it is the countries in the region that have to stand up
against these violently extremist and brutal organizations.
Now I realize that given the geopolitics of the region this is not going to
be easy. I realize that there are very strong and historical disagreements
between different countries in the region about how ISIS should be dealt
with.
I realize different countries have different priorities. But we can help set
the agenda and mobilize stronger collective action to defeat ISIS in a
lasting way.
Bottom line is the countries in the region - countries which by the way are
most threatened by ISIS - they're going to have to come together, they're
going to have to work out their compromises, they are going to have to lead
the effort with the support of the United States and other major powers in
destroying ISIS.
Another major challenge in the region, of course, is the Syrian Civil War
itself - one of the worst humanitarian disasters in recent history.
After five years of brutal conflict, the only solution in Syria will be, in
my view, a negotiated political settlement. Those who advocate for stronger
military involvement by the U.S. to oust Assad from power have not paid
close enough attention to history. That would simply prolong the war and
increase the chaos in Syria, not end it.
In other words, we all recognize that Assad is a brutal dictator. But I
think that our priorities right now have got to be destroy ISIS, work out a
political settlement with Russia and Iran to get Assad out of power.
I applaud Secretary Kerry and the Obama administration for negotiating a
partial ceasefire between the Assad regime and most opposition forces. The
ceasefire shows the value of American-led diplomacy, rather than escalating
violence. It may not seem like a lot, but it is. Diplomacy in this instance
has had some real success.
Let me also say what I think most Americans now understand, that for a great
military power like the United States it is easy to use a war to remove a
tyrant from power, but it is much more difficult to comprehend the day after
that tyrant is removed from power and a political vacuum occurs.
All of us know what has occurred in Iraq. We got rid of Saddam Hussein, a
brutal, brutal murderer and a tyrant. And yet we created massive instability
in that region which led to the creation of ISIS. I am very proud to have
been one of the members in Congress to vote against that disastrous war.
And the situation is not totally dissimilar from what has happened in Libya.
We got rid of a terrible dictator there, Colonel Gaddafi, but right now
chaos has erupted and ISIS now has a foothold in that area.
Bottom line is that regime change for a major power like us is not hard. But
understanding what happens afterward is something that always has got to be
taken into consideration.
In my view, the military option for a powerful nation like ours - the most
powerful nation in the world - should always be on the table. That's why we
have the most powerful military in the world. But it should always be the
last resort not the first resort.
Another major challenge in the region is Iran, which routinely destabilizes
the Middle East and threatens the security of Israel.
Now, I think all of us agree that Iran must not be able to acquire a nuclear
weapon. That would just destabilize the entire region and create disastrous
consequences.
Where we may disagree is how to achieve that goal. I personally strongly
supported the nuclear deal with the United States, France, China, Germany,
Russia, the United Kingdom and Iran because I believe it is the best hope to
prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
I want to thank the Obama administration for doing a very good job under
very, very difficult circumstances.
I believe we have an obligation to pursue diplomatic solutions before
resorting to military intervention.
You know it is very easy for politicians to go before the people and talk
about how tough we are, and we want to wipe out everybody else. But I think
if we have learned anything from history is that we pursue every diplomatic
option before we resort to military intervention.
And interestingly enough, more often than not, diplomacy can achieve goals
that military intervention cannot achieve. And that is why I supported the
sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table and allowed us to reach
an agreement.
But let me tell you what I firmly believe. The bottom line is this: if
successfully implemented - and I think it can be - the nuclear deal will
prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And preventing Iran from
getting the bomb makes the world a safer place.
Does the agreement achieve everything I would like? Of course not.
But to my mind, it is far better than the path we were on with Iran
developing nuclear weapons and the potential for military intervention by
the United States and Israel growing greater by the day.
I do not accept the idea that the "pro-Israel" position was to oppose the
deal.
Preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon will strengthen not only the
United States' security, but Israel's security as well.
And I am not alone in that idea. While Prime Minister Netanyahu is vocally
opposed to the accord, his is hardly a consensus opinion in Israel and it's
important that everyone understand that. Dozens of former security
officials, including retired Army generals and chiefs of the Shin Bet and
Mossad intelligence agencies support the agreement. Netanyahu may not, but
many others in Israel do.
But let me be clear: if Iran does not live up to the agreement, we should
re-impose sanctions and all options are back on the table.
Moreover, the deal does not mean we let Iran's aggressive acts go unchecked.
The world must stand united in condemning Iran's recent ballistic missile
tests as well as its continued support for terrorism through groups like
Hezbollah.
Going forward, I believe we need a longer-term vision for dealing with Iran
that balances two important objectives.
First, we must counter the destabilizing behavior of Iran's leaders.
But secondly we must also leave the door open to more diplomacy to encourage
Iranian moderates and the segments of the Iranian people - especially the
younger generations - who want a better relationship with the West. While
only a small step in the right direction, I was heartened by the results of
the recent parliamentary elections in which Iranian voters elected moderates
in what was, in part, a referendum on the nuclear deal.
I know that some say there is just no dealing with Iran - in any way at all
- for the foreseeable future. And that is the position of some. After all,
Iran is in a competition with Saudi Arabia and its allies for influences
over that region.
But a more balanced approach toward Iran that serves our national security
interests should hardly be a radical idea. We have serious concerns about
the nature of the Iranian government, but we have to honest enough, and
sometimes we are not, to admit that Saudi Arabia - a repressive regime in
its own right - is hardly an example of Jeffersonian democracy.
Balancing firmness with willingness to engage with diplomacy in dealing with
Iran will not be easy. But it is the wisest course of action to help improve
the long-term prospects of stability and peace in the Middle East - and to
keep us safe.
Lastly, these are but some - not all - of the major issues where the
interests of Israel intersect with those of the United States. I would
address these issues and challenges as I would most issues and that is by
having an honest discussion and by bringing people together.
The truth is there are good people on both sides who want peace, And the
other truth is there despots and liars on both sides who benefit from
continued antagonism.
I would conclude by saying there has a disturbing trend among some of the
Republicans in this presidential election that take a very, very different
approach. And their approach I think would be a disaster for this country.
The Republican front-runner, Donald Trump, suggested limiting immigration
according to religion and creating a national database based on religion -
something unprecedented in our country's history.
Now this would not only go against everything we stand for as a nation, but
also - in terms of our relationship to the rest of the world - it would be a
disaster.
Let me just conclude by saying this: the issues that I've discussed today
are not going to be easily solved.
Everybody knows that. But I think the United States has the opportunity, as
the the most powerful nation on earth, to play an extraordinary role in
trying to bring to people together - to try to put together coalitions in
the region to destroy ISIS.
And that is a responsibility that I, if elected president, would accept in a
very, very serious way. We have seen too many wars, too much killing, too
much suffering. And let us all together - people of good faith - do
everything we can to finally, finally bring peace and stability to that
region.
Thank you all very much.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Sanders vs. Clinton
. Supreme Court Obstructionism
. Apple vs. FBI
. Trump-mentum?
. Election 2016
. Water Crisis in Flint
What Sanders Would Have Told AIPAC... In Which He Talked About Palestinian
Rights
Published on
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
by
Common Dreams
What Sanders Would Have Told AIPAC... In Which He Talked About Palestinian
Rights
"To be successful, we have also got to be a friend not only to Israel, but
to the Palestinian people," declared Sanders in a speech that offered stark
contrasts with those of his presidential rivals
by
Jon Queally, staff writer
. 40 Comments
.
. Speaking at a school in Utah, Bernie Sanders delivered the speech he
would have made to the AIPAC conference in Washington, D.C. had he chosen to
attend. (Photo: berniesanders.com)
. Though Bernie Sanders was the only presidential candidate credited
for skipping the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention
in Washington, D.C. on Monday, he gave a speech on the campaign trail in
Utah which he says is the same one he would have given to the powerful
pro-Israel lobbyists and their allies if he had attended.
. Compared to the speeches given by Democratic rival Hillary Clinton
and the remaining Republican candidates-Donald Trump, Gov. John Kasich, and
Sen. Ted Cruz-Sanders embraced ideas otherwise missing, including: resuming
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks; championing the nuclear deal between major
powers and Iran as a positive development for both Israeli and regional
security; making military options in the Middle East a last resort; and
emphasizing the need to understand the legitimate needs of Palestinians in
terms of human rights, equal treatment, and international law.
. Speaking at a school in Utah, Sanders talked about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict by saying that "difficult subjects" for U.S.
and Israeli politicians-including the right of Palestinians to control their
own water supplies and ending the economic blockade of Gaza-can no longer be
avoided if peace is to be achieved.
. "I am here to tell you that, if elected president, I will work
tirelessly to advance the cause of peace as a partner and as a friend to
Israel. But to be successful, we have also got to be a friend not only to
Israel, but to the Palestinian people, where in Gaza, unemployment today is
44 percent and the poverty rate is almost as high," Sanders said. "That
cannot be ignored."
Watch the full speech:
Text of prepared remarks follow:
I was invited along with other presidential candidates to be at the AIPAC
conference in Washington, but obviously I could not make it because we are
here.
The issues that AIPAC is dealing with are very important issues and I wanted
to give the same speech here as I would have given if we were at that
conference.
Let me begin by saying that I think I am probably the only candidate for
president who has personal ties with Israel. I spent a number of months
there when I was a young man on a kibbutz, so I know a little bit about
Israel.
Clearly, the United States and Israel are united by historical ties. We are
united by culture. We are united by our values, including a deep commitment
to democratic principles, civil rights and the rule of law.
Israel is one of America's closest allies, and we - as a nation - are
committed not just to guaranteeing Israel's survival, but also to make sure
that its people have a right to live in peace and security.
To my mind, as friends - long term friends with Israel - we are obligated to
speak the truth as we see it. That is what real friendship demands,
especially in difficult times.
Our disagreements will come and go, and we must weather them constructively.
But it is important among friends to be honest and truthful about
differences that we may have.
America and Israel have faced great challenges together. We have supported
each other, and we will continue to do just that as we face a very daunting
challenge and that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am here to tell the American people that, if elected president, I will
work tirelessly to advance the cause of peace as a partner and as a friend
to Israel.
But to be successful, we have also got to be a friend not only to Israel,
but to the Palestinian people, where in Gaza unemployment today is 44
percent and we have there a poverty rate which is almost as high.
So when we talk about Israel and Palestinian areas, it is important to
understand that today there is a whole lot of among Palestinians and that
cannot be ignored. You can't have good policy that results in peace if you
ignore one side.
The road toward peace will be difficult. Wonderful people, well-intentioned
people have tried decade after decade to achieve that and it will not be
easy. I cannot tell you exactly how it will look - I do not believe anyone
can - but I firmly believe that the only prospect for peace is the
successful negotiation of a two-state solution.
The first step in that road ahead is to set the stage for resuming the peace
process through direct negotiations.
Progress is never made unless people are prepared to sit down and talk to
each other. This is no small thing. It means building confidence on both
sides, offering some signs of good faith, and then proceeding to talks when
conditions permit them to be constructive. Again, this is not easy, but that
is the direction we've got to go.
This will require compromises on both sides, but I believe it can be done. I
believe that Israel, the Palestinians, and the international community can,
must, and will rise to the ocassion and do what needs to be done to achieve
a lasting peace in a region of the world that has seen so much war, so much
conflict and so much suffering.
Peace will require the unconditional recognition by all people of Israel's
right to exist. It will require an end to attacks of all kinds against
Israel.
Peace will require that organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah renounce
their efforts to undermine the security of Israel. It will require the
entire world to recognize Israel.
Peace has to mean security for every Israeli from violence and terrorism.
But peace also means security for every Palestinian. It means achieving
self-determination, civil rights, and economic well-being for the
Palestinian people.
Peace will mean ending what amounts to the occupation of Palestinian
territory, establishing mutually agreed upon borders, and pulling back
settlements in the West Bank, just as Israel did in Gaza - once considered
an unthinkable move on Israel's part.
That is why I join much of the international community, including the U.S.
State Department and European Union, in voicing my concern that Israel's
recent expropriation of an additional 579 acres of land in the West Bank
undermines the peace process and, ultimately, Israeli security as well.
It is absurd for elements within the Netanyahu government to suggest that
building more settlements in the West Bank is the appropriate response to
the most recent violence. It is also not acceptable that the Netanyahu
government decided to withhold hundreds of millions of Shekels in tax
revenue from the Palestinians, which it is supposed to collect on their
behalf.
But, by the same token, it is also unacceptable for President Abbas to call
for the abrogation of the Oslo Agreement when the goal should be the ending
of violence.
Peace will also mean ending the economic blockade of Gaza. And it will mean
a sustainable and equitable distribution of precious water resources so that
Israel and Palestine can both thrive as neighbors.
Right now, Israel controls 80 percent of the water reserves in the West
Bank. Inadequate water supply has contributed to the degradation and
desertification of Palestinian land. A lasting a peace will have to
recognize Palestinians are entitled to control their own lives and there is
nothing human life needs more than water.
Peace will require strict adherence by both sides to the tenets of
international humanitarian law. This includes Israeli ending
disproportionate responses to being attacked - even though any attack on
Israel is unacceptable.
We recently saw a dramatic example of just how important this concept is. In
2014, the decades-old conflict escalated once more as Israel launched a
major military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli
offensive came after weeks of indiscriminate rocket fire into its territory
and the kidnapping of Israeli citizens.
Of course, I strongly object to Hamas' long held position that Israel does
not have the right to exist - that is unacceptable. Of course, I strongly
condemn indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israeli territory, and
Hamas' use of civilian neighborhoods to launch those attacks. I condemn the
fact that Hamas diverted funds and materials for much-needed construction
projects designed to improve the quality of life of the Palestinian people,
and instead used those funds to construct a network of tunnels for military
purposes.
However, let me also be very clear: I - along with many supporters of Israel
- spoke out strongly against the Israeli counter attacks that killed nearly
1,500 civilians and wounded thousands more. I condemned the bombing of
hospitals, schools and refugee camps.
Today, Gaza is still largely in ruins. The international community must come
together to help Gaza recover. That doesn't mean rebuilding factories that
produce bombs and missiles - but it does mean rebuilding schools, homes and
hospitals that are vital to the future of the Palestinian people.
These are difficult subjects. They are hard to talk about both for many
Americans and for Israelis. I recognize that, but it is clear to me that the
path toward peace will require tapping into our shared humanity to make hard
but just decisions.
Nobody can tell you when peace will be achieved between Israel and the
Palestinians. No one knows the exact order that compromises will have to be
made to reach a viable two-state solution. But as we undertake that work
together, the United States will continue its unwavering commitment to the
safety of Israeli citizens and the country of Israel.
Let me just say a word about an overall agenda for the Middle East.
Of course, beyond the Palestinian question, Israel finds itself in the midst
of a region in severe upheaval.
First, the so-called Islamic State - ISIS - threatens the security of the
entire region and beyond, including our own country and our allies.
Secretary of State Kerry was right to say that ISIS is committing genocide,
and there is no doubt in my mind that the United States must continue to
participate in an international coalition to destroy this barbaric
organization.
While obviously much needs to be done, so far our effort has had some
important progress, as airstrikes have degraded ISIS' military capacity, and
the group has lost more than 20 percent of its territory in the past year.
So we are making some progress.
But we are entering a difficult period in the campaign against ISIS.
The government in Baghdad has yet to achieve a sustainable political order
that unites Iraq's various ethnic and sectarian factions, which has limited
its ability to sustain military victories against ISIS. Unless there is a
united government, it's going to be hard to be effective in destroying ISIS.
More inclusive, stable governance in Iraq will be vital to inflict a lasting
defeat on ISIS. Otherwise, ISIS could regain its influence or another,
similar organization may spring up in its place.
In Syria, the challenges are even more difficult. The fractured nature of
the civil war there has often diluted the fight against ISIS - exemplified
by the Russian airstrikes that prioritized hitting anti-Assad fighters
rather than ISIS. And, just like in Iraq, ISIS cannot be defeated until the
groups that take territory from ISIS can responsibly govern the areas they
take back. Ultimately, this will require a political framework for all of
Syria.
The U.S. must also play a greater role disrupting the financing of ISIS and
efforts on the Internet to turn disaffected youth into a new generation of
terrorists.
While the U.S. has an important role to play in defeating ISIS, that
struggle must be led by the Muslim countries themselves on the ground. I
agree with King Abdullah of Jordan who a number of months ago that what is
going on there right now is nothing less than a battle for the soul of Islam
and the only people who will effectively destroy ISIS there will be Muslim
troops on the ground.
So what we need is a coalition of those countries.
Now, I am not suggesting that Saudi Arabia or any other states in the region
invade other countries, nor unilaterally intervene in conflicts driven in
part by sectarian tensions.
What I am saying is that the major powers in the region - especially the
Gulf States - have to take greater responsibility for the future of the
Middle East and the defeat of ISIS.
What I am saying is that countries like Qatar - which intends to spend up to
$200 billion to host the 2022 World Cup - Qatar which per capita is the
wealthiest nation in the world - Qatar can do more to contribute to the
fight Against ISIS. If they are prepared to spend $200 billion for a soccer
tournament, then they have got to spend a lot spend a lot more against a
barbaric organization.
What I am also saying is that other countries in the region - like Saudi
Arabia, which has the 4th largest defense budget in the world - has to
dedicate itself more fully to the destruction of ISIS, instead of other
military adventures like the one it is pursuing right now in Yemen.
And keep in mind that while ISIS is obviously a dangerous and formidable
enemy, ISIS has only 30,000 fighters on the ground. So when we ask the
nations in the region to stand up to do more against ISIS - nations in the
region which have millions of men and women under arms - we know it is
surely within their capability to destroy ISIS.
Now the United States has every right in the world to insist on these
points. Remember - I want everybody to remember - that not so many years ago
it was the United States and our troops that reinstalled the royal family in
Kuwait after Saddam Hussein's invasion in 1990. We put these people back on
the throne. Now they have the obligation to work with us and other countries
to destroy ISIS.
The very wealthy - and some of these countries are extraordinarily wealthy
from oil money or gas money - these very wealthy and powerful nations in the
region can no longer expect the United States to do their work for them.
Uncle Sam cannot and should not do it all. We are not the policeman of the
world.
As we continue a strongly coordinated effort against ISIS, the United States
and other western nations should be supportive of efforts to fight ISIS and
al-Qaeda. But it is the countries in the region that have to stand up
against these violently extremist and brutal organizations.
Now I realize that given the geopolitics of the region this is not going to
be easy. I realize that there are very strong and historical disagreements
between different countries in the region about how ISIS should be dealt
with.
I realize different countries have different priorities. But we can help set
the agenda and mobilize stronger collective action to defeat ISIS in a
lasting way.
Bottom line is the countries in the region - countries which by the way are
most threatened by ISIS - they're going to have to come together, they're
going to have to work out their compromises, they are going to have to lead
the effort with the support of the United States and other major powers in
destroying ISIS.
Another major challenge in the region, of course, is the Syrian Civil War
itself - one of the worst humanitarian disasters in recent history.
After five years of brutal conflict, the only solution in Syria will be, in
my view, a negotiated political settlement. Those who advocate for stronger
military involvement by the U.S. to oust Assad from power have not paid
close enough attention to history. That would simply prolong the war and
increase the chaos in Syria, not end it.
In other words, we all recognize that Assad is a brutal dictator. But I
think that our priorities right now have got to be destroy ISIS, work out a
political settlement with Russia and Iran to get Assad out of power.
I applaud Secretary Kerry and the Obama administration for negotiating a
partial ceasefire between the Assad regime and most opposition forces. The
ceasefire shows the value of American-led diplomacy, rather than escalating
violence. It may not seem like a lot, but it is. Diplomacy in this instance
has had some real success.
Let me also say what I think most Americans now understand, that for a great
military power like the United States it is easy to use a war to remove a
tyrant from power, but it is much more difficult to comprehend the day after
that tyrant is removed from power and a political vacuum occurs.
All of us know what has occurred in Iraq. We got rid of Saddam Hussein, a
brutal, brutal murderer and a tyrant. And yet we created massive instability
in that region which led to the creation of ISIS. I am very proud to have
been one of the members in Congress to vote against that disastrous war.
And the situation is not totally dissimilar from what has happened in Libya.
We got rid of a terrible dictator there, Colonel Gaddafi, but right now
chaos has erupted and ISIS now has a foothold in that area.
Bottom line is that regime change for a major power like us is not hard. But
understanding what happens afterward is something that always has got to be
taken into consideration.
In my view, the military option for a powerful nation like ours - the most
powerful nation in the world - should always be on the table. That's why we
have the most powerful military in the world. But it should always be the
last resort not the first resort.
Another major challenge in the region is Iran, which routinely destabilizes
the Middle East and threatens the security of Israel.
Now, I think all of us agree that Iran must not be able to acquire a nuclear
weapon. That would just destabilize the entire region and create disastrous
consequences.
Where we may disagree is how to achieve that goal. I personally strongly
supported the nuclear deal with the United States, France, China, Germany,
Russia, the United Kingdom and Iran because I believe it is the best hope to
prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
I want to thank the Obama administration for doing a very good job under
very, very difficult circumstances.
I believe we have an obligation to pursue diplomatic solutions before
resorting to military intervention.
You know it is very easy for politicians to go before the people and talk
about how tough we are, and we want to wipe out everybody else. But I think
if we have learned anything from history is that we pursue every diplomatic
option before we resort to military intervention.
And interestingly enough, more often than not, diplomacy can achieve goals
that military intervention cannot achieve. And that is why I supported the
sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table and allowed us to reach
an agreement.
But let me tell you what I firmly believe. The bottom line is this: if
successfully implemented - and I think it can be - the nuclear deal will
prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And preventing Iran from
getting the bomb makes the world a safer place.
Does the agreement achieve everything I would like? Of course not.
But to my mind, it is far better than the path we were on with Iran
developing nuclear weapons and the potential for military intervention by
the United States and Israel growing greater by the day.
I do not accept the idea that the "pro-Israel" position was to oppose the
deal.
Preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon will strengthen not only the
United States' security, but Israel's security as well.
And I am not alone in that idea. While Prime Minister Netanyahu is vocally
opposed to the accord, his is hardly a consensus opinion in Israel and it's
important that everyone understand that. Dozens of former security
officials, including retired Army generals and chiefs of the Shin Bet and
Mossad intelligence agencies support the agreement. Netanyahu may not, but
many others in Israel do.
But let me be clear: if Iran does not live up to the agreement, we should
re-impose sanctions and all options are back on the table.
Moreover, the deal does not mean we let Iran's aggressive acts go unchecked.
The world must stand united in condemning Iran's recent ballistic missile
tests as well as its continued support for terrorism through groups like
Hezbollah.
Going forward, I believe we need a longer-term vision for dealing with Iran
that balances two important objectives.
First, we must counter the destabilizing behavior of Iran's leaders.
But secondly we must also leave the door open to more diplomacy to encourage
Iranian moderates and the segments of the Iranian people - especially the
younger generations - who want a better relationship with the West. While
only a small step in the right direction, I was heartened by the results of
the recent parliamentary elections in which Iranian voters elected moderates
in what was, in part, a referendum on the nuclear deal.
I know that some say there is just no dealing with Iran - in any way at all
- for the foreseeable future. And that is the position of some. After all,
Iran is in a competition with Saudi Arabia and its allies for influences
over that region.
But a more balanced approach toward Iran that serves our national security
interests should hardly be a radical idea. We have serious concerns about
the nature of the Iranian government, but we have to honest enough, and
sometimes we are not, to admit that Saudi Arabia - a repressive regime in
its own right - is hardly an example of Jeffersonian democracy.
Balancing firmness with willingness to engage with diplomacy in dealing with
Iran will not be easy. But it is the wisest course of action to help improve
the long-term prospects of stability and peace in the Middle East - and to
keep us safe.
Lastly, these are but some - not all - of the major issues where the
interests of Israel intersect with those of the United States. I would
address these issues and challenges as I would most issues and that is by
having an honest discussion and by bringing people together.
The truth is there are good people on both sides who want peace, And the
other truth is there despots and liars on both sides who benefit from
continued antagonism.
I would conclude by saying there has a disturbing trend among some of the
Republicans in this presidential election that take a very, very different
approach. And their approach I think would be a disaster for this country.
The Republican front-runner, Donald Trump, suggested limiting immigration
according to religion and creating a national database based on religion -
something unprecedented in our country's history.
Now this would not only go against everything we stand for as a nation, but
also - in terms of our relationship to the rest of the world - it would be a
disaster.
Let me just conclude by saying this: the issues that I've discussed today
are not going to be easily solved.
Everybody knows that. But I think the United States has the opportunity, as
the the most powerful nation on earth, to play an extraordinary role in
trying to bring to people together - to try to put together coalitions in
the region to destroy ISIS.
And that is a responsibility that I, if elected president, would accept in a
very, very serious way. We have seen too many wars, too much killing, too
much suffering. And let us all together - people of good faith - do
everything we can to finally, finally bring peace and stability to that
region.
Thank you all very much.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
