SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS WITH SAUDI FOREIGN MINISTER ADEL AL-JUBEIR

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Secretary's Remarks: Press Availability with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir
05/08/2015 05:12 PM EDT
Press Availability with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Paris, France
May 8, 2015

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good afternoon, everybody, and thank you very much for your patience. This afternoon we’re going to do this a little bit differently. It’s my pleasure to first introduce my friend and the distinguished Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia Adel al-Jubeir, and then I will have a few comments, and then we’ll be open to some questions.

So welcome to the Embassy of the United States in Paris, and thank you for your help and cooperation through a very productive day.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL-JUBEIR: Thank you very much, John, for hosting the GCC foreign ministers at this beautiful building in Paris. We had what I thought was a very productive discussion about the status of the P5+1 talks regarding Iran’s nuclear program. We also – we had an extensive briefing about the technical aspects of the talks that lasted over two hours.

We also spent another hour and a half on Camp David and the objectives of Camp David and the issues that will be discussed at Camp David. Don’t ask me to talk about it because I won’t; I can just tell you in general terms that they have to do with the intensifying and strengthening the security-military relationship between the United States of America and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, as well as dealing with new challenges that we face in the region, foremost of which is the Iranian interference in the affairs of the countries of the region.

We were very pleased with the discussions. I thought they were very – extremely productive, very useful. And we believe that now we have a much clearer sense of the – what we will be discussing at Camp – what our leaders will be discussing at Camp David. And having said so, I will leave that part here. Thanks, John, for hosting that meeting and for having it be such a productive and useful meeting for all of us. We look forward to visiting Washington and Camp David.

I wanted to also pick up on something that I mentioned to you yesterday when we announced that we were looking at a five-day ceasefire in Yemen for humanitarian purposes in order to allow the flow of humanitarian assistance to Yemen. We have made a decision that the ceasefire will begin this Tuesday, May 12th, at 11:00 p.m. and will last for five days and is subject to renewal if it’s – if it works out.

The requirements are first and foremost that there is a commitment by the Houthis and their allies, including Ali Abdullah Saleh and those forces that are loyal to him, to abide by the ceasefire. As I said yesterday at Riyadh, this ceasefire will be throughout Yemen or nowhere in Yemen, and the matter is entirely up to the Houthis and their allies. During the ceasefire there will be a continuation of the air and sea interdiction regarding the flow of weapons to the Houthis and their allies in Yemen.

I’m also happy and pleased to announce that the King Salman Humanitarian and Relief Center in Riyadh will be operational on this Sunday, May 10th. It will be the location in Riyadh where a number of organizations and UN efforts and any other country that wants to participate in the distribution of aid to Yemen to coordinate is free to come and be part of it. We believe that it is critically important that all countries be able to send as much relief supplies as efficiently and as quickly to as many Yemenis as possible.

As you know, that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, ordered the contribution of $274 million to the United Nations for emergency relief efforts in Yemen. This is above and beyond the assistance that we are deploying to Yemen every day as well as the assistance that we will be providing to Yemen going forward.

It is our hope and our desire that the Houthis will come to their senses and realize that the interests of Yemen and the Yemeni people are – should be the top priority for everyone. And I want to make sure that I make clear that the ceasefire will end should the Houthis or their allies not live up to the agreement contained in this issue. This is, I believe, a chance for the Houthis to show that they care about their people and that they care about the Yemeni people, and we hope that they take up this offer for the good of Yemen and the people of Yemen.

So thank you very much once again, John. Thank you for hosting the GCC foreign ministers in this wonderful building. It’s always a pleasure to be here and be with you and exchange views and ideas, and I think we did this today in a very positive spirit, so we thank you for this.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Adel, thank you very much. It was indeed constructive and positive and very, very productive, and I’m grateful to you and all of our colleagues who came here together in order to help make it that. It was well prepared, and I think in the end has really set the stage for a constructive meeting at Camp David.

I’ll say a word just first, if I may, I want to start by expressing my congratulations to Prime Minister Cameron and to my counterpart Secretary of State Philip Hammond and their party for their defying the polls and winning an outright majority in the elections yesterday. As everybody knows, we have a very special relationship with Great Britain. We have deeply shared interests and values. We work together on almost every issue that there is, and now there will obviously be continuity in the relationships built and in the work that we have invested on a number of different priorities and initiatives. So I look forward to continuing to work with Prime Minister Cameron and with Philip on all of our efforts in order to advance global peace and stability, and particularly in this next month and a half to finish our work together on a number of very pressing security issues.

The Gulf Cooperation Council and our Gulf partners have really been at the very center of America’s national interests for a long period of time. And today we find ourselves cooperating on more and more challenges within the region. It is a region that is facing particular challenge at this time, so obviously, by necessity, we – with common interests and with our mutual security and other interests at stake, we have found that it is critical for us to be able to dig into the relationship deeper in terms of ways we can cooperate to have a greater impact on these challenges that we face. And the United States is grateful for and fortunate to have partners who have been willing to stand up with us in the coalition on Daesh, on any other number of vital interests in the region.

Yesterday in Riyadh, for instance, I was privileged to meet with King Salman, who had both the courage and the vision to embrace a full ceasefire for five days. And we said that here in Paris, we would fill out the details a little bit, and with the announcement that the foreign minister has made on behalf of His Majesty King Salman, we now know that to a certainty, on Tuesday at 11:00 p.m. Yemen time, a ceasefire will take place countrywide, providing – providing that the Houthi agree that there will be no bombing, no shooting, no movement of their troops or maneuvering to reposition for military advantage, no movement of heavy weapons or others – that the ceasefire is conditioned on the Houthis agreeing to live by these commitments. And it is a renewable commitment. In other words, if they live by it and if this holds, it opens the door to the possibility of extension and the possibility of a longer period of time for the political process to help resolve these differences.

So anyone who cares about Yemeni people or asserts that they do should take clear notice of the fact that a humanitarian catastrophe is building, and that they are running out of food, they’re running out of medicine, they’re running out of fuel, and clearly, it is an important moment. His Majesty King Salman has recognized that. And despite the fact that he has had cross-border attacks and other challenges, he has made the decision to try to fight for a peaceful resolution. We applaud that. And we believe that all those who have been supportive of the Houthi need at this time to encourage the leadership, and all the way down through the rank and file, to live by this opportunity that is a very important one and very significant in the potential consequences for Yemen itself.

The United States is working with the international community now to try to organize as much humanitarian assistance as possible to be able to flow once that ceasefire takes effect, working with and through the United Nations. And anybody who hears this who has an idea that they want to get assistance into the people, there are organizations – World Food Organization, International Red Cross, others – who work through the United Nations, whom they should be in contact with so that this is an organized and clearly not military movement of goods in any way whatsoever.

Now, I want to be very clear about another thing. A ceasefire is not peace. Ultimately, the parties are going to have to find a way back to the table. And they’re going to have to make tough choices about more than just a ceasefire, because even the most durable of ceasefires is not a substitute for peace. Even the most durable of ceasefires is not a substitute for an inclusive, Yemeni-led political dialogue that all sides can support. And King Salman of Saudi Arabia has made another initiative in order to try to create that dialogue. He has announced a conference in Riyadh to which he invites all Yemeni parties. Now, it may be that not everybody shows up. We don’t know. But they’re invited.

And we support that conference with the hopes that it might produce some further steps forward to have the political resolution, but knowing that everyone agrees that that will lead into the subsequent talks to be held under the auspices of the United Nations and the UN envoy. And we’re very pleased that Saudi Arabia has agreed to support the UN in efforts to also try to help find a peaceful resolution to the situation in Yemen. Only a political solution by Yemenis for Yemenis, in the end, will actually bring an end to Yemen’s crisis. And we are committed to working toward the rapid, unconditional resumption of all party negotiations that will allow Yemen to be able to resume an inclusive transition process that brings peace and stability.

In addition to Yemen, we discussed with our GCC counterparts today preparations for the summit, as Foreign Minister Jubeir – al-Jubeir just said, and that’s going to address a wide range of security issues, folks. It’s going to discuss the threat of regional terrorism, the metastasizing of various terrorist organizations that has become prevalent. It will discuss, obviously, the challenge of Iranian support in some of those particular conflicts. It will discuss the threat of terrorism broadly. And it will discuss how to resolve more effectively those regional conflicts themselves.

So let me be very clear also. Our effort to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue with respect to Iran does not stem from any lessening of our concerns about all of these other destabilizing events within the region. And it’s obvious to all, I think, that it’s easier to address those events if the potential of a nuclear weapon has been eliminated from the equation with respect to the challenges that we face.

We’re also very focused on a continuing basis with the challenge of Daesh and the other terrorist groups. And together, we believe that we are making real progress. A large part of that was, frankly, because of the nations that are represented in the room there. There’s been a very significant diminution of the capacity of Daesh within Iraq to be able to control the territory it used to control, to be able to communicate the way it used to communicate, to be able to move the way they used to be able to move. And so we believe, steadily, that that stranglehold is appropriately ending, and we are forcing them to change tactics. And that is encouraging progress, but we still need more.

And that’s why we were meeting here today in addition to the other reasons that I’ve described, because we need to, all of us, come together in the most effective way possible to meet these newer challenges of this moment in history. And President Obama completely understands the stakes, and that’s why today and at Camp David, we are fleshing out a series of new commitments that will create, between the United States and the GCC, a new security understanding, a new set of security initiatives, that will take us beyond anything that we have had before in ways that will ask our partners to work with us, and they will contribute and we will contribute. It is not a one-way street. It is a two-way street with mutual interests and mutual needs that need to be addressed.

That is why we are also strengthening, together, the moderate opposition in Syria against Daesh and against a regime that has committed an organized, wholesale effort of torture, used chemical weapons against its own people, dropped barrel bombs indiscriminately on women and children in schools and hospitals, and blocked whole communities from getting food and medical supplies to civilians in need.

So we have a big agenda. That’s why we met. And that agenda is marked by new developments almost every single day. I came here to share our views, and we listened a lot today to other views, and I am confident that with Camp David, those views are going to take shape in a form that will greatly enhance our ability to meet the needs of our people and the needs of all those people who want a future that is free of terrorism, free of coercion, free of violence – a future that is reflected by the opportunities that this incredible world we live in today offers people who have that kind of peace and stability. That’s what we’re working for and that’s what we will continue to work for.

Thank you, and we’d be happy to take a few questions.

MODERATOR: Okay. Is this on? The first question is – can you hear me? Hello? Okay. I’ll just speak loudly. The first question’s from Nicolas Revise of AFP. Go ahead. I hope your microphone works.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary and Mr. Foreign Minister. Mr. Secretary, first on Yemen: Do you think that the Houthis will accept the ceasefire, and are you going to talk to your Iranian and Russian counterparts to ask them to use their influence? Secondly, Mr. Secretary, on France: The French president made a landmark visit to Riyadh. What’s your take on this growing strategic relationship between the French and the Saudis? Do you see it affecting the unity of the P5+1 negotiating with Iran? And what are your thoughts on the Corker bill passing the Senate in the United States?

And Mr. Foreign Minister, if I may, the coalition has declared all of Sadah in Yemen a military target. How can you talk about a ceasefire and at the same time expand military operations? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Do you want to go first?

FOREIGN MINISTER AL-JUBEIR: Very simple. We set the ceasefire at five days, on Tuesday at mid – at 11 p.m. in the evening. The operations in Sadah are in direct response to the Houthis attacking civilians in Saudi Arabia and killing civilians in Saudi Arabia. This is something that we will not tolerate. This was a grave escalation on the part of the Houthis that we had to respond to. We cannot allow people to lob missiles into our territory and murder our people. It’s just not going to happen without there being a very, very severe response. And that’s what we’re doing.

But the ceasefire will begin on Tuesday at 11 p.m. It will last initially for five days. We are in touch with international relief organizations and UN organizations to see how we can facilitate the flow of humanitarian supplies into Yemen. There are a lot of supplies in the region. We want to be able to get them into Yemen, distribute them. Whether or not we succeed in doing so will depend on what the Houthis and their allies do. If they interdict, if they advance, if they commit aggression, there will be no ceasefire. If they abide by the terms of the ceasefire, then there will be an opportunity to help the people of Yemen.

So whether there is a ceasefire or not is entirely in the hands of the Houthis.

SECRETARY KERRY: I would just add to that, if I may quickly, sort of honing in on that issue, but I think it’s an important one for all of us. Really, it is not hard if you pass the word and give strict orders to your people to condition the behavior of people in the context of five days of requirement here. And our hope is that the Houthis will spread the word rapidly. That is the reason that it’s not beginning till Tuesday. The reason is to give time, assuming people accept it, to both accept it, to have their deliberations, not to miss an opportunity, to let the people outside weigh in in order to give good counsel, and ultimately to get the word down to the rank and file what the rules are.

And the rules are very straightforward: Don’t shoot. Don’t move around and start to reposition and take advantage of this. This is a humanitarian pause, and they should treat it accordingly. And if that could happen, that could be the beginning of an opportunity for a genuine transition. So as the foreign minister has said, Saudi Arabia has made the big decision – they were the ones with the aircraft, they control the airspace, they were flying, and they totally said we’re not going to fly. We’re not going to bomb. And they’re not in every community on the ground to be the ones to initiate an action. So if the Houthi will live by this, there is a chance to move forward, and we hope that they will take every advantage to pass the word down the ranks.

Now it is possible in one place or another that somebody misses the word and something doesn’t happen and something – but the Saudis have indicated they’re not going to not break this up over some mistake or some minor thing. They’re going to try to keep this alive, but not for some bold, significant, clear effort to attack people, move people, reposition equipment, and so forth. The rules are pretty clear. And we hope people will understand that.

The – and we encourage the countries that have the greatest influence with them and we will be in touch with those countries in order to try to encourage them to take advantage of this moment.

With respect to whether they will accept, however – or not, obviously – we hope they will. We’ve had some indications that that might take place, but no certainty, and the diplomacy will now take place to try to increase that possibility.

With respect to Saudi Arabia’s visit – the visit that was made by the French president to Saudi Arabia, that’s normal course of business, terrific. We have no issue whatsoever with it. We’ve received a full debrief. We appreciate the relationship of Saudi Arabia with many countries. And I met this morning with Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius; we had a good discussion. I met briefly, obviously, at the Arc de Triomphe with the president. We’re all on the same page, and France and the United States agree completely, as we do with the rest of the P5+1, about what we need to achieve in the agreement with Iran and what the standards are that need to apply to it. We all agree it needs to be robust, it needs to be clear, it needs to be defined, and that’s what we’re working towards. So we think that the visit enhances the relationship between all of us and Saudi Arabia, and that’s important. And we welcome it.

With respect to the bill in Congress, let me just say that we’ve been very, very clear that the bill that was passed out by this Foreign Relations Committee was really the kind of reasonable and acceptable compromise that the President was prepared to support. And that’s why he did support it, because it was changed from the original. And we’re pleased to see that it’s overwhelmingly passed the Senate, staying true to the bipartisan compromise. And we’re very hopeful that the House is going to similarly protect this in the same way that the Senate did and give Congress the opportunity that we think and I, as a 28-year veteran of Congress, believe ought to have to be able to review this deal in a responsible way. I was also very pleased to see that 151 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter supporting the President’s efforts to achieve this deal, to achieve a good deal, and they supported the idea the President ought to be able to continue to negotiate without interference on the terms of that negotiation by the Congress.

So all in all, I think it was very constructive, and we welcome where we are. Now the necessity is to get down to the nitty-gritty of the tough part of the negotiations to get the details pinned down over the course of the next weeks.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL-JUBEIR: If I may, could I follow up on your questions with regards to Yemen? I want to make clear that no country in the world has given more economic assistance to Yemen than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has over the last 40-plus years. No country in the world will give more to Yemen going forward in the future than Saudi Arabia, I have no doubt about it. We want what’s best for Yemen. We want Yemen to overcome the difficult period it is going through. It was Saudi Arabia and the GCC countries that came up with the GCC initiative which set the stage for the transition in Yemen.

It was, ironically, the GCC initiative that brought the Houthis into the political process from which they were excluded. The transition was then negatively affected by former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and by the Houthis, and they tried to take over the country by force, which we will not allow. They had a militia that operated outside the control of the Yemeni Government, which should not be allowed. The last thing we need on our border is a militia armed with missiles, in control of an air force, that is loyal to Iran and Hizballah. It’s just not going to happen. You cannot have a normal country where one group has arms. And so our advice to the Houthis is: You are part of Yemen. You have a role to play in Yemen. You have a right to be in the Yemeni Government like every other Yemeni group, but you cannot have a privileged position where you have veto power over the country or where you take over the country.

So it was extremely painful for us to take the step of using force in Yemen. It was a last resort. Had we not done this, Yemen would have fallen. And so we responded to the request by the legitimate government in order to protect the Yemeni people and to protect the legitimate government of Yemen. The intention was not to commit aggression against the Houthis – quite the contrary; it was to stop the Houthis from committing aggression against Yemen and its people.

And so I hope that the Houthis will accept the terms of the ceasefire, that they will stop their aggression against the Yemeni people and against Yemen, and that they will allow relief to flow into Yemen so we can help the Yemeni people. And I hope that they will be able to participate in the political process so that we can resolve Yemen’s problems peacefully around the negotiating table rather than on the battlefield.

MODERATOR: Hussein Kneiber of al-Arabiya.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you said yesterday in Riyadh and you have just repeated it now that the United States is concerned deeply about Iran’s action in the region. Yesterday, also in Riyadh, you said that there are some steps to provide greater stability and security in the region. What are these steps, and are they related with the military cooperation that you intend to widen with Saudi Arabia?

A question for Excellency al-Jubeir – Foreign Minister al-Jubeir. (In Arabic.)

FOREIGN MINISTER AL-JUBEIR: (Via interpreter) -- the assurances are there and the will is there on both sides, by the U.S. and the GCC. And it does not require assurances.

As for the assurances concerning defending the GCC, these have been in place for over six or eight decades. We have witnessed in the ’80s when the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan, the United States worked with Saudi Arabia to support – to defend against the Mujahedeen, and when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, also the U.S. worked to establish an international coalition of more than 30 countries to liberate Kuwait and defend the region as a whole.

The United States and Saudi Arabia are working closely also with our partners and allies in the region to face – to confront terrorism, extremism, and Daesh, and also to protect the navigation routes.

And now I expect in the coming period there will be further strengthening and enhancement of these efforts so that the relations or joint action will be more effective and more expansive in all areas, whether it relates to cyber security or defense against ballistic missiles or training – military training or equipping. These are further progress in issues that we are already working on, and it’s natural for them to be enhanced and intensified between friendly countries.

SECRETARY KERRY: So today and yesterday I referenced sort of concerns about one particular country, but I think that you know, everybody knows, that no security arrangement or agreement among a whole group of countries, particularly in that region, is confined to one concern. We have a broad array of concerns, which we will be expressing in the context of Camp David, which relate to destabilizing efforts by anybody in the region, which relate to terrorist organizations that are spreading in the region. You have, obviously, al-Shabaab in Somalia; you’ve had Boko Haram in Mali; you have Daesh in Libya; you have al-Nusrah and al-Qaida and ISIL and others all through. I mean, those are the concerns: the destabilization of the region by a number of different entities, and obviously we all know that Iran has supported Hizballah and has supported Houthis and other efforts.

So – but this is not one-country specific as an initiative. This is a broad understanding that countries that want to have stability and peace and play by the rules and live up to international law and not have UN sanctions against them and begin to live to standards, that’s what we’re seeking and our belief is that the challenges we’re facing in terms of these predatory entities that come into challenged governing spaces or no governing spaces. As we learned in Afghanistan, the absence of governed – ungoverned spaces filled often by the worst – the worst actors, and we saw the results in 2001 and we’ve seen them in other times.

So we are banding together to expand our capacity to deal with the future. And that is not limited only to – it’s not a military arrangement. The last choice for everybody ought to be military. It’s how do you prevent these things from happening, how do you stop them metastasizing, how do you eliminate intrusive activities in your country that aren’t an overt attack externally but are rather a insidious kind of eating away at the innards of a country through various nefarious activities that take place. And so we have to guard against the breadth of that kind of activity in various ways, and we’re going to explore that very, very thoroughly in the context of this arrangement.

But I think that – the other parts of it that we all have agreed we need to work on are making sure that a lot of young people have jobs, making sure that there’s opportunity for the future, making sure that people are included in global aspirations and in global possibilities. And that will come about by working at these things, listening to each other, understanding the differences of culture, the differences of history, the transitional timeframes that are possible and so forth. And there’s no stereotype. There’s no cookie-cutter stamp that can be put on any one of these countries in any way. And I think the more we sit together and the more we talk about these challenges, the more we become aware of the subtleties that have to be taken into account as you try to find a common way forward.

That’s what we’re doing. That’s what I think makes this particularly healthy as a discussion, as an enterprise, and we look forward to trying to see our leaders come out of Camp David with a common understanding of that way forward.

MODERATOR: Great. Thank you all very much.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, all.

SUSAN E. RICE'S REMARKS AT AIPAC

 FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE

Remarks As Prepared for Delivery at AIPAC Annual Meeting by National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice
February 2, 2015


Good evening everyone.  It’s great to be back at AIPAC.  Rosy, thank you so much for your warm introduction.


I want to thank Bob Cohen, Michael Kassen, Lillian Pinkus, my old friend Lee Rosenberg, and all of AIPAC’s board and members for welcoming me tonight.  I want to thank all the Members of Congress who represent America’s strong bipartisan support for the State of Israel; and all the young people here today, some 3,000, who represent the bright future of the U.S.-Israel special relationship.


I brought one of those young people with me, my seventeen year-old son Jake, who insisted he had to come to AIPAC.  But, I want to take a moment before I begin, to remember three young men who aren’t with us today.  I want to call us back to those terrible days last summer, when we were united in grief over the horrifying kidnapping and murder of Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaer, and Eyal Yifrah.  As a mother, my heart breaks for such unspeakable loss.  Those boys were our boys, and we all continue to mourn their tragic loss.


The last time I spoke at AIPAC, it was to the synagogue initiative lunch.  This group tonight is… a little larger.  But, when I finished that speech, more than 400 rabbis sang to me.  In Hebrew.  Now, that is something I will never forget.  And the words of their song reflect the spirit that brings me here tonight.  Hinei ma’tov uma-nayim, shevet achim gam yachad.  “How good it is and how pleasant when we sit together in brotherhood.”  It’s a great psalm—though I will admit that where I first encountered it – in church – it was not in the original Hebrew.  That psalm always reminds me how much we can do together when we unite in common purpose.  And, it goes to the heart of what AIPAC is all about—what the relationship between Israel and the United States is all about.  Brotherhood.  Togetherness.  Unity.


That’s because the U.S.-Israel alliance is not just rooted in our mutual interests, vital as they are. It’s also rooted in the values of freedom and democracy that we share.  It’s in the friendship and fellowship between ordinary Israelis and Americans.  And, for me personally, it’s a warmth that’s rooted in my very first visit to Israel.  I was just 14, traveling with my younger brother and my beloved late father.  My Dad was on the Board of TWA – some of you are old enough to remember that once-great airline.  We arrived on one of the first-ever flights from Egypt to Israel, just after the Camp David Accords were signed.  We had an unforgettable visit, the power of which has stayed with me all my life.  We bowed our heads in sorrow at Yad Vashem.  We walked the lanes of the Old City, climbed Masada, floated in the Dead Sea, and picked fruit at a kibbutz.  I learned by heart the words of the sh’ma.  My first memories of Israel remain etched in my soul.


Put simply, the relationship between the U.S. and Israel is not just one between states.  It is between two peoples and the millions of intimate, personal connections that bind us.  Our relationship has deepened and grown through different presidents and prime ministers for nearly 70 years.


It was President Truman, a Democrat, who—just 11 minutes after David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence—made the United States the first country to recognize the State of Israel.


It was President Nixon, a Republican, who made sure America stood with Israel as it fought for survival one terrible Yom Kippur, so that its people could declare am Yisrael Chai --“the people of Israel live.”


It was President Carter who helped Israel forge an historic peace with Egypt that endures to this day.  And, it was President Clinton and President George W. Bush who backed Israel as it took more brave steps for peace, and as it endured terrorist attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas.


The relationship between the United States and the State of Israel is not a partnership between individual leaders, or political parties.  It’s an alliance between two nations, rooted in the unbreakable friendship between our two peoples.  It is not negotiable.  And it never will be.


Our alliance grows l’dor va’dor, from generation to generation. That’s what counts.  That’s what we have to protect.  As John F. Kennedy said, back in 1960, “friendship for Israel is not a partisan matter.  It is a national commitment.”


No one knows this better than all of you.  For decades, AIPAC has built bipartisan support for America’s special relationship with Israel.  That’s why every President—from Harry Truman to Barack Obama—has begun from a fundamental, unshakable premise: strengthening the security of Israel is in the national interest of the United States of America.


President Obama’s commitment to Israel is deep and personal.  I know, because I see it every day.  I first saw it when I accompanied then-Senator Obama to Israel in 2008.  I saw it when he surveyed with horror the stacks of charred rockets that Hamas had fired on Israel, and when he walked through the hollowed out homes of Sderot.


That same year, President Obama came to this conference, still a senator, and he made a promise.  He said, “Israel’s security is sacrosanct.”  And, each day, over the past six years, President Obama has kept that promise.  The President is profoundly committed to ensuring that Israel is never alone.  That’s why, today, security cooperation between our countries is not just strong.  It’s stronger than it has ever been.  Both President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have called it “unprecedented.”  And that’s the way it’s going to stay.


President Obama has met with Prime Minister Netanyahu more times than with almost any other world leader.  As national security advisor, I am in nearly constant communication with Yossi Cohen, my friend and my Israeli counterpart, who I am so pleased is here tonight.  Thank you, Yossi.  Together, we host the U.S.-Israel consultative group to ensure we’re working closely across the highest levels of our governments.  Our armed forces conduct extensive exercises together, and our military and intelligence leaders consult continually.


Under this Administration, in times of tight budgets, our security assistance to Israel has increased.  Since President Obama took office, the United States has provided Israel with more than $20 billion in foreign military financing.  Last year, we provided Israel with the largest package of security assistance ever.  That’s money well spent, because it goes directly to bolstering Israel’s ability to defend itself in a very tough neighborhood, to protecting Israeli citizens, and to strengthening a vital American ally.


We are maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge with new defense technologies and access to the most advanced military equipment in the world.  President Obama is determined to ensure that Israel can defend itself, by itself.  So, when Israel receives the F-35 joint strike fighter next year, it will be the only nation in the Middle East with a fifth-generation aircraft.


Since 2009, we’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing and producing the David’s Sling missile defense program and the Arrow anti-missile system.  We’ve invested more than $1 billion dollars in the Iron Dome system.  When I visited Israel last May, I saw this technology first-hand at Palmachim air force base.  And, last summer, as Hamas’ terrorist rockets rained down on Israeli cities, the world saw how Iron Dome saved lives, literally, every day.


During the height of that conflict—with sirens wailing and Israeli civilians huddling in bomb shelters—the United States stood up for Israel’s right to defend itself against rocket and tunnel attacks, even as we worked with the Israeli government to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.  And, when the Israeli government made an urgent request for an additional $225 million to support Iron Dome’s batteries, President Obama’s response was immediate and clear: “Let’s do it.”  Within days, legislation was drafted, passed through Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, and President Obama signed it into law.  At that critical moment, we replenished Israel’s arsenal of Iron Dome interceptor missiles.  That’s what it means to be an ally.





Our unwavering commitment to Israel’s lasting security is why we will also never give up on a just and comprehensive peace between Israelis and Palestinians.  It will require hard decisions, but the United States will remain a steadfast partner.  Like past administrations, Republican and Democratic, we believe that a truly lasting peace can only be forged by direct talks between the two parties.  Like past administrations, we are concerned by unilateral actions that erode trust or assault Israel’s legitimacy.  Like every administration, Republican and Democratic, since the Six Day War, we oppose Israeli settlement activity—and we oppose Palestinian steps that throw up further obstacles to peace, including actions against Israel at the International Criminal Court.  The only path to ensure Israel’s long-term security is to bring about a viable, sovereign Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with a democratic, Jewish State of Israel.


Israel’s security—our mutual security—is also at the heart of one of President Obama’s most important foreign policy objectives: ensuring that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.  As President Obama has repeated many times: we are keeping all options on the table to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.  As he said in Jerusalem: “Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. This is not a danger that can be contained.”  And he added, “America will do what we must to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.”


President Obama said it.  He meant it.  And those are his orders to us all.


That is still the way we see the danger of a nuclear Iran today.  Given Iran’s support for terrorism, the risk of a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the danger to the entire global non-proliferation regime, an Iran with a nuclear weapon would not just be a threat to Israel – it’s an unacceptable threat to the United States of America.


We understand the unique concerns of our Israeli friends and partners.  In Jerusalem, President Obama made plain: “when I consider Israel’s security, I also think about a people who have a living memory of the Holocaust, faced with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iranian government that has called for Israel’s destruction.  It’s no wonder Israelis view this as an existential threat.  But this is not simply a challenge for Israel; it is a danger for the entire world, including the United States.”


I want to be very clear: a bad deal is worse than no deal.  And, if that is the choice, there will be no deal.


Negotiations continue.  And, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.  As of today, significant gaps remain between the international community and Iran.  I’m not going to get into details about ongoing negotiations – nor should sensitive details of an ongoing negotiation be discussed in public.  But, I do want to make five key points about our approach to the negotiation.


First, with the Joint Plan of Action, we have already succeeded in halting Iran’s nuclear program and rolling it back in key areas.  Let’s recall what has been achieved over the last year.  Iran is doing away with its existing stockpile of its most highly enriched uranium.  Iran has capped its stockpile of low enriched uranium.  Iran has not constructed additional enrichment facilities.  Iran has not installed or operated new centrifuges, including its next-generation models.  Iran has stopped construction at its potential plutonium reactor at Arak.  In short, Iran is further away from a nuclear weapon than it was a year ago—and that makes the world safer, including Israel.


Moreover, we’re not taking anything on trust.  What matters are Iran’s actions, not its words.  That’s why, as part of the Joint Plan of Action, we’ve insisted upon—and achieved—unprecedented access to Iran’s nuclear program.  Before the Joint Plan, inspections happened only every few weeks, sometimes every few months.  Today, the International Atomic Energy Agency has daily access at Iran’s key nuclear sites at Natanz and Fordow, verifying that Iran is meeting its commitments.  If I can paraphrase, President Reagan, with a twist, our approach is “distrust and verify.”


Second, we’ve kept the pressure on Iran.  I know this firsthand because, when I was U.N. ambassador, President Obama personally directed me to make sure that the Security Council’s sanctions had bite—and they do.  Today, even with limited sanctions relief, Iran’s economy remains isolated from the international finance system and cut off from the vast majority of its foreign currency reserves.  Iran’s oil exports have dropped almost 60 percent since 2012.  The rial has depreciated by more than 50 percent.  And, Iran’s overall GDP has shrunk by almost 10 percent.  All told, sanctions have deprived Iran of more than $200 billion in lost oil revenues.


But sanctions are a tool, not an end in themselves.  The question now, after the pressure that we and our partners have brought to bear, is whether we can verify that Iran cannot pursue a nuclear weapon.  The question now is whether we can achieve a comprehensive deal.  A good deal.


This is my third point—a good deal is one that would verifiably cut off every pathway for Iran to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon.  Every single one.


Any deal must prevent Iran from developing weapons-grade plutonium at Arak, or anywhere else.


Any deal must prevent Iran from enriching uranium at its nuclear facility at Fordow—a site we uncovered buried deep underground and revealed to the world in 2009.



Any deal must increase the time it takes Iran to reach breakout capacity—the time it would take to produce a single bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium.  Today, experts suggest Iran’s breakout window is just two to three months.  We seek to extend that to at least one year.


Any deal must ensure frequent and intrusive inspections at Iran’s nuclear sites—including the uranium mills that produce the material fed into Iran’s enrichment and conversion facilities—to create a multi-layered transparency regime that provides the international community with the confidence it demands.  That’s the best way to prevent Iran from pursuing a covert path to a nuclear weapon—to stop Iran from working toward a bomb in secret.


Any deal must address the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.  And, going forward, we will not accept a deal that fails to provide the access we need to ensure that Iran’s program is peaceful.


And, any deal must last more than a decade—with additional provisions ensuring greater transparency into Iran’s program for an even longer period of time.


That’s what we’re working toward—a good, long-term, comprehensive deal that verifiably prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.


This brings me to my fourth point —we cannot let a totally unachievable ideal stand in the way of a good deal.  I know that some of you will be urging Congress to insist that Iran forego its domestic enrichment capacity entirely.  But, as desirable as that would be, it is neither realistic nor achievable.  Even our closest international partners in the P5+1 do not support denying Iran the ability ever to pursue peaceful nuclear energy.  If that is our goal, our partners will abandon us, undermining the sanctions we have imposed so effectively together.  Simply put, that is not a viable negotiating position.  Nor is it even attainable.  The plain fact is, no one can make Iran unlearn the scientific and nuclear expertise it already possesses.


We must also understand what will happen if these negotiations collapse. I know that some argue we should just impose sanctions and walk away.  But let’s remember that sanctions have never stopped Iran from advancing its program.  So here’s what’s likely to happen without a deal.  Iran will install and operate advanced centrifuges.  Iran will seek to fuel its reactor in Arak.  Iran will rebuild its uranium stockpile.  And, we'll lose the unprecedented inspections and transparency we have today.


Congress has played a hugely important role in helping to build our sanctions on Iran, but they shouldn’t play the spoiler now.  Additional sanctions or restrictive legislation enacted during the negotiation would blow up the talks, divide the international community, and cause the United States to be blamed for the failure to reach a deal—putting us in a much weaker position and endangering the sanctions regime itself.  Meanwhile, the Iranians are well aware that if they walk away from a deal, Congress will pass new sanctions immediately—and President Obama will support them.


So, if Iran refuses to resolve this matter diplomatically—and is clearly to blame for that failure—its isolation will only increase.  The costs will continue to grow.


Finally, I know that some question a deal of any duration.  But, it has always been clear that the pursuit of an agreement of indefinite duration would result in no agreement at all.  The question is, what is the best way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?  A deal that extends for a decade or more would accomplish this goal better than any other course of action – longer, by far, than military strikes, which would only set back Iran’s program for a fraction of the time.  And, at the end of any deal, Iran would still be required to offer comprehensive access to its nuclear facilities and to provide the international community the assurance that it was not pursuing nuclear weapons.  And, if it failed to do so, we would have the ability to make our own decisions about how to move forward, just as we do today.  There’s simply no alternative that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon better—or longer—than the type of deal we seek.


We can always bring consequences to bear for the sake of our shared security—harsh consequences.  But, precisely because this is such a serious issue, we must weigh the different options before us and choose the best one.  Sound bites won’t stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  Strong diplomacy – backed by pressure – can.  And, if diplomacy fails, let’s make it clear to the world that it is Iran’s responsibility.


One final word on Iran: even if we succeed in neutralizing the nuclear threat from Iran, we will still face other threats—Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, its gross violations of human rights, its efforts to destabilize neighboring states, its support for Assad and Hamas and Hezbollah, its intolerable threats against Israel.  Our sanctions against Iran on these issues will remain in place.  We will continue to counter Iran and the full range of threats it poses.  Tehran must understand—the United States will never, ever waver in the defense of our security or the security of our allies and partners, including Israel.


The bottom line is simple: we have Israel’s back, come hell or high water—and I’ve been right there with you all through some pretty high waters.  I was proud to fight again and again for Israel’s security and its basic legitimacy at the United Nations – from leading the charge against the deeply flawed Goldstone report to casting this administration’s only veto in the Security Council to block a counter-productive resolution.


As Ambassador Power described to you this morning, when it comes to combating the shameful bias against Israel at the U.N., Israel has no better friend than the United States.  Last March, we were the only ‘no’ vote in the Human Rights Council against anti-Israel measures five separate times.  Earlier today, Secretary Kerry told the Human Rights Council in Geneva, point blank, that its obsession with Israel risks undermining the credibility of the entire organization.  And last month, with Israel and the European Union, the U.S. organized the first U.N. General Assembly meeting to combat anti-Semitism.



No country is immune from criticism—take it from a former U.N. Ambassador.  But when criticism singles out one country unfairly, bitterly, viciously, over and over—that’s just wrong, and we all know it.  When one democracy’s legitimacy is attacked, over and over, uniquely among the U.N.’s member states, that’s ugly, and we all know it.  And, when anti-Semitism rears its head around the world, when Jews at a kosher supermarket in Paris are singled out and murdered by terrorists, when synagogues are attacked and cemeteries defaced, we have to call it by name.  It’s hate.  It’s anti-Semitism.  It reminds us of the most terrible chapters of human history.  It has no place in a civilized world, and we have to fight it.


These are big challenges.  But the United States and Israel have mastered plenty of big challenges before.  Israel and the United States are sister democracies built on the bedrock value that we are all created b’tzelem elokim—in the image of God.  And, like the Psalm says, how good it is when we sit in brotherhood together.  But God calls us to do more than sit.  God calls us to stand up.  To act.


This weekend, President Obama will travel to Selma, Alabama, to mark the 50th anniversary of the historic marches there.  He’ll pay tribute to those brave souls who took enormous risks for civil rights, including Jews and rabbis from across the country—from St. Louis and San Francisco; the Northeast and the Deep South.  They faced tear gas and billy clubs, Torahs in hand.  They were jailed.  They conducted Shabbat services behind bars, and they sang “Adon Olam” to the tune of “We Shall Overcome.”  They broke the fast of Esther in prison.  They even started a trend.  Some black marchers, moved by the solidarity of their Jewish brethren, started wearing yarmulkes—they called them “freedom caps.”


As you recalled last night, one of those on the front lines in Selma was the great teacher, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel.  After marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge with Dr. King, he reflected, “our legs uttered songs.  Even without words, our march was worship.”  Our march was our worship.


The Jewish community amplified the rightness and the urgency of the civil rights movement with its own unassailable moral compass—guided by the basic principle that people should be free in their own land.  And, I stand before you knowing that I and many others would not be where we are today without all those who fought for equal rights – African Americans and white Americans, including so many Jewish Americans.  As we mark that Selma anniversary, as we gather here to celebrate an improbable dream that grew into the great State of Israel, we remember what we can accomplish together, when we’re at our best.


In a spirit of brotherhood, we have overcome so many trials to reach where we are—as nations, as peoples.  In a spirit of brotherhood, inspired by all those who marched and struggled and sacrificed before us, let us continue the work.  Let us never succumb to hopelessness or cynicism, to division or despair.  Let our legs utter songs, and let our hands reach out together. That is how we fulfill our common commitment to mend our imperfect world, to do the holy work of tikkun olam.  And, as we do, at home and around the world, the United States will always stand with our Israeli friends and allies.


That’s our enduring commitment.  That’s our sacred duty.  That’s the hope and the future for our children.  So, let us keep marching arm in arm together.


Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY'S PRESS AVAILABILITY IN LONDON

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Press Availability in London
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
London, United Kingdom
December 16, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Afternoon, everybody. Thanks for being here. Obviously, the last few days have been fairly intensive set of discussions, and we’ve covered a lot of ground, so I thought it was important to try to bring everybody up to speed on the road journeyed and the road ahead.

Before I do, though, I want to address, for a moment, the tragic events that have taken place over the course of the last 24 hours that have hit our friends in Australia and in Pakistan.

The news of the brazen murder of more than 120 innocent students in Peshawar is devastating. And as a father, I know exactly how hard it is when you send kids out of house into the world, to school or anywhere, and particularly in today’s world. Mothers and fathers send their kids to school to learn and to be safe and to dream and to find opportunity. And particularly at this military school in Pakistan, they sent their kids there with the hope and dreams of serving their country. Instead, today they are gone, wiped away by Taliban assassins who serve a dark and almost medieval vision, and the opposite of everything that those mothers and fathers wanted for their children.

The images are absolutely gut-wrenching: young children carried away in ambulances, a teacher burned alive in front of the students, a house of learning turned into a house of unspeakable horror. And Prime Minister Sharif said, “These are my children. It is my loss.” Well, this morning, wherever you live, wherever you are, those are our children, and this is the world’s loss. This act of terror angers and shakes all people of conscience, and we condemn it in the strongest terms possible. The perpetrators must be brought to justice. And we pledge our full support to the people of Pakistan in this difficult hour and we will help them in any way that we possibly can.

Likewise, our friends in Sydney are also especially on our minds. The United States, obviously, in recent memory, has come face to face with horrific violence on our own soil, and we have seen our citizens held hostage and murdered in faraway places for the most nihilistic, devastatingly negative purposes. So we know in a very personal way what our ally Australia is going through at this very moment. And we grieve with Australia and with the families of all those terrorized, injured, and killed.

And even though we’re at opposite ends of the globe, the United States and Australia are united not just in an alliance, but we are deeply united by our values and our friendship and our years of cooperation together. Our countries and our people are strong. And Australian law enforcement and security forces are about as good as it gets. I spoke this morning with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and told her that the United States stands ready to provide whatever appropriate assistance we can as Australian authorities determine the facts of the case, assist the victims, and hold accountable anyone and everyone responsible for this act of terror.

The attacks in Peshawar and Sydney underscore that threats locally are also threats globally. In today’s world, next door is everywhere. And that’s why the United States is engaged in more places with more partners on more issues than ever before, and we are committed with all those allies and partners to standing up to extremism and to the extremists themselves.

And make no mistake, we are just as committed to finding ways to help solve the challenges of the Middle East and of other places of extremism and of terrorist activity because we know too well that while it’s difficult work, it’s also the only course that has any possibility of taking us towards stability, towards prosperity, towards a future. And so we will remain committed to this effort.

Over the past few days, I’ve had very candid and constructive conversations with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, Secretary of State of the Holy See Cardinal Parolin, with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday in Rome, with EU High Representative Mogherini, and with my counterparts from Jordan, Egypt, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. And I will do the same today, the same kinds of conversations today, with Palestinian leaders who are here in London, with the Arab League Secretary-General Elaraby and his delegation who have come on behalf of the Arab League.

Now obviously, a focus of these conversations has been our deep concern about the situation on the ground in Israel and in the West Bank and the mounting calls from the international community to pursue diplomatic measures to try to address it. I want to be very clear: This isn’t the time to detail private conversations or speculate on a UN Security Council resolution that hasn’t even been tabled, no matter what pronouncements are made publicly about it. Many of us share a deep sense of urgency about this, given the constant threat of escalation and the dangers of a downward spiral of violence.

But we’re also very mindful that we have to carefully calibrate any steps that are taken for this difficult moment in the region. We all understand the challenges that are presented by this conflict. We all understand that there are pent-up frustrations on both sides and they run deep. We all know the risk of escalation. It’s constant and it’s real. And that is why it is imperative to lower the temperature, end the tension, so that we have an opportunity to find a path that Israelis and Palestinians both want so desperately, which is a path that leads out of the current predicament and actually provides people with an opportunity to touch, to feel, to see and know that there really is a prospect for genuine peace.

They want – everybody that I have talked to keeps talking to me – all the leaders on both sides keep talking to me about how they want a safe and secure future, and obviously, more hope for their people. All of the reasons that we engaged so intensely one year ago, a little more than that, and all the reasons that Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas were willing to engage – those reasons are even more compelling today. The status quo is unsustainable for both parties and for the region.

And no people should have to endure a barrage of rockets in the thousands or the threat of a terrorist jumping out of a tunnel armed with a tranquilizer, drugs, and handcuffs in order to snatch them out of the night and drag them back into another place where they can hold them hostage. No one should have to endure either of those things. But the Israelis saw that firsthand during the course of the Gaza conflict. And likewise, no community should have to endure the loss of thousands of its citizens, including hundreds of women and children, as the Palestinians experienced during the same conflict, during – due to the choices that Hamas made that led them nowhere.

The ongoing unrest of the last weeks has brought new tensions to all sides. And earlier this month, two Israelis were stabbed as they shopped for groceries in the West Bank. Two more were axed to death while praying. And we were all devastated and shocked by the acid attack against an Israeli family last week. Palestinians have mourned the death of a Palestinian official, Ziad Abu Ein, and they have suffered indefensible price tag attacks, so-called price tag attacks, including the recent burning of a mosque near Ramallah.

The cycle of violence leads to more violence and to nowhere. Peace is the only prospect, and people need to fight for it. Getting to a better place is obviously not easy, but the alternative is more of the violence and the suffering that no people anywhere should have to accept as the daily fare of their lives, as the price of being born Israeli or Palestinian. And we are focused – we, the United States, and our allies and our friends in Europe and in the Arab community are all focused on a different path. Our friends are focused on a path that could lead to a different future, and we will never hesitate to fight to go down that path.

And that is why the United States and our partners will remain deeply engaged not just with the Israelis and the Palestinians, but on the other conflict – conflicts, plural, that dominated our discussions during the course of this week.

In Syria and Iraq, a historically broad coalition composed of countries from five continents is taking on Daesh, a vicious terrorist organization whose sheer evil clearly knows no bounds. And I engaged in a conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov regarding the need for a political settlement, which he also agrees is the only solution, as do others in the region and all of our European allies.

And in Ukraine, the international community continues to stand up for the principle that a nation has the right to determine its own future, that no matter how powerful and aggressive its neighbor, its borders should be sovereign and should be integral and respected.

Now obviously, there is no shortage, therefore, of challenges, and I’ve only scratched the surface in those that I’ve listed. There is, of course, Libya, Somali, and the Sahel, the Maghreb and Yemen and Afghanistan, and you can run a longer list, yes. And we are engaged in all of those places trying to find a better path forward.

But even as we look down this difficult road that’s before us and consider the complicated choices that we face, we simply cannot lose sight of the fact that that hard road leads to a better place. I’m convinced of that. The United States recognizes the deeply felt aspiration for peace shared by the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians, and we will continue to work with our friends and partners to find a path to the goal that we all share for a more peaceful and stable region.

So with that, I’d be happy to take some questions. And I don’t know who’s up or --

MS. HARF: Yeah. Our first – is it on? Oh, yes. Our first question’s from Nicole Gaouette of Bloomberg, and the mike will come to you.

QUESTION: Thanks for giving us this time, Mr. Secretary. In the past, the U.S. has simply blocked resolutions at the UN that it feels threaten or undermine Israel. This time, you’ve made this trip to Europe to discuss various proposals with your counterparts. Can you tell us what has changed that’s led you to do this? And mindful of your concern about discussing details about resolutions, could you tell us what the U.S. would like to see or would need to see in a resolution to support it?

And finally, given the challenges that the U.S. has faced in trying to broker a Mideast peace deal over these many years, is it time for the process to become more of a multilateral affair? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me answer the last first. It’s always been a multilateral affair. There were always countries that are involved in it, but the United States clearly has a unique role to play as a result of our longtime friendship and relationship with Israel, and the role that we have played historically with respect to Camp David, Oslo and so forth. In the end, though, this isn’t up to the international community or others. This has to be decided by the parties. The parties have to want this more than anybody outside, and the parties have to make key decisions that can lead to the resolution.

Now, coming back to the first part of the questions, right now, what we’re trying to do is have a constructive conversation with everybody to find the best way to go forward in order to create the climate; the atmosphere; the political space, if you will, to be able to go back to negotiations and resolve this politically. Now, clearly, in the beginning of an election and in the middle of an election, it’s very difficult and complicated because we believe very deeply that nobody should somehow interfere or do something that might be perceived of as interfering in the course of that election, and we want to find the most constructive way of doing something that therefore will not have unintended consequences, but also can stem the violence.

It’s a particularly sensitive moment because we understand the frustrations of Palestinians. We understand the frustrations of the Palestinian Authority and President Abbas and those who are pushing hard, because they don’t see another course at this moment. So the key is to try to find out whether or not there are other options, other ways, other courses; could something be done that helps to respect the process that the Israelis are about to undergo, simultaneously respecting the needs of the region to de-escalate the tensions and avoid confrontation?

That’s what we hope to achieve, that’s what these discussions are all about, and we will continue to have these discussions this afternoon and on into the next days. But we’ve made no determinations other than that about any – about language, approaches, specific resolutions, any of that. We haven’t made any determinations.

MS. HARF: Great. And the final question is from Jo Biddle of AFP. Please wait for the mike.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. If I could just ask you to turn our attention to Russia, today, the ruble is falling and crashing to unprecedented lows against the dollar. Was this what the United States and the European sanctions were intended to do – weaken the ruble and thereby weaken Putin and hope he changes course in Ukraine? And now that the Russian people are facing real economic hardship, is it the right time for more sanctions in order to try to force a de-escalation in Ukraine, or should Moscow be given some breathing space in order to prevent an economic meltdown which could have an effect on the global economy?

And just turning back to what you mentioned – and you talked about the Taliban, the attack in Peshawar today, and the hostage-taking in the cafe in Sydney yesterday – what is your assessment of the rising threat level from Islamic extremism around the world? Is it now, would you agree, at one of its highest levels ever, despite the United States efforts to try and counterattack this? And how could governments around the world protect their people from what seems to be a growing trend towards lone wolf attacks? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, obviously, everybody has taken note of what has happened with respect to the ruble in the last days and the pressures on it, and it goes without saying that the purpose of the European-U.S.-et al effort with respect to sanctions was to make it clear to Russia, to President Putin, that there are costs attached to the unilateral annexation of Crimea and the continued support for separatists within Ukraine and the violation of Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and integrity, and the sanctions set out to do that. I don’t think that what is happening is just related to the sanctions. I think it is much broader, more complicated than that. It has to do with other issues with respect to the Russian economy, and oil prices, obviously, have also played a significant role in this. So there are a lot of combined factors, but the sanctions were clearly intended to invite President Putin to make a different set of choices.

Now, these sanctions could have been lifted months ago. These sanctions could be lifted in a matter of weeks or days, depending on the choices that President Putin takes. And we have been crystal clear – when I say “we,” the European community and the United States and others joined together have been crystal clear that their sole purpose here is to restore the international norm with respect to behavior between nations with respect for borders and respect for sovereignty and respect for the rights of people to determine their future not at the barrel of a gun, but through the ballot box.

Let me say that Russia has made constructive moves in the last days and there are some indications that whether it is the line of control negotiation or the calm that is, in fact, in place in a number of places, the withdrawal of certain people, there are signs of constructive choices. And that can only be helpful, hopefully. And our hope is that in the days ahead we can get a clear, defined path by all parties, where everybody understands what each is doing and living up to agreements and in moving to de-escalate this situation. That has always been our goal. And I’m confident that as rapidly as that can happen, you will see Europe and the United States respond with respect to the sanctions that are in place today.

We do not want the people of Russia to be hurt here. This is not our goal. None of what we are doing is targeted specifically against the people. But yes, collaterally, of course, they are caught up in the choices that their government makes and it does have an impact. We understand that. But that’s not the goal or purpose.

QUESTION: Please, on the (inaudible) on the fight against the Islamists?

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, on the fight against extremism, is the threat – no, I’m not going to say – the threat is what the threat is. There’s always been a threat of lone wolves, from the day that those terrorists drove their airplanes into the World Trade Center and crashed in Pennsylvania, and crashed into the Pentagon, we’ve had warnings of lone wolf activities. We’ve had warnings of sleeper cells. We’ve had warnings. And there have been many, many attempts over the course of the last years. The New York attempt for a bombing in Times Square, the Christmas bomber on an airplane, and so forth. But because of great work between our countries and terrific intelligence sharing, we were able to prevent those things from happening.

But it’s always very difficult. If somebody decides they want to die, it’s very hard to prevent every situation from occurring. So I’m not going to categorize on the scale, but everybody knows that Daesh is busy using the internet to proselytize, to entice, to lie, to put out propaganda, to try to influence minds of people who may be influenceable. And so that does present a threat, and people, unfortunately, everywhere need to be sort of aware of their surroundings, more alert than we’d like to be or want to be in the context of everyday life, but that’s where we are right now.

But as I said last week, we are making progress in the initial stages of halting Daesh’s progress in Iraq, of beginning to change their behavior, of attacking their command and control, of attacking their facilities and denying them supplies, of beginning to cut off financing, beginning to reduce the flow of foreign fighters, and so we have to be tough and courageous and stay the course here. And I’m confident that people are prepared to do that, and I know that our friends in Pakistan and in Australia are tough and strong and prepared to stay the course. So it’s very unfortunate when this happens, but it is done precisely for the kind of effect that it gets, which is questions at a press conference and fears that are spread in various parts of the world.

MS. HARF: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.

U.S. UNITED NATIONS REPRESENTATIVE POWERS MAKES REMARKS ON UN RESOLUTIONS CONDEMNING ISRAEL

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
New York, NY
November 25, 2014
AS DELIVERED

Like everyone in this assembly hall, we are deeply concerned about the volatile situation in the Middle East. The United States has made an enormous effort, especially over the last year and a half, to work with the parties in trying to pave the road towards achieving a negotiated final-status agreement allowing two states to live side-by-side in peace and security.

In this context, the United States remains profoundly troubled by the repetitive and disproportionate number of one-sided General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel – a total of 18 this year. This grossly one-sided approach damages the prospects for peace by undermining trust between parties and damaging the kind of international support critical to achieving peace. All parties to the conflict have direct responsibilities for ending it, and we are disappointed that UN Members continually single out Israel without acknowledging the responsibilities and difficult steps that must be taken on all sides. These unbalanced, one-sided resolutions set back our collective efforts to advance a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East, and they damage the institutional credibility of the United Nations.

Of these annual resolutions, which unfairly single out one country and consistently lack balance, three are particularly troubling to the United States: the “Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat;” the “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People;” and the “Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories.” These resolutions renew mandates for UN bodies established decades ago, wasting valuable resources and reinforcing the perception of systematic UN bias against Israel. All member states should evaluate the effectiveness of supporting and funding these bodies.

I do want to add that our continued opposition to the resolution on “Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and the Occupied Golan,” which will come up for a vote in this Assembly next month, should not be understood to mean that we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms Israeli settlements in territories occupied in 1967. Settlements are illegitimate, and they damage Israel’s security and the hopes for peace.

Continued settlement activity is contrary to Israel’s stated goal of negotiating a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians and is inconsistent with Israel’s international commitments.

During the past year, we have been deeply concerned by Israel’s advancement of plans for thousands of additional housing units in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. We have made clear that such action only draws condemnation from the international community, poisons the atmosphere not only with the Palestinians but also with the very Arab governments with which the Israeli government says it wants to build relations, and undermines the prospect for a peaceful negotiated agreement with the Palestinians.

Both sides took unhelpful steps that undercut the most recent round of final status negotiations. The scale and timing of Israel’s settlement activities contributed significantly to the erosion of trust between the parties.

The United States is in full agreement about the urgent need to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, based on the two-state solution and an agreement that establishes a viable, independent, and contiguous state of Palestine, once and for all. We’ve invested a tremendous amount of effort and resources in pursuit of this shared goal, and we firmly believe that the parties need to resolve the conflict through direct negotiations. If the parties are willing and ready to take that step, we stand ready to support them and to continue our efforts to advance the cause of peace.

In closing, while the United States unequivocally rejects Israeli settlements in territories occupied in 1967, they do not justify the repetitive, disproportionate, and one-sided General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel, which do not advance our collective efforts to advance a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Thank you.

U.S. UNITED NATIONS REP. SAMANTHA POWERS MAKES REMARKS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Samantha Power

U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 

New York, NY

October 21, 2014

AS DELIVERED

Thank you, Madam President. I’d also like to thank the Secretary-General for joining us today and for briefing us on his recent trip to the region.

We are living in a time of tremendous turmoil in the Middle East; a time that demands brave and decisive leadership by both regional leaders and the international community. Across the region, we see the need for hard choices. In Syria, the international community must summon the collective resolve to stop the Assad regime’s monstrous atrocities, as well as the horrors of ISIL, and find a political solution to the conflict. In Lebanon and Iraq, political leaders must strengthen the institutions necessary to honor the aspirations of their people and to defeat violent extremist threats. And Israeli and Palestinian leaders must recognize that there is no alternative to a negotiated peace and invest the political will to build it. I will discuss each of these critical issues today, in turn.

We have seen how failures in leadership can help foster the conditions in which extremist groups thrive. By failing to make the hard choices necessary to address the grievances of its Sunni population, Iraq’s former leaders helped to create conditions that ISIL exploited. The consequences have been horrifying. To cite just one example: earlier this month, ISIL announced strict rules on what can be taught in universities in Mosul, one of the cities it now controls. When Iraqi university professors rejected these restrictions and boycotted, ISIL declared that any professor who did not return to work would be executed.

More than three years ago, Bashar al-Assad lost legitimacy to lead when he responded to peaceful protests with brutal violence. Atrocities committed by his regime – atrocities of the kind and scale this world has rarely seen – played a key role in spurring the emergence of ISIL and other terrorist groups, and Assad’s indiscriminate attacks on his own people continue to this day.

Last month, the OPCW released its second report, which found “compelling confirmation that a toxic chemical was used as a weapon, systematically and repeatedly,” in three opposition-held villages in northern Syria. The OPCW concluded with confidence that chlorine was used. Witnesses described the attacks as being carried out by helicopters, which only the Assad regime possesses.

The consequences of Assad’s actions have been staggering. More than 200,000 Syrians killed. Nearly 11 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance. And yet, despite the valiant efforts of international humanitarian groups, UN agencies, and others, the Assad regime is deliberately obstructing the delivery of crucial assistance to millions of people in dire need. The regime declares itself the antidote to the horrors of ISIL, but its chemical and barrel bomb attacks, its use of starvation as a tool of war, are every bit as indifferent to the fate of innocents and every bit as grotesque.

One community subjected to the Assad regime’s merciless attacks has been Palestinians in the refugee camp of Yarmouk, which the regime has sealed since July 2013. The 18,000 residents who remain there have been relying on untreated groundwater and a single well for drinking water for nearly a month. Just yesterday, a spokesman for UNRWA issued a statement that began: “UNRWA was not cleared to distribute humanitarian assistance in Yarmouk today, 20th of October.” The day before, UNRWA’s statement began: "UNRWA was not cleared to distribute humanitarian assistance in Yarmouk today, 19 October.” UNRWA notes that since July this year, there has been a steady and significant decline in the quantity of food and other essential items, such as medicine, that the Agency has been able to offer to the Palestinians in Yarmouk. That on any day – let alone so many days – the Assad regime is not allowing aid to flow to the Palestinians suffering in Yarmouk shows extreme cruelty. The international community must be more vocal in its condemnation of these unspeakable tactics. And when the Syrian government hails its leadership on behalf of the Palestinian people, they should be reminded by all of us of the people living in Yarmouk.

Three million Syrians have fled to neighboring countries to escape the regime’s and extremist groups’ violence – up to 80% of them women and children. The threat posed by ISIL is felt across the region, but especially in Iraq and Syria. And foreign fighters and Syrian nationals who have been recruited and trained to fight in ISIL and other terrorist groups pose a threat to countries far from the battlefield.

Among the countries most severely impacted are Iraq and Lebanon. For example, 180,000 Iraqis fled the city of Heet, in Anbar province, as it fell to ISIL in recent weeks. They are among an estimated 1.8 million Iraqis displaced just this year. Lebanon has taken in 1.2 million Syrian refugees – over a quarter of the country’s population – placing immense pressure on its already strained resources.

We know what we must do: we must defeat ISIL and other terrorist groups. We must hold accountable all those in the Assad regime responsible for its widespread atrocities. And we must mitigate the suffering of the Syrian people. But we wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary-General that a political solution is absolutely essential to address the root causes of extremism in Syria, and to address the legitimate aspirations and grievances of its people. A political solution is not an enshrinement of the status quo. The majority of Syrians will not accept being ruled by a regime that has used sarin and chlorine to suppress its own people.

We commend the efforts of UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, who is working urgently to build support for a political solution by engaging multiple stakeholders. The Special Envoy met with Iran over the weekend and is meeting with Russia today – countries whose influence will be critical to reaching this long-sought solution.

Given the massive suffering that Syria’s crisis is causing, and the threat it poses to our collective security, leaders in the region must be part of these efforts to forge a political solution. But regional leaders also must address problems closer to home, which impact the rights of their people and are a source of the suffering, disenfranchisement, and intolerance that feeds groups like ISIL.

Yet, some leaders still choose to put short-term interests ahead of the tough decisions needed to best serve their people. Others take divisive steps when they could instead build consensus. The international community stands ready to help address the region’s challenges, but we need partners to exert the political will and courage to seek real solutions.

In Iraq, newly elected leaders must break from the sectarian style of leadership that defined the tenure of the Maliki government, and build institutions that represent the whole nation, rather than advancing one group’s interest at the expense of another’s.

In Lebanon, the position of president has been vacant for nearly five months, during a time when the country faces considerable security, economic, and humanitarian challenges. Lebanon’s political leaders must come together urgently to select a president.

We have seen leaders within these countries willing to choose unity over division and to make great sacrifices for their people. In August, the Lebanese Armed Forces and Internal Security Forces fought bravely to defend the city of Arsal from extremists. They served and died for their country – not for any one religious sect. In Iraq, Prime Minister Abadi is taking steps to form a more inclusive government, establishing the country’s first complete cabinet since 2010. He is also moving toward decentralizing power and granting greater authority to provinces.

Real leadership is also required to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace. The most recent wave of violence was devastating, both in terms of its enormous human toll and because it was avoidable. Preventing another round of violence requires leaders who are willing to make difficult choices and commit to the hard work of negotiations.

We commend Egypt for helping broker a ceasefire agreement. The Gaza reconstruction conference raised $5.4 billion and reaffirmed the international community’s commitment to rebuilding the lives of Palestinians in Gaza who have suffered so much during and since the recent crisis. The United States is providing $212 million in assistance to the Palestinian people for relief and reconstruction, atop the $118 million announced in September.

Of course, as has been said, aid and assistance cannot produce peace in the Middle East – leadership and compromise are needed. For reconstruction not to be required again in the future, there must be a real change on the ground. Even the most durable of ceasefires is not a substitute for real security for Israel or for an independent state for the Palestinians.

This is only more difficult to achieve when both sides continue to take actions that may be politically popular with domestic constituencies, but that come at the expense of advancing the cause of peace. We continue to urge all parties to refrain from such actions, including unilateral steps at the United Nations, Israeli settlement activity, and provocations at the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, where we urge all sides to respect the status quo of this holy site.

The United States remains fully committed to achieving a negotiated final-status agreement allowing two states to live side-by-side in peace and security. This is the only viable way forward, and if the parties are willing to go down this path – and are genuinely dedicated to the hard work of peace – we stand ready to support them.

Together, we can and we must support those taking the courageous steps to strengthen the Middle East in these immensely troubling times. The cause of peace in the region and the dignity of its people depend on it.

Thank you.

REMARKS BY SECRETARY, TURKISH FOREIGN MINISTER DAVUTOGLU AND QATARI FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATTIYAH

FROM:  THE STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks With Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid al-Attiyah After Their Meeting

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

U.S. Ambassador's Residence

Paris, France

July 26, 2014

---

SECRETARY KERRY: I’m delighted to have a chance to be able to welcome my colleagues, the Foreign Minister of Turkey Ahmet Davutoglu and Foreign Minister of Qatar Khalid Attiyah, here to the American Embassy in Paris. And I’m going to say a couple of words about what we’ve been working on with respect to the situation in Gaza in a moment.

But first, I want to try to clarify something and announce, to some degree, for people who haven’t heard, news regarding our situation in Libya. The United States, together with other countries – one of them Turkey – have decided that because of the free-wheeling militia violence that is taking place in Tripoli, and particularly in our case around – a lot of the violence is around our embassy but not on the embassy. But nevertheless is presents a very real risk to our personnel. So we are suspending our current diplomatic activities at the embassy – not closing the embassy, but suspending the activities. And we have moved people on ground to Tunisia where they will then disperse to other places where we will continue our diplomatic activities in Libya.

We are deeply committed and remain committed to the diplomatic process in Libya. Our envoy will continue to be engaged with the British envoy and other envoys. And we will continue to try to build out of the election the legitimacy of the government formation and the efforts to end the violence. We call on all Libyans to engage in the political process and to come together in order to avoid the violence.

So many people died and gave so much effort to the birth of the new Libya, and we’re very, very hopeful that together all those people will recognize that the current course of violence will only bring chaos and possibly longer term difficulties. We will return the moment the security situation permits us to do so, but given the situation, as with Turkey – I think they moved some 700 people or so out – we want to take every precaution to protect our folks.

Now I want to express my appreciation for the enormous amount of work that both Foreign Minister Attiyah, Foreign Minister Davutolgu engaged in the last days to help bring about the short-term cease-fire that we all hope is going to be extended into a longer term cease-fire where people can get together and work on the way forward for a sustainable cease-fire, a longer-term effort to work out the difficult issues between the state of Israel and the Palestinian factions.

We’re very hopeful that that can happen, but I will tell you the progress that we’ve made was significantly contributed to by many people, and we’re grateful obviously for the Egyptian initiative, for the Israeli efforts initially, but also this particular effort now has been significantly assisted by the input of Qatar, the input of Turkey, and the willingness of these foreign ministers to work hard even though they were at a distance, and to engage directly with some of the Palestinian factions in order to try to help get us where we are today. They’re both committed to trying to work to continue further, and we very much appreciate that.

If you want to say something, Ahmet.

FOREIGN MINISTER DAVUTOGLU: Thank you, John. It’s a great pleasure to meet again, but this time we are meeting for a very tragic development in Gaza. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is terrible. I want to extend condolences to all those who lost their lives in this crisis and especially in these holidays approaching – Ramadan, Eid. We intensified our efforts to agree on a cease-fire; in less than 10 days all of our teams have working last two – three days. We worked in close contact with the – with Secretary Kerry and my dear colleague, Minister Attiyah. As a team, we worked together. Yesterday we had several telephone conversations, consultations, and today we are continuing here.

We wish to have a sustainable cease-fire, which we approached very closely until last month. Unfortunately, it was rejected by Israeli side – but still we are working very hard to reach the (inaudible), hopefully with the great effort – we all appreciate Secretary Kerry’s effort.
Now we have a short-term cease-fire, which is really a success of his effort, and supported by all of us. And I want to assure all the parties and, of course, both of our colleagues, allies, that Turkey will be working very hard to stop this bloodshed on the ground, to reach a sustainable cease-fire, and at the end of these efforts, to have two-state solution, which is the real solution for all these disasters and bloodshed.

Again, I want to express my thanks to my dear colleagues, Secretary Kerry and Minister Attiyah, for this joint cooperation and all those who contributed to this process, to this short-term cease-fire. And as a team, we will continue to work – Egyptian – Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, United States, and Israel and Palestinian groups – (inaudible) and Hamas, all of us split – Palestinian Administration – at the end of the day, our goal is to achieve sustainable cease-fire as early as possible.

Thank you. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. You have any --

FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATTIYAH: Yes.

SECRETARY KERRY: Okay.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATTIYAH: And I’d like again also to thank John and Dr. Ahmet for the effort of the past days to come to such agreement on humanitarian cease-fire. As from now, I won’t add more of what John and Dr. Ahmet says. For now, we will be working hardly to come to a point where we have cease-fire and the lift of blockade. The tragic situation of – was I think deserve now to have a free movement of goods, a free movement of trade, that they deserve now to have their own port – their sea port, so they can trade in and out, even though if it’s under the international supervision. But I think the time now comes that we have to have long-term solution for the people of Gaza. They’ve been suffering for a long time, and with the help of Secretary Kerry and Brother Ahmet and all the other international player who their input will be positive on this. I’m sure you will come to a stage where we can get a cease-fire and a lift of blockade in Gaza. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: So before we end, I want to just pick up on a couple of themes expressed by both the foreign ministers and on what I said last night. And I want anybody who cares about the Palestinian side of these issues to listen, and I want everybody in Israel to understand: we clearly understand – I understand that Palestinians need to live with dignity, with some – freedom, with goods that can come in and out, and they need a life that is free from the current restraints that they feel on a daily basis, and obviously free from violence. But at the same time, Israelis need to live free from rockets and from tunnels that threaten them, and every conversation we’ve had embraces a discussion about these competing interests that are real for both. And so we need to have a solution that works at this.

I understand that Israel can’t have a cease-fire in which they are not able to – that somehow the tunnels are never going to be dealt with. The tunnels have to be dealt with. We understand that; we’re working at that. By the same token, the Palestinians can’t have a cease-fire in which they think the status quo is going to stay and they’re not going to have the ability to be able to begin to live and breathe more freely and move within the crossings and begin to have goods and services that come in from outside. These are important considerations. Each side has powerful feelings about the history and why they are where they are. And what we’re going to work at is how do we break through that so that the needs are met and we have an ability to provide security for Israel and a future – economic and social and otherwise development for the Palestinians. That’s what this is about.

Thank you all very much.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Secretary Kerry, are you going back to (inaudible)?

SECRETARY KERRY: No.