SECRETARY KERRY MAKES REMARKS WITH JORDANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks With Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Amman, Jordan
November 13, 2014


FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: (Via interpreter) In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful. At the outset, I would like to welcome a friend of His Majesty King Abdullah to Jordan, as well as to me personally, he – His Excellency, the Secretary of State of the United States of America. I do welcome him in this important visit and at this particular important moment. We have been honored today with a bilateral meeting as His Majesty King Abdullah received Secretary Kerry. And over the past 48 hours, they were – they covered different significant diplomatic deliberations and talks starting with the meetings with President Abbas yesterday. And today, His Majesty the King received Secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry.

And this evening, His Majesty the King, there was a bilateral – trilateral meeting where His Majesty met President Netanyahu – Prime Minister Netanyahu as well as Secretary of State. And they discussed coaxial issues, including Jerusalem and the Holy Shrines, and they took a lot of time. And their discussion and all the developments that have taken place over the recent few weeks were at the core of the issue and they have led to more instability.

His Majesty, during his meeting with Mr. Kerry this afternoon, explained Jordan’s position and the stance regarding the necessity of maintaining the status quo of the Holy Shrines, and they should not be touched or affected by any means. And this is part of the Hashemite custody of these Christian and Muslim sanctities in Jerusalem. And you are well aware also that when Jordan took some measures, there was confirmation on the part of the Israeli nation, Israeli state, and they showed commitment that they will maintain the status quo and respect the Jordanian role, and also respect the peace treaty between the two countries. And this is what also has been stated during the trilateral meeting this evening.

And you will listen also to the outcomes of this trilateral meeting. There are mechanisms and communications underway, including practical measures to de-escalate the tension and that maintain the status quo without getting it affected by such tensions.

During the bilateral meeting with Mr. Kerry, there were extensive negotiations regarding all the developments across the region. And we will go back to the Palestinian-Israeli problem. There were also discussions regarding the Syrian crisis and the U.S. as well as Jordan’s commitment to go back to the peaceful solution. It will be the only solution that will stop destruction, violence, instability, and the disintegration across the Syrian scene. This is Jordan’s stance, and it is in harmony with the U.S. stance as well.

There has been also talks about anti-terrorism and anti-extremism. And His Majesty the King stressed – and I also stressed during my negotiations and talks with Mr. Kerry – that this is the battle of moderate Islam against extremism and against (inaudible). Therefore, talks addressed this issue as well – including other issues.

With respect to the peace process, you are well aware that Mr. Kerry and the Obama Administration are committed to find a peaceful solution that addresses all the final status issues and that the two parties should come back to peace process. Mr. Kerry is a man of peace, and he has proven this through his intensive and focused efforts over one year as the Secretary of State and also for the case as the head of a committee at the Congress. He is a man who is renowned for his efforts inside the United States and outside the United States. And we have seen the Secretary of State in more than one year meeting all the stakeholders, particularly the Palestinian and Israeli sides. In addition, other countries who have high interest in peace, like the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Republic of Egypt – he met with them scores of times. And I think the meetings that His Excellency Kerry has been unprecedented, and this confirms U.S. commitment and Mr. Kerry’s commitment to this peace process. He is now attempting to repave the way for coming back to a negotiation – and negotiations and to stop unilateral actions and measures, and we do support him in these efforts.

Once again, it is our high interest, and our national interest requires and entails the two-state solutions according to international legitimacy, especially the Arab Peace Initiative. Therefore, I would like to say that the trilateral meeting that was held this evening with the Israeli prime minister has already addressed the issue through the monitoring and follow-up of the Jordanian efforts. It also focused basically on the efforts being put forth by Mr. Kerry in order to revive the situation, to come back to negotiations. Another important aspect under the trilateral negotiations – a telephone conference with President Sisi was also conducted. And, as you know, Egypt is a basic and a key country when we talk about the issues of this region, as well as the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

Therefore, I would like to conclude here that part – or a significant part of our talks today included the distinguished bilateral relationships, and we have extended our thanks for their continued efforts to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, especially in helping Jordan to shoulder the tremendous burden. And through the U.S. economic assistance and help, we have been able to bear the situation. We have extended our thanks, and we have discussed so many aspects of these distinguished bilateral relationships.

I do welcome His Excellency, and I do extend my thanks for his efforts towards peace. And this is in harmony with His Majesty’s and the Kingdom’s position towards peace in order to have a stable region without terror and without turmoil. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much. Good evening to everybody, and I am particularly grateful to my good friend, Nasser Judeh, who tonight I learned is the longest-serving foreign minister in the history of Jordan. So – and I asked him – I said, “Are you going to look like that on those portraits that are hanging out there?” And he said – that’s when he informed me that until recently, one of them was the longest serving. Now I’m standing beside him. So I’m honored to be here with him. And I have to tell you, he is a very valued partner and a very skilled diplomat, and somebody that we rely on for great collaboration and for very significant advice and counsel. And I thank him for his friendship very, very much.

I also particularly want to thank His Majesty King Abdullah, who is a gracious host, but also a courageous leader who understands how important this moment is and how critical it is to move forward. And I thank him for his exhaustive personal efforts in trying to resolve some of the region’s most difficult challenges, whether it’s Syria and Iraq, ISIL, or the longstanding conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Through all of these challenges, one constant has been the enormously constructive role that Jordan has played under difficult circumstances in order to try to resolve those challenges. And we’re very grateful and we admire those efforts.

I had a very productive meeting this morning with President Abbas, and Foreign Minister Judeh and I, as he just mentioned to you, have come here directly from a trilateral meeting, a discussion with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel and with His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan.

President Abbas and I this morning discussed constructive steps, real steps – not rhetoric, but real steps that people can take in order to de-escalate the situation and create a climate where we can move forward in a positive and constructive way. President Abbas strongly restated his firm commitment to nonviolence, and he made it clear that he will do everything possible to restore calm and to prevent the incitement of violence and to try to change the climate.

We particularly talked about the urgent need to address the greatest tension between Israelis and Palestinians beginning with the imperative, the absolute need to uphold the status quo regarding the administration of the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount and to take affirmative steps to prevent provocations and incitement. In the trilateral meeting this evening, we discussed, as Nasser has explained to you, specific and practical actions that both sides can take to restore calm. The Jordanians and the Israelis have agreed – the Jordanians, obviously, in their historic role as the custodians of the Haram al-Sharif – and the Israelis joined together as they have worked since 1967 to administer the Haram al-Sharif, to make sure that they de-escalate the situation, and that the steps they take will instill confidence that the status quo will be upheld.

So I say to all people who are interested in this: There are firm commitments, particularly from the custodian of the holy mosque, as well as Israel, to guarantee that they will take these steps. Now, I know that the first question will be: “So exactly what are those steps?” And the answer is we’re not going to lay out each practical step. It is more important that they be done in a quiet and effective way, but they will be noticeable and they will be effective, and I am convinced of that. And I also believe that obviously not all of it can happen overnight. Not every message will reach every person immediately. And not everyone will automatically change in one moment.

But the leadership is committed, I am convinced, on the basis of their discussion tonight and to the seriousness of purpose that they both exhibited. And President – in Prime Minister Netanyahu traveling here to make the effort to have this discussion; King Abdullah being willing to host it; and the length of time we spent discussing it, makes it clear to me that they are serious about working in the effort to create this de-escalation, to take steps that will instill confidence that the status quo will be upheld.

Prime Minister Netanyahu strongly reaffirmed Israel’s commitment to uphold the status quo on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount and to implement these steps. And King Abdullah also agreed to continue to take affirmative steps to restore calm and implement practical measures to prevent further escalation of tensions. And obviously, the proof is not in the words; the proof is in the actions.

In our trilateral discussion, we also discussed the shared commitment by each of us to counter the growing wave of extremism in the region. We placed a call to President al-Sisi to discuss his contribution and support for this critical effort. Why? Frankly, because all of us have been impressed. I was in Egypt a few weeks ago, and President al-Sisi and I had a long discussion about his commitment to the process of challenging extremism and terrorism, and most importantly, his emphasis to me that not only is he committed to counterterrorism, but that he is prepared, in his words, “to do whatever I can,” quote, “in order to advance the cause of peace between Israelis and Palestinians.” And that was an important conversation to have in the context of the potential for new regional security assistance and arrangements. We had a very extensive discussion of the ways in which the regional partners could work together on a security arrangement that advances our common interests, and we agreed – all of us – to continue that conversation in the next days.

Now, we are – all of us – fully aware of the challenges presented by the current tensions. Everybody understands that there are deeply held frustrations that are pent up on both sides. Everybody knows the difficult roads traveled and years and years of disappointment on both sides. And that’s why we all engaged in nine months of negotiations, and it is why all of us would like to see the day when that effort can be re-engaged and can lead to the peace that we all know is the only real, sustainable answer to the underlying causes of this conflict.

But today, we are working to smother the sparks of immediate tension so that they don’t become a fire that is absolutely out of control. And the first thing we have to do is restore calm before you can talk about other alternatives. The United States stands ready to be engaged, provided the parties themselves begin to create the climate. I was pleased that all of the leaders today, particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas earlier today, made clear their desire to see this situation de-escalate and to move in the right direction.

In our meeting today Foreign Minister Judeh and I also discussed how do we best coordinate our efforts against ISIL. We are combining our strengths across our more than 60 partners and along 5 different reinforcing lines of effort to shrink the territory controlled by ISIL, dry up its financing, reduce its supply of foreign fighters, expose the hypocrisy of the absurd religious claims, and provide humanitarian assistance to so many millions of people who are injured by this struggle.

Degrading and ultimately defeating ISIL is not going to happen overnight. We have to be patient as well as strong, and we have to be strategic. But make no mistake: We will succeed. Particularly in Iraq, where our effort by design has been most concentrated, we are making steady progress. I think you all saw that at Baiji recently.

Together with our coalition partners, including Jordan, we have conducted nearly 900 airstrikes against ISIL. Some partners are contributing to the military effort by providing arms; some equipment, training, advice; others are offering humanitarian assistance to those affected by the conflict. And we are particularly grateful to Jordan for opening up its borders and providing safe haven to more than 620,000 Syrian refugees. That’s an extraordinary effort by the country. And I know that there are parents, families, people in the country, who feel the pressure of this. We all understand that. We are deeply, deeply grateful to Jordanians for their humanitarian gesture in receiving these people, and that is one of the reasons why we are so committed to working to try to bring an end to this conflict.

And the United States understands and is particularly appreciative of the burden that has been put on schools, on hospitals, on water and energy services, and so much more. And we will continue to stand beside Jordan; I can assure you of that. I conveyed to His Majesty tonight the deep commitment of the American people, the United States Congress, the Obama Administration to the efforts of the Hashemite Kingdom to assume these important responsibilities.

Finally, as you all know, I traveled to Muscat earlier this week to continue the Iran nuclear negotiations. Our number-one priority on Iran is making sure that they don’t get a nuclear weapon. It’s that simple, that direct. We’re engaged in a difficult but serious negotiation toward that end. The question now is whether Iran will make the choices required to close the final gaps and provide assurances that they can’t develop and won’t develop a nuclear weapon.

Iranian leaders have said repeatedly and unambiguously that they have no intention of building a nuclear weapon. But actions have to be taken to back up those words and time is running short. The international community’s concerns are legitimate, and no agreement can be reached without addressing those concerns.

So in the end, it is really a matter of will, not capacity. Again and again, Iran – importantly, and frankly, gratefully – has said they are not going to seek a nuclear weapon; they exclusively have a peaceful nuclear program. So proving that you have a peaceful program is really just a question of choices. And with the November 24th deadline rapidly approaching, choices are going to have to be made very soon.

I’ll just close by noting this: When you look down the long list of challenges that we face in the world, it’s very easy to miss the fact that there are also unprecedented opportunities. During my meetings in Beijing this week with President Obama, the United States and China came together to jointly announce ambitious new targets to reduce carbon emissions in the post-2020 period. The United States and China are the world’s two largest economies. We’re also the world’s two largest consumers of energy and the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases. We are also two countries regarded for 20 years as the leaders of opposing camps in the climate negotiations.

Now, I know that not everybody in the world wakes up in the morning and worries about this issue. I understand that. People have security challenges of immediate nature, and putting food on the table, and shelter, and being able to protect their families and just survive. But we understand from scientists that this is a collective challenge to survival for all of us in the long run. And by doing what the United States and China did together, we are encouraging other countries to put forward their own ambitious plans, their own ambitious plans to be able to deal with this issue, to have emission reduction targets soon so that we can conclude a strong global agreement in Paris next year in December of 2015.

The commitment of both President Xi and President Obama to take ambitious action in our own countries and to work closely to remove the obstacles on the road to Paris sends a critical signal. It is that we must get this agreement done, that we can get it done, and that we have the ability now to all of us come together because no one country can make this happen on their own. This is one of those issues that requires global input, and we’re proud that together with China, we hope there was a moment of global leadership.

Thank you. Nasser.

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: Thank you very much, John.

Right. I just want to say that Secretary Kerry has to travel soon, and therefore I think we’ll take one question from the Jordanian side and one question from the American side. So, Hamdan.

QUESTION: My question is to secretary general. My name is Hamdan al-Hajj from Ad-Dustour newspaper. You said, Mr. Secretary, that the aim of the trilateral meeting is to restore peace and alleviate tension in Jerusalem. What makes you ambitious and optimistic that Benjamin Netanyahu is going to stick to the commitments? And what are the mechanisms that – to be followed to reach that goal? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, first of all, when you deal in this business, you begin to get a sense of when somebody is expressing a legitimate concern about something or when they’re just brushing you off. And I thought it was quite clear from the conversation this evening and from prior conversations – which is why Prime Minister Netanyahu traveled over here – that he has deep concerns, as everybody does, about the – about what has been going on in the rise of violence. How can you be the prime minister of a country in which people are being run over by trucks, cars, vans, at a trolley station and killed – how can you be the prime minister of a country where someone is being stabbed in the street, killed, where you see what the reactions are, because of people’s interpretation of something, and not respond?

And so this is a test. I believe the prime minister came here because he is concerned, and he made very firm statements tonight about that. Now, I can’t tell you that everything will change between now and tomorrow morning or the next day, because actions are what matter, not just words. So I heard words. They were expressed sincerely. I believe they are. But it’s going to take the test of the next days.

And that is true on the other side too. If President Abbas says he will reduce the rhetoric and change the – and work hard to try to change the atmosphere, then we have to look to the test of that. And in the end, it requires leadership to be able to make this difference.

So I’m here, together with my friend Nasser, to work with him and others, King Abdullah, to try to create the framework within which people can make the right choices. And in the end, I hope they do, and we will see in the days to come.

I don’t know. Nasser, you might want to comment on that also because I think it’s an important question.

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: Well, thanks, John. I mean, I’ll just add by saying that since we saw the recent escalation – and there’s always escalation in Jerusalem, and we’ve always warned that Jerusalem is a redline. His Majesty is the Custodian. Jordan has a historic road. The peace treaty between Israel and Jordan points to that very, very clearly. There was an agreement signed between His Majesty and President Abbas in 2013 reaffirming the Hashemite Custodianship of the Holy Site. And there’s escalation after escalation, particularly in the last two years, and most particularly in the last few weeks.

When Jordan took a decision to recall its ambassador for consultation, it was a sign that enough is enough. There’s a clear message that went to Israel that something needs to be done. We’ve had since some positive developments in terms of the rhetoric, and I think, like I said, hopefully a mechanism that will result in restoring calm and in alleviating the tension that we see.

We’ve had a phone call between His Majesty and Prime Minister Netanyahu a week ago or more when the prime minister reiterated that Israel is committed to the preservation of the status quo and respects the Jordanian role. Today, the discussion was – and we’ve had contacts since, of course, and we’ve had contacts with the international community. But today, the prime minister was very clear in yet again reaffirming that the status quo in Jerusalem will not be touched, and that Israel is committed to this and Israel is committed to respecting the role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Custodianship of His Majesty. But as --

SECRETARY KERRY: And with specific steps.

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: With specific steps and a mechanism. But like John said, it’s actions that will speak louder than words. And we’re monitoring and observing and we’re contacting. We’re remaining in contact. I mean, the idea is not to just withdraw and not establish any means of communication. You need to have communication in order to ensure that what you want is done and what the international community wants is done.

The tension in Jerusalem, as you have seen in the last few days, has sparked tension not just in Jerusalem and around Jerusalem, but elsewhere in the West Bank. And this is something that concerns us all. And we need to restore calm because we need to think of the larger picture and we need to think of the end objective that we all seek, which is peace, a solution to all final status issues – independence, dignity, sovereignty for the Palestinians in the form of a state on their national soil, and security not just for Israel, but for the entire region. I think this is what we are all committed to.

And I think – Warren from Reuters. And the we’ll take one there.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, you’re going to be shocked I have a multipart question. (Laughter.) You have often said, Mr. Secretary, that there are people on both sides of the conflict who do not want peace. Understanding that you and Foreign Minister Judeh don’t want to go into all the details tonight, can you at least give us some idea of the types of things, types of commitments that you got today that would lead you to believe that both sides are willing to pull back and especially rein in their extremists? That’s question one.

Question two: Why was President --

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: You mean – sorry to interrupt. You mean the Palestinians and Israelis?

QUESTION: The Palestinian – yes, thank you. Question --

SECRETARY KERRY: With respect to the Haram al-Sharif or the --

QUESTION: Yes, yes.

SECRETARY KERRY: Okay.

QUESTION: Question two: Why was President Abbas not at the meeting today, the trilateral? And finally, did you and Prime Minister Netanyahu have a chance to discuss the nuclear issue today, and did he reiterate his deep and serious concerns about a weak deal with Iran?

And finally, for Foreign Minister Judeh, will Jordan now return its ambassador to Tel Aviv? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me deal with 1-2-3. With respect to the Haram al-Sharif, if you read the basics of the agreement that exists on – in defining the status quo, you will see precisely what is expected of the WAC, the Jordanian force that is responsible, as well as the Israelis. And if the status quo is being maintained, you’ll be able to see exactly what is expected. And I don’t think it’s appropriate to go into all of the ways in which that is going to be implemented. It’s up to the folks there to show it in the way that they’re implementing it. But I think people will notice in the next days, and that’ll be the measure.

So again, we’ve agreed not to go into the specifics because one person or another can misinterpret or not quite understand one choice or another. I think the status quo is clear and the status quo is going to be maintained, and that is what is absolutely vital to the Hashemite Kingdom’s responsibility as Custodian. And the prime minister has made it clear that he will uphold that.

Now with respect to President Abbas, I met with him one-on-one this morning. We had a good conversation, as I mentioned earlier. His Majesty --

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: And His Majesty met --

SECRETARY KERRY: His Majesty met with him yesterday one-on-one, so there’s been a lot of communication. But it just isn’t yet the right moment for the two sides to really come together at this instant. It’s just not – it’s not the appropriate moment. I think they both need to see that things are changing, and there needs to be what we would call a ripeness, if you will, for that meeting that doesn’t exist at this moment. But there was no exclusion. It was simply an effort because we were talking about larger regional peace and security issues that directly involve existing states – state of Israel, state of Jordan, state of Egypt, and the United States – and those are important existing relationships and it was more appropriate to have that conversation in the context that we did.

Finally, with respect to the nuclear issue, yes, the prime minister and I talked one-on-one on that issue for a little while. And he expressed his concerns, of course, and I made it clear to him that the standard that we have applied throughout this negotiation still applies, and that is that there are four pathways to a nuclear weapon and we need to make certain that each pathway – the Fordow facility, the Arak nuclear – the Arak heavy water plutonium reactor facility, the Natanz enrichment facility, and covert capacities – are all closed off so that not – not as a matter of bias or prejudice, but because that’s the only way the world can know for certain that a program is indeed a peaceful program. And our responsibility is to make certain that there is a sufficient breakout time in the event that there was some change in policy or something happened.

So those guarantees are in place and we will keep all of our friends and allies informed of what we are doing in the days ahead. Our hopes remain still to try to achieve an agreement because it’s better for the world. But we can’t achieve just any agreement. It has to be done in a way that meets the standards I just set out. And we’re trying to be as thoughtful as we can in our approach to this, but there’s no shortcut. It’s difficult, and we hope Iran will work in the same way that we are, not as a matter of coercion but out of mutual respect and out of the interests that we all have for living in a world that is free of nuclear weapons. Obviously, the fatwa of the leader is a very important instrument, and we respect it enormously as a matter of religious edict. But that has to be translated into a lay person’s regular document, a legal one, if you will, with all of the things that are necessary for an agreement regarding potential nuclear programs. There are many standards by which that is measured, and that’s exactly how we’re proceeding.

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: The presence of the Jordanian ambassador in Israel since signing the peace treaty in 1994 was not intended to be to the benefit of Israel. The presence of our ambassador there was meant to be an action that would promote Jordanian national interest and promote the bilateral relationship, which will be of mutual benefit.

As you know, there are several diplomatic options available to any country to protest something that they feel very, very strongly about. One of those actions is to recall an ambassador for consultation. And this was a very clear signal to Israel that what’s been happening in the al-Aqsa Mosque compound, particularly over the last few weeks, is not acceptable to Jordan as Custodian, not acceptable to 1.5 billion Muslims around the world, but we have a special responsibility as the Custodian, as a nonpermanent member on the Security Council. And I think recalling our ambassador for consultation was a very, very clear signal that something has to be done to check these actions that are causing much concern not just in the immediate region but around the world.

Now, as the Secretary and I have said for the last few days with intensive diplomacy, with intensive contact with the Israelis, with other international partners and particularly the United States, and in today’s discussions, we have seen a commitment on the part of Israel to respect and maintain the status quo and respect the special role of Jordan and to ease the tension and remove all the elements of instability that we are seeing. We have to wait and see if this is done. Like I said, there are concrete steps out there to be done. There is an agreement that we need to de-escalate. There is a commitment on the part of Israel that the status quo has to be maintained and to respect the Jordanian. Let’s see what happens and then we’ll review our decision, but we have to see what happens on the ground first.

SECRETARY KERRY: Folks, I apologize. I know there are a lot of questions, but I have to get back to the United States, leaving right now and my pilots are under a time restriction, so if you’ll forgive us, we need to take our leave.

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very, very much.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT GAZA DONORS CONFERENCE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks at the Gaza Donors Conference

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Cairo, Egypt

October 12, 2014

Thank you very much, Foreign Minister Shoukry. Thank you Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; Vice Prime Minister Mustafa; our co-host, Foreign Minister Brende; and our colleague Cathy Ashton, the EU High Representative. I want to particularly thank President Sisi and Foreign Minister Shoukry for their leadership and for their partnership in their efforts for the Palestinian Authority and to help bring all of us here today for their work with Israel on the ceasefire. And we respect and thank them also for their partnership with the United States, not just in working towards a durable ceasefire, but also in helping to pull together, and helping to pull together this massive reconstruction effort.

But President Sisi’s efforts, I think it’s fair to say, have really helped to reaffirm the pivotal role that Egypt has played in this region for so long. The same can also be said of Foreign Minister Brende and Norway, whose historic connection and commitment to these issues go back more than two decades to the Oslo Accords, and I’m personally always impressed by the deep engagement of Norway in efforts to make peace, not just here but elsewhere in the world. And of course, President Abbas, thank you for your perseverance and your partnership.

This has been a difficult few months on a difficult issue in a difficult neighborhood, and no one feels that more than the people of Gaza. This summer, as we’ve heard in some of the statistics that Secretary-General shared with us, more than half a million Gazans had to flee their homes and seek safety. Twenty thousand homes were destroyed or severely damaged, and more than a hundred thousand people remain displaced. And winter is fast approaching.

I have been to Gaza at a time like this, and I will never forget traveling to Izbet Abed Rabo in Gaza in 2009 and watching children playing in the rubble, seeing little Palestinian girls playing where just months earlier, homes and buildings had stood. The humanitarian challenge then was enormous, and shockingly, amazingly – and every speaker has mentioned we area back yet again – the humanitarian challenge is no less enormous in 2014. So the people of Gaza do need our help desperately – not tomorrow, not next week, but they need it now. And that’s why we are all gathered here.

I am proud, personally, that the people of the United States have been working to do their part. We provided $118 million in immediate humanitarian assistance at the time of the crisis, at its height, and the 84 million that we also provided to UNRWA for operations.

Today, I’m pleased to announce an additional immediate 212 million in assistance to the Palestinian people, and obviously we will have to see how things develop in the days ahead. But this immediate money will mean immediate relief and reconstruction, and this money will help meet the Palestinian Authority’s budget needs. This money will, we hope, help promote security and stability, and economic development, and it will provide for immediate distribution of food, medicine, and shelter materials for hundreds of thousands for the coming winter. And it is money that is going to help reconstruct Gaza’s damaged water and sanitation system, so that Palestinians in Gaza will have access to water that they can drink and homes that they can actually start rebuilding.

Taken together, the United States has provided more than 400 million in assistance to the Palestinians over this last year, 330 million just since this summer’s conflict began. But I will say to all of you, and I think everybody knows it: We come here with a sense of awesome responsibility and even resignation about the challenge that we face because we all know that so much more needs to be done, even though there have been encouraging steps.

I’m particularly grateful to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Special Coordinator Robert Serry for helping to broker an important agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority for an end-use monitoring mechanism. And we appreciate Israel’s cooperation in continuing to provide humanitarian access to Gaza through its crossing, which is essential if all of this is going to work.

We welcome that Israel has recently announced new measures that should allow increased trade in agricultural goods between Gaza and the West Bank, and more permits for Palestinian business leaders to enter Israel. We hope to see many more positive steps announced and implemented in the coming weeks and months. And we need to get back to the difficult work not just of reconstruction and recovery in Gaza, but of actually building Gaza’s economy for the long term and developing its institutions under the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinian Authority and President Abbas must be empowered in all that we do in order to define and determine Gaza’s future. There is, simply, no other way forward, and all of us here need to help the ability of the Palestinian Authority to be able to deliver. There are many steps that we can take. We can and should see Palestinian Authority customs officials at Gaza’s borders. We can and should help the PA to expand its control in Gaza, streamline Gaza’s workforce, and continue to play a key role in the end-use monitoring mechanism for Gaza. And this is absolutely essential, because as long as there is a possibility that Hamas could fire rockets on Israeli civilians at any time, the people of Gaza will remain at risk of future conflict. And even as we work to reconstruct Gaza, we cannot lose sight of the importance of the long-term economic investment for the Palestinian economy that can create a vibrant private sector.

Shortly after I became Secretary of State, working with the Quartet and international local business leaders, we launched the Initiative for the Palestinian Economy. The IPE is a comprehensive plan for Palestinian economic growth in the billions of dollars. And this effort is not about donor projects or corporate social responsibility; we’re talking about real investment. We had McKinsey & Company come in and make analysis of every sector of the Palestinian economy and make a determination about those areas where you could actually reduce unemployment from 21 percent to 8 percent in a period of three years. We’re talking about real investment that produces real jobs and opportunities for thousands of Palestinians, and that is what is going to make the difference over the long term.

Now, we were making real progress, laying down specific projects, creating new opportunities for goods and peoples to move in and out, when tragically conflict once again replaced dialogue. But what I really want to underscore to everyone is what all of us know, but not everyone perhaps wants to confront. This is the third time in less than six years that together with the people of Gaza, we have been forced to confront a reconstruction effort. This is the third time in less than six years that we’ve seen war break out and Gaza left in rubble. This is the third time in less than six years that we’ve had to rely on a ceasefire, a temporary measure, to halt the violence.

Now, I don’t think there’s any person here who wants to come yet again to rebuild Gaza only to think that two years from now or less we’re going to be back at the same table talking about rebuilding Gaza again because the fundamental issues have not been dealt with. A ceasefire is not peace, and we’ve got to find a way to get back to the table and help people make tough choices, real choices. Choices that everybody in this room and outside of it understands have been on the table for too long. 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 of security for Israel and a state and dignity for the Palestinians.

As everyone here knows, last year the United States joined Israel and the Palestinian Authority in renewed peace negotiations towards a final status settlement. The truth that has not been talked about very much, and there are still legitimate reasons for maintaining that respect for the process, but the truth is that real and significant process was made on substantive issues. Longtime gaps were narrowed and creative ideas were actively being deployed to solve remaining differences.

So I say clearly and with deep conviction here today: The United States remains fully, totally committed to returning to the negotiations not for the sake of it, but because the goal of this conference and the future of this region demand it. There is nothing sustainable about the status quo. In the end, the underlying causes of discontent and suspicion and anger that exist in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza can only be eliminated by resolving the conflict itself. There is no way to fully satisfy the parties’ various demands, no way to bring the full measure of recovery to Gaza, without a long-term prospect for peace that builds confidence about the future. And everything else will be a Band-Aid fix, not a long-term resolution. Everything else will still regrettably fail to address the underlying discontent and suspicion in both Israel and Gaza and the West Bank. Everything else will be the prisoner of impatience that has brought us to this unacceptable and unsustainable status quo.

Make no mistake: What was compelling about a two-state solution a year ago is even more compelling today. Now, I know that in Israel as well as in Gaza and the West Bank, most people would quickly tell you today that as much as they want peace, they think it is a distant dream, something that’s just not possible now. The problem is, having said that, no one then offers an alternative that makes sense. I say it is unacceptable to want peace but then buy into an attitude that makes it inevitable that you cannot have peace. It is unacceptable to simply shrug one’s shoulders, say peace isn’t possible now, and then by doing nothing to make it possible, actually add to the greater likelihood of a downward spiral.

So I say to you clearly and with great conviction: The United States will continue to work with our partners to find a way forward. We are convinced that the needs to both parties on even the most critical issues can be met, and that with common sense, goodwill, and courage we can not only address the long-term needs of Gaza, but we can actually achieve a lasting peace between Israel, the Palestinians, and all their neighbors. We have been clear from day one about the difficulty of the challenge ahead, and we knew there would be tough times. But in the end, we all want the same things: security for the Israelis; freedom, dignity, and a state for the Palestinians; peace and prosperity for both peoples.

So this is a time for leadership. It’s a time for leaders to lead. And at a time when extremism, which offers no constructive vision for the future, is capitalizing on the vacuum, it is imperative for all of us to fill that vacuum with a prospect of peace. That’s what the people of our countries expect from us, and that’s what we must offer them – no less. So out of this conference must come not just money, but a renewed commitment from everybody to work for a peace that meets the aspirations of all – for Israelis, for Palestinians, and for all the peoples of this region. And I promise you the full commitment of President Obama, myself, and the United States of America to try to achieve that. Thank you. (Applause.)

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AFTER MEETING PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PRESIDENT ABBAS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks Following Meeting With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Muqata'a, Ramallah

July 23, 2014

---

Excuse me. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you.

I have been in constant touch with President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority over the course of the last months. But particularly in the last days, we have been talking about how to achieve an end to the current violence and an effort to try to not only have a cease-fire, but build a process that can create a sustainable way forward for everybody. I’m very grateful to President Abbas for his leadership, for his deep engagement in the effort to try to find a cease-fire. He has traveled tirelessly, he has been working with all of the interested groups and parties, and encouraging people to do the responsible thing, which is to come to the table – not only have a cease-fire, but then negotiate the immediate issues and the underlying issues.
We had a good conversation today about how we can take further steps, and we’re doing this for one simple reason: The people in the Palestinian territories, the people in Israel, are all living under the threat or reality of immediate violence, and this needs to end for everybody. We need to find a way forward that works, and it’s not violence. President Abbas has been committed to nonviolence and committed to a harder route. Sometimes it’s very satisfying for people to see the immediate impact of the violence, but it doesn’t take you to a solution.

President Abbas understands the road to the solution, and that’s what we’re working for.
So we will continue to push for this cease-fire. We will continue to work with President Abbas and others in the region in order to achieve it. And I can tell you that we have, in the last 24 hours, made some progress in moving towards that goal. And I will leave here now with President Abbas’ thoughts about how we could make some progress, and I will go and meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu and subsequently return to Cairo, where we will continue in the hopes that before long, we can change course and, for everybody’s sake, end this violence and move to a sustainable program for the future.

Thank you all very, very much. Thank you. Thanks.

PRESIDENT OBAMA, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PRESIDENT ABBAS MAKE REMARKS REGARDING A PALESTINIAN STATE

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Remarks by President Obama and President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority

Oval Office

11:12 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, I want to welcome President Abbas to the Oval Office.  It was a year ago this week that I had the opportunity to visit the Palestinian Territories and very much appreciated the hospitality that President Abbas showed when I was there.  I had a wonderful time meeting with a wide range of civil society and officials and business leaders in the Palestinian Territories, including young people who were inspiring and I think had great hope for the future.

Today, we’re going to spend the bulk of our time talking about something that we’ve been working on for a very long time and obviously President Abbas has been working on a long time, and that is how do we achieve a comprehensive peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. 

And I have to commend President Abbas.  He has been somebody who has consistently renounced violence, has consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by side, in peace and security; a state that allows for the dignity and sovereignty of the Palestinian people and a state that allows for Israelis to feel secure and at peace with their neighbors. 

This is obviously an elusive goal, and there’s a reason why it’s taken decades for us to even get to the point where we are now.  But we remain convinced that there is an opportunity.  And I think everybody understands the outlines of what a peace deal would look like, involving a territorial compromise on both sides based on ‘67 lines with mutually agreed upon swaps, that would ensure that Israel was secure but would also ensure that the Palestinians have a sovereign state in which they can achieve the aspirations that they’ve held for so long.

Secretary Kerry is here today and has been working diligently with all sides.  And as I said to Prime Minister Netanyahu when he was here just a couple of weeks ago, I believe that now is the time for not just the leaders of both sides but also the peoples of both sides to embrace this opportunity for peace.  But we’re going to have a lot of details that we’re going to have to discuss.  It’s very hard; it’s very challenging.  We’re going to have to take some tough political decisions and risks if we’re able to move it forward.  And my hope is, is that we can continue to see progress in the coming days and weeks.

I also want to point out that the Palestinian Authority has continued to try to build strong institutions in preparation for a day in which the Palestinians have their own state, and I will continue to emphasize the importance of rule of law, transparency, and effective reform so that not only do the Palestinians ultimately have a state on paper, but, more importantly, they have one that actually delivers on behalf of their people.

The United States obviously has been a strong supporter of the Palestinian Authority.  We’re the largest humanitarian donor and continue to help to try to foster economic development and opportunity and prosperity for people, particularly young people like those that I met.

So, Mr. President, welcome.  I look forward to a productive discussion, and continue to hope that you and Prime Minister Netanyahu, but, more importantly, the people of the Palestinian Territories and Israel are ready to move forward in a new spirit of cooperation and compromise.

Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT ABBAS:  (As interpreted.)  Thank you very much, Mr. President, and thank you for allowing us this opportunity, which we consider to be historic, for us to come here to the White House so that the efforts that you and Mr. Kerry expend -- these are great efforts -- would be successful so that we can also reach a lasting peace to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And I would like to also seize this opportunity to thank you, Mr. President, for the economic and political support that the U.S. is extending to the Palestinian state so that it can stand on its own feet.

I would also like to affirm what you have said, that we are working for a solution that is based on international legitimacy and also the borders -- the 1967 borders so that the Palestinians can have their own independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital and so that we can find a fair and lasting solution to the refugee problem.

We don’t have any time to waste.  Time is not on our side, especially given the very difficult situation that the Middle East is experiencing and the entire region is facing.  We hope that we would be able to seize this opportunity to achieve a lasting peace.

Since 1988 and into 1993, we have been extending our hands to our Israeli neighbors so that we can reach a fair and lasting peace to this problem.  Since 1988, we have recognized international legitimacy resolutions and this was a very courageous step on the part of the Palestinian leadership.  And in 1993, we recognized the state of Israel.

Mr. President, we have an agreement with Israel, that was brokered by Mr. Kerry concerning the release of the fourth batch of prisoners and we are hopeful that the fourth batch will be released by the 29th of March because this will give a very solid impression about the seriousness of these efforts to achieve peace.

Mr. President, I’m aware that you have several international concerns in various places around the world and we know that you are dedicating your time and effort for peace, and so are the teams that are working on this.  We count on these efforts and we will build on them because we consider this to be a historic opportunity to achieve peace.

Thank you very much.

END
11:23 A.M. EDT

REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY AND U.K. FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks With United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Hague
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office
London, United Kingdom
September 9, 2013

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It’s a great pleasure to host my great friend and colleague, John Kerry, here in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office once again.

Of course, we have spent most of our time discussing the crisis in Syria. But I want to begin by paying tribute to Secretary Kerry for his work on the Middle East peace process, which has now led to the resumption of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. This is a reminder, amidst all the difficulties of the whole Middle Eastern region, of the progress that effective diplomacy can offer. And I will meet President Abbas here in London later today.

The UK will do all it can to provide support to this process. And I will remain in close touch, as we always do, with Secretary Kerry on this in the coming weeks. Achieving a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very, very high priority in foreign affairs, and John Kerry has placed it there and given enormous energy to this in the last few months.

We’ve discussed all aspects of the crisis in Syria. The position of the United Kingdom, following our parliamentary vote 10 days ago is well known, and the government – as you know, in the government, we fully respect the decision made by the House of Commons. But our objectives and efforts between the UK and the U.S. remain closely aligned in four areas in particular: first, working to create the conditions for a Geneva 2 peace process that can lead to a transitional government in Syria; secondly, addressing the desperate humanitarian situation; third, supporting the moderate Syrian opposition and saving lives on the ground; and fourth, mustering a strong international response to the use of chemical weapons.

Our government supports the objective of ensuring there can be no impunity for the first use of chemical warfare in the 21st century. As an international community, we must deter further attacks and hold those responsible for them accountable. We admire the leadership of President Obama and of Secretary Kerry, himself, in making his case so powerfully to the world. This week the European Union, the Arab League, and many of the countries of the G-20 have called for a strong international response. And it is to the credit of the United States that, once again, they are prepared to lead such efforts. They have the full diplomatic support of the United Kingdom. And I welcome the fact that an increasing number of countries have signed up to the joint statement on Syria adopted last week during the G-20 by 11 countries during the G-20, and I urge other countries to do the same.

Secretary Kerry and I share the same revulsion at the utter callousness of a regime that has presided over the deaths of more than 100,000 people and caused more than 2 million to become refugees, among them a million children. The Prime Minister announced an additional 52 million pounds in humanitarian assistance last week, bringing our total to 400 million pounds. The United Kingdom will be working intensively over the coming weeks, including at the UN, to try to secure unfettered access for aid inside Syria, and to address the aid shortfall, working closely with the United States, which is working, leading by example here, as in many other areas.

I briefed Secretary Kerry on the talks we held last week with the presidents and senior leadership of the Syrian National Coalition. There can’t be a political solution in Syria if the Assad regime is allowed to eradicate the moderate opposition. So we discussed ways in which we will continue to coordinate our assistance to them, and we reaffirmed our commitment to a Geneva 2 peace conference, which should create a transitional government leading to elections in Syria, and to continuing our diplomacy with Russia to try to bring about the necessary breakthrough.

At its heart, the U.S.-UK special relationship is an alliance of values, values of freedom, of maintaining international peace and security, of making sure that we live in a rules-based world. So the United Kingdom will continue to work closely with the United States, taking a highly active role in addressing the Syria crisis, and working with our closest ally over the coming weeks and months.

And, as well as addressing all these immediate challenges and crises, we continue to work together on a whole range of issues, from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, to Somalia, to my work on preventing sexual violence in conflict, which the Secretary has strongly supported, and, of course, deepening the economic ties that are indispensable to both nations.

So, John, you’re welcome, as always, in London here. And, please, will you say a few words, as well?

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, William. I’d be delighted to. And I begin by saying thank you to you for another generous welcome here in London. I’m very grateful to you and the government for all of your efforts. And I’m very pleased to be concluding this morning, before I go back to brief Congress this afternoon on the subject of Syria, to be concluding here in London a very productive and fairly quick trip to Europe over the last couple of days. Particularly grateful to you, William, always, for your great hospitality and your personal friendship. And I thank you for that.

The relationship – well, let me just say also last night I had dinner and a long meeting with President Abbas, whom the Secretary will be meeting with shortly. And it was a very productive and informative session as part of our ongoing efforts in the Middle East peace process. The negotiators are negotiating. We have said we’re not going to discuss the substance on an ongoing basis, and we’re not. But I am encouraged that even though there have been difficulties along the way on both sides in their countries – in their territory and in the country – nevertheless, they are staying at it, and they are not allowing what historically have been disruptions that might have interrupted them from doing so at this time. That encourages me, in terms of the determination and purpose. And so we will continue this process thoughtfully and, hopefully, quietly over the course of the next weeks and months.

The relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom has often been described as special, essential. And it has been described thusly, quite simply, because it is. It was before a vote the other day in parliament, and it will be for long afterwards after that vote. Our bond, as William has just said, is bigger than one vote; it’s bigger than one moment in history. It’s about values. It’s about rules of the road, rules by which human beings try to organize their societies and offer people maximum freedom and opportunity, respecting rights, and finding a balance in a very complicated world. And we have no better partner in that effort than Great Britain, and we are grateful for that.

Our bond really is a paradigm for international cooperation. And our work together on global issues to ensure peace, to ensure stability, to create economic prosperity, to help others to share in the values that we share, to engage in humanitarian initiatives around the world, and sometimes to stand together against the oppressive steps that tyrants take, all of those things are what tie us together, not just for our two nations, but for the entire world.

So just a few minutes ago, the Foreign Secretary and I spoke about the importance of our continued cooperation on a full range of issues, from climate change, to the pursuit of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, to our counterterrorism efforts, to our efforts to promote democracy on a global basis, and, of course, to our efforts to bring about an end to the civil war in Syria.

As I drove in here this morning, there were a group of people assembled outside the building, as is their right, and as people should assemble. And some of them – I heard them saying, “Keep your hands off Syria.” I certainly appreciate the feelings in our country, too, about people who have strong feelings about war and strong feelings about not going into yet some other engagement in another part of the world.

But I think it would be good to hear people saying to a dictator, “Keep your hands off chemical weapons that kill your own people. Protect your own people.” I think it’s important for us to stand up as nations for civility and against actions that challenge notions of humanity and decency and appropriate international behavior. And for almost 100 years, the world has stood together against the use of chemical weapons, and we need to hear an appropriate outcry as we think back on those moments of history when large numbers of people have been killed because the world was silent. The Holocaust, Rwanda, other moments are lessons to all of us today.

So let me be clear. The United States of America, President Obama, myself, others are in full agreement that the end of the conflict in Syria requires a political solution. There is no military solution. And we have no illusions about that. But a resolution to this has to come about because the parties are prepared to come and negotiate that political solution. And if one party believes that it can rub out countless numbers of his own citizens with impunity using chemicals that have been banned for nearly 100 years because of what Europe learned in World War I, if he can do that with impunity, he will never come to a negotiating table. A resolution will not be found on the battlefield, but at that negotiating table. But we have to get to that table.

And we’re in full agreement with our British friends that the humanitarian situation is obviously dire and growing worse: 5 million people displaced within Syria itself; numbers of refugees fleeing from that gas into Lebanon, into Jordan, providing an incredible burden to each of those countries and others in the region. This is a humanitarian catastrophe of global proportions. And the world needs to focus on it, pay attention to it, or we give license to other dictators or other groups in other parts of the world to engage in similar behavior, and just make things worse for everybody.

The United States is proud to say we’ve been the largest humanitarian donor. We recognize that responsibility. And we are also proud to say that we stand with our friends here in Great Britain, who are the second-largest donor. So, we don’t come to this with a sense that all we care about is some kind of a military response. We come to this with years now of effort – literally years of effort – to try to bring the parties to the table and create some kind of political solution, because that remains our top priority. I – our respective leaders made it clear in St. Petersburg that we believe a strong international response is necessary to ensure that atrocities like the one that Assad committed against hundreds of his own people are not going to happen again.

And our special relationship with the UK is not just about Syria, it’s not just about a response to this humanitarian crisis. It’s also about the future, in many ways, on climate change, and particularly on economic prosperity for all of our people. We’re not only – we are both committed to trying to move forward on a trade relationship to grow jobs for our people. And we are not only each other’s largest investors in each of our countries, one to the other, but the fact is that every day almost one million people go to work in America for British companies that are in the United States, just as more than one million people go to work here in Great Britain for American companies that are here. So we are enormously tied together, obviously. And we are committed to making both the U.S.-UK and the U.S.-EU relationships even stronger drivers of our prosperity.

Now, last month the United States held the first round of the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. And this is something where we will continue to work closely together, because we both believe that working with the UK and the rest of the EU to finalize an agreement is going to create new investments to add to those millions of people in both countries I just talked about. It’ll create new jobs and it will create growth on both sides of the Atlantic.

So, as Margaret Thatcher put it pretty bluntly, as she did, the UK and the U.S. are real and true friends. And our relationship, which is grounded in those values and traditions that we both referred to, remains as relevant today as it has been in the past. And we look forward to continuing to strengthen this relationship, and working hard to make real progress on the very many challenges that we face in an increasingly complicated and, in too many places, dangerous world. Thank you, William.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you very much indeed, John. Now we’re going to have a couple of questions from each side of the Atlantic. Carl, you’ll pick them out.

QUESTION: James Robbins from BBC News. Mr. Secretary, how seriously do you take the new threats from President Assad of retaliation, including by his allies, if the U.S. does strike? That risks, doesn’t it, dragging the United States further into the conflict?

And if Britain had said yes rather than no to strikes, the President would have ordered them by now, wouldn’t he? You’ve now adopted a different tactic, building a different sort of coalition using powerful moral arguments for action against inaction. The logic of that, surely, is that whatever the votes in Congress, the President will go ahead with strikes. The votes can’t change his moral position.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m not surprised to find here a well-put question that basically tries to get me to answer something that the President hasn’t decided. So I just have to tell you that the President made a decision based on his gut and his best sense of what was best for the United States of America and our Congress and our democracy. And he knew it would be tough. He didn’t – there was no misinterpretation of the vote here. I think that’s why the President made a very courageous decision to go to the Congress, notwithstanding what happened here, recognizing that in our democracy it was important to ask for the Congress to also invest in this effort.

And I can’t tell you that if the vote had been different the President would have made a different decision at all. I think he was thinking about the best way to proceed, and he made his decision about the best way to proceed. I’m confident the Congress is going to listen very, very carefully. It is listening carefully. Members are doing their homework, their diligence here. There’ve been a lot of briefings in the course of the last week. We will have a full House briefing later today that I will take part in, a full Senate briefing tomorrow. I believe the President will then talk to the American people.

But what I think is important here – I met with a friend of mine, who is a member of the British parliament, who was telling me that even here, still, there are some people who question the evidence, who aren’t sure that, in the post-Iraq moment, we’re not going to be confronting a pre-Iraq presentation. And there’s a lot of fear of that. I understand that fear. I was in the Congress when we voted on Iraq. And I know the deficits of the intelligence back then. And that’s why we took our time very, very carefully. Secretary Chuck Hagel was Senator Hagel, as I was Senator Kerry. And both of us are determined now, as appointed officials of the Obama Administration, to do our utter best not to have history suggest that we were less than thorough with respect to this intelligence.

So we took more time. The President instructed that he wanted this story told as fully as was possible without compromising intelligence sources and methods. The intelligence community was instructed to release more information than we ever have previously in this kind of a situation. And so we declassified things that normally would not be declassified. And there’s a risk in that. But the risk of not having people understand the full measure of the evidence, I think, the President decided was greater.

So what have we put out to people? What do we know about this? Notwithstanding President Assad’s interview, which has not yet been made fully public, we know that his regime gave orders to prepare for a chemical attack. We know that they deployed forces and put them in the places where this took place. We know, by tracing it physically, where the rockets came from, and where they landed. And it is no accident that they all came from regime-controlled territory, and all landed in opposition-controlled or contested territory. We know this. We know that within moments of them landing in that territory, the social media exploded with videos that we also know could not be contrived. And we’ve done various means of ascertaining that through technology check-up. So we know that those are real, and we see people dying, children, young kids not old enough to even speak, heaving for breath, spasming, struggling. And we see all of that within instants of this happening in the very area that we traced that the rockets landed.

Then we hear and know the regime is issuing more instructions to stop the attack, and we know they issue instructions to their people that they’re worried about the UN inspectors finding out what was going on. And then they shell the area that was attacked for four days with four times – the – I can’t remember the exact number of shells that had occurred in the previous 10 days. And we also know, through confirmation through other technical means with other countries, acknowledgement this happened. Syria and Iran have admitted there was a chemical attack. They just try to blame it on people who have no scientific capacity to do this, and where there is no evidence that they have any of the weaponry to be able to do it. And, most importantly, just as a matter of logic, tell me how they would do it from the center of the regime-controlled area and put it into their own people. It defies logic. It defies common sense here.

So, the evidence is powerful. And the question for all of us is: What are we going to do about it? Turn our backs? Have a moment of silence, where a dictator can, with impunity, threaten the rest of the world that he’s going to retaliate for his own criminal activity because he’s being held accountable? We live in a dangerous world, as it is, folks. And that kind of threat is nothing different from the threat we face every single day. And if we don’t stand up to it, we’ll face it more, and they will think they can intimidate anybody. I don’t believe that we should shy from this moment. The risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting. And everybody needs to stop and think about that hard.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: And let me just add to that before the next question, and I think Secretary Kerry makes – I think the logic of what he says about the evidence is very, very compelling. But on the BBC’s question also about the latest remarks of President Assad, we mustn’t fall into the trap of attaching too much credibility to the words of a leader, President Assad, who has presided over so many war crimes and crimes against humanity, has shown such a murderous disregard for the welfare of his own people, often denied events that have happened, refused in the past to admit the existence of chemical weapons now acknowledged. So let’s not fall into the trap of believing every word that comes out of the mouth of such a man.

Next question?

MODERATOR: Margaret Brennan from CBS.

QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, in that CBS interview that you just referenced, Bashar al-Assad said that the presentation that you’ve made reminds him, quote, his words, “of the big lie that Colin Powell said in front of the world about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” He says you personally have presented no evidence of a chemical weapons attack, just your confidence and your convictions. And he disputes the argument you just laid out, his argument saying his government relies on reality, not social media, and says Russian intelligence contradicts this false evidence. What is your response?

And secondly, is there anything at this point that his government could do or offer that would stop an attack?

SECRETARY KERRY: Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.

But with respect to the credibility issue, look, I just answered that. I just gave you real evidence, evidence that, as a former prosecutor in the United States, I could tell you I can take into a courtroom and get admitted. And I believe this man – I mean, I’ve personally tried people who have gone away for long prison sentences or for life for less evidence than we have of this. So I’m confident about the state of the evidence.

You can go to whitehouse.gov, read the unclassified report, and make your own judgments. What does he offer? Words that are contradicted by facts. And he doesn’t have a very strong record with respect to this question of credibility, because I personally visited him once at the instruction of the White House to confront him on his transfer of Scud missiles to Hezbollah, which we knew had taken place and had all kinds of facts, and he sat there and simply denied it to my face, notwithstanding the evidence I presented and what we showed him.

So this is a man who has just killed, through his regime, over 1,000 of his own citizens. Over 100,000, or about 100,000, have been murdered over the course of the last months. He sent Scud missiles into schools. He sends airplanes to napalm children. Everybody has seen that. This is a man without credibility. And so I will happily stand anywhere in the world with the evidence that we have against his words and his deception and his acts.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Okay. Third question?

MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, despite all of that evidence and all of the rhetoric you’ve deployed, the American voters, the British voters, and the French voters all opposed to military action in Syria. Why do you think that is? And what makes you think that you know better?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I would never claim personally to, quote, “know better.” There’s a certain arrogance in that that I learned long ago in American elected life is not – doesn’t serve you very well. But I would say that a lot of folks have a visceral reaction to public people presenting evidence post-Iraq, where they have serious doubts without sort of seeing all of the evidence, and not everybody has or does.

And also, there’s just an instant reaction by a lot of people to say, “Whoa, here we go again. This is going to be Iraq, this is going to be Afghanistan.” And I understand that. I am very sympathetic to that feeling. If I weren’t in the Administration and I didn’t have access to what I have, I’m sure I would have the exact same reaction. I’d probably be very questioning of public people. That’s why I’m standing up here today. That’s why I went to the European community. That’s why I will be briefing Congress, together with other members of the Administration. That’s why the President will talk to the American people. Because our responsibility is to share what we know, and to lead, and to try to bring people to a point where they can agree with us, hopefully.

Now, I believe that the aftermath of the Iraq experience and Afghanistan leave a lot of people saying, "We don’t want to see our young people coming back in a body bag," and so forth. But that’s not what we’re talking about. And what we have to do is make clear to people that this is – we’re not talking about war. We’re not going to war. We will not have people at risk in that way. We will be able to hold Bashar Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we’re talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.

Now, that has been engaged in previously on many different occasions. President Reagan had a – several hours or whatever effort to send a message to Qadhafi in the wake, I think, of Pan Am 103 and other terrorist activities. Other times people have engaged in making it clear that you’ve got to draw a line, and that there are consequences for actions when people step over those lines. If you don’t draw those lines, and the civilized world is not prepared to enforce those lines, you are giving complete license to people to do whatever they want and to feel that they can do so with impunity. If you want to send Iran and Hezbollah and Assad a congratulatory message, you guys can do what you want. You’d say – don’t do anything. We believe that’s dangerous. And we will face this down the road in some more significant way if we’re not prepared to take some kind of a stand now.

So that’s our argument. It’s not that I know better or someone knows better. It’s an argument that we believe is based on fact, on evidence, on history. And we ask people to take a close look at it and make their own judgments.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: One more question from the American media.

MODERATOR: Michael Gordon from The New York Times.

QUESTION: Yes, a question for Mr. Hague, the Foreign Secretary: Sir, now that the British parliament has decided against British participation in a potential military strike in Syria, is there any way in which your government might do more in Syria by, say, arming the opposition or upgrading nonlethal material assistance to the rebels? Or, in deference to public opinion at home and your parliament’s decision, is your government essentially relegated to standing on the sidelines and providing moral support?

And, sir, would you support military action by the Obama Administration, even if the American Congress does not vote for that action?

And then a question for Secretary Kerry: Sir, would the Obama Administration consider releasing still more intelligence, or perhaps some of the physical evidence of sarin use, which you have not yet provided, to counter Mr. Assad’s assertions? And is there any concrete intelligence that links Mr. Assad directly to the attack? Do you have such information or not? And do you think it matters if you don’t have such information? Thank you.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: On the first part of that question, you can gather from some of my opening remarks that the UK is heavily engaged in many other ways in trying to address the problems of the – thrown up by the crisis in Syria. The Prime Minister convened the meeting at the G-20 of nations and organizations looking at how we seriously ramp up the humanitarian assistance, renew diplomatic efforts on getting humanitarian access, which has been one of the great problems. This is a regime that actually tries to prevent humanitarian aid getting to its own people; in some cases, removes medical supplies or obstructs medical supplies from getting to the right place.

So, the Prime Minister convened that meeting with the strong support of the United States. We have led the way in the latest round of increased donations to the humanitarian effort with that extra 52 million pounds. So the UK is at the forefront, with the United States and others, of that piece of work. And it will become all the more important in the coming months.

We’re also doing a great deal to assist the stability of neighboring countries, and particularly Lebanon and Jordan, and the direct assistance we give to the Lebanese armed forces and to Jordan, including equipment to help the Jordanian armed forces cope on their border. We are heavily engaged at the United Nations and in all forums in the continuous efforts over recent months to bring about a Geneva 2 peace process.

And with the opposition with the Syrian National Coalition, who I met last week, and who I – who we can regard – who I – we can regard as a democratic, non-sectarian opposition, we do give them a great deal of practical, nonlethal assistance. That has included the delivery in recent days of equipment to protect against chemical attack, escape hoods, injections, detector paper that will help people to survive chemical attacks. We’re looking at doing more of that in the future.

And so, as you can see, the United Kingdom is, in very many ways, trying to bring about a – working with the United States and our other allies – trying to bring about a political solution in Syria and alleviate the suffering of the people there and prevent the spread of the crisis to other countries. So involving all of those ways, while fully respecting the vote in our parliament, on our attitude to a decision of the United States, that is for United States. We have our own constitution and parliamentary complications and rules. We will leave it to the United States to address their issues. These are two – the two great homes, two of the greatest homes of democracy in the world, and they each work in slightly different ways. And that – we each have to respect the way each other’s democracy works. And we do.

John?

SECRETARY KERRY: And we do. That’s for sure. I don’t know – honestly, I just don’t know whether the President will make a decision to release more, whether there is a consensus that more needs to be released. We have released an unprecedented amount of information. And obviously, there is a risk in some of this, because you can conceivably, in certain circumstances, compromise your ability to be able to intercept a plot or track what terrorists are thinking about and planning. And so you have to be very, very careful in those judgments, and that’s exactly what the intelligence community – that’s why it took a while to get to where we are.

But – and this is very, very important – but the elected representatives of the American people, members of Congress, have a right to go to the intelligence committees and to the intelligence community and be briefed. So it’s not being hidden from people. And they can be the judges of that additional intelligence that they see or don’t see, which is how a republic works.

With respect to Assad directly, et cetera, the chemical weapons in Syria we have tracked for some period of time now are controlled in a very tight manner by the Assad regime. And it is Bashar al-Assad and Maher al-Assad, his brother, and a general who are the three people who have control over the movement and use of chemical weapons. But under any circumstances, the Assad regime is the Assad regime. And the regime issues orders. And we have high-level regime that have been caught giving these instructions and engaging in these preparations with results going directly to President Assad. And we’re aware of that.

So we have no issue about the question here of responsibility. There is none. The Assad regime is the Assad regime. They control these weapons. They have a huge stock of these weapons, a very threatening level stock that remains. And that’s why this issue is of such consequence and so important. And there is no issue whatsoever in the mind of the intelligence community or the Administration, or certainly in the minds of all those people like Senator Feinstein, who is the head of the Intelligence Committee and Saxby Chambliss, the ranking member, and others who have come to a conclusion that the regime, in fact, engaged in this activity.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

JOHN KERRY'S REMARKS WITH AMBASSADOR MARTIN INDYK ON ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATIONS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks With Ambassador Martin Indyk
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Press Briefing Room
Washington, DC
July 29, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Good morning, everybody. Well, as you all know, it’s taken many hours and many trips to make possible the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. And the negotiators are now en route to Washington, even as we speak here. And I will have more to say about the journey to this moment and what our hopes are after our initial meetings conclude tomorrow.
This effort began with President Obama’s historic trip to Israel and Ramallah in March of this year. And without his commitment, without his conversations there, and without his engagement in this initiative, we would not be here today. The President charged me directly with the responsibility to explore fully the possibility of resuming talks. And in our meetings with President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu, he conveyed his expectations for this process.


Getting to this resumption has also taken the courageous leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. And I salute both of them for their willingness to make difficult decisions and to advocate within their own countries and with their own leadership teams – countries with the Palestinian territories.

I would also like to recognize the important contributions of senior negotiators on both sides, particularly Minister Tzipi Livni and Saeb Erekat, both of whom really stood up and stood strong in the face of very tough criticism at home and whose unwavering commitment made the launch of these talks possible. I look forward to beginning work with them tonight.

Going forward, it’s no secret that this is a difficult process. If it were easy, it would have happened a long time. It’s no secret, therefore, that many difficult choices lie ahead for the negotiators and for the leaders as we seek reasonable compromises on tough, complicated, emotional, and symbolic issues. I think reasonable compromises has to be a keystone of all of this effort. I know the negotiations are going to be tough, but I also know that the consequences of not trying could be worse.

To help the parties navigate the path to peace and to avoid its many pitfalls, we’ll be very fortunate to have on our team on a day-to-day basis, working with the parties wherever they are negotiating a seasoned American diplomat, Ambassador Martin Indyk, who has agreed to take on this critical task at this crucial time as the UN – U.S. – excuse me – U.S. Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations. Assisting Martin will be – as his deputy and as a senior advisor to me – will be Frank Lowenstein, who has been working with me on this process from the beginning.

In his memoir about the peace process, Ambassador Indyk quotes a poem by Samuel Coleridge that begins, “If men could learn from history, what lessons it would teach us!” Ambassador Indyk brings to this challenge his deep appreciation for the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And from his service under President Clinton, Secretary Christopher, and Secretary Albright, he brings a deep appreciation for the art of U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East. That experience has earned Ambassador Indyk the respect of both sides, and they know that he has made the cause of peace his life mission. He knows what has worked and he knows what hasn’t worked, and he knows how important it is to get this right.

Ambassador Indyk is realistic. He understands that Israeli-Palestinian peace will not come easily and it will not happen overnight. But he also understands that there is now a path forward and we must follow that path with urgency. He understands that to ensure that lives are not needlessly lost, we have to ensure that opportunities are not needlessly lost. And he shares my belief that if the leaders on both sides continue to show strong leadership and a willingness to make those tough choices and a willingness to reasonably compromise, then peace is possible.

So Martin, I’m grateful that you’ve agreed to take a leave from your post at the Brookings Institution to serve once again in this most important role. And I know that you are eager to get to work, as am I. Martin.

AMBASSADOR INDYK: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for that generous introduction and for vesting in me such important responsibilities. I am deeply honored to serve you and to serve President Obama in your noble endeavor to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace. The fact that later today Israeli and Palestinian negotiators will sit down in this building to resume final status negotiations after a three-year hiatus is testament to your extraordinary tireless efforts, backed by President Obama, to try to resolve this intractable conflict.

President Obama made the case so eloquently in his historic speech in Jerusalem in March of this year when he argued to an audience of young Israelis that, quote, “Peace is necessary, peace is just, and peace is possible.” And you, Mr. Secretary, have proven him right. You’ve shown that it can be done.

I couldn’t agree more with President Obama. It’s been my conviction for 40 years that peace is possible since I experienced the agony of the 1973 Yom Kippur War as a student in Jerusalem. In those dark days, I witnessed firsthand how one of your predecessors, Henry Kissinger, brokered a ceasefire that ended the war and paved the way for peace between Israel and Egypt.

Because of your confidence that it could be done, you took up the challenge when most people thought you were on a mission impossible. And backed by the President, you drove the effort with persistence, patience, and creativity. As a result, today, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Mahmoud Abbas have made the tough decisions required to come back to the negotiating table.

I’m therefore deeply grateful to you and to President Obama for entrusting me with the mission of helping you take this breakthrough and turn it into a full-fledged Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. It is a daunting and humbling challenge, but one that I cannot desist from. I look forward with great excitement to working with you, President Abbas, and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and their teams, to do our best to achieve President Obama’s vision of two states living side-by-side in peace and security. I also look forward to working with the team that you are assembling, starting with Frank Lowenstein, who, as you said, has made such an important contribution to getting us to this point and who will be my partner in this endeavor.

Fifteen years ago my son, Jacob, who was 13 at the time, designed a screensaver for my computer. It consisted of a simple question that flashed across the screen constantly: Dad, is there peace in the Middle East yet? I guess you could say, Mr. Secretary, that he was one of the original skeptics. (Laughter.) But behind that skepticism was also a yearning. And for 15 years, I’ve only been able to answer him, “Not yet.” Perhaps, Mr. Secretary, through your efforts and our support, we may yet be able to tell Jake, and more importantly, all those young Israelis and Palestinians who yearn for a different, better tomorrow, that this time, we actually made it.

Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, all. We’ll see you later. Thank you.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS AT WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

Remarks to Special Program on Breaking the Impasse World Economic Forum
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Dead Sea, Jordan
May 26, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Klaus, thank you very much for a very generous introduction. And it is wonderful to be here with all of you. I have enjoyed participating in the World Economic Forum for many years, as Klaus said in his introduction. And Klaus, I think everybody here joins me in thanking you for creating this remarkable and important institution. It gives people a great opportunity, and we thank you. (Applause.)

I want to thank – let me say, Mr. President Abbas and Mr. President Peres, thank you so much for those comments. I have an agreement here which you both can come up and sign if you want. (Laughter and applause.) We’ll get there, we’ll get there, we’ll get there.

Your Royal Highnesses and your Excellencies and distinguished many guests, I want to first begin just by expressing a very special thank you to His Majesty, King Abdullah. I think all of us are honored to be in a hall that is named after his father, who fought hard for peace, and I thank him for his leadership. I thank King Abdullah for his leadership on so many issues in the region. (Applause.)

It’s also very special for me to be here with President Peres. He is a great friend. For many years I have been meeting with him in Israel or elsewhere around the world, and I have long admired him for his remarkable, eloquent, and steady leadership. And thank you very much, Shimon, for what you do. (Applause.)

I’m also very, very pleased that President Abbas would be here and share his thoughts with us. He, too, is a friend who I have gotten to know better and better. We meet frequently now, and we all count on him to continue to be the essential partner for peace at this critical juncture. Thank you, Mr. President, for being here. (Applause.)

It’s also a great pleasure to be in this remarkable country of Jordan, and I thank my counterpart Nasser Judeh, who had to get back to Amman. But I thank him for his hospitality always, but more importantly for his partnership as we navigate these tricky waters. And I want to say a special thank you to the Quartet Representative, former Prime Minister Tony Blair. (Applause.) He has never lost his passion for or interest in peace in this region. He has labored hard in these last years, and he is working diligently on a special project that I want to share with you in a few minutes.

I also want to acknowledge Chairwoman Kay Granger, who is here from the United States Congress. She is the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, and believe me, folks, she is critical to all of us here. (Applause.)

I spent the last week traveling through the Middle East and Africa, and I have spoken with national leaders, business leaders, community leaders, and young people. I just had a session with young people at the University of Addis Ababa earlier this morning. And we talked with them, as I have talked with all of these leaders, about the enormous choices that are before us – weighty decisions that confront us in the aftermath of the Arab Awakening – decisions that we need to make and reach before the demographic tipping points just around the corner begin to overwhelm us.

No one doubts that this is a very complex moment in international relations. But still, I don’t think that there is any secret about the conditions that are necessary for peace and stability to succeed. Those are: good governance, security, and economic opportunity. And so the real question for all of us, for President Abbas, President Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, all of us, is a very simple one: Will we, despite the historic hurdles, have the courage to make the choices that we know we need to make in order to break the stalemate and provide a change of life for people in this region?

How we answer that question will determine whether the popular revolutions that are transforming this region will indeed fulfill their promise. It will determine whether businesses and the booming youth populations across the Middle East and North Africa will realize their potential. It will determine whether we grasp the possibility of peace which I believe is actually within our reach.

I want to thank those who took part and are taking part and will continue to take part in the Breaking the Impasse. My good friends, Munib Masri, whom I have known and worked with and been to some of those private and quiet meetings with him in various places, and Yossi Vardi, thank you, both of you, for stepping up and being courageous. (Applause.) They represent a courageous and visionary group of people, civic and business leaders, Israelis and Palestinians who have I think the uncommon ability to look at an ageless stalemate and actually be able to see opportunities for progress.

And even as they found plenty to disagree on – and I understand they did in the course of their discussions – even as they fully understand the difficult history that is embedded in this conflict – they refuse to underestimate the potential for the future.

And that’s because Breaking the Impasse’s guiding principle is to respect the freedom and the dignity of all peoples.

I want you to think about that, and I want to put my comments about the peace process in a larger context, if I can for a minute.

As we all remember, it was the lack of that kind of basic respect that ignited the Arab Awakening. It started with a single protest – a street vendor who deserved the right to be able to sell his goods without police interruption and corruption. And then it spread to Cairo, where young Egyptians used their cell phones and tweeted and texted and Googled and called and summoned people to the cause. And they used the social media to organize and demand more jobs, more opportunity, and the liberty to embrace and direct their own destiny. In doing so, these individuals and these individual acts embraced values that are so powerful that they, against all probability, removed dictators who had served for years. And they did it in a matter of days.

Now, of course, there are sectarian and religious and ideological motivations to many of today’s clashes that have followed those events, but those events weren’t inspired by religious extremism or ideological extremism. They were driven by motivation for opportunity and a future.

And what is fundamentally driving the demand for change in this region is, in fact, generational. It’s about whether the massive populations of young people, still growing, has hope that there is something better on the horizon. It’s about opportunity and it’s about respect and it’s about dignity.

And the aspirations that are driving the extraordinary transformations that began in Tunisia and Tahrir Square – the same ones that sparked what has unraveled into a brutal civil war with some sectarian overtones at this point, those aspirations aren’t unique to any one country. They’re universal. They have driven all of history.

So we ignore the lessons of the Arab Awakening at our own peril. And with an important part of the world upside down, it is imperative that all of us channel our creativity and our energy into making sure that people actually do have better choices.

The public and private sectors alike – and this is where you all come into this. The public and private sectors alike have a fundamental responsibility to meet the demands of this moment. And one can’t do it without the other. We need you at the table, Munib and Yossi and all of you.

In fact, this moment is actually – this moment in history is actually one of the great stories of our time. But the ending remains unwritten, which is why what we’re doing here is actually important. Insh’allah, we get to write that ending.

And how we do that is what I want to talk to you about here today. We have to remember that the choices being made – whether they’re being made north of here in Syria, or south of here in Yemen, or just across the Jordan River in Jerusalem, or in Ramallah, or further west in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia – they all have something very important in common: They each offer two clear paths that really couldn’t be more different one from the other, and they couldn’t have more different consequences.

If we don’t eagerly grab this moment, we will condemn ourselves to future conflict. We are staring down a dangerous path filled with potential violence, with the capacity to harden divisions, increase instability. And as most here are very, very aware, this will be a path that will be haunted by violent extremists who rush to fill the vacuum filled by the failure of leadership.

As King Abdullah said here yesterday, extremism has "grown fat" on conflict. If we make the wrong choices or no choices at all, dangerous people will come to possess more of the world’s most dangerous weapons. We will face huge pressure on states from growing populations of refugees, just like the camps that are metastasizing just over here on the border of Jordan and Syria.

Now, everybody here knows it’s not that governments or people will purposefully choose that option. That’s not the concern. It’s that by failing to choose the alternative and failing to take the risks for peace and stability, those with power will make the worst possibilities inevitable.

So what is the other alternative? Let me talk about that a little bit.

Governments need to pay attention to governance. They need to be open, transparent, and accountable to people. And they need to be seen implementing a vision that addresses the needs of their people – the needs to be able to work, to get an education, to have an opportunity to be treated with that dignity and respect that brought people to Tahrir Square and to so many other causes in this region.

Countries like Egypt, Libya and Tunisia need to make the right choices, and that is a combination of building capacity – capacity for governance, capacity for security which doesn’t exist, capacity to provide jobs. They need to aggressively re-emerge into the global economic community.

And in making these choices, a significant part of the outcome of the Arab Awakening for certain will be defined by government, because the choices that government makes clearly will have an impact on the playing field. As Egypt moves toward the acceptance of the IMF and hopefully works to bring the opposition to the table, Egypt will be far stronger than if Egypt doesn’t choose to do those things.

But the burden, I want you to know, does not just lie within palaces and parliaments. There is a huge role for business to play here and a huge opportunity for you to share in the success. No one here should underestimate the degree to which the private sector can promote change and force critical choices, as well as impact the actions of government. The fact is that good governance, peace, and economic development necessarily go hand-in-hand.

And that’s why I believe it is time to put in place a new model for development. The old model is one that saw government make grants or give money government-to-government or invest directly in some infrastructure, some kind of public sector investment. The private sector pretty much did what the private sector thought was in the best interest of the private sector in terms of the bottom line. They did their own thing. And so while aid was government-to-government, there was a sort of division of responsibility, if you will.

In this new age, when there is such a greater amount of wealth, so much cash on the sidelines, and where we see so much pressure on governments in terms of their budgets, and where there is still such a great amount of great poverty, we need a new model for how we are going to bring order and open up the possibilities to the future. We need to partner with the private sector because it is clear that most governments don’t have the money, and in certain places, the private sector actually has a greater ability to move things faster than government does. Government can facilitate. Government can leverage. And in fact, government has gained skills and knowledge about how to do that in ways that we never had 10, 15, 20 years ago. And we can do it with greater skill than ever before.

The greater Middle East and many of the countries experiencing the upheaval at this time need to seize on this new model because the task of building stability by creating millions of jobs is urgent for all of us.

Now, one thing I want to make crystal clear, and President Peres mentioned this in his comments: The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not the cause of the Arab Awakening. But this fundamental principle of what economics can do to play a profound role in meeting the needs of both peoples is critical.

And that is what we’re hoping to do now in the West Bank.

As I mentioned earlier, I have asked Quartet Representative Tony Blair and many business leaders to join together. And Prime Minister Blair is shaping what I believe could be a groundbreaking plan to develop a healthy, sustainable, private-sector-led Palestinian economy that will transform the fortunes of a future Palestinian state, but also, significantly, transform the possibilities for Jordan and for Israel.

It is a plan for the Palestinian economy that is bigger, bolder and more ambitious than anything proposed since Oslo, more than 20 years ago now. And this, the intention of this plan, of all of its participants, is not to make it merely transformative, but frankly, to make it enormously powerful in the shaping of the possibilities of the future so that it is more transformative than incremental and different from anything that we have seen before.

To achieve that, these leaders have brought together a group of business experts, who have donated their time, who have come from around the world over the course of the last six weeks to make this project real and tangible and formidable – as we say, shovel-ready. They have come from all over the world because they believe in peace, and because they believe prosperity is both a promise and a product of peace.

This group includes leaders of some of the world’s largest corporations, I’m pleased to say. It includes renowned investors and some of the most brilliant business analysts out there – and some of the most committed. One of these senior business leaders actually just celebrated his 69th birthday in Jerusalem at the Colony Hotel after spending a 14-hour day in the West Bank trying to figure it out.

When others ask them, all of them, why they’re here, doing this on their own time, the unanimous answer is: "Because we want a better future for both Israeli children and Palestinian children."

Their plan begins with encouraging local, regional and international business leaders to, and to encourage government leaders in various parts of the world. I raised this issue with the President of China, with the Prime Minister of Japan, with all of our European leaders, and everywhere – with the Brazilian Foreign Minister a few days ago, with the New Zealand Foreign Minister. All of them have on the tip of their tongues the idea that we can make peace in the Middle East and need to, and all of them are committed to be part of this effort in order to change life on the ground.

The fact is that we are looking to mobilize some $4 billion of investment. And this team of experts – private citizens, donating their time – are here right now. They’re analyzing the opportunities in tourism, construction, light manufacturing, building materials, energy, agriculture, and information and communications technology.

This group will make recommendations to the Palestinians. They’re not going to decide anything. The Palestinians will decide that in their normal course of governance. But they will analyze and make recommendations on a set of choices that can dramatically lift the economy.

The preliminary results already reported to me by Prime Minister Blair and by the folks working with him are stunning: These experts believe that we can increase the Palestinian GDP by as much as 50 percent over three years. Their most optimistic estimates foresee enough new jobs to cut unemployment by nearly two-thirds – to 8 percent, down from 21 percent today – and to increase the median annual wage along with it, by as much as 40 percent.

These experts hope that with their plan in full force, agriculture can either double or triple. Tourism can triple. Home construction can produce up to 100,000 jobs over the next three years, and many of them would be energy efficient.

Ultimately, as the investment climate in the West Bank and Gaza improves, so will the potential for a financial self-sufficient Palestinian Authority that will not have to rely as much on foreign aid. So just think, my friends – we are talking about a place with just over 4 million people in a small geographic area. When you’re talking about $4 billion or more and this kind of economic effort, you are talking about something that is absolutely achievable.

I am happy to say that both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas support this initiative, knowing that just as people find the dignity in a good job, a nation finds pride by functioning and growing an economy that can stand on its own two feet. This will help build the future.

Now, is this fantasy? I don’t think so, because there are already great examples of investment and entrepreneurship that are working in the West Bank.

So we know it can be done – but we’ve never experienced the kind of concentrated effort that this group is talking about bringing to the table.

Now, everyone here also knows how much more can be done if we lift some of the barriers to doing business, build confidence, bring people together. I just ask you to imagine the benefits from a new, open market next door, a new wave of foreign investment that could flow into both Israel and Palestine – and Jordan, and all of them share it.

The effect that could echo throughout the region, and if we prove that this can work here, that can become a model for what can work in other places that are facing similar confrontations.

So my friends, as we gather on the shore of the Dead Sea, a destination unlike any other destination in the world, it’s worth noting the key role that tourism could play in all of this. It’s just one element of the broad sector analysis that I talked about, but it is one of the best opportunities for both countries, for all of the region, for economic vitality and for worldwide use of its reputation.

Today, the Palestinian Authority – the Palestinian Territories attract fewer tourists than Yemen. Even Israel’s tourism is not fully met. Until 2011, Egypt, Jordan and Syria all attracted significantly more tourists than Israel. And despite all the incredible rich archaeological and religious sites in Israel, Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza, together they still attract fewer tourists than the United Arab Emirates.

There is just no question whatsoever – ask Tony Blair, ask the people working on this effort – there is no question whatsoever that the powerful combination of investment in business and investment in peace – risks both worth taking – could turn all of this all around. Imagine a welcoming part of the world that boasts the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the site of the Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, the Western Wall, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, and more of the world’s other great sites that have drawn tourists and religious pilgrims for centuries.

Most importantly, the success of this this new approach to development could, in fact, become its own example, its own model for the Sahel, for the Maghreb, for the Arabian Peninsula, and beyond. Foreign direct investment – private investment, leveraged investment, visionary investment – has the ability to be able to change the world.

Now, maybe you can get a sense that I actually believe in the potential that we have the power to unleash. But this effort – and this is critical, critical to what was said by both of our speakers before – this effort is only part of the answer, and it will not blossom to its full potential without the other critical part of the equation.

As we learned in the Arab Awakening, as long as prospects for economic advancement remain weak, so do the prospects for peace and stability.

But the opposite is true. The economics will never work properly or fully without the political process. The economic approach is absolutely not – Mr. President Abbas, the economic approach is not a substitute for the political approach. The political approach is essential and it is our top priority. (Applause.) In fact, none of this vision – but it’s good to have the vision, it’s good to know where you want to go, it’s good to know what’s possible – but none of it will happen without the context of the two-state solution.

And the consequences of prolonging the status quo in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is simply in no one’s interest.

We are compelled to come here today to the Dead Sea in the contexts of Breaking the Impasse to ask: If we don’t break the age-old deadlock, if we don’t create the conditions for economic opportunity and responsive, representative governments, where does all this go?

The absence of peace is, in fact, perpetual war, even if it’s low intensity. Are we ready? Do we want to live with a permanent intifada? Most important, the Palestinian Authority, to its credit and credit to the leadership of President Abbas, has taken great risks and invested deeply in a policy of nonviolence in a region where not a lot of people always adopt that in these circumstances. If this experiment is allowed to fail, what is going to replace it? (Applause.)

The truth is that when considering the security of Israelis or Palestinians, the greatest existential threat and the greatest economic threat to both sides is the lack of peace, and the ugly realities that are festering under the surface, capable of catching fire at any time. To not try to head these off would be tragic and it would be irresponsible.

Now, I have been around long enough and I have heard all the arguments against working for Middle East peace. It is famously reputed to be diplomatic quicksand. I am familiar with the cynicism and the skepticism. And after so much disappointment on all sides, I can understand exactly where it comes from.

So of course now, there is huge cynicism about this journey and it greets any push for peace. But cynicism has never built anything, certainly not a state. (Applause.) It is true that the challenge of peace is formidable. But let me say unequivocally: the necessity for peace is much greater.

Indeed, right now the strategic case for peace based on the two-state solution – a secure state of Israel and a viable, independent state of Palestine – the case for that has never been stronger. We talked earlier about the turmoil in the region. There is a reason for that discussion, because everyone feels the uncertainty and the instability as the Middle East slowly releases itself from the past and tries to forge a new and a democratic future.

It’s now clear that the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians is not the cause, as I mentioned. But it’s equally clear that the resolution of the conflict would bring enormous gains in the political and social environment of the region and help to symbolize and help to crystallize and help to advance the future of the entire region.

Most of all, those who suggest that a two-state solution is already a casualty of years of failed negotiation, and who say that we should search for a new and a different solution, my friends, they have noticeably failed to actually articulate one. And this is for a very simple reason: It is because there is no sustainable alternative solution that exists.

A greater Israel that would end up trying to swallow up the Palestinian people could only possibly survive in a state of institutionalized division and discord, a pale shadow of the democratic vision that motivated and animated the founders of Israel. (Applause.)

And any attempt by Palestinian politicians to wait out Israel in the hope that somehow, some day, the Israelis will just give up and go away, or that somehow they can win a one-state solution, that will only result in decades of futile confrontation and eventual disillusion, and perhaps worse, violence.

So we have no choice but to try again for peace and to find it. We have no alternative to its inevitable difficulty but of challenging and moving down that path. We have to go down that path. And we should negotiate, recognizing that despite all the frustrations, large majorities in the Palestinian Territories and in Israel both support a two-state solution. They support peace. (Applause.) What they need more than anything from all of us is a renewal of hope that peace can actually be achieved. Now, I am well aware that the credibility of anything that is called a "peace process" right now is at a very low base. I know that. I understand that.

But if we give up, we give to those who don’t want reform, or who don’t have the stomach to make the tough choices, an excuse for their own inaction. And two great peoples could come to be known not just for their proud cultures and their contributions to history, or their entrepreneurial energy, but they could come to be known for what they failed to do – or even worse, what they refused to do.

My friends, beyond all the strategies and all the maneuvering, all the politics, there really are some simple realities.

The second graders I have personally seen and met in Sderot, they shouldn’t have to worry about running into a bunker as part of their school day in order to avoid rockets.

And the little girls that I saw playing in rubble in Gaza when I visited it four years ago, they should be able to grow up in a neighborhood where the playgrounds aren’t made of debris, and their lives are not determined by terrorists in their midst.

And the shop owners that I met in Ramallah, some just the other day, they should know that their businesses can flourish without the restrictions that are placed on them, or without the threat of violence.

Time is not on anyone’s side in this – (applause) – and changes on the ground could rob all of us of the possibilities of peace.

The leaders of the Arab Initiative, as have been mentioned earlier, with whom I met in Washington last month, moved and changed and offered an update of the Arab Peace Initiative, and they are committed to making a dramatic step towards peace.

And we all hope and pray that Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas don’t allow this conflict to outlast their administrations.

Negotiations can’t succeed if you don’t negotiate. We are reaching a critical point where tough decisions have to be made. And I just ask all of you to keep your eyes focused on what can really be done here. Think of all that can change. That’s what should motivate us. With renewed and normal relations between Israel and the Arab nations, we could end the regional boycott of Israeli goods. New markets would open up and would connect to one another, and jobs would follow in large numbers.

With renewed strength, the new neighbor states of Israel and Palestine could actually become another hub in the Middle East for technology, finance, tourism. Israel and Palestine and Jordan together could become an international finance center, attracting companies that simply won’t take that risk today.

With a bold, fresh approach like the West Bank project that Tony Blair is heading up and that we discussed earlier, other things can develop here.

In the end, the only way for Israel to survive and thrive as a secure, Jewish, democratic and economically successful state is through the realization of an independent and viable Palestine.

And the only way Palestinians will obtain their sovereignty and the opportunity that comes with it is through direct negotiations with Israelis for a solution of two states for two peoples.

And I say to you, President Abbas: No one is talking about temporary borders. We are talking about an end-of-conflict, end-of-claims peace. (Applause.)

So I come here today to say at this important gathering on Break the Impasse that President Obama is deeply committed to this solution. That is why he came to Israel in an effort to try to open up the people’s minds and hopes and ideas about those possibilities of peace. And I believe that people in both places responded to his call for action.

The only way that both states can succeed side-by-side is with the kind of work that we’re doing here today and the kind of work that must go on in these next months in negotiations.

The true significance of the Arab Awakening isn’t about what was torn down, but it’s about what the people of this region can now choose to build up.

Similarly, the story of the stalemate between Israelis and Palestinians simply can no longer be about all the times that we have been let down by failed efforts. It has to be about the very real ways that we can lift people up, create opportunity, and create the conditions for peace.

I think everybody here believes in this possibility. And standing here with you at the lowest point on earth, I believe we can actually reach for the heights. And I hope we will get about the business of doing it.

Thank you. (Applause.)