Excerpts of Speech Delivered by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Before the National Distinguished Leadership Awards Dinner

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations
of America⁽¹⁾

New York City

17 June 1996

….I view the victory of [Benjamin] Netanyahu and Likud as a
development that can, contrary to the conventional wisdom,
actually improve ties between Israel and the United
States.

It’s important to bear in mind that there is more to
the United States than the State Department Near East Bureau.
Not everyone in the United States — not everyone even in
Washington — views Israeli “settlements”
as inherently bad. Not everyone believes that the key to peace is
Israeli relinquishment of territory. Not
everyone accepts Arafat’s peace promises at face
value. Not everyone is determined to ignore or excuse PLO
actions that violate those promises. And not everyone
yearns for Israel to hand the Golan Heights to
Syria and for the United States to station U.S. troops as
“peacekeepers” there.

Netanyahu says that Israel can enjoy peace only if it
safeguards its security. He disclaims interest in U.S.
peacekeepers and stresses instead the importance of Israeli
self-reliance. He demands that both sides — and not
just Israel — comply with peace agreements. And he highlights
the link between democracy and peace and warns that dictatorial,
police-state leadership in Syria and the Palestinian Authority
are major impediments to a reliable peace. These are themes that
make sense to many Americans. We recognize that Netanyahu
is advocating the kind of strong, morally confident,
peace-promoting policies for Israel that supporters of Ronald
Reagan believed (and still believe) the U.S. government should
adopt to protect our own country.

It’s significant that Bob Dole, in
congratulating Netanyahu after the election, stated:
“I well understand Likud’s emphasis on peace through
strength.” Netanyahu is being attacked as a
dangerous radical, indifferent to peace, by many commentators who
portrayed Ronald Reagan the same way. Reagan’s hard-headed
diplomacy — and his commitment to restoring our military
strength — helped create a better world. He made America more
powerful and more secure. He encouraged democratic changes in the
societies of our adversaries. These changes brought benefits to
the people in those societies, who came to have more freedom. And
the changes benefited us also, for democracy’s gains in Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union served the interests in peace
and security of ourselves and our allies.

If it were within Israel’s power to make peace in the
region, there would have been peace there decades ago; indeed,
there would never have been war to begin with. Those who
would promote Arab-Israeli peace should start with a clear view
of the nature of the problem. The chief reasons for the region’s
history of hostility and war are the deeply-rooted anti-Zionism
in much of the Arab world, the violent nature of Arab politics in
general, and the belief that through war, terrorism, intifada,
economic pressure, diplomatic attacks and unremitting hostility,
it may be possible to destroy Israel, or at least harm it enough
to wear down the Israelis’ resolve and eventually, even if it
takes a century or two, to overcome them.

Israel can have peace — that is, peace will be available
to Israel — only if attitudes, policies and politics change on
the Arab side. Much rhetoric out of Israel in recent
years, like that from many Clinton Administration officials
still, suggests that Israel could have peace if it simply changed
its own policies — if it “chose to pursue peace.” This
is a bad mistake. It is analogous to believing that the way to
make domestic crime disappear in America is for law-abiding
citizens somehow to change their behavior, perhaps by offering
concessions to the criminals. Israel cannot do anything that will
guarantee that its adversaries cease to be hostile or guarantee
that its Arab neighbors will have responsible, law-abiding and
stable political leadership. These are indispensable conditions
for Arab-Israeli peace, the conditions without which no peace
agreement can reasonably be deemed to have solved the problem.

This doesn’t mean, however, that peace is impossible or that
Israel can do nothing to enhance its prospects. Among Israel’s
wisest options is promoting or encouraging, to the extent it can,
demands for democratic reform among its Arab neighbors. I assume
Netanyahu had this in mind when, in his first post-election
speech, he committed himself with special emphasis to a fair,
democratic and humane relationship with Israel’s own Arab
citizens. The Middle East would be a better place if the
Arabs outside Israel had as much voice in their governments’
affairs, and commanded from the courts as much respect for human
rights, as do the Arabs inside Israel.

….Israel also enhances the prospects for peace by
showing itself as strong, resolute and morally confident rather
than weary, self-doubting and desperate for accommodation….If
its diplomacy is skillful, it can make itself appear
non-threatening and pragmatic, but at the same time guilt-free
and invulnerable to intimidation

….Here the United States can assist, though the Clinton
Administration unfortunately — despite some good intentions —
has been putting out unhelpful messages. The United
States should shore up Israel’s image as a powerful and permanent
party in the region. An element of Israel’s strength is
the unwavering nature of U.S. support for Israeli security and
for basic Israeli national interests. That…is why it’s
crucial for the United States to stand with Israel on Jerusalem.
Jerusalem is the heart of the legitimacy issue — the issue of
the Jewish people’s right to a state in their ancient homeland.

This was the thinking behind the effort of Bob Dole and myself
to spearhead the Jerusalem embassy legislation that was enacted
last fall. U.S. law now declares for the first time that
it is U.S. policy that Jerusalem be recognized as the capital of
Israel….The Clinton Administration fought this
legislation strenuously, though unsuccessfully. The President’s
argument was that we had to lure the PLO toward peace by keeping
open the question of America’s position on Jerusalem….We
advocated that the PLO be told forthrightly and unapologetically
that the United States supported the Israeli government’s claims
regarding Israel’s own capital.

….The fight over the Jerusalem embassy law reflected
a fundamental difference in views over how in general the United
States and Israel can best promote Arab-Israeli peace. The
difference, one might say, pits the Ronald Reagan approach to
peace and security against that of Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.

….[Netanyahu] is decidedly in the Reagan school. This, of
course, doesn’t guarantee him sympathy and support from certain
State Department offices or from our leading news organs. On the
contrary, it practically guarantees the opposite. President
Reagan, after all, got little sympathy or support from those
quarters in his time. The point is that Netanyahu’s principles
are neither radical nor unfamiliar, especially…to those of us
who are conservatives.

He says he is determined to do certain things: To keep Israel
strong. To liberalize its economy. To revitalize his country’s
admirable religious and Zionist values. To cultivate democratic
tolerance and respect for human rights both domestically and
among Israel’s neighbors. And to demonstrate how all of the above
can maximize Israel’s chances of reaching sincere and stable
peace arrangements with each of those neighbors.

In expounding and implementing these ideas, Netanyahu
will get invaluable assistance from Natan Sharansky, whose
brilliant success in the recent elections has propelled him to
the Cabinet….Their new government’s message should
resonate with Americans who respect realism, common sense and
sound principles. By stressing Israeli self-reliance, the
new government can revive the admiration that Israel has
traditionally enjoyed among Americans who appreciate an ally that
has resolved to defend itself.

1. Emphasis added throughout.