Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
These records pertain to the Middle East Peace process.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
286186049
label
Jewish Mailings [2]: President's Madrid Speech - David Duke
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
286186049
contentType
document
title
Jewish Mailings [2]: President's Madrid Speech - David Duke
description
These records pertain to the Middle East Peace process.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
06273-050
collections
Records of the White House Office of Public Liaison (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Kathy Jeavons' Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
286186049
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a63d35a973f547d0
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2003-0259-F
2003-0259-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Public Liaison, White House Office of
Series:
Jeavons, Kathy, Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
06273
Folder ID Number:
06273-050
Folder Title:
Jewish Mailings [2]: President's Madrid Speech - David Duke
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
0
0
0
O
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 7, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR OPINION LEADERS
FROM:
BOBBIE KILBERG BK
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR PUBLIC LIAISON
KATHY JEAVONS VS
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC LIAISON
SUBJECT:
President Bush's recent speech in Madrid and
comments on David Duke
Enclosed please find the following:
1)
President Bush's October 30 speech at the opening of
the Middle East Peace Conference in Madrid;
2)
President Bush's November 6 statement repudiating again
David Duke's candidacy for Governor of Louisiana.
For your information, the President will be holding a
roundtable discussion with a group of American Jewish leaders in
New York City on November 12 to discuss the peace process.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Madrid, Spain)
For Immediate Release
October 30, 1991
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT OPENING SESSION OF THE
MIDDLE EAST PEACE CONFERENCE
Salon de las Columnas
Royal Palace
Madrid, Spain
10:38 A.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Prime Minister Gonzalez, and President
Gorbachev, Excellencies. Let me begin by thanking the government
of Spain for hosting this historic gathering. with short notice,
the Spanish people and their leaders stepped forward to make
available this magnificent setting. Let us hope that this
conference of Madrid will mark the beginning of a new chapter in
the history of the Middle East.
I also want to express at the outset my pleasure at the
presence of our fellow co-sponsor, President Gorbachev. At a
time of momentous challenges at home, President Gorbachev and his
senior associates have demonstrated their intent to engage the
Soviet Union as a force for positive change in the Middle East.
This sends a powerful signal to all those who long for peace.
We come to Madrid on a mission of hope -- to begin work
on a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement to the conflict
in the Middle East. We come here to seek peace for a part of the
world that in the long memory of man has known far too much
hatred, anguish and war. I can think of no endeavor more worthy
-- or more necessary.
Our objective must be clear and straightforward. It is
not simply to end the state of war in the Middle East and replace
it with a state of nonbelligerency. This is not enough; this
would not last. Rather, we seek peace, real peace. And by real
peace I mean treaties. Security. Diplomatic relations.
Economic relations. Trade. Investment. Cultural Exchange.
Even tourism.
What we seek is a Middle East where vast resources are
no longer devoted to armaments. A Middle East where young people
no longer have to dedicate and, all too often, give their lives
to combat. A Middle East no longer victimized by fear and
terror. A Middle East where normal men and women lead normal
lives.
Let no one mistake the magnitude of this challenge.
The struggle we seek to end has a long and painful history.
Every life lost -- every outrage, every act of violence -- is
etched deep in the hearts and history of the people of this
region. Theirs is a history that weighs heavily against hope.
And yet, history need not be man's master.
MORE
- 2 -
I expect that some will say that what I am suggesting
is impossible. But think back. Who back in 1945 would have
thought that France and Germany, bitter rivals for nearly a
century, would become allies in the aftermath of World War II?
And who two years ago would have predicted that the Berlin Wall
would come down? And who in the early 1960s would have believed
that the Cold War would come to a peaceful end, replaced by
cooperation -- exemplified by the fact that the United States and
the Soviet Union are here today -- not as rivals, but as
partners, as Prime Minister Gonzalez pointed out.
No, peace in the Middle East need not be a dream.
Peace is possible. The Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty is striking
proof that former adversaries can make and sustain peace. And
moreover, parties in the Middle East have respected agreements,
not only in the Sinai, but on the Golan Heights as well.
The fact that we are all gathered here today for the
first time attests to a new potential for peace. Each of us has
taken an important step toward real peace by meeting here in
Madrid. All the formulas on paper, all the pious declarations in
the world won't bring peace if there is no practical mechanism
for moving ahead.
Peace will only come as the result of direct
negotiations, compromise, give-and-take. Peace cannot be imposed
from the outside by the United States or anyone else. While we
will continue to do everything possible to help the parties
overcome obstacles, peace must come from within.
We come here to Madrid as realists. We do not expect
peace to be negotiated in a day, or a week, or a month, or even a
year. It will take time; indeed, it should take time -- time for
parties so long at war to learn to talk to one another, to listen
to one another. Time to heal old wounds and build trust. In
this quest, time need not be the enemy of progress.
What we envision is a process of direct negotiations
proceeding along two tracks, one between Israel and the Arab
states; the other between Israel and the Palestinians.
Negotiations are to be conducted on the basis of U.N. Security
Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
The real work will not happen here in the plenary
session, but in direct bilateral negotiations. This conference
cannot impose a settlement on the participants or veto
agreements; and just as important, the conference can only be
reconvened with the consent of every participant. Progress is in
the hands of the parties who must live with the consequences.
Soon after the bilateral talks commence, parties will
convene as well to organize multilateral negotiations. These
will focus on issues that cross national boundaries and are
common to the region: arms control, water, refugee concerns,
economic development. Progress in these fora is not intended as
a substitute for what must be decided in the bilateral talks; to
the contrary, progress in the multilateral issues can help create
an atmosphere in which long-standing bilateral disputes can more
easily be settled.
For Israel and the Palestinians, a framework already
exists for diplomacy. Negotiations will be conducted in phases,
beginning with talks on interim self-government arrangements. We
aim to reach agreement within one year. And once agreed, interim
self-government arrangements will last for five years; beginning
the third year, negotiations will commence on permanent status.
MORE
- 3 -
No one can say with any precision what the end result will be; in
our view, something must be developed, something acceptable to
Israel, the Palestinians and Jordan, that gives the Palestinian
people meaningful control over their own lives and fate and
provides for the acceptance and security of Israel.
We can all appreciate that both Israelis and
Palestinians are worried about compromise, worried about
compromising even the smallest point for fear it becomes a
precedent for what really matters. But no one should avoid
compromise on interim arrangements for a simple reason: nothing
agreed to now will prejudice permanent status negotiations. To
the contrary, these subsequent negotiations will be determined on
their own merits.
Peace cannot depend upon promises alone. Real peace --
lasting peace -- must be based upon security for all states and
peoples, including Israel. For too long the Israeli people have
lived in fear, surrounded by an unaccepting Arab world. Now is
the ideal moment for the Arab world to demonstrate that attitudes
have changed, that the Arab world is willing to live in peace
with Israel and make allowances for Israel's reasonable security
needs.
We know that peace must also be based on fairness. In
the absence of fairness, there will be no legitimacy -- no
stability. This applies above all to the Palestinian people,
many of whom have known turmoil and frustration above all else.
Israel now has an opportunity to demonstrate that it is willing
to enter into a new relationship with its Palestinian neighbors;
one predicated upon mutual respect and cooperation.
Throughout the Middle East, we seek a stable and
enduring settlement. We've not defined what this means; indeed,
I make these points with no map showing where the final borders
are to be drawn. Nevertheless, we believe territorial compromise
is essential for peace. Boundaries should reflect the quality of
both security and political arrangements. The United States is
prepared to accept whatever the parties themselves find
acceptable. What we seek, as I said on March 6, is a solution
said on March 6, that meets the twin tests of fairness and
security.
I know -- I expect we all know -- that these
negotiations will not be easy. I know, too, that these
negotiations will not be smooth. There will be disagreement and
criticism, setbacks -- who knows -- possibly interruptions.
Negotiation and compromise are always painful. Success will
escape us if we focus solely upon what is being given up.
We must fix our vision on what real peace would bring.
Peace, after all, means not just avoiding war and the costs of
preparing for it. The Middle East is blessed with great
resources: physical, financial and, yes, above all, human. New
opportunities are within reach -- if we only have the vision to
embrace them.
To succeed, we must recognize that peace is in the
interest of all parties -- war, absolute advantage of none. The
alternative to peace in the Middle East is a future of violence
and waste and tragedy. In any future war lurks the danger of
weapons of mass destruction. As we learned in the Gulf war,
modern arsenals make it possible to attack urban areas -- to put
the lives of innocent men, women and children at risk, to
transform city streets, schools and children's playgrounds into
battlefields.
MORE
- 4 -
Today, we can decide to take a different path to the
future -- to avoid conflict. I call upon all parties to avoid
unilateral acts, be they words or deeds, that would invite
retaliation or, worse yet, prejudice or even threaten this
process itself. I call upon all parties to consider taking
measures that will bolster mutual confidence and trust -- steps
that signal a sincere commitment to reconciliation.
I want to say something about the role of the United
States of America. We played an active role in making this
conference possible; both the Secretary of State, Jim Baker, and
I will play an active role in helping the process succeed.
Toward this end, we've provided written assurances to Israel, to
Syria, to Jordan, Lebanon and the Palestinians. In the spirit of
openness and honesty, we will brief all parties on the assurances
that we have provided to the other. We're prepared to extend
guarantees, provide technology and support, if that is what peace
requires. And we will call upon our friends and allies in Europe
and in Asia to join with us in providing resources so that peace
and prosperity go hand in hand.
Outsiders can assist, but in the end, it is up to the
peoples and governments of the Middle East to shape the future of
the Middle East. It is their opportunity and it is their
responsibility to do all that they can to take advantage of this
gathering, this historic gathering, and what it symbolizes and
what it promises.
NO one should assume that the opportunity before us to
make peace will remain if we fail to seize the moment.
Ironically, this is an opportunity born of war -- the destruction
of past wars, the fear of future wars. The time has come to put
an end to war -- the time has come to choose peace.
Speaking for the American people, I want to reaffirm
that the United States is prepared to facilitate the search for
peace, to be a catalyst, as we've been in the past and as we've
been very recently. We seek only one thing, and this we seek not
for ourselves, but for the peoples of the area and particularly
the children: that this and future generations of the Middle
Bast may know the meaning and blessing of peace.
We have seen too many generations of children whose
haunted eyes show only fear -- too many funerals for their
brothers and sisters, the mothers and fathers who died too soon
-- too much hatred, too little love. And if we cannot summon the
courage to lay down the past for ourselves, let us resolve to do
it for the children.
May God bless and guide the work of this conference,
and may this conference set us on the path of peace. Thank you.
(Applause.)
END
10:55 A.M. (L)
PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT BEFORE
DEPARTURE TO ROME, ITALY AND THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS
6:49 A.M. EST
November 6, 1991
Q
Are you going to urge voters in Louisiana to vote
against David Duke?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, strongly. We had a great victory
in Mississippi yesterday. And Kirk Fordice won a good clean race on
fundamental issues. And it is truly unfortunate that the state next
door in Louisiana -- and they vote next week for governor -- do not
have the choice between two good men. We differ with Senator
Wofford, but I think the Pennsylvanians had a choice between two
decent, good men. And I've got to be careful because I do not want
to tell the voters of Louisiana how to cast their ballots next week.
That is a right that we all cherish; it's a personal right. And so
they've got to make their own decisions.
But when someone asserts that the Holocaust never took
place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of
public trust. And when someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it
is inconceivable that such a person can legitimately aspire to
leadership -- in a leadership role in a free society. And when
someone has a long record, an ugly record, of racism and of bigotry,
that record simply cannot be erased by the glib rhetoric of a
political campaign.
So I believe that David Duke is an insincere charlatan.
I believe he is attempting to hoodwink the voters of Louisiana, and I
believe that he should be rejected for what he is and what he stands
for.