Learn More about Democratic Challenger Senator Hillary Clinton:
AICE does not rate or endorse any candidate for political office. This page is for informational purposes only.

Iran Threat:

[Editoral Note: Hillary Clinton voted to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group. Obama and Edwards criticized Clinton’s vote. Edwards said the vote paved the way for Bush to go to war with Iran. Clinton’s campaign disagreed and she subsequently added her name to legislation by Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb requiring Bush to seek explicit congressional authorization to invade Iran.]

“An attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation from the United States,” said New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who proposed that the US create a security umbrella for Israel and other allies in the region to protect them from a nuclear Iran. “So would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under the security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions,” she added. The New York senator pointed to Saudi Arabia and the UAE as states that had concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We’ve got to deter other countries from feeling they have to acquire nuclear weapons,” she said. (The Jerusalem Post, April 17, 2008)

“He’s [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] not someone who would have the opportunity to meet with me in the White House,” said Clinton. She added that the Bush administration had “failed” in its efforts “to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us, and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond,” and that she would redouble efforts at sanctions and diplomacy. (The Jerusalem Post, April 17, 2008)

Regarding Iran, Clinton recently reiterated her refusal to address the “hypothetical question” of what she would do if Tehran gained nuclear capability in the next four years. Instead, she called for increased sanctions and low-level talks with Iran to head off that possibility. (JTA, March 27, 2008)

“If we ever did have to take action against Iran, we would have demonstrated to the rest of the world that we had exhausted other possibilities.” (JTA, March 27, 2008)

“I am not in favor of this rush for war, but I’m also not in favor of doing nothing.” (The Washington Post, October 31, 2007)

“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading.” (The Jerusalem Post, October 14, 2007)

“Iran poses a threat to our allies and our interests in the region and beyond. The Iranian president has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has issued bellicose statements calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. His statements are even more disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the regime’s quest to acquire nuclear weapons. This regime also uses its influence and resources in the region to support terrorist elements that attack Israel. Hezbollah's attack on Israel last summer, using Iranian weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders.

U.S. policy must be clear, unequivocal and effective. We cannot permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. We also must not let go unanswered its state sponsorship of terrorism. We must not stand silent in the face of the brutal repression of women and minorities. And we must not tolerate threats to the existence of Israel.

That is why we must work together to enforce meaningful, tough economic sanctions on the Iran regime, and why I have joined with Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to cosponsor legislation that would close the loophole which enables international corporations such as Halliburton to evade these sanctions through foreign subsidiaries. It is essential that the international community and civil society come together to demonstrate our commitment and our determination in the face of the Iranian regime. In doing so, we are promoting the values of peace and freedom in the region and in the world.” (Statement to the Israel Project, July 19, 2007)

“As the outrageous, hateful comments of Iran’s President demonstrate, Iran is a threat not just to Israel, but to the entire Middle East and beyond, including the United States. It is a threat because of its nuclear ambitions, and also because it uses its influence and its revenues to support terrorist elements that are destabilizing the entire Middle East. As I have said before, Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.

I believe that the rush to war in Iraq caused the United States to lose focus on defeating Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the broader war on terror. Today, the situation in Iraq has left Iran in a much stronger position in the region.

One of the most important ways we should begin to improve America's ability to deal with this and other threats is to begin the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. That is why I have advocated beginning a phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq within 90 days.

While there may be a need for some small residual force to prevent a resurgent Al-Qaeda, we must make clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases or permanent occupation. By beginning the process of withdrawing our troops from Iraq, we will be better positioned to face the threat posed by Iran's regional and nuclear ambitions.

Being able to deal with dangers such as those posed by Iran, means the United States should be prepared to employ a wide range of options, including diplomacy. We must continue to maintain economic pressure on the Iranian regime by effective sanctions.

The initiation of diplomatic discussions with Iran by the Bush Administration is a positive step, since I believe that vigorous diplomatic actions must also be part of our efforts.”

“The Hamas takeover of Gaza is deeply disturbing, increasing the danger to Israeli citizens already under attack from rockets fired indiscriminately from the Gaza territory. In the last few weeks, these rockets have killed three people and wounded many more.

The United States must continue to support our ally, Israel, as it defends itself against these attacks and insist that Hamas cannot be recognized until it renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel’s right to exist.

Israel and the international community are committed to supporting the new government of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, strengthening the PA and its ability to meet its responsibilities, in direct contrast to Hamas.

The appointment of former British Prime Minster Tony Blair as the new Quartet Representative will support efforts to create viable and lasting Palestinian government institutions, strengthen the Palestinian economy, and ensure that the resulting benefits reach the Palestinian people.

I believe the United States should strongly support these efforts. There are not many good options at this difficult time, but the security of Israel and of the Middle East is best served by helping to create a Palestinian Authority that can provide tangible benefits and a better life for its people, in contrast to the violence and isolation offered by Hamas.” (The Jerusalem Post, June 21, 2007)

“Iran poses a threat to our allies and our interests in the region and beyond, including the United States. The Iranian president has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has issued a series of bellicose statements calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. His statements are even more disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the regime's quest to acquire nuclear weapons.

The Iranian regime also uses its influence and resources in the region to support terrorist elements. Hizbullah’s attack against Israel last summer, using Iranian weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders. In light of this threat to our security, US policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons; no option can be taken off the table.

We must continue to put pressure on Iran through economic sanctions. I recently joined Sen. Frank Lautenberg in sponsoring a measure to strengthen existing sanction provisions in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which prohibits American companies from conducting business with nations that sponsor terrorism. Some American companies have exploited a loophole in the law by creating foreign subsidiaries to do business with rogue nations like Iran. Our legislation would close the loophole.

Among other options that should be pursued is a process of direct engagement with Iran, as recommended by many, including the Iraq Study Group. During the Cold War, we spoke to the Soviet Union while thousands of missiles were pointed at our cities. That was a smart strategy used by Republican and Democratic Presidents, which worked to the benefit of our national security, even though it was often a difficult one.

I am encouraged that the Administration is now engaging in talks with Iran but hope that they will include the nuclear issue among the items that they raise with the Iranians. As we face the refusal of Iran to suspend their nuclear ambitions, we need to deliver a strong message that we will not stand by and tolerate this behavior. We should be able to deliver that message forcefully through direct talks.” (The Jerusalem Post, June 7, 2007)

“The Holocaust denial conference hosted last December by the Iranian president was beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptable behavior. It is an insult to survivors and Allied solders who bore witness to Nazi atrocities. To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in the company of the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists. The conference only added urgency to the need to deal with Iran.

U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. As I have said for a long time, no option should be taken off the table in dealing with this threat. But the United States should first try to engage Iran in dialogue. I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it, but at least such a dialogue would give the United States more information about its adversary, possibly provide some leverage and -- if military force ultimately is necessary -- show the world that other options had been exhausted first.” (Address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's Northeast region, February 1, 2007)

“A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, but it is not just unacceptable to Israel and the United States. It must be unacceptable to the entire world, starting with the European governments and people.” (AIPAC conference, May 2005)

Hamas and the situation in Gaza:

Clinton described both Hamas and Hezbollah as existential threats to Israel, but said she would consider enterting into limited talks with Hamas if Israel deemed such an outreach was in its best interests. (JTA, March 27, 2008)

“The Hamas takeover of Gaza is deeply disturbing, increasing the danger to Israeli citizens already under attack from rockets fired indiscriminately from the Gaza territory. In the last few weeks, these rockets have killed three people and wounded many more.

The United States must continue to support our ally, Israel, as it defends itself against these attacks and insist that Hamas cannot be recognized until it renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel's right to exist.

Israel and the international community are committed to supporting the new government of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, strengthening the PA and its ability to meet its responsibilities, in direct contrast to Hamas.

The appointment of former British Prime Minster Tony Blair as the new Quartet Representative will support efforts to create viable and lasting Palestinian government institutions, strengthen the Palestinian economy, and ensure that the resulting benefits reach the Palestinian people.

I believe the United States should strongly support these efforts. There are not many good options at this difficult time, but the security of Israel and of the Middle East is best served by helping to create a Palestinian Authority that can provide tangible benefits and a better life for its people, in contrast to the violence and isolation offered by Hamas.” (The Jerusalem Post, July 5, 2007)

“Hamas and Hezbollah must give up terrorism and accept Israel as a reality. Both groups have to return three captured Israeli soldiers without condition.” (Address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s Northeast region, February 1, 2007)

Peace with the Palestinians:

Sen. Clinton said that American efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table have often resulted in a reduction of violence, even if a lasting peace has proved elusive. “I think what we did in the ‘90s was beneficial in a strategic way and led to a period where, at time, there were no attacks being made, no suicide bombings and no deaths,” she said in a telephone interview with the Jewish Exponent, referring to the diplomacy undertaken by her husband when he was in office, specifically in the late 1990s, when terrorism declined following a rash of attacks in 1995 and 1996. Clinton added that while the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat may have rejected peace in 2000, she did not regret the Oslo process. (JTA, March 27, 2008)

“It was a mistake for the Bush administration to take a hands-off approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel is more vulnerable today than it was eight years ago,” said Clinton, who further criticized President Bush’s push for elections in the West Bank and Gaza back in 2006, as well as the inclusion of Hamas in those elections. She added that the administration got back on track with the process begun late last year at Annapolis, Maryland, although she is concerned that the weakened political positions of both Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may complicate the efforts. (JTA, March 27, 2008)

Negotiations with Syria and Lebanon:

In response to the Israel-Syria peace talks: “It is incumbent on the United States to support Israel in its efforts to make peace with its Arab neighbors. It is in America’s strategic interest to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, and it’s a fulfillment of our commitment to Israel’s security and well-being, living in peace with its neighbors,” said Lee Feinstein, the Clinton campaign’s director of national security. “As Hillary Clinton has said before, when she is president, she will, once again, make working to resolve conflict in the Middle East a priority.” (The Jerusalem Post, May 22, 2008)

The United States-Israel Relationship:

“Israel is an important ally and strategic partner of the United States. Our nations are united by shared values, a commitment to democracy, and a belief in the dignity of men and women. We are also united by a common strategic interest in fighting back against the forces of terrorism and nihilism.

Israel and the United States have worked together for years on national security objectives, including developing innovative defense technologies. Today, as the United States deals with issues of homeland security, we are also learning from Israel’s experience in preventing attacks and preparing emergency responses.

I believe the relationship between our countries should be that between allies, based on mutual respect, appreciating our shared values and a shared commitment to national security policies that reduce the danger of terrorist attacks on free and democratic nations anywhere in the world.

Recognizing the very real challenges we face, I believe we must think rationally and strategically - and jointly - about how our values and our beliefs can be translated into effective action.

It is not enough for us to say the right things; we've got to be smart and tough enough to do the right things that will protect American and Israeli interests now and forever. It is with these principles in mind that my Administration would work to sustain, nourish, and enhance the vital partnership between America and Israel.”(The Jerusalem Post, May 24, 2007)

“We believe that Israelis have the right to live in their country without the constant threat of terrorism, war and rocket fire...The unbreakable bond between Israel and the United States are based on shared interests and rooted in strength...Israel is a beacon of democracy in a tyrannical neighborhood, and the threats it faces from Hezbollah and Iran are threats not just to Israel but to the entire Middle East, the United States and the rest of the world. ” (Address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's Northeast region, February 1, 2007)

“The security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East. This has been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than 50 years and we must not - dare not - waver from this commitment.” (Princeton University, January 2006)

“The top priority of any government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, and that is why I have been a strong supporter of Israel’s right to build a security barrier to keep terrorists out. I have taken the International Court of Justice to task for questioning Israel's right to build the fence.” (Israel and Jordan Trip Report from her web site, November 13, 2005)

“Israel is a beacon of what democracy can and should mean.” (AIPAC conference, May 2005)

Speech to 2008 AIPAC Policy Conference

It is wonderful being here with all of you, among so many friends, and I feel like this is a giant family reunion, the largest AIPAC gathering in history. And I feel like I am among family, and thank you for the warm welcome. I want to thank my friend, Lonny Kaplan, for his leadership and that introduction.

I also want to thank Howard Friedman for his leadership as president and to congratulate David Victor on his election.

And I want to commend Howard Kohr, AIPAC's distinguished board of directors, and all of the AIPAC staff who work so hard, every day, all year-round.

And I particularly want to acknowledge the many students in the audience from around the country, the future of AIPAC and the U.S.- Israel relationship.

I want to pay tribute to one member of the AIPAC family, and my very good friend, who is not with us this year, Congressman Tom Lantos.

Tom bore witness to the worst of human cruelty and devoted his life to stopping it. He taught us to stand up for what's right, even when it's hard, especially when it's hard. And we will always cherish his memory and his wonderful family will always be in our hearts.

And, finally, I want to thank all of you for coming to Washington, D.C., once again to stand strong with Israel and to strengthen that special bond between our countries.

Being here today, I am reminded of a passage in Isaiah. Upon your walls, oh, Jerusalem, I have posted sentinels. All day and all night, they shall never be silent."

Just like the sentinels of old, you are never silent, you never grow weary, and you never stop standing up for and fighting for Israel.

Now, I know there are some who say you shouldn't be here, who say speaking up for a strong, American-Israeli relationship is somehow at odds with America's interests. Well, I believe that speaking up for a strong American-Israeli relationship is essential to our interests.

And I reject that our common commitment to Israel's survival and well-being is not in the best interests of the United States of America. I think you not only have a right to stand up for what you believe in; you have a responsibility as Americans to do so. You are acting in the highest American tradition, exercising a right enshrined in our Constitution, the right to petition your government, and I applaud you for it.

Of course, I am privileged to represent one of the largest Jewish constituencies in the world. Is there anyone from New York even here in this audience today?

I know you'll be talking to your members of Congress this week, but you won't need to ask me where I stand, because you already know the answer: I stand with you and for you.

The United States and Israel have an incredible bond, as allies, friends, as partners. We have shared interests. We have shared ideals. And these are not just common values. They are our core values: freedom, democracy, human rights, women's rights, a robust civil society.

And we stand with Israel, because Israel demonstrates that democracy can flourish in the most difficult conditions, because its very existence is a stinging rebuke to hatred and the Holocaust, because in defeating terror Israel's cause is our cause.

And because Israel's struggle is a struggle not just for the Jewish people, but for all people who want to live in peace and security under a democratically elected government.

President Harry Truman certainly understood the importance of Israel. He recognized the new nation just 11 minutes after David Ben- Gurion read the proclamation of independence. So it is with joy, and some sense of relief, that we celebrate the 60th anniversary of that day.

And for all of the trials and tears, what a remarkable 60 years it has been.

From my first trip to Israel in 1982 to my most recent, I have seen firsthand what Israel has achieved. The desert is blooming again. And we can be so proud of the role that America has played in this success.

Every American president since Truman has recognized the special relationship and has made it stronger. Israel is stronger because of us and because of you.

But even as we celebrate these achievements, we know the work is far from over. Israel is not yet safe. The values that Israel represents are not yet secure.

Our hearts go out in particular to the courageous citizens of cities, like Sderot and Ashkelon, who live in fear that a rocket will fall on their homes and their children's schools at any moment.

I have seen these security challenges firsthand. In 2002, I went to the Sbarro pizzeria with then-President Olmert just a few weeks after that tragic suicide bombing there. I visited with victims of terrorism in the Hadassah hospital.

I've been to Gilo and seen the security fence protecting Israeli families from attacks in their own homes. And I have stood up and spoken out for their right to have that protective fence. And as a…

As a senator from New York -- who has talked way too much -- I've seen the tragic toll of terrorism on 9/11 here at home, as well. My support for Israel does not come recently or lightly. I know it is right in my head, in my heart, and in my gut.

And that is exactly the commitment we need in our next president, a Democratic president, because the Democratic Party's strong commitment for the state of Israel since the days of Harry Truman endures today. It is one of our party's most cherished values, and it will continue under the next Democratic president.

I know Senator Obama understands what it is at stake here. It has been an honor to contest these primaries with him. It is an honor to call him my friend.

And let me be very clear: I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel.

I know that Senator Obama shares my view that the next president must be ready to say to the world: America's position is unchanging, our resolve unyielding, our stance nonnegotiable. The United States stands with Israel, now and forever.

And let me underscore that I believe we need a Democrat in the White House next January because it is not just Israel that faces challenges in the 21st century. America does, too. The next president will inherit grave problems, difficult threats, a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq, America's reputation at an all-time low, a continued threat of terrorism at home and abroad.

President Bush has moved us in the wrong direction. For all the strong rhetoric you heard from Senator McCain on Monday, he will continue the same failed policies in Iraq and weaken our security, making the Middle East a more dangerous place.

America needs a new beginning in our foreign policy to make our country stronger and, frankly, to make our position in the world more credible, to give us the strategic leverage back that we have lost over the last seven years.

We cannot stand strongly with Israel if we are not strong at home and if we are not respected and considered strong and the leader of the world everywhere else.

We have a rare moment of opportunity to change America's course and restore our standing in the world. And we must seize this moment by leading our friends and allies in building the world we want, rather than simply defending against a world we fear.

We must build a world that will be safer, more prosperous, and more just. I believe security and opportunity go hand-in-hand. When children have hope, a real belief that there is opportunity ahead for them, we help to dry up the swamp of fear and pessimism that breeds terrorism.

That means supporting education, not just for boys, but for girls, too. It also means that real economic opportunity can't grow where there is no security and that opportunity alone is not enough to overcome extremism.

I have been very specific about how I would make this new foreign policy vision that I share and I think many of you do, as well, a reality. Today, I want to lay out three principles that I hope will guide us in all that we do with Israel and why it is important to put that relationship into the broader context of what foreign policy is in the best interests of the United States.

First, I have a bedrock commitment to Israel's security, because Israel's security is critical to our security.

When Islamic extremists, including the leaders of nations, proclaim, “Death to America, death to Israel,” we understand that our two nations are fighting a shared threat. And those of us in this room know this bond is so much more personal than any security agreement or risk assessment.

We know a shared threat can also mean shared sorrow. When eight young men were killed in a Jerusalem yeshiva in March, including a 16- year-old American named Abraham David Moses, we were united in our grief.

So I strongly support Israel's right to self-defense. Israel has both the right and the obligation to defend its citizens. And I believe America should aid in that defense.

I am proud to support the $2.5 billion in security assistance for Israel in the foreign aid bill. And I am committed to making sure that Israel maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats.

Part of our commitment to Israel's security is a commitment to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I'm deeply moved by the legacies of so many leaders who have sacrificed so much in the quest for peace, like my friend, Yitzhak Rabin, and the warrior, Ariel Sharon, who is in our thoughts and prayers.

We must support Israel in making the tough choices for peace. And I believe that U.S. diplomacy is critical to making progress. And consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region.

We need to talk to all sides, but all parties must know we will always stand with Israel in its struggle for peace and security. Israel should know that the United States will never pressure her to make unilateral concessions or to impose a made-in-America solution.

Palestinians will need to do their part by renouncing violence and teaching their children the ways of peace and tolerance. We must show the Palestinians and the moderate Arabs that the path of reconciliation is better than the terrorists' road to self- destruction.

I am deeply concerned about the growing threat in Gaza. Hamas has built a military force equipped with sophisticated weapons from Iran . Hamas' campaign of terror has claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent Israelis. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. It has shown no commitment to peace or to renouncing violence.

So we must be clear about how we feel about our next president negotiating directly with Hamas. Here's how I feel. Until Hamas renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel, negotiating with Hamas is unacceptable for the United States.

And we must continue to demand a return of the Israeli soldiers captured by Hamas and by Hezbollah, Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev, Gilad Shalit. I've been privileged to know Karnit Goldwasser, Ehud's wife, and I was proud to sponsor the resolution that passed the Senate calling for their immediate release.

I will not stop fighting and pressing for these soldiers to come home until they finally are safely home with the families that are waiting for them.

The second principle is a simple one: no nuclear weapons for Iran.

Iran is a country whose leaders, whose president denies the Holocaust. He defies the international community. His government trains, funds and arms Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists in attacking Israeli civilians. He threatens to destroy Israel. Just this week, he said that Israel is about to die and will soon be erased.

We can never let Iran obtain nuclear weapons. The next president will have to deal with the Iranian challenge from day one. This is not just in Israel's interests; it is in America's interests and the world's interests. And this is a threat that I take very seriously.

I'm a co-sponsor of the Iran Nonproliferation Act. I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization.

I have also said that should Iran ever, ever contemplate using nuclear weapons against Israel, they must understand what the consequences will be to them.

But we must do everything in our power to prevent such an unthinkable day from ever happening. And the best way to do that is to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the first place.

We should start by developing an international consensus against Iran 's nuclear program, with a set of tougher sanctions if Iran continues to defy the international community. We should also work with Israel and moderate Arab neighbors to roll back Iran 's influence in that region.

If the Iranian government wants to become a responsible member of the international community, we would wholeheartedly welcome that change. But Iran simply cannot be allowed to continue its current behavior.

And I wish to underscore: I believe that we are further behind in constraining Iran today because of the failed policies of President Bush than we would have been had we taken a much more aggressive engagement course earlier.

That is why it is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late.

Now, my third principle is standing up against hatred and anti- Semitism wherever it is found. And it is not only Israelis and Jews who need to be speaking out against anti-Semitism. It is every fair- thinking person who understands that it directly affects you, as well.

I have spoken out for years against anti-Semitism in Palestinian schools. I am appalled still today that Palestinian textbooks reject Israel's right to exist and describe Israel's founding as a catastrophe that is unprecedented in history. That is not education; it is indoctrination.

We also know that the Saudis have textbooks describing Jews as wicked. And we were all revolted when Iran 's president held a conference to deny the Holocaust.

But our vigilance against anti-Semitism must go beyond the Middle East. It must receive no quarter anywhere in the world.

The next president will face a test of resolve on this issue at the 2009 Durban conference, also called Durban II. I will never forget how the world's first conference against racism became a mockery of itself when it descended into anti-Semitism and hatred. The debacle at Durban must never be repeated.

We should take very strong action to ensure anti-Semitism is kept off the agenda at Durban II. And if those efforts fail, I believe the United States should boycott that conference.

The challenge of fighting anti-Semitism is, indeed, great. But we know it is possible to change hearts and minds. We saw it recently, when Magen David Adom was finally included in the International Red Cross, after years of being singled out for being Israeli.

On one of my trips to Israel, I met an MDA member named Natan, an Ethiopian Jew who had saved many innocent lives when he tackled a terrorist carrying explosives. It was a miracle that Natan had survived. His valor was extraordinary. And it was just what you would expect from a member of the MDA.

That's why I was so proud to take up the MDA's cause, sponsoring legislation and speaking out. And I was very pleased, as all of us were, when the International Red Cross righted this historic wrong.

On a personal level, I was honored when Natan accepted my invitation to come to New York and walk with me in our Salute to Israel parade. In a way, we are still walking together.

And the image of this very dignified Ethiopian Jew, now an Israeli, walking in that parade down Fifth Avenue, bearing the scars of his heroic rescue effort to prevent the terrorists from destroying more lives was one that I will carry with me my entire life, because that was really Israel.

It wasn't just everyone on the sides of the streets waving, but it was this proud young man who had kept Jewish traditions alive as a long string of those for centuries who had done so and who had finally come home to Israel and had given so much to protect the country that had given him a new life.

So while it can be easy to be discouraged when we look at the challenges ahead, we can never lose our resolve and never give up hope. What gives me not just hope, but the underlying reality that can be delivered by those who work together, is that the power of the values we share with Israel are such an unshakable and unbreakable bond and the difference that America can make is so critical.

Let me leave you with just this glimpse of why America matters and why AIPAC matters. In her memoir, one of my personal heroines, Golda Meir, wrote about the wonderful moment 60 years ago when Israel joined the family of nations and America stood at her side.

Here's what she wrote: “A few minutes after midnight, my phone rang. It had been ringing all evening and, as I ran to answer it, I wondered what bad news I would hear now.”

Doesn't that sound familiar?

(LAUGHTER)

“But the voice at the other end of the phone sounded jubilant. 'Golda, are you listening? Truman has recognized us.'”

“I can't remember what I said or did, but I remember how I felt. It was like a miracle, and I was filled with joy and relief.”

That was the decision that won one American president made to be there for Israel at a time of need. That is a decision that the next president must be ready to make, as well.

To the members of AIPAC, just know your cause is just, your voice is strong, Washington and the world is listening, so go forth and speak up for what you know is right.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel, and God bless America. Thank you all very much.

(Speech to 2008 AIPAC Policy Conference, June 4, 2008 in Washington, D.C.)

Foreign Policy Advisers

In addition to each candidate’s personal views, another important aspect in evaluating candidates and their foreign policy agendas is to take a look at each candidate’s team of foreign policy and national security advisers. Below is a list of Senator Clinton’s foreign policy team:

Madeleine K. Albright, President Clinton’s secretary of state and now chairperson of the National Democratic Institute, foreign policy adviser

Samuel R. Berger, President Clinton’s national security adviser and now a principal at business consultancy Stonebridge, foreign policy adviser

Lt. Gen. Daniel William Christman, a former West Point superintendent and now senior vice president for international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, foreign policy adviser

Gen. Wesley K. Clark, President Clinton’s Kosovo commander and now a Democratic fundraiser, endorsed Sen. Clinton Sept. 15

John H. Dalton, President Clinton’s Navy secretary and now president of the Financial Services Roundtable’s Housing Policy Council, veterans and military retirees for Hillary

Lee Feinstein, a deputy in President Clinton’s State Department, national security coordinator

Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, a former New York Times correspondent and a former State and Defense Department official, informal adviser

Richard C. Holbrooke, President Clinton’s UN ambassador and broker of the Dayton Peace Accords (and now a Washington Post columnist), foreign policy adviser

Martin S. Indyk, President Clinton’s ambassador to Israel and now director of Brookings’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, foreign policy adviser

Gen. John M. (“Jack”) Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff who co-crafted the Iraq "surge" and is now a military analyst (sometimes for ABC news), military issues adviser

Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy, former deputy chief of staff for intelligence, veterans and military retirees for Hillary

Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick, President Clinton’s deputy national security adviser, organizes meetings of retired officers

Col. Andrew F. Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, briefed Hillary Clinton as well as Sen. John McCain and Gov. Bill Richardson

Vali Nasr, Naval Postgraduate School professor, Middle East adviser

Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings senior fellow and former Congressional Budget Office defense and foreign policy analyst, supporter

Rep. (and retired Vice Adm.) Joseph Sestak, veterans and military retirees for Hillary

Andrew Shapiro, Sen. Clinton’s Senate foreign policy staffer

Jeffrey H. Smith, former CIA general counsel and now a partner leading the public policy and government contracts group of law firm Arnold & Porter, national security adviser

Strobe Talbott, Brookings president, informal adviser

Togo D. West, President Clinton’s secretary for veterans affairs and former secretary of the Army, veterans and military retirees for Hillary

Former Amb. Joseph C. Wilson IV, the half of the Plamegate couple who criticized the administration for using questionable evidence to promote the Iraq war, endorsed Sen. Clinton July 16

(List published in the Washington Post, October 2, 2007)

2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign: Hillary Clinton