tv Campaign 2020 Sens. Sanders and Bennet Remarks at J Street Conference CSPAN October 30, 2019 2:12pm-3:00pm EDT
mississippi. you can see the president's comments live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local capable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> now more from the j street conference who share their views on the state of u.s., israel relations. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome the hosts of pod save the world.
♪ >> hello, again. thank you for having us back. i guess the first panel went okay. without further adieu, we're going to welcome the senior senator from colorado, michael benn bennet. [ applause ] ♪ >> senator, thank you for -- [ cheers and applause ] >> i have to say, there are 85 students here from colorado college. [ cheers and applause ] >> all right. >> more than any other delegation in the place. [ cheers and applause ]
>> thank you for joining j street's panel on civility at baseball games, we're thrilled to have you. just kidding. we think that's stupid too. we've been asking everyone -- >> it's nice to see you guys, by the way. this place ran a lot better when you were here. [ applause ] >> now we have a podcast. >> graduated to reading underwear ads, so things are going well. we're asking everybody this question, senator elizabeth warren, mayor pete buttigieg, we assume senator sanders have been open to the idea of conditioning aid to israel if they annexes the west bank or settlement construction. curious where you land on whether or not you would consider holding aid -- >> i would say not probably where those guys landed.
in making the decision, i would want to know and have a strong understanding of what the affect would be on the domestic politics in israel if we decided we were going to with hold that aid. would that strengthen the position of the people who's actions we are objecting to which sometimes happened. when you live with mitch mcconnell, i would say i wouldn't want anybody i know to be as cynical as mitch mcconnell s but i do think we need to be as strategic as mitch mcconnell is and i think we need to be as strategic as prime minister netanyahu is and i'm not sure we always have been. >> just to push you on this a little bit, it does feel like the context has changed. the status quo means more settlement construction, the potential of eliminating the possibility of a contiguous palestinian state because of that construction.
don't we need -- >> i don't have any disagreement with that at all. and i don't think they should be building settlements and i think we should be doing everything we can to limit the settlements that are being built. i wonder weather there are bigger ways for us to think about how to do that in terms of the totality of the relationship that we have. if we pick one instrument like that, in this town, that very quickly is going to become a partisan litmus test for where people are on israel and i think what we really need is a president who's confident enough in their leadership and confident enough in what we're trying to do to push back. and i would push back, if i were president, on a range of dimensions in an effort to try to keep the settlements from being built, for the reason that you said, which is already, the chances of a two-state solution, both in terms of geography, but i would say in terms of politics, it has -- far less of
a prospect today than it did the day that i joined the senate which doesn't mean we can't give up. that's why what you guys are doing is so important. [ applause ] >> i want to approach this from two directions. the first will be this question of pressure and then the next question i have is more about affirmation. on the pressure side, you make a good point, senator, which is oftentimes when even the degree of pressure that president obama pursued which is largely rhetorical, can invite some retrenchment in israeli politics, at the same time given the direction of the status quo, the question becomes what are the levers available? tommy talked about assistance. another one we wrestled with was the u.n. process. and at the end of the
administration, we abstained on a resolution essentially, you know, critiquing israeli settlement construction along the same lines as what we would say in our own words, also condemned on the palestinian side. i know you were uncomfortable with that. >> right. >> what are the -- what about the diplomatic international context? is there any way in which given that the u.n. has been one sided on this issue, would you rule out that the u.n. is a potential -- >> i would not rule it out. i would not rule it out. and i think that, you know, you've got a prime minister who's talking about annexation. that's a different situation than we were confronted with before and we need to be paying attention to that now. in other words, we need to be thinking about -- of course we have no idea what the government is that's going to be formed. if he had been able to form the government and we went through on his campaign promises on
annexation, that's a profound question for the united states to answer and i think we should be very careful about it, extremely deliberate about it and it's a huge deal if you were to try to do something like that. i was thinking on my way over here, i was having some conversations with some people, that this is -- we're about 25 years from the anniversary of the peace with jordan. there you had a case where, you know, you had in -- in king hussein and more so in clinton, people who had in effect domestic constituencies in each other's countries and i think that was a powerful basis for the -- that's the affirmative way of thinking about, powerful basis of being able to create an enduring peace. i'm not saying it's not part of what a president would use. we are so off track now. these guys basically have a
permission slip from the trump administration to do whatever they want and that is one reason among about a billion why this guy should be a one-term president because we can't give them this permission slip. >> it sounds like you -- in you got to the extreme case of potential annexation, you would evaluate these different tools. the other way of looking at this too, though, you mentioned the political context in israel, for example, one of the things we struggled with was, you know -- is interesting by the end of the obama administration, barack obama polled at 70% or 80% at almost every country in the world with the exception of russia, israel and probably other countries in the middle east. and we tried to communicate to the israeli people, we were dealing with a prime minister who was working against president obama, particularly in the last few years, if you were president, given your long history on these issues, what
would you try to do to reach israeli public opinion. >> i would go to israel and spend time in israel and i would meet with students and families and do whatever i could do to encourage people-to-people relationship. the politicians cannot be relied on here. we have a president who ran for office saying i alone can fix it. do you remember that? that's what he said. there's almost less american or unpatriotic that you could say and we were very careless with our democracy. we gave it up. we are each of us responsible for that and it's never going to get back to where it needs to be unless we act and make sure we restore the democratic republic that's being eroded. i think we need to do the same thing in the people-to-people relationship between us and israel. we have a prime minister of israel today who refers to donald trump as the best friend
israel ever had. and we have never had, i don't think, as anti-immigrant a president as the one we have, we have never had as anti-refugee a president, we've never had as anti-democratic a president, never had a president who didn't believe in the separation of powers, who didn't believe in freedom of the press, who didn't belief in all of the things that make us a plurlistic society and it says everything you need to know about what he views is important in the relationship, you have a president who supports his specific, you know, domestic ambitions and that can't be what the united states stands for. [ applause ] >> zoom out a bit for a second.
i think in washington we often talk about the arab spring in the past tense. if you look at iraq, lebanon right now, look at sudan, recently, these are ongoing protest movements and the challenges that led to these movements whether it's corruption or inequality or hunger for universal rights and freedoms, for example, those challenges still remain. how would you view your job as president to try to push those countries to loosen up or deal with corruption to try to let off some steam before these movements topple governments or create more instability or anything we've seen in the last decade. >> i think the most porimportan thing for us to do is set an example for the rest of the world. it's not necessarily to lecture the rest of the world. but i can't tell you -- a lot of people in this room know that my
mom and folks were polish jews and spent two years there after -- my mom was separated from her parents during the war and so she called me when america was separating from the -- parents at the border saying what are you doing about this? i see myself in these kids. and they went to stockholm and mexico city for a year and then they came back here to america to rebuild their shattered lives and i have met migrants all over america, never have i met ones with as thick of an accent with my grandparents had, yet they were the greatest patriots i have ever known. and so personally i know how important it is for us to set a moral example of a free society. not that we've been perfect. we've never before perfect, but the whole world is still waiting for us to set that example and in the middle east, people are waiting for it more than anything else because that's
where the violence is. i think we have an opportunity, if we can find it, to support those little pockets here and there of civic engagement in the middle east where there are universities and other organizations to help build some green shoots there. i think we should not be overly pollyannaish about how difficult it's going to be. and it's interesting the role social media has played in propping up tyrants. this is something that that generation of colorado college kids out there and people like it are going to have to figure out how to process because we are still ten years later, ten years after the arab spring sprung, dealing with affects of social media that i don't think
any three of us whoould have ev predicted back then. >> one of the issues we worked on was the iran nuclear agreement. your vote on that was very important. you look like you're suffering some of the same ptsd as i did from those debates. going forward, you've talked about the need to pursue an expanded agreement. given the current status quo where the iranians have responded in kind, would you first try to get back to the existing agreement as a platform to then seek an expanded agreement or would you seek an entirely new kind of set of negotiations with the iranians -- >> i don't think -- first of all, in stating the obvious for this group, let me just state it because it wasn't obvious in 2016 when i voted for the iran nuclear deal and i was the most vulnerable democrat who was up for election.
and understanding how persuasive president obama can be, but back then, there was nothing -- the only thing i knew about the iran deal really was that if i voted for it and they attacked me for it, it was the one thing i couldn't recover from. and i still voted for it because i thought it was the right thing to do. i say all that only to say this, by the time donald trump was president, the things that couldn't have been known when i voted for it were known and not the least of which was our intelligence agencies and those all over the world said that iran was more than a year from breaking out to a nuclear weapon. they has been two to three months when we put the iran deal in place. there's a bunch of other things that cascade from that. but that's a pretty important thing. first, catastrophic mistake and anybody here who thinks that
he's intimidated iran by doing what he's doing, you only need to study the reports of the iranian attack on the saudi arabian oil infrastructure, the precision of that attack and how that region is now having to think about their national security in the wake of a blown up iran nuclear deal and in the wake of their demonstrated capacity which we didn't understand before to that degree. and, therefore, i would get the parties back together and say, where do you want to start, including the iranians, including our allies and say, shall we start with the deal as it was. i would be happy to start with a deal as it was. are there other things we would like to negotiate? as you know, i was never thrilled about the term of the agreement. president obama's argument which i think is totally legitimate was, if you're going to get something on ballistic missiles, you better believe they're going to want something for that. so we should sit down with our
eyes open and try to create the best deal we can. i think there are reasons to believe that there might be things that we could get that we didn't get before. there may be things iran would want that iran didn't get before, but i would not imagine that iran would be approaching this negotiation from a position of weakness, i think is the point i want to make. this administration has been so wrong when it comes to iran, when it comes -- both to blowing up the nuclear deal, not responding to the -- what iran was doing in the gulf or, you know, in saudi arabia, they've created a very dangers stew of unpredictable -- not to mention what they just did in syria, which is obviously hugely beneficial to iran. >> it's complicated. >> it's complicated. >> you mentioned saudi arabia. it seems like the majority of this administration's policies have been run through saudi arabia. jared kushner is whatsapping mohammed bin salman and cooking
up whatever idiotic thing he's cooking up and president trump is claiming he's ending wars in the middle east while sending service members to the area. how would you think about right sizing the u.s. relationship with saudi arabia, especially understanding the tensions between the saudis and iran? >> that's the reason why he's having to -- not have to, but why he's sending 15,000 troops is because if he hadn't made the decision, trump, if he hadn't made the decision he made on the iran deal, he wouldn't be sending 15,000 troops to saudi arabia. and does anybody remember, you know -- well, let me just -- let's say -- how do i say it this way? we don't have a great history of having u.s. troops in saudi arabia, i think is a way to think about this. and so it's as if -- look, i think if i had to define the trump doctrine for you, you
would be take really bad situations and make them as bad as you possibly can. that's what he's doing. and tit's why we have to get hi out. on saudi arabia, we shouldn't be sending those 15,000 troops and when an ally of ours or as the execution of a journalist who is based in washington, d.c. and who goes to turkey on a pretext and finds himself murdered by a crew of guys who have been sent there by saudi arabia, that needs to be answered by us. and not only has it not been answered, we've rewarded that kind of behavior. [ applause ] >> and, by the way, as with the iran nuclear deal, pushing back on that is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength. it is an affirmation of who we are and the significant leadership position that this country needs to take in the
world. that is something that has been completely undercut and eroded by donald trump, yeah, and you know by who else? the republicans in congress who let him get away with this over and over and over again. [ applause ] >> one last question. i think you've spoken very powerfulfully about the int interconnection of our democracy. and one of the things that has been troubling, it's not just the united states where we've seen some erosion in the norms of our democracy, it's also israel. how do you approach this issue in terms of how does the united states reset its democratic example, but go to a democratic ally like israel and try to revitalize our shared democratic example. how would you express concerns
over some of the issues we've seen in israeli politics where there have been suggestions that minority rights should be downgraded, how do you address this issue of our shared democratic examples? >> i mentioned the word plurlism earlier, i think israel has challenges that we don't have look those regards because sectarian differences. but that's the ultimate goal of a democracy which is making sure that you're giving every citizen the opportunity to participate on the theory that the more voices you have the stronger you are. i don't think that's the way the prime minister views its, i don't think that's how the president view it. the founders of our country did not set out to create a country
where we would agree with each other. that's not the point. the point of living in a republic is that you would have disagreements with each other and their hope was out of those disagreements we would create more durable and more imaginative solutions than any kick or tyrant can come up with on their own. that's how it's supposed to work. [ applause ] >> we have lost that in our politics in america. i would say israel has lost that as well and where i would plead, again, is to the young people who are here. i was on a college campus this weekend, there's a reason why democracy pours so poorly among young people in america, because they've never seen a democracy that worked very well, and it pours poorly among them because our country has been at war for 20 years. and you have to look for the example in our past. we've never been perfect.
those same founders were the ones who perpetuated human slavery in the united states of america. other americans had to end that. and those people, i view as founders, like frederick douglass is a founder just like the guys who wrote the constitution. [ applause ] >> and the people that, you know, fought mostly women for my daughters to have the right to vote and for all the women here who have the right to vote, they're founders as well. and what i would say to you guys and to others in israel is whether you like it or not, and i think you should like the, that's what all of you are too. this democracy doesn't found itself automatically. it's a question of what every single generation does to make the country more democratic, more fair and more free, because that in the end is how you strengthen a democracy, not weaken a democracy, and we face the same -- we face different
issues, but we face the same challenges and same goals as israel and i believe going forward we should be allies both in terms of our national security interests but also in our desire to be able to promote the idea of democracy in our own societies and around the world. if we don't do it and israel doesn't do it, no one else will be able to do it. it's really that important and thank you for everything you guys are doing to promote those ideals. [ applause ] >> thank you so much for being here. senator bennet. ♪ >> all right.
i think we are ready to welcome to the stage our final guest at j street, senator bernie sanders. ♪ [ applause ] >> got some fans here, it appears. >> i hope so. >> senator, you have said that to receive military aid from the united states, israel has to treat the palestinian people with respect and you would leverage aid. when and why you would condition u.s. assistance to israel as a
goal to stop annexation, settlement construction, something greater than that? >> thank you for the question, tommy. and if i can begin -- [ cheers and applause ] >> it's okay. i like to -- >> please. >> it's hard to talk when you're sitting. i like to stand. just a couple of things and then i'll get to your good question. [ laughter ] >> we have three hours, is that what i understood it was? >> yes, sir. >> okay. number one, i am very proud to be jewish and look forward to being the first jewish president in the history of this country. number two, as a people who have suffered for century after century, not to mention the horrors of the holocaust in
which my father and his family were wiped out, if there is any people on earth who understands the danger of racism and white nationalism it is certainly the jewish people. [ applause ] >> and if there is any people on earth who should do everything humanly possible to fight against trump's effort to try to divide us up by the color of our skin or our language, religion or where we were born, if there's any group on earth that should be trying to bring people together around a common and progressive agenda, it is the jewish people. [ applause ] >> in light of that belief, this is what i believe. as a kid, i spent many months in
israel. i believe in the right of israel to exist but the right to exist in peace and security. that's not a question. but what i also believe is the palestinian people have a right to live in peace and security as well. [ applause ] >> and it is not -- let me underline this because it will be misunderstood. it is not anti-semitism to say that the netanyahu government has been racist. that's a fact. that is a fact. what i believe, we have a right
to say to the israeli government that the united states of america and our taxpayers and our people believe in human rights, we believe in democracy, we will not accept authoritarianism or racism and we demand that the israeli government sit down with the palestinian people and negotiate an agreement that works for all parties. [ applause ] >> so my proposal in terms of israeli/palestinian efforts is not a radical proposal. all it says is we need an even-handed proposal for both people. what is going on in gaza right now is inhumane, it's unacceptable, it is
unsustainable. so i would use the leverage, $3.8 billion is a lot of money. and we cannot give it carte blanche to the israeli government. we have a right to demand respect for human rights and democracy. [ applause ] >> i would stand, but i don't know i have the same degree of energy -- >> you're a little bit old but i don't want to raise the age issue. >> it looks like you're in better shape than i am. i also want to look at it from the other perspective which is in addition to everything else that we've seen in recent years, we've seen the trump administration essentially downgrade our relationships with the palestinian people. when they moved the embassy to jerusalem, that eliminated the
consulate. we've seen efforts to cut funding for -- assistance to the palestinian authority and just, you know, the wholesale kind of degradation of our relationship with the palestinian people, how would you go about engaging with the palestinian people and would that involve the u.s. contemplating some kind of recognition of a palestinian state or putting forward what we think the outlines of a two-state solution looks like? >> we'll first start -- it's instinct ual. what trump has done -- and i don't want to waste time talking about what trump has done, but it is disgrateful. as president of the united states, of course we reach out and establish relations understanding, by the way, that is not only netanyahu's
government that has been a problem, let us recognize there's been corruption in terms of hamas and the palestinian authority. let's recognize that as well. all right. but certainly our job is to understand that if we're going to bring peace and stability to that region, if we're going to have people working in common on issues like environment deterioration and climate change, we have to recognize the palestinians and reach out to them in ways that are fair and i would undo the damage of what trump did in terms of our relationship to the palestinian people. >> and you mentioned gaza where, you know, their projections, the u.n. and others, it's becoming unlivable. it's a place where people are living in such desire circumstances that basic needs cannot be reached.
how would you approach trying to get humanitarian assistance into gaza, trying to lift pieces of this blockade that catch stuff that clearly has no military uses, what is the approach of a president sanders to the situation in gaza? >> my understanding -- my understanding is youth unemployment gaza, 60, 70%, water situation, people cannot freely leave the area. and my solution is to say to israel, you get $3.8 billion every single year. if you want military aid, you're going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of gaza. [ applause ] >> in fact, i think it is fair to say that some of that $3.8 billion should go right now
into humanitarian aid in gaza. look, i don't -- when you have an unsustainable situation, who is going to deny when youth unemployment is 60%, when people cannot leave the region, who can think for a moment that you're not laying the groundwork for continued violence. so i think for israel's benefit, not to mention the palestinians, we need a radical intersession in gaza to allow for economic development, to allow for a better environment, to allow for better education, to give people hope there and that is something that we must do as soon as humanly possible. [ applause ] >> senator, yesterday president trump announced that the u.s. military had taken out al
baghdadi, the head of isis. and we can all agree that's a good thing for the world but i think we can say with some humility that we were in the white house when bin laden was killed and heard meetings about terrorists being taken off of the battlefield and yet isis is now in more places. security against terrorist groups like al qaeda, for the u.s. security, israel security, how would you approach the war against isis and other extremist groups that target both countries differently than president obama or president trump? >> and that is -- i don't know that anybody has a magical answer to your question. it's a difficult question if we think about it. let me say this, i am proud and
apologize to nobody for when i first came to the congress, the house of representatives in 1991, one of my very first votes was to vote against the first gulf war. okay? [ applause ] >> and i did that not because i was sympathetic to saddam's invasion of kuwait, but i thought when you had the entire initial community united you could get him out of kuwait without introducing u.s. troops to the area. second of all, i helped lead the opposition to the disastrous war in iraq, okay? [ applause ] >> and i -- and if you go back to what i said on the floor of the house, what i talked about is the destabilization that would take place. you don't have to be a genius or an expert in foreign policy to
understand you were laying the groundwork for massive destabilization and what ended upbringing about is the creation of isis and so many horrors, my god, in that part of the world. so i think first of all what we have got to do -- and again i do not profess i have any magical solutions. a lot of good people have worked on these issues for a decades. but i think the united states of america cannot do it alone. it requires international cooperation. [ applause ] >> and second of all, at a time when we are seeing right now in lebanon and in iraq massive uprising, hundreds of thousands of people standing up against corruption, i think what we as a nation, as americans have got to do is to do everything we can to try to deal with the root causes of what drives people without
hope into terrorism. and thirdly, of course, i am not unmindful of the military need. i'm not sitting here and saying provide health care and education, everything is great. that is not the case. we need need to be visitigorous. in taking on and wiping out those terrorists that want to harm us and our allies. but you need a multifaceted approach, which requires international cooperation, which requires working on issues of corruption, which is one of the breeding grounds for terrorism. so there's a lot to be done, but it should not be a mull tear solution. it has to be multifaceted. >> whoever the the kraic nominee is is going to face ugly attacks. even though you're the first
candidate for president who is jewish to win a primary, have already face d attacks because people say people have endorsed you are associated with bds or the government of israel at the request of the president of the united states tried to prevent two members of congress who have endorsed you from traveling there. how do you try to change the conversation. you talked a lot about moving a structure of politics. how do you change this conversation about israel and american politics that does feel so cynical and toxic that there's a conflation of criticism of policies with anti-semitism where people try to hang guilt by association on everybody. how do you go about billing the kind of campaign that can lead us into the direction of the healthier way of dealing with this.
>> she may be help nfl that regard. it's going to be hard for anybody to call me whose fath father's family was wiped out by hitler. but the answer to your question goes beyond dealing with israel or the middle east. i'm proud to say somebody may disagree with me. i know people may think my agenda what i'm fighting for is radic radical. the truth is it is not. so if you want to know if you bring people together, you go as i have and will go into republican districts and say to working people there, maybe white working class people, we should raise the minimum raise to $15 an hour. yeah, we should.
do you think we should have equal pay for equal work r for women, and people will say yeah. do you think we should make public colleges and universities tuition free and cancel all student debt so your kids from v an opportunity to get an education. they say yes. are you happy paying ten times more for insulin in the united states than they do in canada because the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt and engaging in price fixing. we can bring middle class people around an agenda that works for all of us. you go to any district in this country and you ask those folks do you think amazon owned by the wealthiest person in america made $11 billion in profit and did not pay a nickel in federal income taxes.
nobody thinks that's appropriate. so i think we develop an agenda that uncluds a democratic foreign policy that does everything humesly possible to avoid war. we invest in the state department, we invest in negotiators and diplomacy. not just continue to spend more on the military than the next ten nations combined. and by the way, i'm proud to tell you i'm the only democratic candidate to have voted against all of trump's military budgets. >> we have time for one or two more. president trump said it's disloyal to israel to vote for democrats. apparently he's grasping this trope that has been called anti-semitic. benjamin netanyahu has replaced the republican party. he has posters of himself and trump up. do you worry that benjamin
netanyahu has made support for israel r partisan? do you worry attacks on democrats will hurt members of congress or those run ining for president? >> obviously, that's exactly what trump has done and what benjamin netanyahu has done. but in both instances, i must say you're look iing a the leaders, one who is going to be impeached, the other may end up in jail. so i don't know how much credibility they have actually. in terms of integrity. i don't like the comment on trump because every other minute there's another absurd tweet coming down the line. but to suggest that if you vote democratic, you're somehow anti-israel is is just one more of an absurd position by the president. but i believe that in terms of
foreign policy, the american people would like to see us investing in education and health care, not in endless wars. i believe the american people would like us not to be one sided in our foreign policy in terms of israel and the palestinians or i might say saudi arabia and iraq. we are the most powerful, wealthiest nation on earth. we can use our leverage to bring people to the negotiating table. you guys know this better than i. this is tough stuff. don't hear me say i have the magic answer. i don't. but you're not going to make progress unless you bring people to the table. and i am impressed. i talked about this some years ago. when he said, correct me if if i'm wrong, in iran the young people are more pro-american than many other countries around the world. why do owe lose that opportunit? why do we say that a brow tall
dictatorship line saudi arabia is a loving ally rather than bringing all sides to the table and trying to negotiate peace. >> one more question. it's really interesting to think about the potential. here you talk about the need for a movement to change things. one of things we have noticed around the world is the coordination, frankly, among right wing leaders with authoritarian tendencies. benjamin netanyahu has a close relationship in hungary. donald trump and benjamin netanyahu have a close relationship. putin and trump, who knows what's going on there. ould you see part of your effort as president to build not just a progressive movement in this country, but to try to -- not by intervening in other country's picking candidates, but would you see a role in saying, there
needs to be a global progressive movement to counter this nationalist trend. does that include in israel trying to reach out to young people as you do in this country and say here's what we do. >> absolutely. ben raises an important issue. i'm not into conspiracy theory. i'm really not. but if anybody thinks that there is not a coordinated effort among incredibly wealthy and powerful authoritarian leaders around the world, then you don't know what's going on. you've got putin, who is trying to destabilize american democracy and european democracy. you have mbs in saudi arabia sitting on god knows how much money. by the the way, oil has a lot to
do with this access as well and you have trump here. and i think when democracy and human rights are on the defensive, all over the world, then of course, we need a president to bring people from around the globe together fighting against oligarchy and a handful of wealthy people controlling a lot of our world's economy. and standing up for human rights, whether it's in hong kong, china, russia, saudi arabia, hungary. the idea that the leader of israel would be inclusion with an anti-set mettic leader is beyond belief. but that speaks to your point. so we have an enormous amount of work in front of us.
again, none of this stuff is easy. i'm not making any promises to you that on day one we solve it all. but if there is anything that our country proudly has stood for, it has been a beacon of hope for my father, who came to this country at the age of 17 to flee anti-semitism and extreme poverty. but it has been a beon of hope for people all over the world who looked at america because of our democracy, because of our belief in human rights, because of our belief in opportunity for all. that is the america we once were. and as president, i want once again people from all over the world to say this is the united states of america. that is the country we want to emulate and become. >> senator bernie sanders. [ applause ]