[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

  Mr. DeConcini. Mr. President, my 17 years in the Senate have taught 
me that even on the most difficult issues compromise is often possible 
and impasses are rarely permanent. Even so, I never dreamed that I 
would live to see would leaders gathered on the White House lawn to 
witness and celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Principles by 
the leaders of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Israel.
  Since that day in September when PLO Chairman Arafat and Israeli 
Prime Minister Rabin first shook hands, I have watched the progress of 
the peace talks with both hope and trepidation. The missed target date 
for the transfer of Palestinian autonomy in Gaza and Jericho and 
continued differences on such issues as the size of Jericho and border 
crossings have caused me concern that this small window of opportunity 
for peace could be lost. But nothing has stuck me as such a potential 
turning point in the peace progress as the massacre by a Jewish settler 
of innocent Arabs praying at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron.
  The vile act which occurred at Herbon and which shamed and horrified 
all civilized people left leaders of both sides with two options. They 
could either allow extremists to exploit this terrorist act and kill 
the peace process or they could reaffirm their rejection of terrorism 
and recommit themselves to the Declaration of Principles. While I was 
deeply saddened by the tragedy at Hebron, I was encouraged by the 
Israelis' denunciation of this unspeakable act of violence. Such a 
response is required of those who embrace the rule of law over the rule 
of terror. The Israelis additionally acknowledged the need to provide 
protection for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and to curb the 
activities of extremist settler groups and began an investigation into 
the massacre.
  Since last week's passage of the U.N. resolution on the Hebron 
tragedy, it appears that Arafat may return to the negotiating table. 
The Palestinians, however, have not reaffirmed their commitment to 
continued pursuit of peace. By adding further issues and demands at 
this time to the Declaration of Principles on Jerusalem, the 
settlements and other matters, they will hinder the prospect for the 
success of the peace process.
  I believe the impasses that have occurred in the negotiations stem 
from the view of many Palestinians that Palestinian self-rule in Gaza 
and Jericho represents the last rather than the first step in the peace 
process. But the Declaration of Principles makes it clear that this is 
not the case--negotiations on the permanent status issues are to begin 
during the interim period. It is only by the transfer of authority that 
Palestinians can begin to take control of local issues and mutual 
confidence can grow between both sides.
  The fact that Arafat faces great political difficulties is certainly 
a factor in why he is increasing negotiations demands on the Israelis 
at this point. What is at stake, however, is much larger than any 
individual's particular political problem. While the achievement of 
Arafat and Rabin in Oslo was a breakthrough, it will only be a footnote 
in history if the peace process is allowed to fail. Arafat must return 
to the negotiating table so that differences which cause the December 
target date for withdrawal of troops from Gaza and Jericho to be missed 
can be resolved and the transfer of authority to the Palestinians in 
Gaza and Jericho can begin. Arafat's choice of whether to return to the 
negotiating table represents a choice of whether young Palestinians 
will learn that grievances and differences should be resolved at the 
bargaining table and with ballots or in the streets with guns and 
rocks. Rabin has already demonstrated that he wants to continue the 
pursuit of peace with the Palestinians. Arafat has yet to fully 
demonstrate that he, too, is committed to peace with Israel.
  The pursuit of peace with former enemies is a high risk gamble.The 
payoff, however, can be historic. Israelis and Palestinians have been 
given the gift of the opportunity to live at long last in peace and 
security. To those people who continue to question the viability of the 
peace talks I would repeat what Prime Minister Rabin told me recently 
when UI was in the Middle East: ``I signed the Egyptian Disengagement 
in May 1974. Some Likud people said it wouldn't last 6 months. Next May 
it will be 20 years. There are risks for peace and a responsible 
government of Isreal should bear the risks.'' I would add that the 
Palestinians must also shoulder their responsibility.
  I believe Rabin and Arafat face a situation today which is similar to 
what Israeli and Egyptian leaders faced in 1974. They must join 
together to pursue the path to a lasting peace. It poses great risks 
for both sides, but it is a risk worth taking. No peace agreement will 
erase the memories of tragedies which stand out in their tortured 
history of their people. But it is only peace which can bring a 
brighter future to both Palestinian and Israeli children. Palestinian 
and Israeli leaders both have the responsibility to leave their 
children and grandchildren with a future of peace and security, not one 
of conflict and violence.

                          ____________________