[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 56 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4477-S4478]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           A CRUCIAL MOMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate 
because I was very concerned in reading this morning's newspaper about 
criticism of the administration in the Middle East peace process. As a 
strong supporter of Israel and its security, I want to take this 
opportunity to commend President Clinton and Secretary Albright for 
their current effort to preserve the peace process.
  About a month ago, 81 Senators sent a letter to the President of the 
United States in which they expressed concern about the negotiations 
between Israel and the Palestinians. They, in effect, were concerned 
about a proposal for land redeployment going public, about security 
cooperation, and final status talks.
  I was not one of those 81 Senators. In fact, a few days later, I sent 
a letter of my own expressing my support for the current course. In 
that letter, I mentioned that I have great faith in what the 
administration is doing, and I still believe that.
  I ask unanimous consent that my letter be printed in the Record at 
this time.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, April 9, 1998.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: At a time of considerable urgency in 
     the Middle East peace process, I write to express my support 
     for your ongoing efforts to help achieve a diplomatic 
     resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The success of these 
     efforts is crucial to the fulfillment of the United States' 
     commitments to ensure Israel's security, to enhance regional 
     stability, and to protect U.S. strategic interests in the 
     Middle East.
       Progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track is clearly the 
     most urgent need. The stalemate that has defined these talks 
     for the past year poses great dangers for all sides. Your 
     approach to moving this process forward has included a 
     healthy combination of urging the parties to uphold their 
     commitments, discouraging unilateral acts that undermine 
     confidence, facilitating ongoing contacts and negotiations, 
     helping each side understand the other's needs, and 
     presenting ideas intended to help bridge gaps between the 
     parties.
       As you and Secretary of State Albright have repeatedly 
     stressed, an all-out Palestinian effort to combat terrorism, 
     and the full commitment of both sides to Israeli-Palestinian 
     security cooperation, are absolutely essential for further 
     progress to occur. Without these, the region could easily 
     descend into violence, ending the chances for a peace 
     settlement in the foreseeable future.
       In addition, you have consistently urged the parties to 
     approach their negotiations with a sense of realism and 
     restraint, while understanding the needs of the other side, 
     and avoiding unilateral steps that call into question the 
     parties' commitment to achieving a settlement.
       While you understand that U.S. diplomacy may be essential 
     to bridge some of the gaps between the two sides, you have 
     remained keenly aware that only the parties themselves can 
     make the difficult, but necessary, decisions required to move 
     toward a final agreement. We cannot do this for them.
       America's longstanding and unshakeable commitment to 
     Israel's security, which you have faithfully upheld, is fully 
     consistent with your efforts to move the peace process toward 
     a successful outcome. Without a peaceful permanent resolution 
     to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel's security--which 
     is undoubtedly a vital U.S. interest--can never be 
     guaranteed.
       I have great faith in your Administration's efforts to move 
     the peace process forward without undue micromanagement from 
     Congress. I believe that you, Secretary Albright, Special 
     Middle East Coordinator Dennis Ross, and Assistant Secretary 
     of State for Near Eastern Affairs Martin Indyk have great 
     ability and credibility in this effort. As you continue to 
     pursue this vital mission, you will continue to have my 
     support.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Dianne Feinstein,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in view of the attacks leveled against 
the administration's efforts by leaders of the other body, I felt it 
necessary to come to the floor today to respond. As a concerned 
American, who cares deeply for the State of Israel, its future and its 
security--as I think my statement in the Record on Israel's 50th 
anniversary will reflect--and as a member of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, and the relevant subcommittee for the past 4 
years, I have watched these negotiations go up and down.

  What I have never forgotten is the importance of Israel's survival as 
a Jewish, democratic state with safe and secure borders. I have never 
forgotten a meeting I had with Yitzhak Rabin in the mid-1980s, when I 
was the Mayor of San Francisco and he was Israel's Minister of Defense. 
He explained to me how the demographics of Israel and the West Bank and 
Gaza showed that, over time, the Jewish majority in these areas would 
be eroded.
  He showed me even then, as we stepped out on the Knesset balcony and 
looked out and saw how close Jordan really is to the capital, how 
Israel could return some land, which accomplished the goal of 
preserving Israel's security from a military and strategic view while 
also preserving a strong Jewish majority. I have never forgotten that. 
That is the reason why success in this peace process is so important--
because peace is the ultimate guarantor of Israel's security.
  No one ever thought it would be easy to achieve peace between Israel 
and the Palestinians. If it were easy, peace would have already been 
achieved. It is almost 20 years now since the end of the Camp David 
accords. But criticizing the administration at this particular point in 
time, I strongly believe, is counterproductive. In many cases these 
criticisms are driven by politics--not by the urgent desire for peace 
and Israel's security. And I find that deeply troubling.
  It is a responsibility of the executive branch to conduct these 
negotiations, not the Congress. That is provided for in the United 
States Constitution. So, in my view, it would be prudent for all of us 
who care about Israel and the search for peace to give these 
negotiations a chance to succeed before rushing to criticize.
  There is no more knowledgeable or respected negotiator that I know of 
than Ambassador Dennis Ross, who is leading the American effort. The 
State Department has an institutional knowledge of these talks going 
back 20 years--all the way to the Camp David Accords--which deserves a 
certain amount of respect as well. And President Clinton's own 
commitment to Israel and its security cannot seriously be called into 
question.
  For months now, the President has been urged--by many of the same 
people who are now criticizing him--to put forth a strong effort to 
rescue what has been a crumbling peace process.
  In that time, the Secretary of State and the Middle East peace team 
have shuttled back and forth to the Middle East trying to find a 
formula that would advance the talks. President Clinton has been 
personally engaged in the details of these talks, and has met on 
several occasions with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Chairman Arafat, and 
other regional leaders.
  After months with no progress, the issues that divide the two sides 
have crystallized into a clear few dominant issues. So our negotiators 
have tried to help the two sides identify possible solutions that would 
allow them to move on to the next stage of the talks.
  Like any mediator, having reached this point, the United States now 
faces two choices: Either identify the terms it feels the parties can 
move ahead on, or walk away from the talks. Frankly, I would expect 
them to be criticized whatever they would do.
  But what the President and Secretary Albright are doing is not trying 
to impose a solution on either side--they are simply trying to create 
the conditions that allow for progress by proposing the ideas they 
believe can bridge the gaps between the two sides. Ultimately, only the 
parties themselves can decide if these ideas are acceptable.
  To the best of my knowledge, the terms being discussed are quite 
favorable to Israel: The Palestinians originally sought Israeli 
redeployment from 30 percent of the West Bank, and Israel offered 8 
percent. On the table now is 13 percent, which many security officials

[[Page S4478]]

maintain could isolate two or three settlements, but would not 
jeopardize Israel's security.
  In addition, the current proposal would result in final status talks 
beginning immediately, and tough requirements on Palestinian security 
cooperation--both of which Prime Minister Netanyahu has been seeking 
for many months.
  And the Administration is still working hard to address Israel's 
concerns. Ambassador Ross, who just arrived back from London last 
night, is flying out to Israel tonight for further talks.
  President Clinton made clear what he is trying to do yesterday in a 
press conference. He said:

       I have tried to find a way actually to do what [Prime 
     Minister Netanyahu] suggested. I have done my best for a year 
     now to find the formula that would unlock the differences 
     between them to get them into those final status talks. 
     That's all I am trying to do. There is no way in the world 
     that I could impose an agreement on them or dictate their 
     security to them even if I wished to, which I don't.

  If the current peace process fails, the deadlock will likely lead to 
unilateral acts by both sides, an escalation of violence, the further 
unraveling of Israel's relations with its neighbors. If the United 
States is committed to Israel's security, we cannot allow that to 
happen.
  So I want to express my support for the Administration's efforts. I 
think they are principled, worthy efforts, and are the best hope at the 
moment of saving the peace process from disaster. They are also 
grounded in a deep commitment to Israel's security.
  So I would ask my colleagues to please give these talks a chance to 
succeed, to please refrain from attempts to micromanage the 
Administration's conduct of these negotiations, and to please recognize 
that Israel's security depends on their success.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 minutes to 
speak as if in morning business and then to proceed to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, it was not my intention, frankly, to speak 
on the issue of Israel. But Senator Feinstein and I have a difference 
of opinion on this, and I feel compelled, frankly, to make a comment.
  I strongly believe the administration has made a major mistake in 
publicly tabling and publicly pressuring the Government of Israel in 
this particular set of circumstances. The administration knew at the 
time that the plan that was being proposed would be accepted by Arafat 
and rejected by Prime Minister Netanyahu. I, again, think it is 
fundamentally wrong for one democracy to try to impose on another 
democracy what it should be doing. The people of Israel have chosen its 
government. They have chosen this government based on what they 
perceive to be their No. 1 priority, which is security, and that 
government should not be pressured by the ally, the United States. It 
is fundamentally wrong. And I personally believe that to do that could 
end up with a forced agreement, which, in fact, would be a false peace. 
That would endanger the Middle East.
  Again, Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to express those 
feelings.

                          ____________________