[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4739-S4740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

            A CRITICAL TIME IN THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

 Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as a long-time strong supporter 
of Israel and her security, and a fierce advocate of the Middle East 
peace process, I want to commend President Clinton, Secretary Albright, 
Ambassador Ross and Assistant Secretary Indyk for their ongoing efforts 
to preserve, and even reinvigorate, the stalled peace process. I was 
encouraged to read this morning that President Clinton has asked 
Secretary Albright to forgo the G-7 meeting in Germany in order to meet 
with Prime Minister Netanyahu while he is here this week in the United 
States.
  While they have come under fire recently, as a Member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee who has for years followed closely the peace 
process, I believe they should be supported in their efforts to help 
forge a just and lasting peace for the region by helping the parties to 
move forward urgently on the Israeli-Palestinian track.
  About a month ago 81 Senators joined in a letter to President Clinton 
expressing concern about the Administration's ideas for the next phase 
of redeployment being made public, about certain of Israel's security 
concerns, and about final status talks. I did not sign that letter, in 
part because I believe the Administration should be commended, not 
criticized, for sticking with this process at a critical time, and for 
its willingness to press for Israel's legitimate security concerns 
while recognizing the legitimate claims of the Palestinians.
  I have watched with growing concern over the past week or so as some 
critics of the Administration's policy toward Israel here in Congress 
have launched fierce, often partisan, attacks on that policy. The 
Speaker, late last week, was even quoted as saying, in a press 
conference in which he criticized the Administration's recent handling 
of the peace process, that ``America's strong-arm tactics would send a 
clear signal to the supporters of terrorism that their murderous 
actions are an effective tool in forcing concessions from Israel.''
  That is, simply put, Mr. President, a scandalous and demagogic 
accusation to level at the President, who has been engaged for over a 
year, along with his senior foreign policy advisors, in a vigorous 
effort to bring the two sides together at a critical time in the peace 
process, and to help bridge the gaps that exist between them by 
offering constructive, creative ideas for each to consider. I 
understand that this proposal was crafted over many months, and was 
designed to address many of the Israeli government's most pressing 
security concerns and to meet many of its criteria for evaluating real 
progress on these issues.
  The President has repeatedly made clear that he is not trying to 
impose a solution on the parties, nor could he. And that he is not 
issuing ultimatums to anyone--as further evidenced by his willingness 
to have Secretary Albright reach out again to Mr. Netanyahu this week. 
After months of on-and-off negotiations, with U.S. envoys shuttling 
back and forth among the parties, the major points of disagreement have 
become clear, and President Clinton is now simply offering ideas for 
them to consider--an approach consistent with America's role at 
virtually every other critical point in the Middle East peace process 
over the years. At Camp David, in Madrid, and at subsequent major 
negotiations, American attempts to bridge the gaps between the parties 
have played a critical role in reaching final agreement. I have talked 
with senior American officials involved in the discussions, and remain 
hopeful that a final agreement will soon be reached. The parties must 
not miss this key opportunity to move forward in the peace process.
  Over the weekend Mr. Netanyahu rejected the Administration's offer, 
which Mr. Arafat had accepted, to come to Washington this week for a 
summit to agree on terms for a further withdrawal from the West Bank, 
and to agree to accelerate final status talks provided for in the Oslo 
Agreement. I understand from news reports that alternative proposals 
are now being considered by the Israeli government for a 13 percent 
withdrawal which could happen in two stages--a substantial withdrawal 
immediately, followed by an additional 2-4 percent withdrawal once Mr. 
Arafat makes good on certain tough new security commitments he has 
reportedly agreed to make as a part of the overall agreement.
  I understand these new arrangements include the kind of strong new 
Palestinian commitments to fight terrorism which the Israeli government 
has long been seeking, strengthening the terms of the Memorandum of 
Understanding negotiated at the end of last year, and providing for a 
test period before this phase of withdrawal is completed. That is a 
major victory for Israel, and should help to address legitimate Israeli 
concerns about the Palestinian Authority's commitment to fighting 
terrorism.
  Now I am not an expert, and I acknowledge that I do not know all the 
details of the various land parcels that are being discussed. But it is 
clear that on the issue of land, some progress is possible. Let us not 
forget that the Palestinians had originally sought a 30 percent 
withdrawal from the West Bank, as the first in a 3-phase withdrawal to 
which Israel agreed--though the timing and extent of each withdrawal 
were not explicitly established. So the Palestinians had sought a 30 
percent withdrawal, the Israelis offered just under ten percent, and 
the Administration has been pressing for a compromise of 13 percent. 
Mr. Netanyahu has reportedly now privately agreed to a withdrawal of 
about 11 percent.
  I understand that Mr. Arafat has also agreed, as a condition for 
attending a Washington summit meeting with President Clinton and Mr. 
Arafat, to allow the next redeployment to be considered alongside final 
status talks, by a joint Palestinian-Israeli Committee, operating on a 
parallel track. The American proposal also reportedly contemplates 
greater flexibility on the Oslo timetable, which had been set to 
conclude by May 4, 1999. Each of these changes would be significant 
achievements for Israeli negotiators.
  Let me make four points about this situation, Mr. President. First, 
despite all of the recent (frequently partisan) criticism of the 
Administration, recent polls both here and in Israel show substantial 
support for further progress in the peace process. And this includes 
polls of Jewish Americans, of which I am proud to be one. Indeed, I 
read about a poll last week which noted that a substantial majority of 
Jewish Americans polled agreed that the U.S. in this process was doing 
just what we should be doing--offering ideas, facilitating discussions, 
working with the parties on alternative formulations which could meet 
all of their legitimate security and other interests.

[[Page S4740]]

  Second, let me remind my colleagues, especially those who have 
offered such fierce criticism of the Administration's efforts in recent 
days, of the need for a sense of proportion. Let me point out that the 
Administration is not threatening, as the Bush Administration did with 
settlement assistance, to cut off any kind of aid to Israel in this 
dispute. It is simply playing the role mediators should play in 
offering creative ideas, and allowing the parties to make their own 
decision about whether those ideas are acceptable to them.
  Third, let me commend the Administration on remaining engaged in the 
peace process, a process for which many Israelis--including most 
recently Prime Minister Rabin--have given their lives. President 
Clinton has been a strong friend of Israel, and the Administration is 
right to press the parties to come to a final agreement, to offer 
solutions which can bridge gaps, to ensure that proposals are on the 
table from a neutral mediator which one side could perhaps not accept 
from their adversary, but could accept from a third party.
  The administration has done so, I believe, because it knows that the 
success of these efforts is crucial to fulfilling longstanding American 
commitments to preserve the peace process, ensure Israel's security, 
enhance regional stability, and protect U.S. interests in the Middle 
East. Most urgently, the President recognizes that without a peaceful 
permanent resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel's 
security--clearly a vital U.S. interest--can never be guaranteed. Let 
us not forget one thing in all of this, Mr. President: peace is the 
ultimate guarantor of Israel's security.
  Finally, let me ask my colleagues to contemplate what could happen if 
the Administration did not press to preserve this process, and it 
collapsed--as it almost surely would without such intervention. An 
alternative scenario, with the peace process in a shambles--an 
escalation in terrorist attacks, Israel facing newly hostile Arab 
neighbors on all sides, and increased pressure from the Arab street for 
violent action against her--is frightening to consider.
  Some here in Washington act as if the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate 
of the past fifteen months does not pose dangers for all sides. I think 
they are wrong. It poses very grave dangers to Israel, to the 
Palestinians, and to the whole region. That's why the President's 
approach of urging the parties to uphold their commitments, 
facilitating ongoing contacts and negotiations, helping each side 
understand the other's legitimate security and other needs, and 
presenting creative ideas intended to help bridge gaps between the 
parties, makes sense.
  Senator Feinstein observed on the floor last week that the 
Administration's attempts to facilitate an agreement between the 
parties efforts were ``principled, worthy efforts . . . grounded in a 
deep commitment to Israel's security.'' I agree with that assessment, 
and join her, Senator Lautenberg, and others in calling for restraint 
by my colleagues who have unfairly criticized the Administration during 
this difficult and sensitive time in the peace process. Of course, 
offering principled, thoughtful critiques of Administration foreign 
policy-making is a legitimate role of Congress, an important aspect of 
our system of checks and balances. But it is a right accompanied by a 
responsibility to be fair and informed.
  Mr. President, the recent crisis in the peace negotiations coincides 
with Israel's celebration of her 50-year jubilee, an occasion of great 
joy for all of us who love Israel. With the founding of modern Israel, 
the Children of Abraham and Sara, survivors of over 2000 years of 
persecution and exile, were home at last and free at last. But Israel's 
founder David Ben-Gurion's dream, and that of his allies, was not 
simply to provide a safe haven from centuries of Jewish suffering. It 
was also about fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy of making Israel ``a light 
unto the nations,'' a powerful sign and symbol of justice and 
compassion to all peoples of the world.
  Although it's fitting that we pause this year to celebrate all that 
the people of Israel have accomplished over these past 50 years, we 
must also look forward to the tasks which face her in the next 
millennium, chief among them the task of building a just, secure and 
lasting peace. It is my deepest prayer that our children and 
grandchildren, fifty years from this year, will be able to say with 
gratitude that we were the generation which overcame ancient hatreds, 
and enabled them to achieve a just and lasting peace which has by then 
embraced the entire region and all its peoples. That is a vision worthy 
of Israel's founder, and of all those who come after. It is a vision 
for which we should and must be willing to struggle, to fight for, for 
which all must continue to take risks.
  Prime Minister Netanyahu is coming to the U.S. this week, and will be 
meeting with Secretary Albright. I have heard from sources both in the 
Administration and in Israel that the Israeli government is actually 
close to reaching internal agreement on a variation of the 
Administration's proposed plan. I hope that is true, and that all the 
parties will reassess their positions in light of recent developments, 
and agree this week to take one more important step toward resolving 
this longstanding and bitter dispute, thereby helping to forge a just 
and lasting peace for the region worthy of Israel's founders' 
dream.

                          ____________________