[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 60 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S4776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           SECURITY OF ISRAEL

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have again sought recognition to 
comment on the issue relating to the conditions which have been set by 
the U.S. Government on a further meeting with Israeli Prime Minister 
Netanyahu and the difference of opinion of what is adequate to handle 
the security interests of the State of Israel. It is my view that it 
was inappropriate and counterproductive for the U.S. Government to 
deliver what I consider to be an ultimatum to Prime Minister Netanyahu 
that he accept the further redeployment of Israeli forces as a 
precondition to come to Washington to meet with the President on last 
Monday, May 11.
  Secretary of State Albright briefed a number of Senators yesterday in 
a room, S. 407, where we have secret discussions, and at that time the 
Secretary of State said that she had not delivered an ultimatum but 
instead had stated conditions which would have to be met before the 
United States would continue to carry forward with the peace process on 
the current track.
  I responded to the Secretary of State that I thought it wasn't even a 
difference of semantics to say that a condition on further discussions 
did not constitute an ultimatum, that in fact it was clearly an 
ultimatum in those discussions.
  If the diplomacy is carried out in a quiet way, so be it. But when 
diplomacy is carried out publicly and where the Prime Minister of 
another country is put in the position where the Prime Minister has to 
back down, it seems to me totally counterproductive and unlikely to 
produce a result where there will be agreement or compliance even if 
Prime Minister Netanyahu had wanted to do that.
  When it comes to the question of the security interests of Israel, I 
do not believe that anybody can second-guess the security interests of 
Israel except the Israelis and their Government. The view from the 
Potomac is a lot different than the view from the Jordan River as it 
has been said on many, many occasions. And Israel has been fighting 
more than 100 million Arabs for more than 50 years. They have won quite 
a number of wars, but they only have to lose one war before it is all 
over.
  Secretary of Defense William Cohen appeared today before the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and I asked the Secretary of Defense 
whether he or anybody in his department had carried out an analysis as 
to the adequacy of security for Israel if Israel agreed to the proposal 
of the administration. I commented in the course of that question that 
I would not think, even if the United States had made that kind of a 
determination, it would be binding and might not even be relevant as to 
what Israel thought was necessary for its own security. Secretary of 
Defense Cohen said that no such analysis had been made on his part. But 
it would seem to me that as an indispensable prerequisite for the U.S. 
Government to take a position that Israel ought to have certain 
withdrawal at least there ought to be a professional determination that 
the withdrawal would be consistent with Israel's security interests. 
But as I say, the Secretary of Defense had not undertaken that kind of 
an analysis.
  I submit that the issue of Israel's security is something that has to 
be judged by the Government of Israel. There is no doubt about the 
friendship and support of President Clinton's administration for 
Israel. I do not question that for a minute. But where you have the 
negotiations at a very, very critical point and public statements are 
made as a precondition which is realistically viewed an ultimatum, pure 
and simple, that is totally wholly inappropriate. It is my hope that 
these peace negotiations can be put back on track. I know that the 
Secretary of State is going to be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu 
later today. The Appropriations Committee has a meeting scheduled with 
Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow. I hope we can find our way through 
these negotiations and put the peace negotiations back on track.
  I think it is a very difficult matter because while the 
administration is pressing Israel for a certain level of withdrawal, 
there are many items which are not being taken care of by the 
Palestinian authority.
  Last year, Prime Minister Netanyahu had said that Arafat had given a 
green light to certain terrorist activities by the Palestinian 
Authority. And when Secretary of State Albright was before the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee, I asked the question as to whether there had 
been, in fact, a green light given by Chairman Arafat, as charged by 
Prime Minister Netanyahu. Secretary of State Albright made the 
statement that it wasn't a green light, but there wasn't a red light 
either.
  I think it is mandatory that the Palestinian Authority give such a 
red light. They cannot be guarantors, but a red light and their maximum 
effort to stop terrorism is required. Under the provisions of an 
amendment introduced by Senator Shelby and myself, that kind of a 
maximum effort against terrorism is a precondition for getting any aid 
from the United States.
  So, these matters are obviously delicate. They require a lot of 
diplomatic tact. It is my hope that the current stalemate can be 
surmounted, but I think it can be surmounted only if there is a 
recognition, as former Secretary of State Warren Christopher had, that 
security is a matter for the discretion of Israel--it is Israel's 
security--and that no ultimatum be issued, or at least no precondition 
be issued, before the Prime Minister of Israel can proceed to have a 
meeting or negotiations with the United States.
  In the absence of any other Senator on the floor seeking recognition, 
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________