[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.
____________________