[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 134 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10646-H10655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCERNING VIOLENCE IN MIDDLE EAST
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 426) concerning the violence in the
Middle East.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 426
Whereas the Arab-Israeli conflict must be resolved by
peaceful negotiation;
Whereas since 1993 Israel and the Palestinians have been
engaged in intensive negotiations over the future of the West
Bank and Gaza;
Whereas the United States, through its consistent support
of Israel and the cause of peace, made the current peace
process possible;
Whereas the underlying basis of those negotiations was
recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) by
Israel in exchange for the renunciation of violence by the
PLO and its Chairman Yasser Arafat, first expressed in a
letter to then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin dated
September 9, 1993, in which Mr. Arafat stated: ``[T]he PLO
renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence,
and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and
personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent
violations and discipline violators.'';
Whereas as a result of those negotiations, the Palestinians
now fully control over 40 percent of the West Bank and Gaza,
with over 95 percent of the Palestinian population under the
civil administration of the Palestinian Authority;
Whereas as a result of peace negotiations, Israel turned
over control of these areas to the Palestinian Authority with
the clear understanding and expectation that the Palestinians
would maintain order and security there;
Whereas the Palestinian Authority, with the assistance of
Israel and the international community, created a strong
police force, almost twice the number allowed under the Oslo
Accords, specifically to maintain public order;
Whereas the Government of Israel made clear to the world
its commitment to peace at Camp David, where it expressed its
readiness to take wide-ranging and painful steps in order to
bring an end to the conflict, but these proposals were
rejected by Chairman Arafat;
Whereas perceived provocations must only be addressed at
the negotiating table;
Whereas it is only through negotiations, and not through
violence, that the Palestinians can hope to achieve their
political aspirations;
Whereas even in the face of the desecration of Joseph's
Tomb, a Jewish holy site in the West Bank, the Government of
Israel has made it clear that it will withdraw forces from
Palestinian areas if the Palestinian Authority maintains
order in those areas; and
Whereas the Palestinian leadership not only did too little
for far too long to control the violence, but in fact
encouraged it: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Congress--
(1) expresses its solidarity with the state and people of
Israel at this time of crisis;
(2) condemns the Palestinian leadership for encouraging the
violence and doing so little for so long to stop it,
resulting in the senseless loss of life;
(3) calls upon the Palestinian leadership to refrain from
any exhortations to public incitement, urges the Palestinian
leadership to vigorously use its security forces to act
immediately to stop all violence, to show respect for all
holy sites, and to settle all grievances through
negotiations;
(4) commends successive Administrations on their continuing
efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East;
(5) urges the current Administration to use its veto power
at the United Nations Security Council to ensure that the
Security
[[Page H10647]]
Council does not again adopt unbalanced resolutions
addressing the uncontrolled violence in the areas controlled
by the Palestinian Authority; and
(6) calls on all parties involved in the Middle East
conflict to make all possible efforts to reinvigorate the
peace process in order to prevent further senseless loss of
life by all sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each
will control 20 minutes.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, would not somebody in opposition have time
allotted to them in opposition to the resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) opposed to the resolution?
Mr. LANTOS. No, Mr. Speaker. I favor the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) oppose the resolution?
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, yes, I do, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) will control the time in opposition.
Mr. RAHALL. How much time, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Twenty minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
General Leave
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H. Con. Res. 426.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res.
426. The past several weeks have seen the situation in the Middle East
spiral almost out of control. The underlying cause is that PLO Chairman
Yassir Arafat is attempting to dictate Israeli concessions at the
negotiating table through the unbridled use of violence; but this
Congress, together with our friends in Israel and elsewhere, must join
in saying no to that sort of violence.
As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak said today, at the moment the
Palestinian Authority and Arafat have chosen the path of conflict. With
violence they will not gain a thing. We will know how to operate and
stand united against violence to win, closed quote.
The current massive and fundamental violations of the Oslo Accords is
apparently intentional, as underscored when the leaders of the
Palestinian Tanzim paramilitary forces in the West Bank said last week
that his organization would escalate the confrontations with Israel and
not try to calm the situation. Marwan Barghuti said, and I quote,
``This blessed Intifada is looking ahead and the mass activity is
moving forward,'' closed quote.
Mr. Speaker, it has been especially troubling to see the reaction to
these troubles in the Arab world and the broader international
community. An Arab summit fixed all the blame for the current violence
on Israel.
{time} 1615
It called for rollbacks and freezes in Arab relationships with Israel
and made no reference to any of the concessions that Israel has made in
the peace process. It implicitly endorses the use of force by the
Palestinians.
In the United Nations, things are little better. Countries whose
leaders should know better, such as France and Spain, which have faced
violence in their own streets, ganged up against Israel in endorsing an
awful, one-sided resolution.
I was gratified that Israel, the administration and its friends,
including Members of Congress phoning ambassadors, succeeded in
persuading 46 member states to abstain, even though only four joined
the United States and Israel in voting ``no.''
I want to commend those nations which could see their way to either
abstaining or voting ``no.'' I am submitting a list of those nations
voting on all sides of the issue for printing in the Record at the
close of my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time that the Congress go on record on
one side or the other on this issue. That is why I felt compelled to
introduce this resolution on behalf of myself; the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking minority member on the
Committee on International Relations; our distinguished majority
leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey); and our distinguished
minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), condemning
this Palestinian violence and expressing congressional support for the
people of Israel in this time of crisis. On this measure we now have
nearly 160 cosponsors.
This measure is also sponsored by a lengthy bipartisan list of
Members of this body, which is a significant indication to the
Palestinians that you cannot have if both ways. The government of
Israel has made it clear to the world with regard to its commitment to
peace time and time again, and yet we see that the Palestinian response
has been more violence.
The facts on the ground also make it absolutely clear at this time
that the Palestinians are in no position to be trusted as the custodian
of another religion's holy sites.
I believe it is patently clear that Israel today does not have a
peace partner, and that Prime Minister Barak is right to call for a
time out until the true intentions of the Palestinians can be
understood.
Accordingly, the resolution we are now considering finds that the
Palestinian leadership not only did far too little for far too long to
stop the violence, but in fact encouraged that violence. The resolution
therefore condemns those actions, and urges the Palestinian leadership
to vigorously use its security forces to stop all violence, to show
respect for all holy sites, and to settle all grievances through
negotiations, something our President has been attempting to do.
I must register my great disappointment that the administration
merely abstained during the latest Palestinian-inspired U.N. Security
Council resolution, which blamed everything on Israel. Our
congressional response urges the administration to use its veto power
at the U.N. Security Council to make certain that such appeasement does
not again pass unchallenged.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the
pending resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos), and I ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to yield time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and I want to
thank him for introducing this resolution, which I strongly support.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me express on behalf of all of us in
this body our regret at the tragic deaths which have resulted from the
violence that broke out in the Middle East. As a grandfather of 17, I
particularly regret the death of children, although I recognize that
there was a reckless and cynical exploitation of children by the
Palestinian leadership. Children have no place in such violent
demonstrations, and their reckless exploitation I think stands self-
condemned.
Mr. Speaker, once again the situation in the Middle East has turned
from efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully to a new wave of
violence that undermines the basis for peace between Israelis and
Palestinians.
No one is more supportive of the Middle East peace process than I am,
Mr. Speaker. I also support the efforts to assist the Palestinians in
their attempt towards moving towards self-government, increasing their
economic well-being, and facilitating their cooperation in all areas
with the Israelis.
[[Page H10648]]
The current wave of violence, however, Mr. Speaker, is simply
unacceptable. It is undermining the very basis for peace, the notion
that Palestinians and Israelis can live together.
In 1993, at Oslo, the principle of reconciliation was that the
Palestinian leadership renounce violence as a means of achieving their
political aims. In the last few weeks it has become obvious that Arafat
and his group are unwilling to live up to this commitment.
At Camp David, the government of Israel made sweeping proposals that
moved the two sides closer than they have ever been in reaching a
historic agreement and reconciliation. Instead of making a
counterproposal to this most important move, Arafat has encouraged,
promoted, and abetted violence and refused to engage in further
negotiations.
Even after an international summit prescribed the way of winding down
this violence, the Palestinians continued their violent actions. These
actions now show dangers of spilling over into other countries and have
the potential of becoming a regional crisis. I therefore believe, Mr.
Speaker, it is important that our resolution move forward at this time.
Under our resolution, Congress expresses its solidarity with the
state and people of Israel, condemns the Arafat leadership for doing so
little to stop the violence, calls upon that leadership to refrain from
further encouragement of violence and to show respect for all holy
sites, and to settle all grievances through negotiations. Our
resolution commends past and present administrations in their effort to
find balanced resolutions to this long-standing conflict.
Now all the parties in the region need to step back and to try to
find the way to end this violence and to return to the negotiating
table. That will not come very fast. We need to pass this resolution
today to ensure that the Congress of the United States sends a clear
message in support of peace and the State of Israel.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 426.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the results of the General
Assembly vote on Israeli actions in occupied territory.
Annex to Mr. Gilman's Remarks
[source: general assembly plenary press release GA/9793 emergency
special session 20 October 2000 14th meeting (pm)]
``Vote on Israeli Actions in Occupied Territory''
``The Assembly adopted the resolution on illegal Israeli
actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the
occupied Palestinian territory (document A/ES-10/L.6) by a
recorded vote of 92 in favour to 6 against, with 46
abstentions, as follows:''
``In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria,
Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam,
Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote
d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France,
Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia,
Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's
Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco,
Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Oman,
Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar,
Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal
Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname,
Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine,
United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay,
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.''
``Against: Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall
Islands, Nauru, Tuvalu, United States.''
``Abstain: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia,
Barbados, Benin, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El
Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti,
Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Romania, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Tonga, United Kingdom.''
``Absent: Afghanistan, Angola, Bahamas, Belarus, Bhutan,
Cambodia, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Honduras,
Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nigeria, Palau, Panama, Papua New
Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Solomon
Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda,
Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 426
concerning the violence in the Middle East. If this body wishes to pass
a resolution of support for Israel, then let us do it honestly,
straightforwardly; not this way. Not through a resolution that is rife
with bias and prejudice against the Palestinian people.
This resolution could have a lasting adverse impact upon our goal of
peace in the Middle East. We are talking about peace between two
peoples here, not between political factions in Israel and Palestine;
factions that never want peace in the first place.
Regrettably, the language of this resolution is not balanced. It is
not a straightforward vote of solidarity in support for Israel. If it
were, I would not be standing here today. In sum, by passing this
resolution, we abandon our role as an honest broker and take a step
that undermines negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Our words and our actions do bear consequences. In the past, we have
passed resolutions in this body that do not reflect our greater
interest and evenhandedness, and, as a result, people have suffered.
We should be standing here today, Mr. Speaker, urging both parties
instead to return to the negotiating table and help them find their way
back on a path toward peace. Instead, we have a resolution before us
that is an indictment of the Palestinian people's desire for peace;
and, indeed, it is an indictment of the Israeli people's desire for
peace as well. This resolution condemns one side, and it inflames
passions to do the opposite of continuing the peace process.
The true heirs to peace in the region, the peoples of Israel and
Palestine, want the killing to stop. I know there is a deep despair, if
you will, among Palestinians that they will never be able to live as a
free and independent people. There is a feeling of frustration among
the Palestinians that their lives mean less than Israeli lives. I know
that the people of Israel have their legitimate concerns about the
security of their borders.
We as Americans know and Israelis and Palestinians know that there is
no military solution to the terribly difficult solutions that have made
the Middle East a region of tension and conflict for so long. In
today's climate, when at this very moment sees our security forces in
parts of the Middle East on the highest of security alerts, this body
must act in a manner that is in the best interests of our country and
the security interests of America, Mr. Speaker, instead of passing
provocative resolutions of this nature.
This resolution is about bashing the Palestinians as though they have
not lost more than 130 lives in the conflict, as though innocent
Palestinian fathers and sons have not been gunned down as they walked
home, innocent of the conflict around them. We cannot ignore the fact
that an American Red Cross worker was gunned down when he tried to
intervene to save the child and his father.
I condemn these excessive and brutal actions, just as I strongly
condemn the mob-lynching mentality of Israeli soldiers by Palestinians.
I would note that Chairman Arafat said that he would conduct an
investigation, and those responsible for this grueling act are in
custody.
There is a line in this resolution that says perceived provocation
should be subject only to negotiation, not violence. That line, of
course, refers to the fact that Ariel Sharon deliberately timed his
visit to the Nobel Sanctuary, accompanied by more than 1,000 Israeli
security units. Sharon made his trip because he wanted to create strife
among Palestinians, because creating strife among Palestinians would
help him and those who follow him get rid of Prime Minister Barak's
efforts toward peace, putting the Likud back in power in Israel.
It is about politics, not about peace, and, after all, the Israeli
Knesset does return to session this Sunday, and the usual blackmailers
in that country are at work.
This resolution only helps the extremes on both sides, those who
never wanted the peace process to succeed in
[[Page H10649]]
the first place. It plays directly in the hands of Prime Minister
Barak's enemies, enemies of peace in the Middle East. He knows it, and
I would even have my serious doubts whether Prime Minister Barak would
want to see this resolution pass in its present form.
For 7 long years, hard years, the U.S. has been the proud father of
the peace process. We have worked as an honest broker in the Middle
East. But we all know that to be an honest broker, you must be without
bias. This resolution will do more to silence the proud U.S. role as an
honest broker than all of the conflict of the region can do, for there
is no honesty in the biased language of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and our
ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), as well
as the leadership of both Houses for introducing this resolution and
bringing it up for a vote at this time.
This is the time for this House to express its solidarity with the
state and the people of Israel. Back in September of 1993, Chairman
Arafat wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, the PLO
renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence, and will
assume responsibility over all the PLO elements and personnel in order
to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline
violators.
{time} 1630
In July of 2000, Prime Minister Barak made a proposal to the
Palestinian Authority, the successor to the PLO, providing for
statehood for the Palestinians, for withdrawal and secession of 90
percent of the land to the Palestinian state, for removal of
jurisdiction of Israel and sovereignty of Israel from a substantial
number of settlements now occupied by Israelis and, where the Israelis
are now living, for substantial control in the city of Jerusalem,
including two of the four quarters of the old city of Jerusalem, as
well as a number of Palestinian areas within the municipal boundaries
of Jerusalem.
That offer was rejected. As the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos), my friend, pointed out, no counterproposal was made. There is
a mythology going on here. There are two myths, which I would like to
deal with. One is that the violence that we are seeing now was
triggered by the trip, by Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount. There are
quotes throughout July and throughout August from Palestinian leaders,
from officials in the Palestinian authority, which indicate that now is
the time as Yasser Arafat found that world opinion was against his
rejection and failure to make a counter to the Israeli proposal at Camp
David, that now is the time to resume the Intifada. Those quotes
included references to the fact that this Intifada will not simply be
an Intifada of stones, but that the substantial amount of weaponry now
held in the hands of Palestinians and the Palestinian Fatah militia
would be utilized in this Intifada.
Sharon's trip was a pretext. It was not a reason for this violence.
This violence had been planned. The quotations are out there, and the
people of this Chamber, and the people of this country should
understand that.
The tragedy of this, the young people who have died, in some cases
the innocent people have died. But another one of the myths is that
this is caused by rock-throwing young people with an excessive Israeli
response.
Read yesterday's U.S. Today, ambulance drivers bringing rocks and
ammunition to Palestinian militia, ambulance drivers claiming to be on
a humanitarian mission, getting out of their ambulance and shooting
assault weapons at Israeli troops. The fact is the general conventional
belief about what is going on there is not accurate.
Mr. Speaker, I urge people to look more closely at what is happening
and at this effort to try an armed uprising. This is the time for this
resolution. I urge the body to adopt it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House
Concurrent Resolution 426, and I do so reluctantly out of my deep
respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the
Committee on International Relations. I, in fact, originally
cosponsored this bill at the request of the gentleman from New York
(Chairman Gilman), because of my deep admiration for how he has handled
himself and he had done a fair, very fair job in being the chairman of
our committee; and I was hoping that I would have the opportunity
possibly to amend the bill to correct some of the unevenness parts of
this legislation.
Unfortunately, I will not have a chance to amend it, and so I have to
oppose it. It is appropriate, as I am certain was the intent of the
gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), for the United States to be
a force for peace in the Middle East, but we cannot do this by just at
this time declaring that we are totally in favor of one side, which is
what this bill does.
This bill unamended will not further the cause of peace. Instead of
reaching out to those in Israel and Palestine who are committed to
compromise and finding a just peace for all people in the region, this
legislation simply and unequivocably backs up one side of the conflict.
That is not how peace will be achieved.
America should be an even-handed peacemaker. Our goal should be a
secure Israel living at peace with its neighbors; but in achieving this
noble, yet difficult goal, justice for the Palestinian people has to be
part of the formula. And that is why this has been able to go on for so
long, because no one has been willing to accept that the Palestinians
and their rights have to be brought into consideration.
All of these years, they have been ignored and treated as nonhuman
beings; and they have legitimate claims that need to be addressed and
honestly addressed. And, as I say, for so long, it was total
intransigence even dealing with them.
Mr. Speaker, passing a resolution that condemns the Palestinian
authority for the current violence on the West Bank, yet ignores the
fact that of the 110 people killed that only 2 have been Israeli and
over 100 have been Palestinian. This will not help the cause of peace.
Ignoring that Ariel Sharon, a former Israeli defense minister, incited
the current violence, he knew what would happen if he went there. And
he went there anyway.
Any of the information that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman), my good friend, said was available, to say there was a
potential for violence, he knew. Yet, this defense minister arrogantly
and irresponsibly went on this provocative trip to a Muslim Holy site.
This will not help our country to end the cycle of violence by simply
ignoring that this act took place and that was what sparked this
violence. There are people of good will on both sides, and we should be
siding with them, the people of good will on both sides, rather than
unconditionally backing up one side.
The policy of unquestioning support has undermined the willingness to
compromise, which is what has kept this dispute festering for decades.
Just as we should condemn the United Nations resolution, which was one
sided, as this bill would do, let us not commit the same offense by
passing one-sided resolutions that take us out of the role of being an
even-handed peacemaker.
Seeking a secure Israel and justice for the Palestinian people is an
enormously difficult endeavor, but one that deserves our best effort.
This resolution does not further that cause, and I will have to oppose
it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I first want to associate myself with the remarks of all who
have said that we ought to condemn violence wherever we find it.
Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in this House agrees with that
premise. I think we ought to also agree with the premise that the
United States really is the best hope for resolution of the peace
process as an honest broker. I agree with that premise, but agreeing
with that premise does not, in my opinion, adopt another premise, and,
that is, that the United States ought not to call things as it sees it.
[[Page H10650]]
That we do not adopt the facts as we find them. I find the facts to
be as have been stated on this floor, that the two parties share a
great enmity for one another, but I believe that one of those parties,
Israel, has accepted the premise that they will exist in an area with
Palestinians and with Arabs.
Regrettably, however, I must say to my friends that I am not sure
that the Palestinians have accepted the premise that they will live in
a neighborhood with the Israelis. It is my view that that is the nub of
the problem.
Mr. Speaker, because that is the nub of the problem, it is
appropriate for us to say so, and it is appropriate for us to urge both
sides, but particularly, Mr. Arafat--and I say to my friend, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), who is a dear and good
friend of mine--that I think Mr. Arafat does have a responsibility, and
to exercise that responsibility, to articulate to his people whom he
leads, that peace is the only avenue to bring resolution, and that the
40,000 police force that he commands should, in fact, make a greater
effort to maintain peace.
We know they cannot do it perfectly, but we would urge them, and do
so in this resolution, to accomplish peace in the Middle East through
reconciliation and not violence.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), our dean of the House of Representatives, and
my dear friend.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I do thank my good friend, the gentleman
from West Virginia, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very sad opposition to this legislation out of
respect for my dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman),
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, who is one of the
great chairmen of the history of this institution, particularly of the
Committee on International Relations.
I am satisfied that those who have spoken for this resolution do so
in the best of good faith, and I express my respect and my affection
for each of them, Mr. Speaker. But this resolution is not in the
interests of the United States. It is not in the interests of Israel.
It is not in the interests of the Palestinians, and it is not in the
interests of peace. I think that the United States has to look to see
what its purposes in this area of the Middle East, which has had so
much trouble for so long, are.
The United States has one goal and one purpose here, peace, and, very
frankly, the continued existence of the state of Israel. But without a
recognition of the role which we must play in this area, there will be
no peace. And unless the United States has the courage to recognize
that we have to be an honest broker in the area, trusted by all parties
there and visible working for peace in the most objective and fair
fashion, there will probably be no peace and we will see to peace and
there will be no success for the United States in carrying out this
great purpose.
The simple fact of the matter is, if we look at this legislation, the
language of it makes it very plain, it condemns one side. I am not
going to rise to say who is at fault here. I think that is something
that needs a greater amount of time and debate. I want to rise to urge
my colleagues to recognize the proper function of the United States,
that of an honest, impartial respected, independent, honest broker.
Unless we accept that responsibility, we will not be able to achieve
the necessary trust in the area.
As I speak and as we sit here and as this matter is debated, the
Middle East, Israel and Palestine are slipping towards a war. That war
is not in the interests of the world, in the interests of Israel or in
the interests of the Palestinians, and it is assuredly not in the
interests of the United States.
I would urge my colleagues, reflect, first of all, as to whether it
is in the interests of the United States to take sides in this matter,
and very much so, whether it is in the interests of the United States
to take sides in a matter on which we are the only Nation in the world
who can speak as honest brokers, who can convene the parties to work
together to eliminate a threatened war and a conflict. Hundreds of
people have already died. More will die unless this country does
something about it.
But to take sides, to ship weapons, to engage in support or
castigation of one side, is not the way that we serve our purpose, the
purposes of the world, the purposes of peace or the purposes of the
Palestinians or the purposes of the Israelis.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand really for peace, to
recognize the responsibility of the ability and the interests of the
United States require us to be an honest broker, not a partisan, not a
participation in castigation of one side or another, but rather leader
in an attempt to see to it that the parties convene and talk.
Ask yourself if someone were to put out a resolution like this when
we had a border difficulty with your neighbor, if that would engage you
to accept them as the impartial mediator of the differences between you
and that neighbor. I think the answer is very simple. It would not. If
we have listened to the discussions today, the discussions have said
one thing amongst those who support the legislation, and, that is, that
the supporters of the legislation as well as the resolution castigate
the Palestinians. Ask yourself if that works for peace, ask yourself if
that enables us to function as honest brokers.
{time} 1645
Ask yourself if that is going to enable us to speak with the respect
and the trust of both sides to them about the need for peace, and ask
yourself whether you could expect to function as an honest broker and
to encourage the parties to work together.
Mr. Speaker, there is little enough goodwill in the area now. There
is hatred and ill will on both sides, and people are dying. I am not
going to say who is at fault in this matter, because I do not believe
that that is the function of this debate, nor is it in the interest of
the United States to get ourselves in a position where we are obvious
partisans of one side. But, if we read the language, if we listen to
the remarks, ask ourselves, have these discussions talked about how we
can, through this resolution, fulfill the great purposes and functions
which can be those of the United States, by working for a meaningful,
lasting peace; by achieving the trust of both sides; by holding the
willingness of both sides to work together to resolve the differences.
It is with a very heavy heart that I see the killings over there, and
I observe the numbers of people who have died. It is also with a very
heavy heart that I see how many people are going to die, and when I see
how the United States is throwing away, with this kind of resolution,
the opportunity to achieve lasting peace for Israel and for the
Palestinians, for the Middle East, and for the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the legislation before
us. I do not question the sincerity of the authors of this resolution.
Like me, they watched the bloodshed in the Occupied Territories and
Israel with heavy hearts. However, this legislation seems much more to
do with the American electoral process than with the crisis in the
Middle East. I do not want any of my colleagues to think that by
opposing this legislation you oppose Israel. This is not a referendum
on the American relationship with Israel.
Viewed objectively, this legislation is simply not in the best
interest of the United States, Israel, or the Palestinians, and is
damaging to the prospects of peace in the Middle East. It focuses on
assigning blame for violence rather than stopping it. It is unfair and
biased, and in condemning only one side of this conflict, it
jeopardizes the American ability to negotiate peace as a fair and
honest broker. It also endangers American lives and economic interests,
and places our Arab allies in a precarious position. It is precisely
reactionary measures like the one before us that builds up so much ill-
will toward America, the only nation with the ability to negotiate
peace between Israel and its neighbors. This places Israel in a much
more dangerous, isolated position.
Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible to be debating and voting on this
measure as President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat
work to end the violence. It will already be difficult enough for Barak
and Arafat to calm their people; this resolution throws rhetorical fuel
on the fire that is dangerously close to burning out of control.
When the violence abates, the Palestinian Authority, Israel and the
world will rely on the United States to get the peace process back on
track. We must not let our personal emotions cloud our judgment. It is
our duty, and our government's duty, to work as a peace facilitator,
not as a judge or partisan.
[[Page H10651]]
The Palestinians and Israelis have much to resolve without fighting
for the sympathy of the American government and public. The Israelis
must realize that the Palestinians have a legitimate right to an
independent state and to return to their homes, just as the
Palestinians must realize Israel has a right to exist and desires
safety and security. Both sides must recognize that the status of
Jerusalem is profoundly important to Palestinians and Israelis alike,
and that the holy sites are sacred to Jews, Muslims, and Christians. It
must be known that the sanctity of life is a shared value. America can
help the parties understand their differences and similarities only if
all parties trust us.
I do wonder why this legislation, in pinning blame solely on the
Palestinians, fails to explain why Palestinians are angry, mention
Ariel Sharon's provocation march through al-Haram as-Sharif, or note
the tactics employed by Israeli soldiers, who have been criticized by
the United Nations and the Israeli press for responding to rocks with
bullets. We must not treat this as a black and white issue.
The jobs of President Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat are not
easy. I do not envy them. As Yitzhak Rabin stated moments before he was
assassinated, ``Without partners for peace, there can be no peace.''
President Clinton must, despite all that has been said and done, keep
Barak and Arafat together as partners in peace. Barak and Arafat must
convince highly skeptical publics that the other is a partner. We must
not undermine their efforts by passing this resolution. I would urge my
colleagues to act responsibility for the sake of the United States,
Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the peace process. Vote down
this resolution.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Leach), a senior member of our Committee on International
Relations.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly the most difficult time for
Israel since the 1967 war. It is the most difficult time for the United
States in the Middle East since the Gulf War, and perhaps ever. In
circumstances like these, one of the great questions is: What are the
basics? I think the basics are threefold.
One is that we are a bedrock ally of Israel and always will be. The
second is that we have to be a committed facilitator for peace. The
third is that we have to be respectful of differing views,
philosophies, and religions.
The problem at the moment and the reason fundamentally behind this
resolution is that the third aspect, the respect for differing views,
is harder in a circumstance where the most progressive proposal for
change was placed on the table, turned back, and no counterproposal was
put forth. This spring, we were all hopeful that we would see
resolution of these extraordinary issues come in an early time frame,
based on the fact that Mr. Barak was clearly placing his political life
on the line for progressive change, given the fact that the
Palestinians and Mr. Arafat seemed in a mood to compromise, and given
the fact that an American President had committed himself to be a peace
facilitator.
Now the question is, is there any alternative to the peace process?
Obviously, there is only one, and that is war. So, while this
resolution, I believe, will receive the general support of this body,
although with respectful opposition, it is clear that the Congress has
to go on very strong record in the context of this resolution of saying
that above all, we only want peace, that there is no desire for
increased conflict between the Muslim world and the Judeo-Christian
traditions, and above all, there is no desire for anything except a
fair and reasoned compromise on all sides for the issues of the day, a
compromise that can allow people in the region to live in harmony. That
is what the Congress desires.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, so that the debate
will not be stifled, that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each be granted 5
additional minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Without objection, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will have an additional 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman)
will now have 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Does it help us move toward peace in the Middle East for the United
States to deny the reality of what is happening today in the Middle
East and to turn its back on our staunchest ally, the only democracy in
the Middle East? I have to tell Members of this Chamber that we should
not, in the earnest hope for peace, turn our backs on Israel. We ought
to adopt this resolution and stand in solidarity with the people of
Israel.
Let us look at the events. A peace process brought, through our
efforts, the head of the Palestinian Authority and the Prime Minister
of Israel together to try to work out a settlement. Prime Minister
Barak offered the most generous settlement that anyone ever imagined he
would; and he was rejected by Arafat, the President of the Palestinian
Authority. Chairman Arafat was unresponsive to this proposal and then
went home and, either because he did not have the ability to stop it or
the conviction to rein it in, permitted the paramilitary forces to
engage in mob fury. Chairman Arafat's unresponsiveness to the
tremendous proposals put forth indicates that he has very little
credibility as a partner for peace.
What else did he do? He opened up the prison doors and let 100 Hamas
and Islamic Gihad prisoners out, which is a green light for them to
strap bombs on their backs, go into civilian populations and blow up
people, to engage in the worst kind of terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, the loss of life on both sides has been tragic, but the
refusal of Chairman Arafat to do anything now except to run to
international organizations that have always been biased against Israel
and urge them to adopt resolutions to internationalize the conflict, to
try to point fingers at Israel alone, makes it incumbent on us in the
United States, the only superpower in the world, the only country that
says to people around the world, follow us into democracy, stick with
us and we will stick with you; it is incumbent upon us to stand with
Israel and to urge the parties to go back to the table if they can, but
only understanding that the United States supports Israel's right to
exist and supports them in this terrible conflict.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I say to my colleagues, America's number one ally in the Middle East,
our strategic partner and our dear friend for 52 years, the State of
Israel, is today fighting for its very life. Our friend, the State of
Israel, who helped us in the Persian Gulf War against Saddam Hussein
and in so many other crises in the region and on a day-to-day basis
when, as our military is described, America's aircraft carrier in a sea
of trouble, is fighting for its very life.
We remember who fought against us in the Persian Gulf War. Chairman
Arafat and the Palestinian Authority supported Saddam Hussein against
America and its allies. Chairman Arafat rejected an offer for an
independent state for the Palestinian people just a few months ago, an
offer made by Prime Minister Barak of Israel. He did not like the
terms. What did he do? He was supposed to, under the Oslo Accords,
continue negotiating. Instead, he walked out, made no counteroffer,
left the negotiating table. Days later, violence ensued and lots of
innocent people have been killed.
The Palestinian people deserve a leader who will negotiate peace
without resorting to violence. Until they get such a leader, the people
of the United States need to stand with their friend, the only
democracy in the region, America's strategic partner; the only
democracy in the region who was traditionally called Satan by the
people of the region, along with America, as the Great Satan. We wish
peace for all of the peoples of the region. They are all good people;
they deserve peace
[[Page H10652]]
and democracy. Until the Palestinian Authority gets leaders who are
committed to peace and can rein in their extremists, just as Israel
needs to rein in their extremists, we will not have peace.
Support America's friend until the other side is willing to come back
to the negotiating table and negotiate a peace and not send their
children into the street to be killed for CNN's purposes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this debate, certainly I have no
illusions as to the outcome, just as I believe nobody in this body or
in the region or in the world has any illusions about the outcome if,
truly, as the previous speaker has said, that Israel is fighting for
its very life. That is certainly speaking from emotions, and this is an
emotional moment in the region. But who can deny the outcome of gun
ships and helicopter gunfire and smart bombs, precision targeting,
pinpoint targeting, one of the most well-equipped armies in the world,
against the Palestinian people? Who could deny that outcome? Who even
thinks that this truly is a war of all wars?
I understand a lot of the accusations that have been made and leveled
by my friends and supporters of this resolution, and a lot of that
cannot be completely denied. If there is one accurate statement that
can be said about this part of the world and the way of life in this
region, it is the fact that no side is without their share of the
blame, no side is without their share of miscalculations, no side is
without their share of inflammatory statements, pandering to their
domestic opponents. All of these statements could describe all sides of
the fighting in this region.
Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that we in this body have a higher
responsibility, not to get involved in internal divisions of any
country in the region, not to point fingers, not to take so obvious a
side at so obvious an emotional moment; not to speak and take actions
that can be perceived in some parts of the world, although not reality,
but can be perceived as the law of the Congress when we take actions.
We have a responsibility not to take those provocative actions in this
body. Granted, we have taken and passed a number of resolutions over
the decades, some of which I have supported, that have jumped up at the
moment to address what many of us feel is the best sense of peace in
the Middle East.
However, we are not secretaries of state in this body. I believe that
we have a responsibility, while recognizing what is truly in our
hearts, while recognizing our support, as I have today and in the past
for our ally, Israel and the region, recognizing our legitimate
concerns for the security of its borders; but we have a responsibility.
We have a responsibility at this particular time to take action that
reflects the thinking in our heads.
As I noted earlier, today we see our armed forces in parts of the
Middle East on the highest state of security alert than we have seen in
several years. Now, for us to come through with an action of this
nature could very well be misinterpreted by some in the region who do
not understand that this is merely a resolution and does not carry the
force of law, but it is still perceived as an expression of this body
that can have devastating effects in the minds of those who in the
region have only violence in their heads, who have only suicide
missions on their agenda, and who truly have never been for the peace
process to begin with.
{time} 1700
There are those extremists on all sides in the region who have never
been for the peace process. If we are to support this administration
and their role as an honest broker and President Clinton's Herculean
efforts day in and day out, continuous without fatigue, as he works
nonstop to bring the sides to the negotiating table, our role today
should be to call for a cessation of violence in a nonpartisan, in a
truly objective manner, and urge the parties to come back to the peace
process.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as the senior Member of this body
said earlier, the United States and we, as Members of Congress, must
not abandon our role as an honest broker and take a step that this
resolution would do that undermines negotiations between Israel and the
Palestinians. We must heed the advice of the executive branch that has
urged opposition to this resolution, both the National Security Council
and the Department of State.
Because although our words may seem removed from the violence that
has engulfed the region, they do matter, and people listen. Instead of
passing resolutions that condemn one side and further inflame passions,
we should urge both parties to return to the negotiating table and to
help them find their way back on a path toward peace. This resolution
does not do that.
We should offer words of consolation for all the loss of life and
injuries. We should call for acts of violence to be halted on all sides
in the conflict and call upon all parties to find ways back to the
negotiating table no matter how difficult that task may be. We should
not be engaging in taking sides and thereby further inflaming the rage
and the despair.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues of the United Nations
Security Council resolution that was adopted on October 7, dealing with
the violence in the Middle East. The United States did not veto that.
It chose to abstain because it felt that preserving the greater U.S.
interests of remaining neutral in the conflict would, in fact, bring us
further toward the peace that we all desire.
We also need to keep a number of things in mind. There have been over
130 deaths in this region of the world, almost all of them
Palestinians, more than a quarter of them under the age of 18, and
almost all of them in an area that was supposed to be under the control
of the Palestinian Authority.
The reason for this conflict, Mr. Speaker, is because the Oslo
Accords were not implemented. The Israeli Army still controls over 60
percent of the West Bank, a considerable amount of the Gaza Strip. It
was clear that, unless we fully implemented the Oslo Accords, there was
going to be conflict.
In fact, we ought to recognize as well, if we were to do an
evenhanded resolution, that the deliberately provocative act of Ariel
Sharon in going to al-Haram al-Sahrif, or otherwise known as the Temple
Mount, was a deliberate, conscious act. He was warned against doing
that, yet, he took an entourage of more than 1,000 soldiers.
The Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, criticized that visit as
extremely provocative. But to many Palestinians, that visit was a show
of military might, a blatant reminder of military solutions sought in
the past. It was a humiliating message of disrespect to Palestinians
and the Arab world. That is not how we bring about peace in the world
and particularly in the Middle East.
We as Americans, the rest of the international community, the
Israelis, and the Palestinians should know that there is no military
solution to these terribly difficult issues that have made the Middle
East a region of tension and violence for far too long.
In fact, the presence of Israeli tanks and helicopter gunships in
Palestinian territories has only reinforced the despair among
Palestinians that they will never be able to live free and
independently. That is the source of the violence. That must be
addressed.
The Oslo Accords should have been implemented. In fact, since the
Oslo Accords 7 years ago, the roads that have been built that have not
been opened to Palestinians has further constrained their lives.
Parameters are set upon their lives, around their lives that show that
there is no hope for the future. It is out of that desperation that we
see people sacrificing their lives, that we see people exhibiting real
hatred for the situation that they have been put under.
We have a responsibility to address that hatred, to try to find a
common goal for the Middle East, one of peace and reconciliation,
economic independence. We could only do that if we try to serve, as the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) said, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has said, if we try to serve as an honest broker,
representing the views of both sides in this conflict.
This resolution accomplishes nothing except to make Members of the
Congress look good. That is not our objective. What we should be trying
to do is
[[Page H10653]]
creating a better life for all people around the world in a fair and
honest manner so that we can have a sustainable and just peace.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, there have been many calls for the United
States to be an honest broker. I share those calls. We have been an
honest broker since President Carter brought the parties together at
Camp David, but there were two willing parties. We can be an honest
broker when both sides are eager to move towards peace, as President
Sadat and Prime Minister Begin did.
Arafat's latest contribution to this dialogue was to tell the Prime
Minister of Israel to go to hell. It is difficult to be an honest
broker under those circumstances. Under those circumstances, our job is
to stand up with the only political democracy in the entire Middle East
that has gone way beyond anything that anybody in this body thought
would be offered the Palestinians and, as a reward, had a walkout by
Arafat and the fermenting of an uprising. This resolution must be
passed as the overwhelming voice of the conscience.
We all grieve for every single person who lost his life. All lives
are of equal value. But the cynical exploitation of little children who
are sent into harm's way with financial rewards is not very impressive.
It is the most cynical exploitation of the young who do not know any
better.
Peace has to come, but in order for peace to come, both parties must
be willing to return to the negotiating table with good intentions and
the determination that was present at Camp David.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me again say that there is enough
blame to go around on all sides in this part of the world. There is a
lot of finger pointing today. But it is incumbent upon this body at
this crucial time in the region to step back to urge the party to stop
the inflammatory statements on both sides, on all sides, and there have
been those statements as I referred to earlier, in order to show the
bravo, in order to play to the factions within one's own side in that
region.
But this body has a higher responsibility not to get involved in
that, but, rather, to urge the parties to get back to the negotiating
table, as President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright have so
excellently tried to do in Egypt and continue to do this very hour. Let
us support this administration and their efforts.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, permit me to remind my colleagues that our resolution,
H. Con. Res. 426, begins with the statement that the Arab-Israeli
conflict must be settled peacefully and through negotiations. But the
question is how do we bring about this kind of peaceful negotiations in
the Middle East in the current situation?
We have observed in the past few weeks shocking violence in the
Middle East. Shall we not take a stand with regard to that violence?
We have a situation where the General Assembly is passing resolutions
that our ambassador, the UN Ambassador Holbrooke called, and I quote,
unbalanced and unhelpful. That is not the way to bring about peaceful
negotiations. We need to focus on the violence, on the parties
responsible for the violence. We need to send a firm message to them
and send a strong message for peace and of the solidarity of our
closest friends in the Middle East, the State of Israel.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con.
Res. 426. Today, when the U.N. issues resolutions faulting Israel, when
the Arab world convenes a summit in order to condemn Israel, is the
appropriate time for this House to speak with one voice on the side of
our ally. Israel did not start the current violence, the Palestinian
Authority did. And while each and every one of us hopes for a peaceful
resolution to a conflict that has been ongoing for tens, if not
thousands, of years, we must also use this opportunities to express our
solidarity with the state and people of Israel. The Resolution before
us states unequivocally that the Congress condemns the Palestinian
leadership for encouraging the violence and doing nothing to stop it.
It urges the Administration to use its veto power to stop biased U.N.
resolutions from going into effect, and it encourages the parties to
settle their grievances through negotiations.
The time has come to stand with our friend Israel and to stand up
against those who would lay the blame for the recent unfortunate events
at her feet. Indeed, in many respects the Resolution does not go far
enough. The American people continue to contribute to the Palestinian
Authority in the form of foreign aid, and I would suggest that that aid
be suspended pending a Presidential determination that the Palestinian
Authority is doing all it can to stop the violence. But until that more
significant step is taken, I welcome the House's passage today of H.
Con. Res. 426. It sends an important message from the members of this
body that while we stand on the side of peace, more importantly we
stand on the side of Israel. I urge my colleagues to support the
Resolution.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for
House Concurrent Resolution 426. I commend the distinguished Chairman
of the International Relations committee, Mr. Gilman, along with 152
cosponsors, for bringing this important and timely resolution to the
floor. I watched the events unfold during the past several weeks with
extreme concern. I watched as Chairman Arafat remained silent while
Palestinians and Israelis alike, were being killed in Ramallah and
Nablus. It was not simply the silence that was so troubling. Mr. Arafat
took active steps to fuel the fire by meeting with representatives of
Hamas and Hizbollah. These groups have made it their mission to
undermine the peace process and destroy the state of Israel. Dealing
with such groups calls into question the goals of Chairman Arafat.
I was encouraged by the Palestinian and Israeli commitment to meet at
Sharm-El-Sheikh to work out the terms of a cease fire agreement.
Unfortunately, Chairman Arafat, once again, failed to fulfill his
obligations to the peace process. The agreement called for an immediate
and public denunciation of the violence. The statement made by Mr.
Arafat to the Palestinian public to that effect was ambiguous and
unenthusiastic. It fell far short of what was agreed to in Egypt.
As a result, the violence has persisted and has cast serious doubt
over achieving peace in the region. In addition the United Nations
General Assembly recently passed a one-sided resolution condemning the
use of force by the Israeli security forces. At this crucial time, it
is essential that the State of Israel knows that we will stand
alongside her in her quest for peace. To that end, I am a proud co-
sponsor of this resolution.
House Concurrent Resolution 426 expresses Congressional solidarity
with the state and people of Israel. In addition, it condemns the
Palestinian leadership not only for inciting further violence, but for
failing to take the necessary steps to prevent it.
Mr. Arafat, the United States, Israel and the Palestinian people have
all recognized you as the leader of the Palestinian Authority. It is
time for you to step up and lead. Tell your people, there will be no
intifada, only salaam. If you cannot wholeheartedly support the peace
process, the United States can no longer support you. Therefore, I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting this process. Let there be no
ambiguity as to position the United States will take in this process.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for H.
Con. Res. 426 to express support for the resolution of Arab-Israeli
differences by peaceful negotiation and to condemn the violence that
has engulfed the region. In doing so, I am mindful of the special
relationship our country has and must maintain with our ally, Israel,
and of the heroic efforts of our President to bring about a cease-fire
and to restart negotiations. I also commend Prime Minister Barak for
the pathbreaking proposals he put forward during the negotiations at
Camp David. It is now even clearer than it was then how unfortunate,
indeed tragic, it is that the parties were not able to refine and build
upon those proposals to achieve final agreement.
The resolution before us, however, falls considerably short of the
kind of expression that might best contribute to stopping the violence
and resuming negotiations. I therefore support it with great
ambivalence. Some have suggested that the tone and content of this
resolution is justified by the one-sidedness of the anti-Israeli
resolutions adopted at the United Nations. I disagree. This House
should not be primarily reactive, nor should we see our main purpose as
the affixing of blame. We should
[[Page H10654]]
not second-guess the difficult decision the administration took, to
abstain from using its veto in the Security Council in order to
maintain its leverage in bringing the conflicting parties together. I
am aware of the particular responsibility Chairman Arafat has to
condemn and contain the violence and can only hope that he has the
ability as well as the will to do so. But it is critically important
that our government be absolutely clear and absolutely fair in
demanding that both sides refrain from reckless provocation, end the
cycle of violence, reject extremist elements who stoke the violence and
block the path to accommodation, and earnestly attempt to restart the
negotiations that alone can resolve this conflict.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution before us falls so far
short. But in its last sentence it captures a sentiment which I believe
all of us share, calling on ``all parties involved in the Middle East
conflict to make all possible efforts to reinvigorate the peace process
in order to prevent further senseless loss of life by all sides.'' May
we as a body and as a government find ways to tirelessly advance this
goal in the critical days and weeks ahead.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
resolution and urge my colleagues to vote for this important statement
on the ongoing events in the Middle East. The events in the Middle East
have revealed to all Americans the asymmetrical relationship that has
existed in the peace process. I have been a strong supporter of that
process, and was willing to lend it my full support so long as it was
clear that both sides were equally committed to fair and compromise
peace. We see now that the peace process was not mutual.
Israel, a staunch and loyal friend that shares our democratic values
was seeking honest compromise. At Camp David, Prime Minister Barak made
compromises far bolder and more sweeping than any Israeli prime
minister had dared to go. Under his proposal, 90% of the West Bank and
92% of the Palestinian population would have been ruled by a
Palestinian government. Jerusalem's Holy Places would have been placed
under joint administration and a part of the city made the capital of
an independent Palestine. Mr. Speaker, to these sweeping proposals,
Chairman Arafat offered not even counter-proposals.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a balanced and appropriate response
to the events in the Middle East. It calls for a restoration of the
peace. It does not relinquish hope that compromise might yet be
achieved. Yet it strongly and rightly condemns the Palestine Authority
and Mr. Arafat for their incitement of the current round of violence
and for their failure to put a stop to it. It properly calls upon Mr.
Arafat to renounce violence, and it recognizes that Israel remains a
friend of the United States. In a similar vein, it calls for the United
States ``to insure that the Security Council does not again adopt
unbalanced resolutions addressing the uncontrolled violence in the
areas controlled by the Palestine Authority.''
Mr. Speaker, we should adopt this resolution and we should make clear
that as between a democratic Israel and an autocratic Palestine
Authority there is no choice. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote
for this bill.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned by the outbreak of
violence and the abdication of responsibility by Palestinian
authorities for restoring the peace. We must make clear that peace may
be achieved only through peaceful and negotiated means.
I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 426, which
expresses solidarity with the state and the people of Israel, condemns
Palestinian authorities for encouraging violence and urges them to act
to restore calm, states that peace in the region may be achieved only
through negotiations, and calls for a U.S. Veto of biased U.N. Security
Council resolutions.
Should Arafat continue to pursue violence instead of negotiations, or
should he declare a Palestinian state absent an agreement, we should
cut off all assistance to the Palestinian Authority.
I hope that there will be a return to the peace process. However, if
Arafat rejects a negotiated solution and continues supporting an armed
uprising, we must be clear. We will stand with Israel.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 426.
This important resolution expresses the solidarity of the Congress with
the sate and people of Israel at this time of crisis. As a cosponsor of
the resolution, I urge its passage by the House. Only a few short
months ago at Camp David, the Israeli Government demonstrated the
willingness to make sweeping concessions. The world would not have
dreamed of how far Israel was willing to go. Not 10 years ago, 1 year
ago, or even 6 months ago. It was the Palestinian leadership that
rejected compromise and showed that it was not interested in peace. Not
only did they reject Barak's offer, but they did not even counter-offer
in response.
The violent Palestinian riots we are witnessing result directly from
the fact that Yasir Arafat did not prepare his people for peace. As
Barak was restraining the expectations--preparing the Israeli people
for compromise--Arafat was pumping up the Palestinian demands--
preparing them for conflict. We must today say that Arafat is not a
partner for peace.
Although Israel has today taken a time out from the peace process, it
remains as willing as ever to make peace with its neighbors. However,
Israel must have a real partner. One that does not engage in incitement
to violence; one that does not look the other way when their people are
destroying ancient shrines, such as Joseph's tomb in Nablus; one that
does not allow their people to beat innocent Israelis to death, as
happened recently in Ramallah; and one that does everything in its
power to set the conditions for peace.
The underlying basis of negotiations was the recognition of the PLO
by Israel in exchange for the renunciation of violence by the PLO and
Chairman Arafat. In his September 9, 1993 letter to the late Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Chairman Arafat ``renounced the use of
terrorism and other acts of violence'' and pledged to ``prevent
violence and discipline violators.''
Unless the Palestinian leader calls on his people to halt their
fanatical, hostile public violence and directs his security services to
maintain order--as he promised--the Palestinians will be in violation
of not only the text of the peace agreements, but the basic
understanding which underlay the process. Furthermore, as the
Palestinian rock and molotov cocktail throwers, and gun-men continue to
rage, Israel will be within its rights as a sovereign nation to take
whatever actions it needs to protect its people and frontiers.
Now, there is a moral imperative to stand our ground. Israel is not
only our closest friend and ally in the Middle East, they are in the
right. Israel has demonstrated its willingness to make peace and is now
under attack by thousands of violent rioters. It is time for Congress
to express its solidarity with the people of Israel and, stand with
them in the days to come. The resolution on the floor of the House
today does just that.
Furthermore, we must condemn the Palestinian leadership for its
cowardly encouragement of mass riots and for doing so little to halt
the hysterical rampagers. We must also demand that Arafat and his
lieutenants use their security services to restrain unnecessary acts of
violence, show respect for all holy sites, and settle grievances only
through negotiations.
In the days to come, I expect new challenges to U.S. policy. In
particular, we must be prepared to firmly and without hesitation reject
a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. Such a question can
only be settled at the peace table. We must pass the bill which would
deny any assistance to the Palestinians if they unilaterally declare
statehood.
We must also consider other actions, including, once again, putting
the PLO on the list of groups responsible for acts of terrorism. For
the Palestinians to engage in violent riots today after they rejected
what all reasonable observers thought was a far-reaching and statesman-
like offer from Prime Minister Barak, is only leading the world to see
that Yassir Arafat and his PLO cohorts prefer conflict to negotiation,
and taking land through violence and coercion rather than agreeing on
exchanges at the bargaining table.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman and ranking
minority member of the House International Relations Committee who
wrote this excellent resolution. I urge my colleagues to give it their
strong support.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, once again the situation in the Middle
East has turned from efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully to a
new wave of violence that undermines the basis for peace between
Israelis and Palestinians.
Mr. Speaker, there is no one more supportive of the Middle East Peace
Process than I am. I also support efforts to assist the Palestinian
peoples, and to facilitate exchanges and other programs to promote
reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.
The current wave of violence, however, is simply unacceptable. It is
undermining the very basis for peace, the notion that Palestinians and
Israelis can trust each other and live together. In 1993, a key
principle of reconciliation was that the Palestinian leadership
renounced violence as a means of achieving their political aims. The
last few weeks have proven that the Palestinians have not lived up to
this commitment.
At Camp David, the Government of Israel and Prime Minister Barak made
sweeping proposals that moved the two sides closer than they have ever
been in reaching a historic agreement ending the Israeli Palestinian
violence. Instead of making a counterproposal to this important move,
the Palestinian side has allowed and even promoted, violence on a huge
scale.
I can only conclude that the Palestinians have decided that they need
to resort to violence in order to create more pressure on
[[Page H10655]]
Israel to make further concessions. Even after an international summit
prescribed a way of winding this violence down, the Palestinians
continue their violent actions. These actions are spilling over to
other countries both inside and outside the region, and have the
potential to become increasingly widespread.
I therefore believe that it is important that this resolution move
forward at this time. Under this resolution, Congress expresses its
solidarity with the state and people of Israel, condemns the
Palestinian leadership for doing so little to stop the violence, and
calls upon the leadership to refrain from exhortations to violence, to
stop all violence, to show respect for all holy sites and to settle all
grievances through negotiations.
It also commends the current and past administrations for their
efforts to find Middle East peace, urges the Clinton administration to
stop future unbalanced resolutions, and calls on all parties involved
in the Middle East conflict to make all possible efforts to
reinvigorate the peace process to prevent further senseless loss of
life by all sides.
Mr. Speaker, despite my disappointment and outrage at this developing
violence, I remain convinced that there is no alternative to a peaceful
settlement between Israel, the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. The
sooner that all parties in the region not only recognize that Israel is
here to stay, but also truly internalize that reality and negotiate on
that basis, real peace cannot be achieved.
Now, all the parties in the region need to step back and to try to
find a way to end this violence and return to the negotiating table. We
need to pass this resolution today to ensure that the U.S. Congress
sends a clear message of its support for Israel during this crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 426.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________