[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 7, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E735]]
    EXPRESSING SOLIDARITY WITH ISRAEL IN ITS FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 2, 2002

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this legislation could not have come at a 
worse time in the ongoing Middle East crisis. Just when we have seen 
some positive signs that the two sides may return to negotiations 
toward a peaceful settlement, Congress has jumped into the fray on one 
side of the conflict. I do not believe that this body wishes to de-rail 
the slight progress that seems to have come from the Administration's 
more even-handed approach over the past several days. So why is it that 
we are here today ready to pass legislation that clearly and openly 
favors one side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
  There are many troubling aspects to this legislation. The legislation 
says that ``the number of Israelis killed during that time [since 
September 2000] by suicide terrorist attacks alone, on a basis 
proportional to the United States population, is approximately 9,000, 
three times the number killed in the terrorist attacks on New York and 
Washington on September 11, 2001.'' This kind of numbers game with the 
innocent dead strikes me as terribly disrespectful and completely 
unhelpful.
  It is, when speaking of the dead, the one-sidedness of this bill that 
is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to 
every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and 
condemned as terrorist? This is only made worse by the fact that 
Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American-
inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them. This 
bill just reinforces negative perceptions of the United States in that 
part of the world. What might be the consequences of this? I think we 
need to stop and think about that for a while. We in this body have a 
Constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the 
United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the 
potential to do great harm to our national security.
  Perhaps this is why the Administration views this legislation as 
``not a very helpful approach'' to the situation in the Middle East. In 
my view, it is bad enough that we are intervening at all in this 
conflict, but this legislation strips any lingering notion that the 
United States intends to be an honest broker. It states clearly that 
the leadership of one side--the Palestinians--is bad and supports 
terrorism just at a time when this Administration negotiates with both 
sides in an attempt to bring peace to the region. Talk about 
undermining the difficult efforts of the president and the State 
Department. What incentive does Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or his 
organization have to return to the negotiating table if we as ``honest 
broker'' make it clear that in Congress's eyes, the Palestinians are 
illegitimate terrorists? Must we become so involved in this far-off 
conflict that we are forced to choose between Arafat and Israeli Prime 
Minister Ariel Sharon? The United States Congress should not, 
Constitutionally, be in the business of choosing who gets to lead which 
foreign people.
  Many people of various religious backgrounds seem determined to 
portray what is happening in the Middle East as some kind of historic/
religious struggle, where one side is pre-ordained to triumph and 
destroy the other. Even some in this body have embraced this notion. 
Surely the religious component that some interject into the conflict 
rouses emotions and adds fuel to the fire. But this is dangerous 
thinking. Far from a great holy war, the Middle East conflict is 
largely about what most wars are about: a struggle for land and 
resources in a part of the world where both are scarce. We must think 
and act rationally, with this fact clearly in mind.
  Just as with our interventionism in other similar struggles around 
the world, our meddling in the Middle East has unforeseen consequences. 
Our favoritism of one side has led to the hatred of America and 
Americans by the other side. We are placing our country in harm's way 
with this approach. It is time to step back and look at our policy in 
the Middle East. After 24 years of the ``peace process'' and some 300 
million of our dollars, we are no closer to peace than when President 
Carter concluded the Camp David talks.
  Mr. Speaker, any other policy that had so utterly failed over such a 
long period of time would likely come under close scrutiny here. Why is 
it that when it comes to interventionism in the Middle East conflict we 
continue down this unproductive and very expensive road?

                          ____________________