[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 24, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7299-S7302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VIOLENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I and other Members of the Senate from
time to time have taken the floor to address the tragedies which daily,
weekly, monthly, and yearly come forth in the Middle East. Today, we
were greeted by a headline in the Washington Post: U.S. Decries Israeli
Missile Strike, Ponders The Effect On The Peace Bid.
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, again, I have taken the floor several
times to give just one Senator's viewpoint. I am almost at a loss for
words to describe the tragic situation that has unfolded in the past 24
hours, or 36 hours--whatever the case may be--where a plane that was
manufactured here in the United States delivered a missile into a
residential area controlled by the Palestinians and brought about the
deaths of many innocent people.
It is characterized and described at length in the article which
appeared in this paper and the papers across the world today.
The raid, as told by the reports, took the life of an individual who
has brought about great harm to the people of Israel over a long
period, but along with that life went the lives of many children and
innocent people.
Preceding this use of force--again, use of force which is perceived
by the Israeli leadership as necessary to protect the integrity of
their sovereign nation and the safety of the people, and I will not
debate that at this point in time--preceding this event were the tragic
bombings by humans going into the Israeli areas with the bombs strapped
to them giving up their lives and taking the lives of innocent people
on the streets. And on and on it goes.
What do we do about it?
I reiterate that I have spoken about this on this floor several
times, and I intend to this time formalize it in a letter which I will
be sending perhaps tonight or early tomorrow morning to the President
of the United States. The thoughts in that letter are basically the
same thoughts that I have said on this floor two or three times, and
also at the time that the NATO Ambassadors came to visit the Congress
of the United States. We had an informal meeting hosted by several of
our colleagues. I was invited to speak. The very thoughts that I am
referring to tonight I shared in that meeting some 2 weeks ago.
Our Nation recently celebrated our traditional Fourth of July
holiday. It is normally a time of joyful reflection of our history, of
patriotism, and just plain, old-fashioned summer fun. Thankfully, it
was a peaceful day for America. But when we entered that holiday
period, I remember so well that we were confronted with yet another
warning by responsible individuals in our Government of a possible
terrorist attack. In varying degrees in varying places here in our
great United States, it had a dampening effect. I remember that so
well.
A number of constituents--who I am proud to represent in Virginia,
which adjoins the Nation's Capital--called to inquire whether it was
safe to go down and watch the fireworks on The Mall. We gave them
encouragement, in our opinion, to do so.
[[Page S7300]]
I myself was in the area during part of that day. Indeed, there was
an enormous outpouring of our citizens and visitors from all around the
world who enjoyed those fireworks that night. I say that thankfully it
was a peaceful day. But we ended that holiday period confronted with
that warning.
It is, indeed, prudent that our citizens be warned of such threats.
There is no criticism of what I believe is a very responsible and
prudent program of persons in our Government entrusted to make the
decision to alert our people when they have reason to believe because
of intelligence gathering that they should promulgate those warnings.
I, however, have to ask myself: Do these warnings continue
indefinitely? Will people begin to ask of me and my colleagues, of our
President and of all those in positions of authority, what is the root
cause of this hatred towards the United States? Are we in leadership
positions doing everything we can to learn of those causes, to lessen
that hatred, to tell the truth about America's cause for freedom, and
how our men and women of the Armed Forces--as the Presiding Officer
knows so well having served in the military himself--have gone forth
from our shores throughout these 200-plus years of this Republic only
in the cause of freedom-- never have taken a square mile of property
and kept it. Temporarily, we have administered certain geographic areas
throughout our history, but never used force to acquire land to augment
this Nation.
People will begin to say: Has our Government done everything it can
do? I think our President has exhibited--in the past, today, and will
in the future--extraordinary leadership, together with his principal
Cabinet officers and his military men and women for whom he is
Commander in Chief.
The scourge of terrorism in the 21st century is a complex and
multifaceted problem. None of us fully understand all the root causes
and all the means with which we have to deal with it.
This Chamber, hopefully next week, will resonate with a strong debate
on the bill for homeland defense. We will soon be giving final approval
to the division in the military of commander in chief, forces north.
Just think, Mr. President, CINC, commander in chief, for homeland
defense, which means marshaling all the military assets and other
assets of this Nation to try to protect our citizens against further
terrorist attack.
There is not a single cause for this terrorism and hatred but many,
including disparate economic development around the world, lack of
political and economic opportunity in many regions, the alarming spread
of radical fundamentalist religions, the dogmas, especially Islam,
amongst those feeling disenfranchised from the mainstream of the world,
and the tyrannical rise of ethnic conflicts after decades of repression
by communists and other tyrannical regimes.
In this environment of perceived hopelessness and despair for many
people, particularly the world's youth, seemingly unsolvable events
continue to fan the flames of anger and hatred that lead to irrational
acts, acts which are almost beyond comprehension.
This is manifested in the individual acts of terror we witness almost
daily on the streets of Israel against the freedom-loving people of the
State of Israel and in the recruitment of angry young men and women
into radical terrorist organizations that encourage them to vent their
anger in most destructive ways, most notably human suicide of
themselves and against the innocent citizens of Israel.
Israel really has no recourse but to strike back in a manner that
clearly indicates not only to the Palestinians but to the rest of the
world that it is a sovereign nation and has the right to exercise every
possible resource of that nation to protect its people.
Solving the conditions that have bred this hate and total disregard
for peaceful solutions will be complex, but it must be systematically
addressed. Again, clearly, our President and his administration have
shown leadership.
But is our Congress showing leadership to help? Can more be done by
others? These are the questions I ponder daily.
Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, prolonged over a period of
time that none of us ever envisioned, contributes, in some measure, to
the unrest and anger in the Arab world directed towards the people of
this great United States of America.
I cannot quantify it--I do not think anyone else can--but clearly
that conflict is part of the root cause of hatred against us, hatred
which is causing us to create a brand new Department of Government,
Homeland Defense, an entirely new military command, to take all types
of precautions in our daily life--whether it is at the airports or
people just coming to visit here in the Congress of the United States--
with security measures.
This conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians often is
presented and distorted in a very biased manner to the citizens
throughout that region by the media in the Arab nations. We must
confront that. We must take actions which are clear to show that we
want to bring about peace in that region.
We have to address the disaffection and dissatisfaction felt by the
people of that region. Each act of violence by either side in this
unending conflict erodes hope for the peaceful future for Israel--it is
in this article--and for the peaceful future of the people in
Palestine.
In fact, each act of senseless violence in the Middle East further
erodes hope that someday we can be more secure here at home.
All reasonable options to bring about an end to this violence and
indiscriminate loss of life must be considered. We can never, ever
abandon hope. We must act together to renew hope in this land of the
Middle East, the land of faith, the land from which so much history has
emanated for the rest of the world.
One option I believe must be considered--and I said this many times
here on the floor--is the use of NATO peacekeepers. But that can only
be achieved if certain criteria are met.
First, I call upon the administration to explore, with the other
member nations of NATO: Are they willing to take on this task, a task
with unknown risks? Clearly there are risks, but the quantum of risk is
unknown. Are they willing to take it on if these conditions are met--
first, the people of Palestine and the people of Israel, ask them to
take on this obligation to maintain conditions of stability. That is
the first.
Second, if both the Palestinian people and the people of Israel,
through their respected, elected leaders, will pledge to cooperate in
every way with those NATO forces.
Now, Mr. President, there is a perception in the world that the
Europeans are more sympathetic to the Palestinian causes, and that we
here in the United States are more sympathetic to the Israeli causes.
But NATO bonds us together, as we have been for these 50 years, in one
constituted force.
And we would then go, as a constituted military organization, for the
stated purpose, only, of trying to bring about stability, so that the
diplomatic discussions, not only between the leaders of the Palestinian
people and the leaders of the Israeli people can commence, but other
leaders in the world, who desire, can step up.
There are those who have looked at this problem, and I respect them,
and they disagree. I ask unanimous consent an article by a noted
author, Mr. Kagan, be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, July 24, 2002]
U.S. Decries Israeli Missile Strike, Ponders Effect on Peace Bid
(By Karen DeYoung)
The White House yesterday denounced Israel's missile strike
in a densely populated area in the Gaza Strip as ``heavy-
handed'' and described it as ``a deliberate attack against a
building in which civilians were known to be located.''
Rejecting Israel's contention that it did not intend to
kill innocents with a strike that was directed against a
leader of the Hamas militant group, spokesman Ari Fleischer
said. ``These were apartment buildings that were targeted.''
In addition to Salah Shehada, the intended target, the
missile fired from an Israeli F-16 warplane killed 14 other
people, most of them under the age of 11, and injured about
150.
Although President Bush continues ``to be a lead defender
of Israel around the world and will speak out about Israel's
right to self-defense,'' Fleischer said, ``this is an
instance in which the United States and Israel do not see eye
to eye.''
[[Page S7301]]
The Monday night attack was widely condemned in Europe and
the Arab world. Many, particularly in Arab capitals, said it
demonstrated that the government of Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon was trying to undercut recent progress in the
Middle East peace process.
The attack appeared initially to have stunned U.S.
officials involved in peace efforts. They said they had no
warning of Israel's plans despite talks here Monday between
high-level representatives of the two governments. By
yesterday, shock had turned to depression and uncertainty
over where the process would go.
``There is considerable agreement that this represents
something really problematic, something unique,'' one
administration official said.
U.S. reaction to the attack, which occurred around 7 p.m.
Washington time, was delayed until there was a clear picture
of what had happened, the official said. After a flurry of
telephone calls to the region, ``within an hour, we knew what
we were dealing with. Then discussions began on how to
respond.''
Talks Monday night among Secretary of State Colin L.
Powell; his deputy, Richard L. Armitage; and William Burns,
the assistant secretary for the region, were quickly joined
by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy,
Stephen Hadley. While acknowledging deep and longstanding
differences between the State Department and the White House
over Middle East policy, the official said, ``this particular
time, there was agreement across the board.''
Under the rhetorical code that has long surrounded
statements on the Middle East, the United States normally
``condemns'' Palestinian terrorist attacks and uses the
somewhat softer verb, ``deplore,'' to criticize Israeli
actions.
Officials considered, then rejected, condemning the
Israelis or describing their actions as ``counterproductive''
before settling on ``heavy-handed,'' as something they
believed ``captured the deploring,'' as one official put it.
It was decided that Daniel C. Kurtzer, the U.S. ambassador
to Israel, would deliver the message to Sharon. U.S.
officials here described that discussion yesterday as
unpleasant, and said Sharon said little in private that
differed from his description of the attack as ``one of our
major successes.''
White House public comment was left to Fleischer, and Bush
made no statement yesterday on the attack. ``The president
views this as a heavy-handed action that is not consistent
with dedication to peace in the Middle East,'' Fleischer
said.
Asked why Israel's action in Gaza was different from U.S.
attacks against al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan that
resulted in the loss of innocent civilian lives--a comparison
Israel has made--Fleischer replied: ``It isn't accurate to
compare the two. . . . There are going to be losses of
innocents in times of war, and I think that's recognized
around the world.
``What's important is, in pursuit of the military
objectives, as the United States does in Afghanistan, to
always exercise every restraint to minimize those losses of
life,'' Fleischer said. ``But in this case, what happened in
Gaza was a knowing attack against a building in which
innocents were found.''
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana called
the attack an ``extra-judicial killing operation'' that
``comes at a time when both Israelis and Palestinians were
working very seriously to curb violence and restore
cooperative security arrangements.''
Solana represents the EU in the ``quartet'' group on the
Middle East that also includes Powell, U.N. Secretary General
Kofi Annan and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov.
Annan issued a statement late Monday deploring the attack,
saying, ``Israel has the legal and moral responsibility to
take all measures to avoid the loss of innocent life; it
clearly failed to do so.''
There was no direct contact yesterday between Powell and
the other quartet members, and no one seemed to have a clear
idea how to proceed beyond waiting for the immediate
fallout--including widely expected Palestinian retaliation--
and its unpredictable impact on the wider peace process.
After months in which the process has been frozen, and
despite Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli
civilians as recently as last week, significant recent
progress had been reported.
Plans to restructure the Palestinian Authority's security
and financial infrastructure and prepare for elections in
January were near completion. Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon
Peres met with senior Palestinian officials last weekend for
the first time in months, amid signs that Israeli troops
would begin to withdraw from occupied Palestinian cities.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, the Arab countries most
active in the peace process, all condemned the Israeli
action. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher called it a
``war crime,'' and his Saudi counterpart, Saud Faisal, said
it was ``a repulsive act that will be registered against
[Sharon] in history.''
____
exhibit 2
[From the Washington Post, Apr. 18, 2002]
Can NATO Patrol Palestine?
(By Robert Kagan)
When Pulitzer-Prize winning New York Times columnist Tom
Friedman talks, people listen. Now one of Friedman's most
radical ideas--to put a NATO peacekeeping force on the ground
between the Israelis and Palestinians as a key part of an
overall peace settlement--is actually starting to pick up
steam around the world. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has
endorsed the idea of an international force as part of a
settlement that would be imposed on Israel and the
Palestinians. So has German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer.
More important, Secretary of State Colin Powell is believed
to be mulling such a plan. He has publicly talked about
putting American observers on the ground. Even some Israelis
have warmed to the idea, provided of course that any force
includes American troops. After Europe's lynching of Israel
these past few weeks, that's the only army they trust.
Friedman's idea deserves to be taken seriously. And to
those of us who have supported American troop deployments for
peacekeeping in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and elsewhere over the
past decade, peacekeeping in the Middle East seems at least
as worthy, in principal. Our strategic interest in a stable
peace there is clear, and so is the moral case for doing
something to end the bloodshed, defend the Israeli democracy
and given the Palestinians a chance for a better life. After
Sept. 11, we have to engage in peacekeeping and nation-
building in messy places such as Afghanistan and, one hopes,
post-Saddam Iraq, whether we like it or not. So why not in
the Palestinian territories.
But if the idea of a U.S.-led force between Israel and a
Palestinian state is starting to get serious attention, it's
time for Friedman and others to spell out what exactly they
have in mind, and with a little more candor about the costs
and risks.
Take the size and role of the force, for instance. To carry
out its mission and avoid disaster, the American force would
have to be, as they say in the military, ``robust.'' For one
thing, the demarcation line between Israelis and Palestinians
that will have to be patrolled and controlled will be long,
twisty, and difficult. For another thing, Americans are going
to be the prime target for terrorist attacks. Friedman denies
this, arguing that the Palestinian people will view the
Americans as saviors--they will be ``the midwife of a
Palestinian state.'' But Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad
probably won't see it that way. Rallying to the cry of
``Remember Beirut!'' they'll look for ways to take out
another 240 Marines. And they'll have help from Iran, Iraq,
al Qaeda and all other jihadists out there.
That means any American force will have to be big--10,000
to 20,000 troops, with another 10,000 to 20,000 backing them
up. And they'll have to be heavily armed. Potential attackers
will need to be intimidated by American firepower every day
and every night for as many years as it takes. And that means
Tom Friedman and Kofi Annan and Joschka Fischer will need to
become full-time lobbyists for massive increases in the
American defense budget, because right now we have neither
the troops nor the money to carry out their plan.
Now for the hard part. Let's say we get a peace agreement
and we put the peacekeeping force on the ground between the
Israelis and Palestinians. What happens when, despite all our
best efforts, the occasional Hamas suicide bomber gets
through anyway and commits the occasional massacre in
Jerusalem or Tel Aviv? Count on it: This will happen. And
what about when Hezbollah tries to use the new Palestinian
state created by the peace settlement the way it now uses
southern Lebanon, as a convenient place from which to launch
Katyusha rockets at Israeli population centers? What do we
do then?
Friedman et al. can't wish this problem away. And the
options are less than enticing. One option is that the
American-led peacekeeping force does nothing. But then we
will have effectively created an American shield for
terrorist attacks against Israel. This, by the way, was
exactly the role a U.N. peacekeeping force played in Lebanon
for several years in the late 1970s and early '80s, right up
until the Israeli army invaded Lebanon and pushed the U.N.
force (known as UNIFIL) aside.
Option two is that the peacekeeping force could, like
UNIFIL, just get out of the way and let the Israeli military
retaliate for any terrorist attacks. Then at least American
forces wouldn't be helping the terrorist attack Israel.
They'd be helping Israel attack the state of Palestine.
That's how it would look to the Palestinians, anyway. So much
for the Americans as saviors.
Option three is that the American-led force goes to war. We
tell the Israelis to hold their fire and then send our own
forces in to stop the terrorists. In essence, we take on the
job the Israelis are currently doing in the territories. This
prevents the outbreak of a new Israeli-Palestinian conflict--
and begins the first round of the U.S.-Palestinian conflict.
Maybe that's kind of progress, but it's not very attractive.
Is there another option I'm missing? If not, the proposal
for an international peacekeeping force looks less like a
real plan than a desperate if noble attempt to solve the
insoluble in the Middle East--a deus ex America summoned to
provide a miracle when all roads to peace have reached a dead
end. Even Ehud Barak's idea of building a very, very big
fence between Israel and the Palestinians looks better. Help
us out, Tom.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield to our leaders. They have an
important matter.
[[Page S7302]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________