[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E260-E261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  COMMENDING ISRAEL ON THEIR ELECTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 12, 2003

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I voted ``present'' on the resolution 
offered by the Gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) on the Israel-
Palestine controversy. Because of the extensive interest in that 
resolution, I would like to explain the basis of my vote. For nearly a 
year, I have worked more intensively on this controversy than on any of 
the other pressing matters before us, with the exception of the looming 
disaster in Iraq. My aim has been to convince my colleagues that--
despite the understandably intense feelings many have on this matter--
it is crucial that we promote and engage in honest dialogue about the 
terribly difficult questions posed by the Middle East crisis. That 
delicate dialogue must be marked by as much civility and mutual respect 
as we can muster, and by a relentless effort to understand viewpoints 
we may not share.
  Finger-pointing, brandishing claims and grievances may seem totally 
justified and important to express. The intensity of feeling is obvious 
and understandable. But surely the goal of halting violence and 
resolving the dispute is paramount. I believe its priority requires 
that my words and conduct in this body be consistent with advancing 
this dialogue. At the end of this long national debate, we must somehow 
achieve a national consensus.
  Dr. King once reminded us that countries, like people, which have 
been the bitterest enemies must someday realize their fate is 
intertwined.
  ``We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a 
single garment of destiny''
  Over the course of the last ten months, I have spoken with many 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and on both sides of the 
Capitol, urging that we create and continue an inclusive forum in which 
different views about the Mideast could be freely expressed freely and 
listened to carefully.
  With several other equally concerned colleagues, I convened a series 
of discussion meetings to which all Members have been invited. House 
Members of all faiths have attended them. They also have been attended 
by rabbis, ministers, priests and imams, as well as by senior officials 
of Arab-American and Jewish-American organizations concerned about the 
Middle East crisis. Other participants have included Yitzhak Rabin's 
son; President Carter's NSC officer for the Camp David Agreement 
between Israel and Egypt; one of President Clinton's negotiators in the 
2000 Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations; the U.S. Conference of 
Catholic Bishops' representative on institutions in the Holy Land; the 
Vice-President for International Affairs of the American Jewish 
Committee, the President of the Arab-American Institute; a Deputy 
Secretary General of the National Council of Christian Churches, and 
two representatives--one Israeli and one Palestinian--of an association 
of bereaved parents of victims of the violence. While we all have been 
distracted by other pressing national security issues, I plan to resume 
these panels, as soon as possible.
  All the attendees agreed on the importance of maintaining genuine 
dialogue and of minimizing inflammatory or divisive declarations. I 
agree, and that conclusion guides my vote on this resolution.
  I fully supported the creation of the State of Israel. My continuing 
support of its security and viability has never wavered. And I agree 
that one of Israel's lasting strengths has been it's fierce commitment 
to democracy, implemented once again in the recent elections. At the 
same time, my dedication to America's pursuing a just, equitable and 
lasting peace for all people in the region is equally strong.
  I am sure that my colleagues fully share these goals, however much we 
sometimes may differ on the best path to reach them. I believe, 
nevertheless, that this resolution, though well-intentioned, would be 
counter-productive to progress towards those goals, especially at this 
perilous time when competing considerations should be carefully 
balanced.
  This resolution is partially designed to reassure Israel of our 
friendship. I am convinced, however, that the Israeli Government and 
the Israeli people know well that the United States' commitment--and 
the commitment of this entire body--to their safety and survival is 
steadfast and will remain so.
  Judged in the context of all these considerations, this resolution is 
simply too one-sided

[[Page E261]]

to accomplish another of its presumed purposes, namely, advancing peace 
in the Middle East. Alternative formulations would be better suited for 
that objective.
  I also do not think the Congress should try to involve itself in the 
internal politics of an allied nation.
  In addition, this president, like his predecessors, should be given 
the maximum flexibility to maintain the credibility of the United 
States with all parties; we should strive to preserve his ability to 
broker a permanent resolution. With equal conviction, I urge the 
president to use those capabilities to the fullest; to advance a 
timetable more vigorously, and to propose more detailed possible peace 
plans.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the frustrations and fears 
that have marked the past three years. And I know that Washington is 
now preoccupied with Iraq and with the threat of terrorism to our 
homeland security. But that is all the more reason that we should 
strive to keep this body poised to play its part in stanching violence 
in Israel and the West Bank, and in supporting any future peace 
initiatives. For me, it is difficult to see why, during these perilous 
times, the legislative body of the sole nation on earth which might 
bring this crisis to closure would do anything that could compromise 
that nation's ability to do so.

                          ____________________