[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 57 (Wednesday, April 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Page S5055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       U.S. RELATIONS WITH ISRAEL

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as U.S.-led coalition forces act to 
remove Saddam Hussein from power, I would like to speak about another 
conflict in the Middle East that is, unfortunately, all too often in 
the news for the wrong reasons.
  During the opening days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. forces 
seized two key airfields, known as H2 and H3, in Western Iraq. It was 
from these airfields that 39 Scud missiles were launched against Israel 
during the first Gulf War in 1991, prompting chaos and panic. While 
Israel was fortunate that the Scud strikes were ineffective, many more 
people died from heart failure blamed on war-related stress--68--than 
from the missile strikes themselves--2.
  It was the intent of Saddam Hussein to prompt backlash by Arab 
nations against the U.S.-led coalition should Israel respond with 
military force to the Scud attacks. That concern remains valid today.
  Much of the current opposition in the Muslim community to military 
action against Saddam Hussein stems from their desire to see an end to 
the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  The United States policy toward Israel has been roundly criticized by 
some as lopsided in its support. There is no question that the United 
States provides Israel with more foreign assistance than any other 
nation--and deservedly so.
  The United States played a critical role in the establishment of 
Israel in 1948. Our two nations are bound closely by historic and 
cultural ties as well as by mutual interests. As a key ally, and the 
only democracy in the Middle East, she deserves our support.
  This does not mean, however, that the United States and Palestinians 
cannot build a similarly positive relationship.
  On March 14, President Bush reiterated his support for the creation 
of a peaceful Palestinian State. I agree, and share the President's 
vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in 
peace and security.
  I welcome the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas as Prime Minister and 
applaud the Palestinian Authority's decision to rebuff Yasir Arafat's 
attempts to retain power over the Cabinet.
  I am not convinced, however, that these actions alone are enough to 
warrant the United States' full endorsement. The Palestinian Authority 
must crack down on those terrorist organizations that seek to derail 
any prospects for peace in the Middle East. Groups like Hamas, Islamic 
Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
  I pose this simple test. If the Israeli military were to withdraw its 
forces to pre-1967 boundaries, what is the likelihood that Palestinian 
terrorist organizations would end their suicide attacks against 
innocent Israelis?
  Likewise, if attacks by Palestinian terrorists were to end, what is 
the likelihood that Israeli troops would end their excursions into 
Palestinian held land?
  At present, I would suggest the latter is a much more likely 
scenario.
  Israel has every right to defend herself against these terrorist 
attacks--and the United States should not endorse efforts that would 
undermine Israel's national security.
  There are those who suggest that U.N. peacekeepers should be sent in, 
or that the Middle East ``quartet''--the United States, Russia, the 
European Union and the United Nations--should present a roadmap for 
peace.
  The United States should not--must not--be drawn into endorsing any 
``roadmap'' that does not require the dismantling of the operational 
capabilities and financial support of terrorist groups within a 
Palestinian state. When Palestinian leaders refuse to crack down on 
terrorist organizations, Israel has every right to take the necessary 
measures to protect its national security.
  Certainly, there is a role for the international community to play in 
the process. To provide assurances to both sides that their interests 
will not be steamrolled.
  But, for true peace to be achieved, it is inherent that Israel and 
the Palestinian people reach a peace accord between themselves, without 
outside influence. An agreement dictated and enforced by a third party 
will not result in long lasting peace.
  History has shown that peace cannot be achieved with Yasir Arafat in 
charge of the Palestinian Authority. At the Camp David summit in July 
2000, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Chairman Arafat a 
remarkable array of concessions. Unfortunately, Arafat was unable to 
muster the political courage to accept these concessions--because to 
accept would mean the end of his reign; the end of his power over the 
Palestinian people. Yasir Arafat was not willing to make that sacrifice 
for peace in the Middle East.
  We have seen this type of behavior from Arafat in the past. There is 
no indication that it will change in the future.
  But now, the Palestinian Authority has moved past Yasir Arafat. The 
position of Prime Minister has been created. A Prime Minister has been 
appointed. The power to appoint a cabinet is his alone. The potential 
is there for truly significant reform.
  This is encouraging. But it is only a beginning. Now, they must 
recognize that terror and violence do not work. That arrested 
extremists must remain in jail. That denouncing suicide attacks entails 
more that just words.
  Certainly, Israel must do its part. The establishment of settlements 
in the territories seized in the 1967 war must be stopped. Retaliatory 
violence against innocent Palestinians must be curtailed. I was pleased 
to read that on March 24, Israeli troops dismantled an illegal Jewish 
settlement near Hebron. This crackdown on settlements must continue.
  There is a dual responsibility here. Israeli and Palestinian 
authorities must prevent extremists on both sides from setting and 
driving the agenda. The continued acts of violence and aggression only 
demonstrate that some groups in the region will always oppose a peace 
agreement. These groups must be placed on the sidelines. They must be 
delegitimized.
  Peace is possible. But it takes real effort by both sides to make it 
happen. We have seen significant concessions from Israel in the past. 
Yasir Arafat was unwilling to reciprocate. I am hopeful that Prime 
Minister Abbas proves more amenable.




                          ____________________