[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 11, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7708-S7711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Mr. WARNER. Mr President, I rise today to express my concern about
the horrific violence which has erupted over the past few days in the
Middle East. The world is distressed to see the images on T.V. of
today's suicide bombing in Jerusalem and the attacks in Gaza.
Condolences are extended to all of those who continue to pay the price
of this intolerable seemingly uncontrollable cycle of violence in the
Middle East.
[[Page S7709]]
This human suffering must be brought to an end. Once again I take the
floor of the Senate to call on both sides both Israel and the
Palestinians to take the initiative to invite NATO forces to undertake
a peacekeeping role and to help provide a measure of stability needed
to allow the ``road map'' process to maintain a momentum forward.
President Bush is to be commended for his personal commitment to
bring the Israelis and the Palestinians together on a path toward
peace. Last week, President Bush, joining with world leaders, gave new
impetus to the Middle East peace process. He met with the Israeli and
Palestinian prime ministers at Aqaba, Jordan, where these two leaders
agreed to begin to implement the early steps of the ``road map'' to
peace.
In Aqaba, both sides agreed to a step-by-step process whereby each
takes positive steps and makes some concessions to achieve the stated
goal of an Israeli and a Palestinian state, living side-by-side in
peace.
Unfortunately, there are third parties, such as Hamas and other
radical groups, that are making every effort to continue the violence
and disrupt the path to peace. These groups must not be permitted to
hijack the peace process.
How can others help the Palestinian leadership gain control of the
security situation on its side?
The Israeli and Palestinian leaders should be urged first to fulfill
their commitments to establish and help to enforce a cease-fire; and,
second, to ask the North Atlantic Council to consider sending a
peacekeeping contingent as soon as practical.
I have spoken before on this subject here on the Senate floor, and
have written to President Bush, about my idea concerning how NATO might
play a useful role in the quest for Middle East peace. I ask that my
letter to President Bush and his reply be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, March 14, 2003.
President George W. Bush,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I would like to commend you on the step
you took today to give new impetus to the Middle East peace
process by announcing that it was time to share with Israel
and the Palestinians the road map to peace that the United
States has developed with its ``Quartet'' partners. This is a
welcome and timely initiative, given the complex way in which
the Middle East conflict, Iraq and the global war against
terrorism are intertwined.
The festering hostilities in the Middle East are an
enormous human tragedy. Along with you, and many others, I
refuse to accept that this is a conflict without end. You
have articulated a vision of an Israeli and a Palestinian
state living side by side in peace and security. That is a
bold initiative that deserves strong international support.
With the Israeli elections concluded, and the imminent
confirmation of a Palestinian Prime Minster, you are right to
refocus international attention on the Middle East peace
process.
Mr. President, in August 2002, I wrote to you to propose an
idea concerning the possibility of offering NATO peacekeepers
to help implement a cease-fire in the Middle East. I have
spoken of this idea numerous times on the Senate Floor. I am
now even more convinced that the United States and its NATO
partners should consider an additional element for the ``road
map'' concept: NATO should offer, and I stress the word
``offer,'' to provide a peacekeeping force, once a cease-fire
has been established by the Israeli Government and the
Palestinian Authority. This NATO force would serve in support
of the cease-fire mechanisms agreed to by Israel and the
Palestinian Authority. The NATO offer would have to be
willingly accepted by both governments, and it in no way
should be viewed as a challenge to either side's sovereignty.
The acceptance of this offer would have to be coupled with a
commitment by Israel and the Palestianian Authority to
cooperate in every way possible to permit the peacekeeping
mission to succeed.
I fully recognize that this would not be a risk-free
operation for the participating NATO forces. But I
nonetheless believe that the offer of peacekeepers from NATO
would have many benefits. First, it would demonstrate a
strong international commitment to peace in the Middle East.
Second, it would offer the prospect of a peacekeeping force
that is ready today. It is highly capable, rapidly
deployable, and has a proven record of success in the
Balkans. A NATO peacekeeping force is likely to be acceptable
to both parties, given the traditional European sympathy for
the Palestinian cause and the traditional United States
support of Israel.
Third, this would be a worthy post-Cold War mission for
NATO in a region where NATO member countries have legitimate
national security interests. It could even be an area of
possible collaboration with Russia through the NATO-Russia
Council. A NATO peacekeeping mission in the Middle East would
be wholly consistent with the Alliance's new Strategic
Concept. Approved at the NATO Summit in Washington in April
1999, the new Strategic Concept envisioned so called ``out-
of-area'' operations for NATO.
Given the fractious debate in NATO over Iraq and the
defense of Turkey, it would be important to show that NATO
can work together to make a positive contribution to solving
one of the most challenging security issues of our day.
There will be many detractors to the idea of sending NATO
peacekeepers to the Middle East to help implement a cease-
fire. But I think there is broad agreement on the imperative
to giving new hope to the peace process and redoubling
diplomatic efforts to keep Israel and the Palestinians moving
on the road to peace. Peacekeepers coming from many NATO
nations could give new hope and confidence to the peoples of
Israel and Palestine that there could soon be an end to the
violence that overhangs their daily lives.
Mr. President, I hope that you will receive this idea in
the constructive spirit in which it is offered.
With kind regards, I am
Respectfully,
John Warner,
Chairman.
The White House,
Washington, April 29, 2003.
Hon. John W. Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter about the
proposed roadmap to Middle East peace, and your suggestion
concerning a NATO peacekeeping force. I understand your view
that such an offer could be a further inducement to the
parties to reach agreement.
As you know, the issues dividing Israelis and Palestinians
are deep, complex, and hotly contested. The security
arrangements of any settlement are one important element
among many. Ultimately, our goal is for two states living
side by side in peace. Over the long term, such an
arrangement must be sustainable without the presence of
outside peacekeeping forces. As we engage the parties in our
effort to forge a peace agreement, I will keep your proposal
under consideration.
I also agree with your comments about the importance of
NATO's role as we face the security challenges of the 21st
Century. As you know, at the NATO Prague Summit, Allied
leaders joined me in launching an ambitious agenda for
modernizing NATO, including the creation of a NATO Response
Force, reforming the command structure, and bringing in new
members who are committed to democracy and collective
defense. I appreciate your strong support for this important
effort.
We have begun steps to increase NATO's role in Afghanistan,
and have asked NATO to consider assistance it could provide
in post-war Iraq. I welcome your support on these matters as
well.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I spoke today with the press about the
idea that NATO, if requested, might provide a peacekeeping force to
support a cease-fire previously agreed to by the Israeli Government and
the Palestinian Authority. NATO peacekeepers would have to be invited
by both governments, and in no way should be viewed as a challenge to
either side's sovereignty. The acceptance of this offer would have to
be coupled with a commitment by Israel and the Palestinian Authority to
cooperate in every way possible to permit the peacekeeping mission to
succeed.
I fully recognize that this would not be a risk-free operation for
the participating NATO forces, some of which could be American. But I
nonetheless believe that the offer of peacekeepers from NATO would have
many benefits.
First, it would demonstrate a strong international commitment to
peace in the Middle East. By their presence, NATO peacekeepers might
give hope to people on both sides that violence will be curtailed.
Second, it would offer the prospect of a peacekeeping force that is
ready to go, today. It is highly capable, rapidly deployable, and has a
proven record of success with peacekeeping in the Balkans.
Third, a NATO peacekeeping force is likely to be acceptable to both
parties, given the traditional European associations with the
Palestinian people and the traditional United States associations with
the people of Israel.
Fourth, it would be a worthy post-Cold War mission for NATO in a
region where NATO member countries have legitimate national security
interests. In 1999, NATO adopted a new Strategic
[[Page S7710]]
Concept that envisioned NATO operations, including peacekeeping
operations, taking place outside of Europe.
There will be many detractors to the idea of sending NATO
peacekeepers to the Middle East to help implement a cease-fire. There
is, I acknowledge, a historical record of outside forces being
unsuccessful in security mission in this area. But I invite the debate,
first and foremost among the NATO members themselves.
I think we can all agree on the imperative of redoubling our efforts
to keep Israel and the Palestinians moving on the road to peace, and of
offering an alternative that may break the tragic cycle of violence.
This is the responsibility not only of the United States, but indeed,
of the entire international community.
Progress on Middle East peace would help us to continue the gains we
have made in Iraq to spread peace in the Middle East and to address the
underlying causes that have given rise to terrorist groups like al-
Qaeda.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about something that is
unrelated to any of the subjects we have been discussing today. I rise
to talk about the news we just heard about an explosion in Israel and
the killing of 13 to 15 people--and it is going to be more because, in
addition to that, there are over 50 who have been seriously injured. We
have witnessed an attack like this on innocent civilians by mad men who
encourage a son, a daughter, a brother, or a sister to blow themselves
to smithereens, and their mission is to simply kill innocents.
For a few moments, let's review a scenario that perhaps would be
better understood in our country. Think about a shopping mall or a busy
street in New York, Detroit, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, or Louisiana,
and think about people who might be on the bus, youngsters going to
school, people going to the doctor, people going to work, people
carrying on commerce, and imagine that someone came along with a bomb
in one of those cities, Washington, DC, and created an explosion that
killed 700 people at one shot. That is the equivalent, if we take the
size of Israel, about 6 million people--we have 280 million--it is
about 45 to 1, so just do the multiplication. We are talking about 700
people who would die in this senseless attack. What would our response
be in America? We would call out the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the
FBI, the police, every agency that could retaliate, either to capture
or gun down the leader of an organization that would seduce a young
person to sacrifice their life for such a heinous purpose.
Purportedly this was a response to a tragic accident that took place
as the Israelis were pursuing the leader of Hamas, the organization
that took credit today for killing those innocent people and that takes
credit for lots of attacks on innocent people in Israel. So there was a
pursuit by the Israelis of the leader of Hamas because Hamas was an
organization that helped take five soldiers' lives in Israel on Sunday
night. Unfortunately, the hunt went awry and some innocent people were
tragically killed.
When an attack such as that takes place, it is in response, it is in
retaliation, to the violence that was visited upon the citizens in
Israel. When these attacks take place, there is only one mission. They
are not hunting criminals. They are not trying to capture somebody.
What they are doing is killing innocent people--young people, old
people, it does not matter.
Today's horrible attack on Jerusalem is another illustration of why
Hamas has no place in any peace process. Hamas is a terror
organization, has always been a terror organization, and desires to
continue as a terror organization. I think it is time for the world to
recognize that Hamas is in the same league as al-Qaida, and we know
what we did when our people were attacked. We did the right thing. We
sent our troops out. We were looking to capture the leader of that
organization.
We would not stand by 5 minutes and accept it. And Israel should not
stand by 5 minutes and accept it. We cannot look at the equal violence
on both sides of the issue in Israel and with the Palestinians. They
are not the same. Israel's attacks are always in retaliation for
violence that was put upon Israelis. The other side delights in
recording the fact that a suicide bomber took 8, 10, 12 lives, their
count--600 people, or whatever the number is, in equivalence in
America.
It is time to understand what is going on there. I strongly believe
the peace process has to continue, but it should continue with
Palestinian leaders who have demonstrated that they are interested in
peace, as is now-Prime Minister Mr. Abbas. I commend the administration
for deciding to reengage in the Mideast conflict by introducing and
promoting a roadmap, a design, for Middle East peace.
President Bush's recent visit to the region was an important first
step in renewing U.S. commitment to this endeavor, and the
administration has to remain committed to peace in the area. President
Bush must forcefully deliver a message to the Palestinians about their
need to reconstitute and consolidate their security agencies in order
to fulfill their stated goal to deter and punish terrorists such as
Hamas, and he has to tell the Israelis that they have the right to
defend themselves. They have made very important overtures, especially
when it comes to talk about dismantling some of the settlements.
Mr. Abbas' clear statement that the violence of the intifada was a
betrayal of the Palestinian cause is the most important reason that
there is hope for progress in the Middle East. I am also encouraged
that as a goodwill gesture Israel has opened its borders to Palestinian
workers, released about 100 Palestinian prisoners, and has begun to
dismantle some outposts. They are important first steps.
Israel and the settlers have to come to terms with the inevitability
of dismantling some settlements in order to allow for the eventual
creation of a contiguous Palestinian state. I was gratified to hear
five Arab leaders--President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Crown Prince
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah of Jordan, King Hamada of
Bahrain, and the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas--release
a statement last Tuesday, June 3, clearly asserting that they oppose
terrorism and will not finance or arm extremist Palestinian groups.
This statement was long overdue. Right now the Arab leaders must
translate this statement into action through one central task, and that
is strengthening the hand of the new Palestinian Prime Minister,
Mahmoud Abbas.
This means conferring on Mr. Abbas the authority they once gave
Yasser Arafat and condemning violent groups such as Hamas and their
rejectionist agendas. Only a united international front critical of
terrorists and supportive of Mr. Abbas' plan for the Palestinians'
future can facilitate the implementation of the roadmap.
The United States should continue exerting pressure on Syria to shut
down its support for Palestinian terrorists, Hezbollah, and other
organizations, the organizations that have no function except to
disrupt the prospect for peace. They should encourage the withdrawal of
the Syrians from occupied Lebanon and stem any production or research
on weapons of mass destruction.
Sometimes it is hard to understand why an embattled country like
Israel will be so effective, so hard, in its response. It is only hard
to understand if you have not been there. This is a country that seeks
peace more than any other place on Earth that we can imagine. They have
lost thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands in the
equivalent American counts. There is a history of the people there that
says they are always the subject of some cruelty, some attacks, some
injury, some dead, from outsiders.
The last century saw the killing of millions of Jewish people. That
sets a tone. That tone says, make peace, make life satisfactory. Do the
things you have to to create a society, a country. Do what we can do
about fighting disease, research what can be done about turning arid
lands into farm lands, do what can be done to make life more livable.
Yet, these criminal organizations continue to press their attack on
Israel.
I make this suggestion. If the people in Paris or London or Berlin or
other capital cities around the world had an attack such as this, we
would have a response from the U.N. and everybody else. But when it
comes to attacks on Israel, there is a notable silence, except for the
only friend that Israel has
[[Page S7711]]
in the world, and that is the United States and the American people.
We look with horror and grief at what took place this day.
Unfortunately, this is not an unusual occurrence as far as Israel is
concerned. We have to say that we in the United States of America will
not tolerate this kind of violence, that we are going to let Israel
fight back as hard as she has to, to defend herself and force the
communities in the Middle East to understand that there will be no
peace for anybody. That is very dangerous. That conflict could escalate
into a major confrontation in other parts of the world.
We send our sadness and condolences to the people of Israel. We wish
them well in the future and hope peace will soon be the only
confrontation that takes place, and that would be across the table.
I yield the floor.
____________________