[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 15, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H280-H288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the
Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 79) expressing the sense of
Congress that no United States assistance should be provided directly
to the Palestinian Authority if any representative political party
holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian
Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. Con. Res. 79
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that no United
States assistance should be provided directly to the
Palestinian Authority if any representative political party
holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the
Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the
destruction of Israel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and
I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 79.
This resolution was sponsored in the other body by our former
colleague Senator Thune of South Dakota and was cosponsored by Senators
Brownback, Chambliss, Johnson, Lieberman, Talent and Voinovich. It
passed the Senate by unanimous consent on February 1, 2006.
On January 25, 2006, Palestinians turned out in large numbers from
all walks of life to forge a new government that can respond to their
various needs. The Palestinian people voted for change and improvement
in their livelihoods. They were largely frustrated by the growing
occupation in the West Bank, the inability of the Fatah-backed
Palestinian Liberation Organization to deliver on the expectations of
the peace process, and internal strife and rampant corruption. The
Palestinian citizens used the power of democracy to send a loud and a
clear message to their leadership.
Speaking in a press conference shortly after the elections, President
Bush noted the power of democracy, saying, ``When you give people the
vote, you give people the chance to express themselves at the polls,
and if you're unhappy with the status quo, they will let you know.
Obviously, the people were not happy with the status quo. The people
are demanding honest government. The people want services.''
The Bush administration's pursuit of freedom and democracy in the
Arab world has strengthened the weight and role of ``people power'' in
the region's political development. Representative democracy may result
in the coming to power of groups in the Middle East or, for that
matter, in Spain, that are critical of the United States or our
policies in the Middle East. Certainly the recent Palestinian
parliamentary elections pose a unique challenge. Over 50 percent of the
seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council will be filled from a list
chosen by an armed group that believes in the destruction of Israel, a
United Nations member state, and is recognized as a terrorist
organization by the international community.
This result demonstrates the serious contradiction we see in
Palestinian territories between the ideal of a democratic government
characterized by the rule of law and the reality of a political process
in which armed rejectionist groups participate. Should the United
States at this point abandon all means to remain constructively engaged
with the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority under
President Mahmoud Abbas? Tying the hands of the administration is not
in the interest of United States national security. We need to react
with some care. Hurting the Palestinian people will reward terrorist
regimes like Syria and Iran which seek to exploit the suffering of the
Palestinians for their own selfish reasons.
S. Con. Res. 79 is direct and to the point. It sends a strong message
about the expectations of the United States and the international
community toward Hamas when it comes to Hamas' attitude toward Israel.
We declare that the United States will not provide direct assistance to
a government that believes in the destruction of Israel.
The election of the Change and Reform Party, Hamas' alter ego, has
raised questions about other forms of assistance to a future
Palestinian government. The Quartet, in which the United States is a
core member, concluded that ``it was inevitable that future assistance
to any new government would be reviewed by donors against that
government's commitment to the principles of nonviolence, recognition
of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations,
including the Roadmap.''
Many might be surprised to know that the United States does not
provide ongoing, direct financial assistance to the Palestinian
Authority. The majority of funds are channeled through the United
States Agency for International Development to nongovernmental
organizations under a strict vetting process. The United States has
provided direct assistance only four times, three of which have been
under this administration, with the funds being closely regulated and
monitored.
United States and other assistance to the Palestinian people is vital
to meeting basic needs and avoiding a humanitarian disaster. According
to the World Bank, unemployment in the West Bank and Gaza is 23
percent. Forty-three percent of the population is living below the
poverty line. United States assistance to nonprofit organizations is
also critical to achieving our objective of a two-state solution.
Closing the door on moderates in Palestinian civil society will
contribute to the growth of warlordism and chaos.
{time} 1030
The United States has a vital national security interest in a Middle
East in which two states, Israel and Palestine, will live side by side
in peace and security, based on the terms of United Nations Security
Council Resolutions 242 and 338. A viable, contiguous, and prosperous
Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel
longs for.
I believe the administration is responding appropriately to the
situation
[[Page H281]]
at hand. Currently, the U.S. is reviewing all forms of assistance to
the Palestinian people. However, neither the administration nor the
Congress should make final decisions in advance of the formation of the
new Palestinian cabinet, which is likely to occur in the coming weeks.
If it is necessary to address this issue by legislation, we can do so
at the appropriate time and will not prejudice their consideration by
agreeing to this resolution at this time.
As disappointed as we are by the results, I congratulate the
Palestinian people for conducting what were arguably the freest and
fairest democratic elections in the Arab world. I hope their leaders
will be wise and represent the true interests of the Palestinians as
the process moves forward. As Secretary Rice stated in Davos this
month, ``The Palestinian people have apparently voted for change, but
we believe that their aspirations for peace and a peaceful life remain
unchanged.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution.
First, let me thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for
bringing this matter to the floor.
Yesterday, I read a news article quoting a Hamas representative who
thanked the United States for providing Hamas with ``the weapon of
democracy.'' The weapon of democracy. Like other Hamas spokesmen, this
man was being completely frank. In my experience, people who think they
are on a mission from God generally do not dissemble about their
intentions. The decision by the Bush administration to press for
elections that did not exclude Hamas, as the Oslo agreements required,
is seen by Hamas, quite literally, as a gift from heaven. Indeed, it is
a fact of surpassing strangeness that the same President who would not
deal with Yasser Arafat because he was tainted by terrorism is in large
measure responsible for insisting on the elections that brought Hamas
to power.
Allowing Hamas to compete was substantially our grave mistake.
Electing Hamas, however, was the Palestinian people's own free choice.
No one questions the mechanics of the election itself, only the nature
of the elected. Let us recall that Hitler's National Socialists, the
Nazi party, also came to power in free elections. References of this
type are usually inappropriate. The Holocaust was a unique, horrible
event, and nothing should ever be done to diminish it or turn it into
another rhetorical cheap shot. But in this case the comparison of how
coming to power was the same is very apt.
What is Hamas? Hamas is declared to be, by our government and the
European Union, a terrorist organization. It is an ally and an aid
recipient of Iran. It is an organization of religious zealots who put
bombs in stores and clubs and restaurants, hotels and discos and buses
and proclaim their work to be the will of God. It is an organization
that insistently proclaims its intention to exterminate the State of
Israel and to replace it with an Islamic state under Sharia law. It is
an organization that proudly declares its beliefs that Jews are the
descendants of ``pigs and monkeys.'' Hamas is responsible not only for
the cold-blooded murder of hundreds of Israeli citizens but also dozens
of Americans.
And while they may be crazy, they are not stupid. They are watching
us very closely, and they are looking for any sign of weakness, any
departure from principle, any signal of grudging acceptance. It is
absolutely vital that they see nothing of the sort. When Hamas looks at
America, at the administration, at the Congress, they must see nothing
but fierce, unrelenting, and implacable rejection.
There can be no political absolution for this pack of killers; and
the very idea of giving our taxpayers' money to these bloody-handed
fanatics, people who have slaughtered our own citizens, is offensive.
Suggesting that we do it indirectly, that we merely subsidize rather
than fund their rule, is no less unacceptable.
People in the executive branch trying to figure out how to square
this circle should pay close attention to this debate. I would say to
them: Before you urge the President to ask the Congress to provide
assistance to the Palestinians, you had better start counting votes.
This Congress is more likely to restore British sovereignty over the
United States than it is to appropriate even $1 for the West Bank or
Gaza.
Hamas is a terrorist organization, and the United States has clear
policy for dealing with terrorists: We do not do it. We do not
legitimize them, and we do not acknowledge phony distinctions between
their political and their terrorist ``wings.'' We do not forgive them
for the hundreds they have murdered in exchange for a handful of
promises. And we certainly do not pay them. Not in cash, not in
coupons, not in vouchers, not in green stamps, not in airline miles.
Americans do not give money to terrorists, to terrorist governments,
and to people who elect terrorists. We have better things to do with
our money.
When President Abbas was first elected, I was among those who were
strongly encouraging the administration to boost his prestige and help
build him up with assistance and projects. But he never demanded that
Hamas and other terrorist groups disarm and disband. Now we see that
after a year of trying things the way Abu Mazen wanted and not feeling
they got any real benefits, Palestinians have voted to go in a
different direction. That is their right. But it is absolutely critical
that our policies adjust to reflect their decisions.
Just as I believed that the Palestinian choice of Abu Mazen's vision
of nonviolence and peace deserved our support and assistance, I think
the election of Hamas, with its dogmatic adherence to terror and its
insistence on Israel's extermination, deserves our strongest
condemnation and is an unmistakable change in how we do business.
Elected terrorists are still terrorists. We should not give them
legitimacy. We should not deal with them diplomatically. And, most
obviously, we should not give them hundreds of millions of dollars from
our taxpayers. U.S. foreign assistance is a gift, not a right. The
Palestinian Authority, as long as it is led by Hamas, is a terrorist
organization responsible for the deaths of dozens of Americans and
obviously disqualified from this kind of aid.
Not doing business as usual means, by definition, that things have to
change across the board. Only a comprehensive rejection of Hamas's
leadership can satisfy the requirements of continued U.S. leadership in
the war on terror. The message and the methods of Hamas must not only
fail but they must be seen to fail throughout the world and especially
in the Middle East.
Compromising with Hamas and doing a little bit of business here, a
little bit of business there, accepting phony commitments and using
back-door intermediaries will prove to Islamic radicalists that there
is no price they pay for terrorism as long as you succeed in taking the
reins of power. We cannot afford to send that message to the
Palestinians or to anybody else.
I strongly encourage the adoption of this resolution and prompt
consideration by the House of additional legislation to respond to the
challenge to America and our interests that are posed by Hamas.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Very briefly in response, I would like to say that I am taken by the
arguments of Mr. Ackerman. I think he has a message, a point of view,
that is legitimate and worthy of attention.
I do not agree with him. I think that having Hamas, with all its
flaws, participate in the democratic process, something alien to their
spirit, is a sign of strength on our part, not weakness. And I think
the effort, a legitimate effort, to help bring into the democratic
process all of the dissident elements is worth it because, unless this
situation gets solved, staring at each other with muscles flexed and
weapons cocked gets us nowhere. But we shall see.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me
this time.
[[Page H282]]
I rise in support of the resolution before us, S. Con. Res. 79,
because this resolution is a reinforcement and a restatement of
longstanding U.S. policy to prohibit direct assistance to the
Palestinian Authority except under such strict and specific
circumstances in furtherance of U.S. foreign policy and our security
objectives.
It has long been U.S. policy to bring both sides of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict to the negotiation tables and to work out a
peaceful compromise. For years, we supported Abu Mazen economically and
politically, hoping and praying and wishing that it would strengthen
the moderate constituency that does exist in the Palestinian
territories. Yet time and again we have repeatedly asked the
Palestinian leadership to dismantle the Islamist terrorist
infrastructure in its midst, to disarm these jihadists, to promote
tolerance and to accept Israel. But this was not to be.
The U.S. has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on programs to
address the needs of the Palestinian people. Those include work
programs, infrastructure projects, in addition to humanitarian aid,
aimed at providing food, sanitation services, and medicine to the
Palestinian people. We have done all of this, Mr. Speaker, in an effort
to foster the conditions that would bring about peace and security for
both the Israeli and the Palestinian people.
Last summer, Israel underwent a sacrifice of historic proportions by
withdrawing from Gaza. Why did Israel do this? Israel withdrew from
Gaza in hopes of making progress toward a peaceful solution to this
conflict. Yet, despite all of these efforts, Hamas, an Islamist
extremist jihadist entity, was allowed to participate in the recent
Palestinian elections and, as all of us know, won control of the
Palestinian government. U.S. monetary and political investment has
produced little, if anything, in return.
In fact, soon after these Palestinian elections in January, Hamas
placed disturbing videos on its Web site, videos which glorified
bloodshed and terror. One of the clips included a farewell scene
between a mother and her Palestinian terrorist son as she helps him
dress for his suicide mission against Israel. Another clip is of two
Hamas terrorists expressing their message to the Jews. And the first
terrorist says: ``My message to the loathed Jews is that there is no
God but Allah. We will chase you everywhere. We are a nation that
drinks blood, and we know that there is no blood better than the blood
of the Jews. We will not leave you alone until we have quenched our
thirst with your blood and our children's thirst with your blood. We
will not leave until you leave the Muslim countries.''
The second Hamas terrorist made the following statement: ``In the
name of Allah, we will destroy you, blow you up, take revenge against
you, and purify the land of you, pigs that have defiled our country.
This operation is revenge against the sons of monkeys and pigs.''
These horrific clips, again, were posted on an official Web site of
the entity that now controls the Palestinian Authority.
{time} 1045
Hamas' victory in the parliamentary elections poses a direct threat
to U.S. strategies for regional stability. We must not and cannot allow
taxpayer funds to directly or indirectly assist or support in any way
Hamas or any other Palestinian terrorist groups that glorify blood,
bloodshed and terror and use violence as a political tool. We must take
immediate steps to prevent any further manipulation of U.S. assistance
to the Palestinians.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just in brief response to my good friend, the chairman,
Mr. Hyde, who always stands up and fights so well and eloquently for
democracy, my concern about allowing Hamas to participate in the
election is not just my opinion. This was part of the Oslo Accords, to
which the Israelis and Palestinians both agreed and signed. It is a
governing document that no group that participates in violence and
commits themselves to the destruction of the other will be allowed to
participate in the election. That is the law. That is the doctrine.
I just express my dismay that our President, with his great
leadership against terror, would take a pass and lean on the Israelis
to allow this election to take place with Hamas.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is an unequivocal statement of
principle, a statement of our continuing support for our ally, the
democratic State of Israel, as well as an explicit rejection of the
hateful ideology that seeks her destruction. And I hope every Member
will support it.
The resolution states quite simply that the United States should not
provide direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority ``if any
representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary
seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for
the destruction of Israel,'' or, in fact, the destruction of another
free country.
The resolution, of course, is necessitated by the electoral victory
of Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization that is
publicly committed to the destruction of Israel. Anyone who questions
this need only read the Charter of Allah, the platform of the Islamic
Resistance Movement, otherwise known as Hamas.
Consider just one passage. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen has referred to some
other statements incorporated in other documents, but this is their
basic charter: ``In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the
Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of jihad.'' Destruction
of a people. Destruction of children, families, of a nation.
Mr. Speaker, the Palestinian people voted in January in what appears
to be a free and fair election, and the democratic expression of the
people will and should always be encouraged. It is clear, however, that
this victory by Hamas is, in significant part, a reaction by
Palestinian voters to the rampant corruption in the Fatah movement that
began and continued under Yaser Arafat. However, the Palestinian side
must recognize that the election of Hamas to a parliamentary majority
will not change or alter the absolute, irrevocable precondition for
peace, the dismantlement of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure.
In fact, I believe that the international community must now exert its
collective will upon Hamas and insist that it renounce the tactics of
terror and proactively dismantle that terrorist infrastructure.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say to our friends in Israel that the
United States-Israel relationship today is stronger than ever and we
are fully committed to our ally's security, sovereignty, and success.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), a member of the committee.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it seems that every time the Palestinian
people take one step forward, they take two steps back. When Abu Mazen
was elected, he pledged to root out terrorism and end corruption within
the Palestinian Authority. Unfortunately, he has done nothing to help
his people. He has continued the corruption that is rampant in the
Palestinian Authority, and he has refused to disarm and dismantle the
terrorists and their terrorist organizations.
We all know that Yaser Arafat did a tremendous disservice to the
Palestinian people. He was a disgrace to humanity. Abu Mazen and the
Fatah Party have done, sadly, no better. They had a historic
opportunity to make peace. Instead, they chose a path of continued
corruption, terror, and violence.
This resolution sends a strong and unambiguous message: if you choose
terrorism, the United States will not support you. Road map to peace is
also unambiguous. The Palestinian Authority must denounce terrorism,
disarm and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and shut down the
terrorist organizations before, before, there can be a two-state
solution.
Hamas has never accepted Israel's right to exist, and it has never
accepted the peace process. It continues to support terrorism and
violence. In fact, Hamas not only supports it, it is it. Since 1989,
Hamas has killed more than
[[Page H283]]
500 people, including more than two dozen American citizens.
Just last week, and this is after the election, so if anybody thinks
being elected to the Palestinian Authority is going to moderate Hamas,
just last week the leader of Hamas reiterated their commitment to
destroy the Zionist state. Hamas also promised that the armed struggle
will not end.
Hamas' control of the new Palestinian government further undercuts
the ability of its government to engage in true reforms and further
strengthens the enemies of Israel and those who oppose peace.
Hamas must disavow its stated goal of destroying Israel and change
its charter to recognize Israel's right to exist as a free and
independent Jewish state. Until the Palestinian government recognizes
Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, renounces its demand for
right of return, which will create two Palestinian states, not a Jewish
state and a Palestinian state, ceases all forms of incitement and
violence, condemns terrorism, dismantles its terrorist infrastructure,
and, most important, removes terrorist organizations from the
government, Congress must end all U.S. aid.
If negotiating with terrorists is not an option for this country, and
it is not, then funneling Americans' hard-earned tax dollars to
terrorists certainly is not an option either.
I argued unsuccessfully while I was standing in this very spot that
the United States Congress should not give additional aid to the
Palestinian Authority until they demonstrated with deeds, not rhetoric,
with deeds that they were serious about making peace with Israel and
took concrete steps to show us that they were indeed serious.
Unfortunately, my colleagues did not agree with me, and we continued to
fund Abu Mazen and the Palestinian Authority, although they did nothing
to earn our trust and they certainly did nothing to earn taxpayers'
hard-earned dollars.
I urge in this resolution that my colleagues stand with me in
supporting the resolution that will end all U.S. aid to the Palestinian
Authority until Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist and, indeed,
does it with deeds, not words.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. Con. Res.
79.
The United States exercising the option of cutting off assistance to
the Palestinian Authority because of the participation of Hamas in the
Palestinian Government should not be a surprise to the Palestinian
people.
This House spoke out strongly with the passage of H. Res. 575, which
clearly stated before the elections that we did not approve of
terrorist organizations participating in the Palestinian elections.
Today's resolution should bring home that the United States will not
provide aid to a government run by terrorists.
The Hamas victory is unacceptable because it provides a group of
murderers with a seat at the table. I can not understand how the most
secular Palestinian people would support an organization whose goal is
to take their rights away.
The United States must stand by our friend and ally Israel in this
relationship as should the rest of the world. The United States should
refuse to lend legitimacy to an organization whose primary goals
include the elimination of the State of Israel and the use of violent
measures to attack the Israeli people.
The United States cannot support any government that continues to
approve of and utilize terrorism. Terrorism takes many forms, dressing
up a political party in the trappings of an election does not negate
the underlying mission of what Hamas seeks to achieve, the abolition of
the Jewish State.
We must make it clear to the Palestinian people that the United
States does not approve of terrorist actions and will not provide
financial assistance to any group or organization that condones, plans,
or enacts violent activities.
The United States has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization,
and as such should not provide any funding to them.
The victory of Hamas indicates the Palestinians are not interested in
achieving peace with Israel and does not move the Palestinian people
towards their goal of statehood.
The United States should not supply any government aid to the
Palestinian authority until Hamas renounces all terrorist activities,
recognizes the right of the State of Israel's right to exist, and fully
disarms its terrorist organization.
The United States has worked for years to find a peaceful solution to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But a solution will not come about with the current leadership of
Hamas involved in any form of Palestinian Government.
In order to help facilitate the development of a true and lasting
peace between the Israeli people and the Palestinian Authority, the
United States, European Union and other countries must speak with a
united voice that the activities of Hamas in any sort of elected
Palestinian Government is anathema.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution,
and yield myself as much time as I may consume.
A few weeks ago, the Palestinian people stunned the world by giving
majority control of the Palestinian Legislative Council to Hamas, an
entity determined to be a foreign terrorist organizations by both the
United States and the Europe Union. Some may point out that the Fatah
party's fragmentation combined with the nature of the electoral system
chosen by the Palestinian Authority led to this strong Hamas majority.
We will be discussing these and other explanations for Hamas's
victory over the coming weeks and months. But they do not change the
reality that 74 out of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council
were won by an organization that not only preaches the destruction of
Israel, but has sent suicide bomber after suicide bomber to kill
innocent civilians, including young children, and that has been
implicated in the deaths of Americans. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we
are considering today is simple and to the point: There should be no
money for the Palestinian Authority as long as its legislature is
controlled by a party that is both a terrorist organization and
advocates the destruction of Israel.
This is not some plot to effect regime change--this is merely to send
a message that the civilized world does not tolerate and will not
support terrorists. This resolution means no American funding for the
Palestinian Authority as long as Hamas controls the legislature, since
there is absolutely no credible sign that Hamas intends to change its
ugly charter or do anything else to demonstrate that it now accepts
Israel's right to exist. Mr. Speaker, our action on this resolution
today will not be the final word of the Congress on this issue. We will
return to it again and again.
Last week, our colleague from Florida, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen,
and I--with over 50 of our colleagues--introduced H.R. 4681, the
Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, and I am confident that it will
soon be brought to the floor. H.R. 4681 puts legislative teeth into the
resolution we are considering today. It would, among other things,
prohibit by law the funding of a Palestinian Authority controlled by a
terrorist organization.
Mr. Speaker, the basic thrust of American foreign policy is to fight
terrorism globally, and it is self-evident that the United States will
not fund an organization such as Hamas that continues to advocate and
carry out terrorist acts in the Middle East. Nor will we fund a
government which is controlled by a terrorist organization or in which
major institutions, such as the legislature, are controlled by a
terrorist organization. This should not come as a surprise to anyone.
In December, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly adopted House
Resolution 575 by a vote of 397-17 which warned that there would be
serious consequences--including financial consequences--for U.S.-
Palestinian relations if Hamas were to take over the Palestinian
Authority.
Mr. Speaker, not one thin dime of American taxpayer money should be
devoted to supporting a terrorist organization. Nor should one thin
dime be devoted to making a terrorist organization look good. Our
desire to support strictly humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian
people, of course, will continue unabated. But we should not fund major
projects, whatever their purpose. Such projects would only make a Hamas
government look like a success story. They would be taken as evidence
that Hamas can defy the international community and continue to receive
financial support, while supporting terrorism, rejecting Israel's right
to exist, and spitting on pre-existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
Mr. Speaker, that is why the Ros-Lehtinen-Lantos legislation will put
severe restrictions on all Palestinian assistance that is not strictly
for humanitarian purposes. The notion that an organization hell-bent on
destroying the sole democratic state in the Middle East should be
receiving or exploiting U.S.-taxpayer funds is simply unacceptable. We
will be relentless in isolating and fighting terrorists. Hamas
officials and their representatives will not be given visas to visit
the United States. American officials will not deal with Hamas
representatives unless--and this is a major unless--unless they
publicly and without reservation recognize the right of the democratic
State of Israel to exist, renounce terrorism as a means of achieving
their goals and objectives, and accept all previous Israeli-Palestinian
agreements. And we will fight direct assistance to a
[[Page H284]]
terrorist-controlled Palestinian Authority through any international
institution. Hamas must understand that their ability to deal with the
United States and to be accepted in the community of civilized nations
rests on a thorough repudiation of their hateful policies.
Governments have made such changes in the past. Organizations and
movements have made such changes in the past. And certainly, Hamas has
that opportunity. But if Hamas does not clearly take full advantage of
this opportunity, our legislation will soon come into effect and we
will prohibit American funds. If Hamas does take advantage of this
opportunity and definitively and unequivocally meets these
requirements, then our government would be willing to deal with it,
continue assistance, and work to see that the long-suffering
Palestinian people have a better life in the future. Otherwise, I fear
the Palestinians and prospects for Middle East peace will face a long,
difficult winter that could be measured in years not months.
Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution, and I urge all my colleagues
to do likewise.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 79, which
expresses the sense of Congress that no U.S. assistance should be
provided directly to the Palestinian Authority if any representative
political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the
Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction
of Israel.
On January 25, Hamas won a majority of the seats in the Palestinian
Authority parliamentary elections. Their charter calls for the
``obliteration'' of Israel and states that they can achieve their
objectives only through violence. They have rejected the ``two-state''
solution and Road Map peace process. They continue to call for a
Palestinian State which includes and ultimately subsumes the sovereign
territory of Israel.
Mr. Speaker, this House has already gone on record on the issue of
assistance to the Palestinian Government should Hamas become part of
the government. On December 14, 2005, the House passed H. Res. 575,
which I cosponsored, which in part calls upon the United States to
reassess its financial assistance to, and its diplomatic relations
with, the Palestinians should Hamas join the government.
I am pleased that the Quartet issued a statement on January 30, 2006,
which ``concluded that it was inevitable that future assistance to any
new government would be reviewed by donors against that government's
commitment to the principles of nonviolence, recognition of Israel, and
acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the
Roadmap.''
I also agree with the Quartet that the Palestinian Authority must
move quickly to ensure law and order, prevent terrorist attacks, and
dismantle the infrastructure of terror. Finally, the new government
must also take concrete steps to establish the rule of law, tolerance,
reform and sound fiscal management in the Palestinian territories.
The foundation of the Road Map peace process hinges on Palestinian
recognition of the right of Israel to exist and a pledge by the
Palestinians to end violence and terrorism. Just as the United States
will not negotiate with terrorists, neither will Israel. We cannot
allow American taxpayer dollars to fall into the hands of terrorists
who have no intention of renouncing violence.
I therefore urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, a top Hamas leader was recently quoted as
saying the U.S. would ``get used to Hamas in a year or two.''
I'm afraid he's sadly mistaken. America will never accept a
Palestinian Authority controlled by a terrorist organization--1 year, 5
years, 10 years or 50 years from now.
Hamas must face reality. Either they meet the conditions of the
international community--recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish
state, renounce terrorism and disarm--or face a massive reduction of
assistance and isolation.
The civilized world should not bend to Hamas; they must bend to us.
This resolution--to be followed soon by binding legislation--sends an
unambiguous signal to Hamas and the rest of the world that Congress
will not bankroll a terrorist government responsible for the deaths of
thousands of innocent civilians and committed to the destruction of
Israel.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this simple
resolution and of its central underlying premise--that this Nation will
not support a Palestinian Government that is not unambiguous in its
recognition of Israel's right to exist and unequivocal in its support
for a two-state solution to the decades-long conflict between Israel
and the Palestinians. I also commend the distinguished chairman and the
ranking member of our committee who have dedicated themselves to
working for true peace in the Middle East.
The Hamas victory in last month's Palestinian Legislative Council
election is a major setback to the prospects for peace. Last year's
withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank by Israel was a
positive step after several years of bitter fighting between the two
communities.
While much of the world was taken by surprise by the Hamas victory,
we really should not have been shocked. Last summer, even as Israeli
soldiers physically removed settlers from their homes, the Israeli
Government, the United States Government, the European Union and others
were emphatic in telling the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian
people that they now bore the burden of centralizing authority in Gaza
and maintaining security there. This country and our allies sought to
strengthen the P.A. with aid and diplomatic support. Unfortunately, the
Palestinian Authority was unable to seize the opportunity to show the
Palestinian people the true benefits of peace.
Polling before the election and exit polling done on election day
shows clearly that Palestinian voters chose Hamas because they were fed
up with the corruption of Fatah and its inability to deliver a wide
range of basic social and economic benefits. Hamas may be best known to
Americans as a violent terrorist organization, but within the P.A. it
has also run schools, medical clinics and day care centers.
The same polling that showed Palestinian disgust with Fatah also
showed that a large majority of Palestinians favor a two-state solution
and peace with Israel. The problem now is how do we, the United States,
Israel and the rest of the international community, convince Hamas that
the only way forward is to abandon its dream of driving Israel into the
sea and replacing it with an Islamist Palestine.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is possible, but I have
become convinced after multiple refusals by Hamas spokesmen to
repudiate its call for Israel's destruction, that the only way forward
is to ratchet up the pressure. This resolution is, I believe, a good
first step. It does not mandate specific action by the administration,
but reiterates the message that this country will not support a Hamas
government that will not recognize Israel.
Those who cling to the dream of Israel's destruction must realize
that this resolution is a warning and that continued intransigence will
be met with sterner countermeasures.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 79 and am
pleased that the House leadership has decided to pursue this thoughtful
and constructive response to the success of Hamas in the recent
Palestinian Legislative Council elections.
With passage of this resolution, the Congress will be on record in
opposition of any direct U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority if the
majority party in parliament maintains a position calling for the
destruction of Israel.
This reflects longstanding U.S. policy. And it is clearly the right
policy. Hamas is a ruthless terrorist organization with the blood of
innocents on its hands. When Hamas assumes control of the Palestinian
parliament, it must recognize Israel's right to exist and renounce
terror. If not, the Palestinian Authority should receive no direct U.S.
aid. It's as simple as that.
But I would like to use this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to point out
that the outcome of the Palestinian election does not lend itself to
simple analysis. And the U.S. response to this development must not be
knee-jerk and simplistic.
Let us first remember that the Palestinian people went to the polls
and conducted an election that was remarkably democratic, free, fair,
and devoid of violence. We may not like the results, but we should take
note of what is among the most democratic elections the Arab world has
ever seen.
And while Hamas attracted the most votes, there is little evidence
that Palestinian voters were in fact endorsing Hamas's call for
Israel's destruction. Exit polls show that three-quarters of all
Palestinian voters support reconciliation between Israel and the
Palestinians based on a two-state solution. Armed with the ballot,
Palestinians gave political voice to their anger and anguish over two
related problems--the rampant corruption and cronyism within the Fatah
establishment, and the lack of any tangible improvement of the quality
of life under Israeli occupation.
So what should the United States do in response to this election? One
thing we cannot do is simply throw up our hands and refuse to engage in
efforts to help Israel and the Palestinians achieve peace. We cannot
turn back the clock. Every week that goes by without any progress to
achieve a solution to this conflict increases the threat to U.S.
national interests. This was true before Hamas came to power and it is
just as true today.
Yesterday, I received a letter from the Assistant Secretary of State
for Legislative Affairs assuring me that the administration ``remain(s)
committed to working toward the peaceful resolution of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict . . .'' This is a positive statement, and Congress
should play a positive role in partnership with the President to
advance our interests in the region.
[[Page H285]]
For this reason, I am concerned about some legislative proposals that
have been introduced in the House which would, in my view, sharply
curtail our ability to engage constructively in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.
Future legislation should include a mix of sticks and carrots--not
just sticks. Clearly, direct aid to a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority
must be stopped right now, but we should keep the door open for future
aid if the P.A. undertakes the changes and reforms we are demanding of
them. Permanently restricting our assistance provides little incentive
and dramatically limits the President's options. Similarly, we must
distinguish between the Hamas elements of the Palestinian Government
and members of the PLO with whom the U.S. and Israel have negotiated
for many years. Terminating diplomatic contact with the entire
Palestinian leadership will do nothing but undermine the very moderates
who oppose violence and support dialogue with Israel.
In addition, I am concerned about legislative efforts that would
restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to the
Palestinian people through credible and transparent non-governmental
organizations. I am pleased that the recent report in the New York
Times about a coordinated American-Israeli effort to ``starve'' the
Palestinian people has been strongly denied by both countries. The
average Palestinian on the West Bank and Gaza leads a very difficult
life and the further deterioration of economic conditions will not only
be devastating for the Palestinians, but will also weaken Israel's
security.
Mr. Speaker, today the House is taking an important step by stating
unequivocally that U.S. assistance will not flow to a government
dominated by a terrorist group bent on Israel's destruction. I hope, in
the weeks and months ahead, as the situation in Israel and Palestine
evolves, we can come back to this floor and enact thoughtful
legislation that helps the Palestinian people, secures the State of
Israel, and advances our own important interests in the Middle East.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I proudly pledge my support
for S. Con. Res 79, which expresses Congress's disapproval of any
foreign aid distributed to the Palestinian Authority if a group holding
the majority of seats supports the destruction of one of America's
closest allies, Israel.
The recent election by the Palestinian people that put Hamas in
control of their governing body should be troubling to all. This
organization, with a foundation of hate and a track record of evil, has
as its platform, one goal--the annihilation of the Jewish State of
Israel.
It is quite troublesome that a people, desperate to prove to the
world that they are deserving of recognition, peaceful, would with
overwhelming support put in power a group solely motivated by the ruin
of the peaceful and freedom-loving Nation of Israel.
Hamas is responsible for the tragic deaths of thousands of innocent
Israelis and Americans, including women and children. They have refused
to take part in any peace talks, including the Oslo Accords. They have
refused to participate in previous, formal governmental operations that
have worked with Israel. And they actively recruit children to
accomplish their malevolent and homicidal agenda.
For generations, we have been working towards a plan that will
finally bring peace to the most unstable region in the world--the
Middle East. In recent years, peace looked as close as it ever has,
held together by fragile promises of Arab leaders to end their over
half-century assault on the nonviolent and democratic State of Israel.
The control of the Palestinian Authority by Hamas could very well tip
the scales away from a peaceful resolution.
Congress, who holds the purse strings of the peoples' money, should
never provide any aid to any organization set on such destructive
results. As a Member of Congress representing a district whose
sightline used to include the Twin Towers, I know all too well the
devastating effects of vengefulness and abhorrence.
I am proud of Congress's actions today and commend those who have
worked to bring this resolution to the floor. I was similarly proud to
stand with my colleagues in December when with strong bipartisan
support, we passed H. Res. 575, warning against the very inclusion of
Hamas and other terrorist groups in the Palestinian elections. I am
also a proud original cosponsor of H.R. 4668, a House bill denying aid
to a Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority.
As our only ally in a region filled with unrest and American hatred,
I vow to continue to stand firm with the State of Israel. The rise to
power by the terrorist establishment Hamas only spells trouble for
Israel and the United States, as well as for all our collaborative
efforts to reverse the trend of a region that has been a breeding
ground for terrorists sought on eliminating freedom and liberty from
this world.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support S. Con. Res. 79, a
resolution expressing the sense of Congress that no United States
assistance should be provided directly to the Palestinian Authority so
long as the Hamas-led government maintains a position calling for the
destruction of Israel.
In fact, I will go further and say that the United States should
freeze all aid to the Palestinian Government until Hamas denounces
violence, renounces terrorism, and recognizes the State of Israel's
right to exist within secure borders. Hamas's mission is the
destruction of the State of Israel, and its methods include wholesale
violence against civilians. To fund that regime is to legitimize
terrorism against innocent people.
Hamas has been responsible for more than 425 terrorist attacks since
the start of the second Intifada in the fall of 2000. These attacks
have resulted in the deaths of 377 people, including approximately 27
Americans since 1993.
With Hamas in the majority--an organization designated as a terrorist
group by the United States and the European Union--the Palestinian
Authority is now led by a regime whose actions and covenant directly
reject a diplomatic and peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Hamas must publicly acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a
free, Jewish state, denounce terrorism and dismantle its terrorist
infrastructure, halt anti-Israel incitement, and commit itself to the
peace process. The logical consequence of Hamas's failure to follow
these civilized principles must be a freeze on foreign aid from the
international community.
Today, the Palestinian Authority receives approximately $1.1 billion
a year in foreign aid. According to a report prepared by the
Congressional Research Service, the Palestinian Authority receives
about $320 million a year in direct foreign aid, and about double that
amount in indirect aid.
I am concerned that the international community may not be united in
its opposition to Hamas. There is already disagreement within the
Quartet, with President Putin declaring that Russia will not stop
foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority. I have already written
President Putin to urge him not to fund Hamas, and I hope he will
reconsider his decision. But the problem goes beyond Russia.
Arab nations, many of them purported friends of the United States,
have openly declared that they will step in and fund the Hamas-led
government. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have already pledged $33 million.
Several countries in Latin America, including Argentina, Brazil,
Venezuela, and Bolivia, have invited Hamas officials to visit with
their governments. The international community must neither fund, nor
legitimize Hamas.
Therefore, I am circulating a letter to President Bush urging him to
build an international consensus to withhold foreign aid as a way to
isolate the Hamas-led government until Hamas denounces violence,
renounces terrorism, and recognizes the State of Israel's right to
exist within secure borders. Many Members of Congress have joined me in
this effort, and I hope with this action by Congress today, more
Members will join our efforts.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, the Palestinian elections last month provided
the Palestinian Authority an incredible opportunity to take the
necessary step in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. However, Hamas
continues to incite violence and advocate for the destruction of
Israel.
The resolution before us today states that the United States will not
support sending tax dollars in the form of aid to a terrorist
government. This resolution sends the message that America does not do
business with a government that calls for the total destruction of one
of our allies.
Hamas, for its part, continues to support the killing of Israeli
civilians and denies the legitimacy of the state of Israel. Hamas has a
choice, they can renounce violence, govern and work towards peace, or
they can choose violence and the consequences that follow.
Last fall, I sent a letter to President Abbas calling on him to
institute clear criteria for participation in Palestinian elections.
Groups or individuals such as Hamas who support violence, racism,
intolerance and hatred should have no right to participate in
democratic elections.
Mr. Speaker, I do not see President Abbas working towards peace. This
resolution reiterates that America does not deal with terrorists. I
urge Members to support this resolution.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote in favor of this legislation
because I support any statement by Congress indicating hesitation to
send U.S. taxpayer money abroad.
Unfortunately this legislation is motivated by politics rather than a
genuine desire to limit unconstitutional foreign aid programs. The
wording of the resolution itself does not close the door to providing
U.S. aid to the Palestinians even if Hamas, the political party that
won recent parliamentary elections, takes its seats in parliament
without altering its stated policies toward Israel. Indeed, the
legislation states that ``no United States assistance
[[Page H286]]
should be provided directly to the Palestinian Authority'' if Hamas
occupies a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament. This
obviously suggests that the money can be spent ``indirectly'' in any
case.
So this is hardly a strong statement opposing any and all aid to the
Palestinians, which is the position that I hold.
I find it interesting that the same proponents of the United States
government exporting democracy overseas are now demanding that
something be done when people overseas do not vote the way the U.S.
Government thinks they should. It seems that being for democracy means
respecting that people overseas may not always vote the way Washington
wants them to vote. If our aim is to ensure that only certain parties
or individuals are allowed to lead foreign nations, why not just admit
that democracy is the last thing we want? That attitude is evident in
the fact that the U.S. Government spent more than $2 million trying to
manipulate the Palestinian vote in favor of parties supported by
Washington. You cannot have it both ways. Although it is always a good
idea to eliminate foreign aid, we should be careful about calling the
manipulation of elections overseas an exercise in ``democracy
promotion.''
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have been occupied with the Ways and
Means Committee all day and have not been able to participate in floor
debate. I wish I had been able to participate in the discussion of S.
Con. Res. 79 which was on the floor this morning because I have a
question about the resolution.
My question is: How does this resolution further the cause of peace
in the Middle East or make Israel more secure?
The resolution states that it is the sense of Congress that the U.S.
should not directly aid the Palestinian Authority ``if any
representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary
seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for
the destruction of Israel.''
Of course there is a party with that sentiment, Hamas, and--as we all
know--that U.S. law prohibits aid to Hamas. As far as I know, neither
President Bush nor Secretary Rice nor anyone else in our Government has
proposed trying to find a loophole through which the U.S. can bankroll
Hamas.
So we have a resolution opposing an action which is already
prohibited in existing law. We are bravely opposing doing something
illegal that no one at all in the administration or Congress has
proposed to do.
Why? Why did we come to the floor and vote on this? Who does it help?
I am submitting two articles for the Record along with this
statement. The first, ``The Right Way to Pressure Hamas,'' is an
editorial from this morning's New York Times.
It discusses the rumors that the U.S. and Israel are trying to create
conditions that would lead to new elections to oust Hamas, presumably
in favor of Fatah.
The editorial notes that ``in the long, sorry history of the Israeli-
Palestinian dispute, there is not a shred of evidence to support the
notion that pushing the Palestinian population into more economic
desperation would somehow cause them to moderate their political views.
In fact, experience teaches the exact opposite.''
The Times goes on to say that a wise course ``would be to step back
and desist from deliberately provoking the Palestinians, and give Hamas
a chance to reconsider its own options.''
The second article, ``Talking with the Guys from Hamas,'' appeared
last Saturday in the Daily Star, a well-respected, moderate Beirut
daily. I urge every member to take time to read it.
Its author, Rami Khouri, notes that a ``Hamas-Ied Palestinian
government and the new Israeli government to be elected next month face
a historic opportunity.''
He predicts that Hamas ``will surely continue its 3-year slow shift
toward more pragmatism and realism because it is now politically
accountable to the entire Palestinian population, and to world public
opinion.''
However, Khouri warns: ``It is not very helpful--as so may pro-Israel
American apologists do--to focus mainly on Hamas' theology or its 1987
founding charter, any more than one should deal with Israeli parties
that base their claim to all of Palestine--Eretz Israel on the book of
Genesis account of God's land patrimony to the Jewish people.''
So, what was the point of today's vote? To spell out for Hamas that
Congress is going to stand in the way if Secretary Rice suddenly
decides to try to send them a big aid package? To tell the President
that he'd better not be trying to exploit some loophole to subsidize
Hamas?
To clarify for Israel that the position that Harry Truman took isn't
being abandoned after 58 years?
Mr. Speaker, time and time again, my Republican colleagues have come
to the floor with resolutions opining on various issues.
Regrettably, they often serve to worsen the problems under
consideration and to boil complex issues down to radio talk show-sized
sound bites. This is a sensitive, dynamic time in Arab-Israeli
relations, and I hope members can restrain themselves from show-
boating.
As Rami Khouri suggests: ``Political theologians and collectors of
historical ideologies, please go home for a while.''
[From the Daily Star, Feb. 11, 2006]
Talking With the Guys From Hamas
(By Rami G. Khouri)
I had the opportunity Thursday to explore first-hand the
implications of the victory of Hamas in last month's
Palestinian parliamentary elections. I went to talk to Hamas
leaders at the Palestinian refugee camp of Burj al-Barajneh
in Beirut, where poor, disenfranchised Palestinian refugees
live in rather atrocious material conditions.
After two-and-a-half hours of discussions among Hamas,
other Palestinian parties and an Anglo-American visiting
delegation, I now know better why Hamas swept the Palestinian
elections. The human contact also reveals what the news does
not convey: this exiled, marginalized, downtrodden and
vulnerable refugee community walks today with its head held
higher than any other group of people in the entire Middle
East, because of its unique combination of self-confidence,
perseverance, success and legitimacy. Hamas is the only Arab
party that enjoys an authentic mandate from its people,
genuinely manifested through victory in two free elections at
the municipal and national levels.
What does one learn from such encounters? The two most
significant themes that emerge from discussions with Hamas
officials--and from their many statements--are a commitment
to national principles and a clear dose of political
pragmatism. Both dimensions are important, and cannot be
separated.
It is not very helpful--as so many pro-Israeli American
apologists do--to focus mainly on Hamas' theology or its 1987
founding charter, any more than one should deal with Israeli
parties that base their claim to all of Palestine-Eretz
Yisrael on the Book of Genesis account of God's land
patrimony to the Jewish people. Political theologians and
collectors' of historical ideologies, please go home for a
while.
Now that Hamas will share or hold power, they are likely to
persist in both their principled and pragmatic ways. They
will assert rather than drop their existing principles
related to domestic governance, resisting Israel and
liberating the Israeli-occupied territories, and potentially
coexisting with an Israeli state under certain conditions. It
is foolhardy to expect Hamas to reverse its principles at the
moment when it has achieved a historic victory precisely
because it has adhered to them. At the same time, it will
surely continue its three-year-old slow shift toward more
pragmatism and realism, because it is now politically
accountable to the entire Palestinian population, and to
world public opinion. Incumbency means responsibility and
accountability, which inevitably nurture practicality and
reasonable compromises.
Here is where Hamas' experience is instructive, and why it
is so important to speak with them to understand how they are
likely to behave. My sense from such discussions, along with
35 years of watching Islamists at work, is that they do make
compromises and practical concessions. But they only do so on
four conditions: they talk and compromise in a political
context of negotiations between two equal parties; they give
only when they get something of equal value in return; they
respond emphatically to the consensus position of their
national constituency; and they do not compromise on what
they identify as core national rights of equality, dignity,
liberty and sovereignty.
One more vital point to remember: Hamas and Hizbullah are
the only two Arab groups that have ever forced Israel's
fabled military to withdraw involuntarily from occupied Arab
land (South Lebanon and Gaza). American presidents and other
purveyors of fantasy are free to call this sort of
unilateralism a ``courageous initiative for peace,'' as
George W. Bush said of Ariel Sharon. The rest of the rational
world calls this what it is: a retreat, and a tacit admission
of defeat. Hamas will build on the policies that achieved
this, not repudiate them.
Hamas lives in the real world, not in fantasyland. It and
its supporters are not so impressed with having tea in the
White House. They are much more focused on bringing back a
degree of personal dignity, communal self-respect, and
national integrity to Palestinian life. They also know that
the majority of Palestinians, other Arabs and world nations
wish to coexist in negotiated peace with the state of Israel,
if Israel in turn reciprocates the sentiment to the
Palestinians and other Arabs whose lands it has occupied.
How to reconcile these realities is a priority issue for
them in the coming months.
I expect that Hamas will combine its legacy of both
principles and pragmatism in slowly making important
decisions on key issues in coming months. These will include
sharing power in Palestine, reforming corrupt and mediocre
national institutions, galvanizing an effective national
Palestinian leadership representing all Palestinians in the
world, negotiating peace with Israel while resisting its
occupation, and fostering the development of a society that
is not necessarily ruled by Islamic law.
A Hamas-led Palestinian government and the new Israeli
government to be elected next month face a historic
opportunity, if they are prepared to see each other as
representing peoples and nations with equal rights. Hamas has
reached this triumphant
[[Page H287]]
moment precisely because it has insisted on such equality,
rather than pandering to Israeli-American promises as other
Palestinian leaders did without success.
Hamas can be pragmatic only because its resistance and
consistent principles have brought it success. Understanding
the dynamic relationship between these factors is the key to
movement forward to a win-win situation for all, including
Palestinians, Israelis and the slightly dazed denizens of
fantasylands far away.
____
[From the New York Times, Feb. 15, 2006]
The Right Way To Pressure Hamas
America and Israel have to walk a very narrow line in
defining their relations with a democratically elected
Palestinian government built around Hamas, a party that not
only endorses terrorism but also commits it. They cannot
possibly give political recognition or financial aid to such
a government. Neither can any country that claims to oppose
terrorism. That defines the right side of the line.
On the wrong side lies the kind of deliberate
destabilization that, according to a report by our Times
colleague Steven Erlanger, Washington and Jerusalem are now
discussing. That would involve a joint American-Israeli
campaign to undermine a Hamas government by putting
impossible demands on it, starving it of money and putting
even greater restrictions on the Palestinians with an eye
toward forcing new elections that might propel the defeated
and discredited Fatah Party back to power.
Set aside the hypocrisy such a course would represent on
the part of the two countries that have shouted the loudest
about the need for Arab democracy, and consider the probable
impact of such an approach on the Palestinians. They are
already driven to distraction by fury, frustration and
poverty. Is it really possible to expect that more punishment
from the Israelis and the Americans, this time for not voting
the way we wanted them to, would lead them to abandon Hamas?
In the long, sorry history of the Israeli-Palestinian
dispute, there is not a shred of evidence to support the
notion that pushing the Palestinian population into more
economic desperation would somehow cause them to moderate
their political views. In fact, experience teaches the exact
opposite.
Fatah lost last month's election because its incompetence
and corruption drove Palestinian voters into the arms of the
more austere, social-services-oriented Hamas. If the new
government fails to deliver because it puts continued
terrorism over the well-being of the Palestinian people, it
may indeed be booted out of office. But a Hamas that could
explain continued Palestinian misery by a deliberate
American-Israeli plan to reverse the democratic verdict of
the polls would be likely to become only stronger.
Washington publicly asserts that no such plan is being
discussed. A far wiser course for the United States to pursue
would be to step back and desist from deliberately provoking
the Palestinians, and give Hamas a chance to reconsider its
own options. Some hints about its intentions may emerge from
the way its leaders respond to overtures by the Russian
president, Vladimir Putin. Last week, Mr. Putin indicated
that he intended to invite them to Moscow for a visit.
Mr. Putin's move was controversial in the West, and perhaps
he should have provided more warning. But that would be a
minor snub indeed if he prods Hamas toward renouncing
terrorism, accepting Israel's right to exist and reviving the
peace process.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker and my fellow Representatives,
we have before us a resolution that, in its brevity, expresses the
apprehension, concern, and resoluteness of our country in response to
the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections 3 weeks ago.
I stand here to support the sense of Congress that an organization
that does not recognize the right of another sovereign state to exist
should not be the recipient of our aid. I have grave reservations about
this resolution, however. Rather than pressure Hamas to recognize
Israel, we may instead add more fire to the hostilities and prematurely
halt the peace process by asserting this punitive resolution.
I hope that the Palestinian Authority will engage in diplomatic
relations and come to an understanding that is satisfactory to all
involved. The violence and suicide bombings are still present in our
minds, and our objective is to never have to witness events such as
these again.
But I also know that the Palestinian people need our help
desperately. They are vulnerable. They need food, shelter, warmth,
sanitation, medicine, schools. But they also need safety, protection,
confidence, and a reason to believe that they may someday witness and
achieve stability and peace. By joining in the sense of Congress today
and refusing aid to a government that does not recognize Israel, we
cannot forget the Palestinian people, who still urgently need our
humanitarian aid.
Some may say that the majority voted for a historically terrorist
political party. But the picture is never as simple as it seems on the
surface--Palestinians had a choice between corruption and terrorism.
They have seen the wasted resources and the ineffectiveness. They
voiced their disgust in their leadership by democratically voting them
out of office. The elections were a success in that regard--campaigning
was energetic and nonviolent, and the election turnout was beyond
expectations. They chose to replace the party in power with an
alternative that promised more solidity, more leadership, and more hope
for the future.
I do, however, implore that Hamas recognize the state of Israel and
renounce violence. We can help them achieve many great things,
including their own sovereign state. I hope that they will take us up
on our offer.
Israel has found a way to exist as both a religious state and as an
international diplomatic partner while protecting its own interests.
Many Arab states have also tried this with varying degrees of success.
Hamas needs to understand that you can run your country holding
religious values close, while participating in a secular process that
will give you what you seek. Daily, we see reports that Hamas refuses
to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Although we understand the
anger, we've been shocked and dismayed at the violence in the Islamic
community as a result of the publication of offensive cartoons.
Unfortunately these images are present in our minds as we consider our
relationship with the Middle East. I strongly urge Hamas to reassess
its tactics and its position in relation to its goals, as well as
reassess how best it can serve its people in its new position of
government leadership. I know that your religion values human life.
Prove it by protecting your people, and assuming the authority you have
democratically earned by recognizing Israel's right to exist, just as
you assert your right to exist.
The Israeli national anthem is entitled ``The Hope,'' and it
expresses an optimistic, yet sober understanding of what is needed to
attain peace. Today, as a Member of Congress, I will join my colleagues
in telling the Palestinian Authority that it must step onto the
international diplomatic arena with honesty, openness, and a
willingness to compromise. I still believe that a State of Palestine
and a State of Israel will someday be able to coexist in peace, but in
order for that to happen, both must acknowledge one another.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of this resolution as a first step toward helping our close ally,
Israel, from an increasing threat. This resolution responds to the
troubling results of the Palestinian Legislative Council, PLC,
elections last month, in which Hamas--the radical Islamic Palestinian
organization that has sought to expel Jews and destroy the state of
Israel to establish an Islamic Palestinian state based on Islamic law--
won a majority of the seats.
Hamas has been recognized by the United States and the European Union
as a terrorist organization, and has committed hundreds of acts of
terrorism against Israeli citizens since its creation in 1987.
The group has employed car bombings, suicide bombings, mortar
attacks, Qassam rocket attacks, and assassinations to achieve its
stated goal of destroying Israel, and in doing so has killed thousands
of innocent Israelis, as well as several Americans, including 5 during
a series of bombings in 1996.
In FY 2005, $275 million was appropriated to the West Bank and Gaza,
with $50 million of that funding going directly to the Palestinian
Authority. We can never allow U.S. taxpayer dollars to get in the hands
of a Hamas-controlled government to be used against Israel.
The Palestinian people voted and selected Hamas, but that does not
mean we must support an organization that is counter to real peace in
the Middle East. Elections are serious business, and I am disappointed
the Palestinian people selected a group who does not want peace.
Passing this resolution is just a first step to notify a Hamas led
government; the US and its allies can not support a government in Gaza
and the West Bank that does not recognize Israel's right to exist.
Mr. Speaker, these election results are extremely troubling and this
resolution shows solidarity and concern for the security of Israel and
its people. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
resolution to send a strong message to Hamas that we will not recognize
them as a legitimate government so long as they promote terrorism.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 79,
a resolution urging that no U.S. assistance should be provided directly
to the Palestinian Authority if any representative political party
holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian
Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.
With Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections and the continued
nuclear aggression of Iran, it is now more important than ever for the
U.S. to reaffirm its support for Israel.
With Hamas's new power comes new responsibility. It is time for Hamas
to recognize Israel's right to exist. It is time for Hamas to lay down
its arms and realize the road to peace lies through direct negotiations
with Israel.
[[Page H288]]
We must call on Hamas to put an end to violence and terror. They must
cease their rhetoric of hate. The U.S. and the international community
must strongly urge Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, Hamas maintains and asserts a radical, violent
ideology within its charter--the destruction of Israel. I believe that
S. Con. Res. 79, which reaffirms that no U.S. funds should go to the
Palestinian Authority if the majority party maintains a position
calling for the destruction of Israel, is a good first step in creating
a more peaceful region. Voting in support of this Resolution is not a
hard choice.
But harder choices and questions lay ahead. Should we choose a knee-
jerk reaction that cuts off all communication, as well as all
assistance to the Palestinian people? The alternative is taking a deep
breath and reflecting on more constructive ways to bring about a long-
term, sustainable peace within the region, while maintaining our
opposition to a political party that supports the idea of the
destruction of another nation.
The reasons behind Hamas's victory are complicated. Polling data
continues to show that the majority of Palestinians want peace and
believe in a two-state solution. Palestinians are tired of a corrupt
government and are exhausted by living in poverty. The U.S.
Government's actions should not feed these root causes of Palestinian
discontent. In fact, we should be supportive of efforts to mitigate
these problems, including continued support for NGO-run humanitarian
assistance. This path of moderation, I believe, will help bring more
security to Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, and some day a Palestinian
State.
Silence does not create peace and we shouldn't turn our backs on the
Middle East and push all Palestinians down a path of isolation and
extremism. The U.S. and Israel must remain engaged and push for a peace
process that supports moderate Palestinian voices and peaceful leaders
and urge Hamas to conduct itself as a legitimate political authority by
renouncing the ideology of the destruction of Israel.
I urge Hamas to change its charter and urge the U.S. State Department
to choose peace.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this resolution being brought to
the floor so quickly and urge its passage.
The Hamas victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections is of great
concern to me and many others and presents a major challenge to the
peace process. There is simply no way our government can meet with or
provide assistance to a government led by a terrorist organization.
Hamas ran a campaign based on cleaning out the corruption of the
Fatah party. The Palestinian people responded to this pledge, but sadly
in the process elected a terrorist government. Unless Hamas recognizes
the State of Israel's right to exist, ceases incitement and permanently
disarms and dismantles their terrorist infrastructure, the United
States will not work with this government, nor can we expect Israel to.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) that the House
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution, S.
Con. Res. 79.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________