[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 23, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E940-E941]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PALESTINIAN ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. JIM MARSHALL

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, May 22, 2006

  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Speaker, I plan to publish additional thoughts 
elsewhere about why I voted against H.R. 4681, The Palestinian Anti-
Terrorism Act of 2006. I expect to be joined in these thoughts by Dr. 
Bruce Hoffman, a world renowned expert on the subject of terrorism. For 
now, however, let me simply offer the following brief observations for 
today's Record, particularly because my vote so angered a valued 
colleague of mine.
  In my view, H.R. 4681 passed the House by an overwhelming majority 
earlier today because my colleagues seek the end of violent jihadist 
terrorism and are committed to protecting Israel and its citizens. As 
my words, votes and actions consistently show, I strongly share these 
objectives. But at this juncture, I would try a different strategy to 
attain them.
  The storied Archibald Wavell, then a young British officer who had 
served on Allenby's staff in Palestine, offered this prescient bit of 
irony about the treaties ending World War I: ``After the `war to end 
war' they seem to have been pretty successful in Paris at making a 
`peace to end peace'.'' That his prediction has come true thus far is 
of grave concern to the United States and Israel, two fast allies 
facing violent jihadist enemies with access to ever more sophisticated 
killing technology. Somehow we must break the cycle of hatred and 
violence.
  Though facially counterintuitive given its history of hatred and 
violence, I believe Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections offers 
a rare, if slim, opportunity to break this cycle, an opportunity well 
worth exploring given the enormous stakes and intractable nature of the 
problem. Unfortunately H.R. 4681 squanders that opportunity by rushing 
to judgment about the added danger of Hamas as a majority legislative 
party and by merely continuing strategies that have failed for decades 
to secure a lasting peace. It and the economic embargo already 
undertaken by Israel and the United States are apt to further 
radicalize the Palestinian population (and the Arab world generally), 
accelerating and extending the cycle of violence and broadening the 
opportunity for Al Qaeda in Palestine.
  Hamas, in the short run, cannot credibly agree to the three 
preconditions set in H.R. 4681. But it can agree to a cessation of 
violence while diplomacy progresses. With luck, time and diplomatic 
skill, that might lead to a peace agreement accepted by Hamas and, 
hence, worth something more than the paper evidencing it. Palestinian 
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah has said that Hamas could redefine its 
position if doing so would further the interests of the Palestinian 
people. And polls consistently show a majority of Palestinians will 
accept a two state solution and recognition of Israel.
  Hamas now enjoys Ariel Sharon-like strength and credibility among 
Arabs and Palestinians. No question its election victory at least calls 
for extra vigilance and caution from Israel and the West. It has 
committed acts of terrorism which all decent people condemn in

[[Page E941]]

the strongest terms. But Hamas, given time to change and adjust, may 
have the strength and credibility to break the cycle of hatred and 
violence on behalf of those it now represents, the Palestinian people. 
After all, Sharon changed. And who but Sharon could have accomplished 
the withdrawal from Gaza?
  I understand a number of my colleagues voted against H.R. 4681 for 
humanitarian reasons. These are certainly compelling, but I agree with 
the vast majority of my colleagues that such issues must take a back 
seat to the fundamental, long term security issues presented by the 
Hamas electoral victory. My ``no'' vote is quite narrowly based. I 
think this situation calls for time and diplomacy. H.R. 4681 offers 
neither and evidences, yet again, why Congress should not be conducting 
our foreign policy.

                          ____________________