[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 40 (Monday, March 10, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E341-E342]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONDEMNING THE ONGOING PALESTINIAN ROCKET ATTACKS ON ISRAELI CIVILIANS

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. MICHAEL E. CAPUANO

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 5, 2008

  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I rise to explain the reasons and the 
scruples that led me to vote ``present'' on H. Res. 951.
  I would note, first, that the resolution as amended and passed is 
more acceptable to me than the original draft. Most important to me is 
that the amended resolution recognizes the suffering of innocent 
victims on both sides of the conflict. However, I continue to believe 
that resolutions containing language such as

[[Page E342]]

some of the language in H. Res. 951 do not advance us towards the most 
important goal relative to this issue: peaceful co-existence for the 
region.
  The resolution properly states America's support for the people of 
Israel and their right to defend themselves. It notes the near daily 
rocket and mortar attacks on southern Israel that have been launched 
from the Gaza Strip since Israel withdrew from Gaza in the interests of 
peace in 2005. It fairly condemns Hamas and other terrorist 
organizations. I have never wavered in my support for Israel's right to 
defend itself against terrorists. I approved their action against the 
Iraqi nuclear site. I was bitterly criticized for my defense of the 
``targeted assassination'' of Sheikh Yassin in 2004. I led the 
resistance in the city of Somerville to a campaign to divest in Israel. 
I am a friend of Israel and I do not believe this resolution makes 
Israel safer. It fails to reconfirm our commitment to peace and to a 
process that can bring about peace. I believe this failure renders 
America less able to be an effective broker for peace in the region.
  In addition, I question the desirability and wisdom of reiterating 
the status of Iran and Syria as ``state sponsors of terror''. The 
Department of State has so listed them and, certainly, there is ample 
evidence that both countries have actively and passively provided aid 
and comfort to Hamas and also to Hizbollah. Certainly, the current 
leaders of Iran have publicly stated their vile opinions about Israel 
and their determination to eradicate it. No one can deny these facts. 
Nonetheless, I have always been of the opinion that finding a way to 
peace is more important than name calling--even if the names seem to be 
well-deserved. I believe that those who are truly committed to finding 
a peaceful solution--two democratic states, recognized by other nations 
and coexisting in peace--must not succumb to the temptation of name-
calling. We cannot let terrorists shape our agenda. We must remain 
determined to pursue peace.
  I would ask anyone whether they are more or less likely to open their 
ears so they can hear their opponent if that opponent constantly calls 
them names. I would ask anyone whether they are more or less likely to 
believe that someone who calls them names can truly understand their 
concerns. We all suffer from the same human weakness that causes us to 
lash out at those who attack us. This is a natural and understandable 
emotional reaction. However, it is one that we must resist, especially 
when engaging in what should be seen as deliberative and thoughtful 
endeavors such as Congressional resolutions.
  That said, I believe every observer agrees that Egypt and Syria must 
be active participants in resolving this conflict. Many might agree 
that Iran must participate as well--or at least acquiesce. How then 
does it encourage them to do so when the Congress states or implies 
that they are to blame for the problems in the region? This question 
seems particularly relevant because the resolution, a condemnation of 
Hamas rocket attacks and an expression of solidarity with the people of 
Israel does not require us to condemn other regional powers. There is 
no need to ``poke our finger in the eye'' of governments able to thwart 
or advance a peaceful solution.
  I would point out that the Congress has taken this approach for 
years. We have passed numerous resolutions--too many, in my view, that 
are gratuitously confrontational. I ask: Have those resolutions moved 
us any closer to finding a peaceful solution? The approach has not 
worked thus far and I see no reason to believe it will start working 
now.
  I voted ``present'' rather than ``no'' because I was in sympathy with 
much of the resolution. I voted as a Member of Congress determined that 
the United States act responsibly in pursuit of peace.

                          ____________________