[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 16, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1491-H1492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ISRAEL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, actually my main subject I want to cover
tonight is Israel, but I didn't want today to pass again without making
comments about the health care bill, because clearly that is the number
one subject on the minds of the people in Indiana as well as the rest
of the country.
One of the things that has happened here, without getting into what I
believe are the demerits of the bill, the 17 percent of the American
economy, and many companies in my district are threatened and their
choices threatened, but I think one of the frustrations here is the
arrogance of the process.
Initially, we were promised that it was going to be live on C-SPAN
and we would see all the negotiations. We are all familiar with how
that was abandoned. Then many Members refused to do town halls. They
wouldn't answer phone calls. They still won't answer their phone calls
or mail. Then we saw deals made in the Senate bill unprecedented in
American history.
As I pointed out earlier today, Thomas Jefferson got all of 13 States
as part of the first Louisiana Purchase in inflation-adjusted dollars
of $150 million. Buying one vote from Louisiana in the other body cost
$300 million.
Then when 17 percent of the American economy is at stake, not some
annual budget process but 17 percent of the American economy, the
Founding Fathers had set up a process in the Senate that is being
abused to go down to where it is 50 plus the Vice President can pass
the bill. Now we are going to apparently pass this in the House, if
they have the votes, and it is going to be deemed passed. We are not
even going to vote. No wonder so many American people are losing
confidence in government. It wasn't that we were high before, but we
have hit new lows. And it is going to be difficult to establish
confidence with the American people if we continue at this pace.
But another part of the arrogance of this government is happening in
Israel. I would like to insert this article from the Jerusalem Post
into the Record. It is an article that makes some nuanced points.
But first let me start and say Israel has an historic importance to
the world and to ourselves not just because of its history before the
Diaspora and the tremendous history of the Jewish people and the Nation
of Israel, but also it was a returning homeland for those after the
Holocaust from around the world where they could gather again to the
land from which they had been evicted.
Then it is important because it is a democratic bastion in the Middle
East, where there are not democratic bastions. We are trying to see if
Iraq can form a democracy, and Turkey is kind of a democracy as well.
But Israel has been from its founding such a democracy, since its
refounding in 1948. Not only that, but they are our best and really
only consistent ally in the Middle East. But it is also because Israel
is going to be of importance in future world history as well in many
ways. In fact, not only should all Americans be concerned about what is
happening in Israel, but many people have special concerns about the
future of Israel and how the United States responds to Israel.
Therefore, it is extremely disturbing to watch the arrogance of this
administration to bully our best ally. This article in the Jerusalem
Post says this is the worst that the United States has treated Israel
since 1975. The American leadership is mistakenly painting Israel into
a corner is the thrust of this article. In one of the more
sophisticated statements in it by Mr. Avner, who has written on the '75
crisis, he said, ``If the United States wishes to advance a peace
process, it must never paint Israel into a corner.'' And he points out
that what is needed is constructive ambiguity.
Now, that is an interesting term because most of us like to be very
forthright. And I would say that most people in Israel would like to be
forthright most of the time. But when dealing with historic conflicts
that have gone back to how the divisions first occurred in what I
believe when God gave Israel its land, and divisions that have occurred
since then, straightforwardness does not bring peace. Constructive
ambiguity brings peace.
So when the United States takes sides in calling Ramat Shlomo a
settlement, they chose words that were from the other side. That sends
a message that becomes then very difficult for Israel. The question is,
have we switched our positions or are we not as fully behind Israel?
Now, anybody who has ever visited there, reads about it, follows
Israel, realizes that its enemies on all sides at least claim they want
to destroy it. And from time to time they have had wars with which to
attempt to destroy it. You don't have to be kind of really informed on
international issues to realize that Iran is trying to develop a
nuclear bomb. Why are they trying to develop a nuclear bomb? They want
to destroy Israel from the face of the earth. It is their stated goal.
Now, the people in Israel may be divided on a lot of things and they
have a lot of opinions in their country, but they are a tad worried
about Iran. And they believe that the United States and the rest of the
world don't seem to be taking it as seriously as they do. Maybe
because, for example, you can get a bomber over Jerusalem from Amman,
Jordan, in a minute and a half. So they tend to be a little uncertain
when there is some doubt. And so they have a deep concern. In this case
they have a concern that we are all going to talk, talk, talk while
they are going to be in danger because of a nuclear weapon. If we are
going to address this, we need to stop giving the signals that we do
not stand behind Israel, and we need to stand directly behind Israel
and let the world know that is what our U.S. position is and do a
little bit of constructive ambiguity.
Obama Repeating 1975 Mistakes
(By Gil Hoffman)
Ex-Rabin adviser says US government's stance recalls US-Israel Sinai
crisis.
The American leadership is mistakenly ``painting Israel
into a corner,'' as it did during a 1975 confrontation
between the two countries, Yehuda Avner, who was an adviser
to then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin at the time of the
crisis, said Monday.
Ambassador to the US Michael Oren was quoted as telling
Israeli consuls general on a conference call Saturday night
that the current crisis with the US was the worst since the
1975 confrontation between then US Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger and Rabin over an American demand for a partial
withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula.
Avner said he did not have enough inside information about
the current crisis to compare the two. But he compared the
language of Kissinger 35 years ago to that of current US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who he said spoke in a
manner that was more emotional than diplomatic.
``The US must never create a situation in which Israel sees
itself as being abandoned, because it encourages belligerence
on the other side and inflexibility on the Israeli side,''
Avner said. ``If the US wishes to advance a peace process, it
must never paint Israel into a corner as it did by calling
Ramat Shlomo a settlement. What's needed now on all sides is
constructive ambiguity.''
Avner, who worked under four Israeli prime ministers,
recalled the details of the 1975 crisis, which he recounts in
his new book The Prime Ministers.
He said the March 1975 incident erupted when Kissinger
demanded that Israel give up the Jidda and Mitla passes in
the Sinai, and Rabin refused. Because of his refusal,
Kissinger left a meeting with Rabin in anger and accused
Israel of ``shattering the cause of peace.''
At the height of the confrontation between the two men,
Kissinger told Rabin: ``You will be responsible for the
destruction of the third Jewish commonwealth,'' and Rabin
replied, ``You will be judged not by American history but by
Jewish history.'' Avner said he hoped the current crisis
would be resolved as successfully.
Then American president Gerald Ford wrote Rabin a fiercely
worded letter that
[[Page H1492]]
Avner said was among ``the most brutal'' Israel had received
from the US.
``I wish to express my profound disappointment of Israel's
attitude over the course of the negotiations,'' Ford wrote.
``You know the importance I have attached to the US efforts
to reach an agreement. Kissinger's mission, encouraged by
your government, expresses vital US interests in the region.
Failure of the negotiations will have a far-reaching impact
on the region and our relation. I have therefore instructed
that a reassessment be made of US policy in the region,
including our relations with Israel with the aim of
reassuring that our overall American interests are
protected.''
Within six months, Kissinger succeeded in brokering an
interim accord between Rabin and Egyptian president Anwar
Sadat whereby Israel agreed to pull back its forces out of
the Jidda and Mitla passes but retained the heights above
them while American forces were stationed in the passes.
Avner said that since that compromise was reached, no
Israeli has been killed on the Israel-Egypt border.
____________________