[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7745-S7746]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, while a U.S. Senator I have traveled to 
the Middle East three times, visiting Israel each time and the West 
Bank twice. My travels through the region also included four visits to 
Iraq, as well as visits to Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, 
and Kuwait. What I have seen in those trips gives me a certain amount 
of qualified optimism different than any I have had in my 37 years 
following the Arab-Israeli peace process.
  This morning, I shared my thoughts with the organization J Street, 
and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Good morning. I am pleased to address you today about the 
     Middle East peace process, a topic J Street has done so much 
     on already. I often describe the Middle East as a roller 
     coaster, full of ups and downs and the occasional complete 
     loop. It might be an exciting ride, if only you had any idea 
     when it was going to end. In my experience things are most 
     dangerous in the Middle East when you are optimistic. We have 
     all learned the Middle East can break your heart.
       Even with that in mind, after 37 years working in and 
     around Washington, I am optimistic about the prospects for a 
     Middle East peace process. I know the major obstacles to 
     peace and I will highlight two in particular that I believe 
     are most threatening, but first let me explain the reasons 
     this time feels different to me.
       First is Iran. As one of my top priorities as a U.S. 
     Senator, I sought out updates on the Middle East from my very 
     first days in office. What I heard from senior administration 
     officials and other senators surprised me: when they traveled 
     to the region they found the Arab states--for the first time 
     in my experience--did not start with a diatribe about Israel, 
     but rather wanted to talk about Iran, and the destabilizing 
     effect an Iranian nuclear weapon would have on the whole 
     Middle East.
       I went there myself and found it to be completely true. And 
     I think my most recent trip to Saudi Arabia provides a 
     wonderful illustration of this. In Riyadh, we spoke with 
     members of King Abdullah's consultative assembly, a group of 
     professionals appointed by the King to offer him advice. They 
     certainly wanted to talk about the peace process with us, but 
     at the same time a comment from the chair of their foreign 
     relations committee was typical. He said ``Iran wants to 
     destabilize the Gulf. We do not believe they have a peaceful 
     nuclear system, because otherwise, why would they be building 
     delivery vehicles.''
       At higher levels in Saudi Arabia, the realization at last 
     that Iran, not Israel, is the greatest danger to stability in 
     the Middle East is even more pronounced. We met behind closed 
     doors with a member of the Saudi royal family and had a 
     lively back-and-forth about the peace process. But at the end 
     of our discussion, he turned to us and said, I paraphrase, 
     ``It's really all about Iran.''
       It is not difficult to see why. Saudi Arabia has been the 
     unrivaled most important Muslim country in the Gulf for 
     nearly half a decade, the one that the other Muslim countries 
     look to for leadership. A nuclear Iran is a direct challenge 
     to Saudi existence in the Gulf, and the centuries of bad 
     feelings between their peoples ensure that it will not be a 
     friendly competition.
       Saudi Arabia, as the leader of the Sunni world, sees an 
     aggressive Shia Iran as a threat to its most basic 
     principles, and fears its export of extremists around the 
     region and within its own borders. The Saudi monarchy has 
     already fought an extremist domestic insurgency in the last 
     decade, and it understands all too well the threat they pose.
       Why does this make me optimistic for the peace process? 
     Well, for the first time a nation like Saudi Arabia has a 
     cold-hearted realpolitik motivation to support peace. The 
     looming threat of Iran has focused their mind so that they, 
     and other Arab nations, know they need to solve one security 
     issue and, in the words of a member of the Saudi consultative 
     assembly, ``take away Iran's best propaganda tool.''
       The best evidence of this is the Gaza flotilla. In years 
     past, something like the flotilla incident would have 
     derailed the peace process down and possibly led to an 
     intifada, but this time, the direct talks started. The 
     relatively muted response to the end of the settlement 
     moratorium may very well be another example.
       Second, I am optimistic because of the U.S. dream team 
     working to promote the peace process. President Obama is 
     unshakable in his commitment to this issue and is determined 
     to have progress. At the UN General Assembly last week, I 
     thought he laid out the stakes very well, when he said in 
     clear terms about the next year of the peace process that 
     ``this time we will not let terror, or turbulence, or 
     posturing, or petty politics stand in the way.'' If we do, he 
     said, ``when we come back here next year, we can have an 
     agreement that will lead to a new member of the United 
     Nations--an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living 
     in peace with Israel.'' And he is right.
       But it is not the first time he has made clear the United 
     States is done with the old games and will put all its 
     efforts into peace. It was made clear when he assembled a 
     crack team to work on this in the Middle East and in 
     Washington. The Vice President is truly an expert in the 
     region, and Israel has no better friend than him. And 
     Secretary Clinton deserves enormous credit for her work to 
     set the right tone. But I want to spend a few minutes talking 
     about the President's peace envoy himself, George Mitchell.
       Senator Mitchell and I share something in common, we were 
     both appointed to replace our former bosses. Along with 
     Senator Kirk, we are the only three men in history to replace 
     a Senator for whom we served as chief of staff. But that is 
     not why I think he is the dream team's MVP.
       My father was a secular Jew, and my mother was Irish 
     Catholic, so I have been deeply familiar with both conflicts 
     throughout my life. The Troubles in Northern Ireland were 
     every bit as intractable as the problems in the Middle East. 
     Just like Israel and Palestine, people said that ancient 
     grudges would ensure that there could never be a compromise 
     between a population that would only settle if Ireland was 
     all Catholic or all Protestant. But George Mitchell brokered 
     a peace, by understanding that both Catholics and Protestants 
     wanted an end to the violence so they could get on with their 
     future, and that, through perseverance, a solution could be 
     found that both thought tolerable.
       Senator Mitchell has brought that same tireless approach to 
     the Middle East, and it has paid off with the first direct 
     talks in almost two years. At those talks, he is well-served 
     by his extensive background in the region, stretching back to 
     his time as a staffer in Washington. He is certainly no 
     neophyte to Arab-Israeli negotiations.
       Even the history of the last two years that led to direct 
     talks is based on his experience. When he chaired a fact-
     finding committee in 2001 to determine the best way to get 
     the peace process back on track in the middle of the 
     intifada, it produced what we call the Mitchell Report, 
     suggesting three phases of

[[Page S7746]]

     action: the immediate end to violence, rebuilding confidence 
     in the Palestinian Authority by focusing on their ability to 
     prevent terrorism while the Israelis froze settlement 
     activity, and then the resumption of direct negotiations. It 
     took eight years to get this process moving, but look where 
     we are today.
       Senator Mitchell has also had a long and storied career, 
     including bringing peace to Ireland. He did not take this job 
     to be one for two. You can bet that he is confident that an 
     answer is within reach, and within reach soon. He is not 
     preparing an eight-year plan.
       My third reason for optimism is the Israeli and Palestinian 
     leadership, particularly Bibi and Abu Mazan. Much has been 
     made of Prime Minister Netanyahu's unwieldy coalition and the 
     multitude of small conservative parties which each have 
     vested interests that could sink a peace deal. But after 
     numerous meetings with him, I am convinced that he wants 
     peace.
       I have no doubt that Bibi has wanted peace his whole life, 
     as so many do, because the security of his country and his 
     family depends on it. But, like with the Arab leaders, 
     current events have provided an added realpolitik impetus 
     right now. In my last trip, Defense Minister Ehud Barak 
     sketched out why achieving a solution based on two states, 
     living side-by-side in peace and security, is an existential 
     issue for the unique Jewish democracy that exists in Israel. 
     The alternative to lasting security through two states, he 
     said, is the complete annexation of the West Bank and Gaza. 
     The resulting state would either be non-Jewish, because of 
     the size of the Israeli Arab and Palestinian population, or 
     non-democratic, if Palestinians are disenfranchised. I 
     believe Abu Mazan also really wants peace. Like Bibi, though, 
     current conditions give him an unprecedented flexibility for 
     achieving it. The Arab states that have awoken to the danger 
     of Iran now give Abu Mazan, perhaps for the first time, a 
     true green light to come to a negotiated settlement with the 
     Israelis.
       The Arab League in the past has acted as a break on 
     negotiations, but now its members appear more eager for a 
     conclusion to the long-running crisis. I am hopeful that when 
     they meet on October 4 to consider what to do about the end 
     of the settlement moratorium, amidst a great deal of angry 
     rhetoric will be a go-ahead for Abu Mazan to continue talks. 
     It is that important to both him and Arab leaders to achieve 
     peace, and time is of the essence.
       So those are three good reasons for optimism, but now the 
     bad news: those that benefit from opposing peace will do 
     everything they can to try to destroy the process. We know 
     that both Hamas and Hezbollah will lose a major reason for 
     their existence, if not the only reason for their existence, 
     if peace is achieved. We should expect them to do everything 
     in their power to stoke violence and provoke a reaction they 
     can turn to their benefit.
       After all, they do not need to defeat the peace process, 
     they only need to delay it long enough that Abu Mazan follows 
     through on his announced retirement or loses credibility, 
     leaving a leadership vacuum for Palestinians--and in all my 
     travels, briefings, meetings, and hearings not a single 
     person has been able to suggest a Palestinian leader who can 
     effectively replace him. Or they only need to delay the peace 
     process long enough that President Obama's dream team breaks 
     up. Or delay it long enough that more Arab states follow the 
     path of Syria and increasingly Lebanon and decide that the 
     benefit of kowtowing to Iran outweighs the cost of being in 
     their crosshairs.
       As I said at the beginning, the Middle East will break your 
     heart. Whenever you are most optimistic things are most 
     dangerous. But the focus of Arab states on Iran as the true 
     threat, the United States peace process team, and the 
     leadership of Palestinians and Israelis are each new features 
     in this long story. Well aware of the pitfalls, I remain 
     optimistic. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

                          ____________________