[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 167 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2168-E2169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  SUPPORTING A NEGOTIATED SOLUTION TO THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. DAVID E. PRICE

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 15, 2010

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, while I do not intend to 
call for a recorded vote on this resolution, I would like to express my 
serious reservations about both the content of the measure before us 
and the circumstances under which it is being considered. Once again, 
we are being asked to consider a resolution about one of our Nation's 
most important foreign policy challenges that was rushed

[[Page E2169]]

to the floor without any real chance for debate, without any 
consideration by the committee of jurisdiction, and without any 
opportunity for constructive input from the many Members of this body--
Democrats and Republicans--who care deeply about peace in the Middle 
East.
  This resolution is significant not for what it says, but for what it 
leaves unspoken. Of course most of us believe that a just and lasting 
peace between Israelis and Palestinians will only be achieved through a 
negotiated two-state solution. And of course any unilateral action by 
either side--or by a third party--that undermines the peace process 
should be cause for concern for this Congress, and for anybody else who 
believes that a two-state solution is still possible.
  But that is precisely the point: this resolution says absolutely 
nothing about the long history of unilateral actions taken by Israeli 
governments that have progressively undermined confidence in the 
ability of negotiations to deliver peace. It says nothing about the 
fact that formal negotiations broke down last week due in large part to 
Israel's refusal to extend its freeze on unilateral settlement 
construction for a mere three months. It says nothing about the 
understandable frustration felt by Israelis and Palestinians alike when 
they see their leaders fail yet again to make good on their promises of 
peace.
  Moreover, we must ask ourselves whether approving this resolution at 
this highly sensitive moment would in fact be counterproductive to its 
stated goal of supporting the peace process. With negotiations on life 
support and the Administration working overtime to determine the best 
path forward for the United States, should we really be making 
definitive statements about what the United States might or might not 
do if such a unilateral declaration were actually made? Or asking the 
State Department to shift its focus to preventing other countries from 
granting diplomatic recognition, rather than continuing to focus on the 
peace process itself?
  One would think that we should rather be urging the Obama 
Administration to stand firm in its efforts to bring Israeli and 
Palestinian leaders back to the negotiating table. The Administration 
was wise to abandon its offer to give Israel a generous package of 
security guarantees to do something that is manifestly in its own self-
interest to begin with, but Secretary Clinton and Senator Mitchell have 
made clear their commitment to pursuing alternative courses of action.
  Instead of stirring the pot at this delicate time with pronouncements 
and condemnations, we should be offering hope and encouragement to 
their efforts.
  Ultimately, I agree with the basic points made in this resolution. 
But I strongly urge the leadership of this House, on both sides of the 
aisle, to allow for a more balanced, transparent, and deliberative 
process next time we are asked to express the sense of Congress on a 
matter of such critical importance to our Nation.

                          ____________________