[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 83 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Page S3694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 23--DECLARING THAT IT IS THE POLICY OF THE
UNITED STATES TO SUPPORT AND FACILITATE ISRAEL IN MAINTAINING
DEFENSIBLE BORDERS AND THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO UNITED STATES POLICY AND
NATIONAL SECURITY TO HAVE THE BORDERS OF ISRAEL RETURN TO THE ARMISTICE
LINES THAT EXISTED ON JUNE 4, 1967
Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Nelson of
Nebraska, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Moran, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Inhofe,
Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Thune, Mr.
Portman, Mr. Coats, Mr. Coburn, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Blunt, Mr.
Brown of Massachusetts, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Isakson,
Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Chambliss) submitted the
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the committee on
Foreign Relations:
S. Con. Res. 23
Whereas, throughout its short history, Israel, a liberal
democratic ally of the United States, has been repeatedly
attacked by authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations
that denied its right to exist;
Whereas the United States Government remains steadfastly
committed to the security of Israel, especially its ability
to maintain secure, recognized, and defensible borders;
Whereas the United States Government is resolutely bound to
its policy of preserving and strengthening the capability of
Israel to deter enemies and defend itself against any threat;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 242
(1967) recognized Israel's ``right to live in peace within
secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of
force'';
Whereas the United States has long recognized that a return
to the 1967 lines would create a strategic military
vulnerability for Israel and greatly impede its sovereign
right to defend its borders; and
Whereas Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu
correctly stated on May 20, 2011, that the 1967 lines were
not ``boundaries of peace. They are the boundaries of
repeated war'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That--
(1) it is the policy of the United States to support and
facilitate Israel in creating and maintaining secure,
recognized, and defensible borders; and
(2) it is contrary to United States policy and our national
security to have the borders of Israel return to the
armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to rise and offer, with
my good friend, the senior Senator from Connecticut, a concurrent
resolution which reaffirms our Nation's steadfast and unshakable
commitment to the security of Israel, specifically through the
establishment of secure, recognized, and defensible borders.
It is unfortunate that I am compelled to offer such a resolution. For
years, both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized
that Israel's boundaries of June 4, 1967 are indefensible and if
reestablished will create a strategic military vulnerability for our
staunch ally.
That is why President Obama's recent comments were so dumbfounding.
The President's prepared and thoroughly considered remarks called for
the starting point of negotiations to be what we all know are the
militarily indefensible 1967 lines.
Remember, if Israel returns to the 1967 lines its territory will, in
some locations, be only 9 miles wide.
As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu correctly stated in a friendly
and appropriate correction to the President's remarks, the 1967 lines
are not boundaries of peace. They are boundaries of repeated war.
Israel would have to give up the Golan Heights, the strategic
elevated location which dominates northern Israel. Does the President
not remember during the 1973 War the Syrians launched a massive armored
attack on the Golan Heights which almost succeeded?
This raises the question of who President Obama was attempting to
appease with his ill-advised statements, which unnecessarily drove a
wedge between the United States and Israel?
The fact is the national security interests of the United States and
Israel are linked. The threats Israel faces are the threats the United
States faces. Whether it is Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza
Strip or these groups' benefactor, Iran, we share a common foe.
Unfortunately, that foe, Iran, appears to be growing stronger and
more capable. Iran has repeatedly stated it wishes to wipe the United
States and Israel off the map. Iran's obvious aim is to establish
strategic dominance over the entire region. Their relentless pursuit of
nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology is of grave concern.
Much has been said about Iran's nuclear program, but much less has
been articulated about its ballistic missile program. In order to
achieve its strategic objectives, Iran has embarked on a significant
ballistic missile program. Iranian officials have boasted they have the
ability to produce a ballistic missile with a 1,250 mile range. In
2009, the Iranians were able to launch a multistage space launch
vehicle that the Air Force concluded ``can serve as a test-bed for
long-range ballistic missile technologies.''
Even more troubling the Iranians appear to be developing a new long-
range multistage solid rocket motor missile. Why is that important? If
the Iranians successfully field this type of technology, they will be
able to launch, almost instantaneously, missiles which carry warheads
over great distances.
With these ominous developments emanating from Israel's and the
United States common foe, do we really want to be seen as distancing
ourselves from one of our staunchest allies--especially on such a
pivotal issue as Israel's borders. This issue of these borders is only
underscored by the constant attacks on Israel's borders by Iran's
surrogates, Hezbollah and Hamas.
That is why I believe this Concurrent Resolution is so important. It
reaffirms the long-held, bipartisan policy of the United States, that
we will ``support and facilitate Israel in maintaining defensible
borders and that it is contrary to United States policy and our
national security to have the borders of Israel return to the armistice
lines that existed on June 4, 1967.''
The United States has no greater friend than Israel and Israel has no
greater friend than the United States.
Israel too often finds herself alone in the world, unjustly singled
out by the left as a nation uniquely without the moral authority to
defend itself.
From my perspective, Israel does not need to apologize to anyone for
defending itself against those who would do her harm, and I will always
stand by Israel as she seeks to protect her citizens against terrorists
and their state sponsors.
Having said that, I also believe many Iranians, especially the young
people, know Iran is causing problems in the Middle East. We must
support those people who are searchers for freedom.
The security of both our nations is irrevocably linked. This
bipartisan concurrent resolution removes any harmful ambiguity the
President's remarks last week might have caused.
The United States must stand by Israel. With his remarks last week,
President Obama undermined her.
Israel faces consistent unprovoked aggression by longtime supporters
of terrorism. But Israel is not a victim. All she asks is the ability
to defend herself and for free people to support her right to self-
defense.
This is no time for the United States to distance itself from Israel,
and I will do everything I can to affirm Israel's territorial integrity
and ability to protect her citizens against the unprovoked attacks of
terrorist and state actors.
Because Israel is a true friend, I am not surprised that this
resolution has strong bipartisan support. My colleague, Senator
Lieberman, and I will be joined by members of both parties who want to
remind the world the United States is steadfastly committed to the
security of Israel and especially our ally's ability to maintain
secure, recognized and defensible borders.
____________________