[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 100 (Thursday, July 7, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1264-E1265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




REAFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT OF ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN 
                                CONFLICT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 6, 2011

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, the effort to 
establish a lasting peace in the Middle East does not lend itself to a 
simple up or down vote on a resolution in Congress, and so I rise to 
offer my thoughts on the resolution before us today.
  While I voted in favor of H. Res. 268, because it reinforces the 
importance of direct talks for a two-state solution, I was disappointed 
with the resolution regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that was 
brought to the floor today. The fact is that this resolution was made 
possible because of the absence of a viable peace process.
  I am disappointed with the resolution not so much because of the 
general contents of the resolution, but because this resolution does 
not treat the issue with the serious and careful consideration that it 
deserves. It is simply one in a series of votes in the House that fail 
to address the entirety of the conflict and take instead political 
shots at one side of the conflict.
  Israel is and has always been a close friend and ally of the United 
States, and rightfully so. We share many goals and values, including a 
strong commitment to a vibrant democracy and diverse economy. Too 
often, however, Congress uses resolutions regarding the Middle East as 
referenda on whether or not a particular Member supports or does not 
support Israel, even though such support is not in question. That is 
unfortunate and does a disservice to the effort to establish peace 
between Israel and the Palestinians.
  The Obama Administration, like its predecessors, has been working to 
keep the two parties at the table and to try to ensure that they can 
make the necessary compromises to ensure that type of lasting peace. 
Here in Congress, we should be supporting these important efforts, 
rather than playing political games, given the real-life consequences 
that this conflict is having on millions of people's lives and on our 
own country's security interests.

[[Page E1265]]

  I am glad to see that today's resolution encouraged the formation of 
a two-state solution through the process of direct negotiations. I am 
also glad to see that it acknowledges the work that President Obama has 
done to try and ward off unilateral attempts to break out of the 
negotiating process. This resolution also importantly notes the violent 
and harmful actions of Hamas.
  Yet I am disappointed that the resolution specifically criticizes the 
Palestinians for their actions but does not acknowledge that the 
Israeli government has also not always moved productively toward 
peace--in particular, through the ongoing construction of new 
settlements in the West Bank.
  Furthermore, the truth of the matter is that the failure of the peace 
talks has provided the opening for an alliance between the Palestinian 
Authority and Hamas and, in their view, a reason for them to go before 
the United Nations, rather than continue direct talks. I support the 
continuation of direct talks and do not believe this issue should be 
resolved before the U.N. But make no mistake that the failure to 
achieve sufficient progress in talks has provided momentum to this 
latest effort to seek the U.N.'s involvement. That is all the more 
reason why Congress should prioritize real progress over political 
games.
  I am further disappointed that the resolution misstates U.S. law, 
incorrectly claiming that current law precludes the United States from 
providing aid to the Palestinian Authority if it agrees to share power 
with Hamas. Current law rightfully provides an exception to the 
prohibition in order to enhance border security and the peace process.
  In addition, I do not believe it would be beneficial to cut off aid 
to the Palestinian Authority. This aid provides Fatah with negotiating 
leverage among their fellow Palestinians against Hamas. Security 
experts, including Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and others, have 
warned against such a cutoff, since it could destabilize the security 
situation on the West Bank. Fortunately, the language of the resolution 
only asks that the Administration consider withholding such aid, yet 
this is still unwise.
  Congress could--and Congress should--take the peace process in the 
Middle East more seriously than it has with this resolution and similar 
resolutions before it.

                          ____________________