[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 101 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1277]
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. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 6, 2011

  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise to reluctantly support H. Res. 
268. I support the resolution because I strongly agree in principle 
that the Israelis and Palestinians must negotiate a two-state solution.
  H. Res. 268 contains much with which I disagree. We have seen such 
resolutions in the past. Unfortunately, their intent is to advance a 
specific narrative that I believe is at odds with the urgency of a 
negotiated peace. The resolutions are brought to the floor without the 
ability for Members of Congress to provide input at either the 
committee level or during consideration on the House floor. As a strong 
supporter of Israel and her right to self-defense, I take issue with 
this approach.
  My biggest concern with H. Res. 268 is its call to cut aid to the 
Palestinians. Such a move would be at best premature and at worst 
detrimental to the prospects of resuming negotiations. The unity 
agreement between Hamas and Fatah is tenuous and the path forward for a 
potential unity government is unknown. Let me be clear: I would never 
advocate United States aid for Hamas or any government that contains 
Hamas. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel; it has never 
supported the peace process and it sympathizes with America's enemies 
like al Qaida and Iran. But at a time when much of the Middle East is 
shifting toward democracy, it is irresponsible and against our own 
interests to withhold dollars that we know are being used by the 
Palestinian Authority in the West Bank to promote greater economic 
stability and physical security--for both the Israelis and 
Palestinians. Cutting off aid would be a setback for those working 
toward peace. Indeed, as the New York Times argues in its editorial on 
May 8, 2011, such a move may ``shift the political balance dangerously 
toward Hamas.''
  In addition, H. Res. 268 is as egregious for what it includes as what 
it leaves out. The resolution does not suggest that the United States 
should play a strong role in bringing both sides back to the 
negotiating table. It does not say that both sides must continue 
negotiating without preconditions. Nor does it say both the Israelis 
and Palestinians must cease unilateral actions. The omissions raise 
serious questions. How can we as leaders of our nation reaffirm our 
commitment to a lasting two-state solution without acknowledging that 
U.S. leadership is critical to bringing about that solution? How can we 
ask one side and not the other to make difficult concessions?
  The stakes in reaching a negotiated peace agreement are as high as 
ever as the window for a two-state solution narrows. The United States 
must help both sides rejoin negotiations, not pass resolutions laden 
with threats, grandstanding, and obfuscation. As the President stated 
in his speech at the U.S. State Department in May, ``At a time when the 
people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens 
of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and 
resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That's certainly true for 
the two parties involved.''
  My stance on this conflict is well known. I support a two-state 
solution that results in a Jewish and democratic state of Israel living 
side-by-side in peace and security with a Palestinian state. H. Res. 
268 does nothing to achieve this outcome.

                          ____________________