[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 12, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1303-E1304]
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. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 6, 2011

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, as someone who cares deeply about the 
State of Israel and the rights of the Palestinian people, I have 
serious concerns with H. Res. 268. This resolution does not advance 
U.S. interests, fails to contribute constructively to reviving the 
dormant peace process, and ignores the courageous efforts of Israelis 
and Palestinians willing to take the very difficult steps needed to 
achieve peace. Therefore, I cannot endorse a congressional statement 
that does not further the cause of peace and security for Israelis and 
Palestinians.
  Last month, I visited Israel and the West Bank as a member of a fact 
finding mission sponsored by the J Street Education Fund. In every 
meeting I had with Israelis and Palestinians they shared their hopes 
for the future. They expressed their desires for peace. They want to 
live with security. They want the opportunity to make their own 
futures. Everyone I met with, from Israeli government officials to 
regular citizens, from President Abbas to Palestinian civil society 
leaders, said the status quo is unacceptable and a ``two-state 
solution'' is the only outcome that will ensure security and a lasting 
peace.
  Yet, is a ``two-state solution'' achievable? This is increasingly 
unclear as Israel and Palestinians continue to take unilateral steps 
that weaken the prospect for negotiations leading to a comprehensive 
and final peace agreement. This is both disappointing and detrimental 
to the ultimate goal both sides claim they seek.
  For example, the Palestinian Authority's diplomatic quest to seek 
recognition from the United Nations for an independent ``State of 
Palestine'' is a mistake, despite the legitimate and deeply felt 
desires of the Palestinians to live in their own free, independent and 
sovereign state. I told senior Palestinian officials directly when I 
was in the West Bank that such a move is not helpful to their goal or 
U.S. efforts to advance the peace process. Regardless of the outcome of 
any actions taken at the United Nations in September, the only path to 
a legitimate, lasting Palestinian state will be the result of a 
negotiated agreement with Israel. This is the path that both sides must 
continue to pursue.
  With regard to the unity government between Fatah and Hamas, it will 
likely be impossible for a legitimate peace process and final 
negotiated agreement to take place with the Palestinian people governed 
by two distinct political entities. Hamas and Israel are at war, thus 
the term: Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A peace process that allows the 
Palestinians to be fragmented and factionalized will not yield peace or 
security, only lasting conflict--Palestinian against Palestinian, as 
well as Palestinian against Israeli.
  Hamas must agree to the Quartets conditions, but then again there is 
no possibility that Israel would ever negotiate a final agreement 
without such conditions. If in-fact Fatah and Hamas (with the on-going 
help of Egypt) can work together to achieve legitimacy within the 
international community by renouncing terrorism and recognizing the 
State of Israel then there is a real opportunity for a path to peace. 
If this is not possible then I am doubtful the peace process will 
advance to the point where a Palestinian state can be created.
  H. Res. 268 highlights that the U.S. has ``provided more than $3.5 
billion cumulatively in direct bilateral assistance to the 
Palestinians'' and calls for an end of U.S. assistance if the unity 
government does not embrace the Quartets principles. The foreign 
assistance the U.S. provides the Palestinian Authority contributes to 
economic stability, security training, infrastructure development, and 
the building of democratic institutions--the foundation of a future 
Palestinian state. This aid not only benefits the Palestinian people 
and their nascent institutions, but Israel as well. Israel cannot 
negotiate a peace agreement and end the occupation of Palestinian lands 
if a future a Palestinian state is not viable. Cutting off aid would 
harm both Palestinian and Israeli interests.
  If Congress actually were to cut off aid it would also send a signal 
to the entire Arab world that the U.S. has abandoned the Palestinian 
people. The damage to the U.S. status in the Arab and entire Muslim 
world would be incalculable.

[[Page E1304]]

  Based on the text of H. Res. 268 it would appear that it is only the 
actions of Palestinians that undermine the possibility of a negotiated 
peace. There is no mention in the resolution of, for example, illegal 
Israeli settlement expansion into Palestinian lands. Obviously illegal 
Israeli settlements and outposts are a contentious and serious obstacle 
to peace. Israeli settlements and their continued expansion have been 
universally condemned by the world community because they make a 
contiguous Palestinian state increasingly impossible to achieve. If a 
``two-state solution'' is ever to be achieved the settlement issue must 
be confronted, not ignored as Congress has chosen to do in this 
resolution.
  The policy realities that must be confronted and resolved to achieve 
a ``two-state solution'' are complex, sometimes painful, and often 
fraught with traps. Yet, for many in Congress, ``two-state solution'' 
has become a phrase that has many different definitions, most of which 
could never result in a peace agreement or the creation of a 
Palestinian state. Member of Congress can utter the phrase ``two-state 
solution'' and then act to make such a solution less possible. This 
resolution is an example of such a proclivity.
  In my estimation achieving a ``two-state solution'' will require the 
U.S. to maintain its traditional role as honest-broker in this decades 
long conflict. During my visit to the region I was constantly surprised 
by both Israelis and Palestinians who innocently and insistently called 
upon the U.S. to resolve the conflict, create the environment for 
negotiations, and achieve the goal of a two-state solution. I reminded 
everyone I encountered that the responsibility and burden of making the 
difficult political choices for peace were theirs and not something the 
U.S. can dictate.
  There is no doubt that the U.S. must maintain and strengthen the 
special relationship we have with the State of Israel. Israel is a 
trusted ally and will remain so long into the future. At the same time 
the U.S. has the opportunity to play a historical role in the creation 
of a new Palestinian state, allowing for the self-determination of the 
Palestinian people and greater security for Israel.
  These relationships provide the U.S. with the opportunity and 
obligation to remain faithful to facilitating negotiations and putting 
the difficult, uncomfortable issues to be resolved on the table with 
the goal of achieving a final peace agreement. President Obama deserves 
credit for holding both sides accountable and for making both sides 
feel uncomfortable. If the U.S. abandons our traditional honest-broker 
role to become an advocate for Israel or Palestinians then this 
conflict will never be resolved, it will likely simmer and boil over 
into a future of violence that we should all fear.
  Israelis and Palestinians--and the Americans who care deeply about 
the future of Israel as well as a future Palestinian state--deserve 
much more than this resolution offers. They deserve an honest, open, 
and constructive debate that advances U.S. interests for peace, 
security, democracy, dignity, freedom, and self-determination 
throughout the Middle East. The future of Israel is at stake. The 
future is at stake for millions of Palestinians seeking a national 
identity and the freedom to make their own state. The American people 
deserve more than what H. Res. 268 offers.
  On H. Res. 268 I will vote present. This resolution is another 
example of U.S. domestic political interests trumping the best 
interests of U.S. foreign policy. If a ``two-state solution'' is to be 
a reality this resolution does not get Israelis or Palestinians one 
inch closer to negotiations. Congress should be investing it time and 
energy as an honest-broker encouraging both sides to end the posturing 
and cease the obstructions to negotiations. Time is running out and we 
should be encouraging a revival of the peace process and focused 
negotiations--before it is too late.