[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 8, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H636-H638]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OUR FRIEND IN THE MIDDLE EAST
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gowdy). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I come tonight deeply troubled about the
situation in the Middle East, as so many people are, and also about the
response of this country to our dear friend, Israel. It has been quite
interesting to see as Iran comes ever closer to having nuclear weapons,
just how much of a friend this administration has, at least from its
viewpoint in Israel.
In recent days, we've seen the story, a number of news services
provided one story, a reporter from The Washington Post, David
Ignatius, traveling with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and this
article from Fox News says:
Traveling with the Defense Secretary in Brussels to cover
his meeting with NATO defense ministers, Ignatius writes,
``Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel
will strike Iran in April, May, or June.''
That's awfully specific. There are some in Iran who have believed
that we're a paper tiger and so is Israel, and we will prevent Israel
from ever striking at all. And that if there were to be some kind of a
strike, it would be much later in the year.
There's an article from last October about Defense Secretary Panetta.
This one is from the AP, October 2 of last year:
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Sunday that Israel is
becoming increasingly isolated in the Middle East, and said
Israeli leaders must restart negotiations with the
Palestinians and work to restore relations with Egypt and
Turkey.
{time} 1930
It's really interesting because it was my impression that it was not
Israel that had withdrawn from close relations, that it was Turkey that
had actually allowed the flotilla to go challenge a legal and
appropriate blockade of the Gaza Strip from which Israel was being
bombarded on a constant basis. So they had a legal and legitimate
interest in ensuring that more rockets did not flow into the Gaza Strip
that would continue to be shot in an effort to kill Israelis.
The reason that the rockets were flying from the Gaza Strip was
because the Israelis had had really a rather amazing group of towns
there. People were making a living. There were beautiful homes and
greenhouses, providing a way in which people could provide for
themselves and to grow their own food. These were just well-run
communities.
But the thought that the Israeli leaders had, apparently, was that if
we will show this unilateral offer of goodwill to people who, in the
last 40 years, have come to be called Palestinians--they obviously
weren't for most of the history of mankind--but if they would do this
amazingly gracious unilateral act, that it would be rewarded. And what
Israel has found is that it has been rewarded with rockets flying into
Israel in an effort to try to terrorize and kill Israelis.
Previously, years before that, Israel had made an offer and did
provide land from which it had been attacked, which it had acquired in
southern Lebanon. Lo and behold, they were rewarded by being attacked
from southern Lebanon and having soldiers kidnapped from southern
Lebanon. So it's interesting to hear this administration and people
from this administration in the top positions talk about how Israel
needs to restart negotiations, that Israel is becoming increasingly
isolated, how Israel must reach out more, when it seems that each time
Israel reaches out its hand, its hand gets shot at and efforts are made
to chop it off.
This article from the AP from back in October quotes Secretary
Panetta as saying:
``It's pretty clear that at this dramatic time in the
Middle East, when there have been so many changes, that it is
not a good situation for Israel to become increasingly
isolated. And that's what's happening,'' he said.
Panetta said the most important thing now is for Israel and
its neighbors ``to try to develop better relationships so in
the very least they can communicate with each other rather
than taking these issues to the streets.''
The Palestinians, meanwhile, have said they won't return to talks
unless Israel freezes settlement building and accepts the pre-1967 war
frontier as a baseline for talks.
This is somewhat akin to saying, well, if Mexico were to be launching
rockets or doing things to terrorize American citizens, that if we'll
just go back to where we were before the U.S.-Mexican War, then
everything will be just fine. The United States went to war because of
the same kind of unfairnesses that were seen by the Founders of this
land. Dennis Miller put it this way: the Founders were willing to go to
war when the British simply put a tax on their breakfast drink. So in
all likelihood, they would be standing up firmly for a taking of
liberties more so than we do sometimes today.
In fact, if we stood firmly on the liberties of the United States
citizens and efforts by others in the world to destroy us, efforts by
others in the world who have said they will destroy our way of life and
they want to destroy our country, then perhaps we would be a little
safer today.
I have a resolution that was filed--I've got lots of cosponsors--it
was filed in May of last year, and I'm still in hopes that we can bring
this to the
[[Page H637]]
floor because this is the response we should have to nations around the
world trying to isolate Israel. We should let them know how we stand
with them. We stand with people who are democratically elected, we
stand with people who have the freedom of worship, we stand with people
who will not terrorize Christians, terrorize Jews, or terrorize
Muslims, where all will be allowed to practice their religion--any
religion--and those ought to be our best friends.
Yet, to the contrary, this Nation seems to run to the aid of those--
like in Afghanistan right now, we were advised last year that the last
Christian church has now been closed, driven out of Afghanistan. This
is the Afghanistan that American treasure and American lives were
sacrificed to secure what we thought would be a democratic nation where
they would choose peace. And, in fact, there has not been peace. The
Taliban have actually increased in number dramatically since the days
when we had them on the run, had basically defeated them in early 2002.
We come back to this resolution, H. Res. 271, and it says:
Expressing support for the State of Israel's right to
defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety
of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to
confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic
Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no
other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time
to protect against such an immediate and existential threat
to the State of Israel.
This is the solution when a dear ally of the United States is being
isolated by people who want to destroy it. And I know that--I believe
Secretary Panetta did a very good job at intelligence, and I hope he
will do as well at defense. But we would encourage people in this
administration, Mr. Speaker, to go look at what has really been said
and who has actually done harm to whom.
And what you find out is that Israel has not moved away from being a
friend. In fact, Israel had a treaty with Egypt, and a leader named
Mubarak, with whom this Nation had agreements, was doing all he could,
apparently, it appeared, to keep that treaty, to keep Egypt's word with
Israel. This administration, on the other hand, saw fit to encourage
Mubarak to step down and to make way for what seems to be the military
and the Muslim Brotherhood, who seemed to have made clear they're not
going to honor the treaty with Israel. They're not going to honor what
was brokered here in the United States.
So, once again, we have a United States administration who seems to
have been left with egg on their faces, as President Carter's
administration was. I don't know if they ever realized it, but when
President Carter thought the Ayatollah Khomeini was a man of peace and
was coming back to Iran and that it was a good thing, we soon found
otherwise.
{time} 1940
By 1979, they were at war with America, it's just that we didn't
recognize that there were radical Islamists at war with us until after
the attack on 9/11. Not even the attack on the World Trade Center in
1993 was enough to convince us, not an attack on the USS Cole, not an
attack on our embassy, not an attack on different U.S. properties
around the world; it took 9/11 before we realized there are radical
Islamists that are at war with us.
Even though this administration has seen to the changing of the FBI
lexicon, where, in training FBI agents and others who are in charge
with defending our Nation, it's no longer appropriate to use words in
the FBI lexicon--they're not there--of al Qaeda, radical Islamist. We
use ``radical extremism'' instead. And as some experts on radical
extremism--in other words, radical Islamists--have said, unless you
understand what your enemy believes, how in the world can you prepare
against an attack from that enemy?
And as someone else had told me, this administration has been in the
process of blinding those who are charged with trying to protect us;
can't use the terms that were repeatedly used in the 9/11 bipartisan
commission report at a time when they didn't know it was politically
incorrect to accurately classify people who wanted to destroy your way
of life.
So, in this resolution regarding Israel's right to defend itself, it
seemed that there was no better thing to do than to go to quotes and to
the actual history in the region that points out that:
Whereas archeological evidence exists confirming Israel's
existence as a nation over 3,000 years ago in the area in
which it currently exists, despite assertions of its
opponents.
It's been amazing, having been over in Israel in November and seeing
the results of excavations under what they now know is the City of
David, in existence about 1,600 years before Muhammad was born. It's
just amazing now all of the evidence that's being found archeologically
that substantiates exactly what Israelis have been saying for years.
The resolution says:
Whereas with the dawn of modern Zionism, the national
liberation movement of the Jewish people, some 150 years ago,
the Jewish people determined to return to their homeland in
the Land of Israel from the lands of their dispersion;
Whereas in 1922, the League of Nations mandated that the
Jewish people were the legal sovereigns over the Land of
Israel and that legal mandate has never been superseded;
Whereas in the aftermath of the Nazi-led Holocaust from
1933 to 1945, in which the Germans and their collaborators
murdered 6,000,000 Jewish people in a premeditated act of
genocide, the international community recognized that the
Jewish state, built by Jewish pioneers must gain its
independence from Great Britain;
Whereas the United States was the first nation to recognize
Israel's independence in 1948, and the State of Israel has
since proven herself to be a faithful ally of the United
States in the Middle East;
Whereas the United States and Israel have a special
friendship based on shared values, and together share the
common goal of peace and security in the Middle East;
Whereas, on October 20, 2009, President Barack Obama
rightly noted that the United States-Israel relationship is a
``bond that is much more than a strategic alliance'';
Whereas the national security of the United States, Israel,
and allies in the Middle East face a clear and present danger
from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seeking
nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile capability to
deliver them;
Whereas Israel would face an existential threat from a
nuclear weapons-armed Iran;
Whereas President Barack Obama has been firm and clear in
declaring United States opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran,
stating on November 7, 2008, ``Let me state--repeat what I
stated during the course of the campaign. Iran's development
of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable'';
Whereas, on October 26, 2005, at a conference in Tehran
called ``World Without Zionism,'' Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad stated, ``God willing, with the force of God
behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the
United States and Zionism'';
Whereas The New York Times reported that during his October
26, 2005, speech, President Ahmadinejad called for ``this
occupying regime [Israel] to be wiped off the map'';
Whereas, on April 14, 2006, Iranian President Ahmadinejad
said, ``Like it or not, the Zionist regime [Israel] is
heading toward annihilation'';
Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad
said, ``I must announce that the Zionist regime [Israel],
with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion, and
betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the
geographical scene'';
Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad
said, ``Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of
the United States has come, and the countdown to the
annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has
started'';
Whereas, on May 20, 2009, Iran successfully tested a
surface-to-surface long range missile with an approximate
range of 1,200 miles.
And, parenthetically, they now say they hope to have a missile that
would be able to deliver a nuclear weapon from Iran to the United
States.
The resolution says:
Whereas Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons;
Whereas Iran has been caught building three secret nuclear
facilities since 2002;
Whereas Iran continues its support of international
terrorism, has ordered its proxy Hezbollah to carry out
catastrophic acts of international terrorism such as the
bombing of the Jewish AMIA Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina,
in 1994, and could give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist
organization in the future;
Whereas Iran has refused to provide the International
Atomic Energy Agency with full transparency and access to its
nuclear program;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803
states that according to the International Atomic Energy
Agency, ``Iran has not established full and sustained
suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing
activities and heavy-water-related projects as set out in
resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) nor
resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional
Protocol, nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA
Board of Governors, nor
[[Page H638]]
complied with the provisions of Security Council resolution
1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) . . .'';
Whereas at July 2009's G-8 Summit in Italy, Iran was given
a September 2009 deadline to start negotiations over its
nuclear programs and Iran offered a five-page document
lamenting the ``ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global
relations'' and included various subjects, but left out any
mention of Iran's own nuclear program which was the true
issue in question;
Whereas the United States has been fully committed to
finding a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear threat,
and has made boundless efforts seeking such a resolution and
to determine if such a resolution is even possible;
Whereas the United States does not want or seek war with
Iran, but it will continue to keep all options open to
prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; and
Whereas Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said in January
2011 that a change of course in Iran will not be possible
``without a credible military option that is put before them
by the international community led by the United States.''
{time} 1950
The resolution ultimately says that, in addition to condemning the
government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its threats of
annihilation, it supports using all means of persuading the government
of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons, reaffirms the
United States bond with Israel.
But ultimately, No. 4 says that, in this resolution, we express our
support for Israel's right to use all means necessary to confront and
eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty,
and protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, including the
use of military force, if no other peaceful solution can be found
within a reasonable time.
Now, we know that in May of last year, President Barack Obama
addressed the American-Israeli PAC here in Washington, D.C. And one of
the statements that has not been lost on Israel, and should not be lost
on the people who elected President Obama, and it certainly hasn't been
lost on Iran, the President made this statement: ``Israel must be able
to defend itself by itself.''
This was made May 19, 2011. ``Israel must be able to defend itself by
itself.''
Ever since the President made those statements, it certainly seems
that Israel has taken the President's words to heart. And yet, instead
of the United States doing, as had been promised on many occasions,
standing by Israel, our great ally, instead, our Defense Secretary,
knowing that he's talking to a Washington Post reporter, knowing that
it's not on background, knows that it will likely be reported,
basically uses the opportunity to alert the nation whose leaders say
they want to wipe Israel off the map, annihilate Israel, annihilate the
United States, basically, tells Iran, hey, heads up. Israel may be
coming in the next few months. Look out. Israel may be coming in the
next few months.
It's still a mystery why our Defense Secretary, and he's a very smart
man, why he would make such a statement without authority, because he's
not subject to the slips like outing SEAL Team Six as the ones who took
out Osama Bin Laden, or outing the undisclosed location, as the Vice
President has done. He's a man not subject normally to those kind of
gaffes.
This Defense Secretary warns Iran, as if the pressure behind the
scenes this administration's been putting on our dear friend Israel was
not enough, so now we've got to alert Israel's enemy, Iran. I hope that
the administration will come out and give a good and legitimate answer
to how such a warning to Iran helps Israel.
And I would commend to anyone, Mr. Speaker, interested in going
online and reading in The Jerusalem Post an article dated February 7,
2012, by my friend, Caroline Glick, titled, ``Our World: Obama's
rhetorical storm.'' I would commend that to everyone.
The truth is, we should stand by Israel. Iran, with nuclear weapons,
is a threat to us, not merely to Israel. And this Nation should not
leave it to Israel, without our best bunker busters, without our AWACs,
without our satellites, without our stealth technology. We should not
put them in the position of having to defend us with lesser weapons
capability.
And I hope and pray that this administration will look more carefully
at who the real enemy is, look more carefully at which nation was
willing to come back to the peace table, willing to freeze the
development of new housing areas, and which one was not, and which one
of the nations, which one of the groups of people, in this case, the
people of the West Bank, the Palestinians, their complete refusal to
even recognize Israel's right to exist, their continuing teaching of
children in the Palestinian areas that the Israelis are occupiers of
Palestinian land. It's throughout the teaching of the children in the
Palestinian areas, and they're doing that with our money. We're sending
them money to teach children to hate Israel so that there can't be
peace. It's time to look more carefully at where we're spending our
money.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________