[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 161 (Wednesday, November 13, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H7046-H7049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFENDING ISRAEL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Brooks of Indiana). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, one thing becomes very clear from our
study of history, and that is that things that nations do have
consequences. Things we do individually have consequences, and things
we do as a Nation have consequences. That is why some people remember
that on May 30, 2010, there were six flotilla ships--and this is from
the U.N. release, a report into last year's raid, how events unfolded,
dated 2 September 2011.
It points out that on May 30, 2010, six flotilla ships leave Cyprus
for Gaza in an attempt to break Israel's naval blockade. The Turkish
cruise liner Mavi Marmara is chartered by Islamic charity IHH and
carries 581 of the 700
[[Page H7047]]
flotilla activists. We know that didn't turn out so well. Israel did
have a legitimate right to blockade the Gaza Strip to prevent more
rockets, more munitions from being brought into the Gaza Strip that
were being used to fire on, kill, and terrorize Israelis. Again,
actions have consequences, and many remember the flotilla coming down
and challenging the blockade, and there were people who were killed.
If you go back, here is an article. It is dated also May 30, 2010,
which was a Sunday. But it points out--and this is an article from The
Washington Times entitled, ``Israel assails resolution on nuke weapons
as `flawed,' '' and it is talking about an agreement that President
Obama was trying to get done, a nonproliferation agreement, and the
article points out that on Friday, which was May 28, 2010:
A U.S. delegation in New York voted to endorse a consensus
document ending the 2010 review conference for the Non-
Proliferation Treaty that calls for a conference in 2012 to
discuss a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the Middle
East.
The final document of the monthlong review conference calls
on Israel to join the treaty, a move that would require
Israel to disclose and then give up its undeclared nuclear
arsenal.
This was viewed and discussed as being the first time in people's
memory when the United States, by and through its administration--the
Obama administration--had taken action that was very adverse to Israel
and the international community, and particularly in the U.N. Normally
we did not side with Israel's enemies.
One of the lessons that I was taught by history professors at Texas
A&M is that when a nation's enemies see that nation's strongest ally
pulling away, it is provocative. It often provokes action by that
nation's enemies against it because they think their strongest ally is
pulling away. Some saw that before the war in Korea. They thought that
the United States might have North Korea beyond its ``sphere of
influence.'' Those kinds of things, those words, these actions, these
votes can be provocative.
So 2 days after the United States sides with Israel's enemies in
demanding that Israel disclose its nuclear weapons, the flotilla
launches to challenge the blockade. Isn't that amazing? It just happens
to be right after this administration sides with Israel's enemies. Here
comes a challenge to Israel's blockade that was just trying to save
Israeli lives.
Well, the reason that it is important to point these things out now
is, what is happening between the United States and Iran, as we leave
Israel out of the equation--even though it is Israel that is considered
to be the little Satan and we are considered the great Satan, and
Israel is probably to be the first attacked, if there is an attack--
they are certainly the most vulnerable. Yet we leave our former friend
Israel out of the equation.
It brings to mind a number of things that have been happening during
this administration that have caused the vast majority of people in
Israel, of Israeli citizens, to believe that this Obama administration
is not concerned about Israel's best interests.
There are many who have been aware of Scripture, and it has often
been a guide in our relations with Israel. It is really such an
historically appropriate thing in this House of Representatives,
especially if we were down the hall in the former House Chamber, now
called Statuary Hall, where they used to hold church most Sundays
during the 1800s. Up until the late 1800s, the largest church
congregation was in the House of Representatives, and it was not
considered to be violative of the Constitution because it didn't
endorse a particular religion. It was considered nondenominational.
Scripture was read regularly, every week, down the hall. Thomas
Jefferson had coined the phrase ``separation of church and State'' as
being appropriate. He didn't find it offensive, that notion, and, in
fact, at times would bring the Marine band to play hymns.
So it seems appropriate, when we talk about Israel, to talk about
Israel's roots because in Genesis 12--and this is the King James
version:
Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house,
unto a land that I will shew thee;
And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless
thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing;
And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that
curseth thee, and in thee shall all families of the Earth be
blessed.
So Abram went to the land of Canaan, which later became Israel, just
as God had promised in these verses. So it was no accident that just
minutes after Israel became a Nation, the United States, through its
President, Harry Truman, became the first nation in the world to
recognize what was prophesied throughout the Old Testament about Israel
returning after its absence.
{time} 1945
Israel returned and Harry Truman made sure we were the first Nation
that recognized them as an independent nation. The U.N. had voted
unanimously. Because of the Holocaust and over 6 million Jews being
killed, they wanted to ensure that another Holocaust would never happen
again. And that brought about Israel being reestablished in part of the
land they had possessed 3,000 years before.
This is an article from The Washington Post, David Ignatius:
Is Israel preparing to attack Iran? Because it is
considered a betrayal of an ally to warn an ally's enemies
that that ally may take self-defensive action to prevent
being attacked. And the United States and Iran, including
President Obama, has said repeatedly and has promised an
American-Israeli gathering here at the Convention Center that
he would never allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, that it is
an existential threat to Israel. It certainly is.
So we have been hearing behind the scenes for a number of years that
this administration was telling Israeli leaders, Don't you dare attack
Iran without our permission. We will take care of this. We won't let
them have nuclear weapons; and yet it is not the United States that is
first threatened. The great Satan, the United States, in the eyes of
leaders in Iran--not the Iranian people, but Iranian leaders--would get
around to attacking us. But first Israel is threatened.
So there was concern, obviously, here in Washington in the Obama
administration that the reported threats to Israel not to defend
themselves without our permission--even though no nation should ever
need permission from another to defend itself--and even President Obama
said this out here at the Convention Center to an American-Israeli
group. Prime Minister Netanyahu reminded me of our President's words,
and I went back and looked them up. Sure enough, he said:
Israel must defend itself by itself.
Our President said that. And yet if we are not going to help Israel
defend itself, which is actually defending us as well, then shouldn't
we avoid jeopardizing Israel's own self-defense?
Yet here is this article dated February 2, 2012. It says:
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these
days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the
drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry
is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over
the next few months.
Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel
will strike Iran in April, May, or June--before Iran enters
what Israeli's described as a ``zone of immunity'' to
commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis
fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium
in deep underground facilities to make a weapon--and only the
United States could then stop them militarily.
That is a betrayal of our ally, Israel. That is a gross betrayal of
our ally, Israel. We are supposed to be on the same side; and if Israel
defends itself, it is defending us as well, whether we recognize it or
not.
That was a betrayal of Israel to leak what this administration
believed were their plans to defend itself. If we are not going to
defend ourselves, for heaven's sake, at least allow Israel to do it
without putting them more in jeopardy.
By leaking that, obviously, it was this administration saying to
Israel, Well, you better not go when you were thinking you were going
to go because they are going to be ready because we warned your enemy
for you.
So we get to May and, obviously, the window that Israel may have been
considering attacking had to pass because of the leak by our own
administration to Israel's enemies, through The Washington Post. An
intentional leak.
This is from March 29, 2012, ``Israelis Suspect Obama Media Leaks to
Prevent Strike on Iran,'' by Alexander Marquardt from ABC News:
Two reports today about Iran's nuclear program and the
possibility of an Israeli
[[Page H7048]]
military strike have analysts in Israel accusing the Obama
administration of leaking information to pressure Israel not
to bomb Iran and for Iran to reach a compromise in upcoming
nuclear talks.
That is simply outrageous.
This article says, continuing that same article:
The first report in Foreign Policy quotes anonymous
American officials saying that Israel has been given access
to air bases by Iran's northern neighbor Azerbaijan from
which Israel could launch air strikes or at least drones and
search and rescue aircraft.
The article goes on:
It seems like a big campaign to prevent Israel from
attacking, analyst Yoel Guzansky at the Institute for
National Security Studies told ABC News. I think the Obama
administration is really worried Jerusalem will attack--and
attack soon. They're trying hard to prevent it in so many
ways.
The Foreign Policy report by Mark Perry quotes an
intelligence officer saying, We're watching what Iran does
closely. But we're now watching what Israel is doing in
Azerbaijan. And we're not happy about it.
Further down:
In recent weeks the Obama administration shifted from
persuasion efforts vis-a-vis decisionmakers and Israel's
public opinion to a practical, targeted assassination of
potential Israeli operations in Iran, Ben-Yishai writes. The
campaign's aims are fully operational: to make it more
difficult for Israeli decisionmakers to order the Israeli
defense forces to carry out a strike, and what's even graver,
to erode the IDF's capacity to launch a strike with minimal
casualties.
We are putting Israel's own forces at far greater risk for
casualties. Is that something an ally does to a friend?
Some of us believe that the Bible is accurate. Certainly, so many
prophesies have been fulfilled. And if that is true, this
administration, unless they can find a verse that accurately says that
those who betray Israel will be blessed, then this country is being dug
in a deeper hole by this administration and its betrayals of Israel's
trust and Israel's friendship.
This is from November 3, 2013, from TheBlaze, ``Fury, Scandalous:
Israel Conveys Bitter Protests to Obama Admin Over Reported White House
Security Leak.
This says:
The Israeli government conveyed ``bitter protests'' to the
White House this weekend over the Obama administration's
reported leak of who was behind last week's air raid on a
Syrian base near the port city of Latakia. Words being used
by the media and officials speaking anonymously in Israel to
describe what they perceive as a breach in trust on the part
of the United States include fury, scandalous, baffled,
unthinkable.
This administration continues to betray our friend, our ally, Israel.
Other things that have happened in the past were the comments made by
President Obama to President Sarkozy in 2012 at a G-20 summit which
were belittling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, comments in
2011 that Israel should return to its 1967 borders that would
have subjected it to relentless attacks and vulnerability. They were
not helpful to our friend and ally.
The Obama administration's failure to condemn Palestinians building
of illegal settlements, yet constantly criticizing Israeli housing
plans for East Jerusalem; the Obama administration's decision to
eradicate the missile defense programs that would have helped Israel as
well as the United States; leaving Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2010 on
for over an hour in the White House meeting room while President Obama
dined with his family and refused to take a picture with him was not a
friendly gesture.
Also, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the Obama
administration planned to send $147 million to the West Bank and Hamas-
run Gaza; President Obama stated that all his friends in Chicago were
Jewish and says he was sometimes being accused of being a Jewish
``puppet''; the Obama administration leak to The Washington Post of the
time window in which Israel would take out Iran's nuclear program; the
Obama administration leaked to the media that Israel was going to use
the Azerbaijan airspace to take out Iran's nuclear program.
We placed immense pressure on Israel not to defend itself without the
United States' permission. The Obama administration has never rejected
or condemned the racist, hateful teachings about Jewish people going on
in Palestinian schools in the Middle East and in some Muslim schools in
the United States.
President Obama traveled to Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and
apologized to them on behalf of the United States. The Obama
administration's support for the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in
Egypt as well as throughout the Middle East, though the Muslim
Brotherhood had never backed away from their demand for the
nonexistence of Israel, the Obama administration continues to support
the Muslim Brotherhood's return to power in Egypt, when Egypt is where
the Muslim Brotherhood turned violent on Morsi's arrest because of his
violation of the constitution that did not provide for impeachment,
after the Egyptian people turned out in the millions to demand his
removal.
It was not a coup, as the Christian Pope in Egypt told me. It was not
a coup. This was a people rising up and demanding removal, and yet this
administration now has cut off support because Egypt does not want the
group, the Muslim Brotherhood, that was killing Christians, burning
churches, terrorizing the nation, we want them back in charge--this
administration does.
It is an outrage.
Though the Syrian leader Assad has been ruthless in killing and
abusing his people, has not been helpful to Israel to the extent the
Egyptian leader Mubarak was, this administration has not done anything
but put Israel in more jeopardy by its actions in Syria.
So we have not been terribly helpful to our friend Israel. And it
doesn't sound like we are actually blessing Israel. It sounds like we
are cursing Israel, belittling its leaders, marginalizing its efforts
to defend itself, which also enures to our benefit.
My oath of office is to this country. When I was in the Army for 4
years, my oath was to this country. My allegiance continues to this
country, and I believe that being Israel's friend is helpful to this
country; and that is why I so strongly support being a friend to
Israel.
And even if you took the Bible completely out, you took out most
anything except just looking at the Middle East and who believes in the
value of life like we do here in the United States, who believes more
in democratic actions like we do in the United States, then Israel
should certainly be our friend.
But what this administration is doing with Iran is foolhardy. It is
foolhardy. And thank God for France. They didn't wave a white flag of
surrender. They said, This is a terrible deal. And thank goodness they
slowed it down, because this administration thinks they just knew and
everything they try will work perfectly. Hello, ObamaCare.
{time} 2000
It doesn't work any better when they try to mess with our friendships
and reward our enemies and hurt our friends.
So, in the few minutes that are remaining, Madam Speaker, I would
like to reference back to the New York Times article by Barry James,
October 21, 1994, during the Clinton administration.
The director of the International Atomic Energy Agency
expressed skepticism Thursday about the U.S.-North Korean
nuclear agreement, saying it could delay inspections by the
agency.
Officials at the agency, some U.S. Republican Senators and
politicians in South Korea criticized the accord, saying they
feared Pyongyang had bought itself a further 5 years of
secrecy, thus concealing whether it has reprocessed enough
plutonium to build one or more nuclear weapons.
The energy agency says it needs to inspect two nuclear
waste dumps to be able to answer the question. North Korea
has never conceded the existence of the dumps. ``It would be
in the interests of all concerned that a prolonged delay be
avoided,'' said the agency director, Hans Blix; but, he
added, ``We are better off'' with the agreement than with
none at all. ``We have to worry about how much they have
squirreled away,'' an agency official said. ``Blix thinks 5
years is a long time to have to wait for our inspectors to
gain access to the facilities we need to see, including the
two facilities the North Koreans have never declared.''
Yet, under the agreement that the Clinton administration
reached, North Korea agreed to place in storage the fuel
removed last spring from a 5-megawatt graphite reactor
containing enough plutonium for four or five nuclear bombs.
U.S. Republican Senators protested in a letter to President
Bill Clinton that this reversed longstanding U.S. policy
because it allowed the North Koreans to hang onto their spent
fuel rods and would delay for several years the inspection of
suspect sites.
[[Page H7049]]
The accord ``shows it is always possible to get an
agreement when you give enough away,'' said Senator Bob Dole
of Kansas . . . The deal also has been heavily criticized in
South Korea. Many people there see it as a diplomatic triumph
for Pyongyang, which failed to dispel doubts about its
nuclear intentions.
As part of the pact, which will be signed in Geneva on
Friday, the United States will head an international
consortium to provide North Korea with an interim supply of
fuel to overcome its chronic energy shortage and, eventually,
two 1,000-megawatt light-water reactors. In exchange, North
Korea will abandon its existing nuclear facilities and
renounce any plans to build nuclear weapons.
Gee, doesn't that sound familiar? This administration is repeating
the same mistakes of Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton as President.
They are running to Iran, which can not be trusted, which has lied
repeatedly just like North Korea did.
And how did the Clinton deal work out? Yes, they took the nuclear
facilities we provided them, but they didn't stand good behind their
promise not to develop nuclear weapons. They developed them and we
helped them.
Now this administration wants to do the same thing with Iran? We are
still paying for the mistakes of the Clinton administration with North
Korea's helping them get more nuclear power--and now this
administration wants to do that with Iran? That is a huge mistake.
We need to help our friend Israel, to stop betraying them, to help
our friends, to stop rewarding our enemies, because the consequences to
this Nation will be dire if we don't turn this around.
Madam Speaker, it is my prayer--it is my hope--that this
administration will turn from its stupid ways. The arrogance that
existed before ObamaCare kicked in surely should have come down a notch
so that they can realize maybe we are making a mistake in dealing with
bloodthirsty people in Iran as well.
This country's future is at stake. That ought to be enough to make
this administration slow down and realize they are about to make
another huge mistake that we will pay for for generations if they don't
stop. Iran will certainly not stop just as North Korea did not. They
had gotten help from North Korea. They learned the lesson from North
Korea. It is time this administration learned a lesson from our mistake
and from the mistake of the Clinton administration and Madeleine
Albright.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________