[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 170 (Tuesday, November 29, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H6345-H6349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REAFFIRMING LONGSTANDING UNITED STATES POLICY IN SUPPORT OF A DIRECT
BILATERALLY NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 165) expressing the sense of
Congress and reaffirming longstanding United States policy in support
of a direct bilaterally negotiated settlement of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict and opposition to United Nations Security Council
resolutions imposing a solution to the conflict.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 165
Whereas the United States has long supported a negotiated
settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution with
the democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a democratic
Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security;
[[Page H6346]]
Whereas it is the long-standing policy of the United States
Government that a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict will only come through direct, bilateral
negotiations between the two parties;
Whereas President Barack Obama reiterated this policy at
the United Nations General Assembly in 2011, stating, ``Peace
is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and
resolutions at the United Nations--if it were that easy, it
would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the
Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side.
Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians--not us--
who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them . .
.'';
Whereas the Palestinian Authority has failed to end
incitement to hatred and violence through Palestinian
Authority-directed institutions against Israel and Israelis,
and end payments to prisoners and the families of those who
have engaged in terrorism or acts of violence against
Israelis or the State of Israel;
Whereas the Palestinian Authority has continued to provide
payments to prisoners and the families of those who have
engaged in terrorism or acts of violence against Israelis or
the State of Israel, including reports of approximately $300
million in 2016;
Whereas efforts to impose a solution or parameters for a
solution can make negotiations more difficult and can set
back the cause of peace;
Whereas it is long-standing practice of the United States
Government to oppose and, if necessary, veto United Nations
Security Council resolutions dictating additional binding
parameters on the peace process;
Whereas it is also the historic position of the United
States Government to oppose and veto, if necessary, one-sided
or anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security
Council;
Whereas and for this reason, the United States has vetoed
42 Israel-related resolutions in the United Nations Security
Council since 1972;
Whereas the Palestinian Authority must engage in broad,
meaningful, and systemic reforms in order to ultimately
prepare its institutions and people for statehood and
peaceful coexistence with Israel; and
Whereas unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state would
bypass negotiations and undermine incentives for the
Palestinian Authority to make the changes necessary that are
prerequisites for peace: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), that it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) a durable and sustainable peace agreement between
Israel and the Palestinians will come only through direct
bilateral negotiations between the parties;
(2) any widespread international recognition of a
unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood outside of
the context of a peace agreement with Israel would cause
severe harm to the peace process, and would likely trigger
the implementation of penalties under sections 7036 and
7041(j) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public
Law 114-113);
(3) efforts by outside bodies, including the United Nations
Security Council, to impose an agreement or parameters for an
agreement are likely to set back the cause of peace;
(4) the United States Government should continue to oppose
and veto United Nations Security Council resolutions that
seek to impose solutions to final status issues, or are one-
sided and anti-Israel; and
(5) the United States Government should continue to support
and facilitate the resumption of negotiations without
preconditions between Israelis and Palestinians toward a
sustainable peace agreement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
General Leave
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous materials in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Engel), and thank Mr. Brad Sherman of California as well for
working with me in a bipartisan manner to bring this important
resolution to the floor today.
There is a growing concern in Congress--it is a concern felt on both
sides of the aisle--that despite established, bipartisan United States
policy, the Obama administration may end the practice of vetoing
resolutions in the Security Council that strayed from the principle
that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be resolved through
direct negotiations between the parties. This administration could also
end the related practice of vetoing Security Council resolutions that
are one-sided or anti-Israel. This is a real concern. Press reports--
including one today--suggest that such a one-sided resolution could be
submitted in days.
Worse, the Obama administration could support a resolution at the
U.N. Security Council setting parameters for a final settlement between
Israel and the Palestinians. U.S. policy has long and wisely been that
only Israelis and Palestinians can work out a peace agreement between
themselves and that efforts to impose one would be counterproductive.
Whatever parameters the U.N. established would be unacceptable to any
Israeli Government--a government to the left or a government to the
right--making it impossible to see any future peace.
What on Earth today, at this point in time, suggests that Israel has
a willing partner in peace?
Not at this moment. Our committee has held hearings to expose the
current Palestinian Authority's complicity in inciting violence against
the State of Israel as well as against Israelis.
Mr. Speaker, Israel is contending with a deep-seated hatred. It is a
deep-seated hatred nurtured, unfortunately, by Palestinian leaders over
radio and also in direct communication with the population many, many
years, whether it was in the mosques or the schools or the newspapers
or on television. As one witness told the committee:
``Incitement'' is the term we usually use, but that is not
really what we mean. Hatred is what we mean, teaching
generations of Palestinians to hate Jews by demonizing and
dehumanizing them.
That is the nature of the problem.
Unfortunately, some Palestinians are lured to terrorism with more
than just words. Since 2003, it has been Palestinian law to reward
Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails with a monthly paycheck. The
Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization use a
so-called martyrs' fund to pay the families of Palestinian prisoners
and to pay suicide bombers.
{time} 1745
This pay-to-play scheme has got to stop, period. In the face of such
hatred, the United States must stand firm. The Israel-Palestinian
conflict can only be resolved through direct negotiations between the
parties.
I again thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), as well, for their work on
this resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 165. This is a bipartisan
resolution put forward by the chair and ranking member of our
committee, Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel, cosponsored by myself, with a host
of other bipartisan cosponsors.
This resolution comes at a precarious time for the two-state
solution, with a new administration preparing to enter office and as
turmoil continues in the Middle East. I, myself, have always been a
supporter of a negotiated solution between the Israeli and Palestinian
sides of this conflict which would result in a secure, democratic
Jewish State of Israel alongside a stable and democratic state for the
Palestinian people.
This resolution reaffirms this commitment, which has been
longstanding American policy. The United States has provided important
leadership as the two parties have negotiated. We would hope to see
bilateral negotiations in the future. Peace must be made by the parties
themselves. A peace settlement will only come through direct bilateral
negotiations. These negotiations are delicate and they are complicated.
As President Barack Obama said in 2011: ``Peace is hard work. Peace
will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations.
If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now.'' The
President continued: ``Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the
Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis
and the Palestinians, not us, who must reach agreement on the issues
that divide them . . . `'
This resolution is consistent with administration policy and
consistent with the policy of several prior administrations.
[[Page H6347]]
We must heed this advice. Imposing a solution on the parties will not
work. In fact, it will be counterproductive to peace. It would
undermine incentives for the Palestinian authority to make the
necessary changes that are prerequisites for peace. Statehood can be
accomplished by ensuring security, eliminating incitement, and
demonstrating that the Palestinian side can live peacefully with
Israel.
This resolution expresses a sense of Congress as follows:
That the Israeli-Palestinian peace will come only through direct
bilateral negotiations;
That recognition of a Palestinian state without a peace deal would
cause harm to the peace process;
That efforts by outside bodies to impose an agreement or the
parameters for an agreement are likely to set back the peace process;
The United States should veto any one-sided United Nations Security
Council resolutions, or those resolutions that would seek to impose
solutions on final status issues--again, consistent with the
administration policies;
And finally, of course, that America will continue to support
negotiations without preconditions between the Israelis and the
Palestinians.
The Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. The Israeli
people deserve to live in peace as Jews in the State of Israel. In this
spirit, I call upon my colleagues to join us in passing this
resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International
Organizations.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 165, in support of direct
bilateral negotiations to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
introduced by Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel. This resolution
is much more than a restatement of longstanding U.S. policy. It is an
urgent defense of our commitments to the State of Israel in the face of
innumerable threats.
The United States has long insisted that the only path to peace for
the Israelis and Palestinians is through direct, bilateral
negotiations. Any so-called resolution imposed from the outside is
doomed to failure because it inherently lacks the political support of
both parties to the conflict. Peacemaking is hard work, but that
reality has not stopped others from looking for a shortcut.
The U.N. Security Council is one such forum that has served as a
platform for anti-Israel schemes for many, many years. Thankfully, the
United States has always resolutely imposed such unilateralism and,
when necessary, through both Democratic and Republican White Houses,
has always resolutely used the veto. Since 1972, the United States has
used its veto power 42 times to block anti-Israel measures in the
Security Council. However, in the closing days of this administration,
this longstanding policy is being called into question.
Mr. Speaker, there are many reports that President Obama is
considering moving the needle on the peace process before he leaves
office by supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution enshrining
certain conditions for peace. Just last month, The New York Times
editorial board came out forcefully in favor of this scheme. The
editorial board wrote: ``The best idea under discussion now would be to
have the United Nations Security Council, in an official resolution,
lay down guidelines for a peace agreement covering such issues as
Israel's security, the future of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian
refugees and borders for both states.''
On the contrary, this is just about the worst idea. It would have the
effect of dangerously undercutting the peace process. Israel's
security, the future of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, and borders--
anyone familiar with this issue knows--are the four most sensitive
matters at stake in this conflict and should not be imposed from
without. The United States ought to be very clear when faced with such
proposals. Any attempt to determine the fate of these issues outside of
direct, bilateral talks undermines the sovereignty of our strong ally
Israel, destroys goodwill, and threatens to prolong the conflict
further.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ROYCE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Sadly, the drumbeat for unilateral United
Nations action on this issue continues. On October 14, the U.N.
Security Council held a special debate, titled, ``Illegal Israeli
Settlements: Obstacles to Peace and the Two-State Solution.'' The
session was held at the request of Security Council members Egypt,
Venezuela, Malaysia, Senegal, and Angola, with the backing of the
Palestinians. Such one-sided initiatives only damage prospects for
peace.
Last April, 390 Members of the House on both sides of the aisle
signed a letter to the President. It was signed by so many of us,
including some in this room, including Nita Lowey, Kay Granger, Karen
Bass, Ted Deutch, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ed Royce, Eliot Engel, Kevin
McCarthy, Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and myself--390 in all--that laid
out the simple principles that have guided our policy. These principles
include:
A refusal to support counterproductive efforts aimed at imposing a
solution on the parties;
Opposition to Palestinian efforts to seek recognition of statehood
status in international bodies; and
A willingness to oppose, if need be, a one-sided U.N. resolution by
way of a veto.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman), my friend, for yielding.
I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 165, reaffirming longstanding
U.S. policy in support of a direct, bilaterally negotiated settlement
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
For several decades, the United States has maintained a consistent,
bipartisan policy toward the conflict that supports a two-state
solution and opposes settlement expansion. Explicit congressional
support for the two-state solution is critically important, especially
in light of President-elect Donald Trump's previous statements on this
very subject.
My friends on the other side have indicated an abiding fear that
something bad might happen at the U.N. in the waning 52 days of the
Obama administration. I don't share that concern. What I am concerned
about is the next 4 years and what Donald Trump will do to the
longstanding, bipartisan support for a two-state solution that has been
the cornerstone of American policy. If he pulls out of that commitment,
then you are right, Middle East peace is at risk, but it is not because
of what Obama is going to do over the next 52 days.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, which reiterates
that longstanding, bipartisan support for a two-state solution, and
help combat the unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy in these
difficult days of transition.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee
on the Middle East and North Africa.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, as always, I want to thank our
esteemed chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), as well
as our ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who is
so wonderfully represented by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman). I thank Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel for authoring this very
important resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor. And while I fully
support this measure and I urge all of my colleagues to back it as
well, I wish that this resolution was not needed; but, sadly, we know
better.
The fact that we need to bring this up for debate and pass a
resolution urging a United States administration to uphold longstanding
U.S. policy as it relates to the peace process is telling and also
disappointing, Mr. Speaker.
These next 2 months are going to be crucial for our friend and ally,
the democratic Jewish State of Israel, and the U.S.-Israel alliance,
which must remain ever strong. Israel is facing a constant barrage by
the Palestinians and
[[Page H6348]]
their supporters at the United Nations, and there are indications that
Abu Mazen will once again attempt to further his plan for unilateral
statehood through the Security Council.
Ordinarily, any attempt to dictate a two-state solution or impose
parameters on negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians
would be summarily dismissed by the United States. However, sadly, it
has become clear over the past year that this administration may be
looking to take unprecedented action; and, in fact, we have heard that
the administration has been actively seeking ways in which it could
force the Israelis into making dangerous concessions.
I have asked Secretary Kerry, I have asked Ambassador Power, our
Ambassador to the U.N., I have asked Ambassador Patterson and nearly
every administration official who has come before our Foreign Affairs
Committee headed by Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel if President Obama will
uphold longstanding U.S. policy and will veto any Security Council
resolution related to Israel. Each one has evaded the question,
refusing to reaffirm this longstanding, unambiguous, noncontroversial
policy.
We hear speak of one-sided resolutions, but that is slick
administration talk. Who defines the one-sidedness? It should have been
a resounding blanket statement--it is easy--that the President believes
that the only way to a real and lasting peace between Israelis and
Palestinians must come through direct bilateral negotiations between
the two, and lacking that, yes, we will urge the President to veto it.
It is not hard.
Peace cannot be forced. Any short-term achievement an imposed
solution will bring will be far outweighed by the long-term damage that
it will cause.
Mr. Speaker, this is a lameduck administration; and it should go
without saying that any action, whether it be at the U.N. or undertaken
unilaterally, aimed at forcing solutions to final status issues will be
detrimental to the prospects of peace and would harm both Israelis and
Palestinians.
I support this measure, strongly, brought forth by Chairman Royce and
Ranking Member Engel. I urge my colleagues to support it to reaffirm
longstanding U.S. policy that true peace between the Israelis and the
Palestinians can only come between direct bilateral negotiations
between them, and to urge the administration to not allow the
Palestinian scheme of unilateral statehood to gain any legitimacy at
the U.N.
{time} 1800
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Dold), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. DOLD. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Royce), for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, stand in strong support of H. Con. Res. 165.
What I find so fascinating is that we need here in the United States
to respect Israel's democratically elected leadership. They are a
nation, and they are our one true ally; and any efforts by the United
Nations or by any other body to try to impose a two-state solution,
frankly, I think, is detrimental and reckless. We should never try to
force their hand. Frankly, what we find now is it is not the time to
try to establish a legacy for an administration that has just a very
few short days left by attempting a reckless Hail Mary pass. We here do
want a two-state solution, which I think is important to note, but it
must be done by direct negotiations by the two parties; and when the
United States pressures Israel, all we do is weaken the chances for
long-term, durable peace.
My good friend from Virginia talked about his actually being fearful
of the next administration. Let me simply say that I hope this body
will stand in bipartisan support to ensure that any administration does
not pressure Israel. We understand that a long-lasting peace, which is
what we are hoping for, comes through direct, bilateral negotiations.
I, for one, am hopeful that this body will stand united to make sure
that the world knows that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our one
true ally--Israel--and with the hope that the administration and the
United Nations Security Council will veto any efforts by the United
Nations to try to unilaterally put a statehood in there for the
Palestinians. We know that true peace can only happen through direct,
bilateral negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, again, I stand in strong support of Mr. Royce's and Mr.
Engel's resolution, and I sincerely hope that my colleagues will stand
together, in bipartisan support, to make sure that this administration
does not take steps that will weaken Israel's hand in going forward. I
hope, in going forward, in administration after administration, that
this body will stand as we do today--in bipartisan support.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution reaffirms longstanding
American policy that can be summarized in five points: talks must be
direct and bilateral; a solution cannot be imposed on the parties; both
sides must be willing to make important compromises; disagreements
should be resolved privately; and the United States should work closely
with the State of Israel. This resolution deserves the support of those
on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In the past, both Republican and Democratic administrations have
recognized that efforts to internationalize the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict are not a substitute for direct negotiations between the
parties. In fact, such an approach can undermine these negotiations.
Direct negotiations between the parties, not a U.N. dictate, are the
only way, in our view, to bring about a peaceful coexistence. After
all, direct negotiations mean legitimatizing the other party, which,
unfortunately, is why Palestinian leaders routinely shun them.
Other past Presidents have pushed peace initiatives in the final
hours of their administrations. Indeed, the Obama administration has
pointedly not ruled out allowing the U.N. Security Council to dictate
the terms of peace negotiations. That, in fact, is what has given rise
to our bipartisan concerns about this process. In the absence of a
clear answer from the administration as to whether it will continue to
use that veto power at the United Nations, this bipartisan approach
here, with this resolution, takes a stand.
I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
the resolution so that the bipartisan policy of encouraging direct
negotiations continues and is endorsed loud and clear.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the House's consideration
of H. Con. Res. 165 is given special relevance by the presidential
transition now underway.
The resolution sends an important message to the incoming
Administration:
that the United States Congress reaffirms our nation's commitment to
supporting negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in pursuit
of a just and lasting two-state solution, and
that the United States Congress reaffirms a supportive and
constructive role, for our country in facilitating resolution of the
conflict.
Unfortunately, the resolution also contains overly broad and negative
language concerning third-party efforts to facilitate an agreement.
Still, it does not preclude the United States from putting forward
ideas for bridging differences between the parties, for articulating
suggestions that fill in gaps, for offering a nonbinding comprehensive
framework to help bring the Israelis and Palestinians to the
negotiating table--just as Republican and Democrat Administrations have
done in the past.
It is my hope, in fact, that the Obama administration might in the
coming weeks ``help provide a political horizon for ending the
conflict''--I'm quoting now from House Resolution 686, introduced by
Representative Yarmuth and myself and cosponsored by 64 members--``by
articulating a non-binding vision of what a comprehensive final status
agreement might entail that could help foster and guide revived
negotiations between the parties.''
The resolution also encourages the U.S. government to ``firmly
articulate 49 years of consistent, bipartisan United States opposition
to settlement expansion.''
We must be vigilant in protecting 50 years of bipartisan policy to
help the Israelis and Palestinians reach as viable two-state solution
in order to protect Israel as a secure, democratic, and Jewish state,
and to end the cycle of violence that has plagued the region.
[[Page H6349]]
As a longstanding supporter of the special relationship between the
United States and Israel, I believe the United States must remain
steadfast in its commitment to help Israel defend itself, to ensure
that Israelis and Palestinians feel that a viable political horizon to
ending this conflict continues to exist despite the current absence of
ongoing, productive negotiations, and to stand ready to help create
better conditions for peace--so that real and achievable progress may
prove viable in the months and years ahead.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 165.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________