[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 195 (Friday, December 6, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H9299-H9308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
General Leave
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H. Res. 326, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the measure we are considering today is something that
ought to be straightforward. It is essentially a reiteration of our
support for the consensus view that has prevailed for two decades on
resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a two-state solution.
This measure emphasizes that presidents of both parties and Israeli
Prime Ministers have supported reaching the two-state solution that
establishes a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and
security with Israel. President George W. Bush said clearly, ``My
vision is two states living side by side in peace and security.'' And
President Obama agreed that, ``There is little secret about where they
must lead, two states for two peoples.'' Prime Minister Netanyahu has
said, ``Israel remains fully committed to peace and the possibility of
two states for two people.''
There are reasons, Mr. Speaker, so many of us have supported this
approach for so long. A two-state solution would go a long way to
ensure Israel's survival as a secure Jewish and democratic state, and
it would fulfill the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people
for a state of their own.
The resolution we are considering underscores that a two-state
solution puts us on the path toward these outcomes. It makes clear that
any proposal to achieve a just, stable, and lasting solution to this
conflict should likewise endorse a two-state solution.
This is what we have been talking about for decades, Mr. Speaker,
here on the House floor and at international gatherings, across
administrations of both parties and Congresses, and premierships and
Knessets of every stripe. This isn't controversial. At least it
shouldn't be. This is nothing radical. We all know two states won't
spontaneously appear tomorrow. The parties have a lot of work ahead of
them, but every day we seem farther away from the goal.
Some of the reasons are plain as can be. Violence and terrorism
continue to come in waves. Hamas has rained down hundreds of rockets at
populations across Israel, and there seems to be no end in sight.
Palestinian leaders have not embraced their role as peacemaker. How can
Israel sit down with people who pay off terrorists?
But no one said peace was easy. To paraphrase the late Israeli Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin, ``You don't make peace with your friends. You
make peace with your enemies.''
I haven't lost hope, but the minute America abandons its leadership
role in the two-state solution, that hope dwindles. We cannot get to
the point where Israel's role as a Jewish and democratic state is at
risk. So that is why we need to get back to what has rooted American
policy toward the conflict for so long, what has guided our efforts.
Now, let's look at the history, because a little bit of history is
important.
Back in 1947, the U.N. Security Council came up with Resolution 181,
which partitioned the land into what they called a Jewish state and an
Arab state. The Jews accepted it. And the Palestinians, the Arabs,
rejected it and tried to push Israel and the Jews into the sea. It
didn't work.
The war of independence happened. In 1948 Israel was declared a
democracy and a nation state. And so we fast forward and we see what
happened each time the Arab states rejected the right of the Jewish
people to have a homeland on their land for many years.
So when one side says, oh, we are being mistreated. I think they have
to go back and look at how they reacted. Because, again, back in 1967,
back in 1973, there was no so-called occupation, there was nothing that
the Arabs object to today, and yet, they refused to make peace with
Israel. So I think that we have to look at both sides and we have to
say, you know, people who are protesting now and saying that there is
no peace really should look at what their actions have been for these
past years.
Unfortunately, there has not been the leadership, in my opinion, in
the Arab world to be able to make peace. That is why it is so important
that this Congress do it. That is why it is so important that we put
our heads together and try to say that constant war is not going to
solve anything, but a two-state solution probably ultimately will.
So that is why we need to get back to what has rooted American policy
toward the conflict for so long, what has guided our efforts.
Do you know what a one-state solution means? It means a state where
Jews could become the minority in their own country. It means one
Palestinian state with no determination for the Jewish people or for
the Palestinians. Israel's right to exist as a state that is both
Jewish and democratic is incompatible with a one-state solution,
period.
I would caution all Members to bear in mind that before making
charges in this debate about who supports Israel and who doesn't, about
who is turning this issue into a political football, there is no Member
of this body who is a stronger supporter than I am of the U.S.-Israel
relationship, of Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
That is why I support this legislation, because I want to see peace
between Israelis and Palestinians. I want Israel to have a secure and
prosperous future. And I want to see American leadership brought to
bear on this issue.
[[Page H9300]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 326.
I have great respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who
has been a long-time champion of the U.S.-Israel relationship. And as I
was listening to his opening remarks, there is a lot that he said that
I strongly agreed with. And it kind of pained me realizing that he
didn't write this actual resolution that is before us, because I know
it would have been worded differently and it would have received
support.
Unfortunately, many of the opening remarks which I strongly agreed
with are deliberately not in this resolution. It is a great opening for
another resolution, not this one.
Last summer we came to the House floor and we almost unanimously
passed a resolution to strongly oppose BDS. That resolution included a
lot of what this resolution tries to do. It is a watered-down version
of what we did last summer. When we woke up the next day, many Members
in this House said, okay, now what are we going to do about it?
S. 1 was a bill that passed at the beginning of this year in the
Senate with strong bipartisan support with under 80 Senators voting for
it. It has a companion bill, H.R. 336, by lead Republican Michael
McCaul of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. There is a discharge
petition that has almost 200 signatures on it led by Congressman Brian
Mast to bring S. 1-H.R. 336 to the floor.
So we made a strong statement last summer, and we woke up the next
day, and are motivated to do something about it. We can actually, right
now, with this time that we are debating and with the vote that we are
about to have, we can actually be passing a bill with teeth that would
go to the President's desk and would be signed into law.
And that is where our focus should have been. This resolution before
us today is deeply flawed, it is highly partisan, it is ill-timed, and
it is poorly crafted.
In the last 2 years, Israel has been hit by over 2,600 rockets and
mortars. In the past year alone, 1,500 of those rockets were fired from
the Gaza Strip into Israel.
Filing this resolution squarely into the category of worst timing
possible, H. Res. 326 comes to the floor just 1 week after Israel was
bombarded with over 450 rockets. In all of the pages of this
resolution, guess where it mentions Palestinian terrorism? Nowhere.
This resolution fails to not only recognize these latest attacks, but
all of the persistent assaults on innocent Israelis by Palestinian
terrorists.
Guess what else this resolution fails to mention? It is silent on
fundamental facts that shape the way Israel has dealt with a constant
threat on its border, as the chair so eloquently observed when he
referenced Hamas rockets raining into Israel and Palestinians paying
off terrorists, and the need for a Jewish and democratic state. It
makes no reference to Hamas firing rockets. It makes no reference to
Palestinians paying off terrorists. It makes no reference to
recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.
During the March of Return, every single week protestors gather along
the border of Israel in Gaza to throw Molotov cocktails and burning
tires at IDF soldiers. Just this week, Hamas passed out leaflets
calling on the public to join these protests in response to Israel
defending itself against the Palestinian Islamic jihad. You won't find
this in this resolution. Or that Hamas uses innocent women as human
shields, that they call jihad an obligation, inciting violence. And
that list goes on.
And maybe worst of all, this resolution completely fails to mention
that Israel has made repeated attempts to offer peace proposals to the
Palestinian Authority. After the Camp David talks in 2000, Israel
offered to withdraw from 90 percent of Judea and Samaria, parts of East
Jerusalem and Gaza. That same year, though, the Palestinians started
the Second Intifada, and more than 1,000 innocent Israeli civilians
were killed in a Palestinian campaign of suicide bombings and
shootings.
In 2008, Israel offered to withdraw from 93 percent of Judea and
Samaria, but time and again, the Palestinian Authority rejected peace
proposals while continuing to refuse to this day, both publicly and
privately, to accept Israel as a Jewish state.
In this vein, the Palestinian Authority continues to incite violence
and financially rewards terrorism through its Pay for Slay program,
which included the murder of an American, United States military
academy graduate, Army veteran Taylor Force.
Yet, House Democrats added language to this resolution at the last
minute to support the Palestinians, despite the fact that the
Palestinian Authority refuses to suspend this Pay for Slay program to
this day.
This resolution imposes a solution for Israel, stating specific
Palestinian Authority demands and deliberately leaving out critical
Israeli preconditions necessary to maintain security.
If you are going to engage in naming specific preconditions like the
way this resolution puts those preconditions on Israel, the Palestinian
Authority demands, well then try to balance it all out, but this
resolution doesn't even make any reference to Palestinian terrorism. It
is silent about providing assurances for Israel's safety and security
through a demilitarized zone, but that didn't stop the resolution's
authors from including Palestinian demands of Israel.
The timing of this vote is no coincidence either. This resolution, by
the authors' own admission, is a clear rebuke to the Trump
administration's recent reversal of the Obama administration's
targeting of Israel with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334. The
timing is no coincidence.
The resolution references President Obama's policy toward Israel
after the November 2016 election, but does not mention the Trump
administration's efforts. One of the worst lines in this resolution
references support for ``the principles set forth by President Obama in
December 2016.'' After the Obama administration abstained from U.N.
Security Council Resolution 2334, the House, along with many of my
Democratic colleagues here today, voted in favor of a resolution to
forcefully condemn U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334.
This resolution, H. Res. 326, is a reversal on that point, pointing
to that December 2016 moment in time as if it was something that should
be applauded. This resolution chooses to reference President Obama's
policy while intentionally leaving out the Trump administration's
policy, ensuring a partisan outcome to this resolution.
The resolution doesn't mention the long list of victories that we
have had in this administration to strengthen our support and security
and stability of Israel, to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship,
like moving our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, to signing the Taylor
Force Act, and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
This partisan resolution creates a totally unnecessary schism in what
has otherwise been a longstanding history of strong, bipartisan support
for the U.S.-Israel relationship, which included the resolution that
passed last summer.
There are other great bipartisan bills that support Israel and fight
anti-Semitism at home. We should be spending our time debating and
passing bills like S. 1 and H.R. 336 sponsored by Michael McCaul, the
Never Again Education Act or the Peace and Tolerance in Palestinian
Education Act.
{time} 0930
The House already passed, almost unanimously, that resolution, H.
Res. 246, last summer that opposed BDS and supported peace between the
Israelis and Palestinians. Now, we are bringing a watered-down,
partisan, and weakened version of what has already passed in the House.
House Democrats should bring bipartisan legislation forward with
teeth that will support Israel and fight the BDS movement. But rather
than move forward and build on our longstanding history of bipartisan
support of the U.S.-Israeli alliance, House Democrats have decided to
play partisan politics with what is a powder keg.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H9301]]
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lowenthal), the author of this resolution.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me
in voting to affirm a longstanding, bipartisan, and fundamental
principle of American foreign policy. I believe we should pass this
resolution today because it states facts which have been true for
decades and which are true today.
A two-state solution represents the only path to a just and lasting
peace in the Middle East, and it is the only way to safeguard Israel as
a secure Jewish and democratic state while also upholding the rights
and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people.
We will never compromise on Israel's security, and we will not turn
our backs on the Palestinian people's desire for dignity and justice.
Some ask why Congress should speak out now or in this way. To them, I
say this: When peace appears most remote, our voices become more
critical, not less. The ongoing conflict can only inflict more
suffering on innocent people on both sides.
We cannot let the possibility of a just peace slip away, and we
cannot accept any action that undermines a two-state solution.
We must speak out against policies that could put peace out of reach:
unilateral annexation, unilateral pushes for statehood, violence, or
settlement expansion.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank many of my colleagues who have worked
tirelessly to bring this legislation to the floor, including
Congresswoman Bass and Congressman Connolly, Congressman Price and
Congresswoman Schakowsky, Chairman Engel, Congressman Pocan and
Congresswoman Lee, Congressman Deutch and Congressman Gottheimer, the
192 cosponsors who supported this important effort, and Leader Hoyer
and Speaker Pelosi.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank another one of my colleagues,
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. We spoke yesterday, and although she is
not a supporter of H. Res. 326, I left our meeting feeling optimistic.
If a Jewish American from Queens and a Palestinian American from
Detroit, both proud Americans, can find common ground about the need
for all people, regardless of whether they are Californians or
Michiganians, regardless of whether they are Jewish or Muslim, Israeli
or Palestinian, if we can find common ground to live in peace and
security with the same rights to self-determination and dignity, that
fills me with hope.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kildee). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, that fills me with hope.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution affirms the principles that have guided
our foreign policy under Democratic and Republican administrations. We
know that a two-state solution is the only path to a just peace.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan bill. I urge my Republican
colleagues to join me in voting to pass H. Res. 326.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As the senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and as a
former chairman of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee, I rise
today in opposition to H. Res. 326, legislation that I believe is
biased against Israel.
To understand this resolution, it must be taken in context. In July,
this House overwhelmingly passed H. Res. 246, which condemned efforts
to delegitimize Israel. It also reaffirmed our support for a two-state
solution.
A mere 5 months later, we are considering this redundant legislation
when we should be talking about the National Defense Authorization Act,
funding the government, prescription drug prices, the opioid epidemic,
so many other things. Instead, House Democrats find it more important
to rebuke the Trump administration because it took the position that
Jewish settlements in the West Bank are not illegal.
What is really happening here is this resolution is meant to paper
over a deep division within the Democratic Party between responsible
voices who understand the importance of our relationship with Israel,
and many of those are here today speaking, and a campus radical left
that pushes BDS, welcomes anti-Semitic attacks on Israel, and believes
that Israel is the problem while the Palestinians are just helpless
victims.
Forceful, principled Democratic leadership would take seriously their
responsibility to educate the public and clear up these misbegotten
notions. Instead, they have opted to cover over this serious problem
with their flawed legislation today. That is most unfortunate.
Further, the resolution itself is fatally deficient in a number of
ways. Again, context is critical. The resolution completely ignores the
reason why the two-state solution has never gotten off the ground:
venomous voices among the Palestinians don't want two states. They want
one, a Palestinian state.
The blame falls squarely on these pernicious forces. Just look at the
recent round of rocket attacks from Gaza.
That is why we shouldn't rule out other options by saying two states
is the only possible solution, as this resolution does. It gives the
Palestinians a vote over Israel's future, and we shouldn't let that
happen.
Additionally, by raising the issues of settlements and annexation
without serious criticism of Palestinian terrorism and intransigence,
which far outweighs anything that Israel has done, this resolution buys
into the narrative of the campus left that Israel is the perpetrator
and the Palestinians are just victims, an anti-Semitic narrative.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose this resolution, and I urge
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin) for his
leadership on this.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, one point to clarify about this resolution, as the
bill's author, my friend from Queens, we should say, even though he has
a new district these days, talks about this not being a partisan
resolution, this debate and this vote, the reality is this resolution
is going to end up being, and is, the most partisan resolution that
this House has ever taken up on Israel.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to an opportunity to work with the bill's
author. I believe strongly in the need to strengthen the U.S.-Israel
relationship. I also feel strongly in my opposition to this bill, as
many of my colleagues do as well, but it actually is quite partisan
with regard to the text, the debate, and the ultimate vote.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a distinguished member of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my good friend, for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 326.
``Mirabile dictu.'' Wondrous to relate.
Mr. Speaker, it is finally on the floor.
I just heard a revision of history from my friend from Ohio. We were
prepared to bring this resolution up on the floor in July. This has
nothing to do with it. It wouldn't have even mentioned President Trump
and Secretary Pompeo's strange acknowledgment of settlements that are
recognized as illegal in international law.
This resolution is not, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin)
would have you believe, lacking in a recitation of all the grievances
and incidents that continue to plague Israel and the Palestinian
people. This is a prescription for a solution, which apparently my
friend from New York is not interested in.
A two-state solution has been the policy of Republican and Democratic
administrations. If you want to call it partisan, you take the blame,
because you on the other side of the aisle are the ones who have
blocked it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my good friend, for
yielding.
[[Page H9302]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, it is the Republicans who steadfastly have
refused even to entertain being engaged in the drafting of this
resolution. So, yes, if you want to call it partisan, you own it. It is
your partisanship, not ours.
This is a restatement of United States policy. This is a prescription
for a solution, a path toward a solution that would bring peace to both
Israel and the Palestinian people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of time, I will save some of my
thoughts on what was just said. That was a very alternate version of
reality that we look forward to addressing over the course of this
debate. Hopefully, my friend from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) sticks
around.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Zeldin) very much for yielding, and I very much
appreciate his work on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I also thank the Republican Foreign Affairs Committee
staff and Ranking Member McCaul for their tireless defense of Israel.
Furthermore, I want to state that I have a long history of working in
a bipartisan fashion with my dear friend, the chairman of the Foreign
Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel. That is why it pains me to be here
today debating a partisan resolution, a resolution that purports to
defend a negotiated two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, but that is simply not what this resolution is about. If it
were, it would be bipartisan.
This is a partisan resolution because it makes pointed criticisms of
the Israeli Government on delicate, divisive, internal issues. It does
so at a time when our Israeli counterparts struggle through the
democratic process of forming a new government.
House Democrats would only move this unconstructive resolution to the
floor if it achieved aims of radical leftists in scoring points against
the Trump administration.
But, Mr. Speaker, I ask this majority, at what cost? At what cost are
we voting on this?
Moving forward to this vote risks the bipartisan support that a
negotiated settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution has
enjoyed for decades.
That is why I offered an alternative resolution at the Rules
Committee, one that would support the peace process without alienating
our major strategic partner and ally of the United States, the nation
of Israel.
If there is any imperative for Congress, it should be to hold the
Palestinian Authority to account for its efforts to bypass negotiations
and unilaterally declare a Palestinian state.
For decades, the Palestinian Authority has undermined the peace
process by appealing to the United Nations and other international
organizations to impose its own solution and impose parameters for
negotiations with Israel.
In 2000, Israel offered them full statehood on territory that
included roughly 92 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, along
with a capital in Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority rejected it.
If there is any story that deserves more attention from this
Congress, it is that Israel has made numerous concessions in the
pursuit of peace while seeking only the right to exist, and this
despite the continued efforts by Palestinian leadership to evade direct
negotiations for peace.
That is the story this House should be telling, and that is why I
oppose this partisan resolution that politicizes and, therefore,
jeopardizes the sacred issue of Congress' support for Israel.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
{time} 0945
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline), a distinguished Member of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 326, the
Lowenthal resolution, to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict.
I thank my good friend, Alan Lowenthal, for the hard work he has done
to support the State of Israel and to bring this resolution to the
floor today.
This resolution strongly reaffirms longstanding, bipartisan U.S.
policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This includes
support for a two-state solution and expresses opposition to efforts
that undermine the prospects for a lasting peace.
I, like so many in this Congress, have been a longtime and passionate
supporter of Israel and the U.S.-Israeli relationship. We know that a
strong Israel is good for America.
But I have been increasingly concerned that this administration's
decision to unilaterally change American policies towards Israel
outside of any negotiation are detrimental to the long-term prospects
for peace. This resolution makes clear that the best and only real
solution to achieving peace is the two-state solution.
And, again, I thank Mr. Lowenthal and Chairman Engel for bringing
this resolution to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his
leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the body that, 2 years ago today,
President Trump said this in the Diplomatic Room in the White House:
``Today, we finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel's
capital. This is nothing more, or less, than a recognition of reality.
It is also the right thing to do. It's something that has to be done.''
Since that time, the Embassy was moved. I was privileged to join many
of my colleagues to visit the new Embassy in Jerusalem this past
August.
There, we stood, Democrats and Republicans, this August, looking at a
border with Lebanon where Hezbollah has 150,000 rockets pointing at
Jerusalem and at Tel Aviv.
We went near, but not too near, to Gaza, where rockets are being
fired at Israel and balloons are being sent over to burn fields,
despite Israel's good faith voluntary withdrawal from there in 2005.
But thank the Lord that America stands with Israel. Standing with
Israel yields results for our national security and for the benefit of
the great people of Israel, a true ally and democracy in which Jews,
Muslims, and Christians live together with rights protected, and they
live peaceably.
Following our example, Guatemala has moved its Embassy to Jerusalem.
Honduras announced recognition of Jerusalem just a few months ago.
Just this week.
For the first time, Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria, Bulgaria,
Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia,
Brazil, and Colombia voted against the annual resolution supporting the
Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat, which oversees the
Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian
People. These countries previously abstained on the vote.
We are changing the world and recognizing Israel because we stand
with Israel, and standing with Israel works.
But rather than standing with Israel on a bipartisan basis, today,
our Democrat colleagues are pushing H. Res. 326. This is a liberal,
progressive retreat from standing with Israel and a move to have our
Nation tell Israel what to do.
This resolution spells out specific Palestinian Authority demands
without listing critical Israeli preconditions, such as acknowledging
Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state with an undivided Jerusalem
as Israel's capital and providing assurances for Israel's safety and
security through a demilitarized zone.
The resolution chooses to reference President Obama's policy
announced after the November 2016 election, while intentionally leaving
out the Trump administration's policy, designing the resolution to be
hyperpartisan.
This resolution is a politically motivated exercise designed to
undermine the policy of the Trump administration, the right policy,
announced in November, that settlements in Judea and Samaria not be
considered a violation of international law.
[[Page H9303]]
This resolution disproportionately criticizes the Israeli Government,
while failing to recognize the dangerous actions targeting innocent
Israelis that further remove the possibility of peace.
This resolution binds the U.S. Government and calls for Israel to
only pursue a two-state solution.
This is wrong. We should not bind ourselves and our ally, a sovereign
nation with equal standing before the United Nations, to only one
solution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. And, moreover, to one solution that has been a failed battle
cry because Palestinians have perpetually failed to come to the
negotiating table to pursue it in good faith.
How peace is reached in the Middle East begins and ends with actual
and complete recognition of Israel's right to exist--and it is up to
Israel to decide how and in what way a solution might be reached,
whether that is two states or otherwise.
The rich history of Israel is increasingly known and celebrated by
the world. It is a great and vibrant nation.
As we head into this celebratory season of our respective faiths, let
us celebrate Israel, together, its greatness, and remember that America
stands with Israel.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a valued member of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, last month, I visited Israel and the West Bank. I talked
to Israeli Defense Forces leaders; Israeli settlers; members of the
Knesset from many parties; U.S. Ambassador Friedman; Palestinians' top
negotiator, Dr. Saeb Erakat; human rights activists; and ordinary
Israelis and Palestinians.
My trip left me more committed than ever to seeing, in my lifetime, a
two-state solution: a democratic Jewish state living in peace alongside
a democratic Palestine. That is why I am here today.
My colleagues have spoken a lot about the need to safeguard Israel's
security, and that is also why I am here today. We are at a moment when
the prospects for a peaceful two-state solution--something that has
long had overwhelming bipartisan support in this country and from
Presidents from both parties--could be fading. If we let them fade,
prospects for lasting security in Israel will fade as well.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Because, make no mistake, without a two-state
solution, Israel's future as a secure democratic homeland for the
Jewish people will be in jeopardy. And Israelis, like the ones I
visited in Netiv HaAsara, will continue to live in fear of rocket fire
that gives them 8 seconds to reach a bomb shelter.
We need to express our support for a two-state solution, and I thank
the chairman and my colleagues, Representatives Lowenthal, Bass, and
Connolly, for their leadership.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this is an Article I
moment. The President has sowed doubt about this country's historic
commitment to two-state diplomacy, diplomacy that aims at a secure,
democratic, and Jewish future for Israel, and that aims at a state of
their own and self-determination for the Palestinian people.
It is extremely important for this Congress to assert itself as a
coequal branch of government at a time when this historic American
commitment is being questioned and undermined.
This resolution makes clear that Israeli settlement expansion is
unhelpful and that unilateral annexation of the territory is
destructive of the prospects for peace. The resolution also reaffirms
U.S. support for the security of Israel. And it makes clear that it is
unacceptable for the President to cut off Palestinian aid, as he
unilaterally has done, despite this aid being duly appropriated by this
body.
This is unacceptable. We need to assert ourselves as an institution
and reaffirm support for the two-state solution, which is really the
only reliable path forward.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I am listening to different colleagues on the other
side of the aisle speaking about this resolution, some are claiming
that this is not partisan and that the timing doesn't have anything to
do with the Trump administration, and then others are coming and
speaking that this is about rebuking the Trump administration. So I am
unclear as far as that messaging.
I do know that there have been multiple quotes that have been put out
by Democrats in this Chamber that the timing is no coincidence. This
was brought up after an announcement was made recently by Secretary
Pompeo with regards to reversing President Obama's policy that was
announced after the November 2016 election.
So, where my friends on the other side of the aisle speak about
longstanding U.S. policy, I guess it is important for a quick recap of
that longstanding U.S. policy over recent years.
At the end of 2016, after the November 2016 election, the Obama
administration helped get through the United Nations U.N. Security
Council Resolution 2334 with regards to the view of activity in Judea,
Samaria, and parts of east Jerusalem; and, for the first time, the U.N.
Security Council was saying that that was a violation of international
law.
This Chamber, with more Democrats voting in favor of the resolution
than against, voted for a resolution to condemn U.N. Security Council
Resolution 2334. This Chamber had a problem on a large, bipartisan
basis and came together to condemn U.N. Security Council Resolution
2334.
That is what this resolution specifically references when it says the
Obama administration's policy from December 2016. That was great when
we all came together like that because we had a problem with reversing
longstanding U.S. policy with that U.N. Security Council resolution.
Then this Chamber came together again this past summer, almost
unanimously, passing a resolution--a strong, bipartisan resolution--
strongly condemning BDS and talking about the need for peace between
the Israelis and the Palestinians.
This resolution today is, unfortunately, a debate. It is a draft, and
it is a vote that is going to be very partisan. But the inconsistency
and the arguments on the other side of the aisle--some are saying this
has nothing to do with President Trump and his policies and others are
saying that it does. And some are saying that timing is no coincidence
and others have made specific comments that it is absolutely a result
of the Trump administration's recent announcements. Those
inconsistencies are being noticed by all.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, who on this floor would stand with me
for peace, and who on this floor would stand against our position and
against peace?
It is well known that the United States, all of my life, has been a
strong supporter of Israel, rooted in shared national security
interests, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
I have sent to Israel young people, through the Mickey Leland
Kibbutzim program, from my district for 25 years--almost 25 years--to
develop the understanding and friendship that we continue to promote
for the values of what Israel stands for.
The United States has worked for decades to strengthen our
assistance. We are intertwined through national security. And, in
essence, this two-state solution is a solution toward peace.
I have been to Palestine and met the Palestinians and their leaders
over the years that I have served in the United States Congress.
Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Obama stood with Israel, as we all stand
today. But we stand with peace and the understanding of the two-state
solution. Let us stand united.
[[Page H9304]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I invite my Republican friends to join on the
resolution, H. Res. 326. Do not read into it anything more than a
pathway to peace, discussion, and dialogue, recognizing the dignity of
all people.
I join my friends, my Jewish friends, my friends from Palestine, and
I join Americans in wanting a two-state solution.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
{time} 1000
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey), who is the chairwoman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 326, a
resolution that reaffirms the House of Representatives' longstanding
support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Throughout my life and my 31 years serving in this great body, I have
never lost hope that there will one day be two states for two peoples--
a democratic Jewish state of Israel and a democratic Palestinian state
living side by side in peace, security, and mutual recognition.
We cannot be naive. This will not be easy. Gaza continues to be run
by Hamas, a terrorist organization responsible for attacks on Israel
and the suffering of Palestinians in their borders. The Palestinian
Authority has been a poor partner for peace, walking away from
reasonable peace plans and the negotiating table altogether. And
rhetoric from the Israeli Government officials about unilateral
annexation pushes a future, negotiated solution farther from reality.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from New York an
additional 15 seconds.
Mrs. LOWEY. But we cannot and we must not lose hope. Simply put, a
two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians is the only means to
ensure Israel's long-term security and enable Palestinian aspirations
for their own state.
I thank my colleagues whose hard work brought this important
resolution to the floor, and I urge immediate passage.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the majority leader of the House.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, there are few alliances as critical to America's
national security, to global stability, and to our Nation's values as
the U.S.-Israel relationship. Israel and America share common values
and together are committed to the principles of democracy and
individual freedom. The United States will always stand by our ally,
Israel, period.
Let me be clear. Military assistance to Israel is critical to
America's national security. It is an investment in our security as
well as Israel's. That is why I am opposed to imposing conditions on
that assistance.
Since even before its independence in 1948, Israel has sought to
achieve a secure peace with its neighbors on the basis of the principle
of self-determination for both the Jewish people and for the
Palestinian people. The Jewish people deserve to live in peace and
security in their ancestral homeland, and Palestinians deserve the
opportunity to chart their own future of peace and opportunity in a
land of their own. That was the foundation of the peace process in the
1990s and subsequent efforts by Israeli Governments to achieve peace
with security.
It makes clear in this resolution that both parties ought to take
meaningful steps to end mistrust and avoid obstacles to peace. This
includes encouraging both sides not to take any steps that make the
pursuit of peace harder. Unfortunately, that has not always been the
case, and the attacks on Israel undermine daily--and if not daily, too
often--the ability to achieve an agreement helpful to the Palestinians
as well as the Israelis.
I want to thank my friend and leader of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, Chairman Engel, Representatives Lowenthal, Pocan, Deutch,
Price, Schakowsky, and Gottheimer, representing a broad spectrum of
feelings about how we deal with and support our ally, Israel. But they
have come together, as well as all of the members of the Foreign
Affairs Committee, to work hard to ensure that this resolution
reaffirms Congress' strong support for the U.S.-Israel relationship,
while contributing positively to helping Israel achieve the peace and
security it seeks with the Palestinians.
The resolution says that settlements and annexation are inconsistent
with that objective. I hope Members will support this resolution. I
disagree with my friend from New York, that this is not policy that has
been adopted by Republican administrations as well as Democratic
administrations. To say this is an Obama policy that we are
overturning--which is apparently much of what the focus of this
administration is, overturning the policies of their predecessor--is
incorrect. George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush believed that a
contrary policy would undermine the realization of peace between two
peoples.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will on a bipartisan basis overwhelmingly
support the restatement of America's policy.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we should not split hairs. We need to
reaffirm our policy with this resolution because Congress in the past
has not been clear enough. In my visits to Israel I have been struck
how young people, Palestinian and Jews alike, believe passionately in a
two-state solution, but, increasingly, they doubt that it is possible.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration's reckless policies are
increasing that doubt. The latest is giving a green light to the
destructive settlement policy and its expansion. Make no mistake: Trump
and Netanyahu are currently careening towards a one-state solution, one
that will challenge the ability of Israel to be both a democracy and a
Jewish state.
Jimmy Carter said in his book that we are choosing between democracy
and apartheid. This resolution suggests that we choose for democracy a
negotiated solution; and reaffirming our longstanding goals, correct
the ambiguity, get us back on track, and give hope to those young
people in Israel, both Jew and Palestinian.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding and for bringing this bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 326 which I am proud
to cosponsor. It really is an important resolution affirming the United
States' support for a two-state solution, which has been longstanding
bipartisan consensus for decades. It also makes clear that Congress
opposes any action by the White House to encourage unilateral
annexation of the West Bank.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not only needed but it is incredibly
timely. The Trump administration is actively working against a two-
state solution and lasting peace at every step, from support for
unilateral annexation of the West Bank to reversal of U.S. policy
toward illegal Israeli settlement expansion which jeopardizes Israeli
security.
This resolution reaffirms the United States' commitment to a lasting
peace in the region which can only be achieved through a negotiated
two-state solution for both Israelis and Palestinians.
For the first time, this resolution includes clear language that the
United States should resume assistance to the Palestinians.
I thank Chairman Price. Let me just say it is an incredibly important
step. I thank Congressman Lowenthal and Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib for
taking a bold step and seeking common ground.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H9305]]
The majority are tying themselves up in knots.
With all due respect to the majority leader, who said there was not a
departure in policy towards the end of the Obama administration and
that I was incorrect; I would like to point him to H. Res. 11 from
January 2017, that he voted in favor of as well as most House
Democrats, which included: ``Whereas on December 23, 2016, the United
States Permanent Representative to the United Nations disregarded
H.Con. Res. 165 and departed from longstanding United States policy by
abstaining and permitting United Nations Security Council Resolution
2334 to be adopted under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.''
That is from a resolution that the majority leader voted in favor of,
where he personally, and many others in this Chamber on both sides of
the aisle, took strong exception with that departure from longstanding
U.S. policy with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, now reversing
that, once again, with the text of this resolution that is giving a
shout-out to that December 2016 Obama administration policy as if it is
something to be applauded.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 326.
It is critical that we take serious steps to reiterate the United
States commitment towards a just two-state solution to the conflict
that allows both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace side by
side.
Unfortunately, recent developments have put this vision, which
remains the only viable framework for a lasting peace in the region,
further out of reach.
Settlement activity in the West Bank has increasingly threatened the
viability of a future Palestinian state in the region, and there is now
open talk of Israeli annexation of the Jordan Valley. Settlements erode
any possibility of a continuous, viable Palestinian state.
Additionally, the Trump administration's recent move to overturn
decades of U.S. policy and legitimize the settlement activity
represents a body blow to future peace and prosperity. In addition, the
Trump administration's policies have discredited valid Palestinian
claims to also have their capital in Jerusalem. We also cannot forget
the humanitarian situation in Gaza which is untenable.
Mr. Speaker, this demands a response, and that is why we need a two-
state solution to deal with it.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud granddaughter of a
strong, loving Palestinian woman, my sity. For me to stand up for her
human dignity, I must oppose H. Res. 326.
This resolution not only endorses an unrealistic, unattainable
solution, one that Israel has made impossible, but also one that
legitimizes inequality, ethnic discrimination and inhuman conditions.
Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Likud party have actively fought
against a two-state solution and took steps to ensure its demise. They
increased their illegal taking of Palestinian homes, imprisoned more
Palestinian children than ever before, and are building walls right now
to annex the West Bank and other Palestinian villages.
Moreover, Israel's nation-state law, which states that only Jews have
the right to self-determination, has eliminated the political rights of
the Palestinian people and effectively made them second-class citizens.
Separate but equal didn't work in our country, and I can't see that
it is possible in other countries. Given our Nation's history of
segregation, we should recognize when such injustices are occurring. We
cannot be honest brokers for peace if we refuse to use the words:
illegal occupation by Israel.
Our country and the United States Congress must condemn these
undemocratic actions. We must take bolder actions to ensure that human
rights are upheld in Israel and that Palestinians and Black Israelis
are treated with equality every human being deserves.
To honor my Sity Mufteih who lives in the occupied West Bank,
Palestine, I am unable to support this resolution today. She deserves
better.
{time} 1015
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Deutch), a distinguished member of the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Engel, and I rise in
support of a resolution that speaks to a two-state solution that
enhances the security and stability of Israel, a two-state solution
that recognizes the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people
for a state of their own and one that will come about only through the
direct negotiations of Israelis and Palestinians.
The words in this resolution matter. The words that reaffirm that it
is in the national interest to continue to stand by our ironclad
commitments under the MOU, which seeks to help Israel defend itself
against a wide range of threats, is a critical statement at this moment
in our Nation's history.
Those are the words that are the language of this resolution. That is
why I support it.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I
encourage all of my colleagues to oppose it as well.
It is no coincidence that this resolution is being brought now. It is
an attempted rebuke of the Trump administration.
I think that this Chamber should be coming together and praising the
decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, that this
Chamber should be coming together and praising the decision to
recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. We all should be
coming together on a bipartisan basis with regard to the implementation
of the Taylor Force Act.
The Palestinian Authority has a policy not just to incite violence
but to financially reward terrorism. If you murder an innocent American
or Israeli, by policy--this is no secret; it is documented; it is their
own admission--they will pay you money.
Now, as far as this Chamber goes, we are stewards of U.S. tax
dollars. To send money to the Palestinian Authority, as long as they
have a policy where they are going to pay someone for murdering an
American, that is something that this Chamber should be coming together
on, on a bipartisan basis, with regard to the implementation of the
Taylor Force Act and how to do even better.
This resolution attempts to get into that world of what preconditions
need to be met in order to have an agreement between Israelis and
Palestinians. It chooses to stay silent with regard to any of the
Israeli preconditions on the Palestinians, but this resolution chooses
not to be silent on the preconditions of the Palestinians toward the
Israelis. Not just in the text of the resolution but today in the
debate, the goal is to place pressure on the Israelis, on what they
need to make concessions on, by not saying anything at all with regard
to Palestinians committing acts of terror and being financially
rewarded for it, saying nothing about Hamas.
Hamas literally put in their charter that jihad is an obligation. I
wonder where Hamas stands.
If the Palestinian Authority sat down with Israelis and right now
agreed, I don't know if whoever would sign that document on behalf of
the Palestinian Authority would be assassinated within days. But I will
say that he can't in good faith deliver all of his people because not
only are the ranks of the Palestinian Authority filled with the likes
of terrorist groups like Hamas--and Hamas is a designated foreign
terrorist organization of the United States--not only can they not
deliver their people, Hamas doesn't just refute the argument that
Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, Hamas refutes the
argument that Israel has a right to exist.
How are we silent about a resolution? If you want to get into
preconditions, how do we not get into any acts of Hamas denying access
to humanitarian aid to its own people or the fact that they use women
and children as human shields, that Hamas will pay someone
[[Page H9306]]
to get shot? A kid goes to a checkpoint, gets shot, and gets paid $500.
Right now, as we are here--I mean, literally, as the decision is
being made to bring this resolution to the floor, Israel is getting
showered by rockets from a terrorist group in Gaza, hundreds of rockets
targeting innocent Israelis, kids who are going to school or are
worshiping or are at home or are running to bomb shelters because they
have rockets being launched at them, trying to kill them.
That is the issue with getting into that world of preconditions, only
talking about the preconditions that the Palestinians want to place on
the Israelis, and then to double down and triple down during floor
debate and to be silent entirely with regard to any of the
preconditions toward peace.
December 2016 is specifically referenced in this resolution. This
House came together and condemned that December 2016 policy. After the
November 2016 election, this House came together in January on a huge
bipartisan basis and condemned that change of policy in December 2016.
The reversal here in this resolution is now this resolution is
specifically referencing the December 2016 policy as if it is something
to be celebrated.
What we should be doing right now is passing legislation with teeth--
by the way, a whole lot of legislation with teeth: passing USMCA;
lowering the cost of prescription drugs, a bipartisan agreement that
passed out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; passing S.1/
H.R. 336, legislation with teeth to stop BDS, to help support Israel
with teeth; authorizing funding to support Jordan; legislation with
teeth to increase sanctions on Assad in Syria.
This bill has already passed the Senate with all of these different
Republicans and Democrats, almost 80 Senators passing it.
Bill numbers are set based on what is important. What is important to
the Senate? That was S.1.
We made a strong statement last summer, almost unanimously passing a
resolution condemning BDS, including language toward peace between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. We should have woken up the next day
united to now do something about it.
It is one thing to make a statement about anything that anyone in
this Chamber is passionate about, and I respect the different passions
and backgrounds of all of my colleagues. There are people who have
different opinions on just about anything that comes for a vote in this
Chamber.
When we choose to make statements of something that we feel strongly
about, it is important to wake up the next day and say: ``Okay, well,
what are we going to do about it?'' That is why, while I am so proud of
my colleagues for voting almost unanimously for that resolution, we
should be passing S.1/H.R. 336.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for all of my colleagues to oppose this
resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close debate on this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to no one, no one in this Chamber, when it comes
to support for Israel. I supported moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, the
eternal capital of the Jewish people. I am happy to have an honest
debate about the Middle East so long as that debate is on the policy,
on the merits. That is true when it comes to my friends on the other
side and with Members of my own party. That is why we are here, and
that is what the House of Representatives is all about.
I want also to point out that this resolution, an important part of
this resolution, says that there are to be no conditions on U.S. aid to
Israel. That is something that is very important, and I think it is
very important that we state that.
The debate on foreign policy turns toxic when the issue is tainted by
party politics, when support for Israel is politicized through motions
to recommit or poison pill amendments. Politics should stop at the
water's edge, and that is what normally guides our work on the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
What happens when we ignore that? What happens is that decisions
about our own security and leadership on the world stage are trumped by
decisions about our own political interests. That makes us less safe.
What happens is that decisions about how we treat our friends and
partners around the world are trumped by decisions about what may be
more appealing to our political base or political supporters. That
makes our friends and partners less safe, less trusting, less confident
in America.
If we allow partisan politics to contaminate our foreign policy, we
do so at our peril and the peril of many others around the world. We
cannot allow that to happen when it comes to Israel, our most important
ally in the Middle East.
For two decades, support for a two-state solution has won bipartisan
support. Even when they disagreed on many policy issues, Presidents
George W. Bush and Barack Obama agreed on this.
Of course, no one said anywhere along the line that it would be easy
to achieve, but that doesn't mean we give up. It means we dig in and
keep pushing and working to change minds. That is what American
leadership is all about.
I sincerely hope that my colleagues don't walk away from that. Those
of us who are strong supporters of Israel understand that Israel is
best served by a two-state solution, that a two-state solution is not
good for only Palestinians but also good for Jews, also good for
Israelis, also good for all people in the Middle East. That is what we
are trying to do.
My commitment to the U.S.-Israel relationship is second to none, to
nobody. That is why I do believe, by passing this resolution today, we
are attempting to bring the parties together, attempting to state U.S.
policy, acknowledging the fact that U.S. and Israel are unshakeable
allies.
This is simply saying that there is a dispute, that there are two
peoples, two states for two peoples. That seems fair to me, and I urge
all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my thoughts on H. Res.
326, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives
regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
While I am a firm believer in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
and the two-state solution, I am disappointed that the version of the
resolution brought to the Floor did not reflect the language as
introduced, language that I and 191 of my colleagues cosponsored.
It remains my firm belief that the United States must continue to
call for an end to Israeli settlement expansion and oppose Israel's
unilateral annexation of territory. Furthermore, the United States must
do more to uphold human rights and ensure that democratic ideals are
preserved as part of the process.
All humankind deserves to live a productive life without fear of
threat to their safety. That is why I remain committed to the peace
process and welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues, on both
sides of the aisle, to achieve that aim.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution
326, a resolution I drafted with Congressman Alan Lowenthal and
Congressman Gerry Connolly to express the support of Congress regarding
efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a
negotiated two-state solution.
For more than 20 years, U.S. Presidents from both political parties
and Israeli Prime Ministers have supported reaching a two-state
solution that establishes a Palestinian state living side by side with
Israel in peace and security. I am proud to have assisted in drafting
this important resolution, which affirms that commitment.
Our government's established decades-worth of commitment to a two-
state solution in order to enhance stability and security in the Middle
East and to ensure the state of Israel's survival while addressing the
legitimate desires of the Palestinian people for a state of their own
reflects our fundamental dedication to promote peace.
This resolution builds on our ongoing commitment and our historic
alliance with Israel. I strongly support it.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
House Resolution 326. This resolution expresses this chamber's strong
support for the longstanding belief that a two-state solution to the
Israel-Palestine conflict is the best option to ensure Palestinian
autonomy and Israel's survival as a Jewish democratic state.
During my time in this chamber, I have been a firm supporter of a
negotiated two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. While I
believe both parties will have to make difficult decisions to ensure a
long-lasting peace, I believe it can be done in a way that ensures that
[[Page H9307]]
the human rights of Palestinians are respected while also securing the
safety of our closest ally in the region.
This administration's capitulation to Benjamin Netanyahu and his
allies on the extreme right in Israeli domestic politics has severely
damaged the ability of the United States to be considered a fair
neutral party in this conflict. It has made Israel less safe in the
long term and has only driven Palestinians into the arms of bad actors
in the region like Hamas.
In May 2018, this administration chose to abandon our European allies
by announcing the withdrawal of the United States from the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Shortly thereafter, the Administration relocated the United States
Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem while subsequently eliminating the
Consulate General office in Jerusalem, which served as a key diplomatic
line to the Palestinian Authority.
Additionally, this administration has stripped funding from the
United Nations Relief and Work Agency. This agency has worked
tirelessly to help Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria,
Lebanon, and Jordan, by providing food, housing, education, and other
necessities. Eliminating these funds jeopardizes the ability of the
UNRWA to help these individuals live as normal a life as possible. It
also threatens the security of the Israeli people by ensuring more of
these people turn to terrorist organizations like Hamas when their
basic needs fail to be met.
Last month, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, announced that Israeli
settlements in the occupied West Bank did not violate international
law. This drastic change in policy on the issue of Israeli settlements
essentially gives the green light to the Israeli government to
unilaterally annex portions of this region. Any form of annexation
would essentially kill the idea of a two-state solution.
Mr. Speaker, we are voting on this resolution today to show the
international community that regardless of this administration's
reckless actions, the United States can play a constructive role in
resolving this conflict that has lasted for more than 70 years. I urge
all my colleagues to swiftly pass this resolution.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, as a co-sponsor of H. Res. 326 as
introduced on April 25, 2019, I support Representative Lowenthal's
determination to advance U.S. leadership in seeking a diplomatic
resolution to achieve a ``two-state solution'' to end the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, amendments to the resolution mean
I can no longer vote in favor of H. Res. 326 and I will be voting
``present.''
For years, I have heard colleagues say, ``It's only a resolution. It
really doesn't mean anything.'' At a time when the Trump administration
is actively taking policy actions to inflict pain on the Palestinian
people while giving a green light to Israel's annexation of Palestinian
lands, a statement by the House of Representatives to Israelis and
Palestinians does mean something.
Is there any doubt Israel and the security of the Israeli people have
the strong support of Congress? There is zero doubt. But millions of
Palestinians working to build a peaceful future feel that they have
been abandoned by Congress and attacked by the White House. The U.S. is
no longer an honest broker in any diplomatic peace initiative between
Israelis and Palestinians. The language added to H. Res. 326 stating an
``ironclad commitment'' to $38 billion in foreign military aid only
highlights the contrast that there is no ironclad U.S. commitment to
human rights or even providing the most basic life-saving humanitarian
aid to the Palestinian people. This House vote today does not reflect
the reality on the ground.
This is the time to unequivocally support both the Palestinian
people's right to self-determination, justice, equality, and human
rights as well as Israel's right to live in peace and security. U.S.
aid must never be an ``ironclad'' blank check to any nation. I believe
if U.S. military aid to Israel is being used to enable or support the
military detention and torture of Palestinian children, the demolition
of Palestinian homes, or the annexation of Palestinian lands there
should be conditions on that aid--not cuts to aid, but conditions--as
has been done to aid to the Palestinians.
Striving for an Israeli state and a Palestinian state living side-by-
side in peace and security is worth the effort of every Member of
Congress. But that means Congress will need to support the legitimate
rights, needs, and aspirations of both Palestinians and Israelis. In my
opinion, H. Res. 326 maintains the status quo and fails to move us
towards achieving peace. A peace that both Israelis and Palestinians
deserve and need.
[From Noa Landau, Lisbon, Dec. 5, 2019]
Netanyahu Says `Our Full Right' to Annex Jordan Valley, Despite ICC
Prosecutor Report
AFP Lisbon--Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Haaretz
Thursday that it's Israel's full right to annex the Jordan
Valley if it chooses to do so.
PM says political deadlock hinders controversial move,
adding: `Exactly because of that we should form a government
now and do it'
Earlier Thursday, International Criminal Court Prosecutor
Fatou Bensouda expressed concern over Israeli proposals to
annex this West Bank region.
Asked on the matter by reports in Lisbon, the premier said
``It's our full right to do so if we decide,'' despite the
ICC prosecutor's report.
Asked about a timeline for the proposed annexation,
Netanyahu said ``there are some questions about what can be
done in a transition government. Exactly because of that we
should form a government now and do it.''
When asked whether he would agree to renounce serving first
as prime minister in a rotation agreement if Kahol Lavan
agrees to annex the Jordan Valley and to a defense treaty
with the United States, Netanyahu said ``those things will be
achieved when I'm prime minister. I have thousands of hours
on American prime-time TV and that has a certain influence on
the United States, especially now. I won't be able [to
influence] if I'm not prime minister.''
Netanyahu refused to tell the press whether he intends to
seek immunity from the Knesset in his three pending
corruption cases and cancel Likud's primary election, arguing
he wouldn't address personal matters in the briefing.
``I intend to invest every effort, despite Kahol Lavan's
objection, to reach an agreement and prevent this truly
unnecessary election. Benny Gantz can [prevent it] if he
manages to overcome Yair Lapid and if [Avigdor] Lieberman
overcomes himself,'' Netanyahu said, referring to Kahal Lavan
co-leader and Yisrael Beiteinu chairman, who said he has no
intention to have his party join a narrow, right-wing
government headed by Netanyahu.
``I hope that a minority government with the Joint List is
not an option,'' the premier said, reiterating a claim that
his political rivals are backed by Arab lawmakers.
When asked why he refuses to resign, the prime minister
said that ``the public has chosen me. Let the public
decide.''
Responding on the option of holding a direct election for
the prime minister between him and Gantz, Netanyahu said:
``First, let's try to avoid another election, but this that's
an option that's becoming interesting.''
Earlier today, Netanyahu met with U.S. Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo after his phone call conversation with U.S.
President Donald Trump on Sunday, when they also discussed
the annexation of the Jordan Valley, which Netanyahu told
voters in September he would achieve.
Before taking off from Tel Aviv, Netanyahu told reporters
his meeting with Pompeo would be focused on ``Iran, first of
all,'' a mutual defense treaty and a ``future'' American
recognition of Israel's annexation of the Jordan Valley.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution that
reaffirms longstanding U.S. policy regarding the two-state solution and
which squarely condemns unilateral acts by any party (and I hope the
Administration understands that includes the U.S.) that undermines that
goal.
The two-state solution has been such a central part of the U.S.
policy for this region that it rightly deserves its own debate in this
House, rather than just a passing reference in legislation as we have
seen in the past.
As noted by the resolution, for more than 20 years, ``Presidents of
the United States from both political parties and Israeli Prime
Ministers have supported reaching a two-state solution that establishes
a Palestinian state coexisting side by side with Israel in peace and
security.''
Yet, somehow the two-state solution has now become a controversial
position, including within the current Administration which goes out of
its way to not even mention it as a goal of our policy anymore. In
light of the Administration's refusal to even say the phrase, more and
more leaders in the region feel emboldened to also publicly oppose two
states living side by side in peace and security.
It is even more critical now that the U.S. Congress unambiguously and
clearly express support for the two-state solution.
Current trends are moving us farther away from peace or security and
the Administration's efforts are doing nothing to stop that. As a
hundred of my colleagues and I recently noted in a letter to the State
Department, the Administration's recent announcement declaring that
Israeli settlements in the occupied territories do not violate
international law as far as the U.S. is concerned, ``following the
administration's decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem outside
of a negotiated agreement; its closure of the Palestinian mission in
Washington, D.C. and U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem; and its halting of
aid Congress appropriated to the West Bank and Gaza, has
[[Page H9308]]
discredited the United States as an honest broker between Israel and
the Palestinian Authority, severely damaged prospects for peace, and
endangered the security of America, Israel, and the Palestinian
people.''
This legislation sends a clear message that any U.S. proposal to
achieve a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
``should expressly endorse a two-state solution as its objective.''
Additionally, the resolution also makes clear that ``Presidents of
the United States from both political parties have opposed settlement
expansion, moves toward unilateral annexation of territory, and efforts
to achieve Palestinian statehood status outside the framework of
negotiations with Israel.''
It reaffirms the Administration's obligation to actively ``discourage
steps by either side that would put a peaceful end to the conflict
further out of reach, including unilateral annexation of territory or
efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood status outside the framework
of negotiations with Israel.''
I don't have to tell my colleagues that unilateral actions, such as
annexation or unilateral declarations of statehood will not or cannot
achieve the peace or security that is so urgently desired.
Additionally, I know that this legislation has been changed to remove
references to occupation and to the settlement enterprise. Whether you
agree or disagree with those changes, doing so does not and will not
change the actual facts on the ground or the obstacles to peace that
remain. And our debate should be based on recognizing those facts,
however discouraging or contentious they may be. The Israeli's and
Palestinians deserve a debate that does so accurately.
The time for pushing for peace is always now.
But let's be clear, the sentiment in this resolution is only a start.
Acknowledging the need for two states is important but even more so is
working to actually achieve it. And that is where work needs to happen.
What we need are bold steps forward. Not some half-baked peace plan
that has taken nearly three years to develop, is apparently subject to
the whims of the U.S. and Israeli election cycles, and has already been
dismissed by key stakeholders in the region.
If the Administration refuses to do so, then its time that Congress
consider what actions it can take to make the vision of the two-state
that we so beautifully describe in this resolution into a reality.
Because today, the reality on the ground is one state, continuing
tensions, and cycles of violence that can easily escalate.
It's no longer good enough to give lip service to two-states.
So I thank the leadership for bringing this to the floor and for
welcoming this debate in the House.
And I know that the two-state solution has its critics who are just
as frustrated as I am that both sides have seemingly never failed to
miss an opportunity to let peace slip away. But the deadly status quo
is no substitute. And wishful thinking for some other ``alternative''
option also is no substitute.
Achieving two-states was never going to be easy. Peace never is.
But ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is vital to the interests
of our country, Israel, the Palestinians, and the broader region and
international communities. This is why we continue to advocate for two-
states despite the setbacks and spoilers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Veasey). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 741, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution and on the preamble, as amended.
The question is on adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________