[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 122 (Thursday, July 2, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4207-S4210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
S. 4049
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss
what I believe is an important and consequential matter at this moment:
the way ahead for U.S. relations with our friend and partner, Israel.
The pending legislation before us includes a plan to codify and
extend a multiyear commitment of American security assistance to
Israel. Specifically, it would codify a memorandum of understanding
reached during the Obama administration to provide $38 billion over 10
years in security assistance to Israel. That is $3.8 billion a year.
That is a significant promise. In fact, on an annual basis, that $3.8
billion represents over half of current U.S. foreign military funds
around the world.
It is a big commitment, especially at a time when we are struggling
to invest in supporting our workers, our businesses, and our economy
here at home during this global pandemic.
While it is a sizable commitment, it is one I have supported because
Israel is a close ally and friend that lives in a very dangerous and
volatile part of the world. It is surrounded on many fronts with
enemies who would like to destroy it, including Iran, Hamas, and
Hezbollah.
Moreover, Israel and the United States have a variety of shared
interests. Most importantly, in my view, the United States has an
enduring obligation to support a secure homeland for the Jewish people
after the horrors of the Holocaust.
Under normal circumstances, I would not even come to the Senate floor
today. I have consistently supported the security assistance, and I
still do. So why am I here today?
I am here because while I remain strongly committed to the security
of Israel and providing security assistance, I am also strongly opposed
to Prime Minister Netanyahu's declared intention to unilaterally annex
parts of the West Bank starting this month.
The unilateral annexation of parts of the West Bank would totally
undermine what has been, at least until the Trump administration,
bipartisan American policy in support of a two-state solution that
would ensure the security and the rights of both Israelis and
Palestinians.
Under the leadership of President Harry Truman, the United States
championed the establishment of the State of Israel as a homeland for
the Jewish people, and that remains a steadfast American commitment.
But the right to a secure homeland for the Jewish people does not
include the right to unilaterally annex territories on the West Bank
and deny the Palestinian people a viable state and homeland of their
own.
So I will say it again: The United States should support and continue
to support the legitimate security needs of Israel, but we also need to
stand up for a just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict and for the rule of law and international order that the
United States has championed ever since the end of World War II.
Now, as I said before, the bill before us would codify and extend the
memorandum of understanding between the United States and Israel on
security assistance signed on September 14, 2016. You can be sure that
that memorandum of understanding for security assistance never
contemplated Israel's annexing parts of the West Bank.
In fact, the opposite is true. Part of the American rationale for
providing Israel with robust military assistance has been to give
Israel the confidence to seek a secure peace based on a two-state
solution.
Here is what National Security Advisor Susan Rice said in the Treaty
[[Page S4208]]
Room at the White House at the time of signing that MOU.
She first pointed out that it represented ``the single largest pledge
of military assistance to any country in U.S. history.'' She reinforced
the message that the United States remains absolutely committed to
Israel's security.
Then she said this:
That's also why we continue to press for a resolution to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--two states for two peoples
living side by side in peace and security. As the President--
She was referring to President Obama--
has said, the only way for Israel to endure and thrive as a
Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an
independent and viable Palestinian state.
That is what she said at the signing of the same MOU that we would be
codifying in the bill before us.
Lest anyone think that was simply the position of a Democratic
President and a Democratic administration, it was not.
Susan Rice and Condoleezza Rice have more in common than just their
last names. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice attended the signing
ceremony for the previous memorandum of understanding that took place
on January 16, 2009, and, on that occasion, she too highlighted the
need to achieve ``a two-state solution building upon previous
agreements and obligations.'' She said: `` . . . two-state solution,
which is the only way, ultimately, to secure a future for Israelis and
Palestinians alike over the . . . long term.''
So the Bush administration and the Obama administration, at the
signings of the memorandums of understanding for security assistance,
both said the only way forward was through a viable two-state solution
that recognized the rights, dignity, and aspirations of both peoples.
Now, the unilateral annexation of West Bank land that Prime Minister
Netanyahu has proposed would blow away, would destroy, any real
prospects for a viable two-state solution. It would make a mockery of
the statements made by both National Security Advisor Susan Rice and
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It would make a mockery of the
tenets of a bipartisan U.S. foreign policy up until the Trump
administration.
Make no mistake, those most in favor of unilateral annexation are
those most opposed to any viable two-state solution.
Now, I am under no illusions that a viable two-state solution is a
near-term prospect. It is not right around the corner. The Palestinian
Authority has been weak, and, until recently, because of the one-sided
actions of the Trump administration, has decided not to negotiate. But
even though the near-term chances of a negotiated two-state solution
remain remote, we must preserve--we must preserve--that option, and
preserving that option means strongly opposing the unilateral
annexation of West Bank territory.
Now, the unilateral annexation by Israel of all or any part of the
West Bank will unleash a cascade of harmful consequences.
One, if we become complicit in this action, it will harm our national
security interests and credibility by undermining the fundamental
principles of international law that we in the United States have
championed since the end of World War II.
Two, it will further isolate Israel in the international community,
and many countries--including in Europe--are likely to respond with
different forms of sanctions. Some are already moving in that
direction.
Three, it will harm both our position and Israel's interests in the
Middle East, by weakening allies like Jordan, and threaten to unravel
the warming relationships Israel has built with the Sunni Gulf States
to counter Iran.
The bottom line is that unilateral annexation will greatly strengthen
the hand of our common enemies--Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah--and hurt
friends like Jordan.
Four, it will harm Israel's security by completely undermining the
credibility of the Palestinian Authority and its capacity to
effectively govern the Palestinian areas on the West Bank.
Five, unilateral annexation will ultimately lead to one of two
outcomes. Either all the people in the annexed areas will be extended
equal democratic rights and Israel will risk losing its Jewish
identity, or Palestinians on the West Bank will be relegated to small,
disconnected enclaves with no viable future--what two former Israeli
Prime Ministers have warned is ``slipping toward apartheid.''
Six, if the current Netanyahu government heads down the road of
permanently denying the Palestinian people their right to self-
determination and denies them their basic human rights, then Israel
will increasingly alienate itself from America. That is not in the
interest of either of our two countries.
So those are at least six of the harmful results of unilateral
annexation. I am going to elaborate on each of those points.
No. 1, any American acceptance of unilateral annexation will
undermine the very principle of international law that we have fought
to uphold in the international community since the end of World War II.
The United States has been the architect of the rules-based
international order, as reflected in the U.N. Charter of 1945, as well
as in the Declaration on Principles of International Law, based on the
U.N. Charter, that were signed in 1970 and found in many other
universally agreed-to documents and commitments.
It is well established that one country cannot take territory gained
from another in war. Now, I know the Trump administration has done all
sorts of mental and verbal gymnastics to abandon this long-held
American international principle to create an exception for Israel, but
they look very foolish.
We all recognize that some of the territory proposed to be annexed by
Prime Minister Netanyahu's plan would ultimately be included within
Israel's official boundaries through a process of negotiations. Land
swaps have been a regular feature of the talks, but there is a world of
difference between a negotiated settlement and one imposed by illegal,
unilateral annexation.
If we, the United States, aid and abet this effort, we will lose all
our credibility in condemning other instances of unilateral annexation.
I have with me a wrath of angry statements from Senators of both
parties made here on the floor of the Senate--outraged by Russia's
unilateral annexation of Crimea; outraged by Russia's efforts to extend
its sovereignty over other parts of Ukraine--and Secretary Pompeo
stating that the United States ``does not and will not ever recognize
Moscow's annexation of Crimea.''
I agree. He was right to say it. We, on the Senate floor, were right
to say those things. Those were violations of international law. In
fact, not only did we condemn those actions; we rallied other countries
to impose sanctions on Russia.
But what will Secretary Pompeo say next time? What is Mr. Pompeo
going to say if Turkey, which currently occupies northern Cyprus,
should decide one day that it will unilaterally annex that territory?
That would give Turkey more direct claims to the undersea gas fields
between Cyprus and Israel.
What about China's claims to the islands of the South China Sea, or
other disputed territories in many parts of the world that are claimed
by multiple parties?
The whole reason to abide by a rules-based system is to say not only
no to your adversaries; you must also say no to your friends.
Otherwise, it is not a rules-based system at all; it is the global
jungle.
That is why President Eisenhower said no both to our British and
Israeli friends when they tried to seize the Suez Canal in 1956.
If we accept Prime Minister Netanyahu's unilateral annexation, we
will not have any credibility the next time around when an adversary
does so.
In fact, here is what President Eisenhower had to say at that time:
There can be no peace without law. And there can be no law
if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for
those who oppose us and another for our friends.
That is what President Eisenhower said, and, of course, it makes
sense. On February 20, 1957, President Eisenhower broadcast an address
to the American people about the need for Israel to withdraw from
territories it captured during the 1956 war. In that case, he said we
would not consider occupation of another country as a
[[Page S4209]]
`peaceful means' or proper means to achieve justice and conformity with
international law.''
This is a well-established principle that the United States has
championed in the international arena.
No. 2, the unilateral annexation of parts of the West Bank will
further isolate Israel in Europe and across the world. The EU's foreign
policy chief, Josep Borrell, said recently that annexation ``would
inevitably have significant consequences'' for the EU's relationship
with Israel, and already an array of European parliaments are preparing
responses, including sanctions.
In a joint statement issued on June 24 by the current and incoming EU
members on the U.N. Security Council--that is Germany, Belgium, France,
Estonia, and Ireland--together with the UK and Norway, they together
said: ``We also share the Secretary-General's assessment that if any
Israeli annexation of the Occupied West Bank--however big or small--is
implemented, it would constitute a clear violation of international
law.''
They went on to say ``that following our obligations and
responsibilities under international law, annexation would have
consequences for our close relationship with Israel and would not be
recognized by us.''
None of this should be surprising. Unlike the Trump administration,
they are being consistent in how they react to violations of
international law, applying the same standards to adversaries and
friends alike.
Israel has often been unfairly singled out and unfairly treated and
criticized at the United Nations, and the United States has, on many
occasions, properly exercised its veto to defend Israel against unfair
treatment. But in this case, if Israel moves forward with unilateral
annexation, strong opposition at the U.N. would not be the result of
the world treating Israel differently or unfairly; it would be a self-
inflicted wound. Again, the Trump administration may shield Prime
Minister Netanyahu's government from U.N. action, but don't count on
future administrations to defend illegitimate actions.
Three, unilateral annexation will undermine our security interests in
the Middle East and those of Israel. It will put our friends in the
region in great jeopardy and weaken our coordination with Gulf States
against Iran.
King Abdullah of Jordan very recently emphasized that annexation is
``unacceptable'' and recently warned the Senate of a ``massive
conflict'' if unilateral annexation proceeds.
Here is what the widely respected retired Israeli Defense Force Major
General Amos Gilahd said on June 8 when asked about annexation:
It is a disaster. Why do we need to do it? It is
unnecessary. It is a threat to Israel. We might endanger our
security cooperation with Jordan that is so valuable that
most Israelis can't even imagine.
Arab leaders from the Gulf States, who have been strengthening
cooperation with Israel in recent years, issued similar warnings. The
Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States, Ambassador
Al-Otaiba, headlined a recent article, ``It's either Annexation or
Normalization.''
He said: ``Once it is clear that there is no longer a realistic
chance of a viable, sovereign state of Palestine being created, it
becomes more difficult for Arab leaders to justify publicly their plans
to further develop strategic cooperation with Israel.''
I know it is fashionable in some places these days to discount these
warnings from Arab leaders. After all, it is true, they have cried wolf
before when it comes to following through on their warnings about
certain Israeli actions. We are told: Don't worry. Don't worry, they
don't really mean it; they are just making these pronouncements to
placate the Arab street.
Maybe so, but there is a point where the Arab street will rebel, when
it will explode. And that may be the day when Israel signals that it
will unilaterally annex territory in the West Bank and eliminate any
prospects for a peaceful two-state solution.
What will be the result? The result will be to strengthen Iran, to
strengthen Hamas, to strengthen Hezbollah, handing them a very potent
weapon against Israel and the United States. They will say they have
been proved right, that Israel never intended to negotiate a just
settlement and that the United States has been complicit.
Four, unilateral annexation will jeopardize American-Israeli
cooperation with the Palestinian Authority to provide security and
stability in the West Bank. Unlike Hamas, the Palestinian Authority
long ago recognized Israel's right to exist as part of a dialogue for
peace and a just settlement.
As former IDF Major General Gilead pointed out, the leader of the
Palestinian Authority, President Abbas, ``believes that terror does not
serve the best interests of the Palestinians.''
He went on to say: ``We have a very satisfactory security cooperation
relationship with the PA.''
He predicts: ``The moment there is unilateral annexation, the PA will
lose its legitimacy. If they do, sooner or later they will not be able
to show their faces in the Palestinian street. And who will pay the
price? Our soldiers.''
A respected group known as the Commanders for Israel's Security--a
group of over 220 retired Israeli generals and equivalent ranked
individuals--expressed similar fears, saying that the prospect of
unilateral annexation, like the coronavirus, was an ``ominous
development'' and spelling out the risk of the full collapse of the
Palestinian Authority and its security agencies.
Hamas has always argued that the Palestinian Authority had been
played the fool when it recognized Israel's right to exist. They argued
that Israel would never agree to a just settlement if Palestinians
first gave up armed resistance and first recognized Israel. If Israel
proceeds with unilateral annexation, the legitimacy of the Palestinian
Authority will be diminished and Hamas will be the beneficiary
Five, unilateral annexation and the abandonment of any viable two-
state solution will lead to one of two possible outcomes, neither of
them meeting the goals of the parties. Those two different paths have
been described by Israeli leaders themselves.
Here is the way former Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister
Ehud Barak explained the situation in a Haaretz interview in June 2017.
He said: ``If we keep controlling the whole area from the Mediterranean
to the river Jordan where some 13 million people are living--8 million
Israelis, 5 million Palestinians--if only one entity reigned over this
whole area, named Israel it would become inevitably--that's the key
word, inevitably--either non-Jewish or non-democratic.'' That is from a
former Israeli Prime Minister.
In the event of a scenario in which Palestinians living in an annexed
West Bank are given full rights and allowed to vote, Barak predicted
Israel would quickly become a ``binational state with an Arab majority
and civil war.''
The second option, if you abandon a two-state solution, according to
the former Prime Minister, the second option is the current path, he
said, ``a slippery slope toward apartheid.''
Because those two outcomes are undesirable, he pointed out that
Israel has a ``compelling imperative'' to pursue a solution of two
states for two peoples.
Another former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has also
repeatedly warned that Israel is on a path to apartheid if the two-
state solution collapses. He said, if that happens, Israel will ``face
a South African style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as
that happens, the state of Israel is finished.''
Just recently in the New York Times, former Israeli Ambassador to the
United States Sallai Meridor said: ``If we take steps that make
separation from the Palestinians impossible, we may destroy the very
root of the entire Zionist enterprise.''
Six, I believe unilateral annexation will have all the harmful
impacts I have discussed on the Senate floor today and many more that
so many Israelis have warned about. I hope Prime Minister Netanyahu
will pull back from the brink. But hope and prayer are not a policy. In
normal times, an American President from either political party would
have made clear that such action is unacceptable to the United States
of America, but these are not normal times. We actually have an
American Ambassador to Israel now who is promoting this unilateral
annexation plan and who opposes a two-state solution. Here is what now-
Ambassador Friedman said in November 2016:
[[Page S4210]]
There has never been a ``two state solution'' only a ``two
state narrative.''
He describes it as:
an illusion that serves the worst intentions of both the
United States and the Palestinian Arabs. It has never been a
solution, only a word narrative. But even the narrative
itself now needs to end.
That is from the current U.S. Ambassador in 2016.
In 2016, our current ambassador also said that he is in favor of
extending permanent Israeli control and sovereignty over the entire
area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, clearly snuffing
out any prospects for a two-state solution and the viable way forward.
Ultimately, of course, the government of Israel will make its own
decisions, and then, we here in the United States will have to make
ours. The United States must have a position that reflects our values
and our ideals--our ideals of democracy, of human rights, of equal
justice and rule of law and self-determination.
God knows we are far from perfect here, and we can see that clearly
during this moment of national reckoning around racial justice and
equity. But we have set those principles as our goals, as our North
Star, and until this Trump administration came along, we have also made
human rights and the right of self-determination a key pillar of our
bipartisan American foreign policy.
It is those principles that have led us to support a secure and
democratic Israel as the home for the Jewish people and the
establishment of a separate viable state as the homeland for the
Palestinian people.
The American people support a two-state solution and significantly
the American Jewish committee in the 2019 survey of American Jewish
opinion shows overwhelming support for a two-state solution among the
American Jewish community and a large majority who say Israel should be
willing to dismantle all or some of the settlements as part of a peace
agreement. The next generation--this younger generation--of Americans
and of American Jews is even more focused on issues of human and
political rights for all peoples, Israelis and Palestinians.
There are many who have said that the possibility of a two-state
solution disappeared long ago, with the expansion of settlements and
outposts and the network of roads and checkpoints. They have called the
prospects for a two-state solution a delusion, a mirage; yet, even as
the facts on the ground have made a two-state solution harder to
realize, many of us continue to see that as the vision for the future,
one that brings hope to both peoples.
Make no mistake the unilateral annexation of parts of the West Bank
would be the final nail in the coffin of that idea. So what happens
then? What do we do? Once any remaining hope for that vision is
extinguished, I think we are in unchartered territory. As President
Obama noted in one of his speeches, ``The situation for the Palestinian
people is intolerable.'' And he drew parallels to the struggle of
African Americans for full and equal rights.
Secretary of State John Kerry has said that if the choice is one
state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic; it cannot be both.
``You would have millions of Palestinians permanently living in
segregated enclaves in the middle of the West Bank, with no real
political rights, separate legal, education and transportation systems,
vast income disparities, under a permanent military occupation that
deprives them of the most basic freedoms. Separate and unequal is what
you would have.''
Nelson Mandela often talked about the need to ensure a secure State
of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people and the rights of the
Palestinian people. He said: ``We know too well that our freedom is
incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.'' There is a
memorial statue to Nelson Mandela in Ramallah.
What do we do? What do we do--those of us who are committed to a
vibrant, secure, and democratic Israel that is a home for the Jews but
are also concerned about the abandonment of the vision of a two-state
solution that also respects the aspirations and rights of the
Palestinians?
As I said at the beginning of these remarks, I have strongly
supported security assistance for Israel, and I continue to do so. I
also pointed out that National Security Advisor Susan Rice and
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both indicated in their comments at
the signing ceremony of the MOUs for security assistance that a viable
two-state solution was the only--their words--only way to permanent
peace.
For all the reasons I have stated today, I do not believe that the
U.S. Government, the U.S. taxpayer should be aiding and abetting Prime
Minister Netanyahu's plan to unilaterally annex the West Bank. The
American Government and the American taxpayer must not facilitate or
finance such a process. That is why today a group of 12 Senators has
filed an amendment to the bill to make that position clear--the
position that we fully support the robust $38 billion security
assistance to Israel but also make it clear that those funds should not
be used to facilitate and promote unilateral annexation.
There are many who say that this does not go far enough, and there
are others who oppose annexation but say: Pass the security assistance
without making any statement about annexation or without taking any
action. To them, I am reminded of former Israeli Defense Minister and
Commander Moshe Dayan's statement saying: ``Our American friends offer
us money, arms, and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we
decline the advice.''
We are friends, the United States and Israel. We have many common
interests, but we will also have our differences. This is a moment
when, yes, we should provide the security assistance, the military
assistance. Yet, in doing so, we should also make clear that it should
not be used in any way to promote unilateral annexation.
Our view in filing this amendment is that the only way to reconcile
our strong support for a safe and secure Israel and our commitment to
establishment of two states for two peoples living side by side is what
we proposed.
I hope and pray that Prime Minister Netanyahu will not move forward
with his unilateral annexation plan. I hope we can continue to say that
the U.S.-Israel relationship is built not only on shared interests but
also on shared values.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________