[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]



                                Protests

  Mr. President, I hadn't planned to talk about this, but I was 
watching the floor earlier today when there was a heated discussion on 
the Senate floor about the chaos and violence we have seen on the 
streets in many of our great cities.
  The peaceful demonstrations, which developed really spontaneously 
after the tragic death of George Floyd and other injustices, delivered 
a powerful message about the need to address racial disparities and 
about the need for police reforms.
  The right to demonstrate peacefully must be protected, but the 
looting, the desecration of monuments, the arson, and the destruction 
of property, including small businesses in some of these communities of 
color--it breaks my heart to see some of these small business owners 
talk about what they are going through; the injuries to our law 
enforcement officers who are just doing their jobs, doing what they are 
asked to do in a professional way; and, of course, the self-appointed 
statue destroyers we have seen. This lawlessness, in too many 
instances, must not be tolerated. Those who have exploited the 
situation and the peaceful demonstrations to foment this violence are 
undermining the cause of the peaceful marchers and further dividing an 
already polarized country.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                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.

                          ____________________