[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 23, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S219-S220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GAZA
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, the October 7 slaughter of at least 1,200
innocent Israeli citizens and the abduction of 240 hostages was a
monumental atrocity. The cruelty and depravity of that massacre,
especially the torture and killings of women and girls, has shocked our
collective conscience. Like others here, I have consistently supported
Israel's right and responsibility to respond. We would all like to see
Hamas disappear. But people with decades of experience in the Middle
East say that is almost certainly not going to happen. To the contrary,
they warn that the Netanyahu government's wholesale destruction of
Gaza, which has caused the death of more than 24,000 of its citizens
and displaced more than 1.5 million who had nothing to do with the
crimes of October 7, will increase the terrorist threat by Hamas and
other violent extremist groups who share a common hatred of Israel and
the United States.
As horrifying as the October 7 attack was, neither the atrocities
committed that day, nor Gaza's dense population and Hamas's insidious
use of civilian infrastructure, justify the appalling scale of death
and destruction in Gaza directed by Prime Minister Netanyahu that has
ignited global condemnation. It has also failed to free the hostages
whose survival becomes more precarious every minute of every day.
The inescapable conclusion is that the Netanyahu government is not
listening to either the White House or to key Arab governments that are
imploring Israel to change course. Their belief, which I share, is that
the way to begin to build a safer and ultimately more stable and secure
Middle East is to stop killing and otherwise mistreating innocent
Palestinians. Yet Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has rejected out of
hand the right of Palestinians to have a state of their own, is
stubbornly pursuing the opposite approach with no political endgame. It
is difficult not to conclude that his enemy is not only Hamas but also
the Palestinian people. To make matters worse, he reportedly denies
there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, despite overwhelming evidence
to the contrary.
Last week, Netanyahu said he ``needs to be able to say no, even to
our best friends.'' Well, American taxpayers provided the planes and
bombs and tanks, and the United States needs to be able to say no to
him. How much worse does the situation have to get in Gaza, and how
much wider of a war in the Middle East, before we use this country's
considerable leverage--including withholding additional lethal aid--to
get Israel to stop its bombing campaign, negotiate a ceasefire and the
release of the remaining hostages, and allow the dramatic increase in
food, water, and other humanitarian aid needed to prevent the
widespread starvation, death, and disease the UN and other relief
organizations warn is imminent?
What is happening in Gaza is intolerable and we share responsibility.
In a January 17, 2024, op-ed in the New York Times entitled ``Team
Biden Needs a Reset on Israel,'' David Levy, with whom I had the
privilege of traveling to the Middle East some years ago, makes the
case more effectively than I could. I hope President Biden and his top
advisers read it.
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Jan. 17, 2024]
Team Biden Needs a Reset on Israel
(By Daniel Levy)
Back in 2001, in a visit to the illegal West Bank
settlement of Ofra, an out-of-office Benjamin Netanyahu,
apparently unaware he was being recorded, boasted to his
hosts that ``America is a thing you can move very easily--
move it in the right direction.''
At the time, Mr. Netanyahu was talking about his experience
with the Clinton White House; he had undermined Washington-
led peace efforts during his first stint as Israel's prime
minister. But more than 20 years later, Mr. Netanyahu's
assessment feels uncomfortably familiar.
Since the Biden administration pledged its early and
unwavering support to Israel following Hamas's Oct. 7
attacks, Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly slow-walked
Washington's behind-the-scenes requests regarding the war,
including that Israel use greater restraint in prosecuting
its war in Gaza, avoid provoking a broader regional
conflagration and work to forge a postwar path toward peace.
As a result, as the war has entered its fourth month, the
Biden administration has achieved almost none of its goals
regarding Israeli policies and actions. More than 23,000
Palestinians, including over 10,000 children, have been
killed so far, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health
Ministry, and the threat of mass starvation and disease
looms. Israel's government has rejected any horizon for
peace, and, after an initial pause in fighting and a hostage/
prisoner exchange, such talks seem now to be at an impasse.
The only ``success'' the United States can claim is in its
steadfast support for Israel. And yet the unconditional
nature of that backing stands in the way of any prospect of
achieving its other policy goals and finding a path out of
this horror.
It's true that in recent days, Israel has signaled a
certain shift in its war strategy, using fewer troops and
focusing more on central and southern Gaza. These steps
appear partly driven by the need to keep down Israeli losses
in the close quarters of urban combat, to offer some relief
to Israel's suffering economy--and possibly in preparation
for an escalation on Israel's northern border.
[[Page S220]]
Such shifts don't seem intended to dial back the snowballing
regional tensions, nor will they prevent the increasing
humanitarian suffering. President Biden has sounded
increasingly exasperated by developments on all of these
fronts, frustrations echoed in comments by his secretary of
state, Antony Blinken, during his latest visit to the region.
Rather than slowly amplifying expressions of disquiet, Team
Biden should make a course correction--starting with
exercising the very real diplomatic and military leverage at
its disposal to move Israel in the direction of U.S.
interests, rather than vice versa.
The first and most critical shift required is for the
administration to embrace the need for a full cease-fire now.
That demand cannot be one of rhetoric alone. The
administration should condition the transfer of further
military supplies on Israel ending the war and stopping the
collective punishment of the Palestinian civilian population,
and should create oversight mechanisms for the use of
American weaponry that is already at Israel's disposal.
Ending Israel's Gaza operation is also the surest way to
avoid a regional war and the key to concluding negotiations
for the release of hostages.
Washington can also leverage the deliberations underway at
the International Court of Justice, where South Africa has
accused Israel of being in violation of its obligations as a
signatory to the 1948 international genocide convention.
Israel is demonstrably nervous about the proceedings and
understands that an International Court of Justice ruling has
heft; indeed, South Africa may have already done more to
change the course of events than three months of American
hand-wringing. The Biden administration does not need to
support the South African claims, but it can and should
commit to being guided by any findings of the court.
Finally, the United States should desist from making
endless ritual incantations about a future two-state outcome,
which are all too easily brushed off by Mr. Netanyahu. It
should take at face value his government's categorical
rejection of Palestinian statehood and its written coalition
guidelines that assert ``the Jewish people have an exclusive
and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel.''
Washington should instead challenge Israel to set out a
proposal for how all those living under its control will be
guaranteed equality, enfranchisement and other civil rights.
Doing so could have the added benefit of challenging Mr.
Netanyahu's position. Although he appears to have
consolidated his political base for now, his governing
majority would be lost with just a handful of defections.
Only around 15 percent of Israelis want Mr. Netanyahu to
remain in power after this war ends, according to recent
polls, and street protests could reignite at any moment.
For a combination of ideological, military and personal
political reasons, Mr. Netanyahu probably doesn't want this
war to end. And while his political demise is not a panacea
for progress--nor can it be an explicit U.S. goal--it is
nevertheless a prerequisite for creating the conditions under
which Palestinian rights can be advanced. The United States
can and should distance itself from the Gaza debacle and the
extremism of Israel's leaders.
If Washington does not change its approach, its failures in
this war will have consequences, even beyond the immediate
crisis in Gaza, the hostilities involving the Houthis in
Yemen and the gathering threat of a wider regional conflict.
The world, after all, is watching, and Washington should
not underestimate the extent to which the extremely unpopular
assault on Gaza is seen globally as not only Israel's war,
but America's as well. The U.S. government's transfer of arms
to Israel and the political-diplomatic cover it provides,
including by deploying or threatening its veto at the United
Nations Security Council, makes its ownership of this war
highly conspicuous--and damaging.
There are long-term security implications, too. The callous
Israeli military campaign and its profound impact on
civilians will almost certainly provide recruitment material
for armed resistance for years to come. Arab countries will
find cooperation and normalizing relations with Israel more
burdensome, and Israel's opponents are gaining greater
resonance: Hamas displaying resilience, the Houthis an
impressive disruptive capacity and Hezbollah disciplined
restraint.
With Israel making clear in word and deed its intention to
continue down this dangerous path--indifferent to U.S. needs
and expectations--shouldn't Mr. Biden be keeping a greater
distance?
____________________