[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?

                          ____________________