[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 147 (Friday, September 20, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5546-H5548]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          A TWO-STATE SOLUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 9, 2023, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise.
  And still I rise today, and I stand alone. I stand alone, Mr. 
Speaker, because sometimes it is better to stand alone than not stand 
at all.
  I stand today, mindful of the words of the great Voltaire, the great 
intellectual who reminds us that it is dangerous, Mr. Speaker, to be 
right in affairs where established men are wrong.
  I rise today to take a stand and call to the attention of the Nation 
that I love, I love this country. I salute the flag. I stand for the 
national anthem. I sing the national anthem.
  I remind everyone that the greatness of America will not be measured 
by whether the Al Greens of the world will stand and sing and salute.
  The greatness of America will be measured by whether the Al Greens of 
the world will defend those who choose not to stand, sing, and salute, 
and I do. I defend them.
  I believe that the greatness of the country resides in our ability to 
have people that we disagree with stand before us, look us in the eye, 
announce their disagreement, and yet, we take that understanding that 
in this country, we can disagree and still have a great country.
  I stand today to call to the attention of the Nation and the many who 
may not know, but a good many may know what I am about to share, and I 
have with me evidence of what I speak.
  This, my dear friends, is from CNN by Andrew Carey, July 18, 2024, 
which would be a little more than 2 months, as I calculate things.
  And it reads: ``Israeli Lawmakers Vote Overwhelmingly Against 
Palestinian Statehood''--remember, July 18, 2024. It goes on to say: 
``Challenging U.S. Policy.'' This is the style of this article 
published by CNN.
  These are the words. ``The Biden administration received another 
rebuff from Israel Wednesday night--this time from the country's 
parliament.'' The parliament would be the Knesset. That would be 
similar to--not the same as but similar to our Congress.
  This is a rebuff, per CNN, from the parliament of Israel ``over the 
United States' longstanding support for the eventual establishment of a 
Palestinian state.''
  Now, this is important to me because since I have been in Congress, 
and I arrived in 2005, there has been a policy of a two-state solution, 
a state for Palestinians and a state for Israelis--longstanding.
  In fact, I have voted for it. I have voted to send money to Israel 
because I thought the two-state solution was the goal that we were all 
working toward. I have voted for more than $50 billion, thinking that 
we were moving toward a two-state solution.
  Well, this article goes on to say: ``A two-state solution to the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been U.S. policy for decades''--I 
agree with that, it has--``but absent negotiations between the two 
sides, and a lack of sustained effort by the U.S.''--I shall repeat--
``a lack of sustained effort by the U.S. to make it happen.''
  Now, the contention in this article is that the United States has not 
made a sustained effort to make it happen.
  I believe that the Biden administration has. I have witnessed much of 
what the Biden administration is trying to do and has done.
  It goes on to read: ``On Wednesday evening, the Israeli Parliament 
made clear its position, voting by 68-9 to reject any creation of a 
Palestinian state.''
  Mr. Speaker, 68-9, the Israeli Parliament has voted to reject any 
creation of a Palestinian state. Many people don't know this. I am 
grateful that CNN has published it.
  It goes on. ``The Knesset of Israel firmly opposes the establishment 
of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan [River].''
  Actually, it says west of the Jordan, but we know that that is the 
Jordan River. The Jordan River is at the West Bank, and it is the West 
Bank of Jordan, not the West Bank of Israel. It is a part of what 
should be a Palestinian state. We have the West Bank.
  I will read this again because this is exceedingly important. ``The 
Knesset of Israel firmly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian 
state west of the Jordan [River].''

[[Page H5547]]

  Now, if you do that west of the Jordan River, that is another way of 
saying from the river to the sea, from the river to the sea, no 
Palestinian state from the river to the sea.
  Now, in this country, if you say from the river to the sea, Palestine 
will be free, well, that would be anti-Semitic.

  Well, what is it if the Knesset of Israel, the governing body, the 
Knesset of Israel--and this is not just some person on the street.
  ``The Knesset of Israel firmly opposes the establishment of a 
Palestinian state west of the Jordan [River].''
  From the river to the sea. That would include all of what at one time 
was known as Palestine. All of what at one time was known as Palestine.
  I challenge anyone within the sound of my voice or anyone who is 
seeing this to look for a map with Palestine on it, a map depicting the 
area today.
  It is not on the map. You may find it on some, but most maps will not 
have a place called Palestine on them today.
  Now, remember, in 1948, the place that we are now calling Israel, as 
you will see later on in this article, was called Palestine.
  The mandate was to have two states; one for Palestinians, one for 
Israelis. Somehow, this has metamorphosed into Israel in the minds of 
many people, but not in my mind.
  I am still on the two-state solution program that I voted for and 
sent more than $50 billion to help accomplish.

                              {time}  1200

  From the river to the sea, the Knesset of Israel firmly opposes a 
Palestinian state. This is the Knesset of Israel.
  It goes on to indicate: ``The establishment of a Palestinian state in 
the heart of the land of Israel''--``a Palestinian state in the heart 
of the land of Israel.''
  Remember, 1948, all of this land was called Palestine--well, I should 
say 1947, 1948. Then there was a mandate. Pursuant to the mandate, 
there were to be two states, a State of Israel and a state of 
Palestine.
  However, we find here that the Knesset of Israel has concluded that 
the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the land of 
Israel--what happened to Palestine? What happened to the land that was 
to become a Palestinian state?
  ``The establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the land 
of Israel would pose an existential danger to the State of Israel and 
its citizens, perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . .''
  What will happen if there is no state for the Palestinians? Will that 
be perpetual peace if there is no state for the Palestinians? What are 
you saying when you say that there will be no state for the 
Palestinians? What will there be? Will there be a one-state solution in 
a state called Israel?
  If that is the case, what will the Palestinians become? Will they 
have full citizenship in a state called Israel? Will they become a part 
of an apartheid state? What will happen to the Palestinians?
  It is a fair question to ask when you have the Israeli Knesset 
indicating that there will be no Palestinian state from the river to 
the sea, which is all of what used to be called Palestine.
  It goes on to indicate: ``perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 
and destabilize the region,'' the declaration read.
  Well, there are many questions to be asked. I don't know that the 
answers are going to be readily available, but it seems to me that this 
is perspicuously clear, and there will be no Palestinian state if the 
current Israeli Government has its way.
  Let's go on. Same news article. It reads: ``Among those who backed 
it,'' meaning this resolution, ``was Benny Gantz, an opponent of Prime 
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Gantz' vote serves as a blow to those in 
Washington''--that would be us--``who see him as someone more inclined 
to seek a negotiated peace with Palestinians if he ever became Israel's 
leader.''
  Now we have the current Prime Minister, who is supportive of this 
resolution, and we have a potential Prime Minister, Mr. Benny Gantz, 
who has voted in favor of the resolution, as well.
  It reads: ``Instead, the resolution was `a signal to the 
international community that pressure to impose a Palestinian state on 
Israel is futile.' '' That is what this is supposed to signal, Mr. 
Speaker, futile.
  We are trying to negotiate a two-state solution when the Government 
of Israel has already passed a resolution that says we are not going to 
do that, there will be no two-state solution from the river to the sea.
  Can you imagine if someone in this country said there will be no 
Israel from the river to the sea, what our response would be?
  Do we not care about the Palestinians? Are they not human beings? Did 
they not have a place in the land that was called Palestine prior to 
1947, 1948? Do the Palestinians not matter to anybody? They ought to 
have a place in the land that was called Palestine.
  ``Instead, the resolution was `a signal to the international 
community that pressure to impose a Palestinian state on Israel is 
futile.' ''
  Why are we imposing a Palestinian state on Israel? We are imposing a 
Palestinian state pursuant to the mandate in a place called Palestine. 
We talk about these things as though Israel owns all of the land, and 
the Palestinians are foreigners who have somehow encroached upon the 
land of Israel.
  Futile. ``Instead, the resolution was `a signal to the international 
community that pressure to impose a Palestinian state on Israel is 
futile,' leader of the right-wing opposition `New Hope' Party, Gideon 
Saar, said, according to the Haaretz newspaper.''
  Now we have the Knesset saying no. From the river to the sea, there 
will be no Palestinian state.
  Let's get another opinion. This article has been published in many 
publications, including the Times of Israel. This one was taken from 
the Economic Times, but the essence of what is here has been published 
many times.
  Now, this reads: `` `We are not another star in American flag': 
Israel minister dismisses U.S. criticism over emigration of Gazan 
civilians.'' This is from January 3, 2024, not that long ago.
  Then this Israeli Prime Minister says: ``I really admire the United 
States of America, but with all due respect''--by the way, I am not 
angry with him for what I am about to read. I respect him. I am not 
upset. He says: ``I really admire the United States of America, but 
with all due respect, we are not another star in the American flag.''
  I agree with that. You are not another star in the American flag. No 
quarrel with that. Then he goes on to say--this is Ben Gvir--I want to 
make sure I get it right. No disrespect to you, sir. He heads the 
ultranationalist Otzma Yehudit party. This is what he said in the 
statement, ``not another star in the American flag.'' I agree, you are 
not.
  Then he adds: ``The United States is our best friend''--no 
disagreement there--``but before everything else, we will do what is 
good for the State of Israel.'' Now, that is a minister, part of the 
Israeli Government, said he is going to do what is in the best 
interests of Israel. Who can be upset with him for saying he is going 
to do what is in the best interests of his country? I think he probably 
loves his country like I love my country, so he is doing what is in the 
best interests of his country.
  Well, let's see what he thinks is in the best interests of his 
country. He goes on to say: ``Do what is good for the State of 
Israel.'' Then he adds: ``The emigration of hundreds of thousands from 
Gaza will allow residents''--this is being said parenthetically, but I 
will read it to you--``[of the border area] to return home and live in 
security and protect IDF soldiers.''

  We need to focus on the word ``emigration.'' Emigration is thought by 
some to mean you will leave and you may return, but here is what 
Webster said emigration is ``departure from a place of abode, natural 
home, or country for life or residence elsewhere.'' You are not coming 
back. He has no problem with emigration of hundreds of thousands from 
Gaza.
  Now, remember, Gaza and the West Bank are about all that the 
Palestinians can hope for at this point. Gaza and the West Bank, it is 
about all.
  Well, if they leave and they can't return, then that becomes more 
land for Israel, which then means that all that the Palestinians may 
hope for would be the West Bank, which, of course, is being encroached 
upon by the settlers.

[[Page H5548]]

  We find ourselves now with this minister indicating that he sees 
nothing wrong, it would be good for the State of Israel.
  Now, dear friends, friends, if this official can say that he will do 
what is good for the State of Israel, is it wrong for me to stand in 
the well of the Congress of the United States of America, born here in 
the United States of America, born in Louisiana, lived my life here in 
the United States of America, no desire to live anywhere else or move 
to any other place, is it wrong for me to say that I think I should do 
what is in the best interests of my country?
  He does what is in the best interests of his country; I do what is in 
the best interests of my country. I don't believe it is in the best 
interests of my country for us to continue to send billions of dollars 
to Israel when Israel's Knesset has voted from the river to the sea 
there will be no Palestinian state. From the river to the sea.
  My God, can you imagine what would happen if someone stood here in 
the well of the House of Representatives and said, from the river to 
the sea there will be no State of Israel? I don't have to imagine it. I 
have seen what happens. They get punished. They become an anti-Semite.
  What do we call the people who say, from the river to the sea, there 
will be no Palestinian state? Is there a double standard? Is there a 
double standard? I believe that there has to be a Palestinian state, so 
I am out of step with a good many people. Remember, however, I believe 
it is better to stand alone than to not stand at all.
  I don't think that it is good for the United States to continue to 
fund wars that a good many people in this country do not support. I am 
one of them. I think it is time to bring this war to an end. It is time 
for us to move toward a two-state solution, but also more importantly 
or equally as important, it is time to bring home the hostages. 
Negotiate so that the hostages can be released. It is time for them to 
be released. Let them go home.
  It is time for us to negotiate a serious two-state solution, but 
unfortunately the Knesset has said that it will not happen. This 
government says that it won't.

                              {time}  1215

  Well, I contend that if this government says that it won't, that it 
is okay. The government in Israel has every right to make these 
comments, but I also think that the government of the United States has 
every right to say: No more money, no more bombs, no more planes. You 
can do what you choose, you are a sovereign nation, but so is the 
United States of America.
  We are a sovereign Nation, Mr. Speaker. We have every right to say: 
That if you can't agree on the two-state solution that was mandated in 
1948, 1947, then okay.
  We don't have to support eternal conflict. We don't have to support 
the war where thousands of babies have been killed. We don't have to 
support the taking of the land from the Palestinians in the West Bank 
by the settlers. We don't have to support this.
  But I don't speak for us. I speak for myself and everybody who agrees 
with me, and a good many people do, by the way.
  I believe that our alternative to continuing to support the erosion 
of Palestinian land, the taking of Palestinian land, the declaring that 
there will be no Palestinian state, I think we should acknowledge that 
you are a sovereign nation, but so are we and that we will stand for 
what we have stood for for decades and that is a two-state solution.
  I compliment President Biden for making this a significant issue as 
we go through this time of great turmoil. I compliment him, but I think 
that we have reached a point now where there has to be a change in our 
policy. If Israel changed its policy, we can change ours. It is time 
for a change in the American policy.
  We can still be friends. The government of Israel, the country of 
Israel, will be our friend, but we don't have to support this war. We 
can ask for peace, and peace is the solution. There is not going to be 
a solution other than a peaceful two-state solution if you want peace.
  Now, if you want eternal conflict or if you want calm, if you want 
things to calm down, then you can have a one-state solution. Remember 
this: There is a calm in a dungeon where people are suffering. You can 
have calm in a dungeon, but that is not peace.
  If we want peace where neighbors can work together, you have to work 
toward it. You don't make peace with friends. They are already in a 
peaceful relationship. You have to make peace with people who have been 
antithetical to your views.
  It is time to say you don't have to make peace, but we don't have to 
support what you are doing.
  We have got an aircraft carrier with Americans out there at risk, 
nuclear powered. It is like a floating military base. When we send out 
these nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, I am told they can be fueled 
such that, if need be, they can stay for 25 years, and it has other 
ships and other aircraft there with it, some 90 aircraft.
  Our people are at risk because we have a state, by and through its 
government, who is saying there will be no two-state solution, and we 
have now what appears to be a conflict that is expanding and may 
eventually become a conflagration. It is expanding.
  I am for everybody having the right to defend themselves, and that 
has to include the State of Israel.
  I am also for peace, and peace is not going to be gained by 
continuing the process of making war. At some point, either someone is 
going to trigger something that will take this to a different place, or 
we will back off and try to have arrangements first and then peace to 
follow. All of the hostages should be brought home, all of them.
  Now, I close with this, Mr. Speaker. I have said that I don't think 
that our government should continue to support the war, but I don't 
speak for the government, so I am going to speak for myself now. I 
didn't speak for the government before. Everything that I have said, I 
speak for myself and all of those who agree with me.
  Here is what I say. If you bring a standalone bill to this floor, I 
am going to vote against it. If it is a standalone bill, just as the 
last one was--I believe it was the last--to send more funds to Israel, 
it is no secret, don't count me as a yea. Count me as a nay if you 
bring a standalone bill.
  Now, someone would say: Why wouldn't you just say that you are going 
to vote against any bill?
  Well, because I have been here long enough to have the good sense to 
know that these things can be packaged such that you have to hold your 
nose and your breath and close your eyes and turn your back and just 
vote for it. You may not want to, but the way it is packaged can push 
you into a corner, a place that you dare not go and don't want to be, 
but you do.
  If you bring a standalone bill, I am voting against it and probably 
will vote against others that are not standalone, depending on how they 
have been packaged. It is time for us to take a stand.
  There is a song, a spiritual song, that has the words ``just stand,'' 
``just stand.'' ``After you've done all you can''--and I am doing all 
that I can.
  After you have done all that you can, knowing that it is dangerous to 
be right in affairs where established men are wrong, after you have 
done all that you can, just stand. Just stand. Stand for liberty and 
justice for all as represented by that flag behind the Speaker.
  Stand with Carlyle: ``No lie can live forever.''
  Stand with William Cullen Bryant: ``Truth, crushed to earth, shall 
rise again.''
  Stand with Dr. King: ``The arc of the moral universe is long, but it 
bends toward justice.''
  Stand knowing that the words of C.A. Tindley are powerful and right:

       Harder yet may be the fight;
       Right may often yield to might;
       Wickedness high may seem to reign;
       And Satan's cause may seem to gain.
       But there is a God that rules above,
       With a hand of power and a heart of love;
       And when I am right, I just believe that God will help me 
     fight.

  Harder yet may be the fight, Mr. Speaker.
  Harder may be the fight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________