[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 1924-1925]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF A PALESTINIAN STATE

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MATT SALMON

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, February 4, 1999

  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, the Resolution I have introduced today 
expresses bipartisan, bicameral congressional opposition to the 
unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and urges the President 
to do the same and promise that such a declaration would not be 
recognized by the United States. Before I discuss the merits of the 
bill, I would like to thank Majority Whip DeLay, as well as 
Representatives Saxton and Engel for all of their work in crafting the 
resolution. I would also like to thank Senators Brownback and Wyden for 
introducing the companion resolution in the other chamber.
  The United States owes Chairman Arafat no favors. At least eleven 
American citizens have been killed in Israel by Palestinian terrorists 
since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993. Of the 15 Palestinians 
identified by Israel as participants in these attacks, most are free 
men, and four are reportedly serving in the PA police force. The 
Palestinian Authority harbors more terrorists who have murdered 
Americans than Libya.
  The introduction of the resolution could not be more timely. Today, 
President Clinton is expected to meet with Chairman Arafat at the 
congressional prayer breakfast. His conversation with Chairman Arafat 
should make at least one point clear: The United States will NEVER 
recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state--whether the state 
is declared in this manner on May 4, 1999--the date the Oslo accords 
expire--January 1, 2000, or any date thereafter. It has been reported 
that Chairman Arafat may use the issue of statehood at the meeting to 
leverage the United States to place pressure on Israel to withdraw from 
additional land. President Clinton must not succumb to these tactics.
  As our resolution states, at the heart of the Oslo process lies the 
basic, irrevocable commitment made by Palestinian Chairman Yasser 
Arafat that, in his words, ``all outstanding issues relating to 
permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.'' Resolving the 
political status of the territory controlled by the Palestinian 
Authority while ensuring Israel's security is one of the central issues 
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Therefore, a declaration of 
statehood outside the framework of negotiations would constitute a 
fundamental violation of the accords.
  In mid-July, Chairman Arafat stated that ``there is a transition 
period of five years and after five years we have the right to declare 
an independent Palestinian state.'' On September 24th, Chairman 
Arafat's cabinet threatened to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state 
that would encompass a portion of Jerusalem. The cabinet announced that 
``At the end of the interim period, [the Palestinian Authority] shall 
declare the establishment of a Palestinian state on all Palestinian 
land occupied since 1967, with Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the 
Palestinian state.''

[[Page 1925]]

  Jerusalem is the undivided, eternal capital of Israel, and U.S. law--
the Jerusalem Embassy Act--recognizes that this should be U.S. policy. 
Palestinian threats to declare a state on land they do not have any 
territorial control over--particularly Jerusalem--at the very least 
amounts to a renunciation of the Oslo process, and could legitimately 
be interpreted by Israel as an act of war. The Administration has not 
effectively dampened the dangerous proclamations issued by the 
Palestinian Authority on statehood, and as May 4th rapidly approaches, 
if U.S. policy remains murky, hostilities could occur.
  The most recent statements by Palestinian leaders have been confusing 
and somewhat contradictory. A number of reports indicate that plans for 
a unilateral declaration of statehood may be delayed--at least until 
after Israel holds elections on May 17th. However, some of the comments 
suggest that the Palestinians are still intent on declaring a state on 
May 4th. On January 24th, a senior Palestinian official told the Voice 
of Palestine that May 4th ``is a day [which has] international 
legitimacy'' and that ``the Palestinian leadership can not postpone 
this date for even an hour in announcing an independent Palestinian 
state.'' The day before, another senior official said that May 4th is 
``a historic and vital day,'' suggesting that the Palestinians will 
indeed declare a state on this day.
  The Clinton Administration has done little to discourage Palestinian 
aspirations of having a unilaterally declared state recognized by the 
United States. On several occasions over the past year, the Clinton 
administration has refused to express U.S. opposition to the unilateral 
declaration of an independent Palestinian state, and has left it as an 
open question as to whether the United States will recognize a 
unilaterally declared Palestinian state. As a case in point, during 
President Clinton's visit to Gaza, in December, Chairman Arafat 
reaffirmed his intention of establishing a Palestinian state with its 
capital in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, the President might have only 
encouraged this course when he said: ``[T]he Palestinian people and 
their elected representatives now have a chance to determine their own 
destiny on their own land.''
  Recently, however, the President has issued more appropriate comments 
on the issue of statehood. In an interview for a London-based Saudi 
newspaper in mid-January, President Clinton said that: ``[We] oppose 
the declaration of a state or any other unilateral action by any party 
outside the negotiation process in a manner that could pre-empt the 
negotiations.'' He also said that, ``We are making maximum efforts to 
strengthen negotiations on the final status (of the Palestinian 
territories) and believe that those who think they can adopt unilateral 
measures during the transitory period are opening up a path to 
catastrophe.''
  President Clinton's latest remarks on this issue are welcome but do 
not go far enough. A careful reading of his comments suggests that the 
United States may oppose a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, but 
has left open the possibility of recognition. It is critical for the 
President privately to inform Chairman Arafat and publicly tell the 
world that a unilateral declaration of statehood is a grievous 
violation of Oslo and will be firmly opposed, and never recognized by 
the United States.
  I am encouraged that Congress is working in a bipartisan basis to 
head off this destabilizing threat to peace in the Middle East. It is 
essential that the United States speak loudly and clearly in advance of 
May 4th, to prevent a terrible miscalculation by Chairman Arafat.

                          ____________________