[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Page 4053]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on my 
decision to support two resolutions concerning the Middle East peace 
process. Both of these resolutions express congressional opposition to 
any efforts by either party in the peace process to attempt, through 
unilateral actions, to pre-judge or pre-determine the outcome of the 
negotiations currently taking place between the Palestinians and the 
Israelis. I would like to take a moment to explain why I decided to 
cosponsor these resolutions.
  I believe that one of the most important foreign policy issues facing 
America today is how to encourage peace in the Middle East. Reaching a 
peace agreement at this time is extremely critical, not only to our 
strategic interests in the region, but to the parties themselves. I 
remain optimistic that despite the various setbacks, it will still be 
possible for the parties to achieve a just and lasting peace.
  However, in my view, the only way to achieve such a peace is for the 
parties to abide by the plan of negotiations as set out in the context 
of Madrid, Oslo, and most recently, in the Wye Plantation Agreement. 
This plan clearly sets forth a structure which dictates the timetable 
and order of discussing certain very critical issues.
  I am particularly concerned that any unilateral actions by the 
parties or co-sponsors which might pre-judge the outcome or change this 
plan would have a great potential to undermine what limited chance we 
have for peace in the Middle East.
  Within this context, the parties, with the full support of the co-
sponsors, agreed to delay the discussion of many of the most critical 
and difficult issues until final status negotiations, and promised not 
to take any unilateral actions which might pre-judge or pre-determine 
the outcome of those issues. My opposition to unilateral actions by any 
party or co-sponsor, including the United States, is well known and on 
the record. It was, for example, the principal basis for my opposition 
in 1995 to S. 1322, which mandated the relocation of the U.S. Embassy 
from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
  Similarly, just as I was concerned about the potentially injurious 
impact on the peace process of prematurely addressing issues relating 
to Jerusalem, I am equally concerned about the impact of a unilateral 
and premature declaration by the Palestinians regarding statehood. I 
believe such a unilateral declaration by the Palestinian Authority 
would almost certainly undermine future progress toward a peace accord.
  It is my understanding that the Administration's position is 
consistent with these congressional resolutions, and in fact the United 
States has maintained ongoing discussions with the Palestinians to 
discourage them from unilaterally declaring a state outside the context 
of the negotiations.
  My support for both of these resolutions are based on this principle 
alone: That any unilateral actions by either parties or co-sponsors are 
disruptive and damaging to the peace process as a whole. My support for 
these resolutions is not a comment regarding what the Palestinian 
authorities should do if the peace process fails and no final status 
agreement can be reached. Nor is it a comment on the merits of a 
Palestinian state. Nor, finally, is it a suggestion that a Palestinian 
state should not be created as part of the final status agreement 
should the parties decide upon that themselves. Indeed, for the process 
to be successful, the Palestinians must be permitted to exercise their 
independence.
  My support for these resolutions is thus exclusively and solely a 
statement that in my opinion, a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian 
state at this time would probably destroy any chance to reach a just 
and lasting peace between the parties. Peace is too important--and too 
much effort toward achieving such a peace has been expended by all 
parties and co-sponsors for it to be jeopardized in this way.

                          ____________________