[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Page 16343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           MIDDLE EAST PEACE

  Mr. BROWNBACK. As recently as this morning, upon Chairman Arafat's 
arrival back in Gaza, Arafat said:

       There is an agreement between us and the Israeli government 
     made in Sharm-El-Sheikh that we continue negotiations until 
     Sept. 13th, the date for declaring our independent state, 
     with Jerusalem as its capital, whether people like it or not.

  By itself, the threat undermines confidence in the Palestinians' 
commitment to the peace process and, in effect, would abrogate the 
foundation of the Oslo accords that all outstanding final status issues 
will be resolved through negotiations.
  Allow me, for a moment, to review the history here. More than 50 
years ago, the United Nations created two states: Israel and Palestine. 
The creation of a homeland for the Jews in Israel was unacceptable to 
the Arabs, and five Arab states attacked the newly created state. When 
all was said and done, Israel was a reality, and the nominal Palestine 
ended up in the hands of Jordan. We never heard about Jerusalem then.
  In fact, when the PLO was created in 1964, Jerusalem was never even 
mentioned.
  When Jordan lost the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1967, then the 
question of Palestine and Jerusalem became important once again. In 
fact, we are told that the reason Yasser Arafat walked out of Camp 
David was because he did not get all of east Jerusalem and the Old 
City. In other words, when Arafat did not get through the peace process 
what he could not get through war, he decided to walk away from peace.
  One thing has become clear to me in the last few years. The Oslo 
agreement was nothing less than an admission on the part of the 
Palestinians and the PLO that Israel would never be defeated in war. 
The Palestinians entered into a peace process because they had no other 
choice. Now I am forced to question just how committed they are to that 
process. If the aim is to win through negotiations what they could not 
through war, then what kind of a process is it?
  There are no ambiguities here: Either the Palestinians are committed 
to the process, and to a negotiated outcome, or they are not. Arafat's 
threat to declare a Palestinians state on September 13, 2000 is an 
abrogation of the peace process, and as such, an abrogation of any 
understanding with the United States regarding the PLO and Mr. Arafat 
as negotiating partners.
  U.S. assistance to the Palestinians is predicated upon good faith 
negotiations in a peace process. Nothing else. Nothing. For those that 
have some doubt, I remind them that as far as U.S. law is concerned, 
the Palestine Liberation Organization is a terrorist organization.
  I and many of my colleagues have always stood ready to accept the 
outcome of a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. We 
have done so reluctantly, because of fears about what a Palestinian 
state would do, how it would survive, about the commitment to 
democracy, and real fears about terrorism.
  We will not stand idly by and accept a non-negotiated solution, 
contrary to the Oslo Accords, contrary to the spirit of a peace 
process. Should Mr. Arafat go forward and declare a Palestinian state, 
the bill that Senator Schumer and I are offering today will preclude 
the expenditure of funds to recognize that state and preclude further 
assistance to any Palestinian governing entity. It instructs the 
President to use the voice and vote of the United States in the United 
Nations bodies to stop recognition or admission of a Palestinian state.
  I hope Chairman Arafat chooses the path of peace. However, if he does 
not, this legislation makes very clear that the relationship between 
the U.S. government and the Palestine leadership will change.
  We will not recognize the unilaterally declared Palestinian state and 
we will strongly urge all others not to do so. Either there is peace 
through a process or there can be no peace. If that is what Yasser 
Arafat wants, it is a terrible crime against the Palestinians, and a 
mistake that history will not forget.

                          ____________________