[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14215-14218]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      VIOLENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I and other Members of the Senate from 
time to time have taken the floor to address the tragedies which daily, 
weekly, monthly, and yearly come forth in the Middle East. Today, we 
were greeted by a headline in the Washington Post: U.S. Decries Israeli 
Missile Strike, Ponders The Effect On The Peace Bid.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, again, I have taken the floor several 
times to give just one Senator's viewpoint. I am almost at a loss for 
words to describe the tragic situation that has unfolded in the past 24 
hours, or 36 hours--whatever the case may be--where a plane that was 
manufactured here in the United States delivered a missile into a 
residential area controlled by the Palestinians and brought about the 
deaths of many innocent people.
  It is characterized and described at length in the article which 
appeared in this paper and the papers across the world today.
  The raid, as told by the reports, took the life of an individual who 
has brought about great harm to the people of Israel over a long 
period, but along with that life went the lives of many children and 
innocent people.
  Preceding this use of force--again, use of force which is perceived 
by the Israeli leadership as necessary to protect the integrity of 
their sovereign nation and the safety of the people, and I will not 
debate that at this point in time--preceding this event were the tragic 
bombings by humans going into the Israeli areas with the bombs strapped 
to them giving up their lives and taking the lives of innocent people 
on the streets. And on and on it goes.
  What do we do about it?
  I reiterate that I have spoken about this on this floor several 
times, and I intend to this time formalize it in a letter which I will 
be sending perhaps tonight or early tomorrow morning to the President 
of the United States. The thoughts in that letter are basically the 
same thoughts that I have said on this floor two or three times, and 
also at the time that the NATO Ambassadors came to visit the Congress 
of the United States. We had an informal meeting hosted by several of 
our colleagues. I was invited to speak. The very thoughts that I am 
referring to tonight I shared in that meeting some 2 weeks ago.
  Our Nation recently celebrated our traditional Fourth of July 
holiday. It is normally a time of joyful reflection of our history, of 
patriotism, and just plain, old-fashioned summer fun. Thankfully, it 
was a peaceful day for America. But when we entered that holiday 
period, I remember so well that we were confronted with yet another 
warning by responsible individuals in our Government of a possible 
terrorist attack. In varying degrees in varying places here in our 
great United States, it had a dampening effect. I remember that so 
well.
  A number of constituents--who I am proud to represent in Virginia, 
which adjoins the Nation's Capital--called to inquire whether it was 
safe to go down and watch the fireworks on The Mall. We gave them 
encouragement, in our opinion, to do so.
  I myself was in the area during part of that day. Indeed, there was 
an enormous outpouring of our citizens and visitors from all around the 
world who enjoyed those fireworks that night. I say that thankfully it 
was a peaceful day. But we ended that holiday period confronted with 
that warning.
  It is, indeed, prudent that our citizens be warned of such threats. 
There

[[Page 14216]]

is no criticism of what I believe is a very responsible and prudent 
program of persons in our Government entrusted to make the decision to 
alert our people when they have reason to believe because of 
intelligence gathering that they should promulgate those warnings.
  I, however, have to ask myself: Do these warnings continue 
indefinitely? Will people begin to ask of me and my colleagues, of our 
President and of all those in positions of authority, what is the root 
cause of this hatred towards the United States? Are we in leadership 
positions doing everything we can to learn of those causes, to lessen 
that hatred, to tell the truth about America's cause for freedom, and 
how our men and women of the Armed Forces--as the Presiding Officer 
knows so well having served in the military himself--have gone forth 
from our shores throughout these 200-plus years of this Republic only 
in the cause of freedom-- never have taken a square mile of property 
and kept it. Temporarily, we have administered certain geographic areas 
throughout our history, but never used force to acquire land to augment 
this Nation.
  People will begin to say: Has our Government done everything it can 
do? I think our President has exhibited--in the past, today, and will 
in the future--extraordinary leadership, together with his principal 
Cabinet officers and his military men and women for whom he is 
Commander in Chief.
  The scourge of terrorism in the 21st century is a complex and 
multifaceted problem. None of us fully understand all the root causes 
and all the means with which we have to deal with it.
  This Chamber, hopefully next week, will resonate with a strong debate 
on the bill for homeland defense. We will soon be giving final approval 
to the division in the military of commander in chief, forces north. 
Just think, Mr. President, CINC, commander in chief, for homeland 
defense, which means marshaling all the military assets and other 
assets of this Nation to try to protect our citizens against further 
terrorist attack.
  There is not a single cause for this terrorism and hatred but many, 
including disparate economic development around the world, lack of 
political and economic opportunity in many regions, the alarming spread 
of radical fundamentalist religions, the dogmas, especially Islam, 
amongst those feeling disenfranchised from the mainstream of the world, 
and the tyrannical rise of ethnic conflicts after decades of repression 
by communists and other tyrannical regimes.
  In this environment of perceived hopelessness and despair for many 
people, particularly the world's youth, seemingly unsolvable events 
continue to fan the flames of anger and hatred that lead to irrational 
acts, acts which are almost beyond comprehension.
  This is manifested in the individual acts of terror we witness almost 
daily on the streets of Israel against the freedom-loving people of the 
State of Israel and in the recruitment of angry young men and women 
into radical terrorist organizations that encourage them to vent their 
anger in most destructive ways, most notably human suicide of 
themselves and against the innocent citizens of Israel.
  Israel really has no recourse but to strike back in a manner that 
clearly indicates not only to the Palestinians but to the rest of the 
world that it is a sovereign nation and has the right to exercise every 
possible resource of that nation to protect its people.
  Solving the conditions that have bred this hate and total disregard 
for peaceful solutions will be complex, but it must be systematically 
addressed. Again, clearly, our President and his administration have 
shown leadership.
  But is our Congress showing leadership to help? Can more be done by 
others? These are the questions I ponder daily.
  Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, prolonged over a period of 
time that none of us ever envisioned, contributes, in some measure, to 
the unrest and anger in the Arab world directed towards the people of 
this great United States of America.
  I cannot quantify it--I do not think anyone else can--but clearly 
that conflict is part of the root cause of hatred against us, hatred 
which is causing us to create a brand new Department of Government, 
Homeland Defense, an entirely new military command, to take all types 
of precautions in our daily life--whether it is at the airports or 
people just coming to visit here in the Congress of the United States--
with security measures.
  This conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians often is 
presented and distorted in a very biased manner to the citizens 
throughout that region by the media in the Arab nations. We must 
confront that. We must take actions which are clear to show that we 
want to bring about peace in that region.
  We have to address the disaffection and dissatisfaction felt by the 
people of that region. Each act of violence by either side in this 
unending conflict erodes hope for the peaceful future for Israel--it is 
in this article--and for the peaceful future of the people in 
Palestine.
  In fact, each act of senseless violence in the Middle East further 
erodes hope that someday we can be more secure here at home.
  All reasonable options to bring about an end to this violence and 
indiscriminate loss of life must be considered. We can never, ever 
abandon hope. We must act together to renew hope in this land of the 
Middle East, the land of faith, the land from which so much history has 
emanated for the rest of the world.
  One option I believe must be considered--and I said this many times 
here on the floor--is the use of NATO peacekeepers. But that can only 
be achieved if certain criteria are met.
  First, I call upon the administration to explore, with the other 
member nations of NATO: Are they willing to take on this task, a task 
with unknown risks? Clearly there are risks, but the quantum of risk is 
unknown. Are they willing to take it on if these conditions are met--
first, the people of Palestine and the people of Israel, ask them to 
take on this obligation to maintain conditions of stability. That is 
the first.
  Second, if both the Palestinian people and the people of Israel, 
through their respected, elected leaders, will pledge to cooperate in 
every way with those NATO forces.
  Now, Mr. President, there is a perception in the world that the 
Europeans are more sympathetic to the Palestinian causes, and that we 
here in the United States are more sympathetic to the Israeli causes. 
But NATO bonds us together, as we have been for these 50 years, in one 
constituted force.
  And we would then go, as a constituted military organization, for the 
stated purpose, only, of trying to bring about stability, so that the 
diplomatic discussions, not only between the leaders of the Palestinian 
people and the leaders of the Israeli people can commence, but other 
leaders in the world, who desire, can step up.
  There are those who have looked at this problem, and I respect them, 
and they disagree. I ask unanimous consent an article by a noted 
author, Mr. Kagan, be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)


                               exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, July 24, 2002]

    U.S. Decries Israeli Missile Strike, Ponders Effect on Peace Bid

                           (By Karen DeYoung)

       The White House yesterday denounced Israel's missile strike 
     in a densely populated area in the Gaza Strip as ``heavy-
     handed'' and described it as ``a deliberate attack against a 
     building in which civilians were known to be located.''
       Rejecting Israel's contention that it did not intend to 
     kill innocents with a strike that was directed against a 
     leader of the Hamas militant group, spokesman Ari Fleischer 
     said. ``These were apartment buildings that were targeted.'' 
     In addition to Salah Shehada, the intended target, the 
     missile fired from an Israeli F-16 warplane killed 14 other 
     people, most of them under the age of 11, and injured about 
     150.
       Although President Bush continues ``to be a lead defender 
     of Israel around the world and will speak out about Israel's 
     right to self-defense,'' Fleischer said, ``this is an 
     instance in which the United States and Israel do not see eye 
     to eye.''
       The Monday night attack was widely condemned in Europe and 
     the Arab world. Many,

[[Page 14217]]

     particularly in Arab capitals, said it demonstrated that the 
     government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was trying 
     to undercut recent progress in the Middle East peace process.
       The attack appeared initially to have stunned U.S. 
     officials involved in peace efforts. They said they had no 
     warning of Israel's plans despite talks here Monday between 
     high-level representatives of the two governments. By 
     yesterday, shock had turned to depression and uncertainty 
     over where the process would go.
       ``There is considerable agreement that this represents 
     something really problematic, something unique,'' one 
     administration official said.
       U.S. reaction to the attack, which occurred around 7 p.m. 
     Washington time, was delayed until there was a clear picture 
     of what had happened, the official said. After a flurry of 
     telephone calls to the region, ``within an hour, we knew what 
     we were dealing with. Then discussions began on how to 
     respond.''
       Talks Monday night among Secretary of State Colin L. 
     Powell; his deputy, Richard L. Armitage; and William Burns, 
     the assistant secretary for the region, were quickly joined 
     by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, 
     Stephen Hadley. While acknowledging deep and longstanding 
     differences between the State Department and the White House 
     over Middle East policy, the official said, ``this particular 
     time, there was agreement across the board.''
       Under the rhetorical code that has long surrounded 
     statements on the Middle East, the United States normally 
     ``condemns'' Palestinian terrorist attacks and uses the 
     somewhat softer verb, ``deplore,'' to criticize Israeli 
     actions.
       Officials considered, then rejected, condemning the 
     Israelis or describing their actions as ``counterproductive'' 
     before settling on ``heavy-handed,'' as something they 
     believed ``captured the deploring,'' as one official put it.
       It was decided that Daniel C. Kurtzer, the U.S. ambassador 
     to Israel, would deliver the message to Sharon. U.S. 
     officials here described that discussion yesterday as 
     unpleasant, and said Sharon said little in private that 
     differed from his description of the attack as ``one of our 
     major successes.''
       White House public comment was left to Fleischer, and Bush 
     made no statement yesterday on the attack. ``The president 
     views this as a heavy-handed action that is not consistent 
     with dedication to peace in the Middle East,'' Fleischer 
     said.
       Asked why Israel's action in Gaza was different from U.S. 
     attacks against al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan that 
     resulted in the loss of innocent civilian lives--a comparison 
     Israel has made--Fleischer replied: ``It isn't accurate to 
     compare the two. . . . There are going to be losses of 
     innocents in times of war, and I think that's recognized 
     around the world.
       ``What's important is, in pursuit of the military 
     objectives, as the United States does in Afghanistan, to 
     always exercise every restraint to minimize those losses of 
     life,'' Fleischer said. ``But in this case, what happened in 
     Gaza was a knowing attack against a building in which 
     innocents were found.''
       European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana called 
     the attack an ``extra-judicial killing operation'' that 
     ``comes at a time when both Israelis and Palestinians were 
     working very seriously to curb violence and restore 
     cooperative security arrangements.''
       Solana represents the EU in the ``quartet'' group on the 
     Middle East that also includes Powell, U.N. Secretary General 
     Kofi Annan and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov.
       Annan issued a statement late Monday deploring the attack, 
     saying, ``Israel has the legal and moral responsibility to 
     take all measures to avoid the loss of innocent life; it 
     clearly failed to do so.''
       There was no direct contact yesterday between Powell and 
     the other quartet members, and no one seemed to have a clear 
     idea how to proceed beyond waiting for the immediate 
     fallout--including widely expected Palestinian retaliation--
     and its unpredictable impact on the wider peace process.
       After months in which the process has been frozen, and 
     despite Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli 
     civilians as recently as last week, significant recent 
     progress had been reported.
       Plans to restructure the Palestinian Authority's security 
     and financial infrastructure and prepare for elections in 
     January were near completion. Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon 
     Peres met with senior Palestinian officials last weekend for 
     the first time in months, amid signs that Israeli troops 
     would begin to withdraw from occupied Palestinian cities.
       Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, the Arab countries most 
     active in the peace process, all condemned the Israeli 
     action. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher called it a 
     ``war crime,'' and his Saudi counterpart, Saud Faisal, said 
     it was ``a repulsive act that will be registered against 
     [Sharon] in history.''
                                  ____



                               exhibit 2

               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 18, 2002]

                       Can NATO Patrol Palestine?

                           (By Robert Kagan)

       When Pulitzer-Prize winning New York Times columnist Tom 
     Friedman talks, people listen. Now one of Friedman's most 
     radical ideas--to put a NATO peacekeeping force on the ground 
     between the Israelis and Palestinians as a key part of an 
     overall peace settlement--is actually starting to pick up 
     steam around the world. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has 
     endorsed the idea of an international force as part of a 
     settlement that would be imposed on Israel and the 
     Palestinians. So has German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. 
     More important, Secretary of State Colin Powell is believed 
     to be mulling such a plan. He has publicly talked about 
     putting American observers on the ground. Even some Israelis 
     have warmed to the idea, provided of course that any force 
     includes American troops. After Europe's lynching of Israel 
     these past few weeks, that's the only army they trust.
       Friedman's idea deserves to be taken seriously. And to 
     those of us who have supported American troop deployments for 
     peacekeeping in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and elsewhere over the 
     past decade, peacekeeping in the Middle East seems at least 
     as worthy, in principal. Our strategic interest in a stable 
     peace there is clear, and so is the moral case for doing 
     something to end the bloodshed, defend the Israeli democracy 
     and given the Palestinians a chance for a better life. After 
     Sept. 11, we have to engage in peacekeeping and nation-
     building in messy places such as Afghanistan and, one hopes, 
     post-Saddam Iraq, whether we like it or not. So why not in 
     the Palestinian territories.
       But if the idea of a U.S.-led force between Israel and a 
     Palestinian state is starting to get serious attention, it's 
     time for Friedman and others to spell out what exactly they 
     have in mind, and with a little more candor about the costs 
     and risks.
       Take the size and role of the force, for instance. To carry 
     out its mission and avoid disaster, the American force would 
     have to be, as they say in the military, ``robust.'' For one 
     thing, the demarcation line between Israelis and Palestinians 
     that will have to be patrolled and controlled will be long, 
     twisty, and difficult. For another thing, Americans are going 
     to be the prime target for terrorist attacks. Friedman denies 
     this, arguing that the Palestinian people will view the 
     Americans as saviors--they will be ``the midwife of a 
     Palestinian state.'' But Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad 
     probably won't see it that way. Rallying to the cry of 
     ``Remember Beirut!'' they'll look for ways to take out 
     another 240 Marines. And they'll have help from Iran, Iraq, 
     al Qaeda and all other jihadists out there.
       That means any American force will have to be big--10,000 
     to 20,000 troops, with another 10,000 to 20,000 backing them 
     up. And they'll have to be heavily armed. Potential attackers 
     will need to be intimidated by American firepower every day 
     and every night for as many years as it takes. And that means 
     Tom Friedman and Kofi Annan and Joschka Fischer will need to 
     become full-time lobbyists for massive increases in the 
     American defense budget, because right now we have neither 
     the troops nor the money to carry out their plan.
       Now for the hard part. Let's say we get a peace agreement 
     and we put the peacekeeping force on the ground between the 
     Israelis and Palestinians. What happens when, despite all our 
     best efforts, the occasional Hamas suicide bomber gets 
     through anyway and commits the occasional massacre in 
     Jerusalem or Tel Aviv? Count on it: This will happen. And 
     what about when Hezbollah tries to use the new Palestinian 
     state created by the peace settlement the way it now uses 
     southern Lebanon, as a convenient place from which to launch 
     Katyusha rockets at Israeli population centers? What do we do 
     then?
       Friedman et al. can't wish this problem away. And the 
     options are less than enticing. One option is that the 
     American-led peacekeeping force does nothing. But then we 
     will have effectively created an American shield for 
     terrorist attacks against Israel. This, by the way, was 
     exactly the role a U.N. peacekeeping force played in Lebanon 
     for several years in the late 1970s and early '80s, right up 
     until the Israeli army invaded Lebanon and pushed the U.N. 
     force (known as UNIFIL) aside.
       Option two is that the peacekeeping force could, like 
     UNIFIL, just get out of the way and let the Israeli military 
     retaliate for any terrorist attacks. Then at least American 
     forces wouldn't be helping the terrorist attack Israel. 
     They'd be helping Israel attack the state of Palestine. 
     That's how it would look to the Palestinians, anyway. So much 
     for the Americans as saviors.
       Option three is that the American-led force goes to war. We 
     tell the Israelis to hold their fire and then send our own 
     forces in to stop the terrorists. In essence, we take on the 
     job the Israelis are currently doing in the territories. This 
     prevents the outbreak of a new Israeli-Palestinian conflict--
     and begins the first round of the U.S.-Palestinian conflict. 
     Maybe that's kind of progress, but it's not very attractive.
       Is there another option I'm missing? If not, the proposal 
     for an international peacekeeping force looks less like a 
     real plan than

[[Page 14218]]

     a desperate if noble attempt to solve the insoluble in the 
     Middle East--a deus ex America summoned to provide a miracle 
     when all roads to peace have reached a dead end. Even Ehud 
     Barak's idea of building a very, very big fence between 
     Israel and the Palestinians looks better. Help us out, Tom.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield to our leaders. They have an 
important matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________