[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10401-10402]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of urgent 
concern for American foreign policy: the situation in the Middle East 
and its implications for our war on terrorism.
  Yesterday the majority leader offered three principles to guide our 
policy in the Middle East. I share his concern about the gravity of the 
situation we face and his affirmation of American support for Israel, 
and the imperative of American leadership in helping bring about a 
lasting peace in the region.
  Time is not on our side. In April, I spoke before this body in 
support of President Bush's leadership in bringing a diplomatic 
resolution to this conflict. I applaud the President and his team for 
their progress so far in assembling the pieces of a potentially 
historic agreement and coalition for peace. But we are still only at 
the beginning of a long and difficult process.
  What happens in the Middle East cannot be separated from our 
interests in the war on terrorism. If we fail in peace-making between 
Israel and her neighbors, there will be grave consequences for the 
United States, Israel, and the world. We will further empower the 
terrorists and extremists, those who thrive, find refuge, and recruit 
in conditions of poverty, violence, and despair. We must help secure a 
vision of hope for the people of the Middle East in order to reclaim 
the peace initiative.
  It is time to put the endgame up front in the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict. The Palestinians must have a state, with contiguous and 
secure borders, and Israel must have a state without terrorism and with 
secure borders. President Bush endorsed the concept of a Palestinian 
state in a historic speech to the United Nations last year. If we do 
not address this, the core political issue of this conflict, we will 
allow the extremists on both sides to win. And then we will all lose: 
Palestinians, Israelis, Arabs, Americans, the world.
  Strong, engaged, steady, and visionary American leadership is a 
predicate for the future of the Middle East. The Arab League peace 
proposal, at the initiative of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, 
calls for normal relations between Israel and the Arab

[[Page 10402]]

world and presents a unique and historic opportunity for peace. The 
Bush administration may be considering recognizing a transitional or 
provisional Palestinian state, with the specific details to be worked 
out over time, an idea similar to the Peres-Abu Ala agreement of last 
year. The so-called ``Quartet''--US, Russia, the EU, and the UN--
provides an international context for this possibility and a revived 
diplomatic track.
  The pieces may be in place, the image of an idea for peace forming on 
the horizon, although the work ahead will be difficult. There are no 
easy answers or risk-free options. We can no longer defer the tough 
decisions on Israeli settlements, Palestinian refugees, borders, and 
the status of Jerusalem. The time for a step-by-step sequential process 
has come and gone. We are close to reaching a line of demarcation, 
where only bold and courageous leadership on all sides can show the way 
to a resolution.
  Israel must make some hard choices for peace. It knows that military 
means alone will not end terrorism. Settlements in the occupied West 
Bank and Gaza must end. Israel should withdraw its military from the 
Palestinian towns it has re-occupied, as soon as the security situation 
allows. The emphasis for Israel must be on developing a coalition of 
common interests including our Arab allies and the United States to 
form the core of a peace coalition. Israel should move closer to this 
coalition and away from isolation and reliance on only the military 
option to ending the crisis.
  The Israeli people have suffered too much and too long from 
terrorism. It must end. America will continue to stand by our friend 
and do what we must to help secure a peace and Israel's survival. But 
America's support of Israel should not be at the expense or exclusion 
of our relationships with our Arab friends and the Palestinian people. 
It need not be. America is against terrorists, America is not against 
Arabs or Palestinians. We are and can be a friend and supporter of all 
sides. We must be, or there will be no hope and no peace.
  This also means that we will not retreat from our support of 
democratic principles, values, and expectations. We will not trade 
friendship and freedom for expediency and peace.
  The other Arab leaders of the region must play a major role in this 
revived peace process. They have serious responsibilities and 
significant self-interests in helping end terrorism and resolving this 
conflict. There is no longer room for ambiguity or criticism from the 
sidelines. Abdication of responsibility or subtlety is no longer an 
option.
  Crown Prince Abdullah, King Abdullah of Jordan, and President Mubarak 
of Egypt and other Arab leaders clearly understand the high stakes and 
are willing to take risks for peace. The prospects for getting a peace 
process back on track is best served when the risks are shared.
  The Palestinian leadership must respond to the challenge and 
opportunity before it. Terrorism does an injustice to the Palestinian 
struggle for self-
determination. A Palestinian state cannot be born from and committed to 
terrorism and hostility toward its neighbor.
  It is a tragedy that the Palestinian people have been linked in the 
minds of many people--many Americans, to the methods of terrorists and 
extremists who represent only darkness and hatred, not the aspirations 
of most Palestinians for statehood and a life of hope and peace.
  Real reform and change within the Palestinian Authority has become a 
condition of any peace agreement. This must happen--and happen now. The 
present Palestinian government must stand up and show a leadership that 
has been lacking for too long. The current Palestinian leaders must be 
accountable and take responsibility for the future of the Palestinian 
people. Terrorism and violence are not the means to statehood and 
legitimacy.
  American and Israeli pressure and intervention, however, can not be 
the final determinants of a new Palestinian leadership. An alternative 
Palestinian leadership, as Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told me a 
couple of months ago, may be either too weak to make peace or too 
radical to even consider it. This will certainly be the case if 
alternative leadership is perceived as primarily the result of American 
or Israeli collaboration.
  There are those in the Palestinian movement that have been speaking 
out for democracy and against corruption in the Palestinian Authority 
for some time. Hanan Ashrawi and Mustafa Barghouti, as well as many 
others, have been taking risks for democracy for Palestinians and 
transparency in Palestinian governance long before it became a 
condition for a renewed peace process.
  Leaders of the Arab world must take more responsibility for 
Palestinian leadership. They cannot look away. It is now far too 
dangerous for them to allow further drift in the Middle East.
  In considering the difficult road ahead, I understand the political 
constraints and risks that Israel and our Arab friends face in moving 
forward with peace. But it is better to share the risk than leave the 
field to the terrorists and extremists who will fill the leadership 
vacuum.
  The problems in the Middle East affect and influence all aspects of 
our foreign policy, including our leadership in the war on terrorism. 
The Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be separated from America's foreign 
policy. Actions in the Middle East have immense consequences for our 
other policies and interests in the world. We are limited in dealing 
with other conflicts until this conflict is on a path to resolution.
  America's policy and role in the Middle East, and the perception of 
our policies and role across the globe, affects our policies and 
interests in Afghanistan, South Asia, Indonesia, and all parts of the 
world. We cannot defeat terrorism without the active support of our 
friends and allies around the world. This will require an enhancement 
of our relationships, not an enhancement of our power. It will require 
America's reaching out to other nations. It will require a wider lens 
in our foreign policy with a new emphasis on humanitarian, economic, 
and trade issues as well as military and intelligence relationships.
  We need the active support and involvement of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, 
Jordan, and the other states of the Middle East to defeat terrorism. 
The potential for isolating them on one side, with the United States 
and Israel on the other, is the wrong path. The alternative to 
developing coalitions of common interest in the Middle East and our war 
on terrorism is a region afire with radicalism and rage directed at 
Israel and the United States. We cannot wait. We cannot defer the peace 
timetable to the perfect time for peace. There is no perfect time for 
peace or perfect set of dynamics for peace. It will happen because we 
make it happen. We must seize the time we have, with all its 
imperfections.
  The perception of American power becomes the reality of American 
power. If we fail in our diplomatic efforts to help bring peace to 
Israel and her neighbors, and isolate ourselves and Israel in the 
process, our security and Israel's security will become more vulnerable 
and the world more dangerous.
  We need to keep our eye on the objectives: peace between Israel and 
its neighbors and victory in our war on terrorism. I close by joining 
my colleague, the majority leader, in encouraging President Bush not to 
risk unraveling the progress we have made so far in the Middle East by 
allowing a period of inattention and inaction to drag us all back into 
a dark abyss of despair and danger. A conference or some tangible 
relevant framework for peace must be announced and organized soon. The 
stakes have rarely been so high, the opportunities so great, and the 
margins for error so small.

                          ____________________