[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15612-15620]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 DEPLORING MISUSE OF INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE BY UNITED NATIONS 
                 GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSE

  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 713) deploring the misuse of the International 
Court of Justice by a majority of the United Nations General Assembly 
for a narrow political purpose, the willingness of the International 
Court of Justice to acquiesce in an effort likely to undermine its 
reputation and interfere with a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli 
conflict, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 713

       Whereas the Israeli people have suffered through a three-
     year campaign of terror that has included suicide bombings, 
     snipers, and other attacks on homes, businesses, and places 
     of worship and has resulted in the murder of more than 1,000 
     innocent people since September 2000;
       Whereas more than 50 United States citizens have been 
     killed and more than 80 United States citizens injured by 
     Palestinian terrorists in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza 
     since 1993;
       Whereas President George W. Bush said in October 2003 
     regarding Israel's right to self-defense that ``Israel must 
     not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland'';
       Whereas international law, as expressly recognized in 
     Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, guarantees all 
     nations an inherent right to self-defense;
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 
     (2001), relating to international cooperation to combat 
     threats to international peace and security caused by 
     terrorist acts, and statements by representatives of other 
     countries at that time, make clear that Article 51 of the 
     United Nations Charter applies to self-defense against 
     actions by terrorist groups against the civilian population 
     of any country;
       Whereas a security barrier, capable of being modified or 
     removed, is being constructed by Israel in response to an 
     ongoing campaign of terror against its people and has 
     resulted in a dramatic decline in the number of successful 
     terrorist attacks;
       Whereas on December 8, 2003, the United Nations General 
     Assembly adopted, through a plurality rather than a majority 
     vote of member nations, Resolution ES-10/14 which requested 
     the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to render an opinion 
     on the legality of the security barrier;
       Whereas the United States, Australia, Belgium, Cameroon, 
     Canada, the Czech Republic, the Federated States of 
     Micronesia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland (for itself and 
     in addition on behalf of the Member States and Acceding 
     States of the European Union), Italy, Japan, the Marshall 
     Islands, the Netherlands, Norway, Palau, the Russian 
     Federation, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United 
     Kingdom submitted objections on various grounds against the 
     ICJ hearing the case or expressing concerns about the 
     advisability of the publication of an advisory judgment;
       Whereas a June 30, 2004, decision of a panel of the Israeli 
     Supreme Court, headed by its President and sitting as a High 
     Court of Justice, called on the Government of Israel to take 
     Palestinian humanitarian concerns further into account in the 
     construction of the barrier, even if doing so resulted in 
     greater security risk to Israeli citizens, and accordingly 
     required the Government to alter the route of a specific 
     portion of the barrier near Jerusalem in order to accommodate 
     Palestinian humanitarian concerns;
       Whereas the Government of Israel immediately stated that it 
     would respect the decision of its High Court of Justice and 
     has taken action to implement that decision;
       Whereas the Government of Israel has expressed its 
     commitment that the security barrier is temporary in nature 
     and will not prejudice any final status issues, including 
     final borders;
       Whereas on July 9, 2004, the ICJ said in a non-unanimous, 
     non-binding advisory judgment that Israel's security barrier, 
     to the degree it was built outside the pre-June 1967 borders, 
     was illegal and should be dismantled, and that Article 51 of 
     the United Nations Charter did not apply to Israeli actions 
     in self-defense with respect to violence emanating from the 
     West Bank;
       Whereas on July 11, 2004, less than two days after the 
     ICJ's advisory judgment, Israeli civilians were murdered by 
     Palestinian terrorists;
       Whereas the Palestinians, along with other parties and 
     states, may attempt to use the ICJ's advisory judgment to 
     advance their positions on issues committed to negotiations 
     between the Israelis and Palestinians by advancing 
     resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly, the 
     Security Council, or elsewhere calling for the removal of the 
     barrier and for the imposition of sanctions to force Israel 
     to comply with the advisory judgment; and
       Whereas the administration of President Bush has reiterated 
     its position that the ICJ should not have agreed to decide a 
     political issue of this nature that should, rather, be 
     resolved through the Roadmap process leading to a negotiated 
     agreement between Israel and the Palestinians: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) reaffirms its steadfast commitment to the security of 
     Israel and its strong support of Israel's inherent right to 
     self-defense;
       (2) condemns the Palestinian leadership for failing to 
     carry out its responsibilities under the Roadmap and under 
     other obligations it has assumed, to engage in a sustained 
     fight against terrorism, to dismantle the terrorist 
     infrastructure, and to bring an end to terrorist attacks 
     directed at Israel;
       (3) calls on Palestinians and all states, in the region and 
     beyond, to join together to fight terrorism and dismantle 
     terrorist organizations so that progress can be made toward a 
     peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
       (4) deplores--
       (A) the misuse of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) 
     by a plurality of member nations of the United Nations 
     General Assembly for the narrow political purpose of 
     advancing the Palestinian position on matters Palestinian 
     authorities have said should be the subject of negotiations 
     between the parties;
       (B) the July 9, 2004 advisory judgment of the ICJ, which 
     seeks to infringe upon Israel's right to self-defense, 
     including under Article 51 of the Charter of the United 
     Nations, and which projects a message of international 
     indifference to the safety of Israeli citizens that can only 
     be detrimental to prospects of achieving a negotiated peace;
       (5) regrets the ICJ's advisory judgment, which is likely to 
     undermine its reputation and interfere with a resolution of 
     the Palestinian-Israeli conflict;
       (6) commends the President and the Secretary of State for 
     their leadership in marshaling opposition to the misuse of 
     the ICJ in this case;
       (7) calls on members of the international community to 
     reflect soberly on--
       (A) the steps taken by the Government of Israel to mitigate 
     the impact of the security barrier on Palestinians, including 
     steps it has taken by order of its High Court of Justice, 
     without being required to do so by the ICJ; and
       (B) the damage that will be done to the ICJ, to the United 
     Nations, and to individual Israelis and Palestinians, by 
     actions taken under color of the ICJ's advisory judgment that 
     interfere in the Roadmap process and impede efforts to 
     achieve progress toward a negotiated settlement between 
     Israelis and Palestinians; and
       (8) Urges all nations to join the United States in 
     international fora to prevent the exploitation of the ICJ's 
     advisory judgment for political purposes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).


                             General Leave

  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to

[[Page 15613]]

revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. 
Res. 713, the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we come tonight just almost 1 week after truly a dark 
day in the history of international justice and in the course of this 
debate and I trust in the course of this Congress' deliberations over 
H. Res. 713, deploring the misuse of the International Court of Justice 
by a plurality of the United Nations General Assembly for a narrow 
political purpose. I hope that we will have the opportunity to 
elaborate the genuine significance of the decision by the International 
Court of Justice relative to the construction of a security fence by 
the government of Israel.
  I intend in the immediate here, before I make any extensive remarks, 
to yield to my superior and a woman without whose leadership on this 
issue we would not be here tonight; but let me say by way of context, 
Mr. Speaker, that when by a 14 to 1 decision the International Court of 
Justice condemned the construction of a wall being built by Israel and 
described Israel as an occupying power in occupied Palestinian 
territory, it was most assuredly a dark day and a day of disgrace for 
the International Court of Justice.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my profound privilege to yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the 
chairwoman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, a 
woman who is not only a distinguished member of this institution, but 
perhaps one of the most clarion voices in America on behalf of our 
precious alliance with the people and the nation of Israel.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), for the undeserved praise and for his nice 
demeanor in yielding me such time in the beginning of the discussion on 
this important resolution before us tonight.
  I rise in strong support of H. Res. 713, a resolution deploring the 
misuse of the International Court of Justice by the Palestinians. I 
want to commend the leadership for moving this measure expeditiously to 
the floor, and I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for his 
efforts in making this a reality tonight.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this as a sign of our displeasure with 
the politicization of the International Court of Justice for 
Palestinian terrorist purposes.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. Speaker, I wish that there were no need for such a resolution 
tonight. I wish that innocent civilians were not routinely murdered and 
injured by Palestinian terrorists inside of Israel. Yet those 
responsible for these painful, agonizing injuries celebrate their 
terror with virtual impunity from the international community as they 
manipulate mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice to 
rule in their favor.
  As Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Arafat's Fatah said in a joint statement 
following the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, 
``We salute the court's decision. This is a good step in the right 
direction.'' For Palestinian terrorists and their supporters, the door 
has been further opened.
  This past Sunday, less than 2 days after this deplorable decision by 
the International Court of Justice, this advisory opinion, there was an 
explosion at a Tel Aviv bus stop which injured 32 innocent civilians 
and killed one young woman.
  Among those injured was Saami Masrawa, an Israeli Arab who leads an 
Arab-Jewish friendship group in the Israeli area. Saami Masrawa had 
previously participated in a demonstration opposing the security fence. 
But after Sunday's bombing he recognizes the value of Israel's security 
barrier, and he has publicly stated, ``I will now be for it and form an 
organization in favor of it.''
  Mr. Speaker, the barrier is not the issue. Terrorism and the 
Palestinian's addiction to death are the problems. They must find a 
leadership free from this kind of terror, free from corruption, free 
from the idea that terrorism will achieve its political objectives. The 
notion that terrorism is a legitimate form of interaction with Israel 
must be abandoned forever.
  The construction of the security barrier must be understood as a 
measured response by Israel to the Palestinians' refusal to abandon 
terrorism and to surrender its use as a strategy. It is a sign that all 
Israelis demand that the Palestinians change their ways and make this 
change now.
  Across the political spectrum, Israelis support the construction of 
the barrier as a way to ensure the safety of the Israeli people and of 
the nation itself.
  It is appalling to see how the United Nations forced this recent 
judgment by the International Court of Justice. Not only did the issue 
of the nonbinding opinion last week state that Israel should remove its 
security fence, but the judges placed into question Israel's right to 
defend herself.
  My colleagues, this right of sovereign nations to provide for its 
security and that of its people, and to defend against threats against 
it, is a right accorded to all nations. Unfortunately, the recent 
opinion seems to draw an exception when it comes to Israel. This is 
outrageous.
  The judges of the Court added insult to injury by suggesting that 
this basic right of all sovereign nations did not apply because 
Palestinian terror groups are subnational actors; that is, not nation 
states.
  This reference further minimizes the brutal and abhorrent acts 
committed by Palestinian terrorists against innocent Israelis. It 
undermines the actions taken by the United Nations following the 
terrorist attacks against our own Nation on September 11. It emboldens 
the terrorists to intensify their brutality and violence against free 
democratic nations such as Israel and the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear from this process that the International 
Court of Justice has become politicized, and it is manipulated by the 
Palestinians for their own evil purposes.
  This resolution that I had the pleasure of drafting with my 
colleagues on the Committee on International Relations, especially the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), addresses this critical issue. It 
underscores the security barrier is necessary. Israel has the 
responsibility to protect its people, and the fence has proven to be 
successful in doing so.
  No nation, no international body can claim a right to act in judgment 
over Israel's sovereign right to protect her people. That the 
Palestinians of all people question the inherent right of self-defense 
of Israel from their very tactics of terror is absurd and even 
Orwellian. The very people launching the attacks against Israel are 
saying that Israel cannot and should not defend herself.
  This judgment by this International Court of Justice is an injustice 
to Israel. It is a dishonor to close to 1,000 innocent victims of 
Palestinian violence since 2000. I call on my colleagues and all 
Democratic nations to join together to prevent this perpetuation of 
injustice.
  I want my colleagues to look at this poster. I call on our allies and 
partners, as they consider upcoming resolutions at the U.N. General 
Assembly seeking to impose the ruling on Israel, to think about the 
young faces, the old faces printed here on this poster. These are just 
some of the victims of Palestinian terrorism: babies, middle-aged, 
young, older Israelis, all innocent victims of Palestinian terrorism.
  I want our allies and friends to think of Assaff Tzur. This was a 17-
year-old Israeli boy who was just recently murdered, so recently that 
his name is not on this poster. He was killed in a bus bombing on March 
5, 2003, on his way back from school.
  I met with the father today of Assaff, as well as with other 
survivors of terror attacks and with families of Israeli victims of 
Palestinian terrorism. There was one common theme. There were mothers 
and fathers and sisters and

[[Page 15614]]

brothers, and they said the security barrier could have helped prevent 
the murder of their daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, grandchildren, 
fathers and mothers.
  In the case of Assaff Tzur, the suicide bomber who murdered him and 
15 others on March 5, 2003, today would not have been able to cross 
into Israel to carry out this attack thanks to the border that stands 
today. Today, there is a security barrier that prevents terrorists from 
crossing into that section of Haifa and would have prevented the murder 
of Mr. Assaff Tzur, 17 years of age.
  I think this reality summarizes the need for an overwhelming vote in 
favor of the resolution of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), 
House Resolution 713. Let us send a clear message to the international 
community of where we stand as a nation. We call on them to side with 
us and with all democratic nations to side with the victims of 
terrorism, these faces, and not with the terrorists. The hypocrisy must 
end. Israel must be allowed to protect herself and remain safe from 
this kind of terrorism once and for all.
  I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for calling attention 
to this atrocity, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Pence 
resolution before us tonight.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
thank the gentlewoman for her passion and her leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in strong support of this all-important resolution.
  First, I want to pay tribute to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence), for taking the leadership on this all-important 
issue, and to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen), for her powerful, persuasive, passionate statement. I also 
want to thank, on our side, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), 
for her leadership on this issue, and our Democratic whip, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for his passionate dedication in 
crafting this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the International Court of Justice ruled 
that the security fence being constructed by Israel was a violation of 
international law and called for its dismantlement. Mr. Speaker, I 
traveled across that fence, and if I had not been persuaded prior to my 
physical inspection of the fence that it is a desperately needed 
security measure, my trip along that fence convinced me forever.
  Just ask yourself how you would feel if in a neighboring community or 
across the street there are terrorist gangs who systematically come 
over to your side and blow up restaurants, places of worship, offices, 
stores, every facility conceivable. Bus stops. Just anyplace where they 
can kill innocent human beings. You would be in favor of building a 
security fence. And the ultimate hypocrisy of this International Court 
of Justice's decision literally turns my stomach.
  This ruling was a perversion of justice that infringes on Israel's 
inherent and basic right of self-defense, and it willfully and 
cynically ignores Israel's recent success in reducing terrorism, thanks 
mainly to its security fence.
  The International Court favored the suicide bombers over their 
innocent victims when they issued this mindlessly politicized decision. 
They only succeeded in severely diminishing their stature and 
authority, which I deeply regret.
  Let me illustrate, Mr. Speaker. The security fence brought 
significant relief to the innocent men, women and children who are 
blown up by terrorists. From September 2000, when the intifada broke 
out, through 2003, there were more than 80 suicide bombings with 
Israeli targets. This year, with the fence now playing an important 
deterrent role, there have been only four. Now, one is too much, but 
there is a dramatic reduction from that vast number of successful 
suicide bombings to the much smaller number today.
  Does this success mean that suicide bombers are giving up? Of course 
not. But Israel was successful in preventing some 58 suicides bombing 
attempts within the West Bank just in the last 6 months. The main 
reason is that the fence is giving Israeli security forces more time to 
react and to prevent terrorist attacks.
  The record in Gaza, Mr. Speaker, is even better. With the help of the 
security fence, there has been only one deadly suicide bombing that 
originated from there in recent years.
  Do the judges of the International Court care a whit for the well-
being of the average Israeli citizen? Regrettably, the evidence 
suggests that the majority of them clearly do not. Mr. Speaker, this 
International Court decision sends a message, and here I quote from the 
resolution, that there is an international indifference to the safety 
of the citizens of Israel. This is not only morally offensive, it is 
potentially politically disastrous for the very feeble peace process.

                              {time}  2145

  How are Israelis supposed to have the confidence to make peace if the 
international community that so enthusiastically urges them to make 
concessions is so callous as to whether they live or die?
  Mr. Speaker, the international court's opinion highlights the dangers 
of an international court dealing in abstractions without full 
information or full briefing from the parties involved. In the first 
place, Mr. Speaker, the court should never have taken up this case. In 
the U.N. General Assembly, the resolution passed with support from less 
than a majority of members of the General Assembly. And during the 
proceedings, the United States and many of our European friends 
objected to the court's consideration of this case. But the court did 
not heed prudence. Instead, it eagerly embraced recklessness and 
injustice.
  The court did not take into account the fence as it is. The court 
took its decision and wrote its judgment deliberately oblivious to the 
fact that the Israeli Supreme Court was adjudicating cases about the 
fence. Indeed, the Israeli Supreme Court has considered challenges by 
Palestinians on the routing of the fence and has obligated the Israeli 
military to relocate the fence to take into concern more fully the 
humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. Indeed, Israel's Supreme Court 
actually revoked military orders that had been issued, a virtually 
unprecedented step.
  And unlike the international court, the Israeli Supreme Court has the 
power to enforce judgments. Despite the understandable controversy that 
the Israeli Supreme Court's decision provoked in Israel, understandable 
because it will cost Israeli lives, the Israeli government immediately 
announced that it will comply with the decision of its own Supreme 
Court. In fact, implementation has already begun.
  Mr. Speaker, Israel is the only state in the Middle East where an 
Arab can take his government to court and stands a good chance of 
winning. But, Mr. Speaker, the language of the international court's 
opinion suggests that Israel has no right of self-defense although it 
clearly has that right under article 51 of the U.N. charter against 
terrorist groups that kill innocent civilians.
  I fully support Israel's right to build a fence to protect itself 
from the plague of terrorism, and I call on our administration and all 
members of the U.N. Security Council to reject any effort to look for 
Security Council validation for this repugnant international court 
ruling should such a misguided effort be made.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the resolution. I urge all of my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In the last 4 years, Palestinian terrorists have attacked Israel's 
buses, cafes, discos and pizza shops, murdering over 1,000 innocent 
men, women and children. Despite this unprecedented savagery, as former 
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote in the New York Times earlier 
this week, the

[[Page 15615]]

International Court of Justice's 60-page opinion mentions terrorism 
only twice, and only in citations of Israel's own position on the 
fence.
  This court has become a mockery of justice and an international 
disgrace.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), another advocate of our strong 
and historic relationship with a free and democratic Israel.
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank my colleague from Indiana for his leadership and 
emerging as a strong spokesman for the State of Israel and also my 
colleague from California (Mr. Lantos) who has crusaded for years and 
has been a personal example to many of us in standing up to the 
persecution of Jews throughout the world.
  This week, the International Court of Justice, under dubious 
jurisdiction, ruled that Israel's security fence was illegal. In 
essence, the ruling declares that Israel has no right whatsoever to 
defend itself, protect its people, or to live at peace. Israel did not 
want to build a fence. I am sure that they would have preferred to 
spend the time and money on something else. Unfortunately, terrorist 
attacks and an unwillingness or inability by the Palestinian Authority 
to rein in those terrorists forced Israel to construct the fence.
  Whereas the Palestinian Authority has been unsuccessful, the fence 
has proven to be effective in combating the waves of homicide bombers 
that once flooded Israel with death and destruction. The number of 
successful attacks has fallen significantly. Innocent lives have been 
saved.
  The international court does not seem to care about saving lives. It 
would rather assist the terrorists. It would rather promote religious 
bigotry. It would prefer that Israel throw its hands in the air and 
surrender to certain annihilation. Before, during and after the ICJ 
case, Israel has borne the brunt of unmitigated hatred from the world 
community. Only Israel is at fault, only Israel kills, only Israel is 
intransigent on the peace process.
  How many innocent Israelis have to be killed while riding on a bus, 
sitting in a cafe, or walking down the street? Too many to count. Who 
refuses to stop terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah? 
The Palestinian Authority's inaction is a resounding refusal.
  Rather than waiting for the Palestinian Authority to do something, 
Israel has decided to protect children walking to school, mothers 
shopping for groceries, and commuters riding the bus to work. No one 
questions our right to protect our citizens, but apparently the ICJ 
believes convenience for the Palestinians trumps the right of the State 
of Israel to protect its citizens.
  The international community has blinded itself to the criminal and 
terrorist activities of Israel's neighbors and the residents of the 
West Bank and Gaza Strip. There has been no condemnation of homicide 
bombers. There has been no condemnation of persecution of religious 
minorities in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority. There is 
no condemnation of Arab treatment of Palestinians in other Middle 
Eastern countries. Only Israel is singled out for criticism.
  The fact that Israel alone is criticized for so-called human rights 
violations and for the persecution of Palestinian Arabs shows, in my 
opinion, that religious bigotry rather than a true sense of justice and 
fairness is what has been driving this issue. A just and fair 
examination would question where millions of dollars in aid given to 
alleviate Palestinian poverty has gone. A truthful assessment would 
also recognize Israel as a democracy in sea of autocratic states. A 
balanced portrait of the situation would show that Israel's Arab 
minority enjoys full citizenship in Israel. Can the same be said of 
Jews outside Israel? Can the same be said of Palestinian Arabs living 
in other Middle Eastern states?
  The International Court of Justice has ruled that they would prefer a 
Middle East without Israel. They would rather see a democratic state 
where all people can live, work and practice their religion disappear 
from the face of the Earth. Most assuredly if the security fence is 
dismantled, Israel's right to self-defense will be dismantled right 
along with it. Do not be fooled by the enemies of Israel. They will not 
be satisfied by the dismantling of the fence. They will only be 
satisfied when Israel is gone.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who has been the leader on this 
issue on our side.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
resolution and wish to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos 
for their extraordinary leadership on this issue. I would also like to 
thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his efforts and a 
special thank you to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for his 
work and his dedication to protecting Israel.
  On Friday, July 9, the International Court of Justice handed down an 
advisory opinion condemning Israel's security fence and declaring its 
construction illegal. This biased decision is the latest in a long line 
of blatantly anti-Israel actions by the international community. This 
nonbinding advisory opinion should be recognized for what it is, a 
thinly veiled effort to hijack a respected international body solely 
for the narrow purpose of condemning the State of Israel for its 
efforts to protect its innocent citizens from suicide bombers.
  The issue before us goes far beyond continued Palestinian terrorism. 
The issue is the use of the ICJ to condemn Israel for acting in its own 
defense.
  The issue is the court being asked to adjudicate a case that should 
never have been before the court in the first place. The International 
Court of Justice was not the proper forum for discussing Israel's 
response to continued Palestinian terror. The United States joined 25 
other nations, Australia, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, the Czech 
Republic, Micronesia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, 
the Marshall Islands and others in submitting objections against the 
court hearing this case. Twenty-five nations in all.
  When the United Nations General Assembly asked the court to address 
only one aspect of an ongoing conflict, it deliberately made Israel and 
its security fence, rather than continuing Palestinian terrorism, the 
issue. Congress must speak on this issue, and we need to speak clearly. 
We must condemn the politicizing of international organizations and 
oppose the hijacking of multilateral entities for political purposes. 
We must ensure that international entities like the ICJ can continue to 
advance peace and security and work to resolve conflicts.
  Under article 51 of the U.N. charter, all nations possess an inherent 
right to self-defense. However, the ICJ rejected the argument that 
Israel's security fence falls within this right to self-defense. In the 
last 3\1/2\ years, nearly 1,000 Israelis have been killed by suicide 
bombers coming from Palestinian territories. Since 1993, over 50 United 
States citizens have been killed and 80 more have been wounded by these 
same murderers.
  I wear on my arm a band commemorating one of the United States 
citizens that was killed by a Palestinian terrorist bomber. Children 
have been targeted on their way to school. Families have been destroyed 
as mothers have been killed riding buses. Israel has been living under 
a state of siege, with its reserve military forces activated and 
checkpoints set up. Yet the court claims that Israel's right to self-
defense does not apply. Does not apply? What better case could there be 
for the right of self-defense?
  The implications of this interpretation are staggering. By ruling 
that article 51 of the charter has no relevance outside of armed attack 
by one state against another, U.S. sanctions against the Taliban or al 
Qaeda could no longer be justified as self-defense. Using the court's 
logic, Spain would not be able to defend itself against another tragic 
train bombing. Using the court's logic, our Marines are forbidden under 
international law from defending themselves against warlords and 
terrorists. Using this court's logic, the United States cannot respond 
to the tragic bombing of the USS Cole.

[[Page 15616]]

  What kind of logic is this? Are nations no longer permitted to fight 
terrorism and protect their own citizens? It is incomprehensible to me 
why Israel continues to be singled out. Saudi Arabia has built a nearly 
75 kilometer barrier on their border with Yemen to halt the smuggling 
of weapons into the kingdom. India is completing a 460-mile electrified 
barrier in the contested Kashmir area to halt infiltrations by 
terrorists. And Turkey built a barrier in an area that Syria claims as 
its own.
  Why have these security fences not been brought to the International 
Court of Justice? Why has the United Nations been silent on these 
issues? Is Israel's right to self-defense less valid than that of the 
Saudis, the Indians, the Turks? I think not. And are Israeli lives less 
valuable than Saudi lives, Indian lives, Turkish lives, American lives? 
I think not.
  The solution to resolving this conflict lies in Gaza and Ramallah, 
not in Manhattan or The Hague. The path to a lasting peace lies in 
fulfilling the terms of the road map, which begins with a rejection of 
terrorism and incitement, a dismantling of the terrorist 
infrastructure, and real reform by the Palestinian authority.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding time to me, and I rise in strong support of this resolution. I 
want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for the wonderful work that he 
has done on this resolution and indeed the wonderful work he does on 
our Committee on International Relations.
  I spoke on the floor last Friday after the so-called International 
Court of Justice rendered its decision. I said at the time that they 
should rename themselves the International Court of Injustice because 
their decision is truly a travesty of justice. What hypocrisy. What a 
double standard. Again, one standard for Israel and one standard for 
everybody else.
  As the gentlewoman from Nevada pointed out, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and 
India have built fences. Not a peep from the international community or 
the court of justice about those fences. Israel has built a fence to 
defend its citizens. This decision from the International Court of 
Justice comes down. Not a word about suicide bombings. Not a word about 
terrorism. Not a word about a nation defending its right to exist and 
defending its citizens.

                              {time}  2200

  What is a nation supposed to do? What is more important to be a 
nation than to defend the rights of its citizens, the killing of 
innocent civilians that Palestinian terror has done? A nation has a 
right to defend itself, and that is why I support Israel's security 
fence.
  I have been there. I have seen the fence firsthand. It stops 
terrorism. It works. And it not only works for Israelis by preventing 
terrorism, it is working for the Palestinians. Because of the fence, on 
the Palestinian side life is getting back to normal. The checkpoints 
are going away. So it is benefiting both sides.
  They talk about Israel building the fence. Do my colleagues know who 
built that fence? Yasser Arafat built that fence. Palestinian 
terrorists built that fence. If terrorism would end, there would be no 
need for a fence. And yet the hypocrisy of the International Court of 
``Injustice'' condemning Israel for trying to defend its citizens.
  I again strongly commend the gentleman from Indiana and urge all my 
colleagues here to support this very important resolution. Terrorism is 
terrorism, and security is security. Israel should not be treated 
differently than any other nation.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps), my neighbor and colleague.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express very serious concerns about the 
resolution before the House. I state these reservations as a strong 
friend and supporter of Israel. I speak as someone who condemns 
terrorism, especially the horrific practice of suicide bombing, with 
every fiber of my being, and I speak as someone who supports Israel's 
right to build a security fence along the Green Line.
  But, sadly, as the House once again attempts to demonstrate its full 
support of Israel, we will pass an unbalanced, unwise resolution that 
may undermine the interests of Israelis and Palestinians as well as our 
own national interests.
  I believe this resolution needs some changes. For example, it 
appropriately references the 1,000 people, mostly Israelis, who have 
been killed since September, 2000. But what about the 3,000 innocent 
Palestinians who have also lost their lives? Just once can the United 
States Congress not admit that Palestinians are people, too, and their 
lives are also precious? Would not such a compassionate statement go a 
long way towards restoring our credibility in the Arab world at a time 
when our national interests demand our image be improved? And would not 
such a statement be the right thing to say?
  This resolution mentions the roadmap as the best path for Israeli-
Palestinian peace. Yet in the very next clause we undermine the roadmap 
by listing only the Palestinian obligations. Of course, the 
Palestinians must crack down on terrorism. But the roadmap also 
requires Israel to impose a settlement freeze, tear down illegal 
outposts, ease the conditions of occupation. Why does this resolution 
only tell half the story?
  As for the security barrier itself, I have personally witnessed the 
very severe hardships it imposes on Palestinian life. Again, a fence on 
the Green Line is one thing. That makes sense strategically and 
demographically. But a separation barrier that winds its way through 
the West Bank, appropriating Palestinian land in its wake, is not 
acceptable.
  In the village of Jayyous, I saw how the wall separates farmers from 
their groves, and their crops are rotting on the field; teachers and 
students separated from their schools; even a Palestinian policeman 
unable to get to his job imposing security.
  The resolution before us has a grudging reference to the recent 
decision by the High Court of Justice. But I think it is important for 
the American people to hear the Court's argument in more detail. The 
Israeli High Court ruled that the route of the barrier must be altered 
to ease the hardship of 35,000 Palestinians living adjacent to it. The 
current path, they argued, ``would generally burden the entire way of 
life in the petitioners' villages.'' The Court carefully balanced 
security and humanitarian considerations. The justices concluded, ``We 
are convinced that there is no security without law. Upholding the law 
is a component of national security.''
  Of course, it can be argued that the security barrier has prevented 
terror attacks. But the only way to stop terrorism and secure the 
safety of Israel in the long term is for a comprehensive political 
solution to be negotiated with the Palestinians. After all, there was 
almost no terrorism perpetrated against Israeli civilians during the 3-
year period of 1997 to 2000. There was not a separation barrier then 
but a vibrant peace process, negotiations and security cooperation 
between Israel and the Palestinians, with powerful leadership from the 
United States.
  If Congress really wanted to be helpful, we would not pass 
resolutions on such divisive issues as a security wall, but we would 
urge our administration to act forcefully to bring both sides back to 
the negotiating table. America's failures to engage in Israeli-
Palestinian conflict will not only doom these long-suffering peoples to 
continued violence and misery but harm vital U.S. national interests as 
well. And that is a risk that we can surely not afford to take.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Franks of Arizona). The gentleman from 
California has 30 seconds remaining.

[[Page 15617]]


  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 713, and 
I want to say I am a practical person. The main thing is that the fence 
works. It saves lives. There has been a dramatic reduction in the 
number of attacks and the number of suicide bombings. And basically the 
fence is doing exactly what it was designed to do, save lives. It 
promotes peace. It is a mechanism for peace.
  On a trip to Israel last year, I had the opportunity to view the 
security fence firsthand, and there I toured communities on the 
outskirts of Jerusalem where Israeli citizens live in constant fear of 
sniper attacks and suicide bombings. This fence provides a sense of 
security to these border families and will help prevent continued 
attempts to derail the peace process through violence.
  I was thinking about a statement that Robert Frost made about how 
good fences make good neighbors. That is the case here. This is a 
vehicle for peace. We should all support this resolution. I strongly 
support Israel's right to defend their citizens from terrorist attacks. 
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution because, 
practically speaking, the fence works, and it should be allowed to 
continue to have the opportunity to work.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I merely want to express again my thanks to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence) for the leadership he has shown on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today urging my colleagues to support H. Res. 713, and I find 
myself very humbled by the power and the eloquence that has preceded 
me. So I will simply close, Mr. Speaker, with words of gratitude from 
my heart and perhaps an explanation why this Midwestern Evangelical 
Christian finds himself carrying this timely and important resolution 
before the Congress.
  I first want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his strong 
leadership on this issue, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), who continues to be for me an example of everything that is 
right about what Congress can mean on the world stage on behalf of not 
only Israel but human rights, and a special thanks and affection to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), without whose leadership this 
resolution would not be on the floor today. In fact, in its original 
version, the Pence-Berkley resolution recruited over 160 cosponsors, 
Republicans and Democrats alike; and it is my fondest hope that 
tomorrow when this measure is voted that we will see an equal reference 
of strong bipartisan support.
  My motivation is very simple. In January this year a dream of my life 
came true, Mr. Speaker. I traveled to that ancient country of Israel 
with my beautiful wife, Karen, and in the midst of that inspiring 
experience, we engaged in security briefings. We found ourselves along 
a chain-linked fence. In the 2 hours that we toured the security fence, 
the guards who escorted and protected us received three notices of 
attempted terrorist incursions.
  I came back to this blue and gold carpet with a burden on my heart to 
help tell that story. I went alongside the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and said we have to get the story 
out of what the people of Israel are dealing with and the necessity for 
the fence. And I came back and authored the resolution that will be 
considered in the Congress tomorrow.
  The truth is that the fence saves lives, Mr. Speaker, without any 
question whatsoever. Evidence is resplendent. We have heard it tonight. 
Hundreds of suicide attacks but only one from Gaza where Hamas and 
Islamic Jihad are actually based, but Gaza city and the Gaza area 
completely surrounded by a fence. In the north of Israel, where a 
section of the fence has been completed, there has not been a single 
suicide attack in more than 8 months. Before the first stage of the 
fence became operational in July of 2003, the average number of attacks 
was 8.6 per month. In the past 11 months, that has dropped to 3.2 
attacks.
  I hesitate to use statistics because we are talking about families. 
We are talking about men and women and one terrible tale after another 
of teenagers and small children made subject of terrorist suicide 
bombings. So we ought not to get lost in the numbers. We ought to 
remember the fence saves lives.
  So last week when the International Court of Justice, by a 14 to 1 
decision, violating many of its own rules of jurisdiction where it 
ordinarily would have recognized the authority of the Supreme Court of 
Israel to decide such matters, as it has very recently with great 
equity towards the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, the 
government of Israel has literally moved the fence some 20-mile 
stretches, and recently the Supreme Court of Israel ruled in favor of 
Palestinians in ordering the fence to be moved. But, nevertheless, the 
International Court of Justice ignored the sovereign interests of 
Israel, calling Israel an occupying power and calling portions of that 
sovereign nation occupied Palestinian territory. And that is a 
disgrace.
  Mr. Speaker, I close simply with the words that I pray for the peace 
of Jerusalem. I believe, as millions of Americans do, that still to 
this day He will bless those who bless her. And it is my hope that 
tomorrow this Congress will stand and speak as near as we ever can with 
one voice that we condemn the International Court of Justice, this act 
of disgrace, and we stand by our precious ally Israel in this her most 
difficult hour.
  Mr. FEENEY. I rise today in support of House Resolution 713 by my 
good friends Mr. Pence, from Indiana, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, from my own 
home State of Florida.
  On Friday, July 9, the United Nation's International Court of Justice 
issued a 14-to-1 majority opinion stating that Israel's building of a 
security barrier is illegal, construction must stop immediately, and 
Israel should make reparations for any damage caused.
  The ICJ's ruling also said the United Nations' General Assembly and 
Security Council should consider steps to halt construction of the 
security barrier.
  This decision by the ICJ is not only the latest in the international 
community's long line of blatantly anti-Israel actions, but also sets a 
dangerous precedent by allowing the ICJ to go beyond its traditional 
jurisdiction.
  I deplore the court's decision. Israel has a right to protect their 
people from those who believe that the path to salvation is paved with 
the blood of Jewish women and children. I have traveled to Israel and 
have seen the aftermath of these senseless homicide bombings.
  The security fence is not only within Israel's rights to build but it 
has also proven to be an extremely effective tool for fighting 
terrorism. In 2004, no Israelis have been killed or wounded by suicide 
bombings in areas protected by the fence, while 19 Israeli citizens 
have been killed and 102 have been wounded by suicide attacks in areas 
unprotected by the fence.
  The fence has produced a 90-percent drop in terrorism emanating from 
the northern West Bank, formerly the originating point for scores of 
devastating suicide bombings and other deadly terror attacks.
  The International Court of Justice was set up in 1945 under the 
Charter of the United Nations to be the principal judicial organ of the 
Organization. Article 36 of the Court's Statute forbids bringing 
contentious cases before the Court unless there is agreement by all 
parties involved.
  Obviously the ICJ did not recognize this limitation as more than 40 
nations, including the United States, the European Union, Australia and 
Canada, submitted briefs to the Court opposing consideration of the 
matter of Israel's security fence. The objections that were voiced in 
those briefs detail concerns regarding jurisdiction as well as the 
politicization of the court.
  Though not legally binding, the advisory opinion has already prompted 
the introduction of anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations and 
will have the effect of emboldening efforts to isolate Israel 
internationally. The General Assembly will meet tomorrow to seek 
international support for the ICJ decision and try to

[[Page 15618]]

impose U.N. sanctions against Israel for trying to defend its citizens.
  When will the United Nations cease to thwart efforts to squash the 
evil, murderous organizations who rob us of our right to security? How 
long must the American taxpayers continue to support an international 
agency that no longer promotes basic freedoms of peace, security, and 
democracy?
  Please join me in saying to the United Nations that we will not 
support the blatant misuse of its International Court of Justice to 
further the cause of these terrorist organizations. Vote ``yes'' on 
House Resolution 713.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. I 
strongly believe that this House needs to speak out against the 
disgraceful ruling by the International Court of Justice, ICJ. I just 
wish that what we said to the Nation and to the world through this 
resolution was a more fulsome explanation of U.S. policy about not just 
Israel's security fence and the appropriate role of the ICJ, but the 
peace process, the Roadmap, the need for Palestinian political reform, 
and a complete cessation of Palestinian terrorist violence.
  In this respect, I would commend to Members' attention H. Con. Res. 
390, a resolution I introduced in March together with several 
distinguished colleagues in the House that highlights not just Israel's 
right to defend itself, and our strong support for that right, but also 
speaks clearly about our vital national security interest in resolving 
the conflict according to the terms of U.N. Security Council 
resolutions 242, 338, and 1397.
  Indeed, what makes the ICJ's horrendous ruling more than a 
meaningless annoyance is its unfortunate potential for misuse. 
Considering the predilection shown by Palestinian leaders to pursue any 
line of political action, except for those that require them to set 
their own house in order and prevent violence from blocking the path 
back to direct negotiations with Israel, I think we can fully expect 
the ICJ's ruling to become the latest and most salient Palestinian 
excuse for inaction, recalcitrance, and doublespeak.
  By noting the deficiencies of the resolution at hand, I don't mean to 
understate the wretchedness of the ICJ's ruling. I would note that the 
court's ruling is as awful as it was predictable, which is to say, 
entirely. Anyone who expected the ICJ to render an unbiased opinion, 
forget the shameful call the court actually issued for Israel to, in 
effect, defend itself by digging its own graves, is several degrees 
past naive and well on their way toward the title of ``hopeless 
sucker.''
  The ICJ's opinion is riddled with flaws and stretches of remarkable 
illogic. The principal failing, if one can identify just one, is the 
complete reliance on a pro-Palestinian lens. The result, as clearly 
demonstrated in the court's opinion, is a misapprehension of the nature 
of the territory at issue, the nature of the conflict between the 
parties, the legal standing of the parties and the appropriate role for 
the court itself. Not surprisingly, the court took garbage in, and spit 
garbage back out.
  In this light, the court's refusal to look at either the lengthy 
Palestinian campaign of terror which has resulted in nearly 1,000 
Israeli deaths, or at the actual and ongoing contribution that the 
fence has already made to stopping Palestinian suicide bombers, is 
entirely predictable. It also smacks of casual anti-Semitism. When the 
deaths of hundreds of Jews is of no interest, and condemnation is ready 
only for non-violent self-defense measures, more than a hint of a 
double standard is detectable.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I do support the resolution, and I believe it is 
vital that the House speak strongly and clearly about this recent 
travesty. I urge Members to vote in favor of the resolution and to make 
clear their strong and unshakeable support for the one true democracy 
in the Middle East, the State of Israel.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a one-sided 
story. From the first day I came to the House of Representatives in 
1989, and until my last day in this Chamber, I have been and will 
continue to be a staunch defender of Israel.
  I wholeheartedly and unequivocally believe in Israel's right to 
exist, and the fundamental human right for the Jewish people to live in 
peace and without fear.
  Hundreds of times in this House, I have backed my words with deeds on 
behalf of Israel: Recognizing the founding of Israel; commending the 
people of Israel for conducting free and fair elections; condemning 
terrorism against Israel; approving funds for Israel's security; 
embracing efforts to achieve peace; promoting Israel's economic growth 
and development around the world; ensuring Israel has access to stable 
oil supplies; demanding real counterterrorism efforts by other Mideast 
nations; and, most importantly, promoting peace in our time, for all 
time.
  Let no one say, let no one think, that Jim McDermott is not a friend 
of Israel. I am a true friend of Israel and that is why I offer these 
remarks. A true friend tells the truth as he sees it, because that's 
what is in the best interest of your friend.
  The House has before it a resolution neither requested by the 
Government of Israel nor by the people of Israel.
  It is a resolution that will not promote peace, or dialog, in the 
region. It is a resolution that risks undermining the already painfully 
difficult process--and the hope--of achieving peace.
  There are times when the House of Representatives can advance the 
cause for peace, or stir the world on a matter that knows no geographic 
border. HIV/AIDS is such a matter. This is not one of those times.
  The Bible says there is a time for every thing under heaven. We can 
hope this is the time for peace. We can work to make this the time for 
peace.
  We can hurt the cause for peace by passing a resolution that would 
seem to place the world on one side, and Israel and the United States 
on the other. A political wall divides just as much as a stonewall or 
an iron fence.
  In light of a ruling by the World Court, Israel can change the path 
of the wall it is building. The issues involved are complex, from land 
to water, from borders to principles.
  The legal issues involved are inseparable from the emotionally 
charged, and unresolved, debate over homeland, security, peace, and the 
future of a Palestinian State.
  Although delicate and fragile, there is at least a process underway 
to try to resolve the issues the wall raises. The resolution in the 
House today could endanger the process. That's not a risk worth taking 
for the purpose of recording an opinion that no one asked for.
  The world knows full well the United States considers Israel a close 
and important ally.
  I believe we support Israel best by keeping the focus on the process 
that someday soon could tear down all the walls that separate Israel 
and Palestine.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on a resolution 
condemning the International Court of Justice for rendering an advisory 
opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the ``Israeli 
Wall,'' and condemning the U.N. General Assembly for requesting such an 
opinion.
  This legislation was only introduced last night--and strikes me as 
the type of knee-jerk posturing that does more harm than good. I oppose 
the bill for the following reasons:
  The ICJ rendered an advisory opinion on the legal consequences on the 
construction of the wall on its current route, an opinion requested by 
the U.N. General Assembly. The ICJ did so as it has done in the past, 
and the General Assembly was within its rights to request such an 
opinion.
  Condemning the General Assembly for asking for an opinion, or the ICJ 
for analyzing the situation and making a nonbinding statement of 
opinion on the matter is essentially condemning people for asking 
questions or having an opinion--key elements in civilized discourse or 
democracy.
  The sponsors of this bill, well-intentioned as they are, claim that 
the advisory opinion denies that Israel has a right to self-defense. 
This is not so--paragraph 141 states ``The fact remains that Israel has 
to face numerous and indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against 
its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to 
respond in order to protect the life of its citizens.''
  The resolution is factually incorrect:
  It claims the General Assembly asked for an opinion on the legality 
of the barrier. They did not. They asked for an opinion on the legal 
consequences construction of the barrier.
  It says that a similar security barrier exists around Gaza. The 
barrier around Gaza is on the armistice line, not beyond it, does not 
isolate Palestinian villages, or envelop settlements on territory 
described by the Israeli Supreme Court as being held ``in belligerent 
occupation,'' and therefore is not similar.
  The resolution is hypocritical--it calls on members of the 
international community to ``reflect soberly'' on a number of matters--
although this body held no hearings on this resolution, and has not 
even had 24 hours to review it. I would hazard a guess that fewer than 
2 percent of the Members of this body, or their staffs have actually 
read the opinion in question, much less reflected soberly on it.
  The resolution is needlessly belligerent--it threatens that anyone 
who seriously considers the ICJ ruling to raise questions about the 
resolution of this issue ``Risk[s] a strongly negative impact on their 
relationship with the people and government of the United States.'' At 
this time, we need to be working with our colleagues in the 
international community to find a solution, listening to what they have 
to say, rather than threatening them.
  The opinion states that construction of the barrier inside Occupied 
Palestinian Territory is

[[Page 15619]]

illegal under international law. I'm not a lawyer--but I know that if I 
build my fence on your property, I've got to take it down.
  The resolution notes that the Israeli courts themselves have been 
critical of the barrier, and have directed that changes be made to the 
wall's route. While this is true, it does not mean that other states 
concerned with the stability of the region, should not have the benefit 
of an advisory opinion on the legal ramifications of the wall by an 
outside party.
  Interesting points from that Israeli Supreme Court case (which only 
covered one portion of the fence):

       86. Our task is difficult. We are members of Israeli 
     society. Although we are sometimes in an ivory tower, that 
     tower is in the heart of Jerusalem, which is not infrequently 
     struck by ruthless terror. We are aware of the killing and 
     destruction wrought by terror against the state and its 
     citizens. As any other Israelis, we too recognize the need to 
     defend the country and its citizens against the wounds 
     inflicted by terror. We are aware that in the short term, 
     this judgment will not make the state's struggle against 
     those rising up against it easier. But we are judges. When we 
     sit in judgment, we are subject to judgment. We act according 
     to our best conscience and understanding. Regarding the 
     state's struggle against the terror that rises up against it, 
     we are convinced that at the end of the day, a struggle 
     according to the law will strengthen her power and her 
     spirit. There is no security without law. Satisfying the 
     provisions of the law is an aspect of national security. I 
     discussed this point in HCJ 5100/94 The Public Committee 
     against Torture in Israel v. The Government of Israel, at 
     845:
       ``We are aware that this decision does make it easier to 
     deal with that reality. This is the destiny of a democracy--
     she does not see all means as acceptable, and the ways of her 
     enemies are not always open before her. A democracy must 
     sometimes fight with one arm tied behind her back. Even so, a 
     democracy has the upper hand. The rule of law and individual 
     liberties constitute an important aspect of her security 
     stance. At the end of the day, they strengthen her spirit and 
     this strength allows her to overcome her difficulties.
       ``That goes for this case as well. Only a Separation Fence 
     built on a base of law will grant security to the state and 
     its citizens. Only a separation route based on the path of 
     law will lead the state to the security so yearned for.

  A nonbinding opinion is just that. Disagree with it all you want--
pick it apart, show how it is wrong. But to condemn people for voicing 
an opinion is undemocratic and should be beneath this body.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Indiana 
for not only introducing this important piece of legislation but for 
taking the lead in this Congress on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, 
as someone who has visited Israel on several occasions and viewed the 
security fence, it is abundantly clear that it was built out of 
necessity. On my last trip, I was reminded once again, that the drive 
from the beautiful beachfront in Tel Aviv, to the Palestinian town of 
Qualqilya in the West Bank took less then 25 minutes. That same 25 
minutes is all the time it would take for a suicide bomber to find his 
or her way to a bus stop, a shopping mall, or a discotechque.
  Earlier today I had the honor of hosting 20 victims of Palestinian 
terrorism. As I met with them I was reminded of a simple but gruesome 
fact: everyday for nearly 60 years Israelis have awoken in the morning 
to a constant threat of terrorism. Terrorism is what built the security 
fence. The Government of Israel has said on numerous occasions that if 
after more then 10 years of empty promises and bold face lies by Yassir 
Arafat and his cronies, if the Palestinian leadership would finally 
crack down on terrorism and work to reform the Palestinian territories, 
then perhaps one day the fence would no longer be necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, echoing my friend from Indiana I would like to commend 
President Bush and Secretary of State Powell for taking the lead in 
marshalling opposition to the use of the International Court of Justice 
as a forum to solve the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The 
decision by the ICJ will do nothing politically or legally to help 
destroy Palestinian terrorism or reform the Palestinian Authority.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again commend my friend from 
Indiana for introducing this bold resolution and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
opposition to the International Court of Justice's July 9, 2004, 
advisory opinion condemning Israel's security fence.
  Israel's security fence is an important tool necessitated by 
continued Palestinian terrorism. Israel has the same obligation to 
protect its citizens as any other nation, including the United States.
  The ruling by the ICJ is not only the latest in the United Nations 
long line of anti-Israel actions, but also sets several dangerous 
precedents in international law that hinder and impede United States 
antiterrorism efforts.
  Having been to Israel on several occasions, I can personally attest 
to Israel's need for this security fence. Many measures have been taken 
to make its presence less intrusive on the Palestinian people, while 
still providing necessary protection for Israeli citizens.
  Further proof of this is the June 30, 2004, ruling by the Israeli 
Supreme Court, which ruled that a contentious section of the barrier 
being built by Israel in the West Bank violates the rights of thousands 
of Palestinian residents by separating them from their farmland. This 
ruling led to a shift in the path of an 18-mile section to meet the 
court's demands. This fence is a necessary means of protection for a 
people that have suffered numerous terrorist attacks, not on their 
government or military, but on innocent civilians.
  Israel has not claimed that this fence is a permanent barrier; it is 
a temporary solution to protect its citizens who have been plagued by 
violence.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the International Court of Justice's decision, 
and I fully support Israel's right to protect its citizens.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the State of Israel has been an 
unwavering friend and ally of the United States for decades. And Israel 
has stood in complete solidarity with the United States in the Global 
War on Terror. Over the past half-century, bipartisan support for 
Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East, has been a staple 
of every U.S. Congress regardless of which party is in the majority. 
While the United Nations, other international organizations, and the 
governments of many countries of the world are quick to adopt the 
positions of Israel's adversaries, especially when Israelis exercise 
their absolute right to defend themselves, Congress has remained 
unwavering in its moral stand behind Israel. Again today, by passing 
House Concurrent Resolution 713--H. Con. Res. 713--a resolution I 
proudly cosponsored and championed, the Members of this House once 
again stood fast as the counterweight to most of the world's 
imbalanced, ``blame Israel'' approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. H. 
Con. Res. 371, expressed this body's strong support for Israel's 
construction of a security fence to prevent Palestinian terrorist 
attacks, and condemned the United Nations General Assembly's decision 
to request the International Court of Justice to render an opinion on 
the legality of the fence.
  Despite the fact that more than 40 nations, including the United 
States, 15 members of the European Union, Russia, Canada, Australia and 
even South Africa believed the International Court of Justice, ICJ, did 
not have the competence or the jurisdiction to rule on the matter, last 
week, the ICJ issued an advisory finding that Israel's security barrier 
in the West Bank is illegal. This ruling shouldn't have come as a 
surprise to anyone as Israel's detractors have successfully manipulated 
every arm of the United Nations to delegitimize Israel. The U.N. 
General Assembly itself has been a hotbed of anti-Israel activity, 
passing more than 400 resolutions against Israel since 1964, more 
resolutions than on any other single subject. But that body has never 
once investigated the Palestinian terror campaign against Israel, nor 
has it investigated abuse, torture, and other human rights violations 
by nondemocratic states in the Arab world.
  In 2004, no Israeli has been killed or wounded by suicide bombings in 
areas protected by the fence, while 19 Israeli citizens have been 
killed and 102 wounded by homicide attacks in areas without the fence. 
The fence has produced a 90-percent drop in terrorism emanating from 
the northern West Bank, formerly the originating point for scores of 
devastating homicide bombings and other deadly terror attacks.
  I commend to all of my colleagues an excellent Op-Ed written by 
former Israeli Prime Minister and current Finance Minister Benjamin 
Netanyahu laying out a clear and intellectually sound argument for why 
Israel needs the security fence and why Israel should never surrender 
its right to defend itself. I would like to have the text of this Op-Ed 
placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. I urge my 
colleagues to read it and speak out against the blatantly political 
ruling of the so-called International Court of Justice.

                [From the New York Times, July 13, 2004]

                        Why Israel Needs a Fence

                        (By Benjamin Netanyahu)

       Jerusalem.--While the advisory finding by the International 
     Court of Justice last week that Israel's barrier in the West 
     Bank is illegal may be cheered by the terrorists who would 
     kill Israeli civilians, it does not change the fact that none 
     of the arguments against the security fence have any merit.

[[Page 15620]]

       First, Israel is not building the fence on territory that 
     under international law can be properly called ``Palestinian 
     land.'' The fence is being built in disputed territories that 
     Israel won in a defensive war in 1967 from a Jordanian 
     occupation that was never recognized by the international 
     community. Israel and the Palestinians both claim ownership 
     of this land. According to Security Council Resolution 242, 
     this dispute is to be resolved by a negotiated peace that 
     provides Israel with secure and recognized boundaries.
       Second, the fence is not a permanent political border but a 
     temporary security barrier. A fence can always be moved. 
     Recently, Israel removed 12 miles of the fence to ease 
     Palestinian daily life. And last month, Israel's Supreme 
     Court ordered the government to reroute 20 more miles of the 
     fence for that same purpose. In fact, the indefensible line 
     on which many have argued the fence should run--that which 
     existed between Israel and the Arab lands before the 1967 
     war--is the only line that would have nothing to do with 
     security and everything to do with politics. A line that is 
     genuinely based on security would include as many Jews as 
     possible and as few Palestinians as possible within the 
     fence.
       That is precisely what Israel's security fence does. By 
     running into less than 12 percent of the West Bank, the fence 
     will include about 80 percent of Jews and only 1 percent of 
     Palestinians who live within the disputed territories. The 
     fence thus will block attempts by terrorists based in 
     Palestinian cities to reach major Israeli population centers.
       Third, despite what some have argued, fences have proven 
     highly effective against terrorism. Of the hundreds of 
     suicide bombings that have taken place in Israel, only one 
     has originated from the Gaza area, where Hamas and Islamic 
     Jihad are headquartered. Why? Because Gaza is surrounded by a 
     security fence. Even though it is not complete, the West Bank 
     security fence has already drastically reduced the number of 
     suicide attacks.
       The obstacle to peace is not the fence but Palestinian 
     leaders who, unlike past leaders like Anwar Sadat of Egypt 
     and King Hussein of Jordan, have yet to abandon terrorism and 
     the illegitimate goal of destroying Israel. Should Israel 
     reach a compromise with a future Palestinian leadership 
     committed to peace that requires adjustments to the fence, 
     those changes will be made. And if that peace proves genuine 
     and lasting, there will be no reason for a fence at all.
       Instead of placing Palestinian terrorists and those who 
     send them on trial, the United Nations-sponsored 
     international court placed the Jewish state in the dock, on 
     the charge that Israel is harming the Palestinians' quality 
     of life. But saving lives is more important than preserving 
     the quality of life. Quality of life is always amenable to 
     improvement. Death is permanent. The Palestinians complain 
     that their children are late to school because of the fence. 
     But too many of our children never get to school--they are 
     blown to pieces by terrorists who pass into Israel where 
     there is still no fence.
       In the last four years, Palestinian terrorists have 
     attacked Israel's buses, cafes, discos and pizza shops, 
     murdering 1,000 of our citizens. Despite this unprecedented 
     savagery, the court's 60-page opinion mentions terrorism only 
     twice, and only in citations of Israel's own position on the 
     fence. Because the court's decision makes a mockery of 
     Israel's right to defend itself, the government of Israel 
     will ignore it. Israel will never sacrifice Jewish life on 
     the debased altar of ``international justice.''
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) that the House suspend the rules and 
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 713, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________