[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16010-16011]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          WITHDRAWAL FROM GAZA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2000, President Clinton 
convened a summit at Camp David with then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud 
Barak and Yasser Arafat to seek a breakthrough in the peace process 
that had been moving forward in fits and starts since the signing of 
the Oslo Accords 7 years earlier.
  As we all know, those talks ultimately broke down, despite the 
parties' being tantalizingly close to resolving many of the thorniest 
issues precluding a final status agreement between Israel and the 
Palestinians. Rather than build on the considerable progress that had 
been made at Camp David, Arafat unleashed a second intifada against 
Israel, a wave of terror that has lasted for nearly 5 years and cost 
thousands of lives.
  Now, in just over a month, the Israeli government will begin the 
dismantlement and withdrawal of all 21 of its settlements in Gaza and 
four other settlements in the northern West Bank in a bold move 
designed to increase the prospects for bringing peace to both Israelis 
and Palestinians.
  The decision to evacuate Gaza and part of the West Bank is the result 
of many months of agonizing debate within Israel. On the one hand, 
there are those who see any pullback by Israel without security 
guarantees or other tangible steps by the Palestinian Authority as a 
sign of weakness. The upcoming withdrawal, these Israelis say, will be 
cast by Hamas and other hardline Palestinian factions as a victory in 
much the same way that Israel's decision to withdraw its forces from 
Lebanon in May of 2000 allowed Hezbollah to proclaim itself the 
champion of the Arab fight against Israel. Other Israelis, led by Prime 
Minister Ariel Sharon, who was the architect of Israel's settlement 
policy after the 1967 Six Day War, have successfully argued that the 
disengagement will bolster Israel's security, that it represents

[[Page 16011]]

Israel's seizing the initiative to alter the status quo with the 
Palestinians, and that it allows Israel to get its own lines of defense 
and that it will preempt toxic diplomatic initiatives by Arab and 
European states.
  Ehud Olmert, the Likud mayor of Jerusalem, has also repeatedly 
discussed the importance of Israel's demographic security. The 
Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza is a fast-growing 
population that will soon be larger than that of Israel proper. For 
Israel to maintain a permanent presence in the territories would 
require the sacrifice of either Israel's status as a Jewish state or as 
a democracy.
  For those of us who care deeply about Israel, Sharon and Olmert have 
laid out convincing reasons to support the disengagement plan while the 
opponents' arguments compel us to work with both Israel and the 
Palestinians to ensure that the evacuation is peaceful and that Hamas 
and other rejectionist elements are not in a position to take advantage 
of Israel's courage in seeking to change the dynamics on the ground.
  I believe that the United States must be prepared to take a number of 
steps to make sure that this withdrawal enhances the chances for a 
lasting peace and puts the parties squarely back on the path towards 
realizing the President's roadmap for peace.
  As a threshold matter, we must be prepared to help Israel absorb the 
economic costs associated with the dismantlement of the settlements and 
the resettlement of the approximately 8,000 Jewish settlers within 
Israel proper. Earlier this week, the Israeli government made an 
initial request for $2.2 billion in assistance from the administration. 
I understand that the administration is studying the request, but we 
must be prepared to consider any eventual request quickly at the 
appropriate time.
  We also have to work with other nations, members of the Quartet as 
well as others, to assist the Palestinian people and the government of 
Mahmoud Abbas to improve the lives of ordinary Palestinians in the wake 
of the withdrawal. Offering an alternative to destitution and death is 
one of the most effective tools we have to break the cycle of violence.
  The U.S. has already pledged $350 million in aid to the Palestinians, 
including $200 million that was passed earlier this spring. I was 
pleased to see that our G-8 partners have pledged additional funds, 
totaling $3 billion, at last week's Gleneagles summit. We must insist 
upon accountability to ensure these are properly spent alleviating 
poverty, providing employment, and developing institutions that respect 
the rule of law.
  The U.S. must also redouble its efforts to choke off the flow of 
assistance to Hamas, the popular front for the Liberation of Palestine-
General Command, Palestinian Islamic jihad, and other factions that 
oppose peace with Israel. Syria is a major focus of support for these 
groups and for Hezbollah, which is in Lebanon. Damascus must be made to 
understand that there is a price for its support of terrorism and that 
that price will only increase if it refuses to end that support.
  Finally, we must also work to build peace between Israel and the Arab 
states of the Middle East. While Israel has peace treaties with both 
Egypt and Jordan, relations are not especially warm, and most of the 
rest of the Arab world remains in a technical state of war with Israel. 
We need to press our Arab friends to work towards a comprehensive peace 
with the Jewish state.
  Mr. Speaker, we are at a remarkable moment in the search for peace in 
the Middle East, but the chance to build on Israel's decision to leave 
Gaza and the stirrings of democracy in the Arab world must not be 
allowed to slip away.

                          ____________________