[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 61-63]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            GAZA RESOLUTION

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I hope--and I am joined here by Senator 
Lieberman--that the Senate will have an opportunity to consider before 
this week is out a resolution we believe has been drafted by the 
majority leader and the minority leader that deals with the ongoing war 
in the Gaza Strip and that we believe needs to express the will of the 
Senate. We believe as well that a similar resolution would be voted on 
in the House of Representatives to express the will of the House. So 
then the whole world--and certainly the administration--would know of 
this body's strong support for the State of Israel and our support for 
the actions Israel is taking right now. We hope that vote can occur 
before this week is out. I wish to commend Senator Lieberman for his 
considerable leadership on this issue.
  We support this resolution. The first thing the resolution does is to 
remind people why the State of Israel had to act.
  Last February, on a trip to the Middle East, I visited the Israeli 
town of Sderot, which is about 3 miles from the border of Gaza, and I 
learned from the town's mayor of the toll taken on the residents of 
this town and neighboring cities from more than 8 years of rocket 
attacks by the Hamas terrorists. At the police station, I saw rack 
after rack of these spent rockets, the remains of the rockets that had 
been launched by Hamas against the civilian population of this city. In 
fact, about 15 minutes after we departed the city, one of these Hamas 
launched a Qassam rocket--identical to the hundreds we had seen at the 
police station--which fell on an Israeli home in town, destroying it. 
Thankfully, no one in that attack was harmed.
  Is there any doubt that if the United States were suffering an attack 
from just across the border similar to this, that we wouldn't react to 
stop that from happening? I think there is no question that we would 
act to stop this terrorism. It is our hope that the resolution would 
express our acknowledgment that a nation has the right to defend 
itself, that Israel has had to respond to this, to more than 6,300 
rocket and mortar attacks on its citizens since it fully withdrew from 
Gaza in the year 2005. In fact, this town has been suffering for over 8 
years from these attacks.
  The second point the resolution makes is that there is no equivalency 
between the actions of Hamas and Israel in this case. Israel conducts 
its military operations to spare innocent life. They have specifically 
targeted Hamas command centers and security installations and rocket-
launching sites, weapons stockpiles, and weapons smuggling tunnels. 
They have tried very hard to avoid civilian casualties. In fact, Israel 
has transmitted very specific warnings to Gazans. They have dropped 
leaflets and made phone calls to targeted areas to warn citizens to 
leave because an attack is imminent. This, of course, even means they 
lose the element of surprise and potentially put the lives of Israeli 
soldiers at risk. But Israel believes it is important where possible to 
avoid jeopardizing innocent life--quite the opposite from Hamas, which 
deliberately and cynically fires rockets from civilian areas to make it 
more difficult for Israel to target the terrorists and to increase the 
likelihood of civilian casualties when Israel does take action.
  Hamas has ignored a plea by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on 
April 28 that:

       Civilian areas in Gaza should not be used as a base from 
     which to launch its actions against Israel.

  Dozens of mosques in Gaza have been turned into weapons storage 
facilities and Hamas command centers. In fact, an airstrike on a mosque 
in the Tel El Hawa neighborhood of Gaza City last Wednesday set off 
numerous secondary explosions caused by the arms that had been 
stockpiled in the mosque.
  Finally, Hamas openly admits that it uses women and children as human 
shields. A leading member of Hamas told Al-Aqsa TV on February 29, 
2008:

       For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry . 
     . . This is why they have formed human shields of the women, 
     the children, the elderly, and the mujahedeen, in order to 
     challenge the Zionist bombing machine.

  While targeting terrorists, Israel works to avoid a humanitarian 
crisis for ordinary Gazans as well. During the first week of Israel's 
operations, it facilitated the delivery to Gaza of 400 trucks loaded 
with more than 2,000 tons of food and medicine. This is not easy when 
you are in the middle of military operations. Ten ambulances and two 
thousand blood units were transferred to Gaza just in that week. More 
than 80 Palestinians have entered Egypt for treatment, in addition to a 
dozen or more who have entered Israel. On January 5, more than 93,000 
gallons of industrial diesel fuel and gasoline for vehicles was 
transferred into Gaza from a fuel depot in Israel. By the way, that 
fuel depot comes under constant attack from terrorists in Gaza, as does 
the place where the electricity is generated for Gaza, which, of 
course, makes absolutely no sense.
  Finally, this resolution speaks to calls for a cease-fire. Many 
voices in the so-called international community have been heard 
pleading for an immediate cease-fire, although I think it is 
instructive that one never hears those voices condemning rocket attacks 
by Hamas terrorists.
  I believe the path to a halt in the violence is clear. A cease-fire 
is appropriate if and when it is durable and sustainable. A cease-fire, 
on the other hand, that would allow Hamas to rearm and rebuild its 
support in Gaza is, of course, not acceptable. Hamas cannot be given a 
cease-fire that only serves to provide it breathing room to regroup and 
then a month or 2 months

[[Page 62]]

or 3 months from now start firing its rockets and missiles again.
  The United Nations could play a constructive role, but it must resist 
the temptation that it all too often falls into, and that is that of 
moral equivalency. I point to the press statement of the Security 
Council on December 28 which, among other things, said the parties 
should ``stop immediately all military activities.'' This is dangerous 
moral equivalency. Only one party to the violence carries out 
``military activities.'' The other party--Hamas--terrorizes and murders 
innocent people. That is why the only Security Council resolution that 
could be acceptable in this situation--and I say this with the 
understanding that the Security Council is meeting as we meet here 
today--is one that affirms Israel's right to defend itself and calls on 
Hamas to immediately stop its terrorist activity.
  I add that a Security Council resolution should look to all of those 
who support Hamas--primarily and most significantly Iran. For years, 
Iran has been the source of money, training--including training at the 
facilities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran itself--and 
weapons to Hamas. Hamas's relationship with Iran is so close that the 
Egyptian President said this past May that Hamas rule in Gaza means 
that Egypt has a ``border with Iran.''
  Since Israel launched its military operation against Hamas, Iran has 
announced stepped-up arms shipments. Senior Iranian clerics have 
organized recruiting drives to send Iranians to Hamas's aid. Just 
yesterday, a senior Iranian cleric announced that it had recruited 
7,000 Iranians to join the cause of Hamas. Yet the international 
community has taken no action to counter Iran's support of Hamas 
terrorists.
  A U.N. Security Council resolution sanctioning Iran for its 
assistance to Hamas would send an important message and would be a good 
place to start, as would unilateral sanctions by the United States.
  Let me conclude by quoting the Washington Post columnist Charles 
Krauthammer, who recently wrote one of the most precise and succinct 
observations on the situation in Gaza that I have read. He wrote:

       Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The 
     Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only 
     rare, but excruciating.

  The Reid-McConnell resolution we expect to be introduced shortly will 
be an important reaffirmation of the bond between Israel and the United 
States. It is one forged on the basis of common values and the 
tragically shared experience of terrorism. By passing this resolution, 
we are saying to the Israeli people: We stand with you, and we support 
you in defending yourselves against terrorist attacks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish first to thank my friend and 
colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, for the statement he has just 
made, which was characteristically straightforward, clear, principled, 
and passionate, about what is involved in the current crisis in Gaza 
and the opportunity this Congress has to not just stand with our ally, 
Israel--which is critically important at this moment--but to take yet 
another stand against terrorism for the rule of law, for democracy, and 
for the peaceful settlement of disputes. I could not agree more with 
everything Senator Kyl has said. I wish to add just a few words in this 
regard.
  As Senator Kyl has indicated, the United Nations Security Council was 
to convene shortly after 5 this afternoon, about an hour ago. I presume 
it has convened to hear speakers and consider resolutions on what is 
happening in Gaza today. Secretary of State Rice has gone there to 
speak on behalf of the United States, which indicates the importance of 
these deliberations. She will carry with her the policy of our 
Government since the outbreak of conflict in Gaza that I think has been 
strong and principled and consistent with the best of American values 
and, of course, consistent with our national security interest in the 
global war on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 because what is 
happening in Gaza is yet another battle front in the larger war against 
Islamist extremism and terrorism. It is, in another sense, also another 
battle front in the conflict going on within the Muslim world between 
the extremists and fanatics and terrorists and the majority of people 
who are more moderate, more law-abiding, obviously not violent and want 
to live a safe and a better life.
  The Government of the United States has been very clear in 
articulating a policy which I presume and have confidence will be 
expressed in these Security Council deliberations tonight and the days 
to follow. No one wants to see violence occur. Yet, as Senator Kyl has 
said so eloquently, when a country such as Israel has been attacked 
literally thousands of times with rockets fired from Gaza at innocent 
civilians over a period of years, a cease-fire is negotiated and it 
goes on for approximately 6 months--negotiated with great help from 
Egypt--and then Hamas breaks the cease-fire and begins firing rockets 
again, the Government of Israel, our democratic ally, essentially said: 
Enough is enough; we are not going to tolerate this anymore, coming as 
it is from Hamas which is an openly avowed terrorist group with the aim 
of destroying the State of Israel.
  In response to the violence, there is a natural reflex reaction heard 
often in world councils, and undoubtedly will be heard at the United 
Nations Security Council at this hour and the hours to follow, that 
there ought to be a cease-fire. I think we all have to ask ourselves: 
What is the end of a cease-fire? Of course, we don't like to see 
violence occurring, but let's remember this is being done by Israel in 
the exercise of the right of self-defense.
  The Government of the United States--being President Bush and 
everyone else who has spoken--has made very clear that, yes, the United 
States wants a cease-fire in the conflict between Israel and Hamas 
regarding Gaza but not just a cease-fire for the sake of a cease-fire 
that one side may follow and the other may not and that simply leads 
nowhere but back to the conflict that has been occurring.
  The U.S. Government has been very clear and principled about the fact 
that the cease-fire our Government seeks is one that is durable and 
sustainable; in other words, that represents a real resolution of some 
of the issues in conflict and that also deals with the smuggling into 
Gaza of additional weapons which are being used to attack innocent 
civilians in Israel.
  I know Secretary Rice will be expressing exactly this position. Yes, 
America wants a cease-fire but, no, not one that leads nowhere. We want 
a cease-fire that is durable and sustainable and will include a ban on 
smuggling, activities to carry out a ban on smuggling of weapons by 
Hamas in Gaza.
  I am very pleased, very encouraged that as the initial action of this 
Senate this year, the majority leader, Senator Reid, and the Republican 
leader, Senator McConnell, are working together in a bipartisan way--
totally bipartisan way--to bring before this body, hopefully in the 
next day or two, a resolution that does exactly what Senator Kyl has 
said: to express our unwavering commitment to the security, well-being, 
and survival of the State of Israel and recognizing its right to act in 
self-defense to protect its citizens against terrorism, that will 
reiterate again that Hamas must end the rocket and mortar attacks 
against Israel and hopefully do what the Palestinian Authority has 
done, which is to accept the right of Israel to exist and renounce 
terrorism and to begin to work toward a two-state peaceful solution.
  This resolution really will, in essence, I think, say, as Senator Kyl 
has said, in this hour of crisis to the people of Israel, our allies, 
that we will stand with you, and also say to the peace-loving 
Palestinian people that we stand with you, too, and we continue to 
support a two-state solution--Israel and a Palestinian state--living in 
peace one against the other, but the Government of the United States--
the Secretary of State, the President, but the Secretary of State who 
is at the United Nations is not speaking simply for the executive 
branch of Government but that

[[Page 63]]

the Senate, and we have reason to believe our colleagues in the other 
body, the House, will have an opportunity to say to not just the 
Israelis we stand with you, but to say to the world community that we 
as the representatives of the people of America, across party lines, 
stand together with Secretary Rice as she expresses the position of our 
Government: Yes, a cease-fire, but only one that is sustainable and 
durable and deals with the smuggling of additional weapons into Gaza. 
This will be critically important.
  I thank our leaders on both sides. I thank Senator Kyl for the work 
he has done. Again, it has been a privilege to work with him.
  I also say in a larger context that there is a lot of speculation 
about why Hamas broke the cease-fire and initiated the rocket fire 
against Israel deeper into Israel than they have ever done before. I do 
think, as Senator Kyl suggested, that the answer to that question 
probably comes as much or more from Tehran than it does from Gaza City 
and Hamas; that Hamas has become an agent of the Iranian Government. It 
is trained and supplied by the Iranians and secondarily by the Syrians. 
Therefore, there is a larger conflict being played out.
  Iran is noted by our State Department to be the most significant 
state sponsor of terrorism. The leaders of Iran regularly not only call 
for the extermination of the State of Israel, but also lead tens of 
thousands in Tehran and elsewhere in Iran in chants of ``death to 
America, death to America.'' We have long since learned from the 
lessons of history that you cannot simply ignore statements that seem 
so extreme and fanatical that they are unbelievable because very often 
the people making them do believe them, and given the chance, as we 
have seen from Osama bin Laden in recent times, who told us throughout 
the nineties exactly what he intended to do--he happened to have done 
it on 9/11, but he did it earlier in other places--we have to take 
these threats seriously.
  I want to say that a precipitous cease-fire simply for the sake of a 
cease-fire will allow Hamas to claim a victory. A victory for Hamas is 
not simply a victory for Hamas; it is a victory for Iran. And a defeat 
for Hamas, which is in reach if we allow the Israeli action to 
continue, is a defeat for Iran and a victory for the United States and 
for the forces of democracy as against terrorism and for the forces of 
moderation and the rule of law in the Islamic world as against 
fanaticism and violence.
  This is all that is being played out. This is why I am so encouraged 
this resolution is coming forward. It is, yes, a statement of support 
for our ally Israel, but it is also a statement of policy for the 
Members of the Senate, across party lines, and I hope with an 
overwhelmingly positive vote that says the security of the United 
States is on the line in how this conflict ends. We cannot let it end 
in a way that strengthens Hamas and Iran.
  I repeat, there has been a lot of speculation: Did Hamas break the 
cease-fire because of the end of the Bush administration? There has 
been some interesting speculation that has said the best thing that 
could happen for the incoming Obama administration is that Hamas be 
defeated here because then whatever happens between the new 
administration and Iran, Iran will not approach that next chapter with 
a sense of triumphant, but the country would have seen one of its major 
clients and agents of terrorism defeated.
  We have the opportunity to speak to all that on this resolution in 
the days ahead. Most immediately, I hope we will speak to the Members 
of the Security Council and in the most direct way say: We stand with 
President Bush; we stand with Secretary Rice. This is not simply the 
position of a few people at the top of the executive branch of our 
Government. This position the American Government has taken with regard 
to the crisis in Gaza is the position embraced by an overwhelming 
majority of Members of both parties of both Houses.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________