[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 22200-22206]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  SUPPORTING A NEGOTIATED SOLUTION TO THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 1765) supporting a negotiated solution to the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and condemning unilateral declarations of 
a Palestinian state, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 1765

       Whereas a true and lasting peace between Israel and the 
     Palestinians can only be achieved through direct negotiations 
     between the parties;
       Whereas Palestinian leaders have repeatedly threatened to 
     declare unilaterally a Palestinian state and to seek 
     recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations and 
     other international forums;
       Whereas Palestinian leaders are reportedly pursuing a 
     coordinated strategy of seeking recognition of a Palestinian 
     state within the United Nations, in other international 
     forums, and from a number of foreign governments;
       Whereas, on November 24, 2010, Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the 
     Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization, wrote to the President of Brazil, requesting 
     that the Government of Brazil recognize a Palestinian state, 
     with the hope that such an action would encourage other 
     countries likewise to recognize a Palestinian state;
       Whereas, on December 1, 2010, in response to Abbas's 
     letter, the Government of Brazil unilaterally recognized a 
     Palestinian state;
       Whereas, on December 6, 2010, the Government of Argentina 
     announced its decision to recognize unilaterally a 
     Palestinian state, and the Government of Uruguay announced 
     that it would unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state in 
     2011;
       Whereas, on March 11, 1999, the Senate adopted Senate 
     Concurrent Resolution 5, and on March 16, 1999, the House of 
     Representatives adopted House Concurrent Resolution 24, both 
     of which resolved that ``any attempt to establish Palestinian 
     statehood outside the negotiating process will invoke the 
     strongest congressional opposition'';
       Whereas, on October 20, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary 
     Rodham Clinton stated, ``There is no substitute for face-to-
     face discussion and, ultimately, for an agreement that leads 
     to a just and lasting peace.'';
       Whereas, on November 5, 2010, United States Department of 
     State Spokesman Mark Toner, responding to a question about 
     the Palestinians possibly taking action to seek recognition 
     of a Palestinian state at the United Nations, said, ``[T]he 
     only way that we're going to get a comprehensive peace is 
     through direct negotiations, and anything that might affect 
     those direct negotiations we feel is not helpful and not 
     constructive'';
       Whereas, on November 10, 2010, Secretary Clinton stated, 
     ``we have always said and I continue to say that negotiations 
     between the parties is the only means by which all of the 
     outstanding claims arising out of the conflict can be 
     resolved . . . There can be no progress until they actually 
     come together and explore where areas of agreement are and 
     how to narrow areas of disagreement. So we do not support 
     unilateral steps by either party that could prejudge the 
     outcome of such negotiations.'';
       Whereas, on December 7, 2010, Assistant Secretary of State 
     for Public Affairs Philip J. Crowley stated, ``We don't think 
     that we should be distracted from the fact that the only way 
     to resolve the core issues within the process is through 
     direct negotiations.'';
       Whereas, on December 10, 2010, Secretary Clinton stated, 
     ``it is only a negotiated agreement between the parties that 
     will be sustainable'';
       Whereas the Government of Israel has made clear that it 
     would reject a Palestinian unilateral declaration of 
     independence, has repeatedly affirmed that the conflict 
     should be resolved through direct negotiations with the 
     Palestinians, and has repeatedly called on the Palestinian 
     leadership to return to direct negotiations; and
       Whereas efforts to bypass negotiations and to unilaterally 
     declare a Palestinian state, or to appeal to the United 
     Nations or other international forums or to foreign 
     governments for recognition of a Palestinian state, would 
     violate the underlying principles of the Oslo Accords, the 
     Road Map, and other relevant Middle East peace process 
     efforts: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) reaffirms its strong support for a negotiated solution 
     to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states, 
     a democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a viable, democratic 
     Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace, security, 
     and mutual recognition;
       (2) reaffirms its strong opposition to any attempt to 
     establish or seek recognition of a Palestinian state outside 
     of an agreement negotiated between Israel and the 
     Palestinians;
       (3) urges Palestinian leaders to--
       (A) cease all efforts at circumventing the negotiation 
     process, including efforts to gain recognition of a 
     Palestinian state from other nations, within the United 
     Nations, and in other international forums prior to 
     achievement of a final agreement between Israel and the 
     Palestinians, and calls upon foreign governments not to 
     extend such recognition; and
       (B) resume direct negotiations with Israel immediately;
       (4) supports the Administration's opposition to a 
     unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state; and
       (5) calls upon the Administration to--
       (A) lead a diplomatic effort to persuade other nations to 
     oppose a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and to 
     oppose recognition of a Palestinian state by other nations, 
     within the United Nations, and in other international forums 
     prior to achievement of a final agreement between Israel and 
     the Palestinians; and
       (B) affirm that the United States would deny recognition to 
     any unilaterally declared Palestinian state and veto any 
     resolution by the United Nations Security Council to 
     establish or recognize a Palestinian state outside of an 
     agreement negotiated by the two parties.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1765, 
and I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I brought this resolution to the floor because I believe 
negotiations are the only path to a two-state solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. For this reason, the United States Congress has 
every reason to be concerned about efforts of some in the Palestinian 
Authority leadership to attain recognition of statehood while bypassing 
the accepted negotiation process.

                              {time}  1910

  These efforts run counter to the Palestinians' own internationally 
witnessed commitments at the 1991 Madrid Conference and under the 1993 
Oslo Agreement and the 2003 Roadmap. Most important, the Palestinians 
will only get a state by negotiating with the Israelis.
  That is but one reason I am deeply disappointed by the recently 
announced decisions of Brazil and other Latin American countries to 
recognize an independent Palestinian state, actions prompted by a 
direct request from Palestinian President Abbas.
  Ultimately, such recognition of nonexistent statehood gives the 
Palestinians nothing. In 1988, Yasser Arafat declared a state and 
garnered recognition from more than 100 states; now, 22 years later, 
there is still no state. The Palestinian people don't want a bunch of 
declarations of statehood. They want a state. And they should have one, 
through the only means possible for attaining one, negotiations with 
Israel.
  The Obama administration has been unwavering on this point. Unless an 
independent Palestinian state is formed via a negotiated settlement, 
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be solved. Only through 
direct negotiations can difficult compromises be reached on the core 
issues of borders, water, refugees, Jerusalem, and security. Unilateral 
declarations of statehood will not eliminate the sources of the 
conflict; they will exacerbate them. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 
could not have been more correct when she said just this past Friday 
that ``it is only a negotiated agreement

[[Page 22201]]

between the parties that will be sustainable.''
  I believe that Palestinian Authority President Abbas and Prime 
Minister Fayyad are committed to a peaceful resolution of their 
conflict with Israel, so I hope they will take Secretary Clinton's 
message to heart. This body has been very generous in its support of 
their worthy efforts to build institutions and the economy on the West 
Bank. In fact, I believe we are the most generous nation in the world 
in that regard. So I think our friends should understand: If they 
persist in pursuing a unilateralist path, inevitably, and however 
regrettably, there will be consequences for U.S.-Palestinian relations.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support this important pro-
negotiations, pro-peace resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I strongly support 
a negotiated solution for peace in the Middle East, and this resolution 
will help do that.
  Unfortunately, behind closed doors and behind the backs of Israelis 
and the United States, Palestinian leaders are reportedly holding high-
level, unilateral discussions in pursuing recognition of a Palestinian 
state by the United Nations and other international forums. In fact, 
the U.N. Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Robert 
Serry, on October 26 of this year said he supported recognition of a 
Palestinian state by the United Nations. The answer is to negotiate 
with Israel to make sure that there is a Palestinian state and not 
operate unilaterally without the help and negotiation of Israel. But 
this is not all.
  Earlier this month, three South American countries--Argentina, 
Brazil, and Uruguay--recognized Palestine as a state. Palestinian 
statehood recognition outside of talks with Israel is a bad idea, and 
it is not a peaceful solution to this problem.
  If the Palestinian state is a sovereign state, what are the borders 
of this state going to be? Will terrorist acts now be seen as an act of 
war from a recognized state? Is this going to be a sovereign state 
within the sovereign State of Israel? No one knows because none of 
these questions have been answered with these countries who want to 
have a unilateral recognition of this state.
  I am not saying that there can never be a Palestinian state, but what 
I am saying is certain conditions certainly should be met before a 
state can be established. And one of those, the foremost important one, 
is get to the table and negotiate with Israel. Quit worrying about what 
Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay think and be more concerned about what 
Israel thinks, because Israel must agree to whatever solution comes 
about in this negotiation.
  If other countries follow Brazil and recognize Palestine, why would 
Palestine return to negotiations with Israel? They are already getting 
what they want without negotiations. I believe that without further 
negotiations with Israel, there will be violence in the Middle East; in 
fact, peace in the Middle East will be a far-off dream.
  I think the administration needs to come out very strongly in 
opposition to this idea before more states recognize a Palestinian 
state. I think it is important that Congress show Israel that we stand 
with them. We stand for them because what is bad for them is bad for 
the United States and for the world and for the Middle East. So it is 
simple: Get back to the table with the people that are most concerned 
about a Palestinian state, that being the Israelis.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I thank the gentleman for his position, for his resolution, and for 
his cosponsoring of this resolution. And I am here to stand not only 
with the Israelis, but I stand with the Palestinians on this issue 
because the Palestinians want this state, and negotiations are the way 
to get it.
  I am pleased to yield for a unanimous consent request to my colleague 
from California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for a negotiated 
solution to the decades-long conflict between Israel and the 
Palestinians. I will be voting in favor of the resolution introduced by 
my friend from my home state of California, Congressman Berman, as I 
believe that only a negotiated solution to which all parties agree will 
achieve lasting peace.
  However, I would like to note that I believe that this resolution 
unwisely addresses only one issue standing in the way of Israeli-
Palestinian peace, even while numerous other issues continue to plague 
the peace process. I believe that the resolution is fully correct that 
the Palestinian Authority should not seek statehood unilaterally. Yet, 
I do not believe that unilateral actions by either side that undermine 
efforts to achieve a negotiated solution are helpful in achieving our 
shared goal of peace in the region. In fact, I believe that they are 
extremely counterproductive.
  Moreover, I believe that it is critical that this Congress support 
the Obama Administration's continued efforts to negotiate with each of 
the parties over substantive issues to make progress toward a 
settlement so that an eventual return to direct negotiations can be 
successful. Indeed, Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell 
is in the region now working to make substantive progress.
  Once again, I support this resolution, but I believe that it unfairly 
only addresses one of a number of complex issues standing in the way of 
achieving a negotiated peace settlement in the Middle East.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the chairman of 
the Middle East and Southeast Subcommittee.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is absolutely vital. It 
should be called the Peace Process Preservation Act because that is 
exactly what it is all about.
  I understand that to many Israelis and many Palestinians, there is 
enormous frustration and disappointment and impatience with the peace 
process, but there is absolutely no acceptable alternative to it. Only 
negotiations can promise a real and durable peace, a peace with 
security for Israel, as a Jewish and democratic state, and independence 
for a sovereign and viable Palestinian state. There is no magic wand. 
There is no shortcut. The only way to peace is negotiating in good 
faith and making the hard choices that it demands.
  Israel has shown time and again that it is ready. In the year 2000, 
Israel made a serious and generous offer to the Palestinians at Camp 
David, and then offered even more at Taba. Israel offered the 
Palestinians still more in 2008. And last year, Prime Minister 
Netanyahu, without getting any credit, came out in favor of a two-state 
solution and has been waiting ever since for the Palestinians to join 
him at the table.
  It is time for Abu Mazen to stop jetting around the looking for 
alternatives to dealing directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu. 
Palestinians can't, on the one hand, complain that Israeli settlements 
prejudge final status issues and then run around calling on other 
nations to try to impose a solution from the outside.
  Personally, I think that the Palestinians' complaints about 
settlements are overwrought. Prime Minister Netanyahu froze settlement 
building for 10 months and got only Palestinian scorn for his efforts. 
Moreover, for peace, or to promote it, Israel has withdrawn completely 
from Sinai, Lebanon, and Gaza. So the Israeli track record on land for 
peace is very clear.
  But what some Palestinians can't seem to understand is that their 
legitimate aspirations not only can't be achieved by violence, but are 
equally unobtainable through unilateral or external declarations. A 
just and lasting settlement is only possible through a political 
process, one where both sides make concessions.
  Any nation that is truly committed to peace, or sees itself as a 
friend of the Israelis or the Palestinians, has to recognize that 
trying to dictate a solution is a recipe for catastrophe. Instead of 
producing peace, efforts to impose one from the outside will transform 
a difficult but resolvable conflict between two peoples into a horrific 
war between two religions.

[[Page 22202]]

  So if you think the time to resolve this conflict is now, and I do, 
and if you think both Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to govern 
themselves, and I do, then you need to support this resolution in favor 
of negotiations and peace and against imposed or unilateral solutions.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member on the Middle 
East Subcommittee, be allowed to control the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the committee, chair 
of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the chairman for yielding to me. And I, like my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, rise in support of this 
resolution. My colleagues have said it very, very well, and I reiterate 
it--the only way that peace can be achieved in the Middle East is by 
having the two parties sit down and negotiate a settlement that can't 
be an American plan, that can't be an Obama plan, that can't be a U.N. 
plan. It has to be a plan between the Israelis and Palestinians. So at 
the end of the day, we come out with a two-state solution--the Jewish 
State of Israel and a Palestinian State. And both States ought to live 
with security along recognized borders.
  Now, it is bad enough that these countries like Brazil, Argentina, 
and Uruguay, unilaterally say that they accept or they recognize a 
Palestinian State. They talk about a Palestinian State within the 1967 
borders, which is preposterous. Everyone knows that Israel would never 
and could never agree with it. Those borders are indefensible, and for 
that reason Israel would and could not accept it. So, as far as I am 
concerned, this is just mischief-making. This is the Palestinian 
leadership not having the guts to sit down and negotiate a difficult 
situation.
  The Palestinian leadership has been throwing all kinds of 
preconditions out there, saying to Israel, We're not going to sit and 
negotiate with you unless you do this; we're not going to sit and 
negotiate with you unless you do that. So the prime minister of Israel, 
Netanyahu, agrees to a 10-month moratorium on building any kind of 
settlements or neighborhoods or anything like that, and the Palestinian 
leadership decried it. They made fun of it. They said it was nothing. 
And then they waited 9 of those 10 months to actually sit down and 
negotiate with Israel. So they sat down for 1 month and then the 10 
months expired. And now they are demanding another freeze. Well, I find 
it very odd that now that this freeze on so-called settlement 
activities is absolutely necessary in order for the Palestinians to sit 
down and negotiate, when for 9 months they refused to negotiate when 
Israel had stopped any kind of new settlements. So this is just a 
further international attempt to delegitimize Israel and to 
unilaterally declare statehood for the Palestinians. That will never 
work.
  A little history is important here. Back in 1948, when the United 
Nations resolution passed, taking what was then historic Palestine and 
dividing it between an Arab State and a Jewish State, the Jews in the 
area said yes, accepted it, and the Arabs said no. And they went to war 
against Israel. And went to war against Israel time and time and time 
again to wipe out the State of Israel.
  So we know we have come a long way. And my colleagues have said this. 
Back in 2000, back in 2001, Prime Minister Barak, Prime Minister 
Sharon, Prime Minister Olmert all issued and agreed to have 
negotiations and to give the Palestinians almost everything they 
wanted; a state of their own. They turned it down. Negotiation is the 
only step forward, and we should continue on that path.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a 
member of the committee, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. 
Faleomavaega).
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I do want to thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and I 
want to state for the record I associate myself with the comments and 
the position taken by the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee 
concerning this issue that is now before the House.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict for the past 60 years, in my opinion, has been something that 
not only has got the attention of the entire world, it is trying to 
find a solution to the current issues and the problems existing between 
the Israeli and the Palestinian people. I also want to commend the 
Obama administration and certainly Secretary Clinton for initiating the 
efforts to continue the negotiation process in trying to find a 
peaceful solution to the current problem existing between Israel and 
the Palestinian people.
  One thing that is quite certain, that is at least a sense of 
consensus and agreement, is the fact that we recognize that yes, 
Palestine should be given as an independent and sovereign state just as 
much as there should be proper recognition of Israel as a sovereign and 
an independent state. I think the points that have been taken by my 
good friend, the gentleman from Texas; Mr. Berman; and also my 
colleagues from New York, Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Engel, are well taken. 
And I just want to urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee with an ardent 
interest in this issue, the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. I would like to thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding and for his extraordinary leadership on this issue and on our 
committee for the last several years.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this important resolution 
because I am deeply concerned about the chances for Middle East peace. 
Over the last year, instead of negotiating directly with the Israelis, 
Palestinian leaders have turned their backs on peace talks. They have 
come up with all sorts of excuses to avoid negotiations, demanding that 
Israel stop construction in all settlements, including Israel's 
capital, before they'll even sit down to negotiate. When Israel took 
the courageous and difficult step of agreeing to a 10-month moratorium, 
that wasn't enough. They waited 9 of the 10 months, only coming to the 
table at the last possible moment. Meanwhile, rather than negotiating, 
the Palestinians have decided to pursue a unilateral strategy, seeking 
global recognition for their ``state'' instead of making peace with the 
State of Israel. Shamefully, several countries have even rewarded the 
Palestinian stonewalling instead of urging them to return to the 
negotiating table where they belong. The negotiating table is the only 
way to bring a true and lasting peace to the region. All peace-loving 
nations must reject this Palestinian manipulation and insist that they 
return immediately to negotiations. There is simply no other path to 
peace.
  It is the Palestinians that have the most to lose if there isn't a 
negotiating path to peace. While Israel has a strong country and a good 
education system, a vibrant economy, a national identity, a cultural 
identity and a strong democracy, the Palestinians, because of their 
poor leadership, have absolutely none of those. And they will never get 
any of that until there is peace between the parties. The only way to 
do that is to sit down and negotiate in good faith. If I was Abu Mazen, 
you couldn't drag me away from the negotiating table. I would sit there 
until I delivered for my

[[Page 22203]]

people a Palestinian State. It occurs to me that maybe that's not what 
his motives are. If he was interested in it, with a 10-month moratorium 
he should have started on day one of the moratorium instead of waiting 
until the end.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to one 
who has been, really, an ardent supporter of the resolution of the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace in the Middle East, my friend 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very reluctant support of this resolution. 
Unfortunately, we have before us today yet another one-sided resolution 
regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will vote in favor of it 
because I do oppose unilateral declarations of Palestinian statehood, 
and I do believe that a negotiated solution is the only way forward for 
Palestinian statehood to actually happen. However, this resolution 
ignores other facts on the ground that have led to the current 
breakdown in negotiations, most notably Israel's expansion of 
settlements.
  Mr. Speaker, it is truly absurd to argue that serious negotiations 
can occur when both actors are engaged in activities that threaten the 
credibility of the peace process. It is likewise unwise to ignore that 
both Israelis and Palestinians bear responsibility for engaging in 
these activities.
  Resolutions, like the one we are considering today, are clearly done 
for domestic political consumption much more than for having any 
positive impact on the conflict. We should not be ignorant of the fact 
that this Chamber's pattern of passing resolutions that are one-sided 
can, indeed, undermine our credibility to be serious brokers for peace.
  No one is doubting the important relationship between the United 
States and Israel. Israel is our strongest ally and the only true 
democracy in the region, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak the 
truth in identifying Israeli policies that are harmful to promoting 
peace in the region and that advance the United States' national 
interests.
  If I could rewrite this resolution, it would highlight the 
responsibilities of each partner to take actions demonstrative of its 
commitment to peace. Israelis and Palestinians alike share this 
responsibility, and so does the United States as an honest broker.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, I think Israel continues to do everything they 
can to bring about a peaceful solution to the problems in the Middle 
East regarding the Palestinian issue, but they don't have a partner, 
and the Palestinians continue to do an end run around the negotiation 
process.
  Number one, it isn't going to work. Number two, it shows the 
insincerity of the leadership of the Palestinian Authority when it 
talks about peace. In the past 5 years, we have given over $2 billion 
in assistance to the Palestinian Authority, and we have been 
reinforcing and rewarding bad behavior on the part of the Palestinian 
Authority when it has proven to us, by doing the things it is doing 
right now, that it is really not worthy of the support we are giving 
it. We should finally hold the Palestinian Authority leaders 
accountable.
  A couple of things really bother me. One is when I hear the leader of 
the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, Abu Mazen, praise the recently 
deceased mastermind of the PLO's massacre of the Israeli athletes at 
the 1972 Munich Olympics. This is the leader, and he is praising the 
massacre that the whole world abhorred. He also expressed what he 
called his ``firm rejection of the so-called Jewishness of the State of 
Israel,'' saying, ``This issue is over for us. We have not and will not 
recognize it.''
  That's a heck of an attitude for people to have who say they want a 
Palestinian state and who say they want to negotiate while, at the same 
time, they're making these statements and are doing an end run around 
the entire process.
  Last year, Abu Mazen said, ``Presently, we are against armed struggle 
because we cannot cope with it, but things could be different at some 
future phase.''
  That indicates again and again and again their insincerity of 
negotiating in good faith. They are talking about at some point in the 
future having another armed struggle. Israel has gone beyond the pale 
time and again. Bibi Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, has taken that 
extra step time and again.
  Until we see real concern and real sincerity in the negotiating 
process, we ought to take a very hard attitude toward the Palestinian 
Authority. In my opinion, that means cutting off any funding for it 
until it is willing to seriously sit down and negotiate a peaceful 
settlement to the problem.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the comments of my colleague 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  I am obviously grateful for her support of this resolution and for 
her agreement with the notion that unilateral steps like this are not 
the way to achieve peace. Yet she made certain comments regarding 
issues which are not in the resolution--and she is right. This 
resolution has nothing about settlements. There is nothing about 
incitement. There is nothing about the Palestinian denial of the Jewish 
connection to the Western Wall. As for the settlements, I have my own 
reservations about Israel's activities, but this resolution isn't about 
any of those things.
  This resolution is about the most central issue of all--the pathway 
to Palestinian statehood. There is only one path, and that is through 
negotiations. No negotiations, no state. It is as simple as that.
  I am now happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman 
for yielding.
  I rise to support this legislation. As I listened earlier--and I had 
to depart from the floor--I wanted to reinforce the comments and 
perspective that Chairman Berman has announced.
  Mr. Speaker, diplomacy is bilateral. It is a two-way street. It is a 
give-and-take. It is the ability to help all of the people who are 
involved, and it is also the ability for the world to recognize that a 
coming together has occurred. I have the greatest sense of concern and 
respect for the Palestinian people and for Palestinian Americans, who 
themselves have reached out and asked for help.
  I believe the people of the West Bank and Gaza want freedom, 
opportunity, equality, and a peaceful existence. I believe, over the 
years, the people of Israel and its many leaders have engaged in the 
process of peace. We in the United States are committed to a two-party 
state. We are committed to a peace resolution. Make peace today. 
Unilateral affirmation of one state without the recognition of the 
importance of both states coexisting and working together does not lead 
to the recognition that the world should give to two independent states 
that will be working alongside each other.
  So I would simply indicate that, as we move forward, it is enormously 
important that we get energized on the two-party debate, discussion and 
diplomacy, and that we provide a peaceful existence as one of the 
negotiators--the United States--for the Palestinian people and the 
people of Israel. We should be engaged. We have been asked to be 
engaged. We can make a difference, and I would support the idea of our 
making a difference.
  To my friends who have proceeded on a unilateral perspective, Mr. 
Speaker, I would simply say: go this route of a two-party state, 
engaging to provide peace for the two states.

[[Page 22204]]



                              {time}  1940

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would close by quoting from Prime Minister 
Salam Fayyad in an interview he gave just yesterday--actually, it was 
tonight in that time zone--where he said, ``We want a state of 
Palestine, not a unilateral declaration of statehood.'' He explained 
that he did not see how a unilateral declaration of statehood would 
assist the Palestinian cause.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass this resolution.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, having repeatedly refused to negotiate in 
good faith with Israel, the Palestinian Authority is now threatening to 
abrogate the Oslo Accords by unilaterally declaring its own state at 
the U.N. For all those Americans and citizens of the world who yearn 
for peace, prosperity and stability in the Middle East, I warn that 
nothing could be more detrimental to these hopes.
  A unilaterally declared Palestinian state is a rejection of the very 
essence of the peace process. It is an unambiguous statement that the 
Palestinians refuse to honor their obligations in the interest of a 
lasting peace with Israel.
  A real, genuine peace won't come out of thin air. It will come when 
the Palestinians teach their children that Israel has a right to exist 
as a Jewish State. And it will come when the PA inspires confidence 
that it has the capability and the will to provide security and 
safeguard peace with Israel on its own.
  That day has not arrived, and it is reckless and harmful to U.S. 
national security interests to pretend otherwise. Should a state be 
recognized based on the now-untenable pre-1967 borders, Palestinian 
terrorists in the West Bank would have the same kind of free rein to 
shoot rockets, mortars and guns into Israel that they now have in Gaza. 
Only this time, all of Israel's main population centers will be in the 
crosshairs. This would lead to a permanent state of war as Israel is 
forced to defend itself.
  Fortunately, the U.S. has the ability to veto any irresponsible 
Palestinian declaration of statehood at the U.N. By taking up this 
resolution, the House of Representatives is signaling its belief that 
the United States' veto authority should be used to preserve stability 
and prospects for peace in the Middle East.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am as disappointed as anyone 
that the Middle East Peace talks have stalled despite considerable 
efforts by the Administration and the international community to help 
both sides make the tough decisions needed to help advance those talks. 
I understand that some of my colleagues are frustrated with repeated 
roadblocks that appear only intent on derailing the peace process. I 
share that frustration. I believe that all who have a clear stake in 
the peace process are also frustrated.
  I have long advocated and reaffirmed my strong support for a 
negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with two states 
living side by side in peace and security. Both parties bear 
responsibility for the success or failure of the Middle East Peace 
efforts.
  No one pretends that the issues involved here are easy. I think 
everyone also recognizes the devastating consequences for the region, 
for our ally Israel, and for U.S. security interests if the right 
solution is not found.
  There are a myriad of issues that have arisen that have complicated 
talks. Palestinian unilateral declaration of a state is only one, but 
if you read this resolution you would reach the conclusion that it is 
the only unilateral action or proposed action that would imperil this 
process. The House should urge the Administration to take a strong 
stand with both parties on all unilateral actions that are hindering 
the peace talks, especially those that were agreed to only a few years 
ago by the parties in the Roadmap.
  Middle East peace requires the active engagement of both parties. The 
Administration, as well as the House of Representatives, should make 
the expectations for both parties clear: each party must engage 
seriously on even the hardest issues--making proposals and counter-
proposals--and achieve concrete results.
  As I stated in a letter to President Obama earlier this year in 
support of strong U.S. engagement as an honest broker in renewed Middle 
East Peace talks, allowing actions by either party that undermine the 
process to go unchallenged serves to fan animosity and mistrust, which 
feeds this needless cycle of conflict and violence. This does not serve 
the interests of the U.S., our ally Israel, or the Palestinians.
  This resolution reaches half that goal since it targets only one 
action by one party. It correctly notes the Administration's opposition 
to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and the potential 
harm that would do to a comprehensive Middle East Peace Agreement. The 
same resolution also conveniently skips around other unilateral actions 
by the parties that may also harm the atmosphere for peace in the 
region.
  The resolution notes one quote from Secretary Clinton's speech a few 
days ago on December 10. Let's look a little deeper into some of the 
Secretary's other comments in that lengthy speech. Secretary Clinton 
made clear that the U.S. remains committed to reaching a comprehensive 
peace deal between the parties with the U.S. playing a key role. She 
also stated that a peace agreement between the two parties is the 
``only path to achieve the Palestinians' dreams of independence.''
  She specifically also noted that ``in the days ahead, our discussion 
with both sides will be substantive two-way conversations with an eye 
toward making real progress in the next few months . . . The United 
States will not be a passive participant. We will push the parties to 
lay out their position on the core issues without delay and with real 
specificity . . . We enter this phase with clear expectations of both 
parties.''
  In her speech Secretary Clinton noted that ``the position of the U.S. 
on settlements has not changed and will not change. Like every American 
administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of 
continued settlement activity. We believe their continued expansion is 
corrosive not only to peace efforts and a two-state solution, but to 
Israel's future itself.'' The resolution before us today notes support 
for a negotiated solution but is silent on this issue as if it does not 
impact achieving that negotiated solution.
  Secretary Clinton went on to say that both parties, ``to demonstrate 
their commitment to peace . . . should avoid actions that prejudge the 
outcome of negotiations or undermine good faith efforts to resolve 
final status issues. Unilateral efforts at the United Nations are not 
helpful and undermine trust. Provocative announcements on East 
Jerusalem are counterproductive. And the United States will not shy 
away from saying so.''
  Unfortunately, the resolution before us today gets half of the 
message and only a small fraction of the demands on both parties to 
help move this process forward, laid out by the Secretary of State last 
Friday.
  As noted by Secretary Clinton, Israeli and Palestinian leaders should 
stop trying to assign blame for the next failure, and focus instead on 
what they need to do to make these efforts succeed. I believe the House 
resolution before us today would have been wise to also heed that 
advice.
  The intent of this resolution is to express concern with an action 
that will put more obstacles in the way of achieving Middle East Peace. 
I could not agree with that goal more. But let's make sure that we 
recognize that both parties have an equal responsibility to refrain 
from such actions.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we must advance a negotiated 
peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, I have 
concerns that H. Res. 1765 only addresses one of the issues that is 
impeding lasting peace in the region. For the United States to be an 
honest, effective broker of peace, we must take into account the roles 
that all parties play in the conflict.
  Particularly now, as we try to rebuild the potential for direct 
talks, we must weigh our actions based on how effectively they will 
advance the likelihood of all parties coming to the negotiating table. 
I strongly support American diplomatic efforts to mediate a two-state 
solution, and I believe we must direct our efforts towards balanced 
measures that lay the strongest possible foundation for a peaceful 
resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, 17 years have passed since the signing 
of the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993, but a final resolution to the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict has yet to be achieved.
  The question is: Why?
  Only by first understanding the reasons that the conflict continues, 
can the United States set and implement a policy that can help to 
encourage a true and lasting peace.
  So let us consider the conduct of both sides.
  One Israeli government after another has been willing and able to 
make painful sacrifices, including territorial withdrawals, to achieve 
peace.
  As Secretary of State Clinton has noted, the current Israeli 
government has made unprecedented concessions in pursuit of peace, 
including a ten-month moratorium on housing construction in the West 
Bank in order to encourage the Palestinians to negotiate directly with 
Israel.
  In short, Israel has proven its commitment to peace.
  However, Mr. Speaker, Israel does not seem to have a partner in this 
endeavor.

[[Page 22205]]

  Palestinian leaders still never miss an opportunity to miss an 
opportunity, and continue to default on their international 
obligations.
  They continue to refuse to negotiate directly with Israel, without 
preconditions.
  Instead of encouraging the Palestinian people to accept Israel as a 
permanent neighbor with whom they should live in peace, the leaders in 
Ramallah continue to tolerate, encourage, and even participate in anti-
Israel incitement.
  They continue to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as a 
democratic, Jewish state.
  Even as the Palestinian leadership seeks a state for the Palestinian 
people, it would deny the right of the Jewish people to a state in 
their own homeland.
  We are not talking about isolated, fringe elements.
  Palestinian rejectionism and non-compliance flows from the very top.
  Earlier this year, the leader of the Palestinian Authority and the 
PLO, Abu Mazen, praised the recently-deceased mastermind of the PLO's 
massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
  Abu Mazen also expressed what he called his ``firm rejection of the 
so-called Jewishness of the state [of Israel],'' saying that ``This 
issue is over for us; we have not and will not recognize it.''
  Last year, Abu Mazen said that ``Presently, we are against armed 
struggle, because we cannot cope with it. But things could be different 
at some future phase.''
  And a former PA foreign minister and senior associate of Abu Mazen 
has announced that the PA would be intensifying its diplomatic and 
economic offensive against Israel, with the aims of isolating Israel, 
preventing it from building its ties with the European Union, and 
expelling Israel from the U.N.
  Already, the PA tried--unsuccessfully--to block Israel's candidacy 
for membership in the OECD.
  And now, instead of sitting down with the Israeli government to 
negotiate directly, the Palestinian leadership is conducting an 
extensive campaign to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by 
foreign governments and within the U.N. and other international 
organizations.
  Unfortunately, in response to a request from Abu Mazen, the Brazilian 
government recently agreed to recognize a Palestinian state, instead of 
urging the Palestinians to fulfill their commitments.
  The governments of Argentina and Uruguay have also indicated that 
they intend to recognize a Palestinian state.
  The Palestinian leadership is aggressively lobbying other nations to 
do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a partner for peace.
  But as we've seen over and over, Palestinian leaders are not going to 
make the tough decisions and change their ways unless they have to.
  By providing over $2 billion in assistance in the last five years 
alone--with hundreds of millions more planned--the U.S. is only 
rewarding and reinforcing bad behavior by Ramallah.
  Enough is enough.
  We should finally hold PA leaders accountable, which is why I will 
soon introduce legislation to clarify and tighten existing U.S. laws 
that deny funding to the PA until they meet their commitments.
  The Administration should also reverse its decision to allow the PLO 
office in DC to call itself a ``General Delegation'' and to fly the 
Palestinian flag.
  That decision sent the wrong signal to other governments, who 
concluded they should also upgrade the PLO's status in their countries.
  Furthermore, the U.S. should stop pressuring the Israeli government 
to make more and more concessions, and must not attempt to impose the 
terms of a solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I will support the resolution before us because it 
reinforces Congressional opposition to unilateral efforts by 
Palestinian leaders to gain recognition from other governments or 
within the U.N.
  I would draw particular attention to the fact that the resolution 
calls on the Administration to publicly affirm that it will: deny 
recognition to any unilaterally declared Palestinian state; and veto 
any U.N. Security Council resolution to establish or recognize a 
Palestinian state.
  The Administration must also oppose efforts by the Palestinians to 
seek recognition from, or membership in, any international 
organizations.
  I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from Texas, 
Congressman Poe, for introducing the resolution that served as the 
basis for the measure before us today.
  Judge Poe went out of his way to ensure that his resolution was fully 
bipartisan, securing the support of many Democrat cosponsors, including 
my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Ms. Berkley.
  We had requested that the Poe-Berkley resolution be considered on the 
floor.
  Regrettably, the Majority decided to introduce a new resolution on 
this issue instead.
  Supporting the pursuit of Middle East peace, and supporting our ally 
Israel, is one area that has strong bipartisan support in Congress, and 
by and large, the text of this resolution reflects that bipartisanship.
  But this matter could have and should have been handled better.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 
1765, a resolution supporting a negotiated solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict and condemning unilateral declarations of a 
Palestinian state.
  As a co-chair of the Democratic Israel Working Group, I would like to 
thank my colleague, Chairman Howard Berman, for bringing this important 
resolution to the House floor.
  I have been to Israel and the West Bank on numerous occasions. I can 
personally vouch for the yearning of the people of Israel and the 
Palestinian territories to come to a peaceful settlement that will end 
decades of discord and violence.
  A negotiated two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians is 
the underpinning of the peace process. It is the official policy of the 
U.S. Government, the Israeli Government and of the Palestinian 
Authority.
  Only through direct negotiations can difficult compromises be reached 
on core issues like borders, water, refugees, the status of Jerusalem, 
and security.
  Unfortunately, Palestinian leaders are pursuing a coordinated 
strategy to bypass the negotiations process to seek recognition of a 
unilaterally declared Palestinian state by the United Nations and other 
international forums.
  Recently, the governments of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay 
unilaterally recognized the State of Palestine upon request from 
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
  Unilateral declarations of statehood will not eliminate the sources 
of the conflict. Rather, they undermine the peace process and endanger 
the safety and security of the Israeli and Palestinian people.
  This country and this Congress remain the largest grantor of 
assistance to help the Palestinian Authority build the political, 
economic and social infrastructure to support a future state. The 
unilateral statehood effort will undermine the ability of the United 
States to continue playing a constructive role.
  I call upon my colleagues to vote in support of the peace process, of 
a secure Israel and viable, democratic Palestinian state and in favor 
of this resolution.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, while I do not intend to 
call for a recorded vote on this resolution, I would like to express my 
serious reservations about both the content of the measure before us 
and the circumstances under which it is being considered. Once again, 
we are being asked to consider a resolution about one of our Nation's 
most important foreign policy challenges that was rushed to the floor 
without any real chance for debate, without any consideration by the 
committee of jurisdiction, and without any opportunity for constructive 
input from the many Members of this body--Democrats and Republicans--
who care deeply about peace in the Middle East.
  This resolution is significant not for what it says, but for what it 
leaves unspoken. Of course most of us believe that a just and lasting 
peace between Israelis and Palestinians will only be achieved through a 
negotiated two-state solution. And of course any unilateral action by 
either side--or by a third party--that undermines the peace process 
should be cause for concern for this Congress, and for anybody else who 
believes that a two-state solution is still possible.
  But that is precisely the point: this resolution says absolutely 
nothing about the long history of unilateral actions taken by Israeli 
governments that have progressively undermined confidence in the 
ability of negotiations to deliver peace. It says nothing about the 
fact that formal negotiations broke down last week due in large part to 
Israel's refusal to extend its freeze on unilateral settlement 
construction for a mere three months. It says nothing about the 
understandable frustration felt by Israelis and Palestinians alike when 
they see their leaders fail yet again to make good on their promises of 
peace.
  Moreover, we must ask ourselves whether approving this resolution at 
this highly sensitive moment would in fact be counterproductive to its 
stated goal of supporting the peace process. With negotiations on life 
support and the Administration working overtime to determine the best 
path forward for the United States, should we really be making 
definitive statements about what the United States might or might not 
do if such a unilateral declaration were actually made? Or asking the 
State Department to shift its focus to

[[Page 22206]]

preventing other countries from granting diplomatic recognition, rather 
than continuing to focus on the peace process itself?
  One would think that we should rather be urging the Obama 
Administration to stand firm in its efforts to bring Israeli and 
Palestinian leaders back to the negotiating table. The Administration 
was wise to abandon its offer to give Israel a generous package of 
security guarantees to do something that is manifestly in its own self-
interest to begin with, but Secretary Clinton and Senator Mitchell have 
made clear their commitment to pursuing alternative courses of action.
  Instead of stirring the pot at this delicate time with pronouncements 
and condemnations, we should be offering hope and encouragement to 
their efforts.
  Ultimately, I agree with the basic points made in this resolution. 
But I strongly urge the leadership of this House, on both sides of the 
aisle, to allow for a more balanced, transparent, and deliberative 
process next time we are asked to express the sense of Congress on a 
matter of such critical importance to our Nation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I support much that is contained within 
this resolution, regarding the need to move forward on direct 
negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. A two-state resolution 
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to the security of 
Israel and to the strategic interests of the United States, in the 
region and around the world.
  However, this is a missed opportunity to raise concerns about the 
unilateral actions taken by both sides. In particular, the ongoing 
unilateral construction by Israeli settlers. Strong U.S. leadership is 
needed to bring these two sides together, and any resolution brought to 
the floor should clearly support that cause.
  This resolution does not meet that test and I must oppose it. While 
the bill recognizes an issue of concern, it does too little to affirm 
the urgency of achieving a two-state resolution, fails to oppose 
unilateral actions by all sides, and is silent on supporting the Obama 
Administration's efforts to negotiate peace.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress and the 
administration in a more productive manner to achieve lasting peace and 
a comprehensive two-state solution.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter 
of H. Res. 1765 because this resolution affirms the imperative for a 
negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian 
efforts to pursue declarations or recognitions of statehood outside of 
the peace process are unacceptable. This threatens compromise and a 
peaceful solution.
  I thank Chairman Berman for offering this important resolution and my 
colleagues in the House for calling on Palestinian leaders to cease all 
efforts at circumventing the negotiation process. Only through this 
direct Israel-Palestinian dialogue can we move forward to compromise 
and lasting peace. Unilateral declarations do not support this process, 
but rather threaten peace and deepen conflicts.
  It is time to focus on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Any 
attempts to bypass negotiations threaten the security and survival of 
the State of Israel, and the creation of a viable and democratic 
Palestinian state.
  I firmly believe that a lasting compromise can be reached through 
direct negotiations and compromise. That is the way forward for 
Israelis, Palestinians, and the United States. Secretary of State 
Clinton had it right when she noted that ``it is only a negotiated 
agreement between the parties that will be sustainable.''
  That is why I strongly oppose any Palestinian efforts to unilaterally 
declare statehood and abandon efforts for a negotiated two-state 
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Today, I am pleased that 
there is bipartisan agreement that the House of Representatives must do 
everything in our power to reaffirm the need for a peace process and to 
move these talks forward toward a lasting solution.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, no country has done more than the United 
States to advance the cause of Palestinian statehood.
  We have done so in recognition of Palestinian aspirations for a 
brighter and more stable future as well as Israel's desire for a secure 
and peaceful coexistence with its neighbors.
  As one of the largest grantors of Palestinian aid, we have worked to 
ensure that a future Palestinian state has the political, economic and 
social infrastructure to support a stable functioning democracy.
  But our efforts have been predicated on the Palestinians' own 
internationally-witnessed commitments to seek a negotiated solution to 
achieve a two-state peace agreement. These commitments served at the 
core of the 1991 Madrid conference, and were codified in the 1993 Oslo 
Accords, the 2003 Roadmap for Peace, the 2007 Annapolis declaration, 
two UN Security Council resolutions sponsored by the Bush 
Administration in 2002 and 2008, and reaffirmed at the 2010 summit 
brokered by President Obama.
  It is only through direct negotiations that the parties can resolve 
the core issues of borders, water, refugees, Jerusalem, and the 
security arrangements and produce an agreement that ends the conflict 
and sustains a viable independent Palestinian state.
  For all who complain that Israeli settlement construction is the 
primary obstacle to the peace talks, the reality is that Israeli 
leaders have time and again shown bold leadership to make difficult 
concessions on this issue and others for the sake of peace. The Israeli 
government's recent 10-month settlement moratorium and its serious 
consideration of a further extension are proof that settlements are not 
the stumbling block keeping us from direct talks.
  Rather, it is the Palestinian leadership's unwillingness to make 
tough choices that has sidelined the process. And if anything, a 
unilateral drive to statehood is chilling evidence.
  A strategy to bypass the negotiations process and unilaterally 
declare Palestinian statehood will turn the clock backward, not 
forward. It is a reckless tactic that threatens to intensify the 
conflict and alienate the United States, which by law would be 
prohibited from providing aid to an independent Palestinian State that 
does not, among other conditions, have a full and normal relationship 
with Israel.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and call on others in 
the international community to pressure the Palestinian leadership to 
demonstrate their dedication to achieving statehood by returning to the 
negotiating table.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 1765, a 
resolution supporting a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict and condemning unilateral declarations of a Palestinian state. 
It is a one-sided resolution that advocates for an approach that would 
prevent the very two-state solution it advocates.
  H. Res. 1765 rightly expresses support for a negotiated solution to 
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a strong proponent of peace and 
reconciliation, I believe that true long-term stability and security 
for Israel depends upon peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian 
neighbors. Indeed, an imposed solution will not bring either side 
closer to the security, peace and coexistence that have been elusive 
for the last sixty-plus years.
  This resolution condemns the unilateral actions recently taken by the 
Palestinian Authority to seek recognition of a Palestinian state within 
1967 borders. Yet it mentions nothing of the continued settlement 
building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that led to the breakdown 
in negotiations. While I do not support the actions taken by the 
Palestinian Authority, their efforts are a direct result of failed 
negotiations and continued settlement building that threaten the two-
state solution.
  If we only hold one side accountable, good faith negotiations cannot 
proceed. A just solution to this conflict requires recognition that 
negotiations will not be successful as long as the United States allows 
settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to continue. We 
cannot claim to be acting in Israel's best interest while turning a 
blind eye to actions that actively undermine its security.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been to the region. I have spoken to Israelis and 
Palestinians. Most of them want peace and they have been waiting too 
long for it. The political process and realities on the ground do not 
create conditions that are conducive to making peace a reality.
  True support of a just, negotiated solution requires us to hold both 
sides accountable. This resolution fails to do that. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this resolution.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1765.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________