[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3562-3563]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 ISRAEL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, actually my main subject I want to cover 
tonight is Israel, but I didn't want today to pass again without making 
comments about the health care bill, because clearly that is the number 
one subject on the minds of the people in Indiana as well as the rest 
of the country.
  One of the things that has happened here, without getting into what I 
believe are the demerits of the bill, the 17 percent of the American 
economy, and many companies in my district are threatened and their 
choices threatened, but I think one of the frustrations here is the 
arrogance of the process.
  Initially, we were promised that it was going to be live on C-SPAN 
and we would see all the negotiations. We are all familiar with how 
that was abandoned. Then many Members refused to do town halls. They 
wouldn't answer phone calls. They still won't answer their phone calls 
or mail. Then we saw deals made in the Senate bill unprecedented in 
American history.
  As I pointed out earlier today, Thomas Jefferson got all of 13 States 
as part of the first Louisiana Purchase in inflation-adjusted dollars 
of $150 million. Buying one vote from Louisiana in the other body cost 
$300 million.
  Then when 17 percent of the American economy is at stake, not some 
annual budget process but 17 percent of the American economy, the 
Founding Fathers had set up a process in the Senate that is being 
abused to go down to where it is 50 plus the Vice President can pass 
the bill. Now we are going to apparently pass this in the House, if 
they have the votes, and it is going to be deemed passed. We are not 
even going to vote. No wonder so many American people are losing 
confidence in government. It wasn't that we were high before, but we 
have hit new lows. And it is going to be difficult to establish 
confidence with the American people if we continue at this pace.
  But another part of the arrogance of this government is happening in 
Israel. I would like to insert this article from the Jerusalem Post 
into the Record. It is an article that makes some nuanced points.
  But first let me start and say Israel has an historic importance to 
the world and to ourselves not just because of its history before the 
Diaspora and the tremendous history of the Jewish people and the Nation 
of Israel, but also it was a returning homeland for those after the 
Holocaust from around the world where they could gather again to the 
land from which they had been evicted.
  Then it is important because it is a democratic bastion in the Middle 
East, where there are not democratic bastions. We are trying to see if 
Iraq can form a democracy, and Turkey is kind of a democracy as well. 
But Israel has been from its founding such a democracy, since its 
refounding in 1948. Not only that, but they are our best and really 
only consistent ally in the Middle East. But it is also because Israel 
is going to be of importance in future world history as well in many 
ways. In fact, not only should all Americans be concerned about what is 
happening in Israel, but many people have special concerns about the 
future of Israel and how the United States responds to Israel.
  Therefore, it is extremely disturbing to watch the arrogance of this 
administration to bully our best ally. This article in the Jerusalem 
Post says this is the worst that the United States has treated Israel 
since 1975. The American leadership is mistakenly painting Israel into 
a corner is the thrust of this article. In one of the more 
sophisticated statements in it by Mr. Avner, who has written on the '75 
crisis, he said, ``If the United States wishes to

[[Page 3563]]

advance a peace process, it must never paint Israel into a corner.'' 
And he points out that what is needed is constructive ambiguity.
  Now, that is an interesting term because most of us like to be very 
forthright. And I would say that most people in Israel would like to be 
forthright most of the time. But when dealing with historic conflicts 
that have gone back to how the divisions first occurred in what I 
believe when God gave Israel its land, and divisions that have occurred 
since then, straightforwardness does not bring peace. Constructive 
ambiguity brings peace.
  So when the United States takes sides in calling Ramat Shlomo a 
settlement, they chose words that were from the other side. That sends 
a message that becomes then very difficult for Israel. The question is, 
have we switched our positions or are we not as fully behind Israel?
  Now, anybody who has ever visited there, reads about it, follows 
Israel, realizes that its enemies on all sides at least claim they want 
to destroy it. And from time to time they have had wars with which to 
attempt to destroy it. You don't have to be kind of really informed on 
international issues to realize that Iran is trying to develop a 
nuclear bomb. Why are they trying to develop a nuclear bomb? They want 
to destroy Israel from the face of the earth. It is their stated goal.
  Now, the people in Israel may be divided on a lot of things and they 
have a lot of opinions in their country, but they are a tad worried 
about Iran. And they believe that the United States and the rest of the 
world don't seem to be taking it as seriously as they do. Maybe 
because, for example, you can get a bomber over Jerusalem from Amman, 
Jordan, in a minute and a half. So they tend to be a little uncertain 
when there is some doubt. And so they have a deep concern. In this case 
they have a concern that we are all going to talk, talk, talk while 
they are going to be in danger because of a nuclear weapon. If we are 
going to address this, we need to stop giving the signals that we do 
not stand behind Israel, and we need to stand directly behind Israel 
and let the world know that is what our U.S. position is and do a 
little bit of constructive ambiguity.

                     Obama Repeating 1975 Mistakes

                            (By Gil Hoffman)


 Ex-Rabin adviser says US government's stance recalls US-Israel Sinai 
                                crisis.

       The American leadership is mistakenly ``painting Israel 
     into a corner,'' as it did during a 1975 confrontation 
     between the two countries, Yehuda Avner, who was an adviser 
     to then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin at the time of the 
     crisis, said Monday.
       Ambassador to the US Michael Oren was quoted as telling 
     Israeli consuls general on a conference call Saturday night 
     that the current crisis with the US was the worst since the 
     1975 confrontation between then US Secretary of State Henry 
     Kissinger and Rabin over an American demand for a partial 
     withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula.
       Avner said he did not have enough inside information about 
     the current crisis to compare the two. But he compared the 
     language of Kissinger 35 years ago to that of current US 
     Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who he said spoke in a 
     manner that was more emotional than diplomatic.
       ``The US must never create a situation in which Israel sees 
     itself as being abandoned, because it encourages belligerence 
     on the other side and inflexibility on the Israeli side,'' 
     Avner said. ``If the US wishes to advance a peace process, it 
     must never paint Israel into a corner as it did by calling 
     Ramat Shlomo a settlement. What's needed now on all sides is 
     constructive ambiguity.''
       Avner, who worked under four Israeli prime ministers, 
     recalled the details of the 1975 crisis, which he recounts in 
     his new book The Prime Ministers.
       He said the March 1975 incident erupted when Kissinger 
     demanded that Israel give up the Jidda and Mitla passes in 
     the Sinai, and Rabin refused. Because of his refusal, 
     Kissinger left a meeting with Rabin in anger and accused 
     Israel of ``shattering the cause of peace.''
       At the height of the confrontation between the two men, 
     Kissinger told Rabin: ``You will be responsible for the 
     destruction of the third Jewish commonwealth,'' and Rabin 
     replied, ``You will be judged not by American history but by 
     Jewish history.'' Avner said he hoped the current crisis 
     would be resolved as successfully.
       Then American president Gerald Ford wrote Rabin a fiercely 
     worded letter that Avner said was among ``the most brutal'' 
     Israel had received from the US.
       ``I wish to express my profound disappointment of Israel's 
     attitude over the course of the negotiations,'' Ford wrote. 
     ``You know the importance I have attached to the US efforts 
     to reach an agreement. Kissinger's mission, encouraged by 
     your government, expresses vital US interests in the region. 
     Failure of the negotiations will have a far-reaching impact 
     on the region and our relation. I have therefore instructed 
     that a reassessment be made of US policy in the region, 
     including our relations with Israel with the aim of 
     reassuring that our overall American interests are 
     protected.''
       Within six months, Kissinger succeeded in brokering an 
     interim accord between Rabin and Egyptian president Anwar 
     Sadat whereby Israel agreed to pull back its forces out of 
     the Jidda and Mitla passes but retained the heights above 
     them while American forces were stationed in the passes.
       Avner said that since that compromise was reached, no 
     Israeli has been killed on the Israel-Egypt border.

                          ____________________