[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1197-1199]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     OUR FRIEND IN THE MIDDLE EAST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gowdy). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I come tonight deeply troubled about the 
situation in the Middle East, as so many people are, and also about the 
response of this country to our dear friend, Israel. It has been quite 
interesting to see as Iran comes ever closer to having nuclear weapons, 
just how much of a friend this administration has, at least from its 
viewpoint in Israel.
  In recent days, we've seen the story, a number of news services 
provided one story, a reporter from The Washington Post, David 
Ignatius, traveling with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and this 
article from Fox News says:

       Traveling with the Defense Secretary in Brussels to cover 
     his meeting with NATO defense ministers, Ignatius writes, 
     ``Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel 
     will strike Iran in April, May, or June.''

  That's awfully specific. There are some in Iran who have believed 
that we're a paper tiger and so is Israel, and we will prevent Israel 
from ever striking at all. And that if there were to be some kind of a 
strike, it would be much later in the year.
  There's an article from last October about Defense Secretary Panetta. 
This one is from the AP, October 2 of last year:

       Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Sunday that Israel is 
     becoming increasingly isolated in the Middle East, and said 
     Israeli leaders must restart negotiations with the 
     Palestinians and work to restore relations with Egypt and 
     Turkey.

                              {time}  1930

  It's really interesting because it was my impression that it was not 
Israel that had withdrawn from close relations, that it was Turkey that 
had actually allowed the flotilla to go challenge a legal and 
appropriate blockade of the Gaza Strip from which Israel was being 
bombarded on a constant basis. So they had a legal and legitimate 
interest in ensuring that more rockets did not flow into the Gaza Strip 
that would continue to be shot in an effort to kill Israelis.
  The reason that the rockets were flying from the Gaza Strip was 
because the Israelis had had really a rather amazing group of towns 
there. People were making a living. There were beautiful homes and 
greenhouses, providing a way in which people could provide for 
themselves and to grow their own food. These were just well-run 
communities.
  But the thought that the Israeli leaders had, apparently, was that if 
we will show this unilateral offer of goodwill to people who, in the 
last 40 years, have come to be called Palestinians--they obviously 
weren't for most of the history of mankind--but if they would do this 
amazingly gracious unilateral act, that it would be rewarded. And what 
Israel has found is that it has been rewarded with rockets flying into 
Israel in an effort to try to terrorize and kill Israelis.
  Previously, years before that, Israel had made an offer and did 
provide land from which it had been attacked, which it had acquired in 
southern Lebanon. Lo and behold, they were rewarded by being attacked 
from southern Lebanon and having soldiers kidnapped from southern 
Lebanon. So it's interesting to hear this administration and people 
from this administration in the top positions talk about how Israel 
needs to restart negotiations, that Israel is becoming increasingly 
isolated, how Israel must reach out more, when it seems that each time 
Israel reaches out its hand, its hand gets shot at and efforts are made 
to chop it off.
  This article from the AP from back in October quotes Secretary 
Panetta as saying:

       ``It's pretty clear that at this dramatic time in the 
     Middle East, when there have been so many changes, that it is 
     not a good situation for Israel to become increasingly 
     isolated. And that's what's happening,'' he said.
       Panetta said the most important thing now is for Israel and 
     its neighbors ``to try to develop better relationships so in 
     the very least they can communicate with each other rather 
     than taking these issues to the streets.''

  The Palestinians, meanwhile, have said they won't return to talks 
unless

[[Page 1198]]

Israel freezes settlement building and accepts the pre-1967 war 
frontier as a baseline for talks.
  This is somewhat akin to saying, well, if Mexico were to be launching 
rockets or doing things to terrorize American citizens, that if we'll 
just go back to where we were before the U.S.-Mexican War, then 
everything will be just fine. The United States went to war because of 
the same kind of unfairnesses that were seen by the Founders of this 
land. Dennis Miller put it this way: the Founders were willing to go to 
war when the British simply put a tax on their breakfast drink. So in 
all likelihood, they would be standing up firmly for a taking of 
liberties more so than we do sometimes today.
  In fact, if we stood firmly on the liberties of the United States 
citizens and efforts by others in the world to destroy us, efforts by 
others in the world who have said they will destroy our way of life and 
they want to destroy our country, then perhaps we would be a little 
safer today.
  I have a resolution that was filed--I've got lots of cosponsors--it 
was filed in May of last year, and I'm still in hopes that we can bring 
this to the floor because this is the response we should have to 
nations around the world trying to isolate Israel. We should let them 
know how we stand with them. We stand with people who are 
democratically elected, we stand with people who have the freedom of 
worship, we stand with people who will not terrorize Christians, 
terrorize Jews, or terrorize Muslims, where all will be allowed to 
practice their religion--any religion--and those ought to be our best 
friends.
  Yet, to the contrary, this Nation seems to run to the aid of those--
like in Afghanistan right now, we were advised last year that the last 
Christian church has now been closed, driven out of Afghanistan. This 
is the Afghanistan that American treasure and American lives were 
sacrificed to secure what we thought would be a democratic nation where 
they would choose peace. And, in fact, there has not been peace. The 
Taliban have actually increased in number dramatically since the days 
when we had them on the run, had basically defeated them in early 2002.
  We come back to this resolution, H. Res. 271, and it says:

       Expressing support for the State of Israel's right to 
     defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety 
     of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to 
     confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no 
     other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time 
     to protect against such an immediate and existential threat 
     to the State of Israel.

  This is the solution when a dear ally of the United States is being 
isolated by people who want to destroy it. And I know that--I believe 
Secretary Panetta did a very good job at intelligence, and I hope he 
will do as well at defense. But we would encourage people in this 
administration, Mr. Speaker, to go look at what has really been said 
and who has actually done harm to whom.
  And what you find out is that Israel has not moved away from being a 
friend. In fact, Israel had a treaty with Egypt, and a leader named 
Mubarak, with whom this Nation had agreements, was doing all he could, 
apparently, it appeared, to keep that treaty, to keep Egypt's word with 
Israel. This administration, on the other hand, saw fit to encourage 
Mubarak to step down and to make way for what seems to be the military 
and the Muslim Brotherhood, who seemed to have made clear they're not 
going to honor the treaty with Israel. They're not going to honor what 
was brokered here in the United States.
  So, once again, we have a United States administration who seems to 
have been left with egg on their faces, as President Carter's 
administration was. I don't know if they ever realized it, but when 
President Carter thought the Ayatollah Khomeini was a man of peace and 
was coming back to Iran and that it was a good thing, we soon found 
otherwise.

                              {time}  1940

  By 1979, they were at war with America, it's just that we didn't 
recognize that there were radical Islamists at war with us until after 
the attack on 9/11. Not even the attack on the World Trade Center in 
1993 was enough to convince us, not an attack on the USS Cole, not an 
attack on our embassy, not an attack on different U.S. properties 
around the world; it took 9/11 before we realized there are radical 
Islamists that are at war with us.
  Even though this administration has seen to the changing of the FBI 
lexicon, where, in training FBI agents and others who are in charge 
with defending our Nation, it's no longer appropriate to use words in 
the FBI lexicon--they're not there--of al Qaeda, radical Islamist. We 
use ``radical extremism'' instead. And as some experts on radical 
extremism--in other words, radical Islamists--have said, unless you 
understand what your enemy believes, how in the world can you prepare 
against an attack from that enemy?
  And as someone else had told me, this administration has been in the 
process of blinding those who are charged with trying to protect us; 
can't use the terms that were repeatedly used in the 9/11 bipartisan 
commission report at a time when they didn't know it was politically 
incorrect to accurately classify people who wanted to destroy your way 
of life.
  So, in this resolution regarding Israel's right to defend itself, it 
seemed that there was no better thing to do than to go to quotes and to 
the actual history in the region that points out that:

       Whereas archeological evidence exists confirming Israel's 
     existence as a nation over 3,000 years ago in the area in 
     which it currently exists, despite assertions of its 
     opponents.

  It's been amazing, having been over in Israel in November and seeing 
the results of excavations under what they now know is the City of 
David, in existence about 1,600 years before Muhammad was born. It's 
just amazing now all of the evidence that's being found archeologically 
that substantiates exactly what Israelis have been saying for years.
  The resolution says:

       Whereas with the dawn of modern Zionism, the national 
     liberation movement of the Jewish people, some 150 years ago, 
     the Jewish people determined to return to their homeland in 
     the Land of Israel from the lands of their dispersion;
       Whereas in 1922, the League of Nations mandated that the 
     Jewish people were the legal sovereigns over the Land of 
     Israel and that legal mandate has never been superseded;
       Whereas in the aftermath of the Nazi-led Holocaust from 
     1933 to 1945, in which the Germans and their collaborators 
     murdered 6,000,000 Jewish people in a premeditated act of 
     genocide, the international community recognized that the 
     Jewish state, built by Jewish pioneers must gain its 
     independence from Great Britain;
       Whereas the United States was the first nation to recognize 
     Israel's independence in 1948, and the State of Israel has 
     since proven herself to be a faithful ally of the United 
     States in the Middle East;
       Whereas the United States and Israel have a special 
     friendship based on shared values, and together share the 
     common goal of peace and security in the Middle East;
       Whereas, on October 20, 2009, President Barack Obama 
     rightly noted that the United States-Israel relationship is a 
     ``bond that is much more than a strategic alliance'';
       Whereas the national security of the United States, Israel, 
     and allies in the Middle East face a clear and present danger 
     from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seeking 
     nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile capability to 
     deliver them;
       Whereas Israel would face an existential threat from a 
     nuclear weapons-armed Iran;
       Whereas President Barack Obama has been firm and clear in 
     declaring United States opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran, 
     stating on November 7, 2008, ``Let me state--repeat what I 
     stated during the course of the campaign. Iran's development 
     of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable'';
       Whereas, on October 26, 2005, at a conference in Tehran 
     called ``World Without Zionism,'' Iranian President Mahmoud 
     Ahmadinejad stated, ``God willing, with the force of God 
     behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the 
     United States and Zionism'';
       Whereas The New York Times reported that during his October 
     26, 2005, speech, President Ahmadinejad called for ``this 
     occupying regime [Israel] to be wiped off the map'';
       Whereas, on April 14, 2006, Iranian President Ahmadinejad 
     said, ``Like it or not, the Zionist regime [Israel] is 
     heading toward annihilation'';

[[Page 1199]]

       Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad 
     said, ``I must announce that the Zionist regime [Israel], 
     with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion, and 
     betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the 
     geographical scene'';
       Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad 
     said, ``Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of 
     the United States has come, and the countdown to the 
     annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has 
     started'';
       Whereas, on May 20, 2009, Iran successfully tested a 
     surface-to-surface long range missile with an approximate 
     range of 1,200 miles.

  And, parenthetically, they now say they hope to have a missile that 
would be able to deliver a nuclear weapon from Iran to the United 
States.
  The resolution says:

       Whereas Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons;
       Whereas Iran has been caught building three secret nuclear 
     facilities since 2002;
       Whereas Iran continues its support of international 
     terrorism, has ordered its proxy Hezbollah to carry out 
     catastrophic acts of international terrorism such as the 
     bombing of the Jewish AMIA Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 
     in 1994, and could give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist 
     organization in the future;
       Whereas Iran has refused to provide the International 
     Atomic Energy Agency with full transparency and access to its 
     nuclear program;
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 
     states that according to the International Atomic Energy 
     Agency, ``Iran has not established full and sustained 
     suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing 
     activities and heavy-water-related projects as set out in 
     resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) nor 
     resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional 
     Protocol, nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA 
     Board of Governors, nor complied with the provisions of 
     Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 
     (2007) . . .'';
       Whereas at July 2009's G-8 Summit in Italy, Iran was given 
     a September 2009 deadline to start negotiations over its 
     nuclear programs and Iran offered a five-page document 
     lamenting the ``ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global 
     relations'' and included various subjects, but left out any 
     mention of Iran's own nuclear program which was the true 
     issue in question;
       Whereas the United States has been fully committed to 
     finding a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear threat, 
     and has made boundless efforts seeking such a resolution and 
     to determine if such a resolution is even possible;
       Whereas the United States does not want or seek war with 
     Iran, but it will continue to keep all options open to 
     prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; and
       Whereas Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said in January 
     2011 that a change of course in Iran will not be possible 
     ``without a credible military option that is put before them 
     by the international community led by the United States.''

                              {time}  1950

  The resolution ultimately says that, in addition to condemning the 
government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its threats of 
annihilation, it supports using all means of persuading the government 
of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons, reaffirms the 
United States bond with Israel.
  But ultimately, No. 4 says that, in this resolution, we express our 
support for Israel's right to use all means necessary to confront and 
eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, 
and protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, including the 
use of military force, if no other peaceful solution can be found 
within a reasonable time.
  Now, we know that in May of last year, President Barack Obama 
addressed the American-Israeli PAC here in Washington, D.C. And one of 
the statements that has not been lost on Israel, and should not be lost 
on the people who elected President Obama, and it certainly hasn't been 
lost on Iran, the President made this statement: ``Israel must be able 
to defend itself by itself.''
  This was made May 19, 2011. ``Israel must be able to defend itself by 
itself.''
  Ever since the President made those statements, it certainly seems 
that Israel has taken the President's words to heart. And yet, instead 
of the United States doing, as had been promised on many occasions, 
standing by Israel, our great ally, instead, our Defense Secretary, 
knowing that he's talking to a Washington Post reporter, knowing that 
it's not on background, knows that it will likely be reported, 
basically uses the opportunity to alert the nation whose leaders say 
they want to wipe Israel off the map, annihilate Israel, annihilate the 
United States, basically, tells Iran, hey, heads up. Israel may be 
coming in the next few months. Look out. Israel may be coming in the 
next few months.
  It's still a mystery why our Defense Secretary, and he's a very smart 
man, why he would make such a statement without authority, because he's 
not subject to the slips like outing SEAL Team Six as the ones who took 
out Osama Bin Laden, or outing the undisclosed location, as the Vice 
President has done. He's a man not subject normally to those kind of 
gaffes.
  This Defense Secretary warns Iran, as if the pressure behind the 
scenes this administration's been putting on our dear friend Israel was 
not enough, so now we've got to alert Israel's enemy, Iran. I hope that 
the administration will come out and give a good and legitimate answer 
to how such a warning to Iran helps Israel.
  And I would commend to anyone, Mr. Speaker, interested in going 
online and reading in The Jerusalem Post an article dated February 7, 
2012, by my friend, Caroline Glick, titled, ``Our World: Obama's 
rhetorical storm.'' I would commend that to everyone.
  The truth is, we should stand by Israel. Iran, with nuclear weapons, 
is a threat to us, not merely to Israel. And this Nation should not 
leave it to Israel, without our best bunker busters, without our AWACs, 
without our satellites, without our stealth technology. We should not 
put them in the position of having to defend us with lesser weapons 
capability.
  And I hope and pray that this administration will look more carefully 
at who the real enemy is, look more carefully at which nation was 
willing to come back to the peace table, willing to freeze the 
development of new housing areas, and which one was not, and which one 
of the nations, which one of the groups of people, in this case, the 
people of the West Bank, the Palestinians, their complete refusal to 
even recognize Israel's right to exist, their continuing teaching of 
children in the Palestinian areas that the Israelis are occupiers of 
Palestinian land. It's throughout the teaching of the children in the 
Palestinian areas, and they're doing that with our money. We're sending 
them money to teach children to hate Israel so that there can't be 
peace. It's time to look more carefully at where we're spending our 
money.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________