[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3952-3953]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 ISRAEL

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I raise an issue before the body. I don't 
know how accurate the press reports are, but apparently the Chief of 
Staff of President Obama, Mr. McDonough, today spoke in town to a group 
called J Street, which is an organization supportive of the United 
States-Israel relationship, apparently. Here is what he allegedly said. 
He basically said that an occupation that has lasted more than 50 years 
must end.
  So the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States, speaking 
in Washington today, called the Israeli presence in the West Bank an 
occupation. The Chief of Staff of the President of the United States is 
looking at a world completely different than the one I am viewing.
  I ask Mr. McDonough and President Obama: Don't you realize the last 
time Israel withdrew in the Mideast--a Palestinian-controlled 
territory--was the withdrawal from Gaza and that when Israel 
voluntarily left Gaza, Hamas took over Gaza?
  They are a terrorist organization and they fired up to 10,000 rockets 
from Gaza into Israel. Today, Israel has a presence in the West Bank. 
Today, Israel is surrounded by radical Islamists, unlike at any time I 
can remember.
  The language used by the Chief of Staff of the President of the 
United States is exactly what Hamas uses. So now our administration is 
taking up the language of a terrorist organization to describe our 
friends in Israel.
  Here is a question to the American people: Would you withdraw from 
the West Bank, given the situation that exists today on the ground 
between the Israelis and the rest of the region? Would you at this 
moment in Israel's history completely withdraw from the West Bank, 
given the experience in Gaza?
  Does anybody on the left think that is a good idea? Does anybody in 
Israeli politics agree with the characterization of the Chief of Staff 
of President Obama? Does Mr. Herzog or anyone else in opposition to 
Prime Minister Netanyahu agree with this characterization? Is your 
country occupying the West Bank or are you there to make sure the West 
Bank doesn't turn into Gaza?
  I talked with the Prime Minister Saturday and I congratulated him on 
a decisive victory and I look forward to working with him. He told me 
very clearly that he believes a two-state solution is not possible as 
long as the Palestinian Authority embraces Hamas, which controls the 
Gaza strip and is a terrorist organization by any reasonable 
definition.
  With whom do you make peace, Mr. President? What kind of deal can you 
make when almost half the Palestinian people are in the hands of a 
terrorist organization who vow to destroy you every day? What kind of 
deal is that?
  So do I want a two-state solution? Yes, I would like a two-state 
solution, where the Palestinians recognize the right of Israel to exist 
and they have the ability to chart their own destiny. They are not 
anywhere near there. The Palestinian community is broken into two 
parts. The Hamas terrorist organization controls the essential part of 
the Palestinian community. They will not recognize Israel's right to 
exist. They are using the territory they hold as a launching pad for 
attacks against Israel routinely. These are the people who launch 
rockets from schoolyards and apartment buildings trying to blame Israel 
for being the bad guy when they respond.
  All I can say is when I thought it couldn't get worse, it has. When I 
thought we couldn't reach a new low in terms of this White House's view 
of the Mideast, we found a way to reach a new low. Today, the Chief of 
Staff of the President of the United States used language to describe 
Israel that has been reserved for terrorist organizations up until now.
  So, Mr. McDonough, President Obama, you are completely delusional 
about the world as it is. You are negotiating with an Iranian regime, 
and in the President's New Year's greeting he called on the Iranian 
people to speak out in support of a nuclear deal. Mr. President, don't 
you understand that in Iran you can't speak out; that if you do speak 
out and petition your government you can get shot or put in jail? You 
don't understand that? You are talking to people as if they have a 
voice. You are talking about the regime as if they are some kind of 
rational actor.
  In that same New Year's greeting, the President complimented the 
regime, headed up by the Ayatollahs, as being cooperative in terms of 
their nuclear negotiations with the P5+1. What the President didn't 
mention is that this very regime that is spreading terror, unlike at 
any time in recent memory, is involved in the toppling of four Arab 
capitals. They are wreaking havoc on the neighborhood. As we are 
negotiating on their nuclear deal, they are still the largest state 
sponsor of terrorism. They called for death to America 2 days ago.
  So I say to the Obama administration: Wake up and change your 
policies before you set the whole world on fire. Please watch your 
language because our best ally in the region, the State of Israel, does 
not deserve the label of ``occupier,'' given the facts on the

[[Page 3953]]

ground, and they do not deserve to hear from the Chief of Staff of the 
President of the United States language that is usually reserved for a 
terrorist organization.
  So when I thought it couldn't get any worse, it has. Let me put the 
Obama administration on notice. You may not like the fact that Prime 
Minister Netanyahu won, but he did, and here is what you need to 
understand. If you are recalculating the administration's support for 
Israel in terms of how you handle resolutions in the United Nations, 
you need to understand that Congress will recalculate how we relate to 
the United Nations if you stand on the sidelines and let the U.N. take 
over the peace process.
  There will be a bipartisan, violent backlash in this body if the 
Obama administration does not veto a U.N. resolution defining the peace 
process in the Security Council, avoiding direct negotiations between 
the parties. I am here to say that one of the casualties of a haphazard 
foreign policy could be the relationship between the United Nations and 
the Congress. I promise there is bipartisan support in this body for 
two things: to stand firmly with Israel and not to allow the U.N. 
Security Council to take over the peace process in defining the terms 
of a deal.
  Secondly, if there is a deal with the Iranians over their nuclear 
program, if this administration takes that deal to the U.N. Security 
Council, bypassing Congress and not coming to us first, there will 
become a great backlash regarding that move.
  So I say to the Obama administration: Israel is not the problem. The 
Israeli people have not killed one American soldier. The Israeli people 
are in a dispute about their survival with the Palestinian people. The 
Israeli people gave land to the Palestinians, and in return they got 
10,000 rockets, and you want them to do it again. Can't you understand 
why Israel may not want to withdraw from the West Bank given the 
history of Gaza? If you can't, you are completely blind to the world as 
it is, and your hatred and your disgust and your disdain for the Prime 
Minister has clouded your judgment.
  So to our friends in Israel I say: There can only be one Commander in 
Chief, and that is the way it should be. But there are 535 of us in the 
House and the Senate and we do have your back. We will not sit on the 
sidelines and watch this rhetoric enacted in a manner that would put 
you at risk beyond what you already are in terms of risk.
  This is a low point for me; that an administration, the Chief of 
Staff of an American President, would use this language, but it fits 
into an overall pattern that I think is very destructive. So I say to 
President Obama and Mr. McDonough: Your foreign policy is not working. 
If you don't get that, then God help us all because what you are doing 
in the Mideast is not working. You are making everything worse, and now 
you have added fuel to the fire.
  I hope there will be some self-correction at the White House; that we 
will not take this rhetoric any further than we have today; that there 
will be a reevaluation of whether it is appropriate to call the Israeli 
people occupiers, given the facts on the ground. Only time will tell.
  I do understand this, without any hesitation. There are many of us in 
this body who will not put up with this. We will push back. Israel has 
not killed one U.S. soldier. Israel hasn't toppled any of their 
neighbors. Israel doesn't chant ``Death to America.'' You may not like 
the outcome of the Israeli election, but it was up to the Israeli 
people to decide, and they have decided.
  All of us got into this body the same way--people at home voted for 
us. Under our Constitution, we have an equal voice to that of the 
President in terms of checks and balances. Even though he is the leader 
of America's foreign policy and the Commander in Chief, we do have the 
right to speak on such matters. So here is my voice, and I think I 
speak for many on both sides of the aisle when I say to the Israeli 
people: Do what you have to do to defend the Jewish State. To the 
President of the United States and Mr. McDonough: The language you used 
today is very unhelpful and, quite frankly, disconnected from reality.
  I will end with this. Would any Member of this body, if they were in 
Israeli leadership, withdraw from the West Bank, given what is going on 
in the region? Would any Member of this body be as restrained in 
responding to a rocket attack coming from a neighbor as Israel has been 
restrained? What would we do if some terrorist organization next door 
to us launched a rocket trying to kill our children? Would we be as 
restrained as our Israeli friends? I doubt it.
  I am asking this body to walk a mile in the shoes of the Israeli 
people and understand why this statement is so offensive and has 
usually been reserved by the leader of the free world to describe 
terrorist organizations.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Ernst pertaining to the introduction of S. 841 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________