Reaffirming Longstanding United States Policy in Support of a Direct Bilaterally Negotiated Settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 165, in support of direct bilateral negotiations to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, introduced by Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel. This resolution is much more than a restatement of longstanding U.S. policy. It is an urgent defense of our commitments to the State of Israel in the face of innumerable threats.

The United States has long insisted that the only path to peace for the Israelis and Palestinians is through direct, bilateral negotiations. Any so-called resolution imposed from the outside is doomed to failure because it inherently lacks the political support of both parties to the conflict. Peacemaking is hard work, but that reality has not stopped others from looking for a shortcut.

The U.N. Security Council is one such forum that has served as a platform for anti-Israel schemes for many, many years. Thankfully, the United States has always resolutely imposed such unilateralism and, when necessary, through both Democratic and Republican White Houses, has always resolutely used the veto. Since 1972, the United States has used its veto power 42 times to block anti-Israel measures in the Security Council. However, in the closing days of this administration, this longstanding policy is being called into question.

Mr. Speaker, there are many reports that President Obama is considering moving the needle on the peace process before he leaves office by supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution enshrining certain conditions for peace. Just last month, The New York Times editorial board came out forcefully in favor of this scheme. The editorial board wrote: ``The best idea under discussion now would be to have the United Nations Security Council, in an official resolution, lay down guidelines for a peace agreement covering such issues as Israel's security, the future of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees and borders for both states.''

On the contrary, this is just about the worst idea. It would have the effect of dangerously undercutting the peace process. Israel's security, the future of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, and borders-- anyone familiar with this issue knows--are the four most sensitive matters at stake in this conflict and should not be imposed from without. The United States ought to be very clear when faced with such proposals. Any attempt to determine the fate of these issues outside of direct, bilateral talks undermines the sovereignty of our strong ally Israel, destroys goodwill, and threatens to prolong the conflict further.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Sadly, the drumbeat for unilateral United Nations action on this issue continues. On October 14, the U.N. Security Council held a special debate, titled, ``Illegal Israeli Settlements: Obstacles to Peace and the Two-State Solution.'' The session was held at the request of Security Council members Egypt, Venezuela, Malaysia, Senegal, and Angola, with the backing of the Palestinians. Such one-sided initiatives only damage prospects for peace.

Last April, 390 Members of the House on both sides of the aisle signed a letter to the President. It was signed by so many of us, including some in this room, including Nita Lowey, Kay Granger, Karen Bass, Ted Deutch, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ed Royce, Eliot Engel, Kevin McCarthy, Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and myself--390 in all--that laid out the simple principles that have guided our policy. These principles include:

A refusal to support counterproductive efforts aimed at imposing a solution on the parties;

Opposition to Palestinian efforts to seek recognition of statehood status in international bodies; and

A willingness to oppose, if need be, a one-sided U.N. resolution by way of a veto.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source