Patriot Sunsets Extension Act of 2011
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, tomorrow morning, a joint meeting of Congress will welcome the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. It will be the first time Mr. Netanyahu has addressed us in a joint meeting and only the second time any Israeli Prime Minister has addressed a joint meeting of Congress as its sole participant. It is a distinct and historic honor and an opportunity for us to hear again how crucial is the friendship between our two countries.
In anticipation of this event, I rise today to provide for the record a restatement of how I and I believe many--if not most--of my colleagues regard the State of Israel and America's relationship with that fellow democracy. This restatement is necessary, I believe, in light of the President's speech last week regarding the Arab spring. The President's remarks, which were delivered just before President Netanyahu's arrival in the United States, seriously muddied the waters of American policy toward Israel and its troubled region.
The Arab spring has sprung from new popular forces throughout the region, overthrowing regimes that have lost their relevance to the aspirations of their people and threatening to overthrow others.
The administration's response has been slow in coming, awkward and confused in efforts to explain its policies, inconsistent in its application from one part of the region to another, less than transparent in keeping Congress informed, and, worst of all, ineffective in its guidance and understanding of events.
The protests in the Middle East and northern Africa have justifiably stirred the emotions and aspirations of the Palestinian people as well. They also seek a homeland of their own--secure, stable, and living at peace with their neighbors. I agree this must be among our goals.
Some believe the groundswell of newly vibrant popular aspirations throughout the region and also among the Palestinian people is both an opportunity and a requirement for new, creative steps in the search for permanent peace. There may be an opportunity here that leads to progress if we and the parties to this long-lasting dispute make the right choices, if we seek the right ends, and if we pursue them with the right strategies. Unfortunately, the administration seems to misunderstand the nature of this opportunity. In a speech last week regarding the wave of startling events in the Middle East and north Africa, President Obama attempted to bring coherence and purpose to his administration's policy. Instead, the speech brought more confusion, potentially jeopardizing prospects for successful negotiations with Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
In my opinion, it was a serious mistake for the President to preemptively declare U.S. support for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. President Obama's declaration that Israel must withdraw to the 1967 border lines is unprecedented and unwelcome. It is true that previous administrations have referred to the 1967 lines in the past as a reference point in the negotiations. It is also true that the Palestinians regard the 1967 lines as their beginning negotiating position. But even with the President's vague acknowledgment of the need for land swaps, no U.S. administration has previously adopted the Palestinian position as its official policy until now. How can this help restart negotiations or drive those negotiations toward a successful conclusion?
As Mr. Netanyahu made clear to the President in the Oval Office, a return to the 1967 lines is ``indefensible'' and ignores new realities on the ground. This position was formally recognized by President Bush in 2004 and must now be reconfirmed by any realistic assessment of what steps are possible and necessary. The object of negotiations is to reach a successful and durable conclusion. But ignoring core realities cannot possibly contribute to progress and almost certainly would make it more difficult to achieve the ends we all seek.
Another major concern I have following the President's speech is the reaction to the recent announcement by the Palestinians of a reconciliation agreement between the Fatah party of President Abbas and Hamas, the organization in charge in Gaza. This alleged reconciliation is likely a product of the Arab spring and the conviction the Palestinian people need to unite to pursue their common goals. This is understandable, and it would be acceptable if not for the character of one of the main factions to this reconciliation. Make no mistake about it, Hamas is a terrorist organization. This group denies Israel its right to exist, it fires thousands of rockets into Israeli territory and bemoans the death of bin Laden, one of its heroes.
If this announced reconciliation of these Palestinian groups actually occurs, the Palestinian Authority of President Abbas--to which the United States, by the way, provides considerable financial and humanitarian support--that administration, that group--that reconciliation will have President Abbas and that group dancing with the devil. It cannot, therefore, expect further support from us, nor can it expect support or understanding in any negotiations with Israel intending to create a Palestinian state. Indeed, we must not require or even encourage Israel to resume negotiations with an entity that includes terrorists. But how did the President address this in his speech? He did not mention the word ``terrorist'' or provide any solid indication that negotiations with Hamas would be impossible. He did not affirm that American assistance to Palestinians, including Hamas, would be off the table. He merely said that ``Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer'' to these remaining questions.
The President also suggested in his speech that the Israelis and Palestinians should focus negotiations in a restarted peace process on the issues of borders and security, leaving the highly contentious issues of Jerusalem and refugees for later. This type of step-by-step negotiating has been rejected many times in the past, and for good reason. Land is Israel's main asset in negotiations. Even if it were possible to reach agreement on land and borders first, Israel would be left in a far weaker position to negotiate the subsequent matters. The refugee issue is perhaps the most difficult of all because acceptance of the Palestinian position would completely change the nature of Israel as a Jewish state. Indeed, it is a fundamental survival issue that cannot be addressed in isolation.
Finally, I am deeply concerned that the President's speech may be used by the Palestinians to support their campaign to bring a unilateral declaration of statehood from the United Nations General Assembly. A declaration of statehood to the U.N. is a dangerous step that would preempt any new negotiations and make sure sufficient efforts are stillborn. If this strategy succeeds at the U.N. General Assembly this September, it will bring serious legal, political, diplomatic, and practical negative consequences for both a real peace process and Israel itself. Let me restate that. If this strategy succeeds at the U.N. General Assembly in September, it will bring serious legal, political, diplomatic, and practical negative consequences for both a real peace process and for Israel itself.
The Palestinian Authority has already announced its intentions to challenge Israeli interests in U.N.-related bodies, including the International Court. This tactic contradicts Palestinian claims that it seeks to bring new energy to the peace process. Peace will come through realistic negotiations, not through unilateral preemptive action.
The President did say he opposes this Palestinian effort to isolate and delegitimize Israel at the U.N., and this was a welcome statement. But supporting a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, speaking out against alleged reconciliation with the terrorist faction Hamas in only the most ambiguous terms, and promoting a policy that deprives Israel of its strongest negotiating advantage will only encourage the Palestinian Authority to pursue its U.N. strategy.
These confusing, inconsistent messages from the administration will not be enough to dissuade other U.N. member states from supporting the Palestinian maneuver. I fear the United States will then be forced to veto a resolution in the Security Council that our very own errors have helped bring about. Then we will find ourselves in a minority in the General Assembly and watch as the prospect of substantive negotiations become far more distant than before. Both we and our Israeli friends deserve better than this.
Mr. President, this is not a statement of support for Israel only. It is true that we are united with Israel by permanent bonds of history, values, shared strategic interests, culture, and religious heritage, but those bonds are also the principal reason we have for pursuing a peace that is durable and just for everyone in the region. That peace will serve the Palestinian people just as much as Jewish Israel. A secure homeland of their own, at peace, will be the result of real negotiations based on shared understanding of what is possible. Americans, the people of Israel, and the Palestinian people all have a shared common heritage in prophetic religions. Hopefully, prayerfully, together we can aspire to a common purpose to bring enduring peace to the birthplace of that heritage.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source