Coats Says Obama "Muddied the Waters" on American Policy toward Israel

Senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.) today made the following speech on the Senate floor regarding the Obama administration's policy toward Israel:

Transcript

"Mr. President, on Tuesday a joint session of Congress will welcome the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. It will be the first time Mr. Netanyahu will address us, and only the second time an Israeli Prime Minister has addressed a joint session as the 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, 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 Prime Minister Netanyahu's arrival in the United States, 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 with 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 stirred justifiably 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 its neighbors. I agree that this must be among our goals.

"Some believe that 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 and creative steps in the search for a 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, seek the right ends, and pursue them with the right strategies.

"Unfortunately, the Administration seems to misunderstand the nature of this opportunity. In his 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.

"I am extremely disappointed that the President preemptively declared 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 negotiations. And it is also true that the Palestinians regard the 1967 lines as their beginning negotiating position. But even with the President's vague acknowledgement of the need for land swaps, no U.S. Administration has adopted the Palestinian position as its official policy until now. How can this help re-start negotiations or drive them toward a successful conclusion?

"As Mr. Netanyahu made clear to the President in the oval office, a return to 1967 lines is "indefensible" and ignores new realities on the ground. This position was formally recognized by President Bush in 2004, and must be now reconfirmed by any realistic assessment of what steps are possible and necessary.

"The object of negotiations is to reach a successful and durable conclusion. Ignoring core realities cannot possibly contribute to progress and almost certainly would make it more difficult to achieve the ends we all seek.

"Another 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 that the Palestinian people need to unite to pursue their common goals. This is understandable and would be acceptable if not for the character of one of the main factions to this reconciliation.

"Hamas is a terrorist organization. This group denies Israel its right to exist, 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 provides considerable financial and humanitarian support -- will be 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 issue 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 re-started peace process on the issues of borders and security, leaving the highly contentious issues of Jerusalem and refugees for later. I am deeply concerned with this approach.

"This type of step-by-step negotiating has been rejected many times in the past, and for good reason. Land is Israel's major 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 concerned that the President's speech may be used by the Palestinians to support their campaign seeking a unilateral declaration of statehood to the United Nations General Assembly.

"A declaration of statehood to the UN is a dangerous step that would preempt any new negotiations. If this strategy succeeds at the UN General Assembly this September, it will bring serious legal, political, diplomatic and practical negative consequences for both a real peace process and Israel itself.

"The Palestinian Authority has already announced its intentions to challenge Israeli interests in UN-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.

"President Obama did say that he opposes this Palestinian effort to isolate and delegitimize Israel at the UN. I welcome that.

"But supporting a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders; speaking out against the 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 UN strategy.

"The confusing, inconsistent messages from the Administration will not be enough to dissuade other UN Member States from supporting the Palestinian maneuver.

"I fear the United States will then find itself in a minority in the General Assembly, opposing this resolution that our errors have helped bring about. Then we would be forced to veto the resolution in the Security Council, 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 principle 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. Together we can aspire to a common purpose, to bring enduring peace to the birthplace of that heritage."

Source