The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“REAFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT OF ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1277 on July 8, 2011.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
REAFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT OF ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN
CONFLICT
______
speech of
HON. JOHN D. DINGELL
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise to reluctantly support H. Res. 268. I support the resolution because I strongly agree in principle that the Israelis and Palestinians must negotiate a two-state solution.
H. Res. 268 contains much with which I disagree. We have seen such resolutions in the past. Unfortunately, their intent is to advance a specific narrative that I believe is at odds with the urgency of a negotiated peace. The resolutions are brought to the floor without the ability for Members of Congress to provide input at either the committee level or during consideration on the House floor. As a strong supporter of Israel and her right to self-defense, I take issue with this approach.
My biggest concern with H. Res. 268 is its call to cut aid to the Palestinians. Such a move would be at best premature and at worst detrimental to the prospects of resuming negotiations. The unity agreement between Hamas and Fatah is tenuous and the path forward for a potential unity government is unknown. Let me be clear: I would never advocate United States aid for Hamas or any government that contains Hamas. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel; it has never supported the peace process and it sympathizes with America's enemies like al Qaida and Iran. But at a time when much of the Middle East is shifting toward democracy, it is irresponsible and against our own interests to withhold dollars that we know are being used by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank to promote greater economic stability and physical security--for both the Israelis and Palestinians. Cutting off aid would be a setback for those working toward peace. Indeed, as the New York Times argues in its editorial on May 8, 2011, such a move may ``shift the political balance dangerously toward Hamas.''
In addition, H. Res. 268 is as egregious for what it includes as what it leaves out. The resolution does not suggest that the United States should play a strong role in bringing both sides back to the negotiating table. It does not say that both sides must continue negotiating without preconditions. Nor does it say both the Israelis and Palestinians must cease unilateral actions. The omissions raise serious questions. How can we as leaders of our nation reaffirm our commitment to a lasting two-state solution without acknowledging that U.S. leadership is critical to bringing about that solution? How can we ask one side and not the other to make difficult concessions?
The stakes in reaching a negotiated peace agreement are as high as ever as the window for a two-state solution narrows. The United States must help both sides rejoin negotiations, not pass resolutions laden with threats, grandstanding, and obfuscation. As the President stated in his speech at the U.S. State Department in May, ``At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That's certainly true for the two parties involved.''
My stance on this conflict is well known. I support a two-state solution that results in a Jewish and democratic state of Israel living side-by-side in peace and security with a Palestinian state. H. Res. 268 does nothing to achieve this outcome.
____________________
