Supporting a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and condemning unilateral measures to declare or recognize a Palestinian state, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1765) supporting a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and condemning unilateral declarations of a Palestinian state, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1765, and I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I brought this resolution to the floor because I believe negotiations are the only path to a two-state solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. For this reason, the United States Congress has every reason to be concerned about efforts of some in the Palestinian Authority leadership to attain recognition of statehood while bypassing the accepted negotiation process.

These efforts run counter to the Palestinians' own internationally witnessed commitments at the 1991 Madrid Conference and under the 1993 Oslo Agreement and the 2003 Roadmap. Most important, the Palestinians will only get a state by negotiating with the Israelis.

That is but one reason I am deeply disappointed by the recently announced decisions of Brazil and other Latin American countries to recognize an independent Palestinian state, actions prompted by a direct request from Palestinian President Abbas.

Ultimately, such recognition of nonexistent statehood gives the Palestinians nothing. In 1988, Yasser Arafat declared a state and garnered recognition from more than 100 states; now, 22 years later, there is still no state. The Palestinian people don't want a bunch of declarations of statehood. They want a state. And they should have one, through the only means possible for attaining one, negotiations with Israel.

The Obama administration has been unwavering on this point. Unless an independent Palestinian state is formed via a negotiated settlement, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be solved. Only through direct negotiations can difficult compromises be reached on the core issues of borders, water, refugees, Jerusalem, and security. Unilateral declarations of statehood will not eliminate the sources of the conflict; they will exacerbate them. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could not have been more correct when she said just this past Friday that ``it is only a negotiated agreement between the parties that will be sustainable.''

I believe that Palestinian Authority President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad are committed to a peaceful resolution of their conflict with Israel, so I hope they will take Secretary Clinton's message to heart. This body has been very generous in its support of their worthy efforts to build institutions and the economy on the West Bank. In fact, I believe we are the most generous nation in the world in that regard. So I think our friends should understand: If they persist in pursuing a unilateralist path, inevitably, and however regrettably, there will be consequences for U.S.-Palestinian relations.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this important pro- negotiations, pro-peace resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I thank the gentleman for his position, for his resolution, and for his cosponsoring of this resolution. And I am here to stand not only with the Israelis, but I stand with the Palestinians on this issue because the Palestinians want this state, and negotiations are the way to get it.

I am pleased to yield for a unanimous consent request to my colleague from California (Mr. Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the chairman of the Middle East and Southeast Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the committee, chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a

distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee with an ardent interest in this issue, the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to one who has been, really, an ardent supporter of the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace in the Middle East, my friend from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the comments of my colleague from California (Mrs. Capps).

I am obviously grateful for her support of this resolution and for her agreement with the notion that unilateral steps like this are not the way to achieve peace. Yet she made certain comments regarding issues which are not in the resolution--and she is right. This resolution has nothing about settlements. There is nothing about incitement. There is nothing about the Palestinian denial of the Jewish connection to the Western Wall. As for the settlements, I have my own reservations about Israel's activities, but this resolution isn't about any of those things.

This resolution is about the most central issue of all--the pathway to Palestinian statehood. There is only one path, and that is through negotiations. No negotiations, no state. It is as simple as that.

I am now happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I would close by quoting from Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in an interview he gave just yesterday--actually, it was tonight in that time zone--where he said, ``We want a state of Palestine, not a unilateral declaration of statehood.'' He explained that he did not see how a unilateral declaration of statehood would assist the Palestinian cause.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am as disappointed as anyone that the Middle East Peace talks have stalled despite considerable efforts by the Administration and the international community to help both sides make the tough decisions needed to help advance those talks. I understand that some of my colleagues are frustrated with repeated roadblocks that appear only intent on derailing the peace process. I share that frustration. I believe that all who have a clear stake in the peace process are also frustrated.

I have long advocated and reaffirmed my strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. Both parties bear responsibility for the success or failure of the Middle East Peace efforts.

No one pretends that the issues involved here are easy. I think everyone also recognizes the devastating consequences for the region, for our ally Israel, and for U.S. security interests if the right solution is not found.

There are a myriad of issues that have arisen that have complicated talks. Palestinian unilateral declaration of a state is only one, but if you read this resolution you would reach the conclusion that it is the only unilateral action or proposed action that would imperil this process. The House should urge the Administration to take a strong stand with both parties on all unilateral actions that are hindering the peace talks, especially those that were agreed to only a few years ago by the parties in the Roadmap.

Middle East peace requires the active engagement of both parties. The Administration, as well as the House of Representatives, should make the expectations for both parties clear: each party must engage seriously on even the hardest issues--making proposals and counter- proposals--and achieve concrete results.

As I stated in a letter to President Obama earlier this year in support of strong U.S. engagement as an honest broker in renewed Middle East Peace talks, allowing actions by either party that undermine the process to go unchallenged serves to fan animosity and mistrust, which feeds this needless cycle of conflict and violence. This does not serve the interests of the U.S., our ally Israel, or the Palestinians.

This resolution reaches half that goal since it targets only one action by one party. It correctly notes the Administration's opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and the potential harm that would do to a comprehensive Middle East Peace Agreement. The same resolution also conveniently skips around other unilateral actions by the parties that may also harm the atmosphere for peace in the region.

The resolution notes one quote from Secretary Clinton's speech a few days ago on December 10. Let's look a little deeper into some of the Secretary's other comments in that lengthy speech. Secretary Clinton made clear that the U.S. remains committed to reaching a comprehensive peace deal between the parties with the U.S. playing a key role. She also stated that a peace agreement between the two parties is the ``only path to achieve the Palestinians' dreams of independence.''

She specifically also noted that ``in the days ahead, our discussion with both sides will be substantive two-way conversations with an eye toward making real progress in the next few months . . . The United States will not be a passive participant. We will push the parties to lay out their position on the core issues without delay and with real specificity . . . We enter this phase with clear expectations of both parties.''

In her speech Secretary Clinton noted that ``the position of the U.S. on settlements has not changed and will not change. Like every American administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and a two-state solution, but to Israel's future itself.'' The resolution before us today notes support for a negotiated solution but is silent on this issue as if it does not impact achieving that negotiated solution.

Secretary Clinton went on to say that both parties, ``to demonstrate their commitment to peace . . . should avoid actions that prejudge the outcome of negotiations or undermine good faith efforts to resolve final status issues. Unilateral efforts at the United Nations are not helpful and undermine trust. Provocative announcements on East Jerusalem are counterproductive. And the United States will not shy away from saying so.''

Unfortunately, the resolution before us today gets half of the message and only a small fraction of the demands on both parties to help move this process forward, laid out by the Secretary of State last Friday.

As noted by Secretary Clinton, Israeli and Palestinian leaders should stop trying to assign blame for the next failure, and focus instead on what they need to do to make these efforts succeed. I believe the House resolution before us today would have been wise to also heed that advice.

The intent of this resolution is to express concern with an action that will put more obstacles in the way of achieving Middle East Peace. I could not agree with that goal more. But let's make sure that we recognize that both parties have an equal responsibility to refrain from such actions.

I thank the chairman for yielding to me. And I, like my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, rise in support of this resolution. My colleagues have said it very, very well, and I reiterate it--the only way that peace can be achieved in the Middle East is by having the two parties sit down and negotiate a settlement that can't be an American plan, that can't be an Obama plan, that can't be a U.N. plan. It has to be a plan between the Israelis and Palestinians. So at the end of the day, we come out with a two-state solution--the Jewish State of Israel and a Palestinian State. And both States ought to live with security along recognized borders.

Now, it is bad enough that these countries like Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay, unilaterally say that they accept or they recognize a Palestinian State. They talk about a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders, which is preposterous. Everyone knows that Israel would never and could never agree with it. Those borders are indefensible, and for that reason Israel would and could not accept it. So, as far as I am concerned, this is just mischief-making. This is the Palestinian leadership not having the guts to sit down and negotiate a difficult situation.

The Palestinian leadership has been throwing all kinds of preconditions out there, saying to Israel, We're not going to sit and negotiate with you unless you do this; we're not going to sit and negotiate with you unless you do that. So the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, agrees to a 10-month moratorium on building any kind of settlements or neighborhoods or anything like that, and the Palestinian leadership decried it. They made fun of it. They said it was nothing. And then they waited 9 of those 10 months to actually sit down and negotiate with Israel. So they sat down for 1 month and then the 10 months expired. And now they are demanding another freeze. Well, I find it very odd that now that this freeze on so-called settlement activities is absolutely necessary in order for the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate, when for 9 months they refused to negotiate when Israel had stopped any kind of new settlements. So this is just a further international attempt to delegitimize Israel and to unilaterally declare statehood for the Palestinians. That will never work.

A little history is important here. Back in 1948, when the United Nations resolution passed, taking what was then historic Palestine and dividing it between an Arab State and a Jewish State, the Jews in the area said yes, accepted it, and the Arabs said no. And they went to war against Israel. And went to war against Israel time and time and time again to wipe out the State of Israel.

So we know we have come a long way. And my colleagues have said this. Back in 2000, back in 2001, Prime Minister Barak, Prime Minister Sharon, Prime Minister Olmert all issued and agreed to have negotiations and to give the Palestinians almost everything they wanted; a state of their own. They turned it down. Negotiation is the only step forward, and we should continue on that path.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I strongly support a negotiated solution for peace in the Middle East, and this resolution will help do that.

Unfortunately, behind closed doors and behind the backs of Israelis and the United States, Palestinian leaders are reportedly holding high- level, unilateral discussions in pursuing recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations and other international forums. In fact, the U.N. Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Robert Serry, on October 26 of this year said he supported recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations. The answer is to negotiate with Israel to make sure that there is a Palestinian state and not operate unilaterally without the help and negotiation of Israel. But this is not all.

Earlier this month, three South American countries--Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay--recognized Palestine as a state. Palestinian statehood recognition outside of talks with Israel is a bad idea, and it is not a peaceful solution to this problem.

If the Palestinian state is a sovereign state, what are the borders of this state going to be? Will terrorist acts now be seen as an act of war from a recognized state? Is this going to be a sovereign state within the sovereign State of Israel? No one knows because none of these questions have been answered with these countries who want to have a unilateral recognition of this state.

I am not saying that there can never be a Palestinian state, but what I am saying is certain conditions certainly should be met before a state can be established. And one of those, the foremost important one, is get to the table and negotiate with Israel. Quit worrying about what Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay think and be more concerned about what Israel thinks, because Israel must agree to whatever solution comes about in this negotiation.

If other countries follow Brazil and recognize Palestine, why would Palestine return to negotiations with Israel? They are already getting what they want without negotiations. I believe that without further negotiations with Israel, there will be violence in the Middle East; in fact, peace in the Middle East will be a far-off dream.

I think the administration needs to come out very strongly in opposition to this idea before more states recognize a Palestinian state. I think it is important that Congress show Israel that we stand with them. We stand for them because what is bad for them is bad for the United States and for the world and for the Middle East. So it is simple: Get back to the table with the people that are most concerned about a Palestinian state, that being the Israelis.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member on the Middle East Subcommittee, be allowed to control the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is absolutely vital. It should be called the Peace Process Preservation Act because that is exactly what it is all about.

I understand that to many Israelis and many Palestinians, there is enormous frustration and disappointment and impatience with the peace process, but there is absolutely no acceptable alternative to it. Only negotiations can promise a real and durable peace, a peace with security for Israel, as a Jewish and democratic state, and independence for a sovereign and viable Palestinian state. There is no magic wand. There is no shortcut. The only way to peace is negotiating in good faith and making the hard choices that it demands.

Israel has shown time and again that it is ready. In the year 2000, Israel made a serious and generous offer to the Palestinians at Camp David, and then offered even more at Taba. Israel offered the Palestinians still more in 2008. And last year, Prime Minister Netanyahu, without getting any credit, came out in favor of a two-state solution and has been waiting ever since for the Palestinians to join him at the table.

It is time for Abu Mazen to stop jetting around the looking for alternatives to dealing directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Palestinians can't, on the one hand, complain that Israeli settlements prejudge final status issues and then run around calling on other nations to try to impose a solution from the outside.

Personally, I think that the Palestinians' complaints about settlements are overwrought. Prime Minister Netanyahu froze settlement building for 10 months and got only Palestinian scorn for his efforts. Moreover, for peace, or to promote it, Israel has withdrawn completely from Sinai, Lebanon, and Gaza. So the Israeli track record on land for peace is very clear.

But what some Palestinians can't seem to understand is that their legitimate aspirations not only can't be achieved by violence, but are equally unobtainable through unilateral or external declarations. A just and lasting settlement is only possible through a political process, one where both sides make concessions.

Any nation that is truly committed to peace, or sees itself as a friend of the Israelis or the Palestinians, has to recognize that trying to dictate a solution is a recipe for catastrophe. Instead of producing peace, efforts to impose one from the outside will transform a difficult but resolvable conflict between two peoples into a horrific war between two religions.

So if you think the time to resolve this conflict is now, and I do, and if you think both Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to govern themselves, and I do, then you need to support this resolution in favor of negotiations and peace and against imposed or unilateral solutions.