The passage on Tuesday of
H. Con. Res. 152,
a non-binding resolution commemorating the “40th
anniversary of the Six Day War and the
reunification of the city of
Jerusalem”,
was not marked by the usual overwhelming
yeah votes. Instead, the resolution
passed by voice vote, with no roll call
vote taken and only four additional
co-sponsors added to make the final
total a meager fourteen. It is not yet
clear why the vote took place in this
way—it may reflect a lack of confidence
in the outcome of such a vote and
Congressional weariness with resolutions
like these that do not help move the
peace process forward and undermine U.S.
diplomatic efforts. Keep in mind that
H. Con. Res. 152 is virtually identical
to resolutions passed by Congress in
1997 and other years and is primarily
symbolic. (President Bush waived
the provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy
Act on Friday, June 1st, only
four days prior to the House vote, just
as he and Pres. Clinton before him have
always done.)
Several Members made excellent remarks
for the record, marking the first
constructive Congressional debate on the
issue of
Jerusalem.
Rep. David Price (D-NC) concluded his
remarks with a remarkable statement on
the need for Jerusalem to be shared: “It
is my great hope to one day visit a
revitalized Jerusalem, undivided and
shared as the capital of Israel and an
independent Palestinian state, where
Jews, Muslims, and Christians live
together in peace and mutually honor the
sites sacred to all of us. I can only
wish that the resolution before us more
adequately expressed this aspiration.”
The statements by Reps. Price (D-NC),
Blumenauer (D-OR), Capps (D-CA) and Farr
(D-CA) are included below.
The debate can be viewed in full on the
THOMAS Congressional website.
If your Representative is among those
who made a positive statement, please
send them a note thanking them for their
efforts.
In the Senate, a resolution similar to
H. Con. Res. 152 has been expected. So
far, it has not been introduced, but it
is still possible. A positive
resolution in support of
Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking is
expected to be introduced by Sen. Dianne
Feinstein (D-CA) today (more details to
come).
Selected Remarks During the Floor Debate
on H. Con. Res. 152
Full Debate
David Price (D-NC-4th)
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to address H. Con.
Res. 152, recognizing the 40th
anniversary of Israel's victory in the
Six-Day War. This resolution will pass
by a large majority, but I fear that it
will become the latest in a series of
missed opportunities for this body to
support a viable peace process in the
Middle East.
This resolution has several positive
features. It is appropriate to
commemorate Israel's victory in the
Six-Day War. Its overwhelming military
victory helped to secure Israel's
continuing existence as a sovereign
nation, something that was very much in
doubt on the eve of the conflict.
I particularly support the third
clause of the resolution, which commends
Egypt and Jordan for their bold and
brave decisions to reach peace with
Israel. Their leadership has been a
critical, if often underappreciated,
guarantor of Israel's security and
survival, and I continue to hope that
other nations in the region will follow
their lead.
It is also important to affirm that
Jerusalem is the rightful capital of
Israel, while acknowledging that the
Palestinian people also have a claim to
Jerusalem as a capital and as a sacred
city.
Nevertheless, I am concerned that
this resolution, while calling for peace
negotiations, actually undermines U.S.
efforts to secure the trust of all sides
in the search for peace. The resolution
pursues an obsolete notion, put forth as
if the last decade of peace negotiations
simply had not occurred.
The idea of an undivided
Jerusalem
under sole Israeli sovereignty has not
been part of any serious peace
proposal--proffered by Israelis,
Palestinians, or the international
community--in the last several years.
Israel's 2000 Camp David proposal and
the Clinton compromise proposal, the
2002 Road Map for Middle East Peace, the
2003 Geneva Initiative, the 2003
``People's Voice'' Initiative offered by
Ami Ayalon and Sari Nuseibeh: none of
these plans envision an undivided
Jerusalem under sole Israeli
sovereignty.
And this idea is not just outdated in
theory; it fails to reflect the present
reality in Jerusalem. Israel's security
barrier is rapidly creating a physical
barrier between already segregated
neighborhoods of East and West
Jerusalem.
Recognizing Jerusalem as the
undivided capital of Israel under sole
Israeli sovereignty does not help to
bring peace to
Jerusalem
or Israel, nor does it help achieve the
vision the resolution espouses. In fact,
the only thing likely to fully guarantee
Jerusalem as the permanent capital of
Israel is the official, international
recognition of
Israel's
neighbors and the entire international
community--and this recognition is
unlikely so long as Palestinian claims
to their own capital and sacred city are
denied.
As Christians, Jews, and Muslims, we
can best honor our holy city by helping
it become a model of peace, unity, and
reconciliation. Doing so requires
sustained, courageous, and open-minded
efforts to promote negotiations, stand
against violence, and find solutions.
Congress and our Administration must
play a much more effective role,
returning our nation to active and
sustained engagement in seeking peace.
I just returned from a brief visit to
Jerusalem, now divided, threatened,
strained by the anxiety of constant
conflict. It is my great hope to one day
visit a revitalized Jerusalem, undivided
and shared as the capital of Israel and
an independent Palestinian state, where
Jews, Muslims, and Christians live
together in peace and mutually honor the
sites sacred to all of us. I can only
wish that the resolution before us more
adequately expressed this aspiration.”
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3rd)
“Mr. Speaker, if there's been any good
news on the Middle East peace process
over the last 7 years, it's that
barriers to ending the conflict are less
about final-status issues and more about
the challenge of reaching the outcome
that majorities on both sides know will
be necessary: an independent Palestinian
state, based on the 1967 borders, living
side by side with Israel in peace, with
a shared Jerusalem and a negotiated
solution to the Palestinian refugee
problem. Against that backdrop, it is
unclear to me what good comes from
passing a resolution which would place
Congress out of step with large parts of
the Israeli political spectrum.
This resolution is disconnected from the
reality on the ground. At a time of
rocket attacks in Sderot, retaliations
in
Gaza,
and renewed fears of war between Israel
and Syria, it is, at a minimum,
inappropriate for either the United
States Congress or the Bush
administration to stand in the way of
whatever moves for peace Israel may
choose to make, yet that is exactly what
this resolution does. We should be more
engaged at promoting a return to a peace
process, not less, and we should be
encouraging compromise, not
intransigence on the difficult issues.
Jerusalem is Israel's capital and a city
of unmatched significance for the Jewish
people. I will never forget my first
morning in Israel and what it was like
to go on a run around the
Old City.
However, I must oppose a resolution that
reaffirms the need to move the U.S.
Embassy to Jerusalem prior to a peace
agreement because, as both Presidents
Clinton and Bush have recognized, this
harms our efforts at diplomacy and,
therefore, the security of Israel and
the United States. Instead, we should
keep faith with the Biblical injunction
to ‘pray for the peace of Jerusalem,’
reject this senseless resolution, and
recommit our support for serious efforts
at peace in the Middle East and security
for Israel.”
Lois Capps (D-CA-23rd)
“Mr. Speaker, I rise as a strong
supporter of Israel, of the Palestinian
people, and of achieving a two-state
solution where Israel and Palestine
exist peacefully side by side. I have
had the pleasure of visiting Jerusalem
on more than one occasion, and am keenly
aware of its importance to people of
different faiths.
I rise today, however, to voice my
disappointment that H. Con. Res. 152
conveys rather empty rhetoric instead of
constructive observations and
commitments. The United States has
always served as the historical broker
of peace agreements between Israel and
its Arab neighbors and this is a role
that we should continue to fulfill and I
believe we should return to taking a
much more active role in negotiations
than we have under the Bush
Administration's tenure. However,
passage of a resolution by the United
States Congress which fails to recognize
the progress of past peace negotiations
runs contrary to achieving our ultimate
goal of a lasting peace in the region.
Jerusalem is the rightful capital of
Israel and will forever remain the
capital of
Israel.
However, it has long been understood
that a permanent agreement about the
Palestinian areas of Jerusalem will be
left to final-status negotiations. The
sooner the United States returns to a
more active participant in the peace
negotiations, the sooner we can arrive
to a solution for Jerusalem. But in the
meantime, I think we tread on dangerous
territory when Congress adopts positions
that run counter to issues that have yet
to be negotiated.
Israel's victory in 1967 was necessary to shatter the idea
that the State of Israel could ever be
destroyed. Make no mistake that I am
firmly committed to the viability and
security of a Jewish state in
Israel. However, it would be naive to
ignore the unresolved consequences of
the war and foolish to believe that
continued occupation does not pose a
real threat to Israel's well-being. I
hope that we can use the anniversary of
the Six-Day War to look forward and
reaffirm a real commitment by the
United States
to achieve at last a workable two-state
solution and a lasting peace.”
Sam Farr (D-CA-17th)
“Mr. Speaker, while I applaud the fact
that H. Con. Res. 152 recognizes and
reinforces a two-state solution to end
the conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians, I urge Congress and the
Administration to move away from
rhetoric and actively engage in steps
that will foster lasting peace in the
Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian
conflict not only grossly disrupts the
lives of Israelis and Palestinians, it
destabilizes the entire
Middle East and enflames extremism, threatening
U.S. national security.
U.S. involvement in
Iraq has consumed the Administration's
attention, but resolving the
Israel-Palestinian conflict is an
integral component for long-term peace
in the region. Efforts to bring
resolution to this conflict should not
be put on the back burner because of the
Administration's political fumbling in
Iraq. I urge the Administration to
reinvigorate its role as a fair and
balanced broker and call on the U.S.
Congress to recognize that securing
peace in the volatile Middle East will
require a sustained financial
commitment. And, I urge our friends and
allies in the region to recognize that
peace in the Middle East is in their own
countries' best national security
interests and to become more actively
engaged in the peace process.”
Full Debate
