STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
ON S. RES. 10 AND THE SITUATION IN GAZA
JANUARY 8, 2009
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, S. Res. 10, the resolution that was
adopted today reaffirming U.S. support for Israel, is
factually accurate. No one here doubts our commitment to Israel’s security, or Israel’s right
to defend itself from Hamas rocket attacks. But the resolution,
unfortunately, presents an incomplete response to the situation in Gaza. With so much
at stake for the United States,
for Israel and for the world, we owe the
American people and all concerned a clear-eyed, forthright and
constructive discussion of such vital matters as these.
Hamas’ unilateral decision to break the ceasefire was deplorable.
It is clear that rather than work for peace, Hamas used the ceasefire to
amass more powerful and longer range weapons. Its actions should
be universally condemned, and they will achieve nothing positive for the
cause of the Palestinian people. Those who have collaborated in
supplying weapons that are being used to terrorize and harm innocent
civilians in Israel are complicit in the suffering
and destruction that has occurred on both sides.
For its part,
Israel used the ceasefire to
pressure Hamas through a blockade that, in the absence of a long-term
strategy, has caused extreme hardship for the Palestinian people
collectively in Gaza but done nothing to
change Hamas’ militant policies. The blockade was not coupled with
an effective strategy to address the underlying causes of the conflict.
In the past 14 days, according to the United Nations, 758 Palestinians
have died, including 257 children, as a result of Israel’s military operations, and
thousands more have been injured. Palestinian homes, schools and
other civilian infrastructure have been demolished. Among
Israelis, 3 civilians have been killed, and 7 soldiers have died.
Israeli homes have also been badly damaged from Hamas rocket fire.
The UN Relief and Works Agency, which is the
principal humanitarian organization functioning in Gaza, suspended its
operations earlier today due to risks to the safety of its personnel as
a result of Israeli attacks which killed two of its workers and injured
one.
As has been said here repeatedly, Israel has the right to defend
itself. And I have no doubt that the Israeli Defense Forces, using
powerful weapons supplied by the United
States, can achieve tactical victories in Gaza by damaging Hamas’
military capabilities.
But the right response is one that will, over the long term, make Israel more secure, and that will be achieved
only when Israel is accepted by its neighbors.
Those of us who have long worked to support Israel should
not lose sight of this crucial goal and this bigger picture. This
escalation will, I fear, have the opposite effect. The widening
use of force has implications for Israel’s long-term security that
should concern each of us.
This approach may increase support among
Palestinians for Hamas as well as anger and resentment toward
Israel and the
United States within Arab countries and
around the world.
Israel
seeks to deal a fatal blow to Hamas militants, to bomb them into
submission and moderation. If our country were attacked in a
similar way by one of our neighbors we might respond the same way.
But there is little if any reason to believe these tactics can work.
This latest escalation, with bombs falling and tank artillery striking
in heavily populated areas where civilians – more than half of whom are
children – have no means of escape, obviously and tangibly is
providing ammunition to extremists, inside and outside of Gaza. And in doing so it increases the
dangers to both soldiers and civilians – Israeli and Palestinian – and
of miring Israel in an open-ended mission in Gaza resulting in far more
destruction and loss of innocent life than we have seen so far.
Ultimately, extremism is what has hindered a political resolution that
ends this conflict with two secure states living side by side.
There are some who may argue that the collapse of the
recent ceasefire proves that Hamas will only respond to force.
Hamas has abused the ceasefire, but that is not the only lesson from the
collapse. Any clear-eyed analysis will show that a ceasefire
cannot succeed – indeed, it will be exploited by Israel’s enemies – if
it is treated as an end in itself instead of as an opportunity to
materially improve the humanitarian situation and to undertake serious
negotiations to end the conflict.
There are broadly acknowledged immediate steps that must be taken:
put
a meaningful ceasefire in place, stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, and open crossings into Gaza to facilitate the
flow of licit goods and services.
But beyond that, history has shown that absent an inclusive, diplomatic
process that effectively addresses the core interests of both Israelis
and Palestinians, the cycle of violence will continue.
Preconditions are an obstacle to that process in the Middle East as much
as they were for another seemingly intractable conflict, in
Northern Ireland.
Others have asked these questions, which are worth repeating: Does
the Gaza war improve Israel’s long-term, or even
short-term, security? Was it realistic and in Israel’s long-term interests to expect Hamas to
accept Israel in advance of negotiations,
rather than push for a total cessation of the use of violence and
blockade, followed by negotiations? Was it realistic to expect the
ceasefire to hold while Gaza remained
under siege, rife with hunger, illness, joblessness, and hopelessness,
and while construction of settlements continued, and even accelerated,
in the West Bank?
On January 6th, Secretary of State Rice spoke to the UN
Security Council. I do not doubt the sincerity of her concern with
the humanitarian situation in Gaza, or for the need for
a ceasefire “that can endure and bring real security.” We all want
that. But her words were noteworthy for what they said about the
dismal failure of the Bush Administration’s approach to the
Middle East conflict. Eight years were squandered and
mishandled, and President-elect Obama faces a far more difficult
situation than his predecessor inherited.
Mr. President, our credibility in the entire world has suffered
immeasurably since 9/11. In particular our image in predominantly
Muslim countries has been affected by the failure to advance a credible
strategy to help resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This has
pronounced and obvious implications for our security, for
Israel’s security, and for
the entire Middle East region.
At this time of great opportunity in
America to change our policies and make a true
contribution to peace in the Middle East, we should be careful when we adopt
resolutions on subjects as sensitive as this to be cognizant of the
history of the region and the complexities of the situation. Above
all, our goal should be to enhance our role as a force for peace and our
ability to advance our Nation’s interests.
# # # # #