Analysis of Resolution H.RES.1734 by Siraj Davis
Hall of Shame List of U.S. Anti-Peace Politicians
by Siraj Davis on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 2:16am
Here is the H.Res 1734 text by the Pro-Israeli lobby:
H.RES.1734 — Whereas a true and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties; (Introduced in House – IH)
HRES 1734 IH
H. RES. 1734
Reaffirming Congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 29, 2010
Mr. POE of Texas (for himself, Ms. BERKLEY, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. WEINER, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, and Mr. ACKERMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Reaffirming Congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, and for other purposes.
Whereas a true and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties;
Whereas the leadership of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) have repeatedly refused to negotiate directly with the Government of Israel, demanding unprecedented preconditions from Israel in exchange for their return to direct negotiations;
Whereas Palestinian leaders have repeatedly threatened to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state and to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations and other international forums;
Whereas Palestinian leaders are reportedly holding high-level discussions on pursuing recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations and other international forums;
Whereas UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry on October 26, 2010, expressed his support for recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations;
Whereas, on March 11, 1999, the Senate adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, and on March 16, 1999, the House of Representatives adopted House Concurrent Resolution 24, both of which resolved that `any attempt to establish Palestinian statehood outside the negotiating process will invoke the strongest congressional opposition.’;
Whereas Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stated on October 20, 2010, that `There is no substitute for face-to-face discussion and, ultimately, for an agreement that leads to a just and lasting peace.’;
Whereas Secretary Clinton stated on November 10, 2010, that `Negotiations between the parties is the only means by which all the outstanding claims arising out of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict can be resolved. . . . So we do not support unilateral steps by either party that could prejudge the outcome of such negotiations.’;
Whereas, on November 10, 2010, the Israeli Knesset adopted a resolution `reject[ing] entirely the threats of some Palestinian leaders to declare unilateral Palestinian statehood . . . [affirming] that all points of dispute must be debated only within the framework of direct negotiations . . . [and] call[ing] on the Palestinian leadership to return to the negotiating table.’;
Whereas Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, in a speech at Bar Ilan University in Israel on June 14, 2009, stated that `[A] fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. . . . Therefore, today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel: Clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarized. . . . If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitarization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.’;
Whereas efforts to bypass negotiations and to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state or to appeal to the United Nations or other international forums for recognition of a Palestinian state would clearly and fundamentally violate the underlying principles of the 1993 Oslo Accords and the Middle East peace process, and represent another instance of the Palestinian leadership’s noncompliance with its commitments under existing agreements; and
Whereas United States opposition to any unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood or related measures should be reaffirmed strongly and unequivocally: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, by the House of Representatives that Congress–
(1) reaffirms its strong opposition to any attempt to establish a Palestinian state outside the negotiating process;
(2) strongly and unequivocally opposes any attempt to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations or other international forums;
(3) calls upon the Administration to continue its opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state;
(4) calls upon the Administration to affirm that the United States would deny any recognition, legitimacy, or support of any kind to any unilaterally declared `Palestinian state’ and would urge other responsible nations to follow suit, and to make clear that any such unilateral declaration would constitute a grievous violation of the principles underlying the Oslo Accords and the Middle East peace process;
(5) calls upon the Administration to affirm that the United States will oppose any attempt to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations or other international forums and will veto any resolution to that end by the United Nations Security Council;
(6) calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to lead a high-level diplomatic effort to encourage the European Union and other responsible nations to strongly and unequivocally oppose the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state or any attempt to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations or other international forums; and
(7) supports the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the achievement of a true and lasting peace through direct negotiations between the parties.
And here is my reply to House Resolution 1734.
What is wrong with this resolution? In my opinion it is impractical and contradictory.
It is impractical because it repeats history as George Santayana once warned and it is contradictory because it treats and expects the Palestinians to exist as a separate nation while simultaneously making demands as if the Palestinians were part of a single bi-national state.Moreover, the resolution is unclear and vague. More information needs to be provided to acquire more support from all of us who are responsible for our decisions.
It condemns anyone that supports the declaration of a Palestinian State by claiming culpability of the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation Organization for not negotiating or cooperating with Israel and U.S. Shuttle Diplomacy in negotiations. This blame is supported by the accusation that in addition to refusing to negotiate with Israel and the U.S., the aforementioned Palestinian entities have asked for “unprecedented preconditions”. The text clearly uses the previous quote as a hyperbole without providing specifics about “unprecedented preconditions” insinuating that the PA and PLO are uncompromising, antagonistic, and unreasonable because not only are they refusing to cooperate but they are asking for the impossible.
Notice that the bill purposely neglects mentioning specifically what those “unprecedented preconditions” are. Nice try Congressman Poe 🙂
Some of the “unprecedented preconditions” which are ommitted from this resolution are that Israel CEASE to take more Palestinian lands and respects the territorial integrity of a Palestinian state as Israel demands for many years of its neighbors. One cannot be granted respect without giving it first or simultaneously. That’s a dictum in life.
Another “unprecedented precondition” is that Israel remove the blockade of humanitarian supplies to Gaza and if Israel claims these supplies are military, then allow aid to be distributed to Gaza freely and without restriction on the precondition that all aid be inspected by the Israeli government or/and international agencies. Aid to the innocent people is the primary goal in delivering supplies to Gaza.
Another “unprecedented precondition” is the responsible employment of force when Israel is attacked by armed militants in the Palestinian territories. In other words, do not punish the whole population because a few militants have attacked Israel as in Operation Cast Lead.
Another “unprecedented precondition” is the acceptance of Hamas as Democratically elected entity. Regardless if they have and are attacking Israel, it is expected that Israel understands from their own history how the Irgun and other groups can be looked upoin as freedom fighters by a population that feels oppressed while simultanesouly accepting that such a party which uses force can behave as a political entity as the FLN in El Salvador, FSLN in Nicaragua, and more. Supporting a fake government which is not supported by the people is a terrible flaw of US foreign policy in the past and indications of it can be seen now in the conflicts involving the U.S. today.
There are more “unprecedented preconditions” not mentioned which I think everyone should at least ASK what they are rather than foolishly and naively follow Mr. Poe’s and his packs’ requests.
In addition, the bill needs to explain what is wrong with the declaration of Palestinia statehood? Why would the declaration of Palestinian statehood necessarily preclude the absence of direct “face-to-face” negotiations? These questions are not explained thoroughly enough to support such a bill.
The Palestinians have reached out to the international community and United Nations because it is a common belief amongst many Palestinians and citizens of various countries that the state of Israel with massive funding and support from the U.S. acts with impunity and contrary to the very obligations it has as a country to the rest of the world in consideration of human rights principles in the Geneva Convention (Article 4), Mrs. Roosevelt’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and more. What is wrong with reaching out to the international community or the United Nations? This was the intent of the League of Nations in its founding principles. No country should feel ashamed or threatened for embracing the League of Nation’s fundamental purpose. Nor should Palestinians.
The declaration of a Palestinian state does not mean an end to peace. It means cooperation and respect for the autonomy of each nation state.
It is important that H.Resolution 898 specifically declare why the declaration of Palestinian statehood should deserve the “strongest congressional opposition” as two previous resolutions have declared. It is clear that territorial claims are not in the control of the Palestinian government and totally at mercy to the discretion of the state of Israel. Whatever Palestinian state is recognized by the international community does not carry with it too many claims to territory, yet it does carry many claims to recognition of Palestine as a nation in idea and reality. What other fears are to be recognized as a result of the recognition of a Palestinian state outside of direct negotiations? Isn’t this how the state of Israel was created?
The quote by Sec. Clinton on October 20, 2010 does not say that recognition of a Palestinian state by the international community will NOT lead to “face-to-face discussions” nor a “just and lasting peace.” On the contrary, a declaration of Palestinian statehood would augment the confidence and willingness of Palestinians to cooperate in a “just and lasting peace.”
The quote by Sec. Clinton on November 10, 2010 also does not state that the US would CONDEMN any acts of recognition of a Palestinian state. It only says that those efforts of Palestinian recognition would not be “supported”.
I reiterate, the bill still does not explain how the declaration of a Palestinian state would be diametric to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s precondition that a “public,binding, and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel” would end the conflict. In order to meet the type of agreement described by Prime Minister Netanyahu, two STATES must reach an agreement with equal respect for each other as a nation. To demand that Palestinians agree to terms as a nation while simultaneously demanding it not declare itself a nation without approval by the US and Israel, is a hypocrisy when one thinks of all the characterisitcs and rights granted to each nation in world history and now. How can the Palestinian people’s wishes be fully represented and supported when one of its main political/militant parties has been silenced and labeled dissent rather than accept that dissent is the attitude of the majority of the Palestinian people.
As with the FLN in El Salvador, the FSLN in Nicaragua, the ANC in South Africa, and more. Militant parties have placed their weapons down and behaved responsibly if given the honest chance to participate in Democracy. I suggest Israel and our US politicians think realistically on a human attribute which history dileneates to our eyes.
If there is a pragmatic expectation of a demilitarized Palestinian state with hopes of peace in the future, we must focus on more politics and less war so that we may not learn the unfortunate lesson that one cannot separate Clausewitz’s axiom, the former and latter both go hand-in-hand. Perhaps US and Israeli silencing of the former in order to create its OWN nation state is like a see-saw or teeeter-totter in this relationship.
Moreover, if the US and Israel continues to intrude on the autonomy and sovereignty of Palestinian efforts to declare statehood and find compromise with Israel in “face-to-face discussions” later, it is tantamount to demanding a two state solution while simultaneously treating the Palestinian authorities as part of a single bi-national state. Israel and the US must make a decision to allow Palestinian statehood and go further with negotiations or to impede or stop this process and allow the only other alternative for a “demilitarized” Palestine and a “just,binding, and lasting peace”…….a single bi-national and Democratic government with Palestinian and Israeli representation in one state.
There are more questions to be answered and more to be talked about before we recklessly and foolishly support H.Res. 1734.
Have you also recognized since this resolution loves the word recognition mentioning it twelve times that even the opening sentence indicates the treatment of Palestinians as part of a single bi-national entity without recognition of a Palestinian state. It predicts a true and lasting peace between Israel and “the Palestinians” rather than Palestine.
Please contact the following politiicans and DEMAND they explain or open rhetoric on why the declaration of a Palestinian state is contrary to peace talks and how? Ask them for their opinions. Argue with them if you find error in their reasoning. If their explanations do not suffice your queries, then request they change their stances. If this fails, vote them out of office please for God’s sake 🙂
The following politicians have already decided to sponosor H.Resolution 1734:
Rep. Ted Poe Texas
Dem. Gary Ackerman New York
Dem. Shelley Berkley Nevada
Rep. Gus Bilirakis Florida
Rep. Vern Buchanan Florida
Rep. Dan Burton – Indiana
Rep. John Campbell California
Dem. Jim Costa California
Dem. Ted Deutch Florida
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart Florida
Dem. Eliot Engel New York
Rep. Scott Garrett New Jersey
Rep. Dean Heller Nevada
Rep. Walter HErger California
Rep. Peter King New York
Dem. Ron Klein Florida
Rep. John Kline Minnessota
Rep. Doug Lamborn Colorado
Rep. John Linder Georgia
Rep. Tom McClintock California
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Washington
Dem. Jerrold Nadler New York
Rep. Mike Pence Indiana
Dem. Gary Peters Michigan
Rep. George Radanovich California
Rep. Michael Rogers Alabama
Rep. Thomas Rooney Florida
Rep. Peter Roskam Florida
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Florida
Dem. Steven Rothman New Jersey
Rep. Steve Sealise Lousiana
Dem. Albio Sires New Jersey
Dem. Anthony Weiner New York