To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

APN Legislative Round-Up - June 8, 2007

I. Bills and Resolutions; II. H. Con. Res. 152 Redux (JRS Resolution); III. APN on H. Con. Res. 152; IV. APN on S. Res. 224 (Feinstein resolution); V. On the Record on H. Con. Res. 152; VI. On the Record on S. Res. 224

...for the week ending June 8, 2007

I. Bills and Resolutions
II. H. Con. Res. 152 Redux (JRS Resolution)
III. APN on H. Con. Res. 152
IV. APN on S. Res. 224 (Feinstein resolution)
V. On the Record on H. Con. Res. 152
VI. On the Record on S. Res. 224

[Note: On June 4 APN sent to all Hill offices the results of a poll, commissioned jointly by APN and the Arab American Institute, of Jewish American and Arab American opinion on a range of issues related to Israel and the Palestinians, U.S. policy and the peace process, Syria, and Iran. Full results of that poll can be viewed at: http://peacenow.org/updates.asp?rid=0&cid=3738]

================================
I. BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
================================

(Peace Process) S. Res. 224: Introduced 6/7/07 by Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) and 8 cosponsors [Baucus (D- MT), Byrd (D-WV), Dodd (D-CT), Hagel (R-NE), Lugar (R-IN), Sununu (R-NH), Voinovich (R-OH) and Whitehouse (D-RI)], "A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process." Referred to the Foreign Relations Committee. [See section IV, below, for APN views on S. Res. 224].

(Jerusalem) H. Con. Res. 152: Introduced 5/22/07 by Rep. Lantos (D-CA) and having 14 cosponsors, "Relating to the 40th anniversary of the reunification of the City of Jerusalem." Passed by the House under suspension of the rules 6/5/07, by a voice vote. [See Sections II and III, below, for discussion of H. Con. Res. 152].

(ISRAEL BOYCOTT) H. Res. 467: Introduced 6/6/07 by Rep. Murphy (D-PA) and 30 cosponsors, "Condemning the decision by the University and College Union of the United Kingdom to support a boycott of Israeli academia." Referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

(IRAN) H. Res. 430: Introduced 5/22/07 by Van Hollen (D-MD), "Calling for Iran to immediately release five dual Iranian-American citizens currently being held unjustly." Passed by the House under suspension of the rules 6/5/07, by vote of 411-0.

(IRAQ STUDY GROUP) HR 2574: Introduced 6/5/2007, by Rep. Udall (D-CO) and 44 cosponsors, "To implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group." Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, Financial Services, the Judiciary, the Budget, and Intelligence (Permanent Select). The bill includes a Sense of Congress that "the President and Congress should agree that the way forward in Iraq is to implement the comprehensive set of recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, particularly those specifically described in this Act, and the President should formulate a comprehensive plan to do so." The recommendations described in the Act exclude all of the recommendations in the ISG report that relate specifically to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- a notable absence, since the report states explicitly that "The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict" and includes four very specific recommendations related to the Israeli-Palestinian track and the Israeli- Syria track. At the same time, they do include the recommendation that the U.S. should "engage directly with the Governments of Iran and Syria in order to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues."

(IRAQ STUDY GROUP) S. 1545: Introduced 6/5/07 by Sen. Salazar (D-CO) and 8 cosponsors, "A bill to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group." Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. [Note: text was not available at the time of this writing, but this appears to be the companion version of HR 2547].

(IRAN) H. Amdt. 242 to HR 2446: An amendment to the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007, offered by Rep. Franks (R-AZ), "to add a congressional finding stating that the U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan recently intercepted a shipment of Iranian-made weapons intended for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and establishes a reporting requirement on Iranian-made weapons being sold to or used by the Taliban in Afghanistan." Agreed to by voice vote.

=======================================
II. H. CON. RES. 152 REDUX (JRS RESOLUTION) =======================================

On June 5th the House voted to suspend the rules and pass H. Con. Res. 152, a resolution celebrating the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. The press generally covered the story as one in which the house "unanimously" voted to pass this resolution, with some journalists and pundits arguing that in doing so Congress sent a strong message to the President about Jerusalem policy in general, and in particular the demand that the U.S. Embassy be moved to Jerusalem. However, these journalists and pundits got it wrong (and so far have failed to correct the record).

--------------------------------------------
Lack of support, from the start, in both the House and Senate
--------------------------------------------

Efforts to move this resolution in both the House and Senate began in early April. In both cases, the effort apparently encountered resistance, with Members reportedly objecting to language that was clearly at odds with the reality on the ground and out-of-step with the political realities and developments of the past decade or more. Wrangling over text delayed introduction of the resolution in the House until May 22, when it was introduced just before the June recess (leaving virtually no time to push other members to cosponsor the resolution). As of this writing no companion resolution has yet been introduced in the Senate.

------------------------------
Poor showing in the House...
------------------------------

The course H. Con. Res. 152 took in the House is itself notable and indicates a clear lack of support for and interest in the measure:

First, the resolution attracted a very small number of cosponsors, in contrast to normal practice for major AIPAC-supported initiatives, where members of Congress are "scored" on whether or not they have gone on as cosponsors. Indeed, it appears the resolution got squeezed - its introduction held up until just before the recess (leaving no time to lobby for cosponsors), and then its immediate move to the House floor necessitated by the June anniversary (leaving no time to lobby for cosponsors after the recess). As a result, the measure was passed with only 14 cosponsors, meaning that there is no way that failure to cosponsor this resolution can be held against any member.

Second, the resolution was passed in almost a stealth manner, with no real notice, virtually no debate, and no recorded roll call vote (many Members and staff apparently had no idea that the measure had even come up and been passed until they learned about it from the press and other outside sources). While H. Con. Res. 152 was on the suspension calendar (meaning Members and staff knew it would come up that day), the expectation - based on years of experience with this kind of resolution - was that there would be clear warning when it was coming up (so that members could make statements and get to the floor to vote) and that there would be a roll call vote. Members had also been notified that there would be no roll call votes (on any measures) until 6:30pm, so the expectation among all members and staff was that they would need to be prepared to deal with this measure at that time.

As background, it should be understood that it is virtually unheard of for an AIPAC-supported resolution of this kind to pass without a roll-call vote - i.e., a recorded vote that forces every member of Congress to go on the record as either for or against the measure, allowing AIPAC and others to later "score" members on how they voted. Normally after there is a voice vote on something like this, the presiding officer states something to the effect that "it appears that the ayes have it," at which point someone on the floor - usually Rep. Lantos - demands a roll call vote. At that point all further action on the measure is put off until a time later in the day, when members have been warned in advance that they will need to be on the floor for roll call votes.

In the case of H. Con. Res. 152, however, things - unexpectedly - did not go as usual. The measure was brought to the floor in the middle of the day without any special notice and when very few members were on the floor. Debate was limited to the few members who were there (others inserted extensions of remarks into the record after the fact, excerpts of these are included in section IV, below). More importantly, the measure was passed by a voice vote -- no roll call vote was demanded. As a result, there is no vote on H. Con. Res. 152 to score.

There is no definitive explanation at this point as to why H. Con. Res. 152 was passed in this manner. It seems likely that Democrats preferred not to have a scored vote, since in similar cases in the past, the relatively small number of votes against the measure (and/or people voting "present") were Democrats -- a fact that Republicans and their supporters have in the past cynically tried to exploit in order to argue that Republicans are more "pro-Israel" than Democrats. However, in the past this partisan consideration did not stop Rep. Lantos from demanding a roll call vote, and this fact in no way prevented Rep. Ros-Lehtinen or any other Republican on the floor from demanding a roll call vote. Fundamentally, the resolution could not have passed in this manner without the consent of both Democrats and Republicans; the fact that it passed in this manner points to a strong lack of enthusiasm and support for this resolution in both parties.

-------------------------------------
...No-Show (thus far) in the Senate
-------------------------------------

The Dear Colleague that was circulated with the House resolution on 5/21/07 stated that a Senate version would also be introduced imminently. However, as of this writing no such resolution has been introduced, apparently due to continued objections by some Senators to proposed language. Given that the June anniversary has now passed, it seems increasingly likely that the resolution will not be introduced; if it is eventually introduced, its late introduction would seem a clear indication of just how little interest and support for this measure there is in the Senate. Unfortunately, most press reports covering the introduction and passage of the House resolution stated or implied that the Senate was taking similar or identical action; thus far, there have been no press reports correcting the record.

================================
III. APN ON H. CON. RES. 152
================================

On June 4th APN sent the following talking points to all House offices regarding H. Con. Res. 152:

Dear XXXX, This week the House is expected to suspend the rules and consider H. Con. Res. 152, a resolution focused on the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. Americans for Peace Now (APN), a Jewish, Zionist organization working to enhance Israel's security through peace, regrets the missed opportunity this resolution represents.

The 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War and the reunification of Jerusalem are important benchmarks in the history of the State of Israel and the region, and it is appropriate that they be marked by Congress. However, it is unfortunate that rather than mark these anniversaries with a thoughtful, constructive, forward-looking statement, this resolution instead recycles old language, re-hashes outdated concepts, and re-sanctifies empty rhetorical formulas that have little to do with current realities, in terms of the challenges facing Israel today or U.S. interests and policy.

APN urges Members of Congress - including those who have cosponsored and/or plan to vote for H. Con. Res. 152 - to speak up during floor consideration of the resolution and submit statements for the record, articulating the kind of serious, constructive message that H. Con. Res. 152 unfortunately fails to convey.

Specifically, we urge Members of Congress to:

1. Express support for the very real opportunities for progress toward peace that are on the table.

--The Arab League Peace Initiative -- which offers Israel full normalization of relations with the Arab world

-- is widely viewed in Israel and around the world as an important opportunity and a real basis for negotiations that could end the Israeli-Arab conflict.

--There is widespread support in Israel for re-opening Israel-Syria negotiations, as long called for by Syria. If successful, such negotiations could have significant positive impact with respect to limiting Iran's sphere of influence, calming the situation in Lebanon, weakening the support network for Hamas and Hezbollah, and delivering real security to Israel on its northern border.

2. Recognize that Israel's overwhelming victory in the June 1967 War -- a war fought by Israel to preserve its very existence in the face of enemies determined to destroy it -- has unfortunately turned into a mixed blessing. Forty years later, the still unresolved consequences of that war continue to threaten Israel's existence, identity, and future.

--The continued occupation and the expansion of settlements pose serious threats to Israel's day-to- day security, drain scarce economic resources, and undermine Israel's identity and viability as a Jewish, democratic state.

--Senior Israeli military officers recently testified to an official Israeli investigative panel (the Winograd Commission) that maintaining the occupation has sapped Israel's military resources and morale, focusing the military on police functions and undermining the military's readiness and ability to meet the real existential security challenges posed on the battlefield.

3. Call on the Administration to invest serious, sustained, and effective efforts to improve the security situation on the ground today and re- establish a viable peace process that can deliver peace and security to Israel, and international acceptance of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

--It is a fact that Jerusalem is and will forever be the capital of Israel. It is also a fact that one- third of Jerusalem's residents are Palestinian, and that the Palestinians have deep historical, political, economic, and religious ties to the city and consider it their capital. Reaffirming Israel's claim to the city does not mitigate these latter facts, nor does reiterating that the U.S. Embassy should be moved to Jerusalem hasten the day when political realities will permit the U.S. to responsibly implement such a move.

--A successful peace process which permits the establishment of a Palestinian state and the emergence of a Palestinian capital in Arab areas of and adjacent to Jerusalem does not undermine Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its capital. To the contrary, it is the only thing that can clear the way -- at long last -- for international recognition of Jewish Jerusalem as Israel's eternal capital.

4. Recognize that notwithstanding the historic reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, Jerusalem today remains a de facto divided city in virtually every respect, and access to religious sites remains highly problematic.

--Israelis and Palestinians rarely venture into each others' neighborhoods and the disparities in services (including a huge deficit in public schools in East Jerusalem), resource allocation, municipal investment, and property development, are massive and self-evident.

--The route of the West Bank security barrier in the Jerusalem area is being distorted in some places to altogether amputate Palestinian neighborhoods from the city, and in other places to cut neighborhoods in half. The barrier is cutting off Jerusalem's Palestinians from their neighbors, families, schools, jobs, medical care, and other services, and disrupting centuries-old patterns of life. In doing so, it risks radicalizing a population that has traditionally eschewed violence and destabilizing the city.

--Access to Jerusalem and its religious sites by Palestinian Christians and all Muslims is restricted, except for the small number of those Christians and Muslims who are legal residents or citizens of Israel (and in the case of Muslim men, are above a certain age).

============================================ IV. APN ON S. RES. 224 (FEINSTEIN RESOLUTION) ============================================

On June 7th APN issued a press release applauding the introduction of S. Res. 224. On June 8th, APN sent the following message to all Senate offices urging all Senators to cosponsor the measure:

Dear XXXX,

I wanted to make sure you had seen S. Res. 224, a resolution introduced yesterday by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and 8 cosponsors, calling for a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This resolution reaffirms the Senate's commitment to a "true and lasting solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, based on the establishment of 2 states, the State of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, with recognized borders." It also calls on President Bush to "pursue a robust diplomatic effort to engage the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, begin negotiations, and make a 2-state settlement a priority." It calls on the President to "consider appointing a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace who has held cabinet rank or is equally qualified, with extensive knowledge of foreign affairs in general and the Middle East region in particular." The resolution also welcomes the Arab League Peace Initiative and calls on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to "embrace efforts to achieve peace and refrain from taking any actions that would prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations."

Americans for Peace Now (APN) welcomes the introduction of this very timely, constructive, forward-looking, thoughtful measure, and views it as a very appropriate and pro-Israel way to mark the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War. Rather than simply recycling old language and outdated formulas, this resolution deals directly and seriously with the situation as it is today and the very real challenges facing Israel, the U.S., and moderate forces throughout the region. We urge all Senators to cosponsor it.

Finally, I hope you will take a moment to note that the message of this resolution is consistent with the views of the majority of Jewish Americans and Arab Americans. Recent polling we commissioned, jointly with the Arab American Institute, found that a strong majority in both communities supports a two-state solution and a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict along the lines of the initiative proposed by the Arab League. The full details of the polling are available at: http://peacenow.org/updates.asp?rid=0&cid=3738

If you have any questions about this resolution or anything related to Israel and the quest for peace and security in the Middle East, please do not hesitate to contact me.

====================================
V. ON THE RECORD ON H. CON. RES. 152 ====================================

Price (D-NC): "...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...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."

=============
Schakowsky (D-IL): ".This week Israel is recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War.Mr. Speaker, even 40 years after Israel's overwhelming victory in the June 1967 War--a war fought to preserve Israel's very existence in the face of enemies determined to destroy it--Israel's stability is still threatened. At this critical time in Israel's history we must focus on what is of the utmost importance--furthering the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Congress must fully analyze and consider the Arab League Peace Initiative which offers Israel full normalization of relations with the Arab world and is widely viewed in Israel and around the world as an important opportunity and a real basis for negotiations that could end the Israeli-Arab conflict. While not perfect, this plan sets the table for fruitful negotiations and a final resolution of the conflict.

We must also consider negotiations with Syria. If successful, such negotiations could have significant positive impact with respect to limiting Iran's sphere of influence, calming the situation in Lebanon, weakening the support network for Hamas and Hezbollah, and delivering real security to Israel on its northern border. We must call on President Bush to invest in serious, sustained, and effective efforts to improve the security situation on the ground today and re-establish a viable peace process that can deliver peace and security to Israel, and international acceptance of Jerusalem as Israel's capital."

======================
Capps (D-CA): "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."

================
Farr (D-CA): ".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."

================
Blumenauer (D-OR): "...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."

====================================
VI. ON THE RECORD ON H. CON. RES. 224 ====================================

Excerpt from the statement made by Senator Feinstein (D-CA) introducing H. Con. Res. 224:

"...We are this week marking the 40th anniversary of the start of the Six-Day War between Israel and a coalition of Arab states which lasted from June 5 to June 10, 1967. Israel's stunning triumph in that conflict, when its very existence was at stake, sent a powerful and unambiguous message to its neighbors and the international community that the existence of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East was a fact that could not be denied.

"Since then, Israel, with the support and active engagement of the United States, has signed peace agreements with two of its adversaries from that war, first with Egypt in 1979 and then with Jordan in 1994. Both treaties greatly enhanced Israel's security and brought hope to its people.

"Yet a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement has remained elusive, resulting in the loss of numerous innocent lives and destroying the hopes and dreams of Israelis and Palestinians alike.

"Since September 2000 and the start of the second Intifada, violence and terror have engulfed the region and devastated the prospects for peace.

"It has become quite clear to me that the current impasse is not sustainable. There is no military solution to this conflict. The lack of any movement in the peace process only emboldens the opponents of peace, strengthens the hands of the extremists, and puts the vital interests of Israel, the Palestinian people, and the United States at risk.

"Yet the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians have made it clear that they want to end this conflict and live side by side in peaceful coexistence, mutual dignity, and security. We owe it to them and ourselves to do everything in our power to make this vision a reality.

"Indeed, a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement should be our top priorities in the region. They will open the door to new opportunities, enabling us to tackle other seemingly intractable challenges in the region: the civil war in Iraq, the influence of Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran's uranium enrichment program.

"As the Iraq Study Group report argued, 'The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.'

"We cannot achieve these goals by sitting on the sidelines or sending low-level envoys to the region. We need a vigorous and sustained high level American presence on the ground in the Middle East to make this happen.

"I know that Secretary of State Rice is personally committed to bringing both sides together so they will take on the tough issues and find the right solutions, and she has my full support. She has already made four trips to the region and I hope she will return again soon. President Bush should also become engaged in this process and consider appointing a Special Envoy for Middle East peace who has extensive experience dealing with this issue and has served in a high-level government capacity.

"We all know what a final peace agreement will look like. The drafters of the Geneva accord showed us that with courage and determination, the tough decisions can be made that will bring peace and prosperity to both sides. While it is critical that the United States take a leadership role on this issue, it is also critical that moderate voices in the Arab world be a voice for peace.

"That is why the Arab League Peace Initiative is important. It is an example where Arab leaders have stepped forward Hamas must also step forward and fulfill the demands of the international community by recognizing Israel's right to exist, renouncing and end all terror and incitement, and accepting past agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

"Now is as good a time as ever to work for peace. There will always be excuses for those who don't want peace. But it is incumbent on those who wish for peace to work through the difficult issues.

"As a United States Senator, I have stood by Israel and the Israeli people and will continue to do so. We will not waiver in our efforts to ensure their safety, stability, and prosperity. Achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is the cornerstone of that endeavor. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution."


For more information, contact Lara Friedman, APN Director of Policy and Government Relations, at 202/728-1893, or at lfriedman@peacenow.org.