OBJECTING TO UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2334
(House of Representatives - January 05, 2017)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

        

[Pages H146-H165]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      OBJECTING TO UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2334

  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
22, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 11) objecting to United Nations 
Security Council Resolution 2334 as an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian 
peace, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                               H. Res. 11

       Whereas the United States has long supported a negotiated 
     settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution with 
     the democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a demilitarized, 
     democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and 
     security;
       Whereas since 1993, the United States has facilitated 
     direct, bilateral negotiations between both parties toward 
     achieving a two-state solution and ending all outstanding 
     claims;
       Whereas it is the long-standing policy of the United States 
     that a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian 
     conflict will only come through direct, bilateral 
     negotiations between the two parties;
       Whereas it is the long-standing position of the United 
     States to oppose and, if necessary, veto United Nations 
     Security Council resolutions dictating additional binding 
     parameters on the peace process;
       Whereas it is the long-standing position of the United 
     States to oppose and, if necessary, veto one-sided or anti-
     Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council;
       Whereas the United States has stood in the minority 
     internationally over successive Administrations in defending 
     Israel in international forums, including vetoing one-sided

[[Page H147]]

     resolutions in 2011, 2006, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1997, and 
     1995 before the United Nations Security Council;
       Whereas the United States recently signed a new Memorandum 
     of Understanding with the Government of Israel regarding 
     security assistance, consistent with longstanding support for 
     Israel among successive Administrations and congresses and 
     representing an important United States commitment toward 
     Israel's qualitative military edge;
       Whereas on November 29, 2016, the House of Representatives 
     unanimously passed House Concurrent Resolution 165, 
     expressing the sense of Congress and reaffirming longstanding 
     United States policy in support of a direct bilaterally 
     negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and 
     opposition to United Nations Security Council resolutions 
     imposing a solution to the conflict;
       Whereas on December 23, 2016, the United States Permanent 
     Representative to the United Nations disregarded House 
     Concurrent Resolution 165 and departed from longstanding 
     United States policy by abstaining and permitting United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be adopted under 
     Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter;
       Whereas the United States' abstention on United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 2334 contradicts the Oslo Accords 
     and its associated process that is predicated on resolving 
     the Israeli-Palestinian conflict between the parties through 
     direct negotiations;
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 
     claims that ``the establishment by Israel of settlements in 
     the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East 
     Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant 
     violation under international law and a major obstacle to the 
     achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and 
     comprehensive peace'';
       Whereas by referring to the ``4 June 1967 lines'' as the 
     basis for negotiations, United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 2334 effectively states that the Jewish Quarter of 
     the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall, Judaism's 
     holiest site, are ``occupied territory'' thereby equating 
     these sites with outposts in the West Bank that the Israeli 
     government has deemed illegal;
       Whereas passage of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 2334 effectively lends legitimacy to efforts by 
     the Palestinian Authority to impose its own solution through 
     international organizations and through unjustified boycotts 
     or divestment campaigns against Israel by calling ``upon all 
     States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to 
     distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the 
     territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied 
     since 1967'', and will require the United States and Israel 
     to take effective action to counteract the potential harmful 
     impact of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334;
       Whereas UNSCR 2334 did not directly call upon Palestinian 
     leadership to fulfill their obligations toward negotiations 
     or mention that part of the eventual Palestinian state is 
     currently controlled by Hamas, a designated terrorist 
     organization; and
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 
     both sought to impose or unduly influence solutions to final 
     status issues, and is biased against Israel: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved, That --
       (1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
       (A) the passage of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 2334 undermined the long-standing position of the 
     United States to oppose and veto United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final 
     status issues, or are one-sided and anti-Israel, reversing 
     decades of bipartisan agreement;
       (B) the passage of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 2334 undermines the prospect of Israelis and 
     Palestinians resuming productive, direct negotiations;
       (C) the passage of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 2334 contributes to the politically motivated acts 
     of boycott, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel and 
     represents a concerted effort to extract concessions from 
     Israel outside of direct negotiations between the Israelis 
     and Palestinians, which must be actively rejected;
       (D) any future measures taken in international or outside 
     organizations, including the United Nations Security Council 
     or at the Paris conference on the Israeli-Palestinian 
     conflict scheduled for January 15, 2017, to impose an 
     agreement, or parameters for an agreement including the 
     recognition of a Palestinian state, will set back the cause 
     of peace, harm the security of Israel, run counter to the 
     enduring bipartisan consensus on strengthening the United 
     States-Israel relationship, and weaken support for such 
     organizations;
       (E) a durable and sustainable peace agreement between 
     Israel and the Palestinians will come only through direct 
     bilateral negotiations between the parties resulting in a 
     Jewish, democratic state living side-by-side next to a 
     demilitarized Palestinian state in peace and security;
       (F) the United States should work to facilitate serious, 
     direct negotiations between the parties without preconditions 
     toward a sustainable peace agreement; and
       (G) the United States Government should oppose and veto 
     future United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek 
     to impose solutions to final status issues, or are one-sided 
     and anti-Israel; and
       (2) the House of Representatives opposes United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 2334 and will work to strengthen 
     the United States-Israel relationship, and calls for United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be repealed or 
     fundamentally altered so that--
       (A) it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel; and
       (B) it allows all final status issues toward a two-state 
     solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations 
     between the parties.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include any extraneous material in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the esteemed Speaker of the House.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read you a quote:
  ``Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and 
resolutions at the United Nations--if it were that easy, it would have 
been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the 
Palestinians who must live side by side.''
  That was President Obama in 2011, and he was right.
  I am stunned at what happened last month. This government--our 
government--abandoned our ally, Israel, when she needed us the most. Do 
not be fooled. This U.N. Security Council resolution was not about 
settlements, and it certainly was not about peace. It was about one 
thing and one thing only: Israel's right to exist as a Jewish, 
democratic state.
  These types of one-sided efforts are designed to isolate and 
delegitimize Israel. They do not advance peace. They make it more 
elusive.
  The cornerstone of our special relationship with Israel has always 
been right here in Congress. This institution, the heart of our 
democracy, has stood by the Jewish state through thick and thin. We 
were there for her when rockets rained down on Tel Aviv. We were there 
for her by passing historic legislation to combat the boycott, 
divestment, and sanctions movement. And we have been there for her by 
ensuring Israel has the tools to defend herself against those who seek 
her destruction.
  In every one of those instances, Republicans and Democrats worked 
together to get these things done. That is because our historic 
alliance with Israel transcends party labels and partisan bickering. We 
see that bipartisanship right here on the House floor today in 
condemning this anti-Israel resolution.
  I want to thank our Chairman Ed Royce, Ranking Member Eliot Engel, 
and all of our Members on both sides of the aisle for speaking out on 
this issue and for helping assemble this legislation. It sends a 
powerful message, and it turns a page.
  It is time to repair the damage done by this misguided hit job at the 
U.N. It is time to rebuild our partnership with Israel and reaffirm our 
commitment to her security. It is time to show all of our allies that, 
regardless of the shameful events of last week, the United States 
remains a force for good.
  I ask the whole House to support this resolution on behalf of the 
American people.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (David Price), and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
allowed to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure, and I thank 
the Speaker for his words.
  I want to start by thanking Chairman Ed Royce, who authored this 
resolution. I am proud to be the lead Democratic cosponsor and glad to 
say that more than 30 Democrats representing a

[[Page H148]]

broad cross-section of our party have signed on as cosponsors of this 
bipartisan legislation.
  Ed Royce and I have worked together for the past 4 years, and we 
believe that foreign policy should be bipartisan and that partisanship 
should stop at the water's edge. Frankly, this is what we are doing 
today. We are condemning what happened because we think it is unfair 
and unjust.
  I want to also mention that I join with my friend from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price) in authoring an amendment to this resolution that wasn't 
accepted which emphasizes a two-state solution. I want to thank Mr. 
Price for his hard work on that approach, and I support it. We talk in 
this resolution about a two-state solution as well.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout its entire history, the State of Israel has 
never gotten a fair shake from the United Nations. Year after year 
after year, member states manipulate the U.N. to bully our ally, 
Israel, to pile on with one-sided resolutions, placing all of the blame 
for the ongoing conflict on Israel.
  We saw a resolution like this come before the Security Council a few 
weeks ago, and today the House of Representative will go on record 
saying that that U.N. resolution is wrong, plain and simple. And 
frankly, we should not have voted for that.
  The Security Council resolution is highly critical of Israel yet asks 
nothing directly of the Palestinians. That is biased, that is unfair, 
and that is not balanced. Again, we should have opposed it. We should 
have vetoed it.
  The language about Jerusalem is not new but it remains deeply 
offensive to Jews, whose holiest site lies on the Temple Mount in East 
Jerusalem. The Kotel, the Holy Western Wall, is simply nonoccupied 
territory. And it is offensive to hear that.
  So in the measure the House is considering today, we repudiate this 
flawed Security Council resolution. And at the same time, we will say 
once again that we support a two-state solution, that the only way to 
reach that goal is through direct negotiations between the Israelis and 
the Palestinians, and that this shameful Security Council resolution 
put that goal further out of reach.
  Mr. Speaker, the international community faces the longest 
suppressing issues: mass killings in South Sudan, a crisis in Yemen, a 
humanitarian disaster in Syria, Russia's illegal occupation of the 
Ukraine, and North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Yet, rather than 
deal with those critical problems, the member states of the U.N. have 
chosen instead to use the international body to embarrass Israel. It is 
outrageous. This House Resolution that I am cosponsoring with Mr. Royce 
rightfully says that it is outrageous.

  I think it was a mistake for the current administration to abstain on 
this vote in the U.N. I have been very clear about that, but I want to 
be fair. Before anyone turns this into another attack on President 
Obama, we should be aware of the history of this issue.
  This is the first time in 8 years the Obama administration has 
allowed a resolution, opposed by Israel, to go forward. The George Bush 
administration allowed it to happen 6 times; the Clinton 
administration, 3 times; the first Bush administration, 6 times; and 
the Reagan administration, 10 times, including voting for one strongly 
condemning Israel for its ``premeditated and unprecedented attack of 
aggression'' when it wisely destroyed Iraq's nuclear weapons reactor in 
1981.
  But regardless of that history, it doesn't justify these latest 
abstentions. My mother used to say that two wrongs don't make a right. 
And she was right. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
  I think allowing governments to bully Israel and the U.N. is a 
mistake, no matter who is in power. Instead, let's focus on what we 
should be doing when it comes to advancing the two-state solution.
  This resolution calls for us to get back to the policy that many of 
us support: one, standing with Israel and the United Nations; two, 
stopping one-sided resolutions; and three, supporting direct 
negotiations as the only way to move toward a two-state solution.
  This resolution says all that. Every one in this Congress should be 
voting for it because it is balanced. I am pleased to support this 
resolution, and I urge all Members to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I want to begin by thanking the ranking member, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel). I thank him for working with me in a bipartisan 
manner not just on this resolution but on the one that we worked on 
late last year--a unanimous vote by this body directing the 
administration not to take the steps that the administration has taken.
  I appreciate the leader and the Speaker as well working with us to 
ensure this resolution was brought quickly to the floor of this House.
  Today, we put Congress on record objecting to the recent U.N. 
Security Council resolution that hurt our ally, that hurt Israel, and I 
believe that puts an enduring peace further out of reach.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. Speaker, the United States has long recognized that a solution to 
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only come about through direct 
bilateral negotiations between these two parties, and that is why it is 
longstanding U.S. policy to veto the many one-sided, the many anti-
Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council that violate 
that principle.
  But just the other week, the Obama administration broke with this 
longstanding U.S. policy by failing to veto U.N. Security Council 
Resolution 2334. This dangerous resolution effectively states that the 
Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall, 
Judaism's holiest site, are, in the words of the resolution, ``occupied 
territory.'' Why would we not veto that?
  It also lends legitimacy to efforts by the Palestinian Authority to 
put pressure on Israel through the U.N. rather than to go through the 
process of engaging in direct negotiations, and it puts wind in the 
sails of the shameful boycott divestment and sanctions movement.
  Unquestionably, this U.N. Security Council action damages the 
prospects for peace. The resolution and the bullying and harassment of 
Israel that it will spur only happened for one reason: the Obama 
administration let it happen--and that went against the distinct 
warnings from this body.
  Mr. Engel and I engaged in letters, in conversations with senior 
administration officials seeking their assurance that the United States 
would veto one-sided, anti-Israel resolutions. In November, the House 
unanimously, all of us, passed a resolution which warned the 
administration against taking such last-minute action.
  With that resolution, H. Con. Res. 165, the House unanimously stated 
that the United States Government should continue to oppose and veto 
United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek to impose 
solutions to final-status issues or are one-sided and anti-Israel. Yet 
the administration rejected the call from Congress and chose a course 
that will bring harm for years to come by failing to veto U.N. Security 
Council Resolution 2334.
  If the Palestinians want a lasting peace, they must accept that 
Israel, not the U.N., is their negotiating partner; and that means 
ending the incitement to violence against Israelis that goes on in so 
many of the mosques, that goes on in the schools, that goes on in the 
newspapers and on television there. It also means ending--and I think 
this is the most important fact, because leaving this out of the 
resolution at the U.N. is beyond me--their pay-to-slay scheme.
  You talk about a lack of balance. Here we have a situation where, 
since 2003, it has been Palestinian law to reward Palestinian 
terrorists--terrorists--to go out, and they are given this incitement, 
this stipend for life. The more mayhem they create, the more horrific 
the number of civilians they attack and, therefore, the longer the 
sentence, the more they know: Well, I can serve my time, and then when 
I get out, I can get this stipend for the rest of my life--and it is 
larger and larger, depending upon the amount of mayhem--and if I don't 
make it, or if I am a suicide bomber, my family gets the stipend.
  That, by law, is the way the Palestinian Authority has engineered 
this, costing the lives--and you can read

[[Page H149]]

about it every month of those civilians attacked on the streets. It is 
not just Israelis, of course. Taylor Force, a U.S. Marine, was killed 
simply because he was in Israel, but it was by someone responding to 
the incitement.
  So $300 million per year spent by the Palestinian Authority to do 
that. No mention of that, of course, by the United Nations. And that is 
why today's action is so important, to demonstrate our united 
opposition to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, call for its 
repeal, to head off any more moves the Obama administration might have 
in the next few days with respect to the Paris conference next week as 
well, and to provide the foundation for the next administration to move 
forcefully to counteract its dangerous impact.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Engel, for yielding a 
portion of his time to opponents of this resolution. I also appreciate 
his willingness to work with me and other Members on our alternative 
resolution that is more accurate and less divisive, a resolution, 
unfortunately, the majority has denied a hearing for on the floor 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 11. The resolution 
before us today fails to credibly reaffirm our Nation's support for a 
two-state solution. It provides an inaccurate accounting of the United 
States' longstanding policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It 
includes reckless and divisive charges regarding the recent United 
Nations Security Council resolution, designed, it would appear, solely 
to embarrass the outgoing administration. It falsely claims, for 
example, that the Security Council resolution ``contradicts the Oslo 
Accords.'' It goes so far as to link the resolution to the boycott and 
divestiture movement.
  Mr. Speaker, there is room for honest debate about the U.N. 
resolution and about the U.S. decision to abstain, but there is not 
room, there shouldn't be room, for this kind of disgraceful distortion. 
H. Res. 11 doesn't really engage the issues; it obscures and distorts 
them.
  I would suggest that both those who support and oppose recent U.S. 
actions should oppose this irresponsible and divisive resolution. It 
does distort the record. In fact, during the Obama administration, 
fewer U.N. Security Council resolutions related to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict have passed than under any other modern 
Presidency. In fact, the December resolution is the only one that has 
passed under President Obama's leadership; and if you want a fair and 
comprehensive account of the thinking that went into that difficult 
decision, I commend to every Member Samantha Power's statement at the 
United Nations, one of the finest statements of its sort that I have 
ever read.
  H. Res. 11 also doesn't take into account the fact that Republican 
and Democratic administrations alike have allowed Security Council 
resolutions addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to pass, many 
of which were opposed by Israel. The fact is H. Res. 11 runs a real 
risk of undermining the credibility of the United States Congress as a 
proactive force working toward a two-state solution.
  In this period of great geopolitical turmoil and uncertainty, we must 
reaffirm those fundamental aspects of our foreign policy, including our 
strong and unwavering support for Israel, while also demonstrating to 
the world that we are committed to a diplomacy that defends human 
rights and promotes Israeli and Palestinian states that live side by 
side in peace and security, a formulation that has characterized our 
country's diplomacy for decades.
  At best, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 11 would muddy the waters of our 
diplomacy and foreign policy. At worst, it could undermine our decade-
long efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and 
Palestinians. I can't, in good faith, support the adoption of this 
resolution, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, in response briefly, we did 
have a substitute from Mr. Price, and we looked at that substitute, but 
it did not once mention the United Nations Security Council Resolution 
2334.
  Mr. Engel and I have worked hard together, in good faith and in a 
bipartisan manner, to develop a measure that rejects and repudiates 
this dangerous U.N. resolution that was passed; and also, ours warns 
the White House against taking additional measures in the last few 
weeks of the current administration. I think it is important to remind 
the body that this is very concerning, given the backdrop of the Paris 
conference on the 15th of this month and the very real concern that the 
President could take further steps at the U.N.
  Again, Mr. Price's amendment did not include this urgent warning. I 
want to say that I am happy to work with Mr. Price in a bipartisan 
manner once the Committee on Foreign Affairs organizes, but time is of 
the essence. We must act to reject United Nations Security Council 
Resolution 2334, not remain silent on it, and we have got to limit the 
damage that the administration has caused to prospects for a lasting 
peace.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen), chairman emeritus of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank our esteemed chairman for the 
time.
  This resolution, Mr. Speaker, will not undo the damage that has been 
done at the Security Council, but it sends an important message to the 
world that the United States Congress resoundingly and in a strong 
bipartisan manner disapproves of the vote taken on Resolution 2334, and 
it sends a warning to the nations that will gather in Paris next week 
to discuss the peace process that there will be repercussions if there 
is a move to introduce a parameters resolution before the 20th in an 
effort to further isolate Israel.
  Our closest friend and ally, the democratic Jewish State of Israel, 
has been under constant attack by the United Nations. Abu Mazen and the 
Palestinians have pushed a campaign to delegitimize the Jewish state, 
to undermine the peace process, to achieve unilateral statehood 
recognition. We have seen it this year at UNESCO, where that sham of an 
institution voted on several occasions to deny and distance Jewish and 
Christian historical and cultural ties to Jerusalem.
  We have seen it at the Human Rights Council, where Israel is 
constantly demonized and falsely accused of human rights violations 
while the real abusers of human rights go unpunished because that body 
has utterly failed to uphold its mandate. This is a body that allows 
the worst abusers of human rights--like Cuba, Venezuela, and China--to 
actually sit in judgment of human rights worldwide. What a pathetic 
joke. Yet the only thing they can agree on is to attack Israel, the 
only democracy in the Middle East and the only place in the region 
where human rights are protected.

  We have seen this scheme to delegitimize Israel at the General 
Assembly, where, in its closing legislative session, the General 
Assembly passed 20--20--anti-Israel resolutions and only 4, combined, 
for the entire world.
  These institutions have no credibility, and now we have the 
unfortunate circumstance of the White House deciding to abstain from 
this anti-Israel, one-sided resolution at the Security Council. Our 
ally was abandoned, and credibility and momentum were given to the 
Palestinian schemes to delegitimize the Jewish state, to undermine the 
peace process.
  While the damage has been done, Mr. Speaker, by this act of cowardice 
at the Security Council, we will have an opportunity to reverse that 
damage. In the coming weeks and months, this Congress and the incoming 
administration must show unyielding support for our ally Israel and 
undo the damage done.
  This resolution by the chairman and the ranking member is an all-
important first step that signals our intent. I urge my colleagues to 
support this measure, and I look forward to working with Chairman Royce 
and Ranking Member Engel in further strengthening our U.S.-Israel bond.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman), my good friend and senior member of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs.

[[Page H150]]

  


                              {time}  1745

  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, let's look at the historic timeline. The 
Reagan administration and other administrations have failed in the past 
to veto anti-Israel resolutions, and that failure has not been helpful 
to the cause of peace. Over the last two decades, Israel has frozen or 
removed settlements in an effort to negotiate peace, all to no avail.
  On November 29 of last year, this House unanimously urged our U.N. 
Ambassador to veto any U.N. resolution that sought to impose peace 
settlement terms. But a month later, our U.N. Ambassador ignored the 
input of this House and allowed the U.N. to adopt a one-sided 
resolution that sought to impose peace terms on the parties.
  Worse yet, that U.N. resolution equates the Western Wall, Judaism's 
holiest site, with outposts deep in the West Bank that are illegal 
under Israeli law.
  Today we consider a House resolution that has over 30 Democratic 
cosponsors. It is not a pro-settlements resolution. It strongly and 
repeatedly reaffirms our support for a two-state solution, achieved 
through direct negotiations, and it objects to a U.N. resolution that 
set back the cause of peace. Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the longtime chairman of the 
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human 
Rights, and International Organizations.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding and for offering this important resolution, along with the 
ranking member, and I am proud to be a cosponsor.
  President Obama's decision to abstain and not veto Security Council 
Resolution 2334 seriously undermines the peace process, abandons Israel 
at a critical hour in its life as a nation, and does serious injury to 
the historical record.
  The egregiously flawed U.N. text says that all Israeli settlements 
after the 1949 armistice line including East Jerusalem and West Bank 
have no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under 
international law.
  The pending House resolution repudiates 2334 and makes clear that a 
durable and sustainable peace agreement between Israel and the 
Palestinians will only come through direct bilateral negotiations, not 
one-sided, anti-Israel U.N. resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.N. resolution could open Israeli leaders and even 
average Israeli settlers to criminal prosecution. Israel's enemies are 
likely to exploit 2334 by seeking prosecutions in venues like the 
International Criminal Court for construction activities, even though 
the vast majority of this activity takes place legally, pursuant to 
Israeli law.
  A few hours ago, the European Jewish press reported that ``Leaders of 
the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations 
called for France to cancel or, at least, postpone what they called an 
`ill-conceived, poorly timed and damaging' event--the Paris Mideast 
conference--scheduled for January 15.''
  I hope that we will also call upon our government not to go to this 
right before a transition of the White House and the Presidency and 
mischief that could be forthcoming from that.
  They pointed out in their statement that ``Israel has long sought 
direct talks'' and ``it is time for the Palestinian leaders to stop 
evading their responsibility and seeking to use international fora to 
avoid the only true path to a lasting peace''--and that is a negotiated 
settlement.
  Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of 
America pointed out that the U.N. has a long-established bias against 
Israel. As my good friend from Florida said a moment ago, 20 anti-
Israel resolutions against just 4 in 2016--a bias and a discrimination 
against Israel.
  President Obama's decision to abstain and not veto Security Council 
Resolution 2334 seriously undermines the peace process, abandons Israel 
at a critical hour in its life as a nation, and does serious injury to 
the historical record.
  The egregiously flawed UN text says that all Israeli settlements 
after the 1949 armistice line including East Jerusalem and the West 
Bank have no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under 
international law.
  The pending House resolution repudiates 2334 and makes clear that a 
durable and sustainable peace agreement between Israel and the 
Palestinians will only come through direct bilateral negotiations not 
one-sided anti-Israel UN resolutions.
  With over three thousand years of Jewish history bound up in East 
Jerusalem and the West Bank, it is preposterous to assert that Israel 
has no legitimacy in defending its connections to this extraordinary 
heritage. Sadly, these kinds of prejudiced and revisionist claims are 
all too common in the United Nations where UNESCO voted just a couple 
months ago on measures that excise any mention of Judaism and 
Christianity's ancient ties to East Jerusalem.
  Mr. Speaker, the UN Resolution could open Israeli leaders and even 
average Israeli settlers to criminal prosecution. Israel's enemies are 
likely to exploit 2334 by seeking prosecutions in venues like the 
International Criminal Court (ICC) for construction activities, even 
though the vast majority of this activity takes place legally, pursuant 
to Israeli law.
  By calling on countries to distinguish between the State of Israel 
and Israeli settlements, 2334 enables the narrative of the anti-Semitic 
boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, or BDS movement, that is 
aimed at delegitimizing Israel.
  And in mere days, the error of 2334 could be further compounded.
  A few hours ago the European Jewish Press reported that ``Leaders of 
the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations 
called for France to cancel or, at least, postpone what they called an 
`ill-conceived, poorly timed and damaging' event--the Paris Mideast 
conference--scheduled for January 15th.''
  ``The international community should not plunge forward with the ill-
conceired and poorly timed Paris conference,'' CPMAJO Chairman Stephen 
M. Greenberg and Vice Chairman and CEO Malcolm Hoenlein said in a 
statement . . . According to the Conference of Presidents, there are a 
number of compelling reasons to postpone the Paris event, including the 
impending transition to the Trump administration, just five days later. 
``It makes no sense that the next administration is precluded from 
participating in a discussion of an essential component of U.S. foreign 
policy with which it will be engaged,'' they explained.
  `` `Israel has long sought direct talks, it is time for the 
Palestinian leaders to stop evading their responsibility and seeking to 
use international fora to avoid the only true path to a lasting peace,' 
they added. Hoenlein cautioned it was possible the Obama administration 
could--following the recent passage of the anti-Israeli settlement 
Security Council resolution--take a `further damaging step against the 
Jewish state before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.' ''
  Nathan Diament, Executive Director of the Union of Orthodox Jewish 
Congregations of America, wrote me a letter today and said, ``On 
December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, a 
blatantly anti-Israel resolution condemning Israel's building of 
settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It has long been U.S. 
policy that any progress toward an agreement in the region must be 
based on direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, 
not a vote of third-party nations at the UN.''
  ``Unfortunately the UN has a long and established bias against 
Israel. In 2016 alone, the UN General Assembly adopted 20 anti-Israel 
resolutions and just four against other countries: North Korea, Syria, 
Iran and Russia. The World Health Organization condemned Israel as the 
world's only violator of `mental, physical and environmental health,' 
while the U.N. Women condemned Israel as the world's only violator of 
women's rights. The International Labor Organization condemned Israel 
as the world's only violator of labor rights. These same UN committees 
were silent on the issue of human rights violations in China, Libya, or 
the Congo.''
  ``Clearly, the UN has an agenda to undermine and delegitimize the 
state of Israel, and in that regard UN support for Resolution 2334 was 
not surprising. What was surprising--and deeply concerning--was the 
silence of the United States on this issue. Rather than exercising its 
veto power, the United States chose to abstain from voting, and thereby 
threatened the trust and support Israel has long placed in its most 
important ally. Over the course of his presidency, Mr. Obama has 
repeatedly assured American Jews and others concerned about Israel's 
security and welfare that his commitment to U.S. support for Israel's 
security was `unshakeable.' By allowing the UN Security Council's 
resolution to pass in the final weeks of his Administration, President 
Obama undermined his legacy and threatened the longstanding alliance 
between the United States and Israel.''
  ``Whether the abstaining vote was a parting statement from the Obama 
Administration or the influence of anti-Israeli forces at the UN, the 
incoming Trump Administration and the

[[Page H151]]

115th Congress must make the United States' support of Israel and our 
common goals of peace, democracy, and fighting terrorism--a pillar of 
its foreign policy. Today's resolution condemning UN Resolution 2334 
will send an important message to the world that the United States 
stands with Israel and will continue to support our common goals.''
  Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I would like to note that many of us 
in Congress have been warning about these kinds of reckless gambits for 
months. Three-hundred and eighty of us in the House signed a letter in 
April to President Obama specifically calling on him to veto any one-
sided resolution like 2443 if it were raised in the Security Council. 
In late November, the House voted overwhelmingly for H. Con. Res. 165 
further stressing the need for the United States to stand by Israel and 
veto biased Security Council measures.
  I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 11 to denounce this 
dangerous Security Council action. I look forward to working with 
President-elect Trump to align U.S. policy with the overwhelming 
consensus in Congress: that we are and remain committed to Israel's 
sovereignty and security.

                                           OU Advocacy Center,

                                  Washington, DC, January 5, 2017.
     Hon. Chris Smith,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Smith: On behalf of the Union of 
     Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (Orthodox Union)--
     the nation's largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization--
     please accept our gratitude for your support of today's 
     resolution opposing UN Security Council Resolution 2334, and 
     thank you for submitting this letter to the official record 
     of the House of Representatives.
       On December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council passed 
     Resolution 2334, a blatantly anti-Israel resolution 
     condemning Israel's building of settlements in the West Bank 
     and East Jerusalem. It has long been U.S. policy that any 
     progress toward an agreement in the region must be based on 
     direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, 
     not a vote of third-party nations at the UN.
       Unfortunately, the UN has a long and established bias 
     against Israel. In 2016 alone, the UN General Assembly 
     adopted 20 anti-Israel resolutions and just four against 
     other countries: North Korea, Syria, Iran and Russia. The 
     World Health Organization condemned Israel as the world's 
     only violator of ``mental, physical and environmental 
     health,'' while the U.N. Women condemned Israel as the 
     world's only violator of women's rights. The International 
     Labor Organization condemned Israel as the world's only 
     violator of labor rights. These same UN committees were 
     silent on the issue of human rights violations in China, 
     Libya, or the Congo.
       Clearly, the UN has an agenda to undermine and delegitimize 
     the state of Israel, and in that regard UN support for 
     Resolution 2334 was not surprising. What was surprising--and 
     deeply concerning--was the silence of the United States on 
     this issue. Rather than exercising its veto power, the United 
     States chose to abstain from voting, and thereby threatened 
     the trust and support Israel has long placed in its most 
     important ally. Over the course of his presidency, Mr. Obama 
     has repeatedly assured American Jews and others concerned 
     about Israel's security and welfare that his commitment to 
     U.S. support for Israel's security was ``unshakeable.'' By 
     allowing the UN Security Council's resolution to pass in the 
     final weeks of his Administration, President Obama undermined 
     his legacy and threatened the longstanding alliance between 
     the United States and Israel.
       Whether the abstaining vote was a parting statement from 
     the Obama Administration or the influence of anti-Israeli 
     forces at the UN, the incoming Trump Administration and the 
     115th Congress must make the United States' support of Israel 
     and our common goals of peace, democracy, and fighting 
     terrorism--a pillar of its foreign policy. Today's resolution 
     condemning UN Resolution 2334 will send an important message 
     to the world that the United States stands with Israel and 
     will continue to support our common goals.
       Again, thank you for your support of Israel and today's 
     resolution. I urge all members of the United States Congress 
     to stand with Israel and vote in favor of the McCarthy-Royce 
     resolution.
           Best Regards,
                                                   Nathan Diament,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I stand here as a proud Jew and someone 
who, throughout my entire life, has been an advocate for the State of 
Israel, and I am standing here to oppose H. Res. 11.
  As a Member of Congress, I have been committed to maintaining 
America's unwavering support for Israel, which has lasted from the very 
first moments of Israel's existence.
  The U.S.-Israel bond is unbreakable, despite the fact that the United 
States' administrations have not always agreed with the particular 
policies of an Israeli Government. Contrary to the assertions of H. 
Res. 11, the U.S. has often expressed those differences in the context 
of the United Nations. Presidents, from Lyndon Johnson to George W. 
Bush, have each vetoed and sometimes voted for a U.N. resolution 
contrary to the wishes of Israel's Government at the time. Only the 
Obama administration, until 2 weeks ago, never, ever cast a vote 
against what Israel wanted.
  But opposition to the building of settlements on land belonging to 
Palestinians before the 1967 war--with the exception of the land, of 
course, that is going to be swapped, agreed to by both parties--has 
been the official U.S. policy for many decades, contrary, again, to the 
assertions of H. Res. 11.
  It has also been the policy of the United States to recognize that 
the only long-term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--the 
violence, the loss of life--is to create two states: one for the 
Palestinians and one for Israel. A two-state solution is the only way 
Israel can continue as both a democratic and a Jewish state, living in 
the peace and security that has eluded her from the very beginning. The 
building of settlements is an obstacle to achieving that goal.
  And, of course, settlements aren't the only obstacle to Israeli-
Palestinian peace. The U.S. resolution reiterates the Palestinian 
Authority security forces must continue to counter terrorism and 
condemn all of the provocations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), who has served for years as chairman of 
the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and 
Trade.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  The recent stunt at the United Nations targeting Israel is the latest 
effort by this administration to cement a legacy of foreign policy that 
has failed, especially with our trusted ally Israel. It has been U.S. 
policy to veto any U.N. resolution dictating parameters on the Israeli-
Palestinian peace process.
  The reason is simple. True peace can only be achieved at the 
negotiating table between the Palestinians and the Israelis, not at the 
United Nations. The one-sided, anti-Israeli resolution will only make 
peace harder.
  The U.N. adopted 20 anti-Israeli resolutions last year, while passing 
just 4 for the rest of the world. The U.N. is not fair and unbiased. 
While pointing the finger solely at Israel, the recent resolution did 
nothing to point out the Palestinians' lack of progress towards peace.
  The Palestinian Authority has failed to stop violence against Jews. 
It continues to--get this, Mr. Speaker--make payments to jailed 
Palestinian terrorists who have harmed or killed Jews.
  Over the years, Israel has traded land for promised peace. They have 
no peace. And soon, if the United Nations gets its way, they will have 
no land.
  Despite the administration's policy of abandoning our trusted ally 
Israel, the United States Congress must stand with our ally Israel.
  And that is just the way it is.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Rosen), one of our new Members, who has made support for 
Israel part of her entire life and is giving her first speech on the 
House floor in support of this resolution and support of Israel.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle today in support of this resolution and to lend 
my name as a cosponsor. The United States alliance with Israel is 
absolutely critical, and this is not the time to sow uncertainty about 
the state of our relationship.
  This resolution does a number of important things, but the most 
important is that it reaffirms Congress' longstanding support for a 
bilateral settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and objects to 
the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. Paragraph 5 of 
that resolution is reminiscent of a recent U.N. Human Rights

[[Page H152]]

Council resolution that established a database of companies in the 
settlements, facilitating a boycott.
  The UNSC resolution does nothing to advance the cause of peace and 
is, in fact, an obstacle to it. Strongly ensuring the security of 
Israel is the only pathway to a lasting settlement.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of 
this resolution.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Ed Royce 
for yielding. I appreciate your leadership for peace.
  I am in strong support of the House resolution, which is taking a 
firm stand and clear stand objecting to the United Nations Security 
Council resolution as an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace.
  The United States has stood with Israel against one-sided, biased 
resolutions at the United Nations and in other international forums. 
Additionally, the United States has been adamant that a peaceful 
resolution will only come from direct, bilateral negotiations, not 
addressed by an international forum. The distorted ideology of moral 
neutrality is suicidal for civilization, encouraging what the chairman 
correctly identified as ``pay for slay,'' as evidenced by the murder of 
American tourist Taylor Force just last year.
  On December 23, my constituents were shocked as the Obama 
administration betrayed the people of Israel, undermining the peace 
process by failing to veto the U.N. Security Council resolution. 
President Obama and Secretary Kerry's actions revealed dangerous 
irresponsibility, putting Israeli and American families at risk of more 
terrorist attacks. Fortunately, Governor Nikki Haley, President-elect 
Donald Trump's appointee, will soon be making a positive difference as 
U.N. Ambassador of the United States, promoting peace through strength.
  Today, I am grateful to stand strong with Israel by being an original 
cosponsor of H. Res. 11. I appreciate the leadership of Majority Leader 
Kevin McCarthy, Chairman Ed Royce, and Ranking Member Eliot Engel for 
sponsoring this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, my commitment to the State of Israel is 
steadfast, but my first loyalty is to peace--peace that is protected by 
genuine self-determination.
  I know in my heart that the only path to peace is to have two 
separate, sovereign states that peacefully coexist. The two-state 
solution is at the heart of American foreign policy, and every 
President and every Congress since I got here in 1993 put the two-state 
solution at the heart of what America wants for her friend Israel.
  As I said on the House floor on December 6, if we are ever going to 
achieve the permanent peace that allows Israel to exist without fear 
and Palestine to exist without occupation, we must continue to fight 
for the two-state solution. But under the current strongman government 
in Israel, all pretenses and illusions are being stripped away. From 
settlements, to water, to restricting the Muslim call to prayer in 
Jerusalem, it seems that anything goes.
  Today, as America embarks on its own experiment with strongman 
politics, this Congress is falling in line. This Congress that allowed 
our Chamber to be used for an Israeli campaign rally and TV commercials 
is bending to pressure from abroad and pressure here at home.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the commitment to peace of the American 
people, so I urge my colleagues to vote with their hearts and minds and 
defeat this House resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record my remarks on the floor of 
December 6 in support of a two-state solution.

    Two State Solution Is Still The Path To Peace In The Middle East

            [Luis V. Gutierrez Floor Remarks, Dec. 6, 2016]

       Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about what is going on in 
     Israel and I think it has implications both for U.S. foreign 
     policy and for domestic policy and for our great ally, 
     Israel.
       As the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu 
     consolidates power and becomes in many ways the one-party 
     rulers of Israel, a number of things are changing that should 
     be of concern to all Americans.
       Specifically, the increasing dominance of the Likud Party 
     as the one-party in Israel jeopardizes the two state solution 
     that I and many others in the United States and Israel feel 
     is the only way to achieve long-term peace in the Middle 
     East.
       There is a retrenchment of hard line policies--aimed at 
     solidifying alliances with smaller religious and hardline 
     parties that keeps Likud in power--that will make it harder 
     for Israelis and their allies in America--and anyone who 
     seeks a lasting peace--to maintain progress towards a two 
     state solution.
       Right now, the Knesset is considering legislation to 
     legalize all Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory on 
     the West Bank, even those constructed on private Palestinian 
     land.
       Boom, 400,000 people in settlements across the West Bank, 
     it's all legal because they say it is legal. But it's not.
       And Israel is destroying Palestinian homes at a pace faster 
     than we have seen before.
       It is provocative, sweeping, and designed to make it harder 
     to ever reach an agreement with the Palestinians.
       The plan to restrict the Muslim call to prayer in Jerusalem 
     has been revived, again to placate hardline religious 
     constituents, by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
       There is no clearer statement to people of the Islamic 
     faith that they do not matter, they do not belong, and they 
     will not be tolerated than to restrict the Muslim call to 
     prayer in Jerusalem, a city that has heard the Muslim call to 
     prayer for thousands of years.
       I think what is going on in Israel with Prime Minister 
     Netanyahu presents a cautionary tale about the consequences 
     of following a political strongman. The strongman has to keep 
     proving that he is a strongman over and over.
       Like other strongmen who ride fear into leadership--when 
     you base your political career on injecting fear and 
     resentment into political affairs--when you use the backdrop 
     of terrorism and the understandable fear of the Israeli 
     people as a political tool for years and decades--this is the 
     kind of policy that results.
       There is an appetite for constant escalation of what you 
     are doing to stand up to the enemy you have constructed--an 
     enemy based on, but not the same as the enemies that fight 
     against the state of Israel and tolerance and peace in real 
     life.
       Strongmen construct a foil--in this case based on the 
     Palestinians, but sometimes exaggerated beyond recognition--
     and they need to feed the thirst for more and more action to 
     attack the caricature that has been constructed.
       But strongman politics in Israel have the impact of making 
     a long-lasting solution that brings peace to the Middle East 
     harder to achieve.
       The fundamental rights of Palestinians to have their own 
     state, a state alongside the Israeli state where they have 
     the basic rights and dignity to govern themselves and raise 
     their families in peace--that is what many Israelis, many 
     Palestinians, and many around the world have been fighting 
     for.
       If we are ever going to achieve the permanent peace that 
     allows Israel to exist without fear and Palestine to exist 
     without occupation, we must continue to fight for the two 
     state solution.
       When I was just a freshman, almost 25 years ago, we 
     celebrated the accomplishments of Rabin and Arafat and 
     President Clinton to build towards a peace that recognizes 
     the rights and dignity of Israelis and the rights and 
     dignities of the Palestinian people.
       For decades, the United States--under different leaders in 
     different parties from Carter to Reagan to Bush and Obama--
     have recognized that peace will only come with mutual respect 
     and tolerance.
       That is what we have based our foreign policy on and should 
     continue to base our foreign policy on.
       Having talked with average people and with leaders on both 
     sides of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict--I am convinced 
     that it is the only path to peace.
       America has been a catalyst--a constructive influence from 
     outside--a nation based on religious freedom and democracy 
     that has served as a model for both Palestinians and 
     Israelis--and we have worked towards helping parties continue 
     to move in the direction of two separate but mutually 
     respectful countries, two nations that are not at war with 
     each other or subservient to one another.
       I fear, Mr. Speaker, that Israel herself is moving away 
     from the two state solution as a goal and that we as her 
     closest ally must remind her--and ourselves--of what is at 
     stake if we lose sight of this important goal.

  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Royce and Ranking 
Member Engel.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the nation of Israel, one of 
our greatest allies in the Middle East.
  I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 11, Objecting to United 
Nations Security Council Resolution 2334.

[[Page H153]]

  U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 calls for a Palestinian state 
but not a Jewish state. It does nothing to condemn or stop the 
Palestinian Authority's pay to slay, as we have heard talked over and 
over again, that rewarded over $300 million to terrorists in Israeli 
jails last year for crimes committed against Israeli citizens and 
others. It legitimizes additional efforts to isolate and sanction 
Israel. It declares the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, 
where the City of David has been excavated, and the Western Wall, 
Judaism's holiest site, as occupied territories.

                              {time}  1800

  This is absurd. Furthermore, the Obama administration refused to veto 
it. This shameful move broke with years of bipartisan U.S. efforts to 
protect Israel from deeply flawed and biased U.S. resolutions.
  H. Res. 11 reasserts the U.S. position that the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict can only be resolved through direct negotiations between the 
two parties. H. Res. 11 must pass to send a clear message to the 
outgoing Obama administration, to the U.N., and to the world that the 
United States stands with Israel.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
great State of New York (Mr. Suozzi), another new Member of Congress 
who is also making his maiden speech about the security of Israel and 
the U.S.-Israel partnership.
  Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of the bipartisan H. 
Res. 11.
  In 2002, during the Second Intifada, after the massacre in Hebron, I 
had the great, good fortune of meeting in Jerusalem with Shimon Peres, 
of blessed memory. He explained why a two-state solution is the only 
path to peace, and I will never abandon his dream of a two-state 
solution.
  U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, however, pushes the hope of a 
two-state solution farther away for three reasons:
  One, it discourages direct negotiations between Israel and the 
Palestinians.
  Two, it fails to distinguish between ``long accepted'' and ``more 
controversial'' settlements. ``Long accepted'' settlements, such as the 
long established Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, in the Jewish 
Quarter, places like the Western Wall, and the ``consensus'' 
settlements versus ``more controversial'' hilltop settlements in the 
West Bank, such as Amona, settlements that even the Israeli Supreme 
Court has declared illegal.
  Three, it fails to explicitly condemn the number one impediment to a 
two-state solution: anti-Israel terrorism.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I condemn U.N. Security Council Resolution 
2334.
  This is an outrageous attack against the State of Israel, the world's 
only Jewish state and the only democracy in the Middle East. I also 
condemn the Obama administration's failure to veto such a resolution, 
because it betrayed Israel and it harmed our national security 
interests. The Obama administration's actions, or lack of actions, were 
more than just a sin of omission in that they worked behind the scenes 
to move this resolution forward so that it could be voted on in the 
United Nations General Assembly. That is a sin of commission.
  Now, we have to be honest about how the two sides have acted in this 
in putting pressure on Israel and not on the Palestinian Authority. 
Remember, when you talk about a two-state solution, the Palestinian 
Arabs rejected a state in 1948. They tried to wipe Israel off the map. 
They tried to beat them in 1967. It has been a constant state of war, 
and they have chosen to get rid of the Jewish state as something that 
is more important to them than the creation of their own state, and we 
have to be honest about that.
  I will support this resolution. I view it as a good statement, but as 
just a first step. We need something in the coming days that has teeth 
to deal with the United Nations and its outrageous conduct. It has 
become a hotbed of anti-Israeli activity where all of these tin-pot 
countries get together and rail against the world's only Jewish state. 
They did 20 resolutions against Israel at the United Nations in 2016 
and four against the rest of the world.
  We need to take our power of the purse and defund the U.N. until U.N. 
Security Council Resolution 2334 is revoked.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, for what may or may not be their good intentions, this 
resolution and its authors undermined the security of families here and 
in Israel. This ``go it alone'' approach with the current Israeli 
Government--defying a unanimous vote of 14 countries and ignoring the 
concerns of many of our allies--is not a path to peace. We will not 
protect ourselves or our allies in Israel if we pursue the path of 
isolation.
  For decades, we have enjoyed a bipartisan commitment to two states 
living in peace and security next door to one another. It has been a 
difficult goal to achieve, but now is not the time to give up on it. 
There are, sadly, some in Israel and some among the Palestinians who 
wholly reject this commitment. They believe it is all theirs. They 
believe in a divine entitlement to every piece of land west of the 
Jordan River. Their idea of a reasonable negotiation is that the other 
side gets next to nothing.
  Few people who have worked on this difficult issue and have tried to 
overcome such zealotry and achieve a just resolution have done as much 
as Secretary of State John Kerry. Despite the insults and the 
intransigence, he has made near Herculean efforts to achieve peace. 
To be honest, the roadblocks that have been thrown in his path have not 
come just from one side. In no way do we condone the many, many wrongs 
of the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority by saying that some 
of those roadblocks were initiated by the current Israeli Government.

  Then, to talk of one sided, what irony. Indeed, I think it is 
hypocrisy to talk about a one-sided resolution when this is a one-sided 
resolution. If there had been the slightest interest in bringing this 
body together--with all of us supporting Israel, with all of us 
supporting access to the Western Wall, with all of us supporting the 
security of our friend that was reflected in $38 billion, which is the 
most money in military assistance we have ever provided to a single 
ally by this administration--instead of attacking the goodwill and the 
good faith of this administration, we wouldn't be here today. There is 
no urgency for us to act today. There is an urgency--just as the new 
designee for the Ambassador to Israel has slandered some other people--
for them to besmirch the efforts of this administration.
  The truth is that ever-expanding Israeli settlements--many of them 
first constructed in total violation of Israeli law--are a significant 
obstacle, but they are certainly not the only one. The clearer goal of 
settlers is to have facts on the ground, to be irreversible in moving 
to split up any potential Palestinian Authority.
  Protect our families and those of Israel by rejecting this 
resolution.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose U.N. Security Council Resolution 
2334--an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish attempt on behalf of pro-Palestinian 
nations to delegitimize Israel and ethnically cleanse East Jerusalem 
and Judea and Samaria of the Jewish people.
  The Israelis have long been willing to compromise large swaths of 
land in this region in pursuit of a two-state solution. It has been the 
Palestinians who have, time and again, declined real offers on the 
table for their own state. Just think about this reality. If the 
Israelis agreed right now to make all of the concessions this U.N. 
Security Council resolution calls for, there would still not be peace. 
A viable two-state solution isn't just about Israel's recognizing the 
Palestinians' right to exist; it is also about the Palestinians' 
recognizing Israel's right to exist.
  As for me, I stand for freedom, and America should stand strong--
shoulder to shoulder--with Israel.
  President Obama lit a menorah this year at the White House. He 
reflected on Hanukkah as a celebration of the

[[Page H154]]

Maccabees' fight for freedom--the Maccabees, who lived, prayed, and 
fought on the land that this resolution now calls illegally occupied 
territory. It is an insult this resolution was passed just one day 
before the start of Hanukkah. Israel is one of America's greatest 
allies and is a beacon of freedom and liberty in a very dark region of 
the world. The Obama administration, by allowing this resolution to 
pass, is attempting a dangerous shift in American foreign policy that 
cannot be allowed to stand.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution, and I 
thank Chairman Royce for his leadership.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. David Scott).
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in great support of the Ross-Engel bill against 
this most deceitful and shameful U.N. resolution. That is what we are 
here for. This act was shameful and it was deceitful.
  When the U.N. voted for this 2334 resolution, it was like cutting 
Israel's legs out from under it and then condemning Israel for being a 
cripple. Shameful and deceitful because they wanted to put all of the 
blame on Israel when it is the Palestinians who refuse to even meet to 
discuss or to even talk about a two-nation state. It is the 
Palestinians who say Israel doesn't even have a right to exist.
  How in the hell are you going to meet with somebody to talk about a 
combined future when they will not give you decent recognition?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. I thank the gentleman because this part 
is very important.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation is blessed. We have been blessed with divine 
intervention all through our history to be that shining light on the 
hill, to let all of our great work show for the world. We have an 
opportunity here tonight for this Congress to stand up and show that 
light for Israel.
  Stand up for Israel and show our great works to this world. That is 
what I say, so let it be written and let it be done.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott).
  Mr. TROTT. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 11, which offers a 
strong objection to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334.

  President Obama started his foreign policy 8 years ago with an 
apology tour in the Middle East, and now, not surprisingly, he ends it 
with a slap in the face to our ally and friend, Israel.
  For over 40 years, the United States Government--Republicans and 
Democrats--stood shoulder to shoulder with our ally, vetoing countless 
resolutions at the United Nations. However, this past December, 
President Obama broke that tradition and chose to allow this resolution 
to come before the Security Council for a vote. As Prime Minister 
Netanyahu said: ``This was a disgraceful anti-Israel maneuver.'' Not 
only does this one-sided resolution blatantly target Israel, it 
seriously impedes the peace process.
  Unfortunately, while I wholeheartedly reject what happened at the 
United Nations, I cannot say that I am surprised. The Obama 
administration has been more concerned with appeasing nefarious actors 
like Iran and Cuba, all the while ignoring friends like Israel. I look 
forward to a new era of foreign policy in which our enemies fear us and 
our allies respect us.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the 
time remaining for each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina has 5 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of a two-state solution, as a 
Jewish Member of Congress and as someone who has been to Israel and has 
seen the settlements firsthand, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution.
  Settlements are an impediment to peace between Israelis and 
Palestinians. This resolution only provides ammunition to those who 
oppose a two-state solution--the approach that is our only hope for 
lasting peace. We all agree that the incitement of violence and 
terrorism must end, which U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 
discusses. But as Secretary Kerry so eloquently stated in his speech on 
December 28:

       Some seem to believe that the U.S.' friendship means the 
     U.S. must accept any policy regardless of our own interests, 
     our own positions, our own words, our own principles--even 
     after urging again and again that the policy must change. 
     Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and 
     friendships require mutual respect.

                              {time}  1815

  Well, my friends, Israel must end settlement expansion, close their 
outposts, and get to the negotiating table. Prime Minister Netanyahu 
has not treated the Obama administration with respect, and this 
resolution does not offer the American people the honest, true debate 
we should be having about this critically important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Obama administration, especially 
Secretary of State Kerry, for their dedication in trying to find a path 
forward for a two-state solution. It is my hope that the principles 
laid out in Secretary Kerry's December 28, 2016 speech will help guide 
serious negotiations in the days ahead. To ensure that his remarks are 
a part of this debate, I will now read his entire statement.
  Secretary Kerry said: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very, 
very much. Thank you. (Coughs.) Excuse me. Thank you for your patience, 
all of you. For those of you who celebrated Christmas, I hope you had a 
wonderful Christmas. Happy Chanukah. And to everybody here, I know it's 
the middle of a holiday week. I understand. (Laughter.) But I wish you 
all a very, very productive and Happy New Year.
  Today, I want to share candid thoughts about an issue which for 
decades has animated the foreign policy dialogue here and around the 
world--the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  Throughout his Administration, President Obama has been deeply 
committed to Israel and its security, and that commitment has guided 
his pursuit of peace in the Middle East. This is an issue which, all of 
you know, I have worked on intensively during my time as Secretary of 
State for one simple reason: because the two-state solution is the only 
way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and 
Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel's future as a Jewish 
and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors. 
It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the 
Palestinian people. And it is an important way of advancing United 
States interests in the region.
  Now, I'd like to explain why that future is now in jeopardy, and 
provide some context for why we could not, in good conscience, stand in 
the way of a resolution at the United Nations that makes clear that 
both sides must act now to preserve the possibility of peace.
  I'm also here to share my conviction that there is still a way 
forward if the responsible parties are willing to act. And I want to 
share practical suggestions for how to preserve and advance the 
prospects for the just and lasting peace that both sides deserve.
  So it is vital that we have an honest, clear-eyed conversation about 
the uncomfortable truths and difficult choices, because the alternative 
that is fast becoming the reality on the ground is in nobody's 
interest--not the Israelis, not the Palestinians, not the region--and 
not the United States.
  Now, I want to stress that there is an important point here: My job, 
above all, is to defend the United States of America--to stand up for 
and defend our values and our interests in the world. And if we were to 
stand idly by and know that in doing so we are allowing a dangerous 
dynamic to take hold which promises greater conflict and instability to 
a region in which we have vital interests, we would be derelict in our 
own responsibilities.
  Regrettably, some seem to believe that the U.S. friendship means the 
U.S. must accept any policy, regardless of our own interests, our own 
positions, our own words, our own principles--even after urging again 
and again that the policy must change. Friends need to tell each other 
the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect.
  Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations, who does not 
support a two-state solution, said after the vote last week, quote, 
``It was to be expected that Israel's greatest ally would act in 
accordance with the values that we share,'' and veto this resolution. I 
am compelled to respond today that the

[[Page H155]]

United States did, in fact, vote in accordance with our values, just as 
previous U.S. administrations have done at the Security Council before 
us.
  They fail to recognize that this friend, the United States of 
America, that has done more to support Israel than any other country, 
this friend that has blocked countless efforts to delegitimize Israel, 
cannot be true to our own values--or even the stated democratic values 
of Israel--and we cannot properly defend and protect Israel if we allow 
a viable two-state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes.
  And that's the bottom line: the vote in the United Nations was about 
preserving the two-state solution. That's what we were standing up for: 
Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state, living side by side 
in peace and security with its neighbors. That's what we are trying to 
preserve for our sake and for theirs.
  In fact, this Administration has been Israel's greatest friend and 
supporter, with an absolutely unwavering commitment to advancing 
Israel's security and protecting its legitimacy.
  On this point, I want to be very clear: No American administration 
has done more for Israel's security than Barack Obama's. The Israeli 
prime minister himself has noted our, quote, ``unprecedented'' military 
and intelligence cooperation. Our military exercises are more advanced 
than ever. Our assistance for Iron Dome has saved countless Israeli 
lives. We have consistently supported Israel's right to defend itself, 
by itself, including during actions in Gaza that sparked great 
controversy.
  Time and again we have demonstrated that we have Israel's back. We 
have strongly opposed boycotts, divestment campaigns, and sanctions 
targeting Israel in international fora, whenever and wherever its 
legitimacy was attacked, and we have fought for its inclusion across 
the UN system. In the midst of our own financial crisis and budget 
deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support Israel. In fact, 
more than one-half of our entire global Foreign Military Financing goes 
to Israel. And this fall, we concluded an historic $38 billion 
memorandum of understanding that exceeds any military assistance 
package the United States has provided to any country, at any time, and 
that will invest in cutting-edge missile defense and sustain Israel's 
qualitative military edge for years to come. That's the measure of our 
support.
  This commitment to Israel's security is actually very personal for 
me. On my first trip to Israel as a young senator in 1986, I was 
captivated by a special country, one that I immediately admired and 
soon grew to love. Over the years, like so many others who are drawn to 
this extraordinary place, I have climbed Masada, swum in the Dead Sea, 
driven from one Biblical city to another. I've also seen the dark side 
of Hizballah's rocket storage facilities just across the border in 
Lebanon, walked through exhibits of the hell of the Holocaust at Yad 
Vashem, stood on the Golan Heights, and piloted an Israeli jet over the 
tiny airspace of Israel, which would make anyone understand the 
importance of security to Israelis. Out of those experiences came a 
steadfast commitment to Israel's security that has never wavered for a 
single minute in my 28 years in the Senate or my four years as 
Secretary.
  I have also often visited West Bank communities, where I met 
Palestinians struggling for basic freedom and dignity amidst the 
occupation, passed by military checkpoints that can make even the most 
routine daily trips to work or school an ordeal, and heard from 
business leaders who could not get the permits that they needed to get 
their products to the market and families who have struggled to secure 
permission just to travel for needed medical care.
  And I have witnessed firsthand the ravages of a conflict that has 
gone on for far too long. I've seen Israeli children in Sderot whose 
playgrounds had been hit by Katyusha rockets. I've visited shelters 
next to schools in Kiryat Shmona that kids had 15 seconds to get to 
after a warning siren went off. I've also seen the devastation of war 
in the Gaza Strip, where Palestinian girls in Izbet Abed Rabo played in 
the rubble of a bombed-out building.
  No children--Israeli or Palestinian--should have to live like that.
  So, despite the obvious difficulties that I understood when I became 
Secretary of State, I knew that I had to do everything in my power to 
help end this conflict. And I was grateful to be working for President 
Obama, who was prepared to take risks for peace and was deeply 
committed to that effort.
  Like previous U.S. administrations, we have committed our influence 
and our resources to trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict 
because, yes, it would serve American interests to stabilize a volatile 
region and fulfill America's commitment to the survival, security and 
well-being of an Israel at peace with its Arab neighbors.
  Despite our best efforts over the years, the two-state solution is 
now in serious jeopardy.
  The truth is that trends on the ground--violence, terrorism, 
incitement, settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation--
they are combining to destroy hopes for peace on both sides and 
increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality that most 
people do not actually want.
  Today, there are a number--there are a similar number of Jews and 
Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. 
They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or 
they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: 
if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic--
it cannot be both--and it won't ever really be at peace. Moreover, the 
Palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a 
homeland of their own with a one-state solution.
  Now, most on both sides understand this basic choice, and that is why 
it is important that polls of Israelis and Palestinians show that there 
is still strong support for the two-state solution--in theory. They 
just don't believe that it can happen.
  After decades of conflict, many no longer see the other side as 
people, only as threats and enemies. Both sides continue to push a 
narrative that plays to people's fears and reinforces the worst 
stereotypes rather than working to change perceptions and build up 
belief in the possibility of peace.
  And the truth is the extraordinary polarization in this conflict 
extends beyond Israelis and Palestinians. Allies of both sides are 
content to reinforce this with an us or--``you're with us or against 
us'' mentality where too often anyone who questions Palestinian actions 
is an apologist for the occupation and anyone who disagrees with Israel 
policy is cast as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic.
  That's one of the most striking realties about the current situation: 
This critical decision about the future--one state or two states--is 
effectively being made on the ground every single day, despite the 
expressed opinion of the majority of the people.
  The status quo is leading towards one state and perpetual occupation, 
but most of the public either ignores it or has given up hope that 
anything can be done to change it. And with this passive resignation, 
the problem only gets worse, the risks get greater and the choices are 
narrowed.
  This sense of hopelessness among Israelis is exacerbated by the 
continuing violence, terrorist attacks against civilians and 
incitement, which are destroying belief in the possibility of peace.
  Let me say it again: There is absolutely no justification for 
terrorism, and there never will be.
  And the most recent wave of Palestinian violence has included 
hundreds of terrorist attacks in the past year, including stabbings, 
shootings, vehicular attacks and bombings, many by individuals who have 
been radicalized by social media. Yet the murderers of innocents are 
still glorified on Fatah websites, including showing attackers next to 
Palestinian leaders following attacks. And despite statements by 
President Abbas and his party's leaders making clear their opposition 
to violence, too often they send a different message by failing to 
condemn specific terrorist attacks and naming public squares, streets 
and schools after terrorists.
  President Obama and I have made it clear to the Palestinian 
leadership countless times, publicly and privately, that all incitement 
to violence must stop. We have consistently condemned violence and 
terrorism, and even condemned the Palestinian leadership for not 
condemning it.
  Far too often, the Palestinians have pursued efforts to delegitimize 
Israel in international fora. We have strongly opposed these 
initiatives, including the recent wholly unbalanced and inflammatory 
UNESCO resolution regarding Jerusalem. And we have made clear our 
strong opposition to Palestinian efforts against Israel at the ICC, 
which only sets back the prospects for peace.
  And we all understand that the Palestinian Authority has a lot more 
to do to strengthen its institutions and improve governance.
  Most troubling of all, Hamas continues to pursue an extremist agenda: 
they refuse to accept Israel's very right to exist. They have a one-
state vision of their own: all of the land is Palestine. Hamas and 
other radical factions are responsible for the most explicit forms of 
incitement to violence, and many of the images that they use are truly 
appalling. And they are willing to kill innocents in Israel and put the 
people of Gaza at risk in order to advance that agenda.
  Compounding this, the humanitarian situation in Gaza, exacerbated by 
the closings of the crossings, is dire. Gaza is home to one of the 
world's densest concentrations of people enduring extreme hardships 
with few opportunities. 1.3 million people out of Gaza's population of 
1.8 million are in need of daily assistance--food and shelter. Most 
have electricity less than half the time and only 5 percent of the 
water is safe to drink. And yet despite the urgency of these needs, 
Hamas and other militant groups continue to re-arm and divert 
reconstruction materials to build tunnels, threatening more attacks on 
Israeli civilians that no government can tolerate.

[[Page H156]]

  Now, at the same time, we have to be clear about what is happening in 
the West Bank. The Israeli prime minister publicly supports a two-state 
solution, but his current coalition is the most right wing in Israeli 
history, with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements. The result 
is that policies of this government, which the prime minister himself 
just described as ``more committed to settlements than any in Israel's 
history,'' are leading in the opposite direction. They're leading 
towards one state. In fact, Israel has increasingly consolidated 
control over much of the West Bank for its own purposes, effectively 
reversing the transitions to greater Palestinian civil authority that 
were called for by the Oslo Accords.
  I don't think most people in Israel, and certainly in the world, have 
any idea how broad and systematic the process has become. But the facts 
speak for themselves. The number of settlers in the roughly 130 Israeli 
settlements east of the 1967 lines has steadily grown. The settler 
population in the West Bank alone, not including East Jerusalem, has 
increased by nearly 270,000 since Oslo, including 100,000 just since 
2009, when President Obama's term began.
  There's no point in pretending that these are just in large 
settlement blocks. Nearly 90,000 settlers are living east of the 
separation barrier that was created by Israel itself in the middle of 
what, by any reasonable definition, would be the future Palestinian 
state. And the population of these distant settlements has grown by 
20,000 just since 2009. In fact, just recently the government approved 
a significant new settlement well east of the barrier, closer to Jordan 
than to Israel. What does that say to Palestinians in particular--but 
also to the United States and the world--about Israel's intentions?
  Let me emphasize, this is not to say that the settlements are the 
whole or even the primary cause of this conflict. Of course they are 
not. Nor can you say that if the settlements were suddenly removed, 
you'd have peace. Without a broader agreement, you would not. And we 
understand that in a final status agreement, certain settlements would 
become part of Israel to account for the changes that have taken place 
over the last 49 years--we understand that--including the new 
democratic demographic realities that exist on the ground. They would 
have to be factored in. But if more and more settlers are moving into 
the middle of Palestinian areas, it's going to be just that much harder 
to separate, that much harder to imagine transferring sovereignty, and 
that is exactly the outcome that some are purposefully accelerating.
  Let's be clear: Settlement expansion has nothing to do with Israel's 
security. Many settlements actually increase the security burden on the 
Israeli Defense Forces. And leaders of the settler movement are 
motivated by ideological imperatives that entirely ignore legitimate 
Palestinian aspirations.
  Among the most troubling illustrations of this point has been the 
proliferation of settler outposts that are illegal under Israel's own 
laws. They're often located on private Palestinian land and 
strategically placed in locations that make two states impossible. 
There are over 100 of these outposts. And since 2011, nearly one-third 
of them have been or are being legalized, despite pledges by past 
Israeli governments to dismantle many of them.
  Now leaders of the settler movement have advanced unprecedented new 
legislation that would legalize most of those outposts. For the first 
time, it would apply Israeli domestic law to the West Bank rather than 
military law, which is a major step towards the process of annexation. 
When the law passed the first reading in the Israeli parliament, in the 
Knesset, one of the chief proponents said proudly--and I quote--
``Today, the Israeli Knesset moved from heading towards establishing a 
Palestinian state towards Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.'' 
Even the Israeli attorney general has said that the draft law is 
unconstitutional and a violation of international law.
  Now, you may hear from advocates that the settlements are not an 
obstacle to peace because the settlers who don't want to leave can just 
stay in Palestine, like the Arab Israelis who live in Israel. But that 
misses a critical point, my friends. The Arab Israelis are citizens of 
Israel, subject to Israel's law. Does anyone here really believe that 
the settlers will agree to submit to Palestinian law in Palestine?
  Likewise, some supporters of the settlements argue that the settlers 
could just stay in their settlements and remain as Israeli citizens in 
their separate enclaves in the middle of Palestine, protected by the 
IDF. Well, there are over 80 settlements east of the separation 
barrier, many located in places that would make a continuous--a 
contiguous Palestinian state impossible. Does anyone seriously think 
that if they just stay where they are you could still have a viable 
Palestinian state?
  Now, some have asked, ``Why can't we build in the blocs which 
everyone knows will eventually be part of Israel?'' Well, the reason 
building there or anywhere else in the West Bank now results in such 
pushback is that the decision of what constitutes a bloc is being made 
unilaterally by the Israeli Government, without consultation, without 
the consent of the Palestinians, and without granting the Palestinians 
a reciprocal right to build in what will be, by most accounts, part of 
Palestine. Bottom line--without agreement or mutuality, the unilateral 
choices become a major point of contention, and that is part of why we 
are here where we are.
  You may hear that these remote settlements aren't a problem because 
they only take up a very small percentage of the land. Well, again and 
again we have made it clear, it's not just a question of the overall 
amount of land available in the West Bank. It's whether the land can be 
connected or it's broken up into small parcels, like a Swiss cheese, 
that could never constitute a real state. The more outposts that are 
built, the more the settlements expand, the less possible it is to 
create a contiguous state. So in the end, a settlement is not just the 
land that it's on, it's also what the location does to the movement of 
people, what it does to the ability of a road to connect people, one 
community to another, what it does to the sense of statehood that is 
chipped away with each new construction. No one thinking seriously 
about peace can ignore the reality of what the settlements pose to that 
peace.
  But the problem, obviously, goes well beyond settlements. Trends 
indicate a comprehensive effort to take the West Bank land for Israel 
and prevent any Palestinian development there. Today, the 60 percent of 
the West Bank known as Area C--much of which was supposed to be 
transferred to Palestinian control long ago under the Oslo Accords--
much of it is effectively off limits to Palestinian development. Most 
today has essentially been taken for exclusive use by Israel simply by 
unilaterally designating it as ``state land'' or including it within 
the jurisdiction of regional settlement councils. Israeli farms 
flourish in the Jordan River Valley, and Israeli resorts line the 
shores of the Dead Sea--a lot of people don't realize this--they line 
the shore of the Dead Sea, where Palestinian development is not 
allowed. In fact, almost no private Palestinian building is approved in 
Area C at all. Only one permit was issued by Israel in all of 2014 and 
2015, while approvals for hundreds of settlement units were advanced 
during that same period.
  Moreover, Palestinian structures in Area C that do not have a permit 
from the Israeli military are potentially subject to demolition. And 
they are currently being demolished at an historically high rate. Over 
1,300 Palestinians, including over 600 children, have been displaced by 
demolitions in 2016 alone--more than any previous year.
  So the settler agenda is defining the future of Israel. And their 
stated purpose is clear. They believe in one state: greater Israel. In 
fact, one prominent minister, who heads a pro-settler party, declared 
just after the U.S. election--and I quote--``the era of the two-state 
solution is over,'' end quote. And many other coalition ministers 
publicly reject a Palestinian state. And they are increasingly getting 
their way, with plans for hundreds of new units in East Jerusalem 
recently announced and talk of a major new settlement building effort 
in the West Bank to follow.
  So why are we so concerned? Why does this matter? Well, ask yourself 
these questions: What happens if that agenda succeeds? Where does that 
lead?
  There are currently about 2.75 million Palestinians living under 
military occupation in the West Bank, most of them in Areas A and B--40 
percent of the West Bank--where they have limited autonomy. They are 
restricted in their daily movements by a web of checkpoints and unable 
to travel into or out of the West Bank without a permit from the 
Israelis.
  So if there is only one state, you would have millions of 
Palestinians permanently living in segregated enclaves in the middle of 
the West Bank, with no real political rights, separate legal, 
education, and transportation systems, vast income disparities, under a 
permanent military occupation that deprives them of the most basic 
freedoms. Separate and unequal is what you would have. And nobody can 
explain how that works. Would an Israeli accept living that way? Would 
an American accept living that way? Will the world accept it?
  If the occupation becomes permanent, over the time the Palestinian 
Authority could simply dissolve, turn over all the administrative and 
security responsibilities to the Israelis. What would happen then? Who 
would administer the schools and hospitals and on what basis? Does 
Israel want to pay for the billions of dollars of lost international 
assistance that the Palestinian Authority now receives? Would the 
Israel Defense Force police the streets of every single Palestinian 
city and town?
  How would Israel respond to a growing civil rights movement from 
Palestinians, demanding a right to vote, or widespread protests and 
unrest across the West Bank? How does Israel reconcile a permanent 
occupation with

[[Page H157]]

its democratic ideals? How does the U.S. continue to defend that and 
still live up to our own democratic ideals?
  Nobody has ever provided good answers to those questions because 
there aren't any. And there would be an increasing risk of more intense 
violence between Palestinians and settlers, and complete despair among 
Palestinians that would create very fertile ground for extremists.
  With all the external threats that Israel faces today, which we are 
very cognizant of and working with them to deal with, does it really 
want an intensifying conflict in the West Bank? How does that help 
Israel's security? How does that help the region?
  The answer is it doesn't, which is precisely why so many senior 
Israeli military and intelligence leaders, past and present, believe 
the two-state solution is the only real answer for Israel's long term 
security.
  Now, one thing we do know: if Israel goes down the one state path, it 
will never have true peace with the rest of the Arab world, and I can 
say that with certainty. The Arab countries have made clear that they 
will not make peace with Israel without resolving the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. That's not where their loyalties lie. That's not 
where their politics are.
  But there is something new here. Common interests in countering 
Iran's destabilizing activities, and fighting extremists, as well as 
diversifying their economies have created real possibilities for 
something different if Israel takes advantage of the opportunities for 
peace. I have spent a great deal of time with key Arab leaders 
exploring this, and there is no doubt that they are prepared to have a 
fundamentally different relationship with Israel. That was stated in 
the Arab Peace Initiative, years ago. And in all my recent 
conversations, Arab leaders have confirmed their readiness, in the 
context of Israeli-Palestinian peace, not just to normalize relations 
but to work openly on securing that peace with significant regional 
security cooperation. It's waiting. It's right there.
  Many have shown a willingness to support serious Israeli-Palestinian 
negotiations and to take steps on the path to normalization to 
relations, including public meetings, providing there is a meaningful 
progress towards a two-state solution. My friends, that is a real 
opportunity that we should not allow to be missed.
  And that raises one final question: Is ours the generation that gives 
up on the dream of a Jewish democratic state of Israel living in peace 
and security with its neighbors? Because that is really what is at 
stake.
  Now, that is what informed our vote at the Security Council last 
week--the need to preserve the two-state solution--and both sides in 
this conflict must take responsibility to do that. We have repeatedly 
and emphatically stressed to the Palestinians that all incitement to 
violence must stop. We have consistently condemned all violence and 
terrorism, and we have strongly opposed unilateral efforts to 
delegitimize Israel in international fora.
  We've made countless public and private exhortations to the Israelis 
to stop the march of settlements. In literally hundreds of 
conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I have made clear that 
continued settlement activity would only increase pressure for an 
international response. We have all known for some time that the 
Palestinians were intent on moving forward in the UN with a settlements 
resolution, and I advised the prime minister repeatedly that further 
settlement activity only invited UN action.
  Yet the settlement activity just increased, including advancing the 
unprecedented legislation to legalize settler outposts that the prime 
minister himself reportedly warned could expose Israel to action at the 
Security Council and even international prosecution before deciding to 
support it.
  In the end, we could not in good conscience protect the most extreme 
elements of the settler movement as it tries to destroy the two-state 
solution. We could not in good conscience turn a blind eye to 
Palestinian actions that fan hatred and violence. It is not in U.S. 
interest to help anyone on either side create a unitary state. And we 
may not be able to stop them, but we cannot be expected to defend them. 
And it is certainly not the role of any country to vote against its own 
policies.
  That is why we decided not to block the UN resolution that makes 
clear both sides have to take steps to save the two-state solution 
while there is still time. And we did not take this decision lightly. 
The Obama Administration has always defended Israel against any effort 
at the UN and any international fora or biased and one-sided 
resolutions that seek to undermine its legitimacy or security, and that 
has not changed. It didn't change with this vote.
  But remember it's important to note that every United States 
administration, Republican and Democratic, has opposed settlements as 
contrary to the prospects for peace, and action at the UN Security 
Council is far from unprecedented. In fact, previous administrations of 
both political parties have allowed resolutions that were critical of 
Israel to pass, including on settlements. On dozens of occasions under 
George W. Bush alone, the council passed six resolutions that Israel 
opposed, including one that endorsed a plan calling for a complete 
freeze on settlements, including natural growth.
  Let me read you the lead paragraph from a New York Times story dated 
December 23rd. I quote: ``With the United States abstaining, the 
Security Council adopted a resolution today strongly deploring Israel's 
handling of the disturbances in the occupied territories, which the 
resolution defined as, including Jerusalem. All of the 14 other 
Security Council members voted in favor.'' My friends, that story was 
not written last week. It was written December 23rd, 1987, 26 years to 
the day that we voted last week, when Ronald Reagan was president.
  Yet despite growing pressure, the Obama Administration held a strong 
line against UN action, any UN action, we were the only administration 
since 1967 that had not allowed any resolution to pass that Israel 
opposed. In fact, the only time in eight years the Obama Administration 
exercised its veto at the United Nations was against a one-sided 
settlements resolution in 2011. And that resolution did not mention 
incitement or violence.
  Now let's look at what's happened since then. Since then, there have 
been over 30,000 settlement units advanced through some stage of the 
planning process. That's right--over 30,000 settlement units advanced 
notwithstanding the positions of the United States and other countries. 
And if we had vetoed this resolution just the other day, the United 
States would have been giving license to further unfettered settlement 
construction that we fundamentally oppose.
  So we reject the criticism that this vote abandons Israel. On the 
contrary, it is not this resolution that is isolating Israel; it is the 
permanent policy of settlement construction that risks making peace 
impossible. And virtually every country in the world other than Israel 
opposes settlements. That includes many of the friends of Israel, 
including the United Kingdom, France, Russia--all of whom voted in 
favor of the settlements resolution in 2011 that we vetoed, and again 
this year along with every other member of the council.
  In fact, this resolution simply reaffirms statements made by the 
Security Council on the legality of settlements over several decades. 
It does not break new ground. In 1978, the State Department Legal 
Adviser advised the Congress on his conclusion that Israel's 
government, the Israeli Government's program of establishing civilian 
settlements in the occupied territory is inconsistent with 
international law, and we see no change since then to affect that 
fundamental conclusion.
  Now, you may have heard that some criticized this resolution for 
calling East Jerusalem occupied territory. But to be clear, there was 
absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution on that issue. It was 
one of a long line of Security Council resolutions that included East 
Jerusalem as part of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, and 
that includes resolutions passed by the Security Council under 
President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. And remember that 
every U.S. administration since 1967, along with the entire 
international community, has recognized East Jerusalem as among the 
territories that Israel occupied in the Six-Day War.
  Now, I want to stress this point: We fully respect Israel's profound 
historic and religious ties to the city and to its holy sites. We've 
never questioned that. This resolution in no manner prejudges the 
outcome of permanent status negotiations on East Jerusalem, which must, 
of course, reflect those historic ties and the realities on the ground. 
That's our position. We still support it.
  We also strongly reject the notion that somehow the United States was 
the driving force behind this resolution. The Egyptians and 
Palestinians had long made clear to all of us--to all of the 
international community--their intention to bring a resolution to a 
vote before the end of the year, and we communicated that to the 
Israelis and they knew it anyway. The United States did not draft or 
originate this resolution, nor did we put it forward. It was drafted by 
Egypt--it was drafted and I think introduced by Egypt, which is one of 
Israel's closest friends in the region, in coordination with the 
Palestinians and others.
  And during the time of the process as it went out, we made clear to 
others, including those on the Security Council, that it was possible 
that if the resolution were to be balanced and it were to include 
references to incitement and to terrorism, that it was possible the 
United States would then not block it, that--if it was balanced and 
fair. That's a standard practice with resolutions at the Security 
Council. The Egyptians and the Palestinians and many others understood 
that if the text were more balanced, it was possible we wouldn't block 
it. But we also made crystal clear that the President of the United 
States would not make a final decision about our own position until we 
saw the final text.
  In the end, we did not agree with every word in this resolution. 
There are important

[[Page H158]]

issues that are not sufficiently addressed or even addressed at all. 
But we could not in good conscience veto a resolution that condemns 
violence and incitement and reiterates what has been for a long time 
the overwhelming consensus and international view on settlements and 
calls for the parties to start taking constructive steps to advance the 
two-state solution on the ground.
  Ultimately, it will be up to the Israeli people to decide whether the 
unusually heated attacks that Israeli officials have directed towards 
this Administration best serve Israel's national interests and its 
relationship with an ally that has been steadfast in its support, as I 
described. Those attacks, alongside allegations of U.S.-led conspiracy 
and other manufactured claims, distract attention from what the 
substance of this vote was really all about.
  And we all understand that Israel faces very serious threats in a 
very tough neighborhood. Israelis are rightfully concerned about making 
sure that there is not a new terrorist haven right next door to them, 
often referencing what's happened with Gaza, and we understand that and 
we believe there are ways to meet those needs of security. And Israelis 
are fully justified in decrying attempts to legitimize their state and 
question the right of a Jewish state to exist. But this vote was not 
about that. It was about actions that Israelis and Palestinians are 
taking that are increasingly rendering a two-state solution impossible. 
It was not about making peace with the Palestinians now--it was about 
making sure that peace with the Palestinians will be possible in the 
future.
  Now, we all understand that Israel faces extraordinary, serious 
threats in a very tough neighborhood. And Israelis are very correct in 
making sure that there's not a terrorist haven right on their border.
  But this vote--I can't emphasize enough--is not about the possibility 
of arriving at an agreement that's going to resolve that overnight or 
in one year or two years. This is about a longer process. This is about 
how we make peace with the Palestinians in the future but preserve the 
capacity to do so.
  So how do we get there? How do we get there, to that peace?
  Since the parties have not yet been able to resume talks, the U.S. 
and the Middle East Quartet have repeatedly called on both sides to 
independently demonstrate a genuine commitment to the two-state 
solution--not just with words, but with real actions and policies--to 
create the conditions for meaningful negotiations.
  We've called for both sides to take significant steps on the ground 
to reverse current trends and send a different message--a clear 
message--that they are prepared to fundamentally change the equation 
without waiting for the other side to act.
  We have pushed them to comply with their basic commitments under 
their own prior agreements in order to advance a two-state reality on 
the ground.
  We have called for the Palestinians to do everything in their power 
to stop violence and incitement, including publicly and consistently 
condemning acts of terrorism and stopping the glorification of 
violence.
  And we have called on them to continue efforts to strengthen their 
own institutions and to improve governance, transparency, and 
accountability.
  And we have stressed that the Hamas arms buildup and militant 
activities in Gaza must stop.
  Along with our Quartet partners, we have called on Israel to end the 
policy of settlement construction and expansion, of taking land for 
exclusive Israeli use and denying Palestinian development.
  To reverse the current process, the U.S. and our partners have 
encouraged Israel to resume the transfer of greater civil authority to 
the Palestinians in Area C, consistent with the transition that was 
called for by Oslo. And we have made clear that significant progress 
across a range of sectors, including housing, agriculture, and natural 
resources, can be made without negatively impacting Israel's legitimate 
security needs. And we've called for significantly easing the movement 
and access restrictions to and from Gaza, with due consideration for 
Israel's need to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks.
  So let me stress here again: None of the steps that I just talked 
about would negatively impact Israel's security.
  Let me also emphasize this is not about offering limited economic 
measures that perpetuate the status quo. We're talking about 
significant steps that would signal real progress towards creating two 
states.
  That's the bottom line: If we're serious about the two-state 
solution, it's time to start implementing it now. Advancing the process 
of separation now, in a serious way, could make a significant 
difference in saving the two-state solution and in building confidence 
in the citizens of both sides that peace is, indeed, possible. And much 
progress can be made in advance of negotiations that can lay the 
foundation for negotiations, as contemplated by the Oslo process. In 
fact, these steps will help create the conditions for successful talks.
  Now, in the end, we all understand that a final status agreement can 
only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. We've 
said that again and again. We cannot impose the peace.
  There are other countries in the UN who believe it is our job to 
dictate the terms of a solution in the Security Council. Others want us 
to simply recognize a Palestinian state, absent an agreement. But I 
want to make clear today, these are not the choices that we will make.
  We choose instead to draw on the experiences of the last eight years, 
to provide a way forward when the parties are ready for serious 
negotiations. In a place where the narratives from the past powerfully 
inform and mold the present, it's important to understand the history. 
We mark this year and next a series of milestones that I believe both 
illustrate the two sides of the conflict and form the basis for its 
resolution. It's worth touching on them briefly.
  A hundred and twenty years ago, the First Zionist Congress was 
convened in Basel by a group of Jewish visionaries, who decided that 
the only effective response to the waves of anti-Semitic horrors 
sweeping across Europe was to create a state in the historic home of 
the Jewish people, where their ties to the land went back centuries--a 
state that could defend its borders, protect its people, and live in 
peace with its neighbors. That was the vision. That was the modern 
beginning, and it remains the dream of Israel today.
  Nearly 70 years ago, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 
finally paved the way to making the State of Israel a reality. The 
concept was simple: to create two states for two peoples--one Jewish, 
one Arab--to realize the national aspirations of both Jews and 
Palestinians. And both Israel and the PLO referenced Resolution 181 in 
their respective declarations of independence.
  The United States recognized Israel seven minutes after its creation. 
But the Palestinians and the Arab world did not, and from its birth, 
Israel had to fight for its life. Palestinians also suffered terribly 
in the 1948 war, including many who had lived for generations in a land 
that had long been their home too. And when Israel celebrates its 70th 
anniversary in 2018, the Palestinians will mark a very different 
anniversary: 70 years since what they call the Nakba, or catastrophe.
  Next year will also mark 50 years since the end of the Six-Day War, 
when Israel again fought for its survival. And Palestinians will again 
mark just the opposite: 50 years of military occupation. Both sides 
have accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for the 
withdrawal of Israel from territory that it occupied in 1967 in return 
for peace and secure borders, as the basis for ending the conflict.
  It has been more than 20 years since Israel and the PLO signed their 
first agreement--the Oslo Accords--and the PLO formally recognized 
Israel. Both sides committed to a plan to transition much of the West 
Bank and Gaza to Palestinian control during permanent status 
negotiations that would put an end to their conflict. Unfortunately, 
neither the transition nor the final agreement came about, and both 
sides bear responsibility for that.
  Finally, some 15 years ago, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia came out 
with the historic Arab Peace Initiative, which offered fully normalized 
relations with Israel when it made peace--an enormous opportunity then 
and now, which has never been fully been embraced.
  That history was critical to our approach to trying to find a way to 
resolve the conflict. And based on my experience with both sides over 
the last four years, including the nine months of formal negotiations, 
the core issues can be resolved if there is leadership on both sides 
committed to finding a solution.
  In the end, I believe the negotiations did not fail because the gaps 
were too wide, but because the level of trust was too low. Both sides 
were concerned that any concessions would not be reciprocated and would 
come at too great a political cost. And the deep public skepticism only 
made it more difficult for them to be able to take risks.
  In the countless hours that we spent working on a detailed framework, 
we worked through numerous formulations and developed specific bridging 
proposals, and we came away with a clear understanding of the 
fundamental needs of both sides. In the past two and a half years, I 
have tested ideas with regional and international stakeholders, 
including our Quartet partners. And I believe what has emerged from all 
of that is a broad consensus on balanced principles that would satisfy 
the core needs of both sides.
  President Clinton deserves great credit for laying out extensive 
parameters designed to bridge gaps in advanced final status 
negotiations 16 years ago. Today, with mistrust too high to even start 
talks, we're at the opposite end of the spectrum. Neither side is 
willing to even risk acknowledging the other's bottom

[[Page H159]]

line, and more negotiations that do not produce progress will only 
reinforce the worst fears.
  Now, everyone understands that negotiations would be complex and 
difficult, and nobody can be expected to agree on the final result in 
advance. But if the parties could at least demonstrate that they 
understand the other side's most basic needs--and are potentially 
willing to meet them if theirs are also met at the end of comprehensive 
negotiations--perhaps then enough trust could be established to enable 
a meaningful process to begin.
  It is in that spirit that we offer the following principles--not to 
prejudge or impose an outcome, but to provide a possible basis for 
serious negotiations when the parties are ready. Now, individual 
countries may have more detailed policies on these issues--as we do, by 
the way--but I believe there is a broad consensus that a final status 
agreement that could meet the needs of both sides would do the 
following.
  Principle number one: Provide for secure and recognized international 
borders between Israel and a viable and contiguous Palestine, 
negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed equivalent 
swaps.
  Resolution 242, which has been enshrined in international law for 50 
years, provides for the withdrawal of Israel from territory it occupied 
in 1967 in return for peace with its neighbors and secure and 
recognized borders. It has long been accepted by both sides, and it 
remains the basis for an agreement today.
  As Secretary, one of the first issues that I worked out with the Arab 
League was their agreement that the reference in the Arab Peace 
Initiative to the 1967 lines would from now on include the concept of 
land swaps, which the Palestinians have acknowledged. And this is 
necessary to reflect practical realities on the ground, and mutually 
agreed equivalent swaps that will ensure that the agreement is fair to 
both sides.
  There is also broad recognition of Israel's need to ensure that the 
borders are secure and defensible, and that the territory of Palestine 
is viable and contiguous. Virtually everyone that I have spoken to has 
been clear on this principle as well: No changes by Israel to the 1967 
lines will be recognized by the international community unless agreed 
to by both sides.
  Principle two: Fulfill the vision of the UN General Assembly 
Resolution 181 of two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab, 
with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective 
citizens.
  This has been the fundamental--the foundational principle of the two-
state solution from the beginning: creating a state for the Jewish 
people and a state for the Palestinian people, where each can achieve 
their national aspirations. And Resolution 181 is incorporated into the 
foundational documents of both the Israelis and Palestinians. 
Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state has been the U.S. position for 
years, and based on my conversations in these last months, I am 
absolutely convinced that many others are now prepared to accept it as 
well--provided the need for a Palestinian state is also addressed.
  We also know that there are some 1.7 million Arab citizens who call 
Israel their home and must now and always be able to live as equal 
citizens, which makes this a difficult issue for Palestinians and 
others in the Arab world. That's why it is so important that in 
recognizing each other's homeland--Israel for the Jewish people and 
Palestine for the Palestinian people--both sides reaffirm their 
commitment to upholding full equal rights for all of their respective 
citizens.
  Principle number three: Provide for a just, agreed, fair, and 
realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, with international 
assistance, that includes compensation, options and assistance in 
finding permanent homes, acknowledgment of suffering, and other 
measures necessary for a comprehensive resolution consistent with two 
states for two peoples.
  The plight of many Palestinian refugees is heartbreaking, and all 
agree that their needs have to be addressed. As part of a comprehensive 
resolution, they must be provided with compensation, their suffering 
must be acknowledged, and there will be a need to have options and 
assistance in finding permanent homes. The international community can 
provide significant support and assistance. I know we are prepared to 
do that, including in raising money to help ensure the compensation and 
other needs of the refugees are met, and many have expressed a 
willingness to contribute to that effort, particularly if it brings 
peace. But there is a general recognition that the solution must be 
consistent with two states for two peoples, and cannot affect the 
fundamental character of Israel.
  Principle four: Provide an agreed resolution for Jerusalem as the 
internationally recognized capital of the two states, and protect and 
assure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the 
established status quo.
  Now, Jerusalem is the most sensitive issue for both sides, and the 
solution will have to meet the needs not only of the parties, but of 
all three monotheistic faiths. That is why the holy sites that are 
sacred to billions of people around the world must be protected and 
remain accessible and the established status quo maintained. Most 
acknowledge that Jerusalem should not be divided again like it was in 
1967, and we believe that. At the same time, there is broad recognition 
that there will be no peace agreement without reconciling the basic 
aspirations of both sides to have capitals there.
  Principle five: Satisfy Israel's security needs and bring a full end, 
ultimately, to the occupation, while ensuring that Israel can defend 
itself effectively and that Palestine can provide security for its 
people in a sovereign and non-militarized state.
  Security is the fundamental issue for Israel together with a couple 
of others I've mentioned, but security is critical. Everyone 
understands that no Israeli Government can ever accept an agreement 
that does not satisfy its security needs or that risk creating an 
enduring security threat like Gaza transferred to the West Bank. And 
Israel must be able to defend itself effectively, including against 
terrorism and other regional threats. In fact, there is a real 
willingness by Egypt, Jordan, and others to work together with Israel 
on meeting key security challenges. And I believe that those collective 
efforts, including close coordination on border security, intelligence-
sharing, joint cooperations--joint operation, can all play a critical 
role in securing the peace.
  At the same time, fully ending the occupation is the fundamental 
issue for the Palestinians. They need to know that the military 
occupation itself will really end after an agreed transitional process. 
They need to know they can live in freedom and dignity in a sovereign 
state while providing security for their population even without a 
military of their own. This is widely accepted as well. And it is 
important to understand there are many different ways without 
occupation for Israel and Palestine and Jordan and Egypt and the United 
States and others to cooperate in providing that security.
  Now, balancing those requirements was among the most important 
challenges that we faced in the negotiations, but it was one where the 
United States has the ability to provide the most assistance. And that 
is why a team that was led by General John Allen, who is here, for whom 
I am very grateful for his many hours of effort, along with--he is one 
of our foremost military minds, and dozens of experts from the 
Department of Defense and other agencies, all of them engaged 
extensively with the Israeli Defense Force on trying to find solutions 
that could help Israel address its legitimate security needs.
  They developed innovative approaches to creating unprecedented, 
multi-layered border security; enhancing Palestinian capacity; enabling 
Israel to retain the ability to address threats by itself even when the 
occupation had ended. General Allen and his team were not suggesting 
one particular outcome or one particular timeline, nor were they 
suggesting that technology alone would resolve these problems. They 
were simply working on ways to support whatever the negotiators agreed 
to. And they did some very impressive work that gives me total 
confidence that Israel's security requirements can be met.
  Principle six: End the conflict and all outstanding claims, enabling 
normalized relations and enhanced regional security for all as 
envisaged by the Arab Peace Initiative. It is essential for both sides 
that the final status agreement resolves all the outstanding issues and 
finally brings closure to this conflict, so that everyone can move 
ahead to a new era of peaceful coexistence and cooperation. For Israel, 
this must also bring broader peace with all of its Arab neighbors. That 
is the fundamental promise of the Arab Peace Initiative, which key Arab 
leaders have affirmed in these most recent days.
  The Arab Peace Initiative also envisions enhanced security for all of 
the region. It envisages Israel being a partner in those efforts when 
peace is made. This is the area where Israel and the Arab world are 
looking at perhaps the greatest moment of potential transformation in 
the Middle East since Israel's creation in 1948. The Arab world faces 
its own set of security challenges. With Israeli-Palestinian peace, 
Israel, the United States, Jordan, Egypt--together with the GCC 
countries--would be ready and willing to define a new security 
partnership for the region that would be absolutely groundbreaking.
  So ladies and gentlemen, that's why it is vital that we all work to 
keep open the possibility of peace, that we not lose hope in the two-
state solution, no matter how difficult it may seem--because there 
really is no viable alternative.
  Now, we all know that a speech alone won't produce peace. But based 
on over 30 years of experience and the lessons from the past 4 years, I 
have suggested, I believe, and President Obama has signed on to and 
believes in

[[Page H160]]

a path that the parties could take: realistic steps on the ground now, 
consistent with the parties' own prior commitments, that will begin the 
process of separating into two states; a political horizon to work 
towards to create the conditions for a successful final status talk; 
and a basis for negotiations that the parties could accept to 
demonstrate that they are serious about making peace.
  We can only encourage them to take this path; we cannot walk down it 
for them. But if they take these steps, peace would bring extraordinary 
benefits in enhancing the security and the stability and the prosperity 
of Israelis, Palestinians, all of the nations of the region. The 
Palestinian economy has amazing potential in the context of 
independence, with major private sector investment possibilities and a 
talented, hungry, eager-to-work young workforce. Israel's economy could 
enjoy unprecedented growth as it becomes a regional economic 
powerhouse, taking advantage of the unparalleled culture of innovation 
and trading opportunities with new Arab partners. Meanwhile, security 
challenges could be addressed by an entirely new security arrangement, 
in which Israel cooperates openly with key Arab states. That is the 
future that everybody should be working for.
  President Obama and I know that the incoming administration has 
signaled that they may take a different path, and even suggested 
breaking from the longstanding U.S. policies on settlements, Jerusalem, 
and the possibility of a two-state solution. That is for them to 
decide. That's how we work. But we cannot--in good conscience--do 
nothing, and say nothing, when we see the hope of peace slipping away.
  This is a time to stand up for what is right. We have long known what 
two states living side by side in peace and security looks like. We 
should not be afraid to say so.
  Now, I really began to reflect on what we have learned--and the way 
ahead--when I recently joined President Obama in Jerusalem for the 
state funeral for Shimon Peres. Shimon was one of the founding fathers 
of Israel who became one of the world's great elder statesmen--a 
beautiful man. I was proud to call him my friend, and I know that 
President Obama was as well.
  And I remembered the first time that I saw Shimon in person--standing 
on the White House lawn for the signing the historic Oslo Accords. And 
I thought about the last time, at an intimate one-on-one Shabbat dinner 
just a few months before he died, when we toasted together to the 
future of Israel and to the peace that he still so passionately 
believed in for his people.
  He summed it up simply and eloquently, as only Shimon could, quote, 
``The original mandate gave the Palestinians 48 percent, now it's down 
to 22 percent. I think 78 percent is enough for us.''
  As we laid Shimon to rest that day, many of us couldn't help but 
wonder if peace between Israelis and Palestinians might also be buried 
along with one of its most eloquent champions. We cannot let that 
happen. There is simply too much at stake--for future generations of 
Israelis and Palestinians--to give in to pessimism, especially when 
peace is, in fact, still possible.
  We must not lose hope in the possibility of peace. We must not give 
in to those who say what is now must always be, that there is no chance 
for a better future. It is up to Israelis and Palestinians to make the 
difficult choices for peace, but we can all help. And for the sake of 
future generations of Israelis and Palestinians, for all the people of 
the region, for the United States, for all those around the world who 
have prayed for and worked for peace for generations, let's hope that 
we are all prepared--and particularly Israelis and Palestinians--to 
make those choices now.
  Thank you very much. (Applause.)
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 11. 
Contrary to the U.N. resolution that we are condemning today, which 
condemns the settlements that are taking place in Israel, the new 
settlements that the Israelis find themselves permitting are not 
undermining the cause of peace. Let's get this straight. This is what 
we just hear over and over again that the settlements are undermining 
peace.
  What undermines peace is when the Palestinian people continue with 
their policies of terrorism, both attacking with missiles and rockets, 
as well as stabbings, as well as the Palestinian people and their 
leaders unwilling to stand up and recognize that Israel exists. They 
don't have a right to flood into that country with a right of return. 
That is what undermines the peace.
  The settlements wouldn't be taking place, except the Israelis and the 
United Nations and the supporters of the Palestinians have made a 
mockery of the deal that was made.
  The Israelis withdrew from control of the territory. They withdrew, 
and they permitted the Palestinians to establish authority there with 
two promises: number one, they wouldn't use the territory to attack 
Israel; and number two, they would recognize Israel's right to exist, 
and this right of return permitting them to flood into Israel and 
eliminate it that way did not exist.
  The Palestinians have given up nothing. The Israelis have given up 
territory and made themselves vulnerable to the type of attack that 
leaves Israelis dead every day from terrorist attacks.
  No, the U.N. has it wrong. That resolution by the U.N. makes peace 
less likely.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reiterate the strong, 
bipartisan support for our ally, Israel, in the United States Congress.
  Support for Israel has always been a bipartisan value, and it 
reflects the values of our country. Although we are entering a period 
of one-party government, bipartisan support for Israel remains a 
strategic asset, and those who support Israel need to be careful not to 
jeopardize that. I think none of my colleagues do that. I want to make 
it clear.
  In supporting this House resolution, we are expressing our deep 
concern regarding the decision to abstain in the U.N. Security Council 
Resolution 2334. Some may point out that the decision to abstain does 
not veer from the actions of past administrations. They would be right. 
It does not. That may be true, but it does not justify, in my view, 
this particular vote.
  Allowing a one-sided resolution, which I perceived the U.N. 
resolution to be, to be adopted at this juncture sends the wrong signal 
and emboldens Israel's and America's enemies.
  The United Nations is notorious for its disproportionate criticism of 
Israel. As Ambassador Samantha Power said before the U.N. Security 
Council vote on Resolution 2334: ``As long as Israel has been a member 
of this institution, Israel has been treated differently from other 
nations at the United Nations.''
  She also noted that, in 2016 alone, the U.N. adopted more resolutions 
critical of Israel than it did nations that brazenly violate 
international law and violate human rights--more than Syria, more than 
Iran, more than North Korea, more than South Sudan, more than Russia, 
combined.
  A one-sided resolution that assigns exclusive blame to Israel for the 
continuation of the conflict--without addressing Palestinian incitement 
to violence, Hamas control of Gaza, or their continued insistence on 
the so-called right of return and refusing to accept Israel as a Jewish 
state--undermines prospects for a two-state solution.
  Also deeply concerning is this resolution's reference of Israeli 
presence in East Jerusalem, including the Jewish Quarter of the Old 
City and the Western Wall, as illegal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. The only way to achieve a real and lasting peace that 
enables Israel to protect its security and remain both a Jewish state 
and a democratic one is a two-state solution, which I strongly support.
  There are two parties to this conflict. Both have responsibilities. 
Both need to take steps toward peace. For Israel, this means not 
building in areas envisioned in the long term as part of a future 
Palestinian state; and for Palestinians, it means ending incitement, 
ending terrorism, and affirmatively accepting Israel's right to 
existence.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 11.
  The U.N. resolution, on the other hand, is vastly disproportionate 
and includes language that seems designed to provoke Israel. 
Categorizing the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site, as occupied 
territory is entirely inappropriate.

[[Page H161]]

  I believe that President Obama should have directed the United States 
to veto the U.N. resolution. Instead, our Ambassador sat silent. 
Abstaining on this vote handed a victory to the forces that wish to 
delegitimate Israel.
  This resolution erects a greater barrier between the two sides, 
hindering critical negotiations. The peace process must be negotiated 
bilaterally by Israel and the Palestinians with support, not 
provocation, by outside actors.
  In this new year and new Congress, we should act to reassert a 
position of strength on the world stage. We must stand by our allies, 
including our strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel. This country 
should have exercised its veto power as it has done before and thwarted 
this divisive anti-Israel effort.

  Please vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, who are we kidding? I heard the ranking 
member say this isn't about Obama, and yet virtually every statement on 
the other side of the aisle is trashing President Obama.
  If you want to simply condemn the U.N. resolution, let's do so. I 
will join you. But that isn't what this is about. It is subterfuge. 
This is about kicking a President on the way out one more time, 
enhancing a false narrative about his lack of support for our ally 
Israel. And it greases the skids to defund the United Nations while 
they are at it.
  I say to my friends on my side of the aisle: Don't be fooled. Don't 
be enablers. That is what this agenda is about.
  There was a viable alternative we could have had on the floor, and we 
were denied that right. We were even denied to have a motion to 
recommit for a reason: because they don't want to risk that. They want 
to control the platform that is negative and insidious and a resolution 
filled with insinuations and distortions of fact and history.
  Vote ``no'' on H. Res. 11.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, just by way of the facts, what 
this resolution attempts to do is to reject the U.N. resolution that 
calls for a Palestinian state but not a Jewish state, a resolution that 
opens the door for those who want to impose boycott, divestment, or 
other sanctions measures against Israel or Israeli companies and, in 
essence, declares Judaism's holiest site as occupied territory. That is 
what is in this resolution. Those are the facts that we are debating 
here. Those are the facts that need to be rejected, my colleagues.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn 
the U.N. resolution which hinders the path to peace and aims to 
undermine Israel, one of our country's top allies.
  Our policy has long been that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should 
be resolved by direct, bilateral talks between the two parties. This 
U.N. resolution contradicts our longstanding policy, first, by 
legitimatizing Palestinian Authority efforts to utilize international 
organizations to carry out its own solution; and second, by not 
providing for the Palestinian Authority to uphold their own 
responsibility as it relates to the peace negotiations.
  The U.N. resolution disregards that Hamas, a terrorist organization, 
presently controls a portion of what would be the Palestinian state. 
That is an outrage, Mr. Speaker.
  We must not sit on the sidelines or be silenced when anti-Israel 
resolutions are presented at international organizations. That is why I 
support H. Res. 11 today.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Schneider). We are pleased that he is back.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, for 19 years, when Jordan occupied East 
Jerusalem and the West Bank, Jews could not visit the Western Wall or 
the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. They were denied access to places 
where, for 2,000 years, they have continuously made a personal 
connection to their faith and their history.
  It is impossible to separate Jewish identity from the Western Wall or 
the Western Wall from its Jewish identity or Jerusalem from the Jewish 
State of Israel, yet this is exactly what has been happening in the 
United Nations for years and exactly what Security Council Resolution 
2334 sought to do.
  In addition, the resolution overwhelmingly assigns blame to Israel, 
while avoiding direct criticism of Palestinian incitement and violence. 
That is why, last month, I strongly urged President Obama to veto the 
resolution.
  The U.S. has and must continue to seek a sustainable two-state 
solution with a democratic, Jewish State of Israel and a demilitarized 
democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security. 
But the only path to two states is through direct negotiations by the 
two parties. Efforts to force a solution at the U.N. or 
internationalize the issues are misguided and risk moving peace further 
away.
  As an original cosponsor, I call on my colleagues to join me in 
supporting H. Res. 11.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise 
in strong support of this resolution. We need to close ranks in the 
House of Representatives. We need to, as colleagues, support what for 
decades has been the cornerstone principle of American diplomacy 
towards Israel and Palestine, and that is direct negotiation between 
these two countries. That is the only way that peace can be achieved. 
The fact that our Ambassador to the United Nations went against decades 
of precedent by abstaining from this vote is appalling. It is another 
vote for tyrants and terrorists.
  All of us need to close ranks to support a two-state solution between 
Israel and Palestine. I am proud to stand with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle tonight, Mr. Engel and Mr. Royce, in opposing this 
mistake that has been made by our U.N. Ambassador and by the U.N. 
resolution itself. Both are wrong. Both our decision to abstain and the 
drafting have been destructive.
  I am proud to have this resolution in the House to once again undo 
this harm and support our ally.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 11 to 
reject the anti-Israel U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334. Since 
1972, the United States has vetoed 42 anti-Israel resolutions; but all 
of that changed in 2016.
  The facts are, in the very final days of his administration, 
President Obama left our only ally in the Middle East to stand alone by 
blatantly and deliberately violating longstanding U.S. policy. For 
crying out loud, either we are with Israel or we are not.
  I could go on and on about the severity of the President's refusal to 
veto an anti-Israel U.N. resolution and his decision to abstain from a 
vote on it. Instead, I will let Prime Minister Netanyahu's words speak 
for themselves:
  ``The Obama administration not only failed to protect Israel against 
this gang-up at the U.N., it colluded with it behind the scenes.''
  Antagonizing our allies is not much of a foreign policy strategy. 
This is betrayal of the worst kind. Anti-Israel policies will not be 
tolerated. We are partners in this world and allies in democracy. I 
urge my colleagues to stand with Israel and support this legislation.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is now my great pleasure to yield 1 minute 
to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of 
the Appropriations Committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of today's 
bipartisan measure. There are no shortcuts to peace. Only the Israelis 
and the Palestinians can resolve their complicated differences through 
direct negotiation. That is why it has been longstanding policy to 
defend our ally Israel against one-sided U.N. Security Council 
resolutions seeking to impose solutions.
  Last year, Congresswoman Granger and I led a letter to President 
Obama signed by 394 Members of this body

[[Page H162]]

cautioning against one-sided U.N. initiatives that dangerously hinder 
the prospects for resuming direct negotiations. I believe the 
administration's abstention is a stain on our country's long and 
consistent record.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I thank our chair of the committee and our ranking member.
  I am here to stand with Israel. The question of the best way to do 
that is one of legitimate debate. It is a debate that we are having 
here in the House. It is a debate that the folks in Israel are having 
there. There is no question that the resolution before us is not the 
one that everyone would have written, or the one that was before the 
U.N. was the one everyone would have written. There is no question that 
there is fault on the side of the Palestinians with respect to coming 
to the table for peace.
  But here is the question that is starting to really make an impact on 
the possibility of achieving the two-state solution that both sides by 
and large believe is essential, and that is something that is within 
the control of the Israeli Government: Will it continue to intensify 
the support for settlements in the West Bank? If it does, as it has 
been, there are 600,000 settlers now between the West Bank and east 
Jerusalem. If it continues to do that, it makes as a practical matter 
it virtually impossible the land-for-peace swap that we know is 
essential to get to a two-state solution. That is the practical 
challenge that we have.
  We are all friends of Israel. All of us here believe in a Jewish 
state and a democratic state.
  The second issue of major concern that is discussed in Israel as well 
as here is the fact that demographics are going to catch up and cause a 
real crisis in Israel to maintain that Jewish identity and that 
democratic tradition. There are 4.5 million Arabs who live between the 
West Bank and in Israel proper. There are 6.5 million Jewish citizens. 
If there is not some resolution, at some point a decision has to be 
made to maintain the Jewish character at the expense of democratic 
ideals or compromise democratic ideals in order to maintain that Jewish 
identity.
  The Israeli State has a proud, strong tradition of being democratic, 
of being reliable, of standing up for civil and human rights. Many 
there, and some of us here, believe settlements are an impediment to 
that tradition.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  A couple of weeks ago I stood in the Judea/Sumeria area in the West 
Bank speaking with numerous out of thousands of Palestinians working in 
factories, those who earn three times the salary that they would under 
the Palestinian Authority. They don't want their proudly made products 
boycotted. They don't want to lose their jobs. They don't want 
disruptive Palestinian Authority leaders to always speak for them--
whose own area has 40 percent unemployment and no opportunity.

  The Obama administration had 8 years to show their true colors. But 
when they didn't get their way, they insecurely, naively, and cowardly 
lashed out at our greatest and strongest ally in the Middle East.
  Women, religious minorities, LGBT, and Jews would not have equal 
rights, democracy, or peace in a Palestinian country. In fact, the 
Palestinian Authority punishes Palestinians by death if they sell their 
land to the Jewish people lawfully.
  The current administration has used the United Nations to both 
legitimize a profoundly flawed Iran deal and delegitimize Israel. To 
think that settlements are the only thing that stands in front of peace 
is dangerously naive.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with the bipartisan Royce-Engel 
resolution. I urge my colleagues to stand with Israel and to stand with 
the Palestinians in the West Bank.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), my friend on the Foreign Affairs 
Committee and the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, in April of last year, 394 Members of this 
House sent a letter to the President urging him to oppose and veto if 
necessary any one-sided United Nations resolutions. Unfortunately, the 
resolution that passed the Security Council resolution without our veto 
was exactly that. It was one-sided.
  The resolution contained no fewer than five provisions on Israeli 
settlement activity. It calls the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem 
illegal, and it characterizes Jews praying at the Western Wall as being 
in flagrant violation of international law.
  But even if you choose to accept every provision on settlement 
activity, the resolution included only one very general statement about 
violence. The U.N., which is historically biased against Israel, could 
not even condemn Palestinian terrorism against Israel as an obstacle to 
peace. It is, and the U.N. must acknowledge it. That is not balanced. 
It is one-sided.
  Today's resolution clearly supports the goal of two states: a Jewish 
democratic State of Israel living next to a demilitarized Palestinian 
state as it stands against one-sided U.N. resolutions to take us 
further than this goal. Please support this resolution.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are all friends of Israel, but that friendship 
requires more than demonizing the United Nations and the Obama 
administration. In fact, it requires the facing of hard truths, the 
destructive effect of incitement and violence on the Palestinian side, 
which the U.N. resolution explicitly acknowledges, and the threat to 
peace and to any conceivable two-state solution by relentless 
settlement expansion on the Israeli side, pushed by the right wing, 
unchallenged by H. Res. 11.
  The majority, seeking to push this resolution through, has displayed 
little interest in what it would take actually to achieve peace, 
choosing instead to distort the history, to impugn the motives of those 
attempting to achieve peace. It is not worthy of this body. I urge its 
rejection.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  When an unfair, one-sided resolution moves forward in the U.N., as 
Israel's ally, we have an obligation to say it is wrong. That is what 
this resolution does. This resolution also calls for a two-state 
solution. So my colleagues who are somehow portraying this resolution 
as not being for a two-state resolution, they are absolutely wrong.
  I urge my colleagues, especially my Democratic colleagues, to 
continue to support the U.S.-Israel alliance, and you continue to 
support it by voting for this resolution. This is a fair resolution.
  Let's remember, when Israel left Gaza and uprooted settlements, what 
did it get in return? Not peace, but terrorism. Stand with the people 
of Israel. Vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in short, United Nations Security Council Resolution 
2334 has harmed our ally Israel. It has harmed the prospects for peace. 
It is one-sided. It is an anti-Israel resolution, the kind of which it 
has been longstanding U.S. policy to veto within the U.N. Security 
Council, and it is not hard to see why because this resolution opens 
the door for those who want to impose boycott, divestment, or other 
sanctions measures against Israel or against Israeli companies. And, in 
essence, it declares Judaism's holiest site, the Western Wall, as 
occupied territory.
  Mr. Speaker, this is reminiscent of another action by the United 
Nations, the infamous ``Zionism is racism'' resolution whose damage 
took decades to undo.
  Fortunately, the bipartisan rejection of the President's U.N. 
decision provides an opportunity for the House to rally around a more 
constructive policy and renewed U.S. leadership in the region.
  I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this resolution so that the bipartisan policy of rejecting this harmful 
U.N. Security

[[Page H163]]

Council resolution and encouraging direct negotiation is endorsed loud 
and clear. It is far past time for the incitement to stop and the 
budgeting of $300 million by the Palestinian Authority to pay people to 
slay Israeli civilians be discontinued.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the 
bipartisan House Resolution 11 expressing opposition to UNSCR 2334.
  In the summer of 1983 I visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem, 
Judaism's most holy site, for the first time. Merely 17 years earlier I 
could not have gone to the Wall, or for that matter anywhere in the 
Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.
  From 1949 to 1967, when Jordan occupied Jerusalem, Jews could not 
visit the one place where for nearly 2000 years, they had continuously 
made a personal connection to their faith and their history.
  It is impossible to separate Jewish identity from the Western Wall, 
just as it is impossible to separate the Western Wall from its Jewish 
identity, or Jerusalem from the Jewish State of Israel.
  Yet this is exactly what has been happening in the United Nations for 
years, and exactly what the one-sided UN Resolution sought to do.
  In addition to seeking to declare the eastern part of Jerusalem a 
settlement, the resolution overwhelmingly assigns blame to Israel, 
while averting direct criticism of Palestinian incitement and violence.
  That is why last month I strongly urged President Obama to veto the 
resolution.
  The U.S. has, and must continue to seek a sustainable two-state 
solution with a democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a demilitarized, 
democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security.
  But the only path to two states is through direct, bilateral 
negotiations between the two parties. Efforts to force a solution at 
the U.N. or to internationalize the issue are misguided, and risk 
moving peace further away, not closer.
  Israel is our most important strategic ally in a most important and 
chaotic region of the world. The United States always has and always 
will ensure the security of Israel.
  As an original co-sponsor, I call on my colleagues to join me in 
supporting House Resolution 11.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House 
Resolution 11.
  I'd like to thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for 
bringing this resolution to the Floor.
  Your continued bipartisan support for our friend and ally, Israel, 
sets the right tone for any discussion this body has regarding this 
vital relationship.
  Almost 70 years ago, on May 14, 1948, with the support of fiercely 
Democratic president, Harry Truman, the nation of Israel was born.
  Created in the aftermath of World War II, the special relationship 
that our two countries now enjoy was founded. For 70 years, our 
government has supported Israeli interest because they represent 
American interest.
  Throughout the decades, from Dwight Eisenhower to Barack Obama, from 
the great Texan, and Speaker Sam Rayburn to Speaker Ryan, our 
government has worked across party lines and across branches of 
government to ensure the one, true democracy in the Middle East is able 
to grow and prosper without hindrance.
  Recently, we have reaffirmed our support for Israel by signing a new 
Memorandum of Understanding and resoundingly telling the world that we 
support our ally in the Middle East. UNSCR 2334 does not align with 
this affirmation.
  It should be the policy of the United States to support a viable two-
state solution, where Palestinians and Israelis live in prosperity and 
security. This does not mean negotiating out of fear or forced 
necessity.
  I want to, again, express my gratitude and appreciation for this body 
and our friends on the Foreign Affairs Committee for leading by 
example.
  U.S.-Israeli relations have always been bipartisan and should remain 
that way. It is my hope the new Administration will build on the 
foundation created by the Presidents and elected officials that came 
before us and support Israel in a bipartisan fashion.
  I ask my colleagues to support House Resolution 11.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, any measure that seeks to promote a peaceful 
resolution to tensions between Israelis and Palestinians--whether 
coming from the United Nations or from this Chamber--should provide a 
balanced picture of the facts on the ground and the challenges 
confronting both sides. The recent UN Security Resolution on Israeli 
settlements failed that test by blaming Israel almost solely for 
impeding a two-states solution for peace and by using prejudicial 
language that places an unfair burden on Israel in depicting the basis 
for future negotiations. Calling any settlement activity by Israel 
since 1967 a major obstacle to peace, as the UN resolution does, 
ignores the reality that geographical adjustments will have to be made 
as part of any two-states solution reached by parties through direct 
negotiations.
  However, the resolution before us today is also not balanced in that 
it too ignores conditions on the ground. Expressing the sense of 
Congress to repeal the UN Resolution does not focus on the increasingly 
fragile state of the two-states solution, and on conditions that make 
its potential achievement increasingly difficult to obtain. Prime 
Minister Netanyahu has called his government the most pro-settlement in 
history. President-elect Trump further diminishes chances for the two-
states solution by choosing envoys who undercut the prospects for peace 
by expressing support for major settlement expansions, and whose 
opposition to a two-states solution reinforces opposition within the 
Israeli government. These positions threaten to continue to move 
momentum dangerously away from the possibility of a two-states 
solution.
  I believe that the two-states approach, as challenging as it is to 
achieve, is the only way to ensure a Jewish and democratic state of 
Israel living in security with a non-militarized Palestinian state. It 
is important for peace in the Middle East and U.S. national interests.
  This resolution is at present the only vehicle to express my concerns 
with the UN resolution, and I will therefore support it. However, I 
will continue to speak out on further actions that I believe will 
diminish the chance of a two-states solution and on other issues vital 
to peace in the Middle East.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to H. Res. 11, Objecting to United Nations Security Council Resolution 
2334 as an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace. On December 23, 2016, 
the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2334 which 
describes Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as 
illegal, with the United States abstaining from the vote.
  Now, U.S. Congress has chosen to disapprove of President Obama's 
leadership and longstanding U.S. foreign policy on the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. UNSC Resolution 2334 merely reiterates the 
international community consensus and bipartisan U.S. policy that 
building settlements impedes the path to a lasting peaceful two-state 
solution. H. Res. 11 asserts that the UNSCR is ``anti-Israel'' and 
``one-sided,'' but it does not break new ground or create any new 
policy. For example, in 1987, the Reagan administration abstained and 
allowed the passage of UNSCR 605, reaffirming the application of the 
Geneva Convention which included Jerusalem in the ``Palestinian and 
Arab Territories, occupied by Israel since 1967.''
  Instead, I am urging support of an alternative resolution introduced 
and led by Congressman David Price. Instead of disapproving of a 
resolution that reaffirms longstanding U.S. policy, Congress would work 
towards the progress of a two-state solution. H. Res. 11 would 
undermine our decades-long efforts towards a peaceful situation between 
Israelis and Palestinians and it is not the best way to show our 
support for Israel, our strong ally. Our goal must be to reaffirm U.S. 
policy in the Middle East and to find solutions with the international 
community.
  We must be steadfast in our commitment to a two-state solution and to 
longstanding U.S. policy. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose H. 
Res. 11 and to support the alternative resolution introduced by 
Congressman Price.
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for 
peace in the Middle East and between Israel and the Palestinians. That 
is why I am for a two-state solution and the end to new Israeli 
settlements.
  However, the one-sided UN Security Council Resolution 2334 issued 
last month would declare the Western Wall and some Jewish holy sites, 
where many Jews live and pray, illegally occupied territory.
  I am voting for H.Res. 11 today because the United States should veto 
any UN resolution that would require Israel to give away the Western 
Wall or the Jewish Quarters of Jerusalem. What the United States should 
encourage is an end to new settlements, a two-state solution and direct 
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. That is the only 
framework that can lead to a just and lasting peace.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against H. Res. 11, the 
Object to UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2334 as Obstacle

[[Page H164]]

to Israeli-Palestinian Peace resolution. The resolution expresses the 
House's disapproval of UNSC Resolution 2334, which passed 14 to 0 with 
the United States abstaining from the vote.
  H. Res. 11 mischaracterizes the UN resolution and falsely claims that 
the United States has never abstained from votes on similar 
resolutions. The UN resolution reaffirms that Israel's settlements in 
the West Bank and East Jerusalem are a ``major obstacle'' to peace, 
which has been long-standing US policy. H. Res. 11 states that the 
Obama Administration took an unprecedented step by abstaining from the 
vote when in fact the decision is not unique. The Reagan Administration 
took a similar step when it abstained from voting on UNSCR 605 that 
identified Jerusalem as part of the Palestinian and Arab Territories 
which is now occupied by Israel. Both Republican and Democratic 
presidents have continued similar U.S. policies.
  Representatives Price, Engel and Connolly offered a more balanced 
resolution as an amendment to H. Res. 11, but unfortunately House 
leadership refused to allow it a vote. The text of the amendment is now 
H. Res. 23, of which I am a cosponsor.
  H. Res. 23 supports the longstanding policy that it is in the best 
interest of the international community that a two-state solution is 
reached only through direct negotiations between Israel and the 
Palestinian Authority. It reiterates United States support for Israel 
by opposing any outside efforts to impose a solution on the parties but 
rather to help facilitate peace negotiations. It includes continued 
opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign 
which calls for boycotting certain products and companies, divesting 
from various organizations, and encouraging the use of sanctions 
against Israel.
  I have always supported a two-state solution with Israel and a 
Palestinian state through direct negotiations between the two parties. 
As an ally of Israel, the United States has an interest to ensure a 
lasting peace is reached between Israel and Palestine. Let me be clear, 
while I support the United States' strong relationship and alliance 
with Israel, Israel's proliferation of settlements around the West Bank 
and East Jerusalem is directly at odds with establishing a two-state 
solution.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I remain committed to a two-state 
solution, where a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state can 
co-exist in peace. The best path to ultimately achieving this peace is 
through direct, bilateral negotiations between Israel and the 
Palestinians, not imposed solutions by international organizations. 
Instead of this Administration concluding its strong Israel record with 
the single largest pledge of military assistance in U.S. history, it 
chose to end on a perplexing note by choosing not to veto United 
Nations Security Council Resolution 2334.
  The expansion of settlements in occupied territory has been long 
recognized on a bipartisan basis and in U.S. policy for decades as 
doing little to improve the confidence of Arabs that a final outcome 
can be freely and fairly negotiated. United Nations action does not 
help advance the cause of peace, nor does it bring about direct 
negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians so they might resolve 
their complicated differences and find a much needed, lasting two-state 
solution, which I have supported my entire career.
  Any action, whether coming from the United Nations or the Congress, 
must provide a complete picture of the facts on the ground and full 
appreciation for the challenges confronting all sides. Like the one-
sided resolution from the United Nations Security Council, H. Res. 11 
too ignores the reality of the conditions on the ground. While I don't 
believe either resolution is balanced, I am voting in favor of H. Res. 
11 to express my displeasure with the actions of the UN, which make 
direct negotiations all the more difficult to resume. I will continue 
to speak out in support of efforts that lay the foundation for peace in 
the Middle East and vigorously oppose those that undermine a lasting 
two state solution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the 
previous question is ordered on the resolution and on the preamble.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 342, 
nays 80, answered ``present'' 4, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 11]

                               YEAS--342

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barragan
     Barton
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beutler
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cardenas
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Demings
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Engel
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Levin
     Lewis (MN)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McEachin
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meng
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Posey
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Torres
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                                NAYS--80

     Amash
     Bass
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Clark (MA)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Foster
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gohmert
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Heck
     Huffman
     Jayapal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kuster (NH)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lynch
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Moore
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--4

     Capuano
     Evans
     Lofgren
     Shea-Porter

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Becerra
     Collins (NY)
     Crist
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallego
     Pompeo
     Rush

[[Page H165]]


  



                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1905

  Mr. CASTRO of Texas changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. TIBERI and Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Mr. COHEN changed his vote from ``present'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CRIST. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 11.

                          ____________________