[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 97 (Wednesday, July 14, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5767-H5775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPLORING MISUSE OF INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE BY UNITED NATIONS
GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSE
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 713) deploring the misuse of the International
Court of Justice by a majority of the United Nations General Assembly
for a narrow political purpose, the willingness of the International
Court of Justice to acquiesce in an effort likely to undermine its
reputation and interfere with a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 713
Whereas the Israeli people have suffered through a three-
year campaign of terror that has included suicide bombings,
snipers, and other attacks on homes, businesses, and places
of worship and has resulted in the murder of more than 1,000
innocent people since September 2000;
Whereas more than 50 United States citizens have been
killed and more than 80 United States citizens injured by
Palestinian terrorists in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza
since 1993;
Whereas President George W. Bush said in October 2003
regarding Israel's right to self-defense that ``Israel must
not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland'';
Whereas international law, as expressly recognized in
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, guarantees all
nations an inherent right to self-defense;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373
(2001), relating to international cooperation to combat
threats to international peace and security caused by
terrorist acts, and statements by representatives of other
countries at that time, make clear that Article 51 of the
United Nations Charter applies to self-defense against
actions by terrorist groups against the civilian population
of any country;
Whereas a security barrier, capable of being modified or
removed, is being constructed by Israel in response to an
ongoing campaign of terror against its people and has
resulted in a dramatic decline in the number of successful
terrorist attacks;
Whereas on December 8, 2003, the United Nations General
Assembly adopted, through a plurality rather than a majority
vote of member nations, Resolution ES-10/14 which requested
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to render an opinion
on the legality of the security barrier;
Whereas the United States, Australia, Belgium, Cameroon,
Canada, the Czech Republic, the Federated States of
Micronesia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland (for itself and
in addition on behalf of the Member States and Acceding
States of the European Union), Italy, Japan, the Marshall
Islands, the Netherlands, Norway, Palau, the Russian
Federation, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United
Kingdom submitted objections on various grounds against the
ICJ hearing the case or expressing concerns about the
advisability of the publication of an advisory judgment;
Whereas a June 30, 2004, decision of a panel of the Israeli
Supreme Court, headed by its President and sitting as a High
Court of Justice, called on the Government of Israel to take
Palestinian humanitarian concerns further into account in the
construction of the barrier, even if doing so resulted in
greater security risk to Israeli citizens, and accordingly
required the Government to alter the route of a specific
portion of the barrier near Jerusalem in order to accommodate
Palestinian humanitarian concerns;
Whereas the Government of Israel immediately stated that it
would respect the decision of its High Court of Justice and
has taken action to implement that decision;
Whereas the Government of Israel has expressed its
commitment that the security barrier is temporary in nature
and will not prejudice any final status issues, including
final borders;
Whereas on July 9, 2004, the ICJ said in a non-unanimous,
non-binding advisory judgment that Israel's security barrier,
to the degree it was built outside the pre-June 1967 borders,
was illegal and should be dismantled, and that Article 51 of
the United Nations Charter did not apply to Israeli actions
in self-defense with respect to violence emanating from the
West Bank;
Whereas on July 11, 2004, less than two days after the
ICJ's advisory judgment, Israeli civilians were murdered by
Palestinian terrorists;
Whereas the Palestinians, along with other parties and
states, may attempt to use the ICJ's advisory judgment to
advance their positions on issues committed to negotiations
between the Israelis and Palestinians by advancing
resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly, the
Security Council, or elsewhere calling for the removal of the
barrier and for the imposition of sanctions to force Israel
to comply with the advisory judgment; and
Whereas the administration of President Bush has reiterated
its position that the ICJ should not have agreed to decide a
political issue of this nature that should, rather, be
resolved through the Roadmap process leading to a negotiated
agreement between Israel and the Palestinians: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) reaffirms its steadfast commitment to the security of
Israel and its strong support of Israel's inherent right to
self-defense;
(2) condemns the Palestinian leadership for failing to
carry out its responsibilities under the Roadmap and under
other obligations it has assumed, to engage in a sustained
fight against terrorism, to dismantle the terrorist
infrastructure, and to bring an end to terrorist attacks
directed at Israel;
(3) calls on Palestinians and all states, in the region and
beyond, to join together to fight terrorism and dismantle
terrorist organizations so that progress can be made toward a
peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
(4) deplores--
(A) the misuse of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
by a plurality of member nations of the United Nations
General Assembly for the narrow political purpose of
advancing the Palestinian position on matters Palestinian
authorities have said should be the subject of negotiations
between the parties;
(B) the July 9, 2004 advisory judgment of the ICJ, which
seeks to infringe upon Israel's right to self-defense,
including under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations, and which projects a message of international
indifference to the safety of Israeli citizens that can only
be detrimental to prospects of achieving a negotiated peace;
(5) regrets the ICJ's advisory judgment, which is likely to
undermine its reputation and interfere with a resolution of
the Palestinian-Israeli conflict;
[[Page H5768]]
(6) commends the President and the Secretary of State for
their leadership in marshaling opposition to the misuse of
the ICJ in this case;
(7) calls on members of the international community to
reflect soberly on--
(A) the steps taken by the Government of Israel to mitigate
the impact of the security barrier on Palestinians, including
steps it has taken by order of its High Court of Justice,
without being required to do so by the ICJ; and
(B) the damage that will be done to the ICJ, to the United
Nations, and to individual Israelis and Palestinians, by
actions taken under color of the ICJ's advisory judgment that
interfere in the Roadmap process and impede efforts to
achieve progress toward a negotiated settlement between
Israelis and Palestinians; and
(8) Urges all nations to join the United States in
international fora to prevent the exploitation of the ICJ's
advisory judgment for political purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
General Leave
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H. Res. 713, the resolution under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, we come tonight just almost 1 week after
truly a dark day in the history of international justice and in the
course of this debate and I trust in the course of this Congress'
deliberations over H. Res. 713, deploring the misuse of the
International Court of Justice by a plurality of the United Nations
General Assembly for a narrow political purpose. I hope that we will
have the opportunity to elaborate the genuine significance of the
decision by the International Court of Justice relative to the
construction of a security fence by the government of Israel.
I intend in the immediate here, before I make any extensive remarks,
to yield to my superior and a woman without whose leadership on this
issue we would not be here tonight; but let me say by way of context,
Mr. Speaker, that when by a 14 to 1 decision the International Court of
Justice condemned the construction of a wall being built by Israel and
described Israel as an occupying power in occupied Palestinian
territory, it was most assuredly a dark day and a day of disgrace for
the International Court of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, it is my profound privilege to yield such time as she
may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the
chairwoman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, a
woman who is not only a distinguished member of this institution, but
perhaps one of the most clarion voices in America on behalf of our
precious alliance with the people and the nation of Israel.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), for the undeserved praise and for his nice
demeanor in yielding me such time in the beginning of the discussion on
this important resolution before us tonight.
I rise in strong support of H. Res. 713, a resolution deploring the
misuse of the International Court of Justice by the Palestinians. I
want to commend the leadership for moving this measure expeditiously to
the floor, and I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for his
efforts in making this a reality tonight.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of this as a sign of our displeasure with
the politicization of the International Court of Justice for
Palestinian terrorist purposes.
{time} 2130
Mr. Speaker, I wish that there were no need for such a resolution
tonight. I wish that innocent civilians were not routinely murdered and
injured by Palestinian terrorists inside of Israel. Yet those
responsible for these painful, agonizing injuries celebrate their
terror with virtual impunity from the international community as they
manipulate mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice to
rule in their favor.
As Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Arafat's Fatah said in a joint statement
following the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice,
``We salute the court's decision. This is a good step in the right
direction.'' For Palestinian terrorists and their supporters, the door
has been further opened.
This past Sunday, less than 2 days after this deplorable decision by
the International Court of Justice, this advisory opinion, there was an
explosion at a Tel Aviv bus stop which injured 32 innocent civilians
and killed one young woman.
Among those injured was Saami Masrawa, an Israeli Arab who leads an
Arab-Jewish friendship group in the Israeli area. Saami Masrawa had
previously participated in a demonstration opposing the security fence.
But after Sunday's bombing he recognizes the value of Israel's security
barrier, and he has publicly stated, ``I will now be for it and form an
organization in favor of it.''
Mr. Speaker, the barrier is not the issue. Terrorism and the
Palestinian's addiction to death are the problems. They must find a
leadership free from this kind of terror, free from corruption, free
from the idea that terrorism will achieve its political objectives. The
notion that terrorism is a legitimate form of interaction with Israel
must be abandoned forever.
The construction of the security barrier must be understood as a
measured response by Israel to the Palestinians' refusal to abandon
terrorism and to surrender its use as a strategy. It is a sign that all
Israelis demand that the Palestinians change their ways and make this
change now.
Across the political spectrum, Israelis support the construction of
the barrier as a way to ensure the safety of the Israeli people and of
the nation itself.
It is appalling to see how the United Nations forced this recent
judgment by the International Court of Justice. Not only did the issue
of the nonbinding opinion last week state that Israel should remove its
security fence, but the judges placed into question Israel's right to
defend herself.
My colleagues, this right of sovereign nations to provide for its
security and that of its people, and to defend against threats against
it, is a right accorded to all nations. Unfortunately, the recent
opinion seems to draw an exception when it comes to Israel. This is
outrageous.
The judges of the Court added insult to injury by suggesting that
this basic right of all sovereign nations did not apply because
Palestinian terror groups are subnational actors; that is, not nation
states.
This reference further minimizes the brutal and abhorrent acts
committed by Palestinian terrorists against innocent Israelis. It
undermines the actions taken by the United Nations following the
terrorist attacks against our own Nation on September 11. It emboldens
the terrorists to intensify their brutality and violence against free
democratic nations such as Israel and the United States.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear from this process that the International
Court of Justice has become politicized, and it is manipulated by the
Palestinians for their own evil purposes.
This resolution that I had the pleasure of drafting with my
colleagues on the Committee on International Relations, especially the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), addresses this critical issue. It
underscores the security barrier is necessary. Israel has the
responsibility to protect its people, and the fence has proven to be
successful in doing so.
No nation, no international body can claim a right to act in judgment
over Israel's sovereign right to protect her people. That the
Palestinians of all people question the inherent right of self-defense
of Israel from their very tactics of terror is absurd and even
Orwellian. The very people launching the attacks against Israel are
saying that Israel cannot and should not defend herself.
This judgment by this International Court of Justice is an injustice
to
[[Page H5769]]
Israel. It is a dishonor to close to 1,000 innocent victims of
Palestinian violence since 2000. I call on my colleagues and all
Democratic nations to join together to prevent this perpetuation of
injustice.
I want my colleagues to look at this poster. I call on our allies and
partners, as they consider upcoming resolutions at the U.N. General
Assembly seeking to impose the ruling on Israel, to think about the
young faces, the old faces printed here on this poster. These are just
some of the victims of Palestinian terrorism: babies, middle-aged,
young, older Israelis, all innocent victims of Palestinian terrorism.
I want our allies and friends to think of Assaff Tzur. This was a 17-
year-old Israeli boy who was just recently murdered, so recently that
his name is not on this poster. He was killed in a bus bombing on March
5, 2003, on his way back from school.
I met with the father today of Assaff, as well as with other
survivors of terror attacks and with families of Israeli victims of
Palestinian terrorism. There was one common theme. There were mothers
and fathers and sisters and brothers, and they said the security
barrier could have helped prevent the murder of their daughters, sons,
sisters, brothers, grandchildren, fathers and mothers.
In the case of Assaff Tzur, the suicide bomber who murdered him and
15 others on March 5, 2003, today would not have been able to cross
into Israel to carry out this attack thanks to the border that stands
today. Today, there is a security barrier that prevents terrorists from
crossing into that section of Haifa and would have prevented the murder
of Mr. Assaff Tzur, 17 years of age.
I think this reality summarizes the need for an overwhelming vote in
favor of the resolution of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence),
House Resolution 713. Let us send a clear message to the international
community of where we stand as a nation. We call on them to side with
us and with all democratic nations to side with the victims of
terrorism, these faces, and not with the terrorists. The hypocrisy must
end. Israel must be allowed to protect herself and remain safe from
this kind of terrorism once and for all.
I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for calling attention
to this atrocity, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Pence
resolution before us tonight.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
thank the gentlewoman for her passion and her leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in strong support of this all-important resolution.
First, I want to pay tribute to my good friend, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence), for taking the leadership on this all-important
issue, and to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen), for her powerful, persuasive, passionate statement. I also
want to thank, on our side, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley),
for her leadership on this issue, and our Democratic whip, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for his passionate dedication in
crafting this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the International Court of Justice ruled
that the security fence being constructed by Israel was a violation of
international law and called for its dismantlement. Mr. Speaker, I
traveled across that fence, and if I had not been persuaded prior to my
physical inspection of the fence that it is a desperately needed
security measure, my trip along that fence convinced me forever.
Just ask yourself how you would feel if in a neighboring community or
across the street there are terrorist gangs who systematically come
over to your side and blow up restaurants, places of worship, offices,
stores, every facility conceivable. Bus stops. Just anyplace where they
can kill innocent human beings. You would be in favor of building a
security fence. And the ultimate hypocrisy of this International Court
of Justice's decision literally turns my stomach.
This ruling was a perversion of justice that infringes on Israel's
inherent and basic right of self-defense, and it willfully and
cynically ignores Israel's recent success in reducing terrorism, thanks
mainly to its security fence.
The International Court favored the suicide bombers over their
innocent victims when they issued this mindlessly politicized decision.
They only succeeded in severely diminishing their stature and
authority, which I deeply regret.
Let me illustrate, Mr. Speaker. The security fence brought
significant relief to the innocent men, women and children who are
blown up by terrorists. From September 2000, when the intifada broke
out, through 2003, there were more than 80 suicide bombings with
Israeli targets. This year, with the fence now playing an important
deterrent role, there have been only four. Now, one is too much, but
there is a dramatic reduction from that vast number of successful
suicide bombings to the much smaller number today.
Does this success mean that suicide bombers are giving up? Of course
not. But Israel was successful in preventing some 58 suicides bombing
attempts within the West Bank just in the last 6 months. The main
reason is that the fence is giving Israeli security forces more time to
react and to prevent terrorist attacks.
The record in Gaza, Mr. Speaker, is even better. With the help of the
security fence, there has been only one deadly suicide bombing that
originated from there in recent years.
Do the judges of the International Court care a whit for the well-
being of the average Israeli citizen? Regrettably, the evidence
suggests that the majority of them clearly do not. Mr. Speaker, this
International Court decision sends a message, and here I quote from the
resolution, that there is an international indifference to the safety
of the citizens of Israel. This is not only morally offensive, it is
potentially politically disastrous for the very feeble peace process.
{time} 2145
How are Israelis supposed to have the confidence to make peace if the
international community that so enthusiastically urges them to make
concessions is so callous as to whether they live or die?
Mr. Speaker, the international court's opinion highlights the dangers
of an international court dealing in abstractions without full
information or full briefing from the parties involved. In the first
place, Mr. Speaker, the court should never have taken up this case. In
the U.N. General Assembly, the resolution passed with support from less
than a majority of members of the General Assembly. And during the
proceedings, the United States and many of our European friends
objected to the court's consideration of this case. But the court did
not heed prudence. Instead, it eagerly embraced recklessness and
injustice.
The court did not take into account the fence as it is. The court
took its decision and wrote its judgment deliberately oblivious to the
fact that the Israeli Supreme Court was adjudicating cases about the
fence. Indeed, the Israeli Supreme Court has considered challenges by
Palestinians on the routing of the fence and has obligated the Israeli
military to relocate the fence to take into concern more fully the
humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. Indeed, Israel's Supreme Court
actually revoked military orders that had been issued, a virtually
unprecedented step.
And unlike the international court, the Israeli Supreme Court has the
power to enforce judgments. Despite the understandable controversy that
the Israeli Supreme Court's decision provoked in Israel, understandable
because it will cost Israeli lives, the Israeli government immediately
announced that it will comply with the decision of its own Supreme
Court. In fact, implementation has already begun.
Mr. Speaker, Israel is the only state in the Middle East where an
Arab can take his government to court and stands a good chance of
winning. But, Mr. Speaker, the language of the international court's
opinion suggests that Israel has no right of self-defense although it
clearly has that right under article 51 of the U.N. charter against
terrorist groups that kill innocent civilians.
I fully support Israel's right to build a fence to protect itself
from the plague of terrorism, and I call on our
[[Page H5770]]
administration and all members of the U.N. Security Council to reject
any effort to look for Security Council validation for this repugnant
international court ruling should such a misguided effort be made.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the resolution. I urge all of my
colleagues to do likewise.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In the last 4 years, Palestinian terrorists have attacked Israel's
buses, cafes, discos and pizza shops, murdering over 1,000 innocent
men, women and children. Despite this unprecedented savagery, as former
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote in the New York Times earlier
this week, the International Court of Justice's 60-page opinion
mentions terrorism only twice, and only in citations of Israel's own
position on the fence.
This court has become a mockery of justice and an international
disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to my colleague,
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), another advocate of our strong
and historic relationship with a free and democratic Israel.
Mr. SOUDER. I thank my colleague from Indiana for his leadership and
emerging as a strong spokesman for the State of Israel and also my
colleague from California (Mr. Lantos) who has crusaded for years and
has been a personal example to many of us in standing up to the
persecution of Jews throughout the world.
This week, the International Court of Justice, under dubious
jurisdiction, ruled that Israel's security fence was illegal. In
essence, the ruling declares that Israel has no right whatsoever to
defend itself, protect its people, or to live at peace. Israel did not
want to build a fence. I am sure that they would have preferred to
spend the time and money on something else. Unfortunately, terrorist
attacks and an unwillingness or inability by the Palestinian Authority
to rein in those terrorists forced Israel to construct the fence.
Whereas the Palestinian Authority has been unsuccessful, the fence
has proven to be effective in combating the waves of homicide bombers
that once flooded Israel with death and destruction. The number of
successful attacks has fallen significantly. Innocent lives have been
saved.
The international court does not seem to care about saving lives. It
would rather assist the terrorists. It would rather promote religious
bigotry. It would prefer that Israel throw its hands in the air and
surrender to certain annihilation. Before, during and after the ICJ
case, Israel has borne the brunt of unmitigated hatred from the world
community. Only Israel is at fault, only Israel kills, only Israel is
intransigent on the peace process.
How many innocent Israelis have to be killed while riding on a bus,
sitting in a cafe, or walking down the street? Too many to count. Who
refuses to stop terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah?
The Palestinian Authority's inaction is a resounding refusal.
Rather than waiting for the Palestinian Authority to do something,
Israel has decided to protect children walking to school, mothers
shopping for groceries, and commuters riding the bus to work. No one
questions our right to protect our citizens, but apparently the ICJ
believes convenience for the Palestinians trumps the right of the State
of Israel to protect its citizens.
The international community has blinded itself to the criminal and
terrorist activities of Israel's neighbors and the residents of the
West Bank and Gaza Strip. There has been no condemnation of homicide
bombers. There has been no condemnation of persecution of religious
minorities in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority. There is
no condemnation of Arab treatment of Palestinians in other Middle
Eastern countries. Only Israel is singled out for criticism.
The fact that Israel alone is criticized for so-called human rights
violations and for the persecution of Palestinian Arabs shows, in my
opinion, that religious bigotry rather than a true sense of justice and
fairness is what has been driving this issue. A just and fair
examination would question where millions of dollars in aid given to
alleviate Palestinian poverty has gone. A truthful assessment would
also recognize Israel as a democracy in sea of autocratic states. A
balanced portrait of the situation would show that Israel's Arab
minority enjoys full citizenship in Israel. Can the same be said of
Jews outside Israel? Can the same be said of Palestinian Arabs living
in other Middle Eastern states?
The International Court of Justice has ruled that they would prefer a
Middle East without Israel. They would rather see a democratic state
where all people can live, work and practice their religion disappear
from the face of the Earth. Most assuredly if the security fence is
dismantled, Israel's right to self-defense will be dismantled right
along with it. Do not be fooled by the enemies of Israel. They will not
be satisfied by the dismantling of the fence. They will only be
satisfied when Israel is gone.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who has been the leader on this
issue on our side.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
resolution and wish to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos
for their extraordinary leadership on this issue. I would also like to
thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his efforts and a
special thank you to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for his
work and his dedication to protecting Israel.
On Friday, July 9, the International Court of Justice handed down an
advisory opinion condemning Israel's security fence and declaring its
construction illegal. This biased decision is the latest in a long line
of blatantly anti-Israel actions by the international community. This
nonbinding advisory opinion should be recognized for what it is, a
thinly veiled effort to hijack a respected international body solely
for the narrow purpose of condemning the State of Israel for its
efforts to protect its innocent citizens from suicide bombers.
The issue before us goes far beyond continued Palestinian terrorism.
The issue is the use of the ICJ to condemn Israel for acting in its own
defense.
The issue is the court being asked to adjudicate a case that should
never have been before the court in the first place. The International
Court of Justice was not the proper forum for discussing Israel's
response to continued Palestinian terror. The United States joined 25
other nations, Australia, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, the Czech
Republic, Micronesia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
the Marshall Islands and others in submitting objections against the
court hearing this case. Twenty-five nations in all.
When the United Nations General Assembly asked the court to address
only one aspect of an ongoing conflict, it deliberately made Israel and
its security fence, rather than continuing Palestinian terrorism, the
issue. Congress must speak on this issue, and we need to speak clearly.
We must condemn the politicizing of international organizations and
oppose the hijacking of multilateral entities for political purposes.
We must ensure that international entities like the ICJ can continue to
advance peace and security and work to resolve conflicts.
Under article 51 of the U.N. charter, all nations possess an inherent
right to self-defense. However, the ICJ rejected the argument that
Israel's security fence falls within this right to self-defense. In the
last 3\1/2\ years, nearly 1,000 Israelis have been killed by suicide
bombers coming from Palestinian territories. Since 1993, over 50 United
States citizens have been killed and 80 more have been wounded by these
same murderers.
I wear on my arm a band commemorating one of the United States
citizens that was killed by a Palestinian terrorist bomber. Children
have been targeted on their way to school. Families have been destroyed
as mothers have been killed riding buses. Israel has been living under
a state of siege, with its reserve military forces activated and
checkpoints set up. Yet the court claims that Israel's right to self-
defense does not apply. Does not apply? What better case could there be
for the right of self-defense?
The implications of this interpretation are staggering. By ruling
that article 51 of the charter has no relevance
[[Page H5771]]
outside of armed attack by one state against another, U.S. sanctions
against the Taliban or al Qaeda could no longer be justified as self-
defense. Using the court's logic, Spain would not be able to defend
itself against another tragic train bombing. Using the court's logic,
our Marines are forbidden under international law from defending
themselves against warlords and terrorists. Using this court's logic,
the United States cannot respond to the tragic bombing of the USS Cole.
What kind of logic is this? Are nations no longer permitted to fight
terrorism and protect their own citizens? It is incomprehensible to me
why Israel continues to be singled out. Saudi Arabia has built a nearly
75 kilometer barrier on their border with Yemen to halt the smuggling
of weapons into the kingdom. India is completing a 460-mile electrified
barrier in the contested Kashmir area to halt infiltrations by
terrorists. And Turkey built a barrier in an area that Syria claims as
its own.
Why have these security fences not been brought to the International
Court of Justice? Why has the United Nations been silent on these
issues? Is Israel's right to self-defense less valid than that of the
Saudis, the Indians, the Turks? I think not. And are Israeli lives less
valuable than Saudi lives, Indian lives, Turkish lives, American lives?
I think not.
The solution to resolving this conflict lies in Gaza and Ramallah,
not in Manhattan or The Hague. The path to a lasting peace lies in
fulfilling the terms of the road map, which begins with a rejection of
terrorism and incitement, a dismantling of the terrorist
infrastructure, and real reform by the Palestinian authority.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding time to me, and I rise in strong support of this resolution. I
want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for the wonderful work that he
has done on this resolution and indeed the wonderful work he does on
our Committee on International Relations.
I spoke on the floor last Friday after the so-called International
Court of Justice rendered its decision. I said at the time that they
should rename themselves the International Court of Injustice because
their decision is truly a travesty of justice. What hypocrisy. What a
double standard. Again, one standard for Israel and one standard for
everybody else.
As the gentlewoman from Nevada pointed out, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and
India have built fences. Not a peep from the international community or
the court of justice about those fences. Israel has built a fence to
defend its citizens. This decision from the International Court of
Justice comes down. Not a word about suicide bombings. Not a word about
terrorism. Not a word about a nation defending its right to exist and
defending its citizens.
{time} 2200
What is a nation supposed to do? What is more important to be a
nation than to defend the rights of its citizens, the killing of
innocent civilians that Palestinian terror has done? A nation has a
right to defend itself, and that is why I support Israel's security
fence.
I have been there. I have seen the fence firsthand. It stops
terrorism. It works. And it not only works for Israelis by preventing
terrorism, it is working for the Palestinians. Because of the fence, on
the Palestinian side life is getting back to normal. The checkpoints
are going away. So it is benefiting both sides.
They talk about Israel building the fence. Do my colleagues know who
built that fence? Yasser Arafat built that fence. Palestinian
terrorists built that fence. If terrorism would end, there would be no
need for a fence. And yet the hypocrisy of the International Court of
``Injustice'' condemning Israel for trying to defend its citizens.
I again strongly commend the gentleman from Indiana and urge all my
colleagues here to support this very important resolution. Terrorism is
terrorism, and security is security. Israel should not be treated
differently than any other nation.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps), my neighbor and colleague.
(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express very serious concerns about the
resolution before the House. I state these reservations as a strong
friend and supporter of Israel. I speak as someone who condemns
terrorism, especially the horrific practice of suicide bombing, with
every fiber of my being, and I speak as someone who supports Israel's
right to build a security fence along the Green Line.
But, sadly, as the House once again attempts to demonstrate its full
support of Israel, we will pass an unbalanced, unwise resolution that
may undermine the interests of Israelis and Palestinians as well as our
own national interests.
I believe this resolution needs some changes. For example, it
appropriately references the 1,000 people, mostly Israelis, who have
been killed since September, 2000. But what about the 3,000 innocent
Palestinians who have also lost their lives? Just once can the United
States Congress not admit that Palestinians are people, too, and their
lives are also precious? Would not such a compassionate statement go a
long way towards restoring our credibility in the Arab world at a time
when our national interests demand our image be improved? And would not
such a statement be the right thing to say?
This resolution mentions the roadmap as the best path for Israeli-
Palestinian peace. Yet in the very next clause we undermine the roadmap
by listing only the Palestinian obligations. Of course, the
Palestinians must crack down on terrorism. But the roadmap also
requires Israel to impose a settlement freeze, tear down illegal
outposts, ease the conditions of occupation. Why does this resolution
only tell half the story?
As for the security barrier itself, I have personally witnessed the
very severe hardships it imposes on Palestinian life. Again, a fence on
the Green Line is one thing. That makes sense strategically and
demographically. But a separation barrier that winds its way through
the West Bank, appropriating Palestinian land in its wake, is not
acceptable.
In the village of Jayyous, I saw how the wall separates farmers from
their groves, and their crops are rotting on the field; teachers and
students separated from their schools; even a Palestinian policeman
unable to get to his job imposing security.
The resolution before us has a grudging reference to the recent
decision by the High Court of Justice. But I think it is important for
the American people to hear the Court's argument in more detail. The
Israeli High Court ruled that the route of the barrier must be altered
to ease the hardship of 35,000 Palestinians living adjacent to it. The
current path, they argued, ``would generally burden the entire way of
life in the petitioners' villages.'' The Court carefully balanced
security and humanitarian considerations. The justices concluded, ``We
are convinced that there is no security without law. Upholding the law
is a component of national security.''
Of course, it can be argued that the security barrier has prevented
terror attacks. But the only way to stop terrorism and secure the
safety of Israel in the long term is for a comprehensive political
solution to be negotiated with the Palestinians. After all, there was
almost no terrorism perpetrated against Israeli civilians during the 3-
year period of 1997 to 2000. There was not a separation barrier then
but a vibrant peace process, negotiations and security cooperation
between Israel and the Palestinians, with powerful leadership from the
United States.
If Congress really wanted to be helpful, we would not pass
resolutions on such divisive issues as a security wall, but we would
urge our administration to act forcefully to bring both sides back to
the negotiating table. America's failures to engage in Israeli-
Palestinian conflict will not only doom these long-suffering peoples to
continued violence and misery but harm vital U.S. national interests as
well. And that is a risk that we can surely not afford to take.
[[Page H5772]]
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Franks of Arizona). The gentleman from
California has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 713, and
I want to say I am a practical person. The main thing is that the fence
works. It saves lives. There has been a dramatic reduction in the
number of attacks and the number of suicide bombings. And basically the
fence is doing exactly what it was designed to do, save lives. It
promotes peace. It is a mechanism for peace.
On a trip to Israel last year, I had the opportunity to view the
security fence firsthand, and there I toured communities on the
outskirts of Jerusalem where Israeli citizens live in constant fear of
sniper attacks and suicide bombings. This fence provides a sense of
security to these border families and will help prevent continued
attempts to derail the peace process through violence.
I was thinking about a statement that Robert Frost made about how
good fences make good neighbors. That is the case here. This is a
vehicle for peace. We should all support this resolution. I strongly
support Israel's right to defend their citizens from terrorist attacks.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution because,
practically speaking, the fence works, and it should be allowed to
continue to have the opportunity to work.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I merely want to express again my thanks to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence) for the leadership he has shown on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today urging my colleagues to support H. Res. 713, and I find
myself very humbled by the power and the eloquence that has preceded
me. So I will simply close, Mr. Speaker, with words of gratitude from
my heart and perhaps an explanation why this Midwestern Evangelical
Christian finds himself carrying this timely and important resolution
before the Congress.
I first want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde),
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his strong
leadership on this issue, and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos), who continues to be for me an example of everything that is
right about what Congress can mean on the world stage on behalf of not
only Israel but human rights, and a special thanks and affection to the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), without whose leadership this
resolution would not be on the floor today. In fact, in its original
version, the Pence-Berkley resolution recruited over 160 cosponsors,
Republicans and Democrats alike; and it is my fondest hope that
tomorrow when this measure is voted that we will see an equal reference
of strong bipartisan support.
My motivation is very simple. In January this year a dream of my life
came true, Mr. Speaker. I traveled to that ancient country of Israel
with my beautiful wife, Karen, and in the midst of that inspiring
experience, we engaged in security briefings. We found ourselves along
a chain-linked fence. In the 2 hours that we toured the security fence,
the guards who escorted and protected us received three notices of
attempted terrorist incursions.
I came back to this blue and gold carpet with a burden on my heart to
help tell that story. I went alongside the gentleman from Illinois
(Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and said we have to get the story
out of what the people of Israel are dealing with and the necessity for
the fence. And I came back and authored the resolution that will be
considered in the Congress tomorrow.
The truth is that the fence saves lives, Mr. Speaker, without any
question whatsoever. Evidence is resplendent. We have heard it tonight.
Hundreds of suicide attacks but only one from Gaza where Hamas and
Islamic Jihad are actually based, but Gaza city and the Gaza area
completely surrounded by a fence. In the north of Israel, where a
section of the fence has been completed, there has not been a single
suicide attack in more than 8 months. Before the first stage of the
fence became operational in July of 2003, the average number of attacks
was 8.6 per month. In the past 11 months, that has dropped to 3.2
attacks.
I hesitate to use statistics because we are talking about families.
We are talking about men and women and one terrible tale after another
of teenagers and small children made subject of terrorist suicide
bombings. So we ought not to get lost in the numbers. We ought to
remember the fence saves lives.
So last week when the International Court of Justice, by a 14 to 1
decision, violating many of its own rules of jurisdiction where it
ordinarily would have recognized the authority of the Supreme Court of
Israel to decide such matters, as it has very recently with great
equity towards the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, the
government of Israel has literally moved the fence some 20-mile
stretches, and recently the Supreme Court of Israel ruled in favor of
Palestinians in ordering the fence to be moved. But, nevertheless, the
International Court of Justice ignored the sovereign interests of
Israel, calling Israel an occupying power and calling portions of that
sovereign nation occupied Palestinian territory. And that is a
disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, I close simply with the words that I pray for the peace
of Jerusalem. I believe, as millions of Americans do, that still to
this day He will bless those who bless her. And it is my hope that
tomorrow this Congress will stand and speak as near as we ever can with
one voice that we condemn the International Court of Justice, this act
of disgrace, and we stand by our precious ally Israel in this her most
difficult hour.
Mr. FEENEY. I rise today in support of House Resolution 713 by my
good friends Mr. Pence, from Indiana, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, from my own
home State of Florida.
On Friday, July 9, the United Nation's International Court of Justice
issued a 14-to-1 majority opinion stating that Israel's building of a
security barrier is illegal, construction must stop immediately, and
Israel should make reparations for any damage caused.
The ICJ's ruling also said the United Nations' General Assembly and
Security Council should consider steps to halt construction of the
security barrier.
This decision by the ICJ is not only the latest in the international
community's long line of blatantly anti-Israel actions, but also sets a
dangerous precedent by allowing the ICJ to go beyond its traditional
jurisdiction.
I deplore the court's decision. Israel has a right to protect their
people from those who believe that the path to salvation is paved with
the blood of Jewish women and children. I have traveled to Israel and
have seen the aftermath of these senseless homicide bombings.
The security fence is not only within Israel's rights to build but it
has also proven to be an extremely effective tool for fighting
terrorism. In 2004, no Israelis have been killed or wounded by suicide
bombings in areas protected by the fence, while 19 Israeli citizens
have been killed and 102 have been wounded by suicide attacks in areas
unprotected by the fence.
The fence has produced a 90-percent drop in terrorism emanating from
the northern West Bank, formerly the originating point for scores of
devastating suicide bombings and other deadly terror attacks.
The International Court of Justice was set up in 1945 under the
Charter of the United Nations to be the principal judicial organ of the
Organization. Article 36 of the Court's Statute forbids bringing
contentious cases before the Court unless there is agreement by all
parties involved.
Obviously the ICJ did not recognize this limitation as more than 40
nations, including the United States, the European Union, Australia and
Canada, submitted briefs to the Court opposing consideration of the
matter of Israel's security fence. The objections that were voiced in
those briefs detail concerns regarding jurisdiction as well as the
politicization of the court.
Though not legally binding, the advisory opinion has already prompted
the introduction of anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations and
will have the effect of emboldening efforts to isolate Israel
internationally. The General Assembly will meet tomorrow to seek
international support for the ICJ decision and try to impose U.N.
sanctions against Israel for trying to defend its citizens.
[[Page H5773]]
When will the United Nations cease to thwart efforts to squash the
evil, murderous organizations who rob us of our right to security? How
long must the American taxpayers continue to support an international
agency that no longer promotes basic freedoms of peace, security, and
democracy?
Please join me in saying to the United Nations that we will not
support the blatant misuse of its International Court of Justice to
further the cause of these terrorist organizations. Vote ``yes'' on
House Resolution 713.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. I
strongly believe that this House needs to speak out against the
disgraceful ruling by the International Court of Justice, ICJ. I just
wish that what we said to the Nation and to the world through this
resolution was a more fulsome explanation of U.S. policy about not just
Israel's security fence and the appropriate role of the ICJ, but the
peace process, the Roadmap, the need for Palestinian political reform,
and a complete cessation of Palestinian terrorist violence.
In this respect, I would commend to Members' attention H. Con. Res.
390, a resolution I introduced in March together with several
distinguished colleagues in the House that highlights not just Israel's
right to defend itself, and our strong support for that right, but also
speaks clearly about our vital national security interest in resolving
the conflict according to the terms of U.N. Security Council
resolutions 242, 338, and 1397.
Indeed, what makes the ICJ's horrendous ruling more than a
meaningless annoyance is its unfortunate potential for misuse.
Considering the predilection shown by Palestinian leaders to pursue any
line of political action, except for those that require them to set
their own house in order and prevent violence from blocking the path
back to direct negotiations with Israel, I think we can fully expect
the ICJ's ruling to become the latest and most salient Palestinian
excuse for inaction, recalcitrance, and doublespeak.
By noting the deficiencies of the resolution at hand, I don't mean to
understate the wretchedness of the ICJ's ruling. I would note that the
court's ruling is as awful as it was predictable, which is to say,
entirely. Anyone who expected the ICJ to render an unbiased opinion,
forget the shameful call the court actually issued for Israel to, in
effect, defend itself by digging its own graves, is several degrees
past naive and well on their way toward the title of ``hopeless
sucker.''
The ICJ's opinion is riddled with flaws and stretches of remarkable
illogic. The principal failing, if one can identify just one, is the
complete reliance on a pro-Palestinian lens. The result, as clearly
demonstrated in the court's opinion, is a misapprehension of the nature
of the territory at issue, the nature of the conflict between the
parties, the legal standing of the parties and the appropriate role for
the court itself. Not surprisingly, the court took garbage in, and spit
garbage back out.
In this light, the court's refusal to look at either the lengthy
Palestinian campaign of terror which has resulted in nearly 1,000
Israeli deaths, or at the actual and ongoing contribution that the
fence has already made to stopping Palestinian suicide bombers, is
entirely predictable. It also smacks of casual anti-Semitism. When the
deaths of hundreds of Jews is of no interest, and condemnation is ready
only for non-violent self-defense measures, more than a hint of a
double standard is detectable.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I do support the resolution, and I believe it is
vital that the House speak strongly and clearly about this recent
travesty. I urge Members to vote in favor of the resolution and to make
clear their strong and unshakeable support for the one true democracy
in the Middle East, the State of Israel.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a one-sided
story. From the first day I came to the House of Representatives in
1989, and until my last day in this Chamber, I have been and will
continue to be a staunch defender of Israel.
I wholeheartedly and unequivocally believe in Israel's right to
exist, and the fundamental human right for the Jewish people to live in
peace and without fear.
Hundreds of times in this House, I have backed my words with deeds on
behalf of Israel: Recognizing the founding of Israel; commending the
people of Israel for conducting free and fair elections; condemning
terrorism against Israel; approving funds for Israel's security;
embracing efforts to achieve peace; promoting Israel's economic growth
and development around the world; ensuring Israel has access to stable
oil supplies; demanding real counterterrorism efforts by other Mideast
nations; and, most importantly, promoting peace in our time, for all
time.
Let no one say, let no one think, that Jim McDermott is not a friend
of Israel. I am a true friend of Israel and that is why I offer these
remarks. A true friend tells the truth as he sees it, because that's
what is in the best interest of your friend.
The House has before it a resolution neither requested by the
Government of Israel nor by the people of Israel.
It is a resolution that will not promote peace, or dialog, in the
region. It is a resolution that risks undermining the already painfully
difficult process--and the hope--of achieving peace.
There are times when the House of Representatives can advance the
cause for peace, or stir the world on a matter that knows no geographic
border. HIV/AIDS is such a matter. This is not one of those times.
The Bible says there is a time for every thing under heaven. We can
hope this is the time for peace. We can work to make this the time for
peace.
We can hurt the cause for peace by passing a resolution that would
seem to place the world on one side, and Israel and the United States
on the other. A political wall divides just as much as a stonewall or
an iron fence.
In light of a ruling by the World Court, Israel can change the path
of the wall it is building. The issues involved are complex, from land
to water, from borders to principles.
The legal issues involved are inseparable from the emotionally
charged, and unresolved, debate over homeland, security, peace, and the
future of a Palestinian State.
Although delicate and fragile, there is at least a process underway
to try to resolve the issues the wall raises. The resolution in the
House today could endanger the process. That's not a risk worth taking
for the purpose of recording an opinion that no one asked for.
The world knows full well the United States considers Israel a close
and important ally.
I believe we support Israel best by keeping the focus on the process
that someday soon could tear down all the walls that separate Israel
and Palestine.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on a resolution
condemning the International Court of Justice for rendering an advisory
opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the ``Israeli
Wall,'' and condemning the U.N. General Assembly for requesting such an
opinion.
This legislation was only introduced last night--and strikes me as
the type of knee-jerk posturing that does more harm than good. I oppose
the bill for the following reasons:
The ICJ rendered an advisory opinion on the legal consequences on the
construction of the wall on its current route, an opinion requested by
the U.N. General Assembly. The ICJ did so as it has done in the past,
and the General Assembly was within its rights to request such an
opinion.
Condemning the General Assembly for asking for an opinion, or the ICJ
for analyzing the situation and making a nonbinding statement of
opinion on the matter is essentially condemning people for asking
questions or having an opinion--key elements in civilized discourse or
democracy.
The sponsors of this bill, well-intentioned as they are, claim that
the advisory opinion denies that Israel has a right to self-defense.
This is not so--paragraph 141 states ``The fact remains that Israel has
to face numerous and indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against
its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to
respond in order to protect the life of its citizens.''
The resolution is factually incorrect:
It claims the General Assembly asked for an opinion on the legality
of the barrier. They did not. They asked for an opinion on the legal
consequences construction of the barrier.
It says that a similar security barrier exists around Gaza. The
barrier around Gaza is on the armistice line, not beyond it, does not
isolate Palestinian villages, or envelop settlements on territory
described by the Israeli Supreme Court as being held ``in belligerent
occupation,'' and therefore is not similar.
The resolution is hypocritical--it calls on members of the
international community to ``reflect soberly'' on a number of matters--
although this body held no hearings on this resolution, and has not
even had 24 hours to review it. I would hazard a guess that fewer than
2 percent of the Members of this body, or their staffs have actually
read the opinion in question, much less reflected soberly on it.
The resolution is needlessly belligerent--it threatens that anyone
who seriously considers the ICJ ruling to raise questions about the
resolution of this issue ``Risk[s] a strongly negative impact on their
relationship with the people and government of the United States.'' At
this time, we need to be working with our colleagues in the
international community to find a solution, listening to what they have
to say, rather than threatening them.
The opinion states that construction of the barrier inside Occupied
Palestinian Territory is illegal under international law. I'm not a
lawyer--but I know that if I build my fence on your property, I've got
to take it down.
The resolution notes that the Israeli courts themselves have been
critical of the barrier, and have directed that changes be made to the
wall's route. While this is true, it does not mean that other states
concerned with the stability of the region, should not have the benefit
of an advisory opinion on the legal ramifications of the wall by an
outside party.
[[Page H5774]]
Interesting points from that Israeli Supreme Court case (which only
covered one portion of the fence):
86. Our task is difficult. We are members of Israeli
society. Although we are sometimes in an ivory tower, that
tower is in the heart of Jerusalem, which is not infrequently
struck by ruthless terror. We are aware of the killing and
destruction wrought by terror against the state and its
citizens. As any other Israelis, we too recognize the need to
defend the country and its citizens against the wounds
inflicted by terror. We are aware that in the short term,
this judgment will not make the state's struggle against
those rising up against it easier. But we are judges. When we
sit in judgment, we are subject to judgment. We act according
to our best conscience and understanding. Regarding the
state's struggle against the terror that rises up against it,
we are convinced that at the end of the day, a struggle
according to the law will strengthen her power and her
spirit. There is no security without law. Satisfying the
provisions of the law is an aspect of national security. I
discussed this point in HCJ 5100/94 The Public Committee
against Torture in Israel v. The Government of Israel, at
845:
``We are aware that this decision does make it easier to
deal with that reality. This is the destiny of a democracy--
she does not see all means as acceptable, and the ways of her
enemies are not always open before her. A democracy must
sometimes fight with one arm tied behind her back. Even so, a
democracy has the upper hand. The rule of law and individual
liberties constitute an important aspect of her security
stance. At the end of the day, they strengthen her spirit and
this strength allows her to overcome her difficulties.
``That goes for this case as well. Only a Separation Fence
built on a base of law will grant security to the state and
its citizens. Only a separation route based on the path of
law will lead the state to the security so yearned for.
A nonbinding opinion is just that. Disagree with it all you want--
pick it apart, show how it is wrong. But to condemn people for voicing
an opinion is undemocratic and should be beneath this body.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Indiana
for not only introducing this important piece of legislation but for
taking the lead in this Congress on this important issue. Mr. Speaker,
as someone who has visited Israel on several occasions and viewed the
security fence, it is abundantly clear that it was built out of
necessity. On my last trip, I was reminded once again, that the drive
from the beautiful beachfront in Tel Aviv, to the Palestinian town of
Qualqilya in the West Bank took less then 25 minutes. That same 25
minutes is all the time it would take for a suicide bomber to find his
or her way to a bus stop, a shopping mall, or a discotechque.
Earlier today I had the honor of hosting 20 victims of Palestinian
terrorism. As I met with them I was reminded of a simple but gruesome
fact: everyday for nearly 60 years Israelis have awoken in the morning
to a constant threat of terrorism. Terrorism is what built the security
fence. The Government of Israel has said on numerous occasions that if
after more then 10 years of empty promises and bold face lies by Yassir
Arafat and his cronies, if the Palestinian leadership would finally
crack down on terrorism and work to reform the Palestinian territories,
then perhaps one day the fence would no longer be necessary.
Mr. Speaker, echoing my friend from Indiana I would like to commend
President Bush and Secretary of State Powell for taking the lead in
marshalling opposition to the use of the International Court of Justice
as a forum to solve the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The
decision by the ICJ will do nothing politically or legally to help
destroy Palestinian terrorism or reform the Palestinian Authority.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again commend my friend from
Indiana for introducing this bold resolution and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
opposition to the International Court of Justice's July 9, 2004,
advisory opinion condemning Israel's security fence.
Israel's security fence is an important tool necessitated by
continued Palestinian terrorism. Israel has the same obligation to
protect its citizens as any other nation, including the United States.
The ruling by the ICJ is not only the latest in the United Nations
long line of anti-Israel actions, but also sets several dangerous
precedents in international law that hinder and impede United States
antiterrorism efforts.
Having been to Israel on several occasions, I can personally attest
to Israel's need for this security fence. Many measures have been taken
to make its presence less intrusive on the Palestinian people, while
still providing necessary protection for Israeli citizens.
Further proof of this is the June 30, 2004, ruling by the Israeli
Supreme Court, which ruled that a contentious section of the barrier
being built by Israel in the West Bank violates the rights of thousands
of Palestinian residents by separating them from their farmland. This
ruling led to a shift in the path of an 18-mile section to meet the
court's demands. This fence is a necessary means of protection for a
people that have suffered numerous terrorist attacks, not on their
government or military, but on innocent civilians.
Israel has not claimed that this fence is a permanent barrier; it is
a temporary solution to protect its citizens who have been plagued by
violence.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the International Court of Justice's decision,
and I fully support Israel's right to protect its citizens.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the State of Israel has been an
unwavering friend and ally of the United States for decades. And Israel
has stood in complete solidarity with the United States in the Global
War on Terror. Over the past half-century, bipartisan support for
Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East, has been a staple
of every U.S. Congress regardless of which party is in the majority.
While the United Nations, other international organizations, and the
governments of many countries of the world are quick to adopt the
positions of Israel's adversaries, especially when Israelis exercise
their absolute right to defend themselves, Congress has remained
unwavering in its moral stand behind Israel. Again today, by passing
House Concurrent Resolution 713--H. Con. Res. 713--a resolution I
proudly cosponsored and championed, the Members of this House once
again stood fast as the counterweight to most of the world's
imbalanced, ``blame Israel'' approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. H.
Con. Res. 371, expressed this body's strong support for Israel's
construction of a security fence to prevent Palestinian terrorist
attacks, and condemned the United Nations General Assembly's decision
to request the International Court of Justice to render an opinion on
the legality of the fence.
Despite the fact that more than 40 nations, including the United
States, 15 members of the European Union, Russia, Canada, Australia and
even South Africa believed the International Court of Justice, ICJ, did
not have the competence or the jurisdiction to rule on the matter, last
week, the ICJ issued an advisory finding that Israel's security barrier
in the West Bank is illegal. This ruling shouldn't have come as a
surprise to anyone as Israel's detractors have successfully manipulated
every arm of the United Nations to delegitimize Israel. The U.N.
General Assembly itself has been a hotbed of anti-Israel activity,
passing more than 400 resolutions against Israel since 1964, more
resolutions than on any other single subject. But that body has never
once investigated the Palestinian terror campaign against Israel, nor
has it investigated abuse, torture, and other human rights violations
by nondemocratic states in the Arab world.
In 2004, no Israeli has been killed or wounded by suicide bombings in
areas protected by the fence, while 19 Israeli citizens have been
killed and 102 wounded by homicide attacks in areas without the fence.
The fence has produced a 90-percent drop in terrorism emanating from
the northern West Bank, formerly the originating point for scores of
devastating homicide bombings and other deadly terror attacks.
I commend to all of my colleagues an excellent Op-Ed written by
former Israeli Prime Minister and current Finance Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu laying out a clear and intellectually sound argument for why
Israel needs the security fence and why Israel should never surrender
its right to defend itself. I would like to have the text of this Op-Ed
placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. I urge my
colleagues to read it and speak out against the blatantly political
ruling of the so-called International Court of Justice.
[From the New York Times, July 13, 2004]
Why Israel Needs a Fence
(By Benjamin Netanyahu)
Jerusalem.--While the advisory finding by the International
Court of Justice last week that Israel's barrier in the West
Bank is illegal may be cheered by the terrorists who would
kill Israeli civilians, it does not change the fact that none
of the arguments against the security fence have any merit.
First, Israel is not building the fence on territory that
under international law can be properly called ``Palestinian
land.'' The fence is being built in disputed territories that
Israel won in a defensive war in 1967 from a Jordanian
occupation that was never recognized by the international
community. Israel and the Palestinians both claim ownership
of this land. According to Security Council Resolution 242,
this dispute is to be resolved by a negotiated peace that
provides Israel with secure and recognized boundaries.
Second, the fence is not a permanent political border but a
temporary security barrier. A fence can always be moved.
Recently, Israel removed 12 miles of the fence to ease
Palestinian daily life. And last month, Israel's Supreme
Court ordered the government to reroute 20 more miles of the
fence for that same purpose. In fact, the indefensible line
on which many have argued the fence should run--that which
existed between Israel and the Arab lands before the
[[Page H5775]]
1967 war--is the only line that would have nothing to do with
security and everything to do with politics. A line that is
genuinely based on security would include as many Jews as
possible and as few Palestinians as possible within the
fence.
That is precisely what Israel's security fence does. By
running into less than 12 percent of the West Bank, the fence
will include about 80 percent of Jews and only 1 percent of
Palestinians who live within the disputed territories. The
fence thus will block attempts by terrorists based in
Palestinian cities to reach major Israeli population centers.
Third, despite what some have argued, fences have proven
highly effective against terrorism. Of the hundreds of
suicide bombings that have taken place in Israel, only one
has originated from the Gaza area, where Hamas and Islamic
Jihad are headquartered. Why? Because Gaza is surrounded by a
security fence. Even though it is not complete, the West Bank
security fence has already drastically reduced the number of
suicide attacks.
The obstacle to peace is not the fence but Palestinian
leaders who, unlike past leaders like Anwar Sadat of Egypt
and King Hussein of Jordan, have yet to abandon terrorism and
the illegitimate goal of destroying Israel. Should Israel
reach a compromise with a future Palestinian leadership
committed to peace that requires adjustments to the fence,
those changes will be made. And if that peace proves genuine
and lasting, there will be no reason for a fence at all.
Instead of placing Palestinian terrorists and those who
send them on trial, the United Nations-sponsored
international court placed the Jewish state in the dock, on
the charge that Israel is harming the Palestinians' quality
of life. But saving lives is more important than preserving
the quality of life. Quality of life is always amenable to
improvement. Death is permanent. The Palestinians complain
that their children are late to school because of the fence.
But too many of our children never get to school--they are
blown to pieces by terrorists who pass into Israel where
there is still no fence.
In the last four years, Palestinian terrorists have
attacked Israel's buses, cafes, discos and pizza shops,
murdering 1,000 of our citizens. Despite this unprecedented
savagery, the court's 60-page opinion mentions terrorism only
twice, and only in citations of Israel's own position on the
fence. Because the court's decision makes a mockery of
Israel's right to defend itself, the government of Israel
will ignore it. Israel will never sacrifice Jewish life on
the debased altar of ``international justice.''
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 713, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________