General Leave

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution that reaffirms longstanding U.S. policy regarding the two-state solution and which squarely condemns unilateral acts by any party (and I hope the Administration understands that includes the U.S.) that undermines that goal.

The two-state solution has been such a central part of the U.S. policy for this region that it rightly deserves its own debate in this House, rather than just a passing reference in legislation as we have seen in the past.

As noted by the resolution, for more than 20 years, ``Presidents of the United States from both political parties and Israeli Prime Ministers have supported reaching a two-state solution that establishes a Palestinian state coexisting side by side with Israel in peace and security.''

Yet, somehow the two-state solution has now become a controversial position, including within the current Administration which goes out of its way to not even mention it as a goal of our policy anymore. In light of the Administration's refusal to even say the phrase, more and more leaders in the region feel emboldened to also publicly oppose two states living side by side in peace and security.

It is even more critical now that the U.S. Congress unambiguously and clearly express support for the two-state solution.

Current trends are moving us farther away from peace or security and the Administration's efforts are doing nothing to stop that. As a hundred of my colleagues and I recently noted in a letter to the State Department, the Administration's recent announcement declaring that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories do not violate international law as far as the U.S. is concerned, ``following the administration's decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem outside of a negotiated agreement; its closure of the Palestinian mission in Washington, D.C. and U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem; and its halting of aid Congress appropriated to the West Bank and Gaza, has discredited the United States as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, severely damaged prospects for peace, and endangered the security of America, Israel, and the Palestinian people.''

This legislation sends a clear message that any U.S. proposal to achieve a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ``should expressly endorse a two-state solution as its objective.''

Additionally, the resolution also makes clear that ``Presidents of the United States from both political parties have opposed settlement expansion, moves toward unilateral annexation of territory, and efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood status outside the framework of negotiations with Israel.''

It reaffirms the Administration's obligation to actively ``discourage steps by either side that would put a peaceful end to the conflict further out of reach, including unilateral annexation of territory or efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood status outside the framework of negotiations with Israel.''

I don't have to tell my colleagues that unilateral actions, such as annexation or unilateral declarations of statehood will not or cannot achieve the peace or security that is so urgently desired.

Additionally, I know that this legislation has been changed to remove references to occupation and to the settlement enterprise. Whether you agree or disagree with those changes, doing so does not and will not change the actual facts on the ground or the obstacles to peace that remain. And our debate should be based on recognizing those facts, however discouraging or contentious they may be. The Israeli's and Palestinians deserve a debate that does so accurately.

The time for pushing for peace is always now.

But let's be clear, the sentiment in this resolution is only a start. Acknowledging the need for two states is important but even more so is working to actually achieve it. And that is where work needs to happen.

What we need are bold steps forward. Not some half-baked peace plan that has taken nearly three years to develop, is apparently subject to the whims of the U.S. and Israeli election cycles, and has already been dismissed by key stakeholders in the region.

If the Administration refuses to do so, then its time that Congress consider what actions it can take to make the vision of the two-state that we so beautifully describe in this resolution into a reality. Because today, the reality on the ground is one state, continuing tensions, and cycles of violence that can easily escalate.

It's no longer good enough to give lip service to two-states.

So I thank the leadership for bringing this to the floor and for welcoming this debate in the House.

And I know that the two-state solution has its critics who are just as frustrated as I am that both sides have seemingly never failed to miss an opportunity to let peace slip away. But the deadly status quo is no substitute. And wishful thinking for some other ``alternative'' option also is no substitute.

Achieving two-states was never going to be easy. Peace never is.

But ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is vital to the interests of our country, Israel, the Palestinians, and the broader region and international communities. This is why we continue to advocate for two- states despite the setbacks and spoilers.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source