Motion to Discharge--S.J. Res. 111
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WELCH. First of all, I want to thank the majority leader not only for his leadership on this issue in his straightforward, direct embrace of the cause of Israel but also your openness for a debate in the Senate about what is the best pathway forward.
Madam President, I also want to acknowledge that I had to listen carefully to the words of Senator Schumer, Senator Rosen, Senator Budd. They have given eloquent arguments in favor of opposing this resolution. They raised the questions I ask myself: Can I, as a U.S. Senator who is a strong supporter of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; can I, as a U.S. Senator who is absolutely appalled at what Hamas did on October 7; can I, as a U.S. Senator who attended a presentation by the Israeli Embassy that displayed the horror of the rapes and the assaults on women who were taken captive; and can I, as a U.S. Senator who believes in a two-state solution, vote in favor of stopping the delivery of offensive weapons for Israel to use in Gaza? And my answer is yes. It is for two reasons.
First, we are into our 14th month in Gaza. And what has happened is over 43,000 people have been killed. Many Hamas, including the Hamas leadership, have been killed. Good riddance.
But many, many thousands of innocent Palestinians, including women and children, have been killed. Over 100,000 have been maimed and injured, and 60 to 70 percent of the structures in Gaza have been destroyed. That includes the schools. Young Gazans have not been in school for 14 months. Hospitals have been destroyed. The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is unparalleled and is being inflicted on innocent Palestinians.
There is a second reason that I am going to support the joint resolutions. I believe the continuation of the military action in Gaza is not only jeopardizing what hostages still are alive, but it can only make Israel weaker, not stronger.
Their own recently fired Defense Minister said there is no further military purpose of offensive action in Gaza. If there is no further reason for offensive military action in Gaza, why is there a need for the United States to be providing more offensive weapons for the Netanyahu government to be used in Gaza?
That is the question we face.
We talk about the signals that will be sent to Hamas, to Iran, to Israel. There is another reality that can't be escaped, and it isn't answered by inquiring as to what ``signals'' are being sent. It is what is going to happen to these kids. What is going to happen to these families that are continuing to live under bombardment where they can't be safe anywhere, in part, because Hamas will go anywhere they can to try to use them as human shields.
But even without that--being told that they can be safe here but then are bombed and being told they can be safe there--many of these families have been dislocated six to seven times.
The humanitarian catastrophe is grinding on. It comes, of course, at a cost--enormous cost--to Palestinian families. It has come at a cost to the State of Israel--which we support--with their further isolation in the international community.
So the question before us is: What is the right thing to do, not just by way of limiting and helping humanitarian catastrophe, but what is the right thing for the United States to do with its ally Israel in pursuit of the two goals we have always had with Israel? And that is to advocate and defend and support Israel as a democratic, secure Jewish State. And because we believe this is important to make that happen, that we have an independent, secure Palestinian State, a two-state solution.
So the question that I have is, Will U.S. arms, to be used offensively in Gaza at this time and with this government, enhance American policy that has been the policy of the United States through Republican and Democratic administrations?
Madam President, the answer I have come to, the judgment I have come to as a U.S. Senator is that it would harm our goals for that Jewish democratic state, for the easing of humanitarian suffering, for compliance with international law and the Leahy Law, and for what is a goal that has to be the touchstone of our policy, and that is doing everything we can to achieve a two-state solution for a secure, democratic, independent Israel and a secure, disarmed--not armed-- Palestinian State side by side.
I intend to support these resolutions.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source