Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today I want to comment on the recent
election in Israel and the Obama administration's outrageous reaction
to it. Two days ago Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's Likud Party won
a decisive victory in the Israel election. For myself and on behalf of
3 million Arkansans, I want to offer hearty congratulations to Prime
Minister Netanyahu. I have the greatest admiration for the Prime
Minister's visionary and courageous statesmanship, as well as his
service as a young man in his country's elite special operations
forces. Prime Minister Netanyahu and his family have paid the highest
price over the decades in the fight against the common enemies of
Israel and the United States.

Yet let me also stress that the alliance between the United States
and Israel is not an alliance for this or that Israeli statesman nor
this or that Israeli political party. Nor, for that matter, does the
alliance depend on whom or which party controls the White House or the
Congress. Rather, it is an alliance between the American people and the
Israeli people, between the ultimate defender of the West and the
easternmost frontier of the West. Our alliance rests on our shared
experiences and principles: our Judeo-Christian heritage, respect for
the natural rights of mankind, democratic self-government, market-based economics, and strong provision for our common defense. Israel's commitment to
democratic elections demonstrated just this week an important
distinction from many of their neighbors and why they are our closest
ally in the region.

Apparently, President Obama harbors such deep-seated and irrational
antipathy for Prime Minister Netanyahu that he is now willing to upend
this decades-long alliance. President Obama's antagonism toward Prime
Minister Netanyahu is longstanding and well known. Last year, for
example, anonymous administration officials used a vulgar epithet to
question Prime Minister Netanyahu's courage.

I will point out, as an aside, that anonymity is the Washington
coward's shield, just as I am also compelled to point out that, so far
as I know, neither the President nor his senior political aides served
in our country's elite special operations forces, unlike Prime Minister
Netanyahu.

Back to my main point, in the last 48 hours, more anonymous
administration officials have suggested a fundamental rethinking of the
United States-Israel alliance, citing Prime Minister Netanyahu's simple
restatement of fact that there can be no Palestinian State until
conditions change. The Palestinian Authority must, at a minimum, eject
Hamas from its governing coalition, reclaim control of the Gaza Strip,
accept a demilitarized eastern border in Judea and Samaria, and
recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State. As Prime Minister
Netanyahu has said, if the Palestinians lay down their arms, there will
be peace. But if Israel lays down its arms, there will be no Israel.

The Obama administration, though, has gone off the deep end and let
their personal bitterness towards the Israeli Prime Minister drive
their public foreign policy toward our closest ally. Here are just a
few quotes from administration officials suggesting a fundamental
change in our relationship with Israel and a willingness to abandon
Israel at the United Nations.

One official said: ``We are signaling that [if the Israeli
government's position is no longer to pursue a Palestinian state,]
we're going to have to broaden the spectrum of options we pursue going
forward.''

According to reports, that same official ``wouldn't rule out a
modified American posture at the United Nations, where the U.S. has
long fended off resolutions criticizing Israeli settlement activity and
demanding its withdrawal from Palestinian territories.''

Another senior White House official said:

The premise of our position internationally has been to
support direct negotiations between the Israelis and the
Palestinians. We are now in a reality where the Israeli
government no longer supports direct negotiations. Therefore
we clearly have to factor that into our decisions going
forward.

Finally, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said:

We're currently evaluating our approach. We're not going to
prejudge what we would do if there was a UN action.

Some observers will dismiss these comments as the petulant response
of a President and political operatives who didn't get their way in the
elections this week. But there is something much more worrisome
underway. While Prime Minister Netanyahu won a decisive victory, he
still has just started assembling a governing majority coalition.

These kinds of quotes from Israel's most important ally could very
well startle some of the smaller parties and their leaders with whom
Prime Minister Netanyahu is currently in negotiations. This raises the
question, of course, if the administration intends to undermine Prime
Minister Netanyahu's efforts to assemble a coalition by suggesting a
change to our longstanding policy of supporting Israel's position with
the United Nations.

After all, if you were an elected leader in Israel's parliament, you
surely would worry about the United States refusing to exercise its
veto at the U.N. Security Council. Consider the United Nations' long
and dark history of anti-Semitism.

The U.N. Human Rights Council has condemned Israel in 45 resolutions
since its creation in 2006. In 2013, the U.N. General Assembly adopted
a total of 21 resolutions singling out Israel for disapproval and just
4 resolutions for the rest of the world.

Fifty percent of all emergency special sessions of the General
Assembly over the last six decades were convened to denounce Israel.
Meanwhile, no emergency special session has been called for any other
state in over 30 years. Given this history and the stakes here and
abroad, let me speak bluntly so there can be no misunderstanding. Under
no circumstances will I or this Congress allow the Obama administration
to abandon Israel to the United Nations or any other international
institution or to change fundamentally the terms of our alliance with
Israel.

This administration's latest outrageous pronouncement is even more
difficult to understand as they simultaneously coddle the terrorist
regime in Iran. The people of Israel should know the American people
remain in solidarity with them in their quest to exist peacefully with
their neighbors and that we will not allow them to be thrown to the
jackals at the United Nations--a characterization made famous by a past
Member of this body, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I call on all
Members of this body, including my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, to join with me in one voice supporting our ally Israel against
the jackals.

In the coming days--perhaps as soon as the debate over the budget
resolution next week--I will propose legislation that reaffirms the
longstanding policy of the United States to continue to defend Israel
against attacks at the United Nations and other international agencies.
I urge all Members of this body, including my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle who have a long history of supporting Israel, to join
me in supporting such legislation.

Further, should the United Nations, its subordinate agencies, the
International Criminal Court or any other international agency take
adverse action against Israel, I will consider introducing legislation
to restrict U.S. funding for the offending agency. Finally, if the U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations does not exercise the American veto
against any anti-Israel resolution, I will also consider introducing
similar legislation to restrict funding to the Ambassador's office.

For decades, the relationship between Israel and the United States
has transcended political and personal differences. Our shared
interests were enough to overcome any ideology or personal
disagreement, but I fear mutual respect is of little concern to this
administration. The President and all those senior officials around him
should carefully consider the diplomatic and security consequences of
their words. This Congress certainly will.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source