The Problem with the Camp David Summit, A Floor Speech by Congressman Tom DeLay

What follows is a speech Texas Congressman Tom DeLay delivered on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on July 18, 2000. We think that it captures the essence of the problem with the current summit at Camp David and conveys the appropriate message in just the right tone. You might want to let Congressman DeLay know that you appreciate not only his consummate understanding of the issue but his courage in taking such a forceful stand.

What follows is a speech Texas Congressman Tom DeLay delivered on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on July 18, 2000. We think that it captures the essence of the problem with the current summit at Camp David and conveys the appropriate message in just the right tone. You might want to let Congressman DeLay know that you appreciate not only his consummate understanding of the issue but his courage in taking such a forceful stand.

Securing a just and enduring peace in the Middle East is a paramount goal of the United States and vital to our national interests. I sincerely hope that the day will come when the region is a stable, peaceful home of emerging democracies and U.S. allies.

The ongoing dialogue about the future relationship between Israel and its neighbors in this volatile region is essential if a true peace is ever to be realized. The current talks may be a meaningful step toward achieving our common goal.

However, I am concerned that the pressure to reach a deal – any deal – will outweigh that of securing a good one. A deal for deal’s sake is not in the interest of Israel or the United States, nor is it in the interest of long-term peace and stability in the Middle East. In this volatile region, a flawed agreement that produces greater instability would be worse than the status quo.

Accordingly, American leaders must not abuse our unique relationship with Israel to force acceptance of destabilizing strategic concessions. True peace can only be obtained if both sides are confident that they are negotiating freely and in the interest of their people – free from outside pressures. I was quite alarmed to hear the Administration’s spokesman stating that there is tension between the two sides due to the President’s pressure on negotiators to come up with an agreement. Clearly, Israel should not be forced to negotiate away what’s in its best interests to accommodate the political interest of any group.

Israel has been a longtime ally of the United States. The struggle of the Israeli people to maintain their sovereignty and security from hostile neighbors has been long and valiant. As Americans, we recognize their struggle is also our own – that beyond our strong ties of kinship, a strong and secure Israel is undoubtedly in America’s best interest. An Israel with secure boundaries, free from threats or acts of war, is essential to long-term peace and stability in the region.

Over the last 50 years, Israel has shown its willingness to work with its neighbors to find peace, sometimes successfully – sometimes not – but in all cases the outcome was contingent on the determination of both sides to truly secure peace.

At this time, it is unclear to me that this is the case in these negotiations. In fact, the threat of the Palestinians to unilaterally declare statehood on September 13, regardless of the status of negotiations, calls to question their commitment to peace and respect of Israel’s autonomy and security. Any attempt by the Palestinians to unilaterally declare an independent state would have severe consequences to the relationship between the U.S. and the Palestinians. Make no mistake, this Congressman will not support such a unilateral declaration, particularly outside the confines of an agreement with Israel.

The U.S. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that any agreement the American people may be asked to embrace will truly protect Israeli and American interests, enjoys the support of the Israeli and Palestinian people alike, and brings a lasting and durable peace to the region. Accordingly, any final agreement must carry a real chance for meaningful peace before committing U.S. support.

No one should assume that the Congress will simply sign off on committing enormous American resources to a deal that contains compromises which would seriously undermine Israeli or U.S. security. Before a financial commitment is made by the U.S., the Israeli people must have their referendum, and we must have had an opportunity to examine the proposed agreement on its merits from an American perspective – both for the security of Israel and the security of the United States.

Finally, I remain gravely concerned that the Administration has yet to adequately consult the Congress on the status of the negotiations. The prospect that an agreement will contain an ongoing American commitment requires that the Administration work closely with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to build a broad consensus in support of the deal.

We must be certain that the final agreement carries a legitimate chance for an enduring peace before we commit the vast American resources routinely mentioned as part of a settlement. Any meaningful peace agreement must be attractive to both parties independent of financial incentives. Further the U.S. must not force an untenable deal that delivers today’s headlines at the expense of lasting peace.