Dana Rohrabacher: “I rise to discuss this resolution, although I have not yet determined how I shall vote on it. The resolution has…”

“I rise to discuss this resolution, although I have not yet determined how I shall vote on it. The resolution has ``resolved'' clauses that speak for themselves and are reasonable. In the ``resolved'' clauses we do see a recognition of expression of sentiment about both the Palestinian as well as the Israeli innocent people who have been killed. Also, it recognizes the Roadmap and talks about some of the goals that we all agree on. I do have some reservations as to the ``whereas'' clauses which seem to be one-sided. The clause most disconcerting to me happens to be the one that people seem to be the most frantic in trying to get across today, and that is the claim that in some way, by saying that this is a cycle of violence that is going on, as it says in the ``whereas'' clause, that this implies a moral equivalency. It does not. The cycle of violence could well have been started, and I do believe there is a cycle of violence going on; it could be that both sides have made mistakes. That does not mean they are both morally equivalent. Who is judging the morality of it? We are judging the reality of it. The fact is, Israel may have made some mistakes. Certainly the Palestinians have made horrible immoral decisions in terms of suicide bombings and other types of acts of terrorism. But Israel may have made some mistakes. Was Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, in retrospect, was that not a mistake? How about the Israeli settlement policy for these last few years?”