PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Dec 15, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Reaffirms that the House of Representatives: (1) supports a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a viable, democratic Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition; and (2) opposes any attempt to establish or seek recognition of a Palestinian state outside of an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.
Urges Palestinian leaders to: (1) cease efforts to circumvent the negotiation process, including efforts to gain recognition of a Palestinian state from other nations, within the United Nations, and in other international forums; and (2) resume direct negotiations with Israel.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Supports the Administration's opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.
Calls upon the Administration to: (1) lead a diplomatic effort to persuade other nations to oppose a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and to oppose recognition of a Palestinian state by other nations, within the United Nations, and in other international forums prior to a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians; and (2) affirm that the United States would deny recognition to any unilaterally declared Palestinian state and veto any resolution by the U.N. Security Council to establish or recognize a Palestinian state outside of an agreement negotiated by the two parties.
People & committees
Rep. Berman, Howard L. [D-CA-28] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H8466)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8466)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 1765.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8466-8471)
Mr. Berman moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.1765 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.1765 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.1765 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.1765 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.