[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1366-E1367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE REALITY PRINCIPLE

______

HON. BARNEY FRANK

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Thursday, June 26, 2003

Mr. FRANK of Massachusets. Mr. Speaker, President Bush's serious
personal involvement in the effort to bring about Middle East peace
deserves both praise and, more important, strong support from all
Americans. As a strong supporter of the State of Israel and its right
to exist as a democratic, Jewish state in a secure environment, I
firmly believe that what President Bush is doing is very much in
furtherance of the achievement of that goal, and I am pleased that he
is taking the risks that are inherent when any president seeks
genuinely to push for peace in the Middle East. As Thomas Friedman
noted in a recent column in the New York Times, President Bush's
involvement is essential if we are to reach peace.
As Mr. Friedman also notes, and those of us who seek peace must be
prepared to acknowledge this, ``it may be that the Palestinians are
capable only of self-destructive revenge, rather than constructive
restraint and reconciliation.'' That is, no one can be sure that peace
is attainable on grounds that will allow Israel to live securely and
without the constant threat of terrorist attacks on its citizens. But
as Mr. Friedman adds, ``surely Israel has more to gain in the long term
by giving Mr. Abbas every chance to prove otherwise, and to empower him
to do so . . .''
There are two very tough decisions now facing the government of
Israel, and I believe that those of us who have been and are consistent
defenders of Israel's right to exist, in the face of the overwhelming
hostility of so many neighboring countries, should be explicit in
urging the Israeli government to take the necessary action to test the
Palestinians willingness to embrace genuinely a two-state solution. One
of those decisions is to be willing to

[[Page E1367]]

withdraw settlements from much of the West Bank and all of Gaza. The
other, even harder given the understandable emotion that the murder of
innocent civilians triggers, is to show the restraint that the Bush
Administration has asked Israel to show with regard to retaliation
against the leaders of Hamas and other terrorist groups. I do not deny
Israel's right to act in its own defense, but I do urge the government
to consider seriously the wisdom of Mr. Friedman's argument for
restraint as a very important step towards testing the prospects for
peace.

I have been struck, in conversations with Israeli government
officials, by the confidence they have expressed in the good intentions
of the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. But it is also
clear that he faces great difficulties, including, sadly, the hostility
of Yasir Arafat, whose unwillingness seriously to make peace has been a
major factor contributing to the turmoil in the region. Refraining from
actions which will unnecessarily undercut Prime Minister Abbas, is
clearly in the interest of Israel, certainly until it becomes clearer
as to whether or not he will be able to achieve the peace that Israel
believes he seeks.
Thomas Friedman's article in the New York Times for Saturday, June
21, spells out this complex set of considerations very well, and I ask
that this important article be reprinted here.

The Reality Principle

(By Thomas L. Friedman)

Have you noticed how often Israel kills a Hamas activist
and the victim is described by Israelis as ``a senior Hamas
official'' or a ``key operative''? This has led me to wonder:
How many senior Hamas officials could there be? We're not
talking about I.B.M. here. We're talking about a ragtag
terrorist group. By now Israel should have killed off the
entire Hamas leadership twice. Unless what is happening is
something else, something I call Palestinian math: Israel
kills one Hamas operative and three others volunteer to take
his place, in which case what Israel is doing is actually
self-destructive.
Self-destructive is, in fact, a useful term to describe
Israelis and Palestinians today. ``Both sides,'' notes the
Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi, ``have crossed the
line where self-defense has turned into self-destruction.
When self-defense becomes self-destruction, only an external
force can bring people back to their senses. And that force
is President Bush. I think he is the only reality principle
left that either side might listen to, and I hope he
understands that.''
You know that both sides are in self-destruction mode when
you can look at their military actions and say that even if
they succeeded they would be worse off. The question is not
whether Israel has a right to kill senior Hamas officials.
They are bad guys. The question is whether it's smart for
Israelis to do it now.
The fact is, the only time Israelis have enjoyed extended
periods of peace in the last decade has been when Palestinian
security services disciplined their own people, in the heyday
of Oslo. Unfortunately, Yasir Arafat proved unwilling to do
that consistently. The whole idea of the Bush peace process
is to move Mr. Arafat aside and replace him with a
Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, who is ready to
rebuild the Palestinian security services, and, in the
context of an interim peace settlement, corral Hamas.
Hamas knows this. So its tactic is to goad Israel into
attacks that will unravel the whole process. The smart thing
for Israel to do--and it's not easy when your civilians are
being murdered--is not to play into Hamas's hands. The smart
thing is to say to Mr. Abbas: ``How can we help you crack
down on Hamas? We don't want Israel to own Hamas's demise.
Palestinians have to root out this cancer within their own
society. If Israelis try to do it, it will only
metastasize.''
Israel's supporters argue that if America can go after
Osama bin Laden, Israel can go after Hamas. Of course Israel
is entitled to pursue its mortal enemies, just as America
does, but it cannot do it with reckless abandon, notes Mr.
Ezrahi, for one reason: America will never have to live with
Mr. bin Laden's children. They are far away and always will
be. Israel will have to live with the Palestinians, after the
war. They are right next door and always will be.
The fact is, Ariel Sharon's two years of using the Israeli
Army alone to fight terrorism have not made Israelis more
secure. He needs a Palestinian partner, and he has to operate
and negotiate in a way that will nurture one. And the people
who get that the best are Israelis. In a Yediot Ahronot poll
released Friday, two-thirds of Israelis were critical of Mr.
Sharon's tactic of targeted assassinations of Hamas officials
and said they wanted Mr. Abbas to be given a chance to
establish his authority.
It may be that Mr. Abbas can't step up to this. It may be
that the Palestinians are capable only of self-destructive
revenge, rather than constructive restraint and
reconciliation. But surely Israel has more to gain in the
long term by giving Mr. Abbas every change to prove
otherwise, and to empower him to do so, rather than killing
one more Hamas ``senior official,'' who will only be replaced
by three others.
Because if the two sides cannot emerge from this dead end,
then you can forget about a two-state solution, which is what
both Hamas's followers and the extremist Jewish settlers
want. They each want a one-state solution, in which their
side will control all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The
one-state solution would mean the end of the Zionist
enterprise, because Israel can rule such an entity, in which
there would soon be more Arabs than Jews, only by apartheid
or ethnic cleansing. It would also mean the end of
Palestinian nationalism, because the Israelis will crush the
Palestinians rather than be evicted. That is the outcome we
are heading toward, though, unless the only reality principle
left, the United States of America, really intervenes--with
its influence, its wisdom and, if necessary, its troops.

____________________