[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E3-E4]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     CONGRESSMAN BARNEY FRANK ON ``DEMOCRACY REAFFIRMED IN ISRAEL''

                                 ______


                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 3, 1996

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my 
colleagues in the Congress to an article written by our distinguished 
colleague from Massachusetts, Barney Frank. It appeared in the Boston 
Globe on December 25 of last year.
  Barney has given an outstanding analysis of how Israel has dealt with 
the emotional and political aftermath of the tragic assassination of 
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. His analysis is particularly 
significant--not only for democratic Israel, but also for industrial 
societies such as our own and for developing democratic societies in 
the former Soviet Union and in the Third World--who must deal with the 
relationship between terrorism and democracy, between violence and 
freedom. As he said: ``For nearly 50 years, Israel has been the most 
persistent and successful in demonstrating that democracy is not a 
luxury to be enjoyed only by societies that are wealthy, secure and 
well insulated from outside attack, but is a recognition of the 
fundamental right of men and women to govern themselves freely.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that the entire article by Mr. Frank be placed in 
the Record, and I urge my colleagues read it and give it thoughtful and 
careful attention.

                     Democracy Reaffirmed in Israel

       In the emotional aftermath of the searing, tragic murder of 
     Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli society has understandably been deeply 
     engaged in a debate over the role of dissent in a democracy. 
     But the most important aspect of this debate--both for Israel 
     and the rest of the world--is what is not being discussed. No 
     significant elements within Israel are arguing that there 
     should be any serious curtailment of the vigorous, open 
     democracy that has characterized Israel since its beginning. 
     It is significant that Israelis are not questioning their 
     commitment to democracy at this terrible time.
       In many societies, the murder of a popular leader in the 
     midst of a delegate set of negotiations involving the 
     security of the Nation would have led to widespread 
     repression of elements in the opposition party, whether or 
     not they were connected to the murder. The sad fact is that 
     in most societies facing the kind of overwhelming physical 
     threats to their existence that Israel has lived with since 
     1948, democracy would never have flourished in the first 
     place. The mature, pained, thoughtful response of Israeli 
     society to this murder is a reminder of something that would 
     be a grave error to overlook: every condition that has been 
     put forward by repressive rulers in the post-war world to 
     justify the suppression of democracy has been present in 
     Israel since its inception, and the experience of Israel is 
     an eloquent repudiation of the notion that democracy is a 
     luxury to be indulged only by those nations that are 
     prosperous and secure.
       From its birth, Israel's existence was threatened by attack 
     from the overwhelmingly larger hostile forces which surround 
     it. While fighting to defend its right to exist, Israel has 
     also coped with the difficult economic problems of a new 
     nation, compounded by the military drain on its resources and 
     its unshakable commitment to absorb large numbers of Jewish 
     refugees from oppression elsewhere in the world. Through all 
     of this, Israel has maintained a commitment to a flourishing, 
     vigorous democracy, governed by leaders chosen in elections 
     as free as those held anywhere in the world, amidst 
     untrammeled--often raucous--free speech.
       Among those who have enjoyed the rights of free speech and 
     the ability to participate fully in free elections are 
     members of the Arab minority, some of whom reject the very 
     legitimacy of the state of Israel. But that rejection has 
     never been used to prevent them from participating fully in 
     the electoral process on a one-person/one-vote basis, and 
     those they vote for are seated in parliament with full rights 
     to vote, debate, etc.
       There should be nothing remarkable about these facts, and 
     in the United States or much of Western Europe they would not 
     be. But among those nations which have come into being since 
     the end of the war, this pattern is an exception. And it is 
     especially exceptional in nations that have faced severe 
     external threats from heavily armed enemies, have been 
     struggling simultaneously with the difficult task of economic 
     development, have been severely divided internally over some 
     fundamental issues involving the security of the nation and 
     have undergone the difficult social process of absorption of 
     large numbers of migrants, many of whom come ill-prepared at 
     first to deal with the complexities of modern society.
       In fact, Israel has now become through the peace process an 
     exporter of democracy in the Middle East. The elections that 
     will soon 

[[Page E4]]
     be held in the West Bank will be freer and more democratically 
     legitimated than any other elections in the nations 
     surrounding Israel. It is highly unlikely that Yasser Arafat 
     would have decided that elections were the appropriate path 
     to power in the emerging Palestinian entity had that not been 
     a condition laid down by the Israeli government in the 
     ongoing negotiations.
       As with our own country, Israeli democracy has not been 
     perfect. There have been lapses, although these have been few 
     compared with the territories. And much of what we know about 
     these occasional lapses comes from the vigorous denunciation 
     of them from people and organizations within Israel, because 
     its democracy is among other things appropriately self-
     critical.
       Israel is not the only new nation that is working hard to 
     demonstrate that democracy is the best way to cope with the 
     multiple dangers in the post-war world. Through the efforts 
     of Nelson Mandela and others, South Africa is also on the 
     list of societies that seek to make this point. But for 
     nearly 50 years, Israel has been the most persistent and 
     successful in demonstrating that democracy is not a luxury to 
     be enjoyed only by societies that are wealthy, secure and 
     well insulated from outside attack, but is a recognition of 
     the fundamental right of men and women to govern themselves 
     freely. When properly understood, it strengthens society and 
     better enables it to cope with the gravest problems.

                          ____________________