[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 88 (Friday, June 14, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S6278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               ISRAELI ELECTION ABOUT DEFINITION OF PEACE

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the campaign for Israel's first directly 
elected Prime Minister not only brought a victory for Benjamin 
Netanyahu but a defeat for the mistaken idea that peace can only be 
defined from a liberal perspective.
  While two well-qualified candidates with different ideologies each 
articulated their vision for the country, many in the American media--
those who reported on the campaign and the experts journalists chose to 
interview--hid behind stereotypes and missed the real point of the 
election. At its very core, the campaign was not about whether there 
should be peace but how to define it.
  The American media told us the issue was simply this: Shimon Peres, 
the liberal, wanted peace. Benjamin Netanyahu, the conservative, 
didn't. Implied in this ridiculous statement is the wrong assumption 
that only liberals understand peace.
  In the days since the election, the American media aren't quite 
certain how to characterize Mr. Netanyahu. When Mr. Netanyahu recently 
expressed his desire for Israel to continue to seek peace with its Arab 
neighbors--a position he has advocated all along--a Washington Post 
story identified him as ``kinder and gentler.''
  The media's failure to understand Benjamin Netanyahu and his 
conservative principles of real peace--real security underscores the 
differences in how liberals and conservatives view foreign policy.
  The left believes peace is simply the absence of conflict. To achieve 
peace, the left will do whatever is necessary and in many cases give up 
whatever is necessary simply to maintain the peace.
  Conservatives believe peace without freedom is false. Only through 
the guiding principle that freedom is the core of all human progress 
can a nation build a lasting peace. After all, what is peace without 
freedom? What is peace if it means living in constant fear? In Cuba and 
China today, there is peace, but certainly no freedom.
  When any nation builds its foreign policy on a foundation of freedom, 
democracy, justice, and human rights, true peace and hope will 
inevitably prevail.
  During the 1980's, the left and the media soundly criticized Ronald 
Reagan and Margaret Thatcher when their policies boldly stated that 
negotiations with the Soviet Union must be carried out from a position 
of strength and security . . . not appeasement.
  History proved them right. Freedom won. The Berlin Wall--a symbol of 
tyranny and oppression--crumbled and communism was replaced by 
capitalism.
  Even if many in the American media apparently believe in the 
ludicrous claim that appeasement leads to peace, Israeli Jews--a 
majority of whom voted for Netanyahu--correctly understand that 
protecting freedom is essential to preserving peace.
  In his analysis of the election, A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times 
said it best when he wrote: ``the majority was not voting against 
peace--the very idea is idiocy--but for the hope that Mr. Netanyahu and 
a Likud-led coalition might create a peace they could trust while they 
slept, not just while they stood at arms.''
  In a region where Israel's neighbors have vowed its destruction, 
where thousands of missiles in other countries are pointed at Israel's 
cities, where well-financed terrorists threaten to murder and frighten 
Israel's citizens, appeasement through weakness will only invite more 
violence, more bloodshed and inevitably a loss of freedom and peace.
  We all want peace for Israel--a shining jewel of democracy in a 
region where freedom is often unwelcome. Choosing the best road for 
achieving that peace is the task that awaits Benjamin Netanyahu. He 
understands--as well as the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews who 
voted for him--that only when Israel is secure, can Israel truly be 
free and at peace.

                          ____________________