[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 9, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E601-E603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page E601]]
COMMITTED TO REAL PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST REGION
______
HON. NEWT GINGRICH
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 9, 1997
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, the United States has been, and will
continue to be, committed to seeing real peace in the Middle East
region. All Americans need to look at the daily events in that region
with as full an understanding as possible of what is happening and why.
For that purpose, I enter into the Congressional Record my comments
yesterday to the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee.
Remarks by House Speaker Newt Gingrich to the American Israeli Public
Affairs Committee
Speaker Gingrich. Thank you very, much for that remarkable
welcome. Although I must warn you that one of the dangers of
Washington is you sit here and you listen to the kind of
introduction that Bubba Mitchell just gave me, is that as
you--as it builds, you start to get excited and you get
forward to hearing from the person, and then you realize it's
yourself, and there's a sort of immediate letdown. So--
(laughter).
One of the nice things about working with Bubba is that you
always end up looking better than you remembered as he
explains whatever the role was. But it is--it's great to be
here and to have a chance to be with you, and to be with
Melvin. And I appreciate very much all the leadership, the
team that has come together here. We work very closely with
Howard Core (sp). And as I think many of you know, Arne
Christenson, who is the speaker's chief of staff, has a long
record. Where's Arne? He's down there. Let me also say that
it's great to be back--I look out--I don't want to go through
a long list of names and start forgetting people. Ed Levy,
who first came to me, I think in 1978, and helped us because
he saw a commercial on what was then a brand new innovation
called the Superstation, and said this is a guy we want to
support. Larry Weinberg, who's been a great friend, out in
Los Angeles--we were with recently.
I'm told that Harriet Zimmerman, who really has been, from
an Atlanta standpoint, terribly important, had a back problem
and is not here. So I hope those of you--I'm going to try to
give her a call, but I hope all of you--I saw Herb
Schwartzman was with us a few minutes ago. And just so many
friends from all over the country who have been part of the
extended family. Many of you have heard me say this before,
but it bears repeating, particularly for the younger, newer
members. AIPAC is extraordinarily vital to all of American
foreign policy. You are the--You are the only institution I
know of at the grassroots level which in an effective,
consistent manner supports the role of America in the entire
world, helps members get to learn about the world.
Congressman John Linder took a group again in January and
began the process of getting them to realize the realities of
power, the realities of distance, and the uniquences of
Jerusalem and of the Israeli experience of democracy in the
Middle Eastern context.
And so, far from the foreign aid program and American
military programs somehow being burdened by our relationship
with Israel, I believe it is fair to say, as a congressional
leader, that without your hard work and your grassroots
effort and your education programs, the entire foreign aid
program would dramatically decline. And it is indeed the
aid to the rest of the world which rides on the back of
the work you do, and not the aid to Israel which in any
way affects what we do around the world.
So what you're doing strengthens America by educating
members of Congress into the importance of our international
role and into the importance of leadership, and into the
principles that are at the heart of the survival of freedom.
And that's what I want to talk about today, because we need
a principled debate over honesty versus appeasement, over a
willingness to tell the truth versus a consistent and
deliberate slanting, over keeping your word versus breaking
your word and then simply moving on with the new demand. And
I think the debate is that simple.
There are military threats and intelligence threats, and I
want to talk about them briefly. But I think there's a much
deeper threat facing Israel today, and I want to spend more
time on that topic. Let me talk first, though, briefly about
the military threat.
We have an absolute obligation to our young men and women
in uniform and to our allies around the world to provide the
best defense that science and engineering can develop. And we
must not allow lawyers and diplomats to cripple our missile
defense by setting phony standards based on a phony deal.
This is exactly what happened in the '20s and '30s in the
Pacific when we signed agreements with the Japanese which
they violated while we kept them. It's exactly what happened
in Europe where the Allies signed agreements which the
Germans broke while the Allies kept them. And I don't want to
lose a city, I don't want to lose a single soldier, sailor,
airman or airwoman or Marine because we relied on lawyers and
diplomats when, in fact, our engineers and scientists could
have gotten the job done.
I also think it is tremendously important to look at the
recent Helsinki agreement and understand how dangerous it is
because we don't live in a world where the most likely threat
is Boris Yeltsin's government. Now, you don't have to suggest
that diplomacy is an inadequate protector when you look at
how shaky that government is.
But forget Russia. Assume Russia didn't exist. An agreement
that says the Russians won't threaten us is irrelevant if the
largest threat on the planet's from Iran. Now, I don't want
some legalese by a bunch of diplomats and lawyers, with
Russians, preventing us from providing over Tel Aviv or
providing over an American air base, or providing over an
American expeditionary force, the finest technology that
science and engineering can develop. We can defeat Iranian
missiles if we allow our scientists and engineers to our job
and if we work with the Arrow Program and Israel; and if
we pay attention to capability, not promises.
I also believe we have to be honest about terrorism.
Terrorism is not impossible to defeat, but it requires a
couple of things. It requires a bigger investment in human
intelligence. It requires a commitment to placing people for
a very long periods of time in very dangerous areas. It
requires a deep commitment to keep secrets in the United
States so people don't get killed because they're risking
their lives to penetrate terrorist organizations while people
back here babble. It requires principles that say, ``If
you're a terrorist, you should not expect to live very
long.'' It requires a commitment to preemptive strikes when
we deem them appropriate, to avoid weapons of mass
destruction. And it requires a willingness to focus energy
and resources on weak states, like Sudan, as a warning to
stronger states not to mess with the forces of democracy and
freedom.
Ronald Reagan understood the power of strength to multiply
itself, which is why, when the United States Navy shot down
two Libyan aircraft, the United States's sense of being
insecure disappeared. And across the planet, people began to
back off and realized we were determined. And we have to be
prepared to use our strength, not just talk about it. And we
need to be prepared to say, ``No state terrorism will go
unpunished on this planet, and we will take on those states
that use terrorism as a tool.''
Look, I take the military threat seriously. And most years,
I would have come and focused on that. But I really want to
break some new ground here today intellectually and talk
about something which, interestingly, I mentioned first at
the Foreign Diplomat School in Beijing a week ago, and that's
the concept of information warfare and information diplomacy
as the necessary new tools of the 21st century.
Now, many of you have read or seen things about information
warfare, which all too often is defined by the military too
narrowly in terms of computer systems and all that stuff.
I originally began working on information warfare in the
early 1980s, based on the concept that with CNN in every
living room on the planet in real time, you could lose the
war on television, even if you won it on the battlefield. And
the great challenge we face is that Arafat and the forces of
terrorism are in a coalition, engaged in an information
warfare campaign against Israel, a campaign in which the
American news media is serving as the witting or unwitting
ally of Arafat.
And if you want to see how successful--and I think this is,
frankly, the fault of the Israeli government and the American
government for not recognizing with sufficient intellectual
rigor the new nature of the world in the information age.
And I do not mean that as an attack on either President
Clinton or Prime Minister Netanyahu, but I mean it as an
institutional criticism of all of us. We are now in a
world where our opponents plan long campaigns, campaigns
that are vicious, dishonest and that exploit our
vulnerabilities. We react to each incident. So something
happens which they've thought through and moves the game a
half-step their way, and we react only momentarily, then
we forget. Then something happens and we react, and then
something happens. And it's definition creep.
Consider the difference--you know, Marianne and I were in
Israel weeks before the signing of the Oslo Accords. And
while the secret agreement in Oslo took the world by
surprise, in the weeks before it occurred there was a genuine
sense of hope, a seed that something might happen.
[[Page E602]]
Israel stood in a strong position in the region. Iraq had
been shattered militarily by the Americans and the coalition
forces. Syria, Israel's foe to the north, had lost its
patron, the Soviet Union. While terrorists continued to
operate out of Syria's vassal's state, Lebanon, Jordan seemed
poised for a closer relationship with Israel. And the hope
for progress, if not a breakthrough, with the Palestinians
seemed very real.
Several weeks later, the Oslo Accords were announced to the
world, and the ceremony on the White House lawn seemed to
foreshadow a new era of hope and peace. I remember being in a
meeting with Arafat in the Capitol and thinking maybe this
truly is a breakthrough, maybe something real will happen. I
stand before you today at a far more somber time. Today
Israel is not enduring a cold peace. Israel is enduring war
by other means. And that's what we're faced with.
And it's important to understand exactly what is happening
in the Middle East. Israel's enemies in the region are
attempting to achieve through terror and coordinated
propaganda what their armies could not achieve in battle--the
defeat of Israel. Their active accomplice in this campaign is
Israel's so-called ``partner'' in the peace process, Yasser
Arafat. What Arafat has failed to live up to is clear. More
than three years after Oslo, he still has not fulfilled his
promise to amend the PLO Chapter and remove its call for the
destruction of Israel.
And let me emphasize this for a second. How can you have a
partner, who three years after the beginning of the
partnership is still calling for your destruction? How can
you treat seriously, how can the American government claim
any possible sense of moral equality between a genuine
democracy seeking peace at the risk of lives of its citizens,
and a force which after three years has refused to renounce
the destruction of Israel?
Arafat's most recent excuse, in a long career of excuses,
is that Israel doesn't have a written Constitution. And, of
course, neither does Great Britain. But that's not the point.
Presumably, Arafat knew that before he signed the Oslo
Accord. The fact is, we should not tolerate his making
excuses. We should demand he keep his word, which he gave in
Oslo three years ago.
But far more damaging than words have been actions. It is
clear that Arafat has been unwilling to control terror. In
the 3\1/2\ years since Oslo, over 230 Israelis have been
killed in terrorist attacks, including the recent bombing of
a Tel Aviv cafe that killed four Israelis and wounded 42. And
notice the total lack of symmetry. Israel builds housing on
empty land. Terrorists kill Israelis. Israel is to blame. A
total lack of balance, a total lack of symmetry. And Arafat's
involvement and responsibility in tolerating the existence of
terrorism is clear. Far from just failing to act decisively
in stopping terrorism, Arafat's recent actions have amounted
to a green light for those who would kill and maim innocent
civilians to achieve their political aims.
On March 7th, Arafat met with representatives of Hamas and
three other radical groups that reject the peace process. Now
remember, the people who accept the peace process have not
given up their claim to destroy Israel, but the people who
don't even like the peace process while destroying Israel are
the ones we're talking about. These are the harder line of
the hard line. Because it's important not to kid yourselves.
There is at the present time no visible evidence of any
serious commitment to a true peace in which Israel lives in
peace and security and freedom in the region.
But here's what Arafat did. On March 10th, having met three
days earlier with leaders of Hamas, he released from prison
the head of Hamas military wing--the exact opposite of what
he should have been doing. The number one goal of the
Palestinians should have been to end the terrorism so Israel
could negotiate in security and comfort that it had a
neighbor that cared about its lives, and Arafat has taken the
opposite position. As tensions rose throughout March, Arafat
did not use his public statements or his security forces to
diminish the threat. Instead, he sinisterly raised the
possibility of spontaneous outbreaks of terror that might
occur if Israel did not change its policies. On March 21, a
Tel Aviv cafe experienced such a spontaneous outbreak of
violence. When the smoke cleared, four Israelis were dead, 42
wounded.
And what is the latest so-called ``provocation'' of which
Israel is guilty? What has it done to make it responsible for
the most recent spate of terrorism? Israel has begun the
construction of a housing development on a barren hilltop in
Jerusalem, situated between two existing Jewish
neighborhoods. Israel is guilty of building on land owned by
Jews within the boundaries of the city that every Israeli
government, and the Congress of the United States, has
recognized as Israel's eternal, undivided capital.
Let me be clear: Har Homa is not, as the media attempt to
insist, a ``settlement.'' It is a Jewish neighborhood in the
city Israel has chosen as her capital. And let me say, I hope
that no official of the American government, at any level,
anywhere uses the term ``settlement'' to describe a
legitimate housing development of the people of Israel. While
Arafat ignores his commitments to change the PLO Charter and
control terrorism, Israel is flogged in the international
community for not making unilateral concessions beyond the
demands of the Oslo Accord. As the columnist Saul Singer has
said, ``Israel is being asked to unilaterally abide by Oslo-
Plus, while the Palestinians feel free to act as if they had
signed Oslo-Minus.'' That is wrong, and we should reject that
formulation. Every friend of Israel must recognize that her
future does not rest solely on military preparedness and
diplomatic toughness. It rests on how Israel and her friends
combat a focused, coordinated campaign of propaganda to
vilify Israel in the international community and through the
worldwide media. When the American news media shows a rioting
crowd and attributes the violence to Israel's decision on Har
Homa, they undermine Israel's security.
When the American news media misrepresents the facts,
speaking of Har Homa as a Jewish settlement in, quote, ``Arab
East Jerusalem,'' they undermine Israel's security.
And let me note that Charles Krauthammer, two weeks ago,
wrote the definitive column on the falsehoods that I saw as
recently as yesterday on the American television networks as
they talked once again about ``Arab East Jerusalem'' which is
false and should be opposed and complained about every single
time it is used.
And frankly, when the Clinton-Gore administration treats
with moral equivalence Palestinian violence and Israeli
housing, they undermine Israel's security. There should be no
question of any pressure on the Israeli government to make
any concessions until Arafat has met the demands of 3\1/2\
years ago in Oslo, and the burden should be placed by the
American government on Arafat and the Palestinian Authority
to keep the word they already gave 3\1/2\ years ago before a
word is said to Israel.
Let me try to formulate this as clearly as I can for a
minute, because I think this--I think this is--no, there's
core principle here that we have forgotten, that Ronald
Reagan understood brilliantly because he had learned it from
Winston Churchill. It is extraordinarily dangerous to confuse
the aggressor and the victim. It is extraordinarily
dangerous to confuse the terrorist and the democracy. It
is extraordinarily dangerous to always impose the burden
on those who are your friends because you're too timid to
tell the truth to those who are your enemies.
Ever since Beirut, the press has been increasingly willing
to cover Israel with a bias and on a one-sided manner. We
can't afford 10 more years of systematic misinformation in
which somehow the Palestinians are always innocent, they are
always totally free of guilt, they're always trying hard,
their weakness becomes the excuse for their failure, their
inability to deliver is proof of why they need further
assistance, their willingness to scream loudly is proof of
why they need to be pacified, and nothing is demanded of
them.
While Israel, an open society with a free political system
and honest elections, is somehow gradually drug into the mud
so that any legitimate domestic activity of a free people
becomes attackable, while any secret, sinister terrorism of a
people who live in fear becomes defendable. And that's what
is happening in the world today, and this is, I believe, the
most desperate moment for Israel since Yom Kipper in 1973.
I think there are three principles that we need to impose.
First, never allow a wedge to be driven between the United
States and Israel. (Cheers, applause.) Second, hold Yasser
Arafat to his promises. And third, take an active role in
combating the false images of Israel in the press. Let me--.
Let me very briefly explain what I mean.
First of all, we should never allow a wedge to be driven
between the two democracies. And we certainly should not
allow that wedge to be driven by those who condone and
sustain terrorism.
Now, I was very dissappointed--and we sent a letter
expressing in advance our disappointment--that the United
States would attend a conference convened by Yasser Arafat in
March in Gaza, a conference that explicitly excluded Israel.
I hope this administration will make clear that it will never
again, ever attend a one-sided, anti-Israeli conference to
the exclusion of Israel. If Israel can't be in the room, why
should America walk in and teach the Arab world that they
don't need to deal with Israel?
You know, last year we--last Congress we passed the
legislation to move our embassy to Jerusalem. And certainly,
one of the most moving moments, I think of my entire life,
was the ceremony we had in the Rotunda at which Prime
Minister Rabin--it was the last time I saw him--celebrated
the 3000th anniversary of the founding of Jerusalem by King
David. And you had the sense there that you were touching
history in the deepest and most real sense. And if you've
never read his speech that day, I would really commend it to
you. It made the loss of his assassination much deeper and
much more painful. I think it's important that the United
States simply and unequivocally, as we have in the
Congress, that we recognize the undivided unity of
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, period, and end all
this, I think fantasy on the part of the Palestinians that
if only they make enough noise and have enough terrorism,
somehow they will win diplomatically what they lost
militarily. And I think we need to end any question of
that and say within that framework of your accepting the
existence of Israel and the unity of Jerusalem, peace can
be found. But without those two steps, there can't in the
long run be peace in the region.
Next week I will introduce a resolution with Dick Gephardt
to recognize the 30th anniversary of the unification of
Jerusalem. The message of the resolution is clear: The
[[Page E603]]
United States Congress believes in one Jerusalem never again
divided. It is the united capital of Israel.
While remaining unified with our democratic partner, we
need to hold Yasser Arafat to his promises. The United States
must force Arafat to choose. He must choose honest
involvement in the peace process or clear hostility with the
United States of America. The United States House will do its
part. Congressman Jon Fox has informed me that he is drafting
a resolution calling upon Arafat to keep his commitments now
with no more excuses.
Finally, I urge every one of you, and all of your friends,
to become a watchdog in the information warfare that is
undermining Israel. Every time you see an article that refers
to ``settlements,'' write a letter to the editor. If you know
the publisher, call them. If you know the editor, call them.
If you don't know the reporter, get to know them by calling
them. Every time you hear--you look at ``Arab East
Jerusalem,'' pick up the phone and call. We must become
militant in defeating the effort by media to defeat that
which cannot be defeated militarily, and that is precisely
what the Palestinians are trying to do today, is to use the
military to gain--the media to gain what they could never
gain on the battlefield. And it takes the vigilance of
individual Americans to stand up to that kind of pressure.
And I believe it would take six months or a year and you
would never again see those phrases, you would never again
see that kind of bias, and we would have reeducated the
American news media.
You know, this is a challenging period, but it's not a
hopeless period. I had the opportunity about 10 days ago to
be with the young men and women of the 2nd Infantry Division
of the border with North Korea. My dad served in the Korean
War. He was a career infantryman; spent 27 years in the Army.
It was a marvelous thing at 6:30 in the morning to be with
young men and women willing to risk their lives for freedom.
It was an amazing thing to realize that 20 miles away, the 13
million people of Seoul, Korea were getting up in the
morning, creating wealth, living prosperous lives, with a
free-press, chaotic, wide-open political system and all the
values that, frankly, are what we're really about.
Similarly, all of you who have ever visited Israel, who
have ever seen units of the Israeli defense forces, who have
ever talked to the young men and women, or as you get as old
as I am, you talk to the older men and women who tell you
about when they were younger men and women. We can win the
information struggle just as decisively as we have in the
past won military struggles, if we will engage as civilian
warriors, if you will, as information warriors. If we will be
prepared to be militant and direct and clear, I believe in a
year we will be in a different environment. The burden will
clearly be on those it should be on: on Egypt to provide a
positive, legitimate leadership role in favor of peace,
instead of, frankly, the current terribly unsatisfactory role
Egypt has chosen; on Arafat to have kept his word to lock up
the terrorists, to police the area; on all of us who believe
in decency to bring pressure to bear on Syria to get to a
peaceful Lebanon and to get to a reasonable relationship. We
don't have to fear. The coalition that defeated the Soviet
empire, ended the Cold War and liberated a third of the
planet is more than capable of sustaining democracy and
freedom and achieving security. But we have to be prepared
and we have to be willing to tell the truth, to insist on the
truth, and to go nose-to-nose with any who by their
propaganda and their disinformation would threaten the
survival of our closest ally in the region and would threaten
the survival of millions of decent people who ask only that
they be allowed to pursue happiness, live in freedom, and
have their children grow up in security.
Thank you. Good luck, and God bless you.
____________________