[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1918-S1920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE ISRAELI ELECTION AND ITS AFTERMATH

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today a new government has been formed 
in Israel under the leadership of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, with 
Shimon Peres as Foreign Minister and the broad-based participation of 
many across Israel's political spectrum.
  I would like to take a few minutes today to share my assessment of 
the present situation, where things stand, and what this may mean for 
U.S. policy in the region. I rise today as one who has supported the 
peace process, believed that a peace agreement was possible, and who 
has worked in the Senate, along with many of my colleagues, to see that 
the United States played an active role in helping Israel and the 
Palestinians seek peace.
  Prime Minister Ehud Barak was elected two years ago to make peace and 
to bring about an ``end of the conflict'' with both Syria and the 
Palestinians. He was elected with a mandate to complete the Oslo 
process, a goal at the time supported by the majority of the people of 
Israel.
  Over the past two years Prime Minister Barak tried, heroically and 
energetically, to achieve a comprehensive peace with both parties.

[[Page S1919]]

  Indeed, it has been said I believe, that Prime Minister Barak went 
further than any other Israeli Prime Minister in an attempt to reach a 
comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians which includes:
  The creation of a Palestinian state;
  Palestinian control of all of Gaza;
  Palestinian control of approximately 94 to 95 percent of the West 
Bank, and territorial compensation for most of the other five percent;
  A division of Jerusalem, with Palestinian control over the Arab 
neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and the possibility of a Palestinian 
capitol in Jerusalem; and
  Shared sovereignty arrangements for the Temple Mount.
  The issue of Palestinian refugees, was addressed with tens of 
thousands of Palestinians to be allowed into Israel as part of a family 
reunification program, and compensation in the tens of billions of 
dollars provided to other Palestinian refugees as well.
  Not only was the Palestinian response to these unprecedented offers 
``no,'' but, even as Prime Minister Barak attempted to engage Chairman 
Yasser Arafat at the negotiation table, the Palestinians took to a 
campaign of violence in the streets, and threatened to unilaterally 
declare an independent Palestinian state:
  When the violence began, the Fatah's militia, the Tanzim, fired upon 
Israelis with submachine guns. The Fatah and the Tanzim have been 
active in the violence--even encouraging its escalation--to this day;
  Chairman Arafat freed a number of Hamas terrorists who instantly 
turned around and vowed violence against Israel;
  The Palestinian media, under the control of the Palestinian 
Authority, has been used to disseminate inciting material, providing 
encouragement to damage holy Jewish sites, to kill Israelis, and carry 
out acts of terror; and,
  Palestinian schools were closed down by the Palestinian Authority 
allowing Palestinian children to participate in the riots and violence.
  And in reaction, all too often, Israel, too, has resorted to violence 
in an effort to protect its security and safeguard the lives of its 
people.
  This new Intifadah has been characterized by a level of hate and 
violence that, frankly, I did not believe possible in view of the 
extensive concessions Israel had offered.
  And it is clear, I believe, that much of this campaign of violence, 
this new Intifadah which continues to this day, has been coordinated 
and planned.
  Because I was at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos two months 
ago which was also attended by Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat, I read 
with great interest Tom Friedman's op-ed in The New York Times 3 weeks 
ago.
  As Mr. Friedman's column reports, when Mr. Peres extended the olive 
branch to Mr. Arafat at Davos, ``Mr. Arafat torched it.''
  I urge all of my colleagues to read Thomas Friedman's op-ed article: 
``Sharon, Arafat and Mao,'' which I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 8, 2001]

                         Sharon, Arafat and Mao

                        (By Thomas L. Friedman)

       So I'm at the Davos World Economic Forum two weeks ago, and 
     Shimon Peres walks by. One of the reporters with him asks me 
     if I'm going to hear Mr. Peres and Yasir Arafat address the 
     1,000 global investors and ministers attending Davos. No, I 
     tell him, I have a strict rule, I'm only interested in what 
     Mr. Arafat says to his own people in Arabic. Too bad, says 
     the reporter, because the fix is in. Mr. Peres is going to 
     extend an olive branch to Mr. Arafat, Mr. Arafat is going to 
     do the same back and the whole love fest will get beamed back 
     to Israel to boost the peace process and Ehud Barak's re-
     election. Good, I'll catch it on TV, I said.
       Well, Mr Peres did extend the olive branch, as planned, but 
     Mr. Arafat torched it. Reading in Arabic from a prepared 
     text, Mr. Arafat denounced Israel for its ``facist military 
     aggression'' and ``colonialist armed expansionism,'' and its 
     policies of ``murder, persecution, assassination, destruction 
     and devastation.''
       Mr. Arafat's performance at Davos was a seminal event, and 
     is critical for understanding Ariel Sharon's landslide 
     election. What was Mr. Arafat saying by this speech, with Mr. 
     Peres sitting by his side? First, he was saying that there is 
     no difference between Mr. Barak and Mr. Sharon. Because 
     giving such a speech on the eve of the Israeli election, in 
     the wake of an 11th-hour Barak bid to conclude a final deal 
     with the Palestinians in Taba, made Mr. Barak's far-reaching 
     offer to Mr. Arafat look silly. Moreover, Mr. Arafat was 
     saying that there is no difference between Mr. Peres and Mr. 
     Sharon, because giving such a speech just after the warm 
     words of Mr. Peres made Mr. Peres look like a dupe, as all 
     the Israeli papers reported. Finally, at a time when 
     Palestinians are starving for work, Mr. Arafat's subliminal 
     message to the global investors was: Stay away.
       That's why the press is asking exactly the wrong question 
     about the Sharon election. They're asking, who is Ariel 
     Sharon? The real question is, who is Yasir Arafat? The press 
     keeps asking: Will Mr. Sharon become another Charles de 
     Gaulle, the hard-line general who pulled the French Army out 
     of Algeria? Or will he be Richard Nixon, the anti-Communist 
     who made peace with Communist China? Such questions totally 
     miss the point.
       Why? Because Israel just had its de Gaulle. His name was 
     Ehud Barak. Mr. Barak was Israel's most decorated soldier. He 
     abstained in the cabinet vote over the Oslo II peace accords. 
     But once in office he changed 180 degrees. He offered Mr. 
     Arafat 94 percent of the West Bank for a Palestinian state, 
     plus territorial compensation for most of the other 6 
     percent, plus half of Jerusalem, plus restitution and 
     resettlement in Palestine for Palestinian refugees. And Mr. 
     Arafat not only said no to all this, but described Israel as 
     ``fascist'' as Mr. Barak struggled for re-election. It would 
     be as though de Gaulle had offered to withdraw from Algeria 
     and the Algerians said: ``Thank you. You're a fascist. Of 
     course we'll take all of Algeria, but we won't stop this 
     conflict until we get Bordeaux, Marseilles and Nice as 
     well.''
       If the Palestinians don't care who Ariel Sharon is, why 
     should we? If Mr. Arafat wanted an Israeli leader who would 
     not force him to make big decisions, which he is incapable of 
     making, why should we ask whether Mr. Sharon is going to be 
     de Gaulle and make him a big offer? What good is it for 
     Israel to have a Nixon if the Palestinians have no Mao?
       The Olso peace process was about a test. It was about 
     testing whether Israel had a Palestinian partner for a secure 
     and final peace. It was a test that Israel could afford, it 
     was a test that the vast majority of Israelis wanted and it 
     was a test Mr. Barak courageously took to the limits of the 
     Israeli political consensus--and beyond. Mr. Arafat 
     squandered that opportunity. Eventually, Palestinians will 
     ask for a makeup exam. And eventually Israelis may want to 
     give it to them, if they again see a chance to get this 
     conflict over with. But who knows what violence and pain will 
     be inflicted in the meantime?
       All we know is that for now, the Oslo test is over. That is 
     what a vast majority of Israelis said in this election. So 
     stop asking whether Mr. Sharon will become de Gaulle. That is 
     not why Israelis elected him. They elected him to be Patton. 
     They elected Mr. Sharon because they know exactly who he is, 
     and because seven years of Oslo have taught them exactly who 
     Yasir Arafat is.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Mr. Friedman makes a simple but 
profound point. He writes that many ``are asking exactly the wrong 
question about the Sharon election. They're asking, who is Ariel 
Sharon? The real question is, who is Yasser Arafat?''
  He continues, ``the press keeps asking: Will Mr. Sharon become 
another Charles de Gaulle . . . or will he be Richard Nixon, the anti-
Communist who made peace with Communist China?''
  So we naturally ask the question, will Ariel Sharon reach out to the 
Palestinians? As Tom Friedman points out, this is exactly the wrong way 
to look at Ariel Sharon or the recent election.

       Why? Because Israel just had its de Gaulle. His name was 
     Ehud Barak. Mr. Barak was Israel's most decorated soldier. He 
     abstained in the cabinet vote over the Oslo II peace accords. 
     But once in office he changed 180 degrees. He offered Mr. 
     Arafat 94 percent of the West Bank for a Palestinian state . 
     . . plus half of Jerusalem . . . and Mr. Arafat not only said 
     no to all this, but described Israel as ``fascist'' as Mr. 
     Barak struggled for re-election.

  Mr. Friedman continues to state what has become clear: ``What good is 
it for Israel to have a Nixon if the Palestinians have no Mao?''
  As someone who has been a supporter of the Oslo process from the 
start, I say this with a great deal of regret. And I wish this were not 
the case. But we have seen Israel make the offer, an historic offer, 
only to have it rebuffed. The consequences of this could, in fact, be 
devastating.
  In his victory speech, Prime Minister Sharon called on the 
Palestinians ``to cast off the path of violence and to return to the 
path of dialogue'' while acknowledging that ``peace requires painful 
compromises on both sides.''

[[Page S1920]]

  Mr. Sharon has said that he favors a long-term interim agreement with 
the Palestinians since a comprehensive agreement is not now possible 
because the Palestinians have shown they are not ready to conclude such 
an agreement.
  He has stated that he accepts a demilitarized Palestinian state, is 
committed to improving the daily lives of the Palestinians, and has 
reportedly indicated that he does not plan to build new West Bank 
settlements.
  Whatever happens, there can be little doubt that it will have a 
profound impact on United States strategic interests in the Middle 
East. And because of that, the United States must remain an interested 
party in the region.
  I believe that it is critical that both parties need to make every 
effort to end the current cycle of provocation and reaction, with a 
special responsibility that is incumbent upon the Palestinian Authority 
to seek an end to the riots, the terror, the bombings, and the 
shootings. There must be a ``time out'' on violence before the 
situation degenerates further into war.
  We can all remember the images, from last fall, of the Palestinian 
child hiding behind his father, caught in the cross-fire, shot to 
death, and then the images, a few days later, the pictures of the 
Israeli soldier who was beaten while in custody and thrown out of a 
second floor window of the police station, to be beaten to death by the 
mob below.
  It is easy to understand how passions can run high, and frustration 
and fear can drive violence.
  But it is also easy to see how these feelings--even these feelings, 
that are based in legitimate aspiration--can get out of control and 
lead to ever deeper, and never-ending, cycles of violence.
  The Palestinian leadership must make every effort to end this cycle, 
to quell the attitude of hate that has been fostered among the 
Palestinian people, and to act to curb the violence, and to convince 
Israel that they are indeed serious and sincere about pursuing peace.
  But until there is evidence that the violence is ending, the United 
States cannot be productively engaged between the two parties.
  If both Israel and the Palestinians can make progress in curbing or 
ending the violence, the United States can play an important role in 
helping to shape intermediate confidence-building measures between 
Israel and the Palestinians. The current environment makes a 
comprehensive agreement impossible, but proximity gives the Israelis 
and the Palestinians no choice but to learn to live together. The 
alternative is clearly war.
  And the United States must continue to work together with Israel to 
strengthen the bilateral relationship, to ensure that Israel has the 
tools it needs to defend itself, and to enhance security in the region.
  There are those who now believe that the Palestinians don't want 
peace; that, in fact, they want to continue the violence, and force 
Israel into the sea; to take back Jaffa; to take back Haifa.
  There is a segment of the population that believes this is true. But 
I say, how realistic is this? Can there be any doubt that Israel has 
the ability to defend itself, and will? Or that should there be an 
effort to attack Israel, to end this democracy, that the United States 
would be fully involved? There is no doubt of that.
  So the ball is now in the Palestinian court, to show that 
Palestinians are interested in ending violence and bloodshed. Israel, 
under Barak, has shown how far it will go to search for peace, much 
further than I ever thought possible. The concessions offered at Camp 
David, and after, are testament, I believe, to Israel's desire and 
commitment for peace. But to seek to force peace in light of hostility 
and hatred on the streets is neither realistic nor sustainable.
  The Sharon election, I believe, can be seen as a referendum on 
Arafat's actions and policies, and the Palestinian violence, and it 
must be taken seriously by the Palestinians if the peace process is to 
ever get back on track.
  Just last summer, the 7-year-old peace process seemed on the verge of 
success, but the chairman walked away from the deal at the last moment.
  I hope that someday soon Chairman Arafat will realize the profound 
disservice that he has done his people, and the people of the world, 
that he will realize that the framework for peace was on the table, 
that he will realize that continued violence is not the way to achieve 
the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, and that 
continued violence will not gain him or his people additional 
concessions at the negotiating table.
  And I believe that if and when he does realize this, when he takes 
action to bring the current violence to an end, he will find that 
Israel remains a partner in the search for peace in the Middle East, 
with the United States as a facilitator.
  Until then, however, the United States must be clear that we continue 
to stand with Israel, an historic ally and partner in the search for 
security and peace in the Middle East.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Arkansas.

                          ____________________