[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 76 (Tuesday, June 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5826-S5827]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the latest round of violence in the
Middle East has dealt more pain and suffering to the people of that
region, as well as another blow to the peace process. And though I
remain firmly convinced that a final status agreement--which provides
firm and enforceable security guarantees for Israel--remains not only
the most desirable way out of the cycle of violence but indeed the only
way to achieve lasting peace and security for all of the people in the
region, the fundamental problem at present is whether or not Yasir
Arafat is capable of ever becoming a reliable partner in the peace
process. The answer, as unfortunate for future generations of
Palestinians as for Israelis and for all of those who crave peace in
the Middle East, would seem to be an emphatic NO, as indicated by his
dismissal of the historic compromise offered by then-Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Barak late last year. Unless and until Chairman Arafat,
or a successor, can demonstrate the capacity to make peace as well as
war, the outlook for the Middle East peace process will remain bleak.
Thomas Friedman makes this case effectively and forcefully in a May
22 editorial in the New York Times, entitled ``It Only Gets Worse.'' I
ask unanimous consent that the Friedman editorial be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, May 22, 2001]
It Only Gets Worse
(By Thomas L. Friedman)
The long-awaited Mitchell commission report about Israeli-
Palestinian violence was released yesterday, and now there is
a debate over what to do with its recommendations. I have a
suggestion. It's kind of a two-for-one deal. Take all the
Mitchell reports, make a big pile out of them, and set them
ablaze into a gigantic bonfire. It would surely generate
enough heat, and light, to make a small contribution to the
Bush energy plan.
Am I being unfair? Yes, just a bit. George Mitchell is a
good man, and the central argument of his report is right, in
the narrowest sense: If you want to stop the latest Israeli-
Palestinian slide into the abyss, first there must be a
cessation of all violence, and then confidence-building
steps, including a settlements freeze and Palestinian
security measures.
My problem with the Mitchell report is that it
fundamentally ignores how we got into this abyss and the only
real way out. It is not because of Israeli settlements. The
settlements are foolish, and their continued expansion is a
shameful act of colonial coercion that will meet the fate of
all other colonial enterprises in history. The inability of
American Jewish leaders or U.S. governments to speak out
against settlement expansion--which should be stopped under
any conditions for Israel's sake--is a blot on all of them.
But the settlements are not the core problem. The core
problem right now is Yasir
[[Page S5827]]
Arafat--the Palestinian leader who cannot say ``yes'' and
will not say ``uncle.''
President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak put on
the table before Mr. Arafat a historic compromise proposal
that would have given Palestinians control of 94 to 96
percent of the West Bank and Gaza--with all the settlements
removed, virtually all of Arab East Jerusalem, a return to
Israel of a symbolic number of Palestinian refugees and
either the right of return to the West Bank and Gaza or
compensation for all the others.
Not only would Mr. Arafat not take it, he would not even
say: ``Well, this was insufficient, but this is the most far-
reaching and serious proposal Palestinians have ever seen.
Now, I want to enter into a dialogue with the Israeli people
and government to see if I can get them to 100 percent.''
No, instead, Mr. Arafat launched this idiotic uprising. He
did so because he is essentially a political coward and
maneuverer, who apparently has not given up his long-term aim
of eliminating Israel and who was afraid in the short run
that if he took 99 percent, he would be killed for the 1
percent he left on the table. Mr. Arafat has never been
willing to tell his people he got them most of what they
wanted and now is the time to end the suffering of as many
Palestinians as possible and move on.
This truth is what the Mitchell ``investigation'' should be
telling the world and the Palestinians. There was an Israeli
leader, and a slim Israeli majority, for a fair historic
compromise. But there was no Palestinian equivalent, and
unless there is a Palestinian partner, and a Palestinian
leader, for a historic compromise roughly along the Clinton
lines, no cease-fire is going to hold.
The best Hebrew biography of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon is entitled ``He Doesn't Stop at Red Lights.'' Mr.
Arafat's biography should be entitled ``He Doesn't Go at
Green Lights.''
Now Mr. Sharon--who was elected in the Israeli backlash
against the failure of Camp David--is trying to pummel Mr.
Arafat into submission. That won't work either. Because Mr.
Arafat is as afraid to say ``uncle'' to Sharon as much as he
was afraid to say ``yes'' to Clinton. He fears he would be
killed for saying uncle as much as he would be killed for
saying yes to 99 percent. The Palestinians will never be
bombed into submission. One hundred years of Palestinian
history tells you that.
The real problem is that the Palestinians are leaderless
today, and that is what the U.S., the U.N. and the Arab would
have to face up to. Deep down, they all know it and they
admit it to each other in private. There is no Palestinian
leader right now willing or able to say yes to a fair
historic compromise, and we simply fool ourselves with
commissions that don't acknowledge that. Unless the Arabs can
stiffen Mr. Arafat by supporting him in any grand compromise,
or by creating a context in which an alternative leadership
can emerge, this bonfire will rage on and it will consume
many, many others.
____________________