[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 166 (Tuesday, December 4, 2001)]
[House]
[Page H8749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ISRAEL MUST DEFEND ITSELF

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, at a profoundly troubling time in the Middle 
East, I want to express very strongly my complete support for the right 
of the government of Israel to defend itself, its existence as a 
Nation, and its people from the systematic campaign of mass murder that 
is being inflicted on it. Americans should understand that if we take 
into account the populations of the two countries, the number of 
victims of blatant terrorism against unarmed civilians in Israel 
exceeds in the past few months the number of tragic deaths suffered 
here in America, and the Israeli government has every right to respond 
in a way that protects its people.
  I say that, Mr. Speaker, as one who was a strong supporter of the 
peace process that President Clinton encouraged the parties in the 
Middle East to undertake. I thought that Prime Minister Barak, former 
Prime Minister Barak, took very creditworthy risks on behalf of peace. 
I defend the right of the Israeli government to support itself, not 
because peace is an irrelevancy, but because peace cannot come in an 
atmosphere of terror. In fact, we should be very clear that the recent 
terrible, tragic increase in the deaths of innocent people was brought 
about, in part, by people who are threatened by peace, who do not want 
to see coexistence of an Israeli and Palestinian State. It is not an 
accident that as the Bush administration repudiated its past mistake of 
staying out of the Middle East peace process in their effort to 
repudiate everything that President Clinton had done, it is not a 
coincidence that the terror stepped up after the Bush administration 
sought to increase peace efforts.
  The mistake, however, would be to say that the terrorism should be 
allowed to have an impact. People who argue that the way to end and 
respond to terrorism in the short run is in some ways to move towards 
the policies advocated by the terrorists make an error.
  I am in favor of some change in Israeli policy. I think that the 
expansion of settlements is a grave error. I think the Mitchell 
Commission was right on that point. I think there ought to be movement 
towards peace. But if that movement is seen to have come as a result of 
mass murder, it gives an encouragement to the policy of murder.
  The second question that has to be addressed here is, can Yasser 
Arafat in fact put an end to this. People have said well, in defense of 
Arafat, even if he wanted to put an end to this terror, he could not do 
it. Those who make that argument, and I am skeptical that anyone really 
knows the answer, but those who make that argument should be very 
clear: That is an attack on the peace process. If in fact Arafat 
confronts a population so imbued with hatred for Israel, so opposed to 
the notion of a genuine peace that could be acceptable to both sides, 
that he is powerless to put an end to this systematic murder campaign, 
then the prospects for peace are very bleak indeed.
  I hope that is not the case. I think the Israeli government, with the 
encouragement and support of the U.S. Government should continue to 
probe. But we should be very clear that the so-called defense of 
Arafat, namely that bringing about an end to the terror and bringing 
about a genuine commitment to peace is beyond his capacity or the 
capacity of any other Palestinian leader is, in fact, a repudiation of 
the peace process. And in any case, whether that bleak prospect is what 
faces us or not, no one can deny the right of the democratically 
elected government of Israel to defend its people against a systematic 
campaign of mass murder, and no government should be asked to divert 
its attention from that most fundamental task of a government, that 
most fundamental responsibility of government to protect its innocent 
and unarmed citizens from systematic murder; no one should be diverted 
from that.
  If, in fact, Arafat is sincere and he has the power, we will see that 
soon. He will genuinely cooperate in putting an end to this campaign. 
And if not, and if the peace process founders because of that, since no 
government can be expected to seriously negotiate under the threat of 
this sort of systematic campaign of terror, then it will be clear where 
the responsibility lies, and it will not be with the government of 
Israel.

                          ____________________