[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 65 (Monday, May 20, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2654-H2659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           SUPPORTING ISRAEL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hard-working members of 
our staff for keeping them here at this hour. I do not often indulge in 
long speeches at this time of night, but I do feel an obligation to 
talk about the situation in the Middle East, particularly the security 
of Israel and the position of Israel vis-a-vis the United States, for 2 
reasons.
  First, it is a subject both very important and very emotional. A 
large number of people in my district, as in every other, care deeply 
about this. I believe the people who feel the most strongly and the 
largest number are people who, like myself, have both an emotional 
attachment to Israel and also a strong intellectual degree of support 
for it. There are others who are troubled by what is happening in the 
Middle East and are somewhat critical or harshly critical of the 
Israeli government.
  I think it is an obligation of those of us in elected office when an 
issue is of this importance to explain ourselves, and I find here, 
given the complexity of the issue, I think it is an essentially simple 
one. I believe that simplicity consists of the fact that for more than 
50 years, until maybe recently, and we still do not know this, there 
has been an unwillingness on the part of the Arab community in the 
Middle East to allow Israel to exist.
  The troubles began when the UN voted in a resolution, UN resolutions 
have become the currency in the Middle East of late, but the most 
important UN resolution, the one which said that there should be 2 
states, Israel and Palestine, was not only disregarded by the Arab 
world at that time, but became the occasion for violent attack, and it 
always ought to be remembered if the Arab world had abided by UN 
resolutions 50-some years ago, we would have the 2-state solution which 
so many, including myself, think is the best ultimate answer, without a 
lot of killing and without a lot of misery and pain. But while there is 
essential simplicity to the issue, there are, when things have been 
going on for 55 years, a great deal of complexity, and that needs to be 
addressed.
  But I also want to talk about it because precisely because I do 
believe very strongly that the continued existence of Israel as a free, 
democratic society, with secure boundaries, is important morally for 
the world, as well as in our interests as a country. I worry that some 
people, particularly within Israel, may have misinterpreted recent 
events in the United States.
  I think there continues to be very strong support for Israel's right 
to exist and for its right to have secure boundaries. I think there is 
a great deal of admiration, as there should be, for what Israel has 
accomplished economically and socially and politically in the broadest 
sense, that is, maintaining a democracy.
  The excuse we often hear from violators of human rights, people who 
disregard democratic procedures, is that democracy is kind of a luxury 
for a nation that is at peace, but we are often told when a nation is 
at war, it really cannot afford to be democratic, it cannot afford such 
luxuries as electing a government and then throwing it out of office by 
open means, a freely critical parliament, open press, free speech.
  In fact, Israel, from the moment of its existence, was under siege, 
indeed, people were attacking it before it existed as a sovereign 
nation. It has been in a war-like state, unfortunately, I think not 
through its own choice, for its entire existence, and, despite that, 
has brought forward one of the most flourishing democracies in the 
world and, sadly, the only democracy of any consistency in that part of 
the world. So I am grateful to the people of Israel for showing that 
democracy is not a source of weakness, not something to be put aside 
when things are tough, but a source of great strength.
  That respect for Israel, that admiration for it, that understanding 
that it has played a very important role as an ally of America, all 
contribute to a great deal of American support for Israel, as does the 
fact as it is, as we know, the successor state to that horror, the 
Holocaust, in which an organized state tried to wipe out a people, and 
came closer than anyone would have thought before could have been done.
  Yes, there is a moral obligation to the remnants of the Holocaust and 
they were given a safe haven. As we know, had there been such a place 
during the time of the Holocaust, many who died, many who escaped only 
to be sent back because no one would take them, would still be alive.
  So there is legitimately a great deal of support for Israel. What I 
fear, however, is that some within Israel will assume that that support 
is there, here in America, no matter what, despite policy decisions 
Israel might take.

  Now, Israel is a democracy, as I said, and people will say, you know, 
a democracy has a right to make its own choices. Of course it does. The 
people of Israel have a right to elect governments, advocate positions, 
as any democracy does. I will note that there is a certain 
inconsistency from some who now say that because when Ehud Barak was 
prime minister and trying very hard with the support of former 
President Clinton to reach a reasonable peace, some of those who now 
tell me that it is inappropriate to differ with the government of 
Israel were much less reluctant to do that under Prime Minister Barak 
or under the martyred Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin. But Israel has a 
right to make decisions.
  On the other hand, it is also the case that the United States is a 
democracy and it has a right to make decisions.
  Now, American support at a very high level is essential, I believe, 
for Israel to be able to survive as a free and secure society. It is a 
small population. They have done wonders. But they are so heavily 
outnumbered, they are devoid of the kind of resources that many of 
their historic enemies have had, and there has been, for reasons that 
do the rest of the world no credit, a great deal of unfair criticism, I 
think, of Israel, so Israel has really found itself consistently bereft 
of friends in many cases when it counted, with the consistent exception 
of the United States.
  It is entirely valid for the United States, in my judgment, to 
provide a degree of military assistance to Israel. This is a nation 
which is forced to survive to spend a very high percentage of its own 
income on the military. I think America plays a very useful role in 
helping them deal with that.
  It is a nation which has had a policy of taking in people from the 
former Soviet Union, from Ethiopia, from Arab countries who were driven 
out, Yemen, Morocco and elsewhere. It is very important that they be 
able to play that role, and I think the money we provide is helpful.

[[Page H2655]]

  We should note, of course, Israel is the number one recipient of 
American foreign aid, and Egypt is the second largest recipient of 
foreign aid, and that is probably because 25 years ago the leaders of 
Egypt and Israel, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, took great risks for 
peace and engaged in a great transfer of land, really a somewhat 
extraordinary example in history, where the victorious nation, Israel, 
gave back to the defeated nation a very large piece of land, the Sinai 
desert, so that you could begin to have peace.
  While there have been problems and difficulties, peace has in fact 
survived there, and I think the work of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat 
was vindicated. People should note that Menachem Begin, who was one of 
the intellectual and political founders of the current conservative 
movement in Israel, not only made peace with Egypt, not only gave back 
land, but presided over the dismantlement of a settlement, a Jewish 
settlement, in the Sinai, so that it could be given back. I think that 
is a very important precedent that I will get back to.
  But we should understand that the United States gives high levels of 
aid to Israel and Egypt in part because of a perception that these are 
allies, in part because of the great admiration we have for Israeli 
society, but also since 1977-78 because these two nations undertook 
that peace agreement, and I think it was an entirely constructive 
policy begun in the Carter administration and carried through 
Presidents Reagan and Bush and Clinton, and now President Bush again, 
to say that if countries in an area that is very important to America 
take risks for peace and try very hard to overcome these difficulties, 
the United States will try to help out. That was an entirely fitting 
situation and people should understand.

                              {time}  2145

  That is the biggest single reason why there was this ongoing degree 
of aid. So I think that is entirely appropriate. I look forward to 
continuing to support a level of aid appropriate to Israel until and 
unless there is a peace; and if and when peace is achieved, yes, it 
will be possible to reduce the level of aid.
  For a variety of reasons, then, it is clearly important for Israel to 
be able to maintain this degree of support in America. I worry that 
there are people in the United States, some of whom are genuine, 
strong, emotional supporters of Israel; some of whom are unable to 
resist the temptation to use Israel for domestic American political 
purposes, who may be giving Israel the wrong kind of support. It is no 
service to a friend to encourage that friend to misunderstand the 
situation and, in particular, to feel that it has a degree of 
invulnerability when there may be some vulnerability.
  In particular, Mr. Speaker, I think the recent resolution by the 
Likud Party to say that under no circumstances would they support, if 
they were in control, those who passed that resolution of the 
Government of Israel that under no circumstances would they support a 
Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. I think that was 
a grave error.
  Now, I think it was a grave error from the policy standpoint. As I 
have said, one of the great sources of strengths of Israel is that it 
is a democracy. I mentioned how democratic Israel is, even in the face 
of all these attacks. I recently got a great example of Israel's 
commitment to human rights in an area that probably would not have 
gotten much attention 20 years ago; it probably would have not been 
able to be something to be discussed 20 years ago.
  But when I was in Israel in January of this year, having participated 
for 5 days in various political discussions with Israeli officials and 
others, including the Palestinians, about the state of peace, I then 
spent a few days meeting with people in Israel's gay and lesbian 
community. I was very pleased to be at a meeting in Tel Aviv of a city 
council member in Israel who is a lesbian and able to be open about it. 
I went to the Jerusalem Open House, a community center, for gay and 
lesbian people of Arab or Jewish background in Israel. I met with the 
head of the Aguda, the overall umbrella Israeli activist organization.
  I was pleased to learn that not only do gay and lesbian people serve 
openly in the Israeli Army; by the way, for those who think that having 
open gay and lesbian military people undermines the morale and the 
effectiveness of the Army, I think they will have a hard time 
explaining that to people in the Israeli Defense Force whose morale and 
effectiveness I do not think has recently been questioned and where 
openly gay and lesbian officers not only serve, but whose domestic 
partners have benefits.
  I contrast that, Mr. Speaker, sadly, with the degree of oppression of 
the gay and lesbian people that takes place in the Arab world. I have 
recently had occasion to write several letters along with my colleague 
who is the ranking Democrat on the Committee on International Relations 
and my colleague, who is the Republican Chair of the subcommittee of 
the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Florida, 
and some others, the gentleman from Connecticut. We have had to 
complain to the government of Egypt because of a pattern of systematic 
oppression of gay people simply because they were gay. They gave other 
excuses, but that is clearly not what is at issue. Nobody was imposing 
himself on anyone else, no one was molesting young people. These were 
gay men who were being prosecuted.
  Well, the contrast between an Israel in which, frankly, Palestinians 
who are gay who live in the occupied territories come to Israel proper 
because they can get protection, because they get a degree of security 
within Israel that they cannot get at home. I am very proud of that. I 
am very proud of the democracy of Israel. I am proud, I say, because I 
have been a supporter of that state, and I believe it is a very 
important example it gives to the world about how to be democratic. And 
let me repeat, the Israeli Defense Forces, there are few militaries in 
the world that have been under consistently a greater strain, and they 
have openly gay and lesbian military officials, and they serve with 
great distinction and no negativism whatsoever.
  Now, it is important, I believe, for Israel's position that it 
continue to be democratic. When we have a major political party say 
that they do not want to see a Palestinian state, the implication there 
is that Israel continues to be a nation which has a democratic 
population, a democratic legal population, which includes, of course, a 
considerable Arab population; and while there are shortcomings in the 
way in which Israel has dealt with its Arab population, the fact is 
that Arabs have been in the parliament, Arabs have full political 
rights, and the democracy that exists even regarding Arabs in Israel 
sadly exceeds that in terms of democracy for most of the Arabs in the 
Middle East who are not allowed the freedom to criticize the 
government. I hope that the Israelis will understand the importance of 
preserving that. I believe that they do.

  But in addition to a democratically ruled society within Israel, 
Israel has found itself presiding over territories inhabited by 
Palestinians outside Israel who do not have those kinds of rights.
  Now, at this point I do think it is important to look at history. One 
of the problems that has affected, unfairly, it seems to me, 
negatively, the opinion people have had of Israel is that history is 
not always known to people. If one just turns on the television today 
or picks up a newspaper and sees a situation where this nation, Israel, 
is ruling over Arabs in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, if one believes 
in democracy and self-rule, that does not look good. And if, in fact, 
Israel had gratuitously simply marched into those territories at some 
point and established some deal with them, Israel would have been 
wrong. It is, therefore, important at this point to look at the 
history.
  I mentioned that the history here begins with a universal Arab 
rejection by Iraq, by Jordan, by Egypt, by Syria. A universal rejection 
of these nations of Israel's right to exist, and an invasion of this 
small group of Jews, many of whom are recently come from the Holocaust, 
others, of course, who had been there for some time; and the new Nation 
of Israel managed without a lot of help at that point to defend itself 
and establish its position. So at that point in 1948, when Israel was 
able to declare its independence right about this time of year, we had 
the State of Israel.

[[Page H2656]]

  Now, I have a question for those who say, well, what we really need 
is a two-state solution. Why did the Arab world not implement one 54 
years ago? The U.N. called for a two-state solution, Palestine and 
Israel. The Arabs attacked and tried to prevent that from happening. 
The nation that became Israel was able to defend itself. At that point, 
there was an Israel. Also at this point, the lands that we now refer to 
as being occupied by Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, were 
under the control of Arabs. Jordan controlled the West Bank, including 
eastern Jerusalem, the Old City. Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip.
  From 1948 to 1967, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank in east Jerusalem, 
were controlled by Arab nations. Why, and I really think this is a 
valid question not often enough asked, why did they not create a 
Palestine then? If the Arab world genuinely believes in a two-state 
solution, why did they not implement one when they had the chance? 
There was certainly a period when Israel did not have the strength, 
even if it had the interest, in trying to prevent that from happening. 
I do not understand why the Egyptians and Jordanians did not get 
together and create that two-state solution. They talk about how much 
of the West Bank they had; they had it all, by definition, before 1967.
  The reason, I am afraid, is, and this is very relevant and continues 
to be, the reason the Arab world did not implement the two-state 
solution is that they were not for a two-state solution. They were for 
a one-state solution. Palestine, no Israel. They did not use their 
ability to implement an Arab nation of Palestine in the Gaza Strip and 
the West Bank from 1948 to 1967 because to do so would have meant 
accepting the reality of Israel, and they were not ready to do that. 
Instead, what they did was to use the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and 
the Golan Heights of Syria and other lands as a basis for continuing to 
attack Israel. There was a continuing effort to undo Israel's existence 
militarily.
  So in 1967, I believe entirely in self-defense, Israel moved into 
those adjacent areas, which had been used as places from which Israel 
was attacked. That is when Israel moved into the Gaza Strip and the 
West Bank, after the Arab nations, for 19 years, declined to create a 
state there and, instead, preferred to use them as bases to attack 
Israel. Israel wound up with the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the Gaza 
Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.

  Since that time, the Israelis and, obviously, a lot of history goes 
back to the 1973 war, which was more of a standoff, although it was 
again an effort by the Arabs to destroy Israel, the 1973 war was the 
Arabs taking another chance, as they did in 1948, of trying to 
dismantle Israel and they made some gains at first but were ultimately 
unable to do that with some help from the Nixon administration; the 
Israelis were able to defend themselves and maintain that status quo. 
Then ensued a period of people feeling each other out.
  The next thing that happened was that Menachem Begin met with Anwar 
Sadat; Menachem Begin, the leader of the right in Israel and the man 
who undid the previously uninterrupted rule of the left in Israel 
politically, and what he did was to proceed to give the Sinai Peninsula 
back to Egypt, not for any material gain, but remember what the deal 
was. Israel gave back the Sinai Peninsula and dismantled a settlement 
of Jews in that peninsula solely for Egypt's recognition of Israel's 
right to exist. Until then, that did not exist.
  That was a big deal when Anwar Sadat, the leader of Egypt said yes, 
okay, there can be an Israel. That took from 1948 to 1978. Sadat, of 
course, was reviled by many of the Arabs and ultimately murdered within 
his own country. Why? Because he dared accept back a big chunk of 
Egyptian territory and said, in return, it is okay, they can be in 
Israel. That is a sign of how, as recently as 21 years ago when he was 
murdered, how deeply rooted the unwillingness to even allow Israel to 
exist was.
  Things evolved further. Obviously, many Israelis believed, I think 
accurately, that while they had the right to defend themselves, if they 
could come to some peaceful agreement, that would be preferable to 
living the way they were living. If they could find a way for there to 
be some self-rule in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank that would 
relieve them of the need to be there, would relieve them of the 
contradiction in their democratic idealogy of ruling over people in a 
way that was necessarily undemocratic, if they could refrain from the 
military attacks on both sides, that would be healthy.
  So they began a process, ultimately, of trying to negotiate a global 
peace. It culminated, most recently, in the Barak administration 
offering to give back almost all of the Golan Heights to Syria, a 
hostile nation not just to Israel, but to the U.S., a nation whose 
record of harboring terrorists is one of the worst, run by one of the 
most brutal dictators, and now his son is in power and there appears to 
be no significant improvement from any human rights rule, but still 
Israel was willing to try. That culminated with the offers made by 
Prime Minister Barak, with the support of President Clinton, to Yasar 
Arafat in the year 2000.
  There was a lot of debate about why there was an agreement, but we do 
know this. Prime Minister Barak offered a significant return of 
territory that had been captured in what I think were legitimate 
defensive wars, including almost all of the Golan Heights. By the way, 
he had previously, of course, drawn away from Lebanon where Israel had 
gone in before, and he offered a great deal more with regard to the 
West Bank than people had thought previously would happen.

                              {time}  2200

  At the time, I remember the argument was not that this was an unfair 
deal, but I ask people to go back and look at this. We were told this 
was a mistake because Arafat was not ready to make peace. Arafat, we 
were told, could not at that point really still sell to the rest of the 
Arab world a deal which, once again, meant the entire acceptance of 
Israel's right to exist.
  It is significant here to remember what a fuss was made a couple of 
months ago when Saudi Arabia said, do you know what, if Israel totally 
withdraws from every inch that it captured in 1967, we will recognize 
its existence. Now, that was considered to be a major breakthrough in 
2002, and given the eternal hostility that they had pledged to Israel, 
it was.
  But understand this point: If, in fact, it was a breakthrough for 
Saudi Arabia in 2002 to say that there should be an Israel, what that 
means is that in 2000, when Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak were trying to 
get Yasser Arafat to make a deal, the Saudis were on the other side. 
The Saudis obviously, by their own acknowledgment, were not ready to 
support that in 2000. It could not have been a big deal in 2002 for 
them to say, okay, we are ready to recognize you, if they had been 
ready to do that in 2000.
  In fact, by the closing days of the Clinton administration, an offer 
was made to Arafat which obviously from one standpoint was not perfect, 
it was made by the military victor in a more generous way than victors 
usually are, but it did not become the basis for negotiation. It still 
was essentially rejected.
  Then, of course, the Clinton administration was out of office and the 
Barak administration soon after that, and I think the Bush 
administration made then the very grave error of instead of picking up 
where it had left off trying to find out if things were close enough, 
the Bush administration decided to just let things alone, incredibly 
thinking somehow this would make it better.
  I do not think there is a worse prediction in recent diplomatic 
history than the Bush administration view that walking away from any 
effort to bring the Israelis and Palestinians into a negotiation early 
in 2001 would somehow make things better. Clearly, the consequence has 
been that things were much worse.
  At any rate, that is where we now are. And it is in this context that 
I think it is a mistake for former Prime Minister Netanyahu and his 
allies in the Likud party to announce that they are no longer 
interested in trying to reach an agreement that would lead to a 
Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza. And as I said, from the 
standpoint of Israel's own interest, that seems to me a mistake, but I 
have no authority to make that decision for the Israelis.
  On the other hand, a continued strong degree of support in the United

[[Page H2657]]

States is important to Israel if it is going to be able to continue to 
live as a free and prosperous society, which it has become through its 
own extraordinarily successful efforts.
  And here is where the problem is. I think people within Israel, 
particularly within the Likud, and obviously former Prime Minister 
Netanyahu, misunderstand the nature of American support for Israel. It 
is strong, it is morally based, it is based on a recognition of a 
common strategic interest, it is based on an admiration of what Israel 
has done, it is based on a recognition of the debt on the Holocaust, 
but it is not infinite. It is not a support that will be there in the 
same degree, no matter what Israel's policy is.
  The one area where I think there is a danger that the degree of 
American support that Israel deserves and needs could erode has to do 
with the policy of settlements, and whether or not there should be 
ultimately a willingness on Israel's part to withdraw from the Gaza 
strip and most of the West Bank.
  I would remind people that in recent times, there was one occasion 
when those of us who were strong supporters of Israel in Congress were 
unable to accomplish a policy of American assistance to Israel. It was 
when former Prime Minister Shamir made a pronouncement that sounded 
like he was saying that he had no intention of giving up any of the 
West Bank or Gaza strip to a Palestinian state; that he intended to 
maintain all of the settlements and that the land would remain under 
Israeli control indefinitely.
  It was at that point that President George Bush, the President's 
father, was able to revoke what people had thought was a commitment to 
provide loan guarantees to Israel. Remember, this is a time when the 
Soviet Union had collapsed and there was massive immigration possible 
from the former Soviet Union, from Jews who had enough of the anti-
Semitism in their areas. There was a continuation of the policy of 
taking Ethiopian Jews from Ethiopia. There was really great need for 
absorption of the immigrants. The U.S. had promised to guarantee some 
loans.
  When George Bush became angry at the settlement policy and for other 
reasons, not just the settlement policy, but when it became the 
perception that Israel was no longer interested in a negotiated 
settlement in which it would withdraw from much of the West Bank and 
from the Gaza strip, George Bush said no to the loan guarantees.

  While people talk about the great power of the friends of Israel in 
Congress, this was a time when that did not avail. George Bush won that 
fight: There were no loan guarantees. He won that fight because on that 
issue, American public opinion was not sympathetic to Israel.
  It is important for people in Israel to understand that there is, as 
there should be, a great deal of sympathy and support and admiration 
for Israel, but it is not unconditional. Indeed, it is based on aspects 
of Israeli government and society which include its democracy and its 
openness. If it can be made to appear that Israel forever might be 
maintaining, or indefinitely, a situation in which it is an occupying 
power in the West Bank and Gaza strip without any effort to implement 
an ultimately democratic solution, that will cause trouble for Israel 
within the United States.
  Now, I want to be very clear: I do not believe that the critical 
elements in American public opinion will hold Israel responsible if it 
fails to reach an agreement on setting up a Palestinian state. It may 
not be possible to do that. As I have said, from 1948 until fairly 
recently, there did not seem to me to be a willingness on the part of 
the Arab world to accept the legitimate needs of Israel to the point 
where such a state could be accomplished.
  Maybe that has changed. The Saudi offer is a step forward, but it is 
far from an acceptable offer for Israel. People who talk about a right 
of return, which would allow millions of Arabs hostile to the very 
notion of Israel to move back into Israel, cannot seriously think 
Israel would accept that, or be critical of Israel for turning that 
down.
  While the Gaza strip does not appear to me to pose strategic 
problems, there are legitimate concerns about the West Bank, 
particularly in the areas close to Jerusalem. There is the great 
sensitivity of Jerusalem. I think if Israel tries sincerely to reach an 
agreement and it fails over some of the specifics in the areas closest 
to Jerusalem, that is a sustainable position politically in America.
  But I do not think it is sustainable, and I must say that I think 
people here should note that while Prime Minister Sharon is a member of 
Likud, this resolution was adopted to embarrass him and his government, 
and it is not the policy of Prime Minister Sharon and his government, 
but a major political party led by a very popular political figure, 
Benjamin Netanyahu, said this.
  And that is, I think, a mistake; a mistake, as I said, not from the 
standpoint of what is good or bad policy for Israel. I have my views on 
that, but I acknowledge that the democratic country of Israel has a 
right to make its own decisions. But I believe it is a mistake from the 
standpoint of maintaining within the United States the degree of 
support Israel ought to have.
  Now, I think part of the misunderstanding came because of the terms 
in which we debated a resolution a couple of weeks ago. I voted for the 
resolution that spoke out for Israel's right to defend itself. I must 
say that I do not believe Israel has behaved any differently with 
regard to the suicide bombings that have plagued it than the United 
States would.
  Indeed, we have been very aggressive in Afghanistan, thousands of 
miles away, and sadly, some innocent people have been killed. Some 
appear to have been killed just recently who were quite innocent. That 
is a terrible incident of war. When people are in a warlike situation, 
innocent people die. We can try to minimize that, but it cannot be 
totally avoided.
  Thus, we had that situation in Afghanistan and we had it to some 
extent in Israel. The basic right of self-defense is there. It needs to 
be exercised very carefully. But when a nation has its young people at 
war defending it, they are not going to err wholly on the side of 
avoiding any collateral damage to innocent civilians.
  I believe there was a great deal of support for Israel's defending 
itself in that way, as Americans felt we had a right to defend 
ourselves. I think it helped that it showed that some of the arguments 
about how many people had been killed in Jenin were in fact greatly 
exaggerated.
  So overwhelmingly the House of Representatives voted to support 
Israel's right to defend itself. But I think that the leadership of the 
House made a mistake. That resolution came before the House 
unamendable. I voted for the resolution, but I voted against the 
procedural motion which brought it forward. It is not, it seems to me, 
appropriate that this great democratic institution, the United States 
House of Representatives, ought to be expressing its support for the 
democratic nation of Israel in an undemocratic fashion. I do not think 
it was a good idea to come to the defense of democracy in Israel by 
degrading it in the United States.

  And I think it has contributed to a misunderstanding. There was 
overwhelming support for that resolution. I was glad to join in. A 
number of people voted present, 20 or so. Some others who voted for it 
voted for it with misgivings.
  I think much of the difficulty came not from people who disagreed 
with what the resolution said, but who disagreed with what it was not 
allowed to say; that is, I think many of us believed, as I did, that 
Israel, given the history of that part of the world, had the right to 
defend itself and was by and large doing the best it could to exercise 
that right in a reasonable way, but we also felt that it ought to be 
reiterated, particularly in that context, that our hope would be for an 
ultimate solution of a 2-state solution.
  Now, again, I do not think anybody should say that the Israelis have 
to come to that deal. It may not be possible. Making a deal with Yasser 
Arafat has to be one of the least attractive propositions put before 
any important group of people, and he is under a great deal of attack 
from people, Hamas and others, Jihad, Islamic Jihad, who are still as 
viciously opposed to Israel's existence, who want to drive the Jews 
into the sea. These are societies that have perpetuated vicious anti-
Semitic slurs.
  So it is important to make this distinction: It is not essential for 
Israel to

[[Page H2658]]

reach a deal that will lead to a 2-state solution to maintain support 
in America, but I think it is essential that Israel be seen to be 
willing to try. I do not think support for Israel was ever stronger in 
the United States than when Ehud Barak took some real risks for peace.
  So my view is that we made a mistake, and I voted against this, so I 
should not say we, they made a mistake, Mr. Speaker, those in control 
of the House, by bringing forward that resolution in an up-or-down 
fashion. Yes, it got support because so many of us agreed with Israel's 
right of self-defense, but I think some people in Israel may have 
misinterpreted it, misinterpreted the silence on a 2-state solution, 
and that may have contributed to what I think was a mistaken decision 
by Likud to say, ``We are not going to have any support for a 
Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.''
  Israel is not under any obligation to accept an unreasonable and 
unfair deal, but if it wishes to maintain maximum support in America, 
precisely because its democratic internal rule was an important part of 
this and for other reasons, then I think it is important that it be 
seen to be willing to try.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
like to second not only everything the gentleman has said so far, but 
perhaps go one step further. I voted, as the gentleman did, for the 
bill last week. I was concerned that it came unamendable, and it came 
around our committee of jurisdiction. It never had an opportunity, even 
in the Committee on International Relations, where we deal on a day-to-
day basis with the good, the bad, and the ugly of the situation in the 
Middle East.
  I also would add that whenever we do these resolutions, we have to 
remember that we are giving confidence to one side, but we cannot allow 
ourselves to take away hope from the other side. As the gentleman so 
aptly said, when we did not talk about the desire and the conviction of 
this country to keep working toward a lasting and sustainable peace, we 
took away some of the hope of the very people whose adverse behavior we 
wanted to dissuade.
  Mr. FRANK. And not just the hope, but no society is monolithic. They 
may pretend they are in North Korea, but we know they are not even 
there. Israel is obviously not monolithic, it is democratic. It is 
fractious to, I think, a wonderful degree.
  Palestinian society is not monolithic. It is in our interest to 
discourage the rejectionists in Palestinian society. It is in our 
interest to find responsible Palestinians who understand that the 
tactics I think they have followed so far have had the major negative 
impact on Palestinians, and who will not continue to insist on an 
unachievable goal, but will think about an achievable one.
  But when we pass a resolution that does not mention that as well, I 
think we make a mistake. I think it was inaccurately perceived in both 
places.
  Again, I want to be clear. Yes, the people in Israel should 
understand that America supports its right of self-defense, and the 
resolution accurately reflected that. I also believe that that support 
could be endangered. And, you know, the easiest thing to do with a 
friend is to say, yes, everything is wonderful. A true friend will tell 
the other friend when things may be reaching a danger point.
  Anyone who encourages the Israeli people to believe that if that 
Likud resolution became official policy there would be no erosion of 
support for Israel is doing Israel a great disservice.

                              {time}  2215

  And I regret the fact that that resolution was sent forward. Frankly, 
I think political calculations were involved. People said, well, let us 
put people on the spot. Make them vote yes or no. Well, if we are 
playing with a local domestic issue, that is one thing; but we should 
not send a partial answer, and that was a partial answer. And I think 
it is not unrelated that shortly after we passed the resolution; and I 
saw an earlier draft of the resolution, and from the earlier draft I 
saw, some of the Israel's strongest supporters acknowledged that part 
of the ultimate solution ideally would be a Palestinian state if that 
could be agreed to. If I knew it, everyone knew it. It was not a 
secret. When that disappeared from the resolution, I think that may 
have encouraged people who took what I think was a position which would 
ultimately be damaging to Israel's abilities to maintain the kind of 
support it should have to the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman again.
  Mr. ISSA. I would like to second what the gentleman said and go one 
step further. We did some good with that resolution, but we could have 
done more. There was no question that had we encouraged the 
Palestinians to get their house in order, what is now kind of a whisper 
the idea that there needs to be a shifting of Chairman Arafat's 
position to more symbolic and the strengthening of the support of real 
leaders who do not have to be on both sides of issues, especially on 
security. That whisper could be a roar if we had included that kind of 
support there. And I hope that with the gentleman and I speaking 
tonight we are going that direction of encouraging the Saudi Crown 
Prince to continue his agenda, but also speaking to the Palestinians 
and letting them know that this body, I am sure to a person, still 
believes that solution that includes two separate people able to 
determine their own future.
  Mr. FRANK. I agree and I have to say, again, I think people need to 
understand as they contemplate what Israel has been doing that for a 
very long time there was not a willingness to have a two-state solution 
in the Arab world. The rejection of a two-state solution came from the 
Arab world. I had hoped we had reached a period where there was now a 
willingness in the Arab nation to have a two-state solution. We know 
there was for a while, very actively in the Israeli government. Prime 
Minister Sharon to his credit has said he is still ultimately for that. 
It in effect invoked that favorite Nixon-going-to-China metaphor. And 
Prime Minister Sharon has said, given my background I could get the 
Israeli people to accept some things that maybe other people do not. We 
should be clear that includes, it has to include, telling people who 
live in settlements in Gaza and in much of the West Bank that they 
cannot continue to live under Israeli rule.
  We talk about the dismantlement of the settlements. Settlements do 
not have to be dismantled, but people who live there have to be told 
that they are now going to be Palestinian citizens. And it was Menachem 
Begin who did that. Menachem Begin who dismantled the settlement. I was 
at the settlement that was dismantled in Yamit in the Sinai and met 
with people there. So that can be painful. It has to be done. It does 
not mean every inch. It does not mean that you do not count security. 
But it is important for us to do both.
  I do fear the temptation of Israel is a wonderful success story. It 
is properly the repository of a great deal of admiration, and it 
invokes a great deal of emotion. Israel is entitled to be taken 
seriously as a country, not a political tool. It is entitled to be 
given a great deal of support, which I think it has earned; and it is 
entitled to realism in the political advice it gets. It should not be 
manipulated.
  Let me speak now anticipatorily. We are about to get a supplemental 
appropriations bill that will have a number of things in it that I 
think will be bad public policy. I can predict now we will be told that 
because it includes some money for Israel and some money to aid 
Palestinians, although not through the Palestinian Authority, that if 
you support Israel you must vote for the appropriation. I resent the 
notion that Israel exists to shine up the sneaker. I resent the notion 
that you can put public policy that I find very wrong into a bill and 
then put in money for Israel and expect people to vote for that.
  I just want to make this one statement that I have been here 22 
years. Over the years I have often been told that I had to vote for an 
appropriations bill that included money I did not want for this program 
or that money because it also included money for Israel; and on several 
occasions when I voted no because I would not be extorted that way, the 
appropriation was defeated. What happened? A new appropriation came up 
and guess what was in the new appropriation? The money for Israel.

[[Page H2659]]

  The notion that because there is money for Israel in the 
appropriation you have to vote for it or you will hurt the cause of 
Israel is simply flatly historically nonsensical because the money for 
Israel will be there. That is an example. Bringing that resolution up 
unamended, trying to use Israel as kind of a cat's paw to get an 
appropriations bill through, those are wrong.

  I want to support Israel as I have all my life. I want to continue to 
see Israel get the kind of support it deserves from America. Part of 
that support is in honest assessment. And that honest assessment says 
Israel has a right to self-defense. It has a right to say no deal for a 
second state unless we have a reliable partner who means it, unless we 
will get secure boundaries, unless we will get other things we need. 
But to not let Israel understand that the policy recently adopted by 
Likud will in the long term cause them, maybe not in such a long term, 
the same kind of problems they encountered under Prime Minister Shamir 
and President Bush, I think that is doing them a disservice.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think that tonight two friends of Israel, two people who in fact do 
support and will continue to support all the legitimate needs of Israel 
coming to the floor, and I know the gentleman does not come to the 
floor very often. This is a very unusual appearance. I think what the 
gentleman is doing is he is sending the message that has to be sent, 
not just to the men and women of Israel who may hear or read about 
this, but also to the American Jewish community who does not always 
understand that it is not Israel right or wrong. It is Israel's 
survival protected, while at the same time our money has to have some 
suggestions to it.
  Mr. FRANK. Let me say as a member myself of the American Jewish 
community, I understand there are people who may think that I am 
Jewish. I represent a significant number of Jewish people. I believe 
that people in the American Jewish community do understand that.
  Yes, those of us who are Jewish are emotionally attached to Israel. I 
was 5 years old when World War II ended, so I was not conscious myself 
of the Holocaust as it was happening; but obviously I was raised by 
parents who lived through it and uncles and aunts and others. And the 
horror of the Holocaust and then the shock of living through this and 
knowing what was happening to people just because they shared that with 
you, that is deeply searing. So we have this emotional commitment.
  Over and above that, I believe that the American Jewish community is 
proud of Israel, proud of its democracy, proud of its economic 
achievement. We are proud of the Israel that is, not of the Israel that 
becomes the tool of other people's domestic politics.
  So I really believe in speaking out this way I am speaking a position 
that I think is largely supported by Israel's truest defenders, both 
Jewish and non-Jewish.
  We are for an Israel that represents the best in the Jewish 
traditions as we see it. We support Israel as Americans which carries 
out those values that America expresses support for in the world and 
that has been cooperative. I come here tonight very much because I am 
afraid that maybe from some good motives, maybe from some partisan 
motives, some people are giving Israel bad advice. And the worst thing 
you can do is sit by quietly and let a good friend get bad advice.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ISSA. Once again, I want to thank the gentleman for giving that 
good advice.
  The gentleman and I often vote differently, but we discuss that there 
are at least two ways to look at every single bill that comes to the 
floor. And I think that this is a good example that rather than the way 
we did it with the vote from Israel where it came to the floor as 
though there was only one opinion, the gentleman has said let us look 
at some additional ideas.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for making that point. 
Obviously, we all cannot take an hour. But it seems clear how much 
better it would have been for the United States, for Israel, for the 
cause of an ultimate peace in the Middle East if the discussion that we 
are having now could have been had a couple weeks ago.
  I would plead with the leadership of the House do not put us again in 
the position where we have this inadequate up or down vote on these 
complicated subjects. We are not all that busy. This is our main job. 
We could have taken a few more hours. I think if we had the kind of 
discussion on the floor of the House that we are able to have today, 
there would be a better understanding everywhere of what America's 
position is.

                          ____________________