[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 101 (Wednesday, June 18, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5544-H5545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ISRAEL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to express the strong 
feelings that I and many others have on the 60th anniversary of the 
State of Israel.
  Israel was created by a U.N. resolution 60 years ago. People who have 
stressed the importance of U.N. resolutions with regard to the Middle 
East sometimes forget to note that when a U.N. resolution was passed 
which created the State of Israel in a fairly small part of what had 
then been Palestine, it evoked violent opposition from almost all of 
Israel's neighbors. That is, those countries which launched an armed 
attack aimed at obliterating Israel as it was born, in defiance of a 
U.N. resolution, do not come with clean hands when they talk now about 
living up to every U.N. resolution. That's no reason to ignore them, 
but it is a context that ought to be clear.
  There are a number of perspectives that people bring to the existence 
of Israel and its history. There is one that I want to talk about in 
particular as a liberal.
  By all of the values that motivate me to be in public life, the State 
of Israel is the only nation in the Middle East today that qualifies as 
a nation that respects them. Whether it is the principle of 
nondiscrimination--and some things are very controversial in their own 
country--the rights of women, free speech, the rights of gay men and 
lesbians, Israel stands out by a very strong margin over all of its 
neighbors.
  I do want to address some of my friends on the left who are critical 
of some of the geopolitical aspects of this. It's legitimate to do it. 
Indeed, if you want to hear criticism of the approach Israel takes 
towards the peace process or the question of settlements, one of the 
best places to go is Israel. Because unlike every other Middle East 
nation, Israel is a place where democracy thrives. Indeed, one of the 
important lessons the existence of Israel teaches the world is that 
those who argue that if you have threats to your national security, 
democracy becomes a luxury, are wrong.
  Israel was born under attack. It has lived its entire 60 years to 
date with the great hostility of its neighbors. It has fought a number 
of wars. And it is today confronted by many nations, Iran, for example, 
that profess to be interested in its obliteration. Despite that, it has 
maintained a strong democracy; governments win and governments lose. 
And the Israeli High Court has a record, frankly, that in some ways 
exceeds our own U.S. Supreme Court in vindicating civil liberties.
  Now, having said that, I will add that I am critical of some aspects 
of Israel policy. The point, however, is that that's a right that 
people have within Israel to exercise those differences that others 
don't. I thought the recent comments by Secretary Rice that were 
somewhat critical of what Israel was doing were useful in helping move 
towards the peace process.
  On the other hand, it ought to be clear, and I do believe Israel 
should continue to maintain its willingness to withdraw from most of 
the West Bank, I think they should be removing settlements, but it must 
be remembered, Israel did withdraw from southern Lebanon and it did 
withdraw from Gaza in the face of a good deal of controversy at home, 
one under Prime Minister

[[Page H5545]]

Barak, one under Prime Minister Sharon, of two different parties.
  Tragically, in both cases, Israel's voluntary withdrawal was followed 
by the entrenchment in those two areas of organizations dedicated not 
simply to territorial change, but to Israel's obliteration, Hezbollah 
in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza. And they have used those places from which 
Israel withdrew as bases for attacks. I understand the emotional 
reaction that says, ``We'll never do that again.'' I think it would be 
wrong; I do not think it would be in Israel's best interest. That does 
not mean they should not be able to defend themselves, of course they 
should.
  But the fundamental point is this: Yes, there are serious issues 
about how to pursue peace. Nowhere are they more openly debated than 
within Israel itself, and that is one of the great glories of its 60 
years.

                          ____________________