[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 25605-25606]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



AMBASSADOR DAVID IVRY DISCUSSES ISRAEL'S RESTRAINT IN DEALING WITH THE 
                      CURRENT MIDDLE EAST VIOLENCE

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, October 30, 2000

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Washington Post published 
an excellent article by His Excellency David Ivry, ambassador of Israel 
to the United States. Ambassador Ivry has served as commander of the 
Israeli Air Force and Deputy Chief of the General Staff. For the past 
year he has represented Israel in the United States. I want to commend 
Ambassador Ivry's article to my colleagues in the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us regret the tragic deaths which have resulted 
from the violence in the Middle East. It is a great tragedy that this 
turmoil has turned the focus from efforts to resolve the conflict 
peacefully to dealing with a new wave of disorder that undermines the 
basis for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The violence is 
unacceptable, and it is undermining the very basis for peace--the 
notion that Palestinians and Israelis can live together.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the evening newscasts are giving a false 
image of the true dimensions and nature of this violence. The carefully 
orchestrated turmoil and the cynical and tragic use of little children 
should stand condemned by all of us. It is important that we understand 
the full significance of what is happening as this disorder continues 
to threaten stability and the progress that has already been achieved.
  Ambassador Ivry has laid out in particularly clear and incisive terms 
the Israeli interest in achieving a peaceful reconciliation with the 
Palestinians. He also explains the position and policy of the Israeli 
government in its effort to deal with the unacceptable levels of 
Palestinian-orchestrated violence that now threatens to undermine the 
progress that has been achieved over the past seven years.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that Ambassador Ivry's article be placed in the 
Record, and I urge my colleagues to give it the careful and thoughtful 
attention that it deserves.

                           Israel's Restraint

            By David Ivry The Washington Post, Oct. 27, 2000

       The current wave of violence in the Middle East has left 
     more than 100 Palestinians dead, while the number of Israeli 
     fatalities has been relatively small. This uneven casualty 
     ratio has raised questions by some as to whether the Israeli 
     forces are too eager to pull their triggers in response to 
     Palestinian violence. The answer to such concerns is clear: 
     Israel has shown the greatest restraint possible in the face 
     of continued violent provocations, and Israel's forces have 
     made a maximum effort to avoid Palestinian fatalities.
       Israel has no interest in the continuation of violence, and 
     our tactical response has been to avoid actions that could 
     lead to escalation. Every Israeli soldier on the ground 
     receives strict orders as to the rules of engagement, which 
     state clearly when it is permissible to use live fire. An 
     Israeli soldier may respond only when shot at first or in a 
     life-threatening situation. In either case his response must 
     be directed at the source of the fire.
       On Oct. 12, the day the two Israeli soldiers were brutally 
     lynched in Ramallah, Israel responded by sending helicopters 
     into action in Ramallah and Gaza. Not only were our pilots 
     under strict instructions to surgically strike designated 
     points but Israel also warned the Palestinians to evacuate 
     the specified targets. It was no accident that there were no 
     Palestinian fatalities in the Israeli counterstrike.
       Israel's operational procedures for dealing with violent 
     crowds involve the use of teargas and rubber bullets. 
     Palestinians are propagating the fallacy that Israeli troops 
     meet street demonstrators with live fire. Unfortunately, we 
     have witnessed many incidents in which armed Palestinians 
     have opened fire on Israelis from street demonstrations--
     using their fellow Palestinians as human shields. The 
     Palestinian leadership has gone as far as closing the schools 
     and busing children to points of friction, knowingly putting 
     youngsters in harm's way. International treaties clearly 
     condemn the enlisting of children to participate in 
     hostilities. The international community should speak out 
     against this reprehensible exploitation of children for 
     political purposes.
       Today's violence is quite different from that of the 
     intifada in the 1980s. Israel then controlled the entire West 
     Bank and Gaza Strip, and Israeli soldiers were stationed 
     inside Palestinian cities.
       Today, as a result of the Oslo accords, 40 percent of the 
     territories, including all the population centers, are under 
     Palestinian control with more than 95 percent of Palestinians 
     living directly under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. 
     Our forces sit outside the population centers at points 
     agreed to in the Israeli-Palestinian interim agreements. For 
     violent incidents to erupt, Palestinians must seek out those 
     forces or Israeli civilian targets.
       During the intifada, our forces had to deal primarily with 
     violent demonstrations. Currently, Israeli soldiers face 
     armed Palestinian forces, either the official Palestinian 
     security or the Tanzim militia (which, according to the 
     interim agreements, should not have weapons at all). 
     Palestinian gunmen have opened fire on Israelis in hundreds 
     of incidents. Pictures of Palestinian boys with slingshots do 
     not accurately reflect this new reality on the ground.
       The ultimate irony of the current situation is that Prime 
     Minister Ehud Barak has shown unprecedented flexibility in 
     the peace process. The Palestinians, rather than opting to 
     negotiate, chose to revert to violence. It was the 
     Palestinian side that reneged on the cease-fire brokered by 
     Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in Paris, and it was 
     the Palestinian side that failed to implement the deal 
     brokered by President Clinton at Sharm el-Sheikh. Israel did 
     not want, seek or encourage this round of fighting. The 
     questions must be asked: Which side has acted to contain and 
     to end the violence, and which side has not?
       The truth about the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli deaths 
     is that Israelis have been actively seeking to limit fatal 
     casualties in

[[Page 25606]]

     this conflict while, unfortunately, the same cannot be said 
     for the Palestinian side. As retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark 
     wrote recently: ``for the Palestinians, every casualty, even 
     their own, can be a strategic gain.'' As long as the 
     Palestinian leadership acts on the assumption that there is a 
     net political advantage in bloodshed, surely they, and those 
     in the Arab world who encourage this violent strategy, should 
     be held accountable for the appalling and unnecessary loss of 
     life over the past four weeks.

     

                          ____________________