[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 16833]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         THE REALITY PRINCIPLE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2003

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusets. Mr. Speaker, President Bush's serious 
personal involvement in the effort to bring about Middle East peace 
deserves both praise and, more important, strong support from all 
Americans. As a strong supporter of the State of Israel and its right 
to exist as a democratic, Jewish state in a secure environment, I 
firmly believe that what President Bush is doing is very much in 
furtherance of the achievement of that goal, and I am pleased that he 
is taking the risks that are inherent when any president seeks 
genuinely to push for peace in the Middle East. As Thomas Friedman 
noted in a recent column in the New York Times, President Bush's 
involvement is essential if we are to reach peace.
  As Mr. Friedman also notes, and those of us who seek peace must be 
prepared to acknowledge this, ``it may be that the Palestinians are 
capable only of self-destructive revenge, rather than constructive 
restraint and reconciliation.'' That is, no one can be sure that peace 
is attainable on grounds that will allow Israel to live securely and 
without the constant threat of terrorist attacks on its citizens. But 
as Mr. Friedman adds, ``surely Israel has more to gain in the long term 
by giving Mr. Abbas every chance to prove otherwise, and to empower him 
to do so . . .''
  There are two very tough decisions now facing the government of 
Israel, and I believe that those of us who have been and are consistent 
defenders of Israel's right to exist, in the face of the overwhelming 
hostility of so many neighboring countries, should be explicit in 
urging the Israeli government to take the necessary action to test the 
Palestinians willingness to embrace genuinely a two-state solution. One 
of those decisions is to be willing to withdraw settlements from much 
of the West Bank and all of Gaza. The other, even harder given the 
understandable emotion that the murder of innocent civilians triggers, 
is to show the restraint that the Bush Administration has asked Israel 
to show with regard to retaliation against the leaders of Hamas and 
other terrorist groups. I do not deny Israel's right to act in its own 
defense, but I do urge the government to consider seriously the wisdom 
of Mr. Friedman's argument for restraint as a very important step 
towards testing the prospects for peace.
  I have been struck, in conversations with Israeli government 
officials, by the confidence they have expressed in the good intentions 
of the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. But it is also 
clear that he faces great difficulties, including, sadly, the hostility 
of Yasir Arafat, whose unwillingness seriously to make peace has been a 
major factor contributing to the turmoil in the region. Refraining from 
actions which will unnecessarily undercut Prime Minister Abbas, is 
clearly in the interest of Israel, certainly until it becomes clearer 
as to whether or not he will be able to achieve the peace that Israel 
believes he seeks.
  Thomas Friedman's article in the New York Times for Saturday, June 
21, spells out this complex set of considerations very well, and I ask 
that this important article be reprinted here.

                         The Reality Principle

                        (By Thomas L. Friedman)

       Have you noticed how often Israel kills a Hamas activist 
     and the victim is described by Israelis as ``a senior Hamas 
     official'' or a ``key operative''? This has led me to wonder: 
     How many senior Hamas officials could there be? We're not 
     talking about I.B.M. here. We're talking about a ragtag 
     terrorist group. By now Israel should have killed off the 
     entire Hamas leadership twice. Unless what is happening is 
     something else, something I call Palestinian math: Israel 
     kills one Hamas operative and three others volunteer to take 
     his place, in which case what Israel is doing is actually 
     self-destructive.
       Self-destructive is, in fact, a useful term to describe 
     Israelis and Palestinians today. ``Both sides,'' notes the 
     Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi, ``have crossed the 
     line where self-defense has turned into self-destruction. 
     When self-defense becomes self-destruction, only an external 
     force can bring people back to their senses. And that force 
     is President Bush. I think he is the only reality principle 
     left that either side might listen to, and I hope he 
     understands that.''
       You know that both sides are in self-destruction mode when 
     you can look at their military actions and say that even if 
     they succeeded they would be worse off. The question is not 
     whether Israel has a right to kill senior Hamas officials. 
     They are bad guys. The question is whether it's smart for 
     Israelis to do it now.
       The fact is, the only time Israelis have enjoyed extended 
     periods of peace in the last decade has been when Palestinian 
     security services disciplined their own people, in the heyday 
     of Oslo. Unfortunately, Yasir Arafat proved unwilling to do 
     that consistently. The whole idea of the Bush peace process 
     is to move Mr. Arafat aside and replace him with a 
     Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, who is ready to 
     rebuild the Palestinian security services, and, in the 
     context of an interim peace settlement, corral Hamas.
       Hamas knows this. So its tactic is to goad Israel into 
     attacks that will unravel the whole process. The smart thing 
     for Israel to do--and it's not easy when your civilians are 
     being murdered--is not to play into Hamas's hands. The smart 
     thing is to say to Mr. Abbas: ``How can we help you crack 
     down on Hamas? We don't want Israel to own Hamas's demise. 
     Palestinians have to root out this cancer within their own 
     society. If Israelis try to do it, it will only 
     metastasize.''
       Israel's supporters argue that if America can go after 
     Osama bin Laden, Israel can go after Hamas. Of course Israel 
     is entitled to pursue its mortal enemies, just as America 
     does, but it cannot do it with reckless abandon, notes Mr. 
     Ezrahi, for one reason: America will never have to live with 
     Mr. bin Laden's children. They are far away and always will 
     be. Israel will have to live with the Palestinians, after the 
     war. They are right next door and always will be.
       The fact is, Ariel Sharon's two years of using the Israeli 
     Army alone to fight terrorism have not made Israelis more 
     secure. He needs a Palestinian partner, and he has to operate 
     and negotiate in a way that will nurture one. And the people 
     who get that the best are Israelis. In a Yediot Ahronot poll 
     released Friday, two-thirds of Israelis were critical of Mr. 
     Sharon's tactic of targeted assassinations of Hamas officials 
     and said they wanted Mr. Abbas to be given a chance to 
     establish his authority.
       It may be that Mr. Abbas can't step up to this. It may be 
     that the Palestinians are capable only of self-destructive 
     revenge, rather than constructive restraint and 
     reconciliation. But surely Israel has more to gain in the 
     long term by giving Mr. Abbas every change to prove 
     otherwise, and to empower him to do so, rather than killing 
     one more Hamas ``senior official,'' who will only be replaced 
     by three others.
       Because if the two sides cannot emerge from this dead end, 
     then you can forget about a two-state solution, which is what 
     both Hamas's followers and the extremist Jewish settlers 
     want. They each want a one-state solution, in which their 
     side will control all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The 
     one-state solution would mean the end of the Zionist 
     enterprise, because Israel can rule such an entity, in which 
     there would soon be more Arabs than Jews, only by apartheid 
     or ethnic cleansing. It would also mean the end of 
     Palestinian nationalism, because the Israelis will crush the 
     Palestinians rather than be evicted. That is the outcome we 
     are heading toward, though, unless the only reality principle 
     left, the United States of America, really intervenes--with 
     its influence, its wisdom and, if necessary, its troops.

                          ____________________