[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 23]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 32417-32418]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE TRUTHS OF GENEVA

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, December 15, 2003

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, no situation in the world is 
more deeply troubling to me and many others than the ongoing conflict 
involving Israel and the Palestinians. I speak as a strong supporter of 
Israel and of the moral importance of its continuing to exist as a 
free, independent, secure nation. Sadly, from the moment Israel's 
creation was announced--in accord with a U.N. resolution--in 1948, the 
unremitting hostility of its Arab neighbors plunged that small nation 
into war. The years since have been marked by a continuation of that 
hostility in many parts of the Arab world, with consequent violence and 
with large numbers of people's lives being lost, but also some progress 
in achieving peace. Most notably, the government of Menachem Begin 
signed an important peace treaty with Egypt in

[[Page 32418]]

1978 which, despite the skepticism of many Israelis and some of 
Israel's strongest supporters in America, has in fact worked enormously 
for the benefit of Israel by providing a peaceful situation for much of 
its borders. This 1978 agreement was one in which Israel gave up a 
large amount of territory which it had gained in a defensive war, 
territory which had both important strategic value and from which 
Israeli settlers were moved as part of the agreement. This has obvious 
relevance as a precedent for an agreement to end the current conflict.
  In addition to this peace agreement with Egypt, Israel has over the 
years worked out arrangements with its neighbor to the east, the 
Kingdom of Jordan, which has similarly been beneficial compared to the 
strife that had previously existed in that area.
  The central remaining question is of course whether or not an 
agreement can be reached between Israel and the Palestinians which will 
preserve Israel's security while allowing it to maintain its important 
political and moral role as a free, Jewish, democratic state. I know 
there are people who argue that it is inappropriate for Israel to be a 
Jewish state. Such arguments seem to me quite hollow, particularly when 
they come from those who have no quarrel with the existence of a number 
of officially Islamic states throughout the Middle East. I strongly 
oppose theocracy but I do not think there is anything wrong with a 
particular democratic society including an official religion as long as 
it does so in a way that protects the rights of those in the society 
who do not follow that religion. Israel comes far closer to that goal 
than any of its neighbors, and criticism of Israel on that score 
therefore seems particularly hypocritical and motivated more by 
opposition to the existence of the state than to any commitment to 
principle.
   In fact, the importance of Israel remaining both Jewish and 
democratic is one key reason why a settlement of the conflict with the 
Palestinians is so important to me and many other strong supporters of 
Israel. As Prime Minister Sharon himself has noted, it is difficult to 
see how Israel can remain both democratic and Jewish if it continues to 
control all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with the large number of 
Palestinian inhabitants there. Combined with the Palestinians who live 
within Israel, the number of non-Jewish citizens--indeed of many 
citizens hostile to the existence of a Jewish state--means that 
conducting democratic politics and maintaining the state's Jewish 
character are at odds. For this and other reasons, an agreement between 
Israel and the Palestinians is greatly to be desired.
   It is in this context that I join in welcoming the efforts of those 
on both the Israeli and Palestinian side who have recently demonstrated 
what an achievable Israeli-Palestinian peace can look like. Recently, 
in Geneva, a ceremony was held in which leading Israeli and Palestinian 
citizens signed onto their version of a comprehensive peace plan which 
provides both for a Palestinian state, and a State of Israel, with both 
having the viability necessary to exist as independent nations, and in 
a way that minimizes the likelihood of ongoing violence between them. 
This initiative, led by Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo, reflects a 
great deal of serious thought by people who have been deeply involved 
in trying to reach peace, and demonstrates that a true peace agreement 
is in fact achievable in ways that meet the needs of those in both 
Israel and the Palestinian areas who genuinely desire peace. In 
addition, a recent proposal outlined by Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh 
is less detailed but points in a similar direction.
   Mr. Speaker, I understand and there is both in Israel and in some 
Palestinian circles a great deal of unhappiness that these four men and 
others joining with them have engaged in these activities. I think the 
criticisms are unwarranted and in fact counterproductive. Denigrating 
these efforts does not seem to me to be consistent with a professed 
desire to reach the peace settlement between Israel and the 
Palestinians that is so manifestly in the interests of all parties in 
the area.
  On Friday, December 5, the distinguished newspaper The Forward, which 
has long been an important voice within America's Jewish Community, 
carried an editorial entitled The Truths of Geneva. Noting that ``the 
Geneva initiative does not represent anything like the threat to 
Israel's safety that its opponents suggest,'' the editorial goes on to 
note that ``by relying on respected, mainstream public figures from 
both sides to do the phrasing and map-making--including several of 
Israel's most trusted ex-generals and intelligence chiefs--they showed 
that a peace agreement could be reached that would satisfy the 
essential needs of both sides, if the leaders so chose.'' As the 
editorial went on to note, the Geneva initiative ``shows that there is 
a way out of Israel's deadly mess . . . it shows, in rough terms, what 
such a formula might look like.''
   Mr. Speaker, I ask that this editorial from a source that has long 
been one of Israel's most thoughtful and ardent defenders be printed 
here, as part of the effort of many of us to express our appreciation 
to those who have undertaken this difficult effort to demonstrate how 
peace can be achieved and to pledge our continuing support for their 
efforts.

                    [From the Forward, Dec. 5, 2003]

                          The Truths of Geneva

       For all its theatrics, its celebrity cast and high-concept 
     special effects, the ``launch'' this week in Switzerland of 
     the so-called Geneva Understandings did not usher in a new 
     era in Israeli-Palestinian relations. The document's authors 
     and architects did not have the power to do anything of the 
     sort. Private citizens all, they could hug and sing and 
     display a document they had written together, but they could 
     not make peace between the two warring nations. Only 
     governments can do that.
       For that same reason, the Geneva initiative does not 
     represent anything like the threat to Israeli's safety that 
     its opponents suggest in their more overheated flights of 
     rhetoric. The Geneva authors did not give anything away, 
     because they had nothing to give away. All they did--all they 
     could do--was to bring together groups of citizens from the 
     two embattled communities and discuss ways the sides might 
     settle their differences, if their leaders so chose. By 
     relying on respected, mainstream public figures from both 
     sides to do the phrasing and map making--including several of 
     Israel's most trusted ex-generals and intelligence chiefs--
     they showed that a peace agreement could be reached that 
     would satisfy the essential needs of both sides, if the 
     leaders so chose. But they did not produce the peace 
     agreement. Only governments can negotiate peace.
       All the incendiary rubbish aside, there was nothing 
     fraudulent going on at Geneva. The negotiators were not 
     purporting to speak for the Israeli government any more than 
     Tovah Feldshuh purports to be Golda Meir in her nightly 
     appearances on Broadway. It's all play-acting, meant to draw 
     an audience and, perhaps, make a point.
       And yet, this play's message must carry a real sting, 
     judging by the desperation of its opponents to find 
     something, anything, wrong with it. Consider their arguments: 
     First, the document should be ignored because it is 
     meaningless and toothless. Second, it should be fought 
     because it endangers Israel by somehow handing over valuable 
     assets. Third, the Israeli authors let themselves be duped by 
     Palestinian extremists who will never be satisfied even by 
     the sweeping Geneva concessions. Fourth, the authors undercut 
     the Sharon government's negotiating position by raising 
     Palestinian expectations, thus reducing the likelihood that 
     they will somehow accept the far more limited concessions 
     Sharon is contemplating as part of his own plan for 
     extricating Israel from its deadly mess.
       That, in the end, is the Geneva initiative's real threat, 
     and its only threat. It shows that there is a way out of 
     Israel's deadly mess. It shows that there is a broad formula 
     that could resolve the century-old dispute on terms both 
     sides could live with. It shows, in rough terms, what such a 
     formula might look like. By forcing itself into the spotlight 
     and exciting public debate, it shows that there is a critical 
     mass on both sides that could, with some effort, accept such 
     a deal. And it shows who is against reaching such a deal and 
     would rather keep fighting.
       Those are the truths of Geneva, and they are real ones. But 
     they need not leave Israel isolated. Israel's friends could 
     and should embrace the initiative--not for its details but 
     for its vision--and encourage Israel's prime minister to do 
     the same. He could, if he wanted, praise the initiative as a 
     contribution to public discussion, details aside. He could 
     point to the violent opposition of Palestinian hard-liners, 
     who denounce the document for its betrayal of their ``right 
     of return,'' as evidence of the uphill climb still ahead. And 
     he could vow to begin that climb, so Israelis can know that 
     their leaders genuinely want to end their long nightmare.

                          ____________________