CRUSHING (Continued from p.7) prospects for the Syrian-Israeli negotiations. And National Public Radio has reported that Prime Minister Peres is interested in "moving the Syrian talks beyond security issues"--a formula that sounds like code for finding economic and political incentives that might induce Hafez Assad finally to accept Israel's surrender of the entire Golan Heights.* If, in fact, Mr. Peres decides to pursue aggressively a "breakthrough" on the Syrian front, he would--once again--be adopting the advice of his longtime deputy, Yossi Beilin. Beilin, who was tapped to be a Special Minister in the Prime Minister's office, told the Washington Post in an interview published on 19 November: "If you ask me, if we are able to make peace [with Syria], we may win the elections. [But, if he had to choose between winning the elections and reaching an accord], I prefer to make peace. "The window of opportunity is going to close [referring to upcoming elections in Israel and the United States.] We are speaking about two, three, four, six months--that's it." In short, it has clearly occurred to the Israeli government and its supporters that--to the extent that legitimate opposition to and debate over Golan can be attenuated by portraying critics as "anti-democratic" and "extremists"--the political risks associated with making major, controversial concessions of strategic territory can be minimized. An insightful column published recently in numerous American Jewish publications by Dr. Irving Moskowitz describes the difficulty inherent in branding certain political rhetoric unacceptable in a democracy. He wrote, in part: "Among the proposals now being circulated by the Israeli left is the idea of the government taking legal action against anyone whose words supposedly helped create the 'atmosphere' which led to the assassination. To understand just how outrageous this proposal is, consider some of the statements to which such legal action might apply: " 'Whoever considers going down from the Golan Heights jeopardizes and abandons the security of Israel.' The speaker was Yitzhak Rabin on June 10, 1992, shortly before the national elections. Today, the Israeli left would say that the accusation of 'jeopardizing and abandoning the security of Israel' would constitute incitement to violence. 'Regarding the Golan Heights and regarding the Jordan Valley: these areas must be developed and given priority in terms of building and employment [by Israelis] * Presumably, the Israeli government expects the United States to provide a significant part of those economic rewards, just as it historically has for other Arab parties to peace agreements with Israel. This raises an interesting question: Since Syria is actively counterfeiting huge quantities of American dollars, would it be asked to simply print its own cash infusion instead of dunning the U.S. Treasury for the real thing?

over other areas in the State of Israel.' The speaker once again was Yitzhak Rabin, in the same June 10, 1992 address. By the standards of today's Israeli left, Rabin's words might be characterized as 'sabotaging peace', by promoting the development of areas beyond the 1967 borders. "The Israeli left claims that references to Chamberlain or Munich...are 'incitement'.' But when there were calls, in 1985, for a Mideast 'peace' conference under an 'international umbrella'...cosponsored by the U.S. and the Soviet Union, it was Yitzhak Rabin who declared: 'Whenever anyone mentions umbrella, it reminds me of Chamberlain and Munich.' " The Center for Security Policy observed on 18 September, prior to Prime Minister Rabin's murder: "In the absence of...a substantive response [to informed critiques of the Israeli government's peace policies], the practice of attacking the critics as enemies of peace, tools of Israeli opposition parties, or worse, merely fuels growing suspicions that the Rabin government has no good arguments to offer in defense of its own policies. Free debate is in order and long overdue. If Rabin continues to insulate himself and to oppose such debate, he will further fracture the pro-Israel community in this country--leaving it ill-prepared to deal with the dangers sure to accompany a false peace." If anything, these sentiments seem more valid in the aftermath of the Rabin assassination. His successor must resist the evident temptation to stifle legitimate debate and to demean those whose opposing positions give rise to such debate. This point was eloquently made in a recent op-ed article in the New York Times by Israeli opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu: "The debate is between two mainstreams, not between the center and the fringes. It must be treated seriously and with full respect for the desire for peace of the adversaries. Democracy in Israel can survive the wrenching trauma of a horrible assassination; other democracies have. But it may not be able to survive the delegitimization of honest debate." The decision to give up the strategic Golan Heights is Israel's to make. It can only be hoped that such a momentous decision--if it is taken--will be adopted and approved in a truly democratic fashion. In that regard, both Israelis and friends of Israel abroad would be well advised to bear in mind a comment made in the course of the "Nightline Town Hall Meeting" by Esther Wachsman, an Israeli who lost a son to Hamas terrorists a year ago: "At this point, I think peace with our brothers is a mockery when there is no peace within our people. Democracy, as I studied it, means protecting minorities, it means listening with tolerance, with respect, to different and opposing views. It means not alienating and certainly not delegitimizing any member of the population." Frank Gaffney is director of the Center for Security Policy, in Washington, D.C.

Outpost               - 10 -               December 1995