ON "CRUSHING THE OPPOSITION" Frank Gaffney On November 21, the Israeli government announced that it would henceforth act to deny "right-wing extremists" their rights under Israeli democracy to free speech, travel and other activities that might contribute to incitement of violence and cause damage to the "peace process." These steps have been justified by Prime Minister Shimon Peres as a necessary response to the assassination of his predecessor, Yitzhak Rabin--a heinous act said to have been stimulated by descriptions of Mr. Rabin as a traitor portrayed in Nazi uniform.* Most modern democracies--including the United States--have had to wrestle in recent years with the delicate balance between respect for fundamental civil liberties and human rights and restraint of behavior inimical to a free society. In the Israeli case, some influential figures in the government appear intent on securing partisan advantage by associating the mainstream opposition party, Likud, with odious extremist groups. A particularly graphic example of the phenomenon was shown on American television in mid-November when ABC News' "Nightline" broadcast a two-hour-long "town meeting" from Jerusalem moderated by Ted Koppel. In the course of a series of tense and often bitter exchanges between, among others, representatives of the Labor Party and Israeli peace movement on the one hand and Likud politicians and settler activists on the other, Haim Ramon--who was recently appointed to a Cabinet position as Minister of Interior--made the following statement: "Maybe we can reach a consensus on some issues. But at the end of the dialogue, if we will not reach an agreement, we must agree on the one most important principle--that the majority will decide, a democratic majority, and everybody, everybody, will respect it. And that those that are not going to respect it, from now on, will be crushed." Mr. Ramon suggested elsewhere in the program that "We are talking about crushing, crushing unjust forces" as opposed to the parliamentary opposition. Still, it is far from clear what the precise distinction would be between activities deemed disrespectful of the will of the majority--and, therefore, subject to "crushing"--and the legitimate dissent of elected members of the Knesset and other participants in a democratic debate. * Press reports indicate that an individual directly involved in the distribution of those extremist materials--Avishai Raviv, head of the Eyal organization--has been working in recent years for Israel's secret service, Shin Bet, which has confirmed these reports. The assassin, Yigal Amir, was a member of Eyal. This development is as amazing as would be an FBI announcement that it had founded the organization to which accused Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVey belonged.

What makes this ambiguity particularly troubling is that it follows a protracted effort on the part of the Rabin government to discourage debate both in Israel and in the United States concerning the wisdom of Israeli peace policies. As the Center for Security Policy noted on 18 September 1995: "The prime minister has adopted a sort of 'Rose Garden' strategy for dealing with American friends of Israel concerned about the agreements he is forging with Israel's long-time enemies. Rather than respond to thoughtful, substantive criticism on its merits, the Rabin government has sought to discredit the critics. At the same time that public support for his policies is diminishing, Rabin seems to be seeking the counsel exclusively of a small group of advisors, all of whom agree with him --a familiar and unhealthy pattern. And tried-and-true American friends of Israel are routinely demeaned as mere 'enemies of peace' and consigned to the growing list of persons considered non grata by the Embassy of Ambassador Itamar Rabinovich. Frequently, their motives are further impugned by the suggestion that they are simply agents of the Israeli political opposition. "Perhaps worst of all, however, has been the practice of actively opposing congressional deliberations about the Rabin initiatives and their problematic implications for U.S. interests, taxpayers and military personnel. With the Clinton administration's strong support, intense Prime Minister Peres intends to use the political capital accruing to Labor from the assassination to achieve an agreement with Syria... pressure from the Israeli government and the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has helped to dissuade key committees on Capitol Hill from allowing careful, timely public scrutiny of even such basic questions as: Should ongoing PLO non-compliance--for example, with its obligation under the Declaration of Principles to end terrorism against Israel--be rewarded with hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars? Should American personnel be placed on the Golan Heights, within miles of the headquarters and training camps of many of the world's most dangerous terrorist organizations? Should Syria be removed from the list of nations sponsoring terrorism and drug-trafficking even though it continues to do both, simply because it signs a peace treaty with Israel?" The Israeli government's current campaign to suppress debate at home and in the U.S. about the wisdom of its peace policies is not occurring in a vacuum. In fact, it coincides with reports that Prime Minister Peres intends to use the political capital accruing to Labor from the assassination--and from the party's efforts to hold Likud responsible for the climate that allegedly prompted it--to achieve a peace agreement with Syria. President Clinton's special Mideast envoy, Ambassador Dennis Ross, visited Israel recently to discuss the status of and (Continued on p.10)

December 1995               - 7 -               Outpost