(Editor's note: In recent months, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has emerged as one of the most vocal and articulate defenders of Israel on Capitol Hill. Below we reprint a letter that Speaker Gingrich recently sent to President Clinton, and excerpts from Gingrich's speech at a celebration of Israel's 50th anniversary, in Washington, on May 19, 1998.)
Dear Mr. President,
I have followed the recent changes in your administration's Israel policy with a deep and growing sense of concern.
I strongly believe that genuine and lasting peace in Israel can only be achieved through voluntary direct dialogue between the parties, and not as a result of heavy-handed outside pressure by the United States. Israel must be able to decide her own security needs
Israel must be able to decide her own security needs without facing coercion from the U.S.
If your administration uses its influence to unilaterally design a "solution" or force Israel to the table despite Israel's legitimate concerns regarding terrorism, then we are removing any incentive for Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to negotiate. What motivation does Chairman Arafat have to move toward common ground when America volunteers to drag Israel to his current position?
Worse, America's strong-arm tactics would send a clear signal to the supporters of terrorism that their murderous actions are an effective tool in forcing concessions from Israel. Such signals endanger Israel and further weaken the peace process.
Our most loyal democratic allies in the region should not be punished with threats and ultimatums, but given our fullest confidence as they attempt to balance their mutual needs of peace and security. America's best assistance can be offered as a facilitator, not a bully.
Your administration must re-evaluate its policy in this area.
Sincerely,
Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House
Excerpts from Speaker Gingrich's address:
When you have a country whose narrowest point is from here to Dulles Airport, you have a very different sense of what security means than when you have a country which is 3,000 miles wide. And I think it has to be a process of seeing and living what is happening to truly appreciate what is at stake when we use the word "security." ...Sitting in Washington, DC, surrounded by the most powerful military in the world, with the Atlantic Ocean on one side, the Pacific on the other, with a long tradition of security, it is very hard to understand what a crossroads, a ravine, a mountainside can mean in security terms for a state the size of Israel.
Imagine, if you will, that we had lost 2,600,000 dead in a brief struggle for independence. That's the proportionate casualty rate that the people of Israel undertook in the war of independence. Imagine that in the last two years of a so-called peace process 10,000 Americans had been killed by terrorist actions while people in the media talked of peace. That is the equivalent population loss that Israel has suffered since the Oslo Accords.
I listen to my friends talk about the Holocaust Museum; I listen to them talk about the importance of security. But I want to take a minute and really be candid about something I think you know, it's easy to go back and say, well, we should remember; people should have done something. The answer is what, what should they have done in 1935 when Churchill spoke out, in 1936 when Churchill spoke out? As he said in his introduction to his history of the Second World War, he entitled the opening, "The Years the Locusts Have Eaten." He said this was a totally unnecessary war. He said when Hitler was weak and occupied the Rhineland, we could have defeated him easily. When he engaged in the Anschluss and occupied Austria, we could have defeated him easily. As late as Munich, when he was threatening the Czechs, we could have stopped him by allying with a country that was strong and armed. And on every occasion, the voice of appeasement said, "Take no risk." There's always another excuse.
Well let's talk candidly about where we are now. Military technology goes to China and ends up in Iran. The Russians get American aid money, American support, American cooperative ventures in space, and have 30 different state enterprises dealing with Iran. It is not enough to be told we're going to lift the sanctions on Libya and Iran, but at least we're going to help Israel get the Arrow missile. The idea that America will help an Israeli missile stop an Iranian missile is madness. (Applause.)
To truly learn the lesson of the Holocaust is to say, "Where is our strategy?" Where is the strategy to say to Iran, "You cannot be a nation bent on the destruction of your neighbors." Where is our strategy to say bluntly to China, "You cannot sell technology to
(Continued on p.5)
Outpost - 4 - June 1998