Richard Melson

August 2004

Congressman Dan Burton is to the right of Sharon on the question of Palestine!

The "historo-pathology" expressed below bodes ill for American-led peace in the world.

Notice text at end of interview:

‘Israel’s Security Is Paramount’

WASHINGTON– One of Israel’s most reliable

friends in Washington is Congressman Dan Burton

(R-Indiana). Burton, 66, is now serving his eleventh

term and is expected to be re-elected in November.

Since 1983 Burton has served in key congressional

posts, chairing the House Committee on Government

Reform, the Subcommittee on Human

Rights and Wellness, and the Subcomittee on National

Security, Emerging Threats and International

Relations. He is also co-founder of the Republican

Study Committee and a senior member in the Subcommittees

on Europe and on Asia and the Pacific.

Last year, after a two-year investigation into the

illegal kidnappings of American citizens

in foreign countries, Burton sponsored an

amendment that gives the State Department

and Congress the tools they need

to better negotiate the safe return of

American citizens who are kidnapped.

This amendment earned him a special

editorial in The Wall Street Journal

titled "Dan the Man," praising him for

making the likes of Saudi Arabia understand

the high price to be paid for molesting

U.S. citizens.

But, says Burton, "My major commitment

in the Middle East in addition to

stability in that region is the security of

Israel."

Last Friday he spoke with The Jewish

Press concerning Prime Minister

Ariel Sharon’s proposed disengagement

from Gaza and the consequences of a Palestinian

state. As the interview took place

hours after Democratic presidential candidate

John Kerry delivered his acceptance

speech at the Democratic convention,

the address was naturally a topic

of immediate interest.

Burton: I thought the speech was

very good, I thought his children did an

outstanding job. The problem was that

Senator Kerry did not address a lot of the issues that

are extremely important. He did not give solutions

that face this country. His speech will not sell over

the long run.

For instance, he talked about dealing with Iraq

on the cheap. He voted against additional funding

for the troops in Iraq. We don’t see how he can have

it both ways, saying he was supportive of the conflict

– he wanted to make sure there were adequate

funds and then he voted against it. He didn’t mention

a lot of the other problems in the Middle East,

like the Israeli-Palestinian issue, which is very important

to stability in the entire region.

He talked about dealing with an awful lot of domestic

problems but he didn’t tell how he was going

to pay for them. And he talked about curtailing some

of the tax cuts that we have passed which have stimulated

economic growth. If you repeal those tax cuts

we believe it will put the economy into the wrong

mode.

I don’t believe that the president has been vitriolic

in attacking. The president has been trying to

deal with the terrorist threat, he has been trying to

deal with the economy, so I don’t understand the

"tired old politics of the past." The president is trying

to deal with problems and they’re trying to make

it look like he has a hateful administration.

Well, it’s the kind of war that we have never faced

before. You have faceless enemies. You know who the

leaders are but you have people who are in hoods,

who will blow themselves up in order to make a point,

and who kill people who are in positions of leadership.

They are trying to disrupt the economy of the

world.

So what we have to do is to use our intelligence-gathering

capability to a greater degree than we have

ever before. We need to put more resources into that

so we can infiltrate these terrorist groups and find

out what they plan to do before they do it.

We need to be very proactive; we cannot be reactive.

We have to make sure that we don’t wait until

they attack and then do something. We have to make

sure that if we suspect terrorists, we get hold of them

and keep them until we check everything out. That,

of course, many people view as a violation of their

civil rights and their constitutional rights – which

in some cases is true. But we are in a different world

now than we were in before. We have to make sure

that we preempt a terrorist attack instead of reacting

to it after it happens.

I personally believe that until there is a guarantee,

an absolute ironclad guarantee for the security

of Israel, that Israel ought to do everything they can

to stem the tide of terrorism in that region. I don’t

think that acquiescing to Hamas, Hizbullah and Palestinian

demands, giving up Gaza and the homes

that are over there, is a proper approach.

them a green light to put more pressure on you. And

he faces problems which I may not be familiar with,

so I’m not going to criticize him. But from the outside

I believe, as Winston Churchill said, the strongest

defense is a good offense. When you are threatened,

you do what has to be done to protect the citizens

of your country and you take aggressive action.

You don’t react to terrorists.

You don’t acquiesce to terrorists and you don’t

appease terrorists. I think in the past Israel has been

very aggressive in dealing with threats to its existence.

I hope that strength will remain so that eventually

the enemies of Israel will realize that the only

solution is to make sure that there is a guarantee of

stability for that region and Israel. If that happens

then I think there could be peace

throughout the region and they can

start discussing other things like a Palestinian

state.

But I don’t think you can do that

during a time when there are terrorist

attacks being perpetrated on a

fairly regular basis and every time Israel

doesn’t do what the terrorists

want there are more attacks.

When Israel looks like they are going

to appease the terrorists by moving

in the other direction, then it encourages

more terrorism.

So I think Israel’s history of being

strong and taking the fight to the enemy

when necessary is the only way

to convince them that Israel will continue

to exist and that the only alternative

is to guarantee the security of

Israel and then you can discuss other

issues.

I think the president has a record

of taking the battle to the enemy, the

terrorists, not waiting for them to attack

further here in the U.S. The president

of the United States has taken

steps to protect not only the Jewish

population but the entire population

of the U.S. by creating a Homeland Security Department.

By taking the battle to the enemy in Iraq and in

Afghanistan I think that sends a message that we

are going to fight terrorism wherever it exists. Ultimately

it will be beneficial to Israel as well.

Mr. Kerry has a history of not supporting offensive

action against terrorists. Although he had a good

record when he was in the military and Vietnam,

when he came back he was a peace activist, and I’m

not sure that the American people will feel secure

with that kind of history of a man in the White House.

No. As Everett Dirksen said when he was asked

by a reporter if he was running for president, "Young

man, the boat has left the dock and I wasn’t on it." I

think at my age the thought of doing that is probably

not realistic.

But my major commitment in the Middle East,

in addition to stability to that region and making sure

that Iraq develops some kind of democracy, is the stability

of Israel.

It is imperative in my opinion for the U.S., for

our security, for stability in that region and in the

world, that we make sure that the security of Israel

is guaranteed. That means that the terrorists,

Hizbullah, Hamas and the PLO have to realize that

the U.S. as an ally is not going to let them drive the

Israelis into the sea.

There should be no negotiations until there is

an absolute guarantee that the security of Israel is

going to be a top issue.