Natan Sharansky Quotes

This scepticism is the same scepticism I heard a generation ago in the USSR when few thought that a democratic transformation behind the iron curtain was possible.

The central premise behind Oslo was that if Arafat were given enough legitimacy, territory, weapons and money, he would use his power to fight terror and make peace with Israel.

It is not surprising, then, that in the decade since Oslo began, Arafat used all the resources placed at his disposal to fan the flames of hatred against Israel.

In dictatorships you need courage to fight evil; in the free world you need courage to see evil.

Japan is not a Western democracy. The Japanese have kept their traditions, culture and heritage, but they have joined the community of free nations.

It is important to remember that some of the most serious thinkers once thought that democracy was not compatible with the cultures of Germany, Italy, Japan, Latin America and Russia.

Free societies are societies in which the right of dissent is protected.

As soon as people become a little less fearful, they will also begin demanding more freedom.

Non-democratic regimes always need to mobilize their people against external enemies in order to maintain internal stability.

The only peace that can be made with a dictator is once that must be based on deterrence. For today, the dictator may be your friend, but tomorrow he will need you as an enemy.

The message of the free world to any potential Palestinian leadership should be a simple one: Embrace democratic reform and we will embrace you.

Will dissent be permitted? The answer to that question will determine whether the society is a free society or a fear society.

To understand why dictators have a problem with making peace - or at least a genuine peace - the link between the nature of a regime and its external behavior must be understood.

Arafat rejected the deal because, as a dictator who had directed all his energies toward strengthening the Palestinians hatred toward Israel, Arafat could not afford to make peace.

Imagine if the United States, in its war against Hitler, had said to Stalin: we don't want your support until you make your country democratic.

By focusing once and for all on helping the Palestinians build a free society, I have no doubt that an historic compromise between Israelis and Palestinians can be reached and that peace can prevail.

I am optimistic that peace can be achieved in the region because I believe that every society on earth can be free and that if freedom comes to the Middle East, there can be peace.

Unfortunately, little attention was paid to how Arafat ruled. In fact, some saw the harsh and repressive nature of Arafat's regime as actually bolstering the prospects for peace.

Of course, there can be serious injustices within free societies.

Believe me, the drug of freedom is universally potent.

When did America forget that it's America?

I have no doubt that given a real choice, the vast majority of Muslims and Arabs, like everyone else will choose a free society over a fear society.

Those who warned that Gorbachev was being put under too much pressure were wrong.

Bush explained his fundamental concept to me, that freedom is not an American invention, but rather a gift from God to all people.

Free nations generally look for ways to deal with dictators amicably.

My theory is that security - also against terror - can only be accomplished through global democratization.

I was inspired to write this book by those who are sceptical of the power of freedom to change the world.

To go again over the history of the struggle of resistance ... and to think 'Where are all these people today Where is the KGB' is very inspiring

On the other hand, if the free world is concerned with how a new Palestinian leader governs, then the peace process will have a real chance to succeed.

When a man is afraid and accedes to fear, he will always find arguments to justify his own surrender.

In contrast, fear societies are societies in which dissent is banned.