Sitting 18 of the Ninth Knesset

Prime Minister's Statement on His Visit to the U.S.

Introduction

Prior to the elections of 1977 Mr. Begin had been depicted in much of the world media-including that of the U.S.-as a doctrinaire former terrorist, a "warmonger." Thus, his first visit to the U.S. in his capacity as prime minister took on a special importance.

His report to the Knesset on the visit and the subsequent debate are notable for the general agreement that it constituted a "personal" success for Begin and for the peace initiative put forward by him calling for the reconvening of the Geneva Conference (chaired by both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.) and aiming at definitive peace treaties rather than additional partial agreements. In what was and was not said, the outline of the Camp David agreements can be detected. The possibility of direct, face-to-face negotiations without any international umbrella seemed too remote to mention, however.

Sitting 18 of the Ninth Knesset

27 July 1977 (12 Av 5737)

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: Mr. Speaker, my teachers and Knesset Members, the following issues were raised in the talks in Washington: the situation in southern Lebanon, the Geneva Conference and its composition, the objectives of negotiations between Israel and its neighbors, the problem of the Arabs in the Land of Israel, Jewish settlement activity, Syrian Jewry and the Jews of the U.S.S.R.

In connection with the situation in southern Lebanon, we told the U.S. President: a. we desire no territory in Lebanon; b. we do not want any war to break out against the background of the events in Lebanon; c. we will not abandon the Christian minority in Lebanon. We explained that we had been a minority for many generations and were always threatened with annihilation, adding that although we were a large majority in our own country, in the Middle East we were a minority, and could not therefore accede in the attempt to destroy a minority. The Christian minority in this case has no less right to exist than the Moslem majority. With the aid of a map we demonstrated that the Christian villages in southern Lebanon constituted a small enclave surrounded by dozens of Moslem villages, and that there were 5,000 terrorists in southern Lebanon today.

1. Toubi (Democratic Front for Peace and Equality): Didn't you say that you were fanning the flames there?

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: And that they shelled the Christian villages every night. The State of Israel continues to extend help to the Christian villages...and without that help the Christian minority in Lebanon would be destroyed....

1. Wilner (Democratic Front for Peace and Equality): ...Has the government sent the army to shell villages in southern Lebanon?

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: With regard to the Geneva Conference and its composition: we proposed that a fresh session of the Geneva Conference be convened after October 10 this year, that is, after the Jewish holidays. That session, in accordance with the precedent set four years ago, should be convened by the two chairmen: the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., in accordance with clause 3 of Resolution 338, which states: immediately after and parallel with the ceasefire, talks will begin and negotiations will be opened between the sides involved, under appropriate auspices, with the object of attaining a just and permanent peace in the Middle East. We made the point that Resolution 338 includes and refers to Resolution 242, and we also suggested that the representatives of the following sovereign states should participate in the renewed Geneva Conference: Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

The countries participating in the Geneva Conference will not submit any prior conditions for their participation. After opening, public session of the Conference, at which the representatives will present their statements, the following mixed committees will be set up: Egypt-Israel, Syria-Israel and Jordan-Israel. Within the framework of those committees negotiations will be conducted for signing peace treaties between Israel and its neighbors. The chair of the committees will be occupied in rotation by Israel and the neighboring country. After the contents of the peace treaties have been decided, namely, the termination of the state of war, the determination of the borders, and the establishment of diplomatic, economic, etc. relations, the Geneva Conference will be convened in another open session at which the peace treaties will be signed.

We agreed to the participation of Lebanon in the Conference, but not to that of the PLO. We did agree to the participation of Palestinians in the Jordanian delegation, provided they were not representatives of the PLO. I would like to make our position perfectly .clear. The organization known as the PLO is an organization of murderers which aspires to destroy the State of Israel and is the Jewish people's most implacable enemy since the Nazis. There is nothing to negotiate with it....The so-called Palestinian Covenant declares that the State of Israel must cease to exist and the vast majority of its Jewish inhabitants forced to leave the country....Naturally, all this is totally divorced from reality, that organization of murderers will not destroy Israel, the Jews will not leave, and all its efforts will be in vain....We will have nothing to do with an organization whose methods and objectives are Nazi....

It should also be noted that the agreement between the U.S. and Israel regarding the Geneva Conference states that any change in its composition will require the agreement of all the participants. It is our right to oppose any change....The objective of the negotiations between Israel and its neighbors is, as agreed between the governments of Israel and the U.S...to attain peace treaties...in the internationally-accepted sense of the term and with all its implications...i.e., ending the state of belligerency, settling permanent borders, establishing diplomatic relations with the exchange of ambassadors, setting up economic relations, etc....

If, as has been rumored, Egypt and Syria insist on the PLO's participation in the Geneva Conference, the Conference will not be able to convene....We have agreed, should that be the case, that the U.S. government would use its good offices in the capitals concerned-Jerusalem, Cairo, Amman, Damascus and possibly Beirut-to establish the three or four mixed committees I have already mentioned, and which will conduct negotiations for peace treaties. Another alternative is to hold conciliation talks, as were proposed to us by the U.S. government in 1972, using the good offices of the U.S. During these talks negotiations will be held to attain peace treaties, within the framework of the mixed committees. We think that this is the most practical way both of convening a special session of the Geneva Conference and of attaining an alternative approach.

Mixed committees are no innovation. They existed in Rhodes in 1949 and produced an internationally-recognized agreement, namely the Armistice Agreements, which stated explicitly that they constituted a step towards permanent peace in the Land of Israel. Another clause of the Armistice Agreements noted that the boundaries should on no account be interpreted as territorial or political borders, and the agreement concerning them should not be regarded as determining a stand on the rights and demands of each side in connection with the final solution of the Palestine problem.

On the basis of that precedent, unfortunately, after a delay of twenty nine years, we propose that permanent peace be made, as the sides undertook to do in 1949. There have been four wars since then and a great deal of bloodshed, which we regret. Neither the undertaking given by the Arab countries nor the other conditions of the Armistice Agreements have been fulfilled by them, such as the commitment to refrain from attacking the civilian population, whether by regular or by irregular forces....The Arab countries aided and abetted terrorists who attacked our civilian population throughout the years...and all the four wars were the outcome of the aggression of the Arab countries and their refusal to make the peace which had been promised in the Armistice Agreements.

But those facts belong to the past. After a great and tragic delay...there comes a moment when one has to start bringing permanent peace to the Middle East. Consequently, the course of establishing mixed committees between Israel and its neighbors is the most practical way of reaching signed peace agreements.

The issue generally known as the Palestinian problem has been raised, though we take issue with that phrase, since Palestine is the Land of Israel, and the British Mandate accorded recognition to the link between the Jewish people and Palestine. Woodrow Wilson, who gave the world the concept of national self determination, appointed a committee for Middle Eastern affairs after the First World War which recommended that "Palestine shall become a Jewish state." When the late Dr. Chaim Weizmann made an agreement with King Feisal it stated that there should be friendly relations and understanding between "the Arab state" and "Palestine," the former meaning the Arab nation and the latter the Land of Israel for the Jewish people....Thus, anyone who uses the phrase "Palestine problem" to refer to the Arabs of the Land of Israel is distorting the historical facts....

The term "Palestine entity" has also been used. We made it clear that any proposal of this kind will inevitably lead to the establishment of a state known as "Palestinian." And a Palestinian state, as is presumably being proposed by President Sadat of Egypt, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, linked by an exterritorial strip, that is, under Arab sovereignty... is a threat to the existence of the Jewish state.

We have no need of quotations to know what the organization which was authorized by the Rabat Conference to represent all the Palestinian Arabs wants. Then there will be continuous bloodshed. That is not theory. A similar situation obtained for nineteen years, and we had continuous bloodshed. We were attacked in Jerusalem, near Tel Aviv, in Ashkelon and Ashdod, in the north, the east and the south, every week, if not every day. It is characteristic that in making this demand the Egyptian President does not promise peace or a peace treaty but what is known as non-belligerency, something which has no status in international law, in other words, non-peace. If that situation were to obtain the Middle East would lose every chance of peace, because then, as I demonstrated to the president and his advisors, the Arabs would take another look at the map and ask themselves: why should we make peace with Israel? Their cannon would be nine miles from the sea facing Netanya, ten miles by way of Kalkilya, twenty miles from Tel Aviv, ten miles from Beersheba, etc. Modern Soviet artillery has a range of over thirty miles. There is no doubt that if a Palestinian state were established it would not be long before it received all the most up-to-date and sophisticated weapons from the U.S.S.R...and a Soviet base was established there.

It is no coincidence that at the recent conference in Moscow chaired by Leonid Brezhnev both Castro and Arafat participated....

1. Toubi (Democratic Front for Peace and Equality): And if it is independent, like Israel, will you agree to that state then...?

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: ...As I have already said, no, on no account will we agree to a Palestinian state....I am telling the House and the nation what would happen if it were to come into existence. But it will not come into existence.

1. Wilner (Democratic Front for Peace and Equality): Then there will be peace and security....

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: That would be the reality, an extremely grave threat to Israel's existence and to the lives of every man, woman and child in Israel. As well as a threat to the free world, of course. We know what is happening in the Middle East. From Ethiopia to Libya. Is a Soviet base needed in the heart of the Middle East too, from which it will be possible to spread in every direction? The answer is obvious. We have made our position on this point absolutely clear, so that there should be no room for misunderstanding. We completely and utterly reject the establishment of a state known as "Palestinian," in any shape or form. Any proposal beginning with what is known as a "Palestine entity" will undoubtedly lead to the establishment of such a state. We say an unequivocal "no" to that idea, whatever its shape.

There are those who claim that by saying no to a Palestinian state we are adopting a negative attitude, but that is not so:...As in the case of the ten commandments, for example, negation implies a positive injunction....Thus, by saying no to a Palestinian state we are making a positive statement about the chances of peace and the prevention of bloodshed....We have been asked not to establish new settlements across the Green Line, but we have made our position clear on this subject too. There are places in the U.S. called Hebron, Shiloh, Bethel, Bethlehem, etc. Those names indicate the deep connection between the American people and the Bible. Let us suppose that the governors of the states where those towns are situated were to declare that any American citizen could go and live there-except Jews. There would be an outcry throughout the U.S. at this discrimination. That is why we ask whether it is acceptable for a Jewish government to prevent Jews from buying land in the Land of Israel and building their homes in Bethlehem or Hebron or Shiloh...? In other words, we insist on the inalienable rights of Jews to live in the Land of Israel. There is no reason why Jews and Arabs can live in Jaffa and Haifa, Ramle and Lod, Acre and Nazereth and elsewhere, and cannot live side by side, in peace and mutual respect, in Judea and Samaria, Gaza and Rafah. There is no justification for that, and that is the government's position.

The U.S. Secretary of State said yesterday that the settlements violated international law....With all due respect, I would like to tell him that that accusation is groundless. Israel upholds international law, but if someone is relying on the Geneva Convention of 1949, which is intended to protect the civilian inhabitants of occupied territories, I would like to say, first, that Jewish settlement activity on no account harms the Arabs of the Land of Israel. We have not dispossessed a single Arab of his land, nor shall we do so. The decision taken by the government yesterday refers to three existing settlements-Eilon Moreh, Ofra and Ma'aleh Adumim. No Arab land was appropriated in order to establish them....It is true that the previous government was in doubt about the permanency of one settlement, Eilon Moreh...but the attitude of the present government is different. We think that Jews have every right to live at Eilon Moreh...as well as in the other settlements...and that no injustice has been caused to a single Arab family. We will act similarly in the future, too. Jewish settlement activity will not be associated with dispossession and injustice of any kind to a single Arab inhabitant anywhere in the Land of Israel.

1. Toubi (Democratic Front for Peace and Equality): That's nonsense. The facts are different. Life has proved that every new settlement involves the dispossession of a people dwelling in its homeland.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: With regard to international law, Israeli rule in the Land of Israel is not a rule of occupation. The Knesset ruled thus in 1967, when it passed a law saying that the government was entitled to issue an ordinance extending the jurisdiction, law and administration of the state to every part of the Land of Israel. That is the law. That is our law. That is the law that was adopted by the house of representatives of the sovereign State of Israel...and which empowers the government to act accordingly...meaning that no part of the Land of Israel can be regarded as occupied territory....

1. Pa'il (Sheli): Perhaps the Speaker would explain to us why that Knesset left Jordanian law in effect in Judea and Samaria, and Egyptian law in Gaza and Rafah.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: There is no contradiction. As you know, when the state was established certain laws were left on the books while others were annulled, including the White' Paper banning Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel....Consequently, the Minister of Defense extended our law to parts of the Land of Israel regarding which it was unclear whether it applied, and he did so by an administrative order, by virtue of the power vested in him. There is nothing new in that nor is there any contradiction....

As for the claim that we have violated international law, when is a country which has occupied the territory of another country regarded as an occupying power? When it is clear that the first country had sovereignty over the area taken away from it by war. The question is whether the government of Hashemite Jordan had sovereignty or acknowledged sovereignty over Judea and Samaria....The answer is absolutely not. Jordan invaded the western Land of Israel in violation of all international law. That was aggression. It caused bloodshed, destroyed synagogues and tried, together with Egypt and Syria, to destroy Israel's independence the day after it had been proclaimed....Does an act of injustice, of aggressive invasion, grant any right...?

1. Pa'il (Sheli): The same applies when the injustice is perpetrated by Jews.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: We perpetrated no injustice. We defended ourselves. You were one of the defenders in 1948. You were attacked by the Arab Legion. They wanted to kill you too. By Divine intervention you remained alive, together with me.

1. Pa'il (Sheli): Why do you permit Jordanian law to remain in force in Judea and Samaria, while telling the Knesset that that is not so?

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: An act of injustice cannot grant any right. Furthermore, no country, apart from two, recognized King Abdullah's illegal act of annexation of the early 1950s. One of those two countries was Britain-in those days Glubb Pasha was still in Amman and the other was Pakistan, that bastion of democracy. The U.S. never recognized that de jure annexation...and nor did the rest of the world, including the Arabs.

1. Atshi (Democratic Movement for Change): ...Are you talking about land or

inhabitants or both?

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: I am talking about the Land of Israel, my friend. You have switched parties, and the one you used to belong to preached that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people by right....The Arabs, that is, those who live in the Land of Israel and do not have foreign citizenship, have every right to live alongside us in the Land of Israel, with equal rights with the Jewish inhabitants of the Land of Israel. You should know that there are today some 100,000 Jewish inhabitants who are not citizens and vote only for the local authorities, not the Knesset. We want exactly the same law to apply to the Arab inhabitants who do not have Israeli citizenship...i.e., that they may educate their children in their own language, according to their religion and tradition, and have the same individual rights as Jewish inhabitants.

1. Atshi (Democratic Movement for Change): Are you prepared to grant them citizenship?

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: Yes. When the time comes, I am prepared to offer the Arab inhabitants free choice as to their citizenship. We will not force ours upon them, but if any of them want it, when the time comes, I shall propose that they receive it....

On behalf of the government of Israel, I would like to express deep regret and disappointment at the Secretary of State's statement, for which there was no justification. During our talks we left no room for doubt regarding our position regarding settlement activity in the Land of Israel. We do not want there to be any doubts today, either....It is true that there are differences of opinion on this score between the governments of Israel and the U.S. They are not new and have existed since the Six Day War...but Israel and the U.S. have friendly relations.... We have differences of opinion on other topics too...and must agree to disagree without allowing this to overshadow the deep friendship between our two countries....For years the U.S. affirmed its commitment to ensuring the security and survival of Israel, but we regard the word "survival" as having negative connotations, especially in this generation, and in view of the fact that the responsibility for this is ours alone....We therefore requested that "survival" be replaced by "wellbeing," and we hope that the differences of opinion between us will not cast a shadow over this phrase....

1. Nof (Democratic Movement for Change): With regard to being in favor of settlement activity, why wasn't the thing itself enough? Why did you have to issue a statement yesterday?

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: ...There was no statement yesterday. The Ministerial Committee on Settlement Activity, chaired by the Minister of Agriculture, met yesterday...and reached a perfectly ordinary, routine decision. There are three Jewish settlements which had not yet been officially recognized as regards the receipt of supplies and governmental support. That recognition was given to them. No statement. Just a simple decision....

1. Pa'il (Sheli): Apropos statements, what will be included in the opening statement of Israel's delegation to Geneva...?

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: ...I hope and pray that we reach Geneva. We want the Geneva Conference. Let us hope we get there and that the government of Israel makes decisions. And I am sure that when our representatives at Geneva speak on the basis of, those decisions, the nation in Israel will be proud of their representatives and what they say.

1. Wilner (Democratic Front for Peace and Equality): That is a policy which will lead to a terrible war involving thousands of casualties and cemeteries. Why are you laughing?

1. Shilanski (Likud): We're laughing at the voice of Moscow.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: The government discussed the issue of the settlements today, and I have the honor of bringing its decision before the Knesset: "The government authorizes the Ministerial Committee on Settlement Activity to decide to establish new settlements. The Committee's decisions will be binding on the government."

We raised the problem of our brethren in Syria and asked that action be taken to rescue them and get them out of the ghetto in which they are living. There are about 4,000 persons, or 800 families, living in fear. We will not rest until our brethren from Syria have reached a safe haven and a life of freedom.

We also raised the issue of the Jews of the U.S.S.R., where there has been a truly remarkable development. For almost two generations Soviet Jewry was cut off from its nation and its land, knowing neither the Bible, Hebrew, Israel nor the Jewish people. Then there was a tremendous awakening, and the Jewish youngsters of the U.S.S.R. have returned to us. They are prepared to sacrifice themselves, in faith and in love, to go to concentration camps and prisons, suffer hunger and persecution, for the sake of the right to immigrate to-in their phrase-the historic homeland of the Jewish people. The Jewish people will not rest, and will conduct a continual public campaign, until the day comes and we believe it will-when every Jew who wishes to come home, to Israel, will be able to do so....

I also met with the U.S. Defense Secretary, Mr. Brown...and presented Israel's urgent defense problems to him. The next day the Secretary informed our ambassador...of the President's decision to supply us with ammunition, hydrofoil boats, the funds required to develop the project connected with the Merhava tank, and anti-tank helicopters, amounting altogether to almost 250 million dollars....

In my meeting with the U.S. Treasury Secretary I described our country's economic problems. I told him that our people wished to live by its own labors and looked to the day when it would not need financial aid from abroad, but in the immediate future we do need aid because we devote immense sums...to our national defense needs. He agreed, and further discussions will be held to determine the amounts involved....

I met with a total of seventy Senators...and two hundred Congressmen...and held good and productive discussions with them...as well as with other leading figures in the U.S. I also met the Secretary-General of the U.N., Mr. Waldheim, with whom I raised the subject of the Christians in Lebanon....I also proposed to him that he persuade the Arab delegations to maintain what is known as a political ceasefire until the Geneva Conference is convened. In addition, I asked him to intervene in Damascus on behalf of the Jews and the need to get them out of Syria. With regard to the resolution of the nine European countries, I told him that the Europeans should be very careful in raising matters whose outcome could be the shedding of Jewish blood. I told him that the continent of Europe was saturated with Jewish blood, and that the Rhine, the Danube, the Vistula and the Dneiper rivers flowed with Jewish blood....

I had deeply moving meetings with American Jewry....The Presidents' Conference, the organization representing mighty, proud, free, influential American Jewry, announced immediately after the elections that it would support Israel following the change wrought by the voters democratically, proving that Israel is indeed the only democracy in the Middle East, both by the free elections and by the orderly transfer of government....Rabbi Schindler worked tirelessly to unite American Jewry, and public opinion in general, behind Israel after May 17....I felt a tremendous sense of unity between us and them....I also met with leading rabbis, and was deeply impressed by them. They believe in the eternity of the Jewish people. I received their blessing for my mission and learned a great deal from them. I am extremely grateful to them....

In my meetings with the leaders of Conservative and Reform Jewry they voiced their concern at the proposed amendment regarding conversions....I told them of my undertaking to amend the law, not because of pressure from the religious parties but because that is what I believe....This is a free country and everyone has the right to think and believe as he pleases...but conversion is primarily a feature of religious law, and we are not harming anyone by giving it its rightful place.... We did not reach agreement on that point, though we did agree that they would send a delegation to Israel to talk with me, the Minister of the Interior and all those concerned....

I also had extremely moving meetings with thousands of American Jews, and felt that the morale of the Jews of the Diaspora is very high....Through the mass media I also had the opportunity of speaking to the entire American nation...and I answered the searching questions which were put to me to the best of my ability and understanding. The reaction we received was on the whole positive....

In conclusion...it was one of the outstanding events of my life to meet the President of the U.S., Mr. Carter....I spent eight years in the company of my teacher and mentor, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and since then I am not easily impressed by people. I have met presidents, heads of government, ministers and great writers and am not easily impressed, but I emerged from the talks in Washington with the feeling that the U.S. President is a great man. He has a quick grasp of the main points of a problem, the ability to make rapid decisions and a love for human liberty, and hence his concern for human rights, in which Israel will support him unconditionally...., Human rights must be upheld in the East as in the West

1. Wilner (Democratic Front for Peace and Equality): First of all human rights should be upheld in the occupied territories.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: -against all tyranny and dictatorship, wherever they might be....I .am sure that he will do great things for the cause of human rights in the world.

Our talks were frank, and for quite a large part of the time personal, regarding which I am sure the Knesset does not expect a report....We are aware of the fact that there differences of opinion between us, as well as agreement on basic points. Those differences of opinion need not lead to a rift between the U.S. and Israel....As free men and as friends...because we contribute a great deal to the national security of the U.S., we may agree to disagree without impairing our warm relations with that mighty democracy, the hope of all mankind and the flag bearer of freedom and democracy under the leadership of a president who is both the leader and the protector of the free world, on the one hand, and the revived Jewish state, a small country fulfilling the great historic vision of the Jewish people, which was persecuted throughout the generations and destroyed in this, and which summoned up the last vestiges of its national strength, by the heroism of its fighting men and endeavors of its brave pioneers, and established its state, on the other. And we will all see to it that it continues to exist as the Jewish state in our land forever.

1. Peres (Alignment): Madam Speaker, distinguished Knesset, the Prime Minister has returned from an exhausting journey in which there were some high points, and we welcome him back. It is evident that he gave a great deal of thought to dealing with this mission before he left, and how to describe it after he returned. On the one hand, he assured us before he left that this was no fateful mission, a statement which indicates a sense of proportion; on the other hand, he asked us to pray for him, as if a miracle or a disaster were about to happen in Washington. After returning he claimed on the one hand that an unwritten alliance had been established between us and the U.S., and on the other he admitted that there were differences of opinion between us. Both the unwritten alliance and the continuing differences of opinion indicate more about the temperament of the description than the actual state of affairs.

For the truth is that our friendship with the U.S. is deep-rooted and long-standing, and overrides differences of opinion. President Carter, like his predecessors, stated his commitment to Israel, its security, its welfare and its well-being, I am glad to add....He has undertaken to reject an imposed settlement and to seek a peaceful solution to the problem. What has changed, then, is not the friendship between us and the U.S. but the treatment of the differences of opinion between our two countries.

The choice confronting the Prime Minister was whether to try to reach an agreement with America regarding political steps to be taken in the foreseeable future, or, in order to circumvent this problem, to be content ~with clarifying the possible procedures which might or might not be accepted by the Arabs, and to relieve the relations between Israel and the U.S. of the tradition of coordinating positions on the substance of the subject. He preferred a simple and immediate solution at the price of making things more difficult for future relations between Israel and the U.S.

Naturally, I congratulate the Prime Minister on his flexibility with regard to procedural matters, something to which we have not been accustomed from him. He agreed to things which seemed very difficult to him in the past: he adopted Resolution 242 as the basis for the convening of the Geneva Conference, despite the fact that in the past he has described it as "marching backwards" and claimed that it involves the repartition of Judea and Samaria....But now he too has agreed to its serving as a basis for the Geneva Conference. He has agreed that Judea, Samaria and even Jerusalem are negotiable, an expression he has never allowed to pass his lips till now....After the talks he postponed the imposition of Israeli law on Judea, Samaria and Gaza, though he has not abandoned the idea. Nor is it clear to me, sir, whether you have rejected the U.S. President's request to postpone actual settlement activity until after October.

You deserve credit for adhering to your principles. I don't think that the U.S. President asked you to betray your principles. He asked you for a postponement. I feel slightly uneasy, after yesterday's de jure, almost dramatic, recognition of three existing settlements, and the Minister of Agriculture's unaccustomedly diplomatic statement that he "neither confirms nor denies it."...I would like to say that if Mr. Begin were a member of a government not led by himself which was so quick to make concessions, even if only in the procedural sphere, he would have resigned from it by now. "I have no doubt that the Prime Minister is a firm person, but I have seen firm people make concessions, doing so with great firmness, particularly on the internal front." I ask the House not to be agitated, I am quoting what Mr. Begin said about Golda Meir when she agreed to Resolution 242....

Nor was he particular about the actual procedure: Geneva under the auspices of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.-by all means; conciliation talks-by all means. There is no longer any strict adherence to the principle of direct negotiations....I ask myself why the Prime Minister...gave so much flexibility to the negotiating procedure and left so little for the actual subject to be negotiated. The answer would seem to be in order to refrain as far as possible from discussing the real subject on the agenda-what we are going to negotiate about, and how, with the U.S. and the Arab countries. The procedural aspect is enough for him.

The Prime Minister has asked me whether the Alignment's plan, the Allon plan or any other, would be acceptable to the Arabs and put an end to warfare....I am not prepared to give a simple answer, and will only say that since the danger exists, we were and are prepared to accept interim agreements.

Obviously, a peace treaty is preferable to an interim agreement, but an interim agreement is preferable to war, and the prevention of war is an extremely serious moral and political objective....

Mr. Begin claims that he has returned from America with two signal achievements, the first being personal friendship, on which I congratulate him, although it appears in a different light today, and the second being U.S. support for a peace treaty....That claim is completely unfounded, since President Carter expressed his support for a peace treaty long before Mr. Begin set out on his journey...so it cannot be described as his achievement....

I wouldn't mind the Prime Minister taking the credit for achievements which are not his, but what is really serious is that the President spoke about the peace treaty not as an entity in itself but as part of a three point program involving a peace treaty, a "homeland" and withdrawal to the 1967 borders....The Prime Minister should not have separated one side of the triangle from the rest....One must tell the nation and the world the truth, not sink into unfounded optimism.

1. Cohen (Likud): Nor into unfounded demagoguery.

1. Peres (Alignment): One should not paint matters in unjustifiably rosy hues. I never claimed to have obtained from the U.S. President something I did not get. I know that we are in disagreement with him.

1. Arens (Likud): Are you saying that the U.S. President will agree to a peace treaty only on those conditions.

1. Peres (Alignment): If the negotiations were to be held with America, they wouldn't mind if the Likud kept both banks of the Jordan....The problem is the Arabs. The President stands in between the Arab and the Israeli positions. Really, why are we playing with words here? Instead of clarifying the whole triangle with President Carter, the Prime Minister has suggested that we keep all quiet. The President has had his say, but we must keep quiet vis-à-vis public opinion as October approaches. Where's the logic...? Did we not argue with the Americans, with Rogers, with Dulles, with Kissinger, in broad daylight, openly and without keeping quiet?

1. Cohen (Likud): You went down on your knees and begged.

1. Peres (Alignment): The attempt to conceal the disagreement can mean one of two things: either the government wants to create the false impression of an idyll, at least for a while on the internal level, creating enthusiasm which it will not be possible to sustain, or it believes that if it meets the Arabs at Geneva the Arab position will be more accommodating than that of the Americans, especially after the Arabs have heard that the President favors a "homeland" and the 1967 borders....How do you expect the Arab position to change at Geneva, given the American position and the fact that the Russians will support them all along the line...?

Once it becomes clear to the Arabs that whereas there are no prior conditions for the negotiations, the Prime Minister's principle is that when the negotiations are over he will extend Israeli law to Judea, Samaria and Gaza, do you think they will sign a peace treaty?...And what will happen then? Will we ask the Russians and Americans to persuade the Arabs to modify their stand after we have absolved them of the need to do this, saying, let us meet them and then we'll manage? The Prime Minister claims that for 29 years we did not ask for a peace treaty. Does he think that by asking for it now he'll get it? On the basis of no political or territorial change in Judea and Samaria?

1. Cohen (Likud): On the basis of the fact that others, and not you, are in power.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: What is your proposal for the functional division of Judea and Samaria? Have you accepted Mapam's position?

1. Peres (Alignment): I am more modest in my position than the Prime Minister is in his. I state explicitly that, being aware of the difficulties, I am prepared to accept interim agreements....

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: By all means, but what is to be the functional division of Judea and Samaria?

1. Peres (Alignment): Either Mr. Begin intends to change his attitudes in October, and if that is so why doesn't he coordinate them with the U.S. in July? If he does not intend to change them in October, what is the actual peace plan, not the procedure of the meeting? If he is prepared to compromise, why doesn't he ask the U.S. to attain a bilateral compromise from the Arabs too? If the Arabs agree, there will be peace. If not, they will be responsible for having rejected the idea, not us. But America is in a situation of compromise, not confrontation....

1. Nissim (Likud): You had three and a half years after the Yom Kippur War? What did you do?

242. Peres (Alignment): For three and a half years we nourished Arab-Israel-U.S. relations with interim agreements. That is our conception....We would certainly have gone to Geneva, but after preparing the ground and without creating unrealistic expectations....We would have considered what subjects to raise at Geneva-peace treaties, which we do not reject but doubt whether they are attainable since the Arabs are not always in agreement, or interim agreements, which may be more attainable. Whatever the topic, we would have sorted things out in advance with the U.S., ensuring either full coordination or its acceptance of our interpretation of Resolution 242....We would have informed the nation and the Arabs that 'we were prepared to compromise on every front, with all three countries, and that if they agreed there would be peace, if not, the responsibility would be theirs. As regards the settlements, we would have refrained from engaging in that kind of activity at this stage, having no need to create unnecessary dramas now....Finally, we would not have cut the budget of the Ministry of Defense without informing the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, as this government has done....

The main point is that we would have told the nation and the world the truth: we aspire to peace, but peace has a price....

The Minister of Health, E. Shostak: What price?

1. Peres (Alignment): The price must be paid by both sides, the Arabs and the Israelis. The Israeli side is prepared to pay the price....Peace is not a debating competition but a search for a common denominator between the two sides, and there is an Arab side to peace....The fact that we have more arguments does not mean that the Arab side does not exist. We must, in addition, maintain Israel's deterrent capacity. If they want it, we are ready for a comprehensive settlement, if not we will settle for an interim agreement. It is on that basis that we would go to the U.S. and try to talk to the U.S. President. We would come to grips with the problems now in order to pave the way in the future, and not create the impression that procedure will resolve everything.

1. Tamir (Democratic Movement for Change): Madam Speaker, Knesset Members, the Prime Minister has returned from an important mission to the U.S. which was crowned with success in many areas. The Prime Minister was impressive as a proud Jew and Israeli, imbued with faith in his mission, acting wisely, well and with human warmth on behalf of the entire nation....He did this with the Administration, on Capitol Hill, in the American media and in forging a path to all the strata of U.S. Jewry. As someone who has both praised and criticized MK Begin from this podium, when necessary, I would like to congratulate him now.

Nonetheless...there is a limit to personal relations and the deep impression cast by individuals as a political tool in the international arena....Both the Prime Minister and I learned from Ze'ev Jabotinsky that the deciding factor in international relations is a nation's interests, over and above sentiments and feelings, however important, and they are very important in the relations between the U.S. and Israel. Certain basic facts were not changed by the visit and could not be changed by it, and there is also a limit to the Prime Minister's ability to present our side....Today, it seems, even the Prime Minister is con cerned by the fact that presenting our side and making an impressive appearance are not enough, and he has been obliged to take the line of agreeing to disagree, because explanations were not enough to reconcile opposing political interests.

There is a broad base of common interests between the U.S. and Israel, but there are also increasing common interests between the U.S. and the Arab countries which surround us and are hostile to us....That is the situation in which Israel finds itself at present, and will continue to do so. There are no facile solutions to the problem or simple formulae for overcoming the objective difficulties....There is no alternative but to take the changed circumstances into account and adapt our policy to reconcile what is desirable with what is feasible.

I therefore congratulate the Prime Minister for having realized that his attitudes on a variety of subjects for which he fought in the past have to undergo a positive revision, in view of the circumstances and the fact that he is a prime minister who wishes to guide the State of Israel to the objective of peace. The arguments we have heard in the past about peace being unattainable were not expressed today, and that is a good thing....The Prime Minister stressed Israel's desire for peace not as a distant dream but as an urgent necessity for Israel's survival....Another good thing is the readiness to go to the Geneva Conference, when invited, on the basis of Resolution 242, a readiness which did not exist four years ago....

The Knesset and the public do not have precise information about the document the Prime Minister submitted to President Carter and the talks they held, though there have been some leaks about the former in the press....From them we learn that there is readiness to make territorial concessions in return for peace. That is also an unavoidable and praiseworthy-adaptation to current circumstances....As we all know, that has not always been the Prime Minister's approach....I commend the pragmatic approach, which is inevitable when he who is in power seeks to fulfill his mission....

The information which has reached us speaks of no withdrawal whatsoever in the east, territorial concessions in the Golan Heights and a significant withdrawal in the Sinai. If it were possible to reach full peace on that basis I am sure that the greater part of the nation would welcome it, but in the situation created after the Yom Kippur War that is not possible. If that is not clear in July, it will be in October, and if not in October, then at the beginning of next year. Not because it is desirable but because of the situation I described, namely, deep-seated U.S. interests in the Arab countries and the fact that the U.S. is our only significant ally in the international arena. In that situation there is no alternative but for Israel to be ready to make extensive territorial concessions on all three fronts. I propose that we leave legal arguments aside for the moment, since they can always be interpreted in a variety of ways, and accept that it is interests which will determine matters....

What worries me greatly is that the hermetic sealing of the eastern front regarding our relations with Jordan might lead the government, because of international and U.S. pressure, to state in advance its readiness to make far-reaching withdrawals, more than are actually needed, in the north and the south. Why was the term "withdrawal" substituted for the more accommodating one of °compromise"? Why this readiness to make a significant withdrawal from the Sinai? In my opinion, the Sinai is very small compared with the Arab countries. Why did we have to go so far at this stage regarding the north and the south, unless because we had closed all the taps elsewhere...?

Mr. Begin objected vehemently to the use of the word "withdrawal" in government documents in the past....I say, and have said in the past, that there is no alternative to a territorial compromise, but let us not create a situation in which, because of a firm stand on one subject, however important, we are obliged to declare our readiness to withdraw in areas of the highest importance for our defense-the Golan Heights and the Sinai....We should have said: we will draw no maps, we will not speak of withdrawal, we are prepared in principle to reach a territorial compromise on all three borders, and will speak to the Arabs in the process of direct negotiations.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: And is that so simple?

1. Tamir (Democratic Movement for Change): No, it's not. As I have said, there are no simple solutions, and we all have to make compromises with ourselves, with our own formulae, our own statements, in view of the circumstances....I am merely proposing a framework which in my opinion will be more acceptable to the Americans and perhaps far less dangerous for Israel's security....Above all, I maintain that taking an overly firm stand regarding the eastern front could rapidly push Israel to a position which the present Foreign Minister has advocated in the past, namely, one-sided withdrawals without peace in the north and the south, withdrawals which the Prime Minister and many of those now in the Opposition have opposed in the past and still do....

1. Warhaftig (National Religious Party): Madam Speaker, my teachers and rabbis, I also wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on the success of his visit to the U.S., particularly in view of four achievements: 1. he established a good personal relationship with the U.S. President; 2. he showed the great American nation and the U.S. President the special relationship between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, the holy land, clarifying our historic, religious and national rights; 3. he contributed to clarifying Israel's fierce desire for true peace, even in return for concessions and compromises, as is indicated by the bold proposal to convene the Geneva Conference without prior conditions, everything being negotiable; 4. he gained the hearts of U.S. Jewry by the firmness of his convictions, strengthening their faith in and loyalty to the State of Israel....

I think that till now both Israel and the Arabs have been laboring under a delusion and ignoring reality by assuming that the U.S. would solve all the problems....Israel failed to realize that its principal partner was our Arab neighbors, whom we are obliged to encounter on the battlefield, alongside whom we must live and maintain relations of good-neighborliness, and with whom we must conduct negotiations for agreements, for peace. To a greater extent than Israel, even, the Arab countries deluded themselves that the U.S. would solve all their problems, bringing them the solution they sought on a silver platter, namely, Israel's withdrawal from the territories....

A great deal of blood has been shed in this region, both Jewish and Arab blood, because in their arrogance the Arab countries did not want to face historical reality and accept the fact of Israel's existence, and the historic and religious right of the Jewish people to their land....I think that the Prime Minister's visit made that clear to all concerned, as well as the fact that we must meet, talk and negotiate, and hence his proposal to revive the Geneva Conference without any prior conditions....There is a danger in that, and we must beware of going to Geneva without being prepared....By virtue of our nation's faith and the strength of the IDF, however, we must attempt to enter that lion's den of negotiations, and take the risk involved. The path is long and very difficult, but perhaps shorter than the alternative of interim agreements, which are only a last resort, not an end in themselves....

Allow me to point out that the Geneva Conference is not yet certain and the reactions of the Arab countries vary. Egypt's response, for example, is different from that of Syria. When the time comes, there may be internal differences of opinion in Israel...but there is no point in fanning the flames of internal dissent just now. We must maintain the national consensus as long as possible. Our strength lies in maximal national unity for as long as possible....The government of~ Israel must combine vision with practicality, making use of its advantages while being aware of its limitations...and then perhaps we may reach serious peace negotiations, and maybe even peace itself.

…

1. Toubi (Democratic Front for Peace and Equality): Distinguished Speaker and Knesset...one of the newspapers has reported that Mr. Begin told President Carter that "the Palestinian problem is the hoax of the century." The Prime Minister reiterated that view here today when he said that...the Palestinian Arab people had no right to a homeland, disregarding its existence, together with the U.N. resolutions on the basis of which Israel came into existence and the rights of both nations, Arab and Jewish, to independence in this country were recognized.

But the hoax of the century is the imaginary success of the Prime Minister, Mr. Menahem Begin, during his visit to the U.S. We are told with a great fanfare that the Prime Minister established good personal relations with the U.S. President, and can talk to him whenever he wishes by phone, and that the Prime Minister and President Carter agreed that the Geneva talks should conclude with a peace treaty. All this is empty talk...intended to strengthen the Prime Minister's position and conceal the threat to peace arising from the Likud government's policy and the conspiracy being woven in Washington against the Geneva Conference and a just peace.

There is nothing new in saying that the Geneva Conference should conclude with a peace treaty. Everyone knows that the U.S.S.R. has repeatedly said that....The basic question is, however, how to attain it when the plan for the greater Land of Israel blocks the way and is merely a blueprint for a fresh war....It will not be long before the smoke of the propaganda regarding the Prime Minister s "successes" disperses and it becomes apparent that what we have here is a great loss to the cause of peace. The Prime Minister made a great fuss about what is known as "the secret peace plan," but there is in fact no peace plan nor any secrets....The Prime Minister's so-called plan for the solution of the crisis is a more extreme version of the Alignment's policy of annexation and disregard for the rights of the Palestinians, which blocked the path to peace till now.

That plan comprises: an extensive withdrawal from the Sinai, i.e., withdrawal which will leave parts of the Sinai under Israeli occupation; a limited withdrawal from the Golan Heights, i.e., continuing the Israeli occupation of most of the Golan Heights; Israeli military rule in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, while giving limited authority to Jordan in the areas of economics and services...denying the Palestinians the right to self determination and their own country alongside Israel. To speak of perpetuating occupation as the peace plan which Israel will bring to the Geneva Conference is an insult to one's intelligence and constitutes demagoguery. It involves misleading world public opinion and guaranteeing the failure of the Geneva Conference.

The Prime Minister stubbornly insists on ignoring the existence of the Palestinian nation, which demands to be freed from foreign occupation and is entitled to recognition and support from the U.N. and the entire world....The Prime Minister's position on the subject is simply unrealistic....The world has recognized the rights of the Palestinians, and if the Prime Minister says that the PLO cannot participate in the Geneva Conference, that the Palestinians have no right to a country of their own and that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will be part of Israel, he is deliberately harming any chance of peace.

No one is going to swallow that line and the Prime Ministers demagoguery that the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will involve constant war and bloodshed....No, sir, it is not the fulfillment of the right to self determination of the Palestinians which will lead to bloodshed but your policy, your plan, which seeks to perpetuate occupation and deprive the Palestinians of their rights....To talk of a Soviet base, of Soviet cannon, in order to gain the support of the U.S. is empty talk, demagoguery, which should not be taken seriously.

While he was in the U.S. the Prime Minister spoke a great deal about his readiness to go to Geneva, and proposed a procedure whereby three or four bilateral committees would conduct negotiations without any prior conditions....He even said that resolutions 242 and 338 would constitute the basis for the Conference. A veritable idyll. But all that becomes extremely cynical and meaningless when the Prime Minister presents a plan which is in complete contradiction to all that and when his government takes steps to create faits accomplis....Thus, the Prime Minister's peace plan is intended in effect to prevent the convening of the Geneva Conference, or to ensure its failure.

Without being ready to withdraw to the borders of 4 June 1967 and recognize the rights of the Palestinians in accordance with the resolutions of the U.N., everything the Israel government said in the U.S. about the Geneva Conference is misleading and disingenuous. Let no one in Israel be deluded that the Begin plan will bring Israel nearer peace or gain time or establish the occupation. It will merely accelerate the processes of deterioration towards war....

We call on all the forces of peace and democracy to fight this dangerous deterioration in the service of imperialism and reaction, and to work to prevent war and establish peace....What is most shameful is that the Alignment attacks the Likud government from the right flank...instead of joining forces against the nationalistic consensus, cooperating on a broad front with all the peace-loving forces...and bringing the rule of the Likud government to an end....

…

1. Aloni (Citizens Rights Movement): Mr. Speaker, distinguished Knesset...I was among those who prayed for the success of your mission, Mr. Prime Minister, and I was very pleased, together with everyone else, to see your impressive appearance and the wonderful way you put across the problem of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, a struggle not for the recognition but for the survival of the state. I think that not since Abba Eban's great speech at the time of the Six Day War-when the conditions were more favorable-has there been a more important act of stating our position on an international stage as this one.

I think that you took a splendid tactical step by putting the ball in our opponents' court. It is not for us to make peace, but we make an appeal for peace and they must reply....What concerns me is that we may find ourself playing alone...while against us are ranged all our enemies, supported by the U.S.S.R., and the U.S. is not our ally, since we have agreed to disagree....Once again 'we are liable to find ourselves in the tragic position of "the whole world is against us," including our greatest friend. Because, despite all the excitement arising from the warm reception-and I am not exaggerating-this fills me with apprehension, since I recall that the U.S. President evinced the same affection for the Presidents of Syria and Fgypt, and if we do not reach an agreement but agree to disagree the isolation is frightening.

And when, Mr. Prime Minister, with a tremor in your voice you remind the world of the tragedy which befell the Jewish people...we must remember that the world is cynical. Biafra, Bangladesh and Vietnam all came later. It makes no impression when one is discussing rational, practical affairs such as a conflict between forces and nations. As far as I can see, once we reach Geneva our isolation is inevitable, because in your arguments you ignored the fact that there is a Palestinian entity and used Mrs. Meir's unfortunate phrase "I am a Palestinian." Mr. Prime Minister, you are not a Palestinian, just as you are no longer a Polish citizen. We consciously and willingly relinquished being Palestinian, and that is why the State of Israel came into existence....

Today there is no Palestine. It is true that Jews were always told to go back to Palestine, which existed in an historical sense, but in 1948 we abandoned that identity....However, a certain population remained here which is not Israeli, which is nothing else and which regards itself as Palestinian. Whatever name we give it, it exists and is different from us, a different nation, and you did not refer to the problems of that nation....

In referring to the problem of settlement activity in the entire Land of Israel, you asked whether Americans would prevent Jews from living in certain towns in the U.S....The answer is clear. But the same answer obtains for the other side of the coin, namely, whether Arab inhabitants may be prevented from living wherever they choose....What you are saying is, in effect, that everything is ours and we may settle anywhere....

Incidentally...you claimed that we were the legitimate heirs of the Mandate and advocated extending Israeli law to the entire area of what was formerly Palestine. The government of which you were a member left Jordanian law and currency in force and adhered to the open bridges policy. In fact, it was waiting for a phone call, and did so deliberately because it did not want a binational state, because the nation on both banks of the Jordan is one nation, entity, culture and religion....

 The Foreign Minister, M. Dayan: No one waited for any phone call, the phone call came. For ten years there were negotiations, we didn't waste a single moment waiting for a phone call. Four governments received phone calls. This myth has got to stop.

1. Aloni (Citizens' Rights Movement): I am not claiming that Israel s governments did not try to hold negotiations. I am just saying that what was done was done in the hope that the phone call would come...and then that entity, with its population, would be united with Jordan....In effect, Israel was the third country to grant de facto recognition to the legitimacy of Jordanian law, currency and presence in Judea and Samaria. This has been going on for ten years and Israel imposed military rule as an occupying force, in accordance with international law....

To say today that because our proposals were not accepted we ignore the population and say that all that is the Land of Israel is an invitation to a fresh war or the exploitation of occupation, in which case you have to say what you intend to do with that population if you do not want a binational state. And if you give them all the rights and say that they are part of Palestine, the Land of Israel, which became the State of Israel, it is their right to buy land and settle anywhere, because anyone who says that what applies to Nablus applies to Jaffa must know that it works both ways....Is that what we really want? Is that what our neighbors and, indeed, the whole world, will accept? We can neither expel nor exterminate them. Nothing was said about those very real issues, which are beyond public relations, beyond information and beyond tactics, and statements like "I am a Palestinian," merely complicate matters....

Since we do not want a binational state and since we have not reached a prior agreement with the U.S., are we going to go onto the court with a genuine desire for peace but with a grand illusion, without the things which guarantee the legitimate rights of the Jewish people in its land, and negotiate for peace? We received no answer on this point from the Prime Minister's trip....

1. Hausner (Independent Liberals): Mr. Speaker, distinguished Knesset, on his return from a difficult mission the Prime Minister can point to an impressive list of achievements. Before his departure there were difficulties, and many people feared that the new government's policy would lead to a rift with the U.S. It should be noted that the apprehensions were unfounded. Ties were established with America's leaders, there were successes in putting our position across to the American public, and the Prime Minister spoke as a proud, upright Jew, explaining the problems of the Jewish people's existence against the background of the terrible Holocaust.... '

Nonetheless, there is cause to be apprehensive....The Prime Minister successfully skirted the differences of opinion between Israel and the U.S. and focused on the subject which embodied the maximum chances, namely, determining the process whereby an agreement could be attained rather than its content....Yesterday's State Department statement constituted a sharp reaction to the first action the Prime Minister took upon his return, and I wonder why it was necessary to proclaim the establishment of three new settlements at this point....During the course of ten years we established over seventy settlements across the Green Line, we knew that on this point there was basic disagreement between us and the U.S., but we avoided a public argument because we never did so flagrantly. We determined faits accomplis on the ground...but the settlement of the territories in order to guarantee our security is acceptable to the vast majority of this House. Why was it necessary, given the delicate situation, to make the statement which was made yesterday, and to take the action which was taken today?

1. Ben-Meir (National Religious Party): That's the way to build the country.

1. Hausner (Independent Liberals): It might help as a gesture as regards your circles....Facts have to be created; but pronouncements do not have to be made....Since there is agreement regarding the framework, there is no alternative but to formulate the content of an agreement, so as to mobilize maximum support for it. As far as I can gather, the agreement will eventually be based on a compromise. This should be the best it can be for Israel's security, but we will not be able to raise the support we need without agreeing to a compromise on the West Bank too....Without that support, at least from the U.S., Israel will be isolated at a critical moment of the peace talks, and the government will have to choose between the failure of the talks, with all that that implies...or the acceptance of a territorial compromise....

The peace agreement should also bring a solution to the Palestinian problem, whether that is the appropriate term or not....If someone wants to call himself a Palestinian, I will not attack him for that. Whether justifiably or not, the residents of the territories call themselves Palestinians. Is that the problem? There is a different problem, which cannot be ignored and to which a solution must be found, namely, the problem of political affiliation with regard to peace....

The Prime Minister did well to establish good relations with U.S. Jewry, but there should have been greater symmetry in his contacts with the various trends, and this should have reflected their concern and support for Israel. Too much time, publicity and attention was given to Orthodox Jewry, despite the fact that the other trends represent the majority of U.S. Jewry....

…

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: Mr. Speaker, Knesset Members...this debate has been very responsible and serious, as should be the case in a democratic parliament. The government was attacked, the opposition spoke, and now it is time to reply. Members from all sides of the House have said that my visit to America was a personal success. A personal success? If I distinguished myself, that brought distinction to our nation. If I succeeded in the media, it was our nation's success. If I did well in my talks with Secretaries of State, Senators and Congressmen, our country did well. If my talks with President Carter prospered, the affairs of our country and the Jewish people prospered. What personal success? Who am I? Did I go to the U.S. as a private person? I went as the elected prime minister who had received the confidence of the Knesset. I appeared there on behalf of the State of Israel. If the Members of the House congratulated me for my personal success, that means that they welcomed the resultant gains to the State of Israel....

MK Peres, the leader of the opposition said that it has long been agreed that there should be peace treaties. I have read all the documents pertaining to our understanding with the U.S. government...and I have not found one which contains the words: "a comprehensive peace settlement embodied in peace treaties."...Before I left for the U.S: a State Department spokesman said that there should be peace treaties between Israel and the Arab countries, but that was the State Department spokesman, and we wanted to ascertain whether that was the official attitude of the U.S. government and president....It was agreed between our two governments that there should be a comprehensive and peaceful solution as embodied in a peace treaty. If you can prove that before last week any U.S. president agreed to that I will admit that I have been in error.

1. Peres (Alignment): I was referring to what President Carter said to the leaders of U.S. Jewry before your arrival.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: So it was all just before my visit. Are you trying to tell me that he gave me something in advance? Well, never mind....One cannot compare a written document agreed upon by two governments with a verbal statement. We met with the Secretary of State and, in accordance with the president's views, reached that wording. The Secretary of State must bring it to the Arabs, and as you know the Arabs have refused to sign peace agreements till now...and we will have to wait and see what their response will be. The fact is that for the first time the Secretary of State, on behalf of the U.S. government, will bring that clause before the Arabs, i.e., that the Arab countries will have to sign a peace treaty with the State of Israel, not non-belligerency, not a peaceful settlement and not a peace agreement, but peace treaties....

When former Prime Minister Rabin returned from his visit to the U.S. in March he informed the nation that his visit had been a success and that the conditions for a dialogue with the U.S. had been created regarding certain moves, a timetable and joint objectives. Was that the truth...?

1. Allon (Alignment): It was agreed that there should be a peace treaty.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: You did not give a true report of your meeting with the U.S. president to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. I was a member~of that committee then, I heard your report, but I learned the truth about your visit to the U.S. only when I was prime minister.

1. Rabin (Alignment): I think you are being very inaccurate.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: Have patience....What did I find out, Members of the Knesset? I learned about Mr. Rabin's meeting with Mr. Carter from the record. I will not reveal what it said, all I can say is that those were very tough talks....When did the U.S. president first mention the phrase "Palestinian homeland" or "homeland for Palestinians"-during the term of the Likud government or of the one headed by Mr. Rabin?

1. Hacohen (Alignment): And has he retracted it now?

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: A "Palestinian homeland" was not mentioned to us.

1. Hacohen (Alignment): All that was said was that there were differences of opinion....

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: Why are you interrupting me all the time? What harm have I done you? Am I not debating with you in a parliamentary way? Have I injured someone? I am saying that now no one spoke with us in Washington about a Palestinian homeland.

1. Hacohen (Alignment): Then what are the differences of opinion...?

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: What was mentioned to us was a different concept; it was not good and we rejected it utterly. That was a "Palestinian entity," not a "homeland." Nothing remains of the phrase because we will not agree to it, since from the "entity" or the "homeland" will come a Palestinian state, a very grave threat to the existence of the State of Israel....

Naturally, we expressed our criticism of the fact that the U.S. has supplied forty Hercules planes to Egypt....During the term of the government headed by MK Rabin the U.S. sold weapons to the sum of eleven billion dollars to the Arab countries. In one of MK Rabin's interviews he praised the U.S. for slowing down the arms race in the Middle East. It's there in writing, believe me....When asked for my reaction, I gave the following reply to an American television crew three hours ago: Any supply of arms to a country which maintains a state of war with Israel is negative and makes it more difficult to attain peace. Our ambassador in the U.S. has been instructed to hold serious clarifications with the U.S. Administration regarding this decision to supply forty Hercules planes to Egypt. I gather that one such plane can transport one hundred soldiers. Where would Egypt send 4,000 soldiers, possibly all at once? That is a large force, That must be clarified. We will not keep silent....

I have read that the leader of the opposition, MK Peres, has criticized me for saying in the American media that we contribute to the national security of the U.S....I did indeed say that, and we have contributed greatly, and will continue to do so....Because for years, under your rule, Israel was represented in the U.S. as a country which took.

1. Allon (Alignment): That's untrue.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: Isn't that true? Alright. But it's true....I wanted to place the relations between us and the U.S. on a footing of friendship and mutuality, not one-sided taking. That is why I gave the U.S. president a certain document, which dumbfounded all who read it, listing what we had done for the U.S. I know the disparity in strength between the large and powerful U.S. and our own small country, but a small country can do great things too....In that respect we have done great things for the U.S. I want U.S. public opinion to know that....

How does one put those things across? Permit me to quote from Time magazine of 31 January 1977: "What irritates the Israelis most is the insinuation that their arms agreements with the U.S. is a one-way affair. Actually, in addition to providing life-and-death combat tests for equipment, Israel has given the Pentagon-intact-the Soviet MiG 21, Sukhoi Su-7 and Su-11 jet planes, as well as advanced versions of Soviet surface-to-sir missiles, Soviet tanks, anti-aircraft guns, anti-tank weapons and armored personnel carriers. Admits a U.S. Air Force officer: 'The Israelis, in effect, have provided us with a captive Soviet Air Force.'" And for conveying the message of our signal contribution to U.S. national security MK Peres has seen fit to criticize me....

The problem of agreement with the U.S. before going to Geneva is a serious one....Of course, we would all like such an agreement, but I do not accept the distinction between form and content. What you called procedure is content. Scientists say that a certain quantity can create a new quality...and in that sense I maintain that there is form which is content, and if we have taken an initiative regarding establishing a framework for the peace process, do not call it procedure. It is content.

What is the content? Now it is Israeli initiative. What happened until now? The Americans made proposals to you and you said no. That is what generally happened. What has happened now? We put proposals to the U.S. and the Secretary of State will go with some of them to the Arab capitals. He has said so publicly. That did not happen under your rule. And what we are talking about is a peace agreement, not interim agreements.

The leader of the opposition advises us to say that if there is no possibility of a peace agreement there will be interim agreements....What does that mean? Israel's withdrawal without peace. As is proved by the statement you made in the past that the next agreement will come only if there is an end to the state of belligerency. You did not manage to achieve that end, but you signed agreements which meant withdrawal, despite your earlier statements. Nor is there an end to the state of belligerency....What good has been achieved by the clever phrase you used: "A piece of land for a piece of peace..."? Is it possible to make more interim agreements? Where...?

1. Yadlin (Alignment): I think that the Foreign Minister suggested an interim agreement in the Golan Heights. Ask him about it....

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: The Foreign Minister made no such suggestion....

The Foreign Minister, M. Dayan: As a member of the government, I gave my full consent to the agreements made after the Yom Kippur War. I opposed the additional agreement with Egypt. Since then I have not made any additional agreement or proposal....

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: As I have said, we would all like to have an agreement with America before Geneva....You spoke about an agreement of that kind knowing what the position of the U.S. was. With what pathos Mr. Peres-I thought Demosthenes was addressing us from this podium-shouted and banged on the desk, saying: you know what the position of the U.S. is and you must tell us the truth. Did you tell the nation the truth when you knew what the U.S. position was? Did you not go to the U.S. and try and reach an agreement with it? On what basis?

Let's assume that the U.S. position today-perhaps one of these days you'll hear an announcement on the subject-is still that Israel should withdraw to the borders of 4 June 1967 with minor modifications, it is inconceivable that Israel would accept that policy. The Americans heard and saw, including proof on the map, how Jerusalem would come under crossfire from El Bireh in the north and Bethlehem in the south, and how all our towns, settlements and farms would be in the range of the Arab artillery....

But is that the American policy since May 17? You knew what that policy was, yet still you went to the Americans and offered to make a substantive agreement regarding the borders prior to Geneva. What was the result...? What you were doing was to invite American pressure for an agreement on their terms. That is simple common sense. America stated its policy for ten years. Did you expect it to change it the moment you asked for an agreement? As was to be expected, the Americans told you that they stood firm on the policy of minor modifications.

As for the Allon plan, the reply was "totally unacceptable." That was said by Hussein, and not only by him, three times, including in Washington. And MK Allon has already experienced that elsewhere. I quoted that and he said that it was incorrect. But MK Rabin said that he had heard those words with his own ears when he was Israel's ambassador in the U.S....

1. Allon (Alignment): You're jumping from one point to another, to things which are not connected, and are giving the impression that I denied something that was true. From what you say it transpires that the Begin plan is "totally acceptable" to both the Arab world and the U.S.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: Well, really, have I said that…

1. Allon (Alignment): President Johnson was prepared to accept a compromise plan from the late Levi Eshkol. But Eshkol couldn't propose it because the National Unity Government of the time made it impossible to reach a decision.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: Well, I don't know about all that.... What I do know is that according to common sense if the Allon Plan, which means our remaining along the River Jordan but jumping Hussein and his governors and propaganda over the heads of our soldiers into Shechem and Bethlehem, Hebron and Jericho, is "totally unacceptable" to the Americans, what do you get when they adhere to the policy of minor modifications of the 4 June 1967 borders? At the most, something in between. So you invited U.S. pressure for withdrawal from your positions. That was inevitable.

Consequently, that was a mistaken policy. A grave error. Not only did you not achieve an agreement with America, you invited U.S. pressure on you. We changed that policy....We are prepared to go to Geneva. What will they do to us there, after all? They won't shoot us. They will speak, maybe even shout at us. We will reply quietly that our cause is just. That will be at the open meeting. It is true that our enemies will also speak. As will the Russians. As will we. We will put our case to the world. That is particularly important at a peace conference which, if it convenes, will do so without the PLO, in order to attain peace agreements and in the clear knowledge that on no account will there be a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. So why should we fear the Geneva Conference...?

1. Allon (Alignment): What did you propose to the Americans should be done in Judea and Samaria? Till now we've heard what will not be done. Perhaps you Il tell us what is your constructive plan for Judea and Samaria as regards the Arab population there?

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: Very well. I maintain that that policy was mistaken, erroneous. We have corrected your mistake for the moment. We say, we will go to Geneva, the objective being peace treaties. How does one attain them? After the opening session joint committees of each side must discuss peace treaties with Israel. I say to you once again, that is form which embodies content, and the content is undoubtedly different from yours:...We will discuss the problems with all the countries, including the U.S... and certainly want agreement with the U.S....

What has been attained to date is that during the past few months all the communications media of the world...have discussed the Jewish people's right to the Land of Israel, not the PLO. Some write somewhat ironically about the Bible. So what? I would like to remind the House what your leader, Mr. Peres, David Ben-Gurion, said: "They say that the Mandate is our bible, but the opposite is the case, the Bible is our mandate." He was not ashamed, he was a very loyal socialist, especially then. He was not ashamed to rely on the Bible....

So now the pages of the world press are full of arguments about the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. Thank God we have reached that stage. That is a very serious turn and there is an Israel peace initiative, rather than Israel being drawn after the peace initiatives of others, and generally saying no. You supposedly wanted a positive policy. But you did not provide it. We attained it. A positive policy of how to conduct negotiations on a peace treaty...

1. Aloni (Citizens' Rights Movement): The "how" doesn't tell us "what."...

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: ...which is a basic change in Israeli policy, and it is a good thing that we have introduced it. You say that there are differences of opinion with the U.S. Of course there are. Have I ever concealed them...? I see that the citizens today have a new, higher morale. I see that everywhere. I think I am expressing the views of the vast majority of Israel's population when I say that today they have greater trust, more hope, a new morale. That is a great achievement. Oh, I remember our morale during the last months of the Alignment's rule.

I remember what appeared in the international press then. I remember. I do not wish to use bad language, especially not from the Knesset podium. Everyone remembers....I remember what the morale of the Jewish people was then....Today the tone is quite different, both in Israel and in the world and among the Jewish people....If you had only seen with what enthusiasm I was received by meetings of 5,000 American Jews, who were by no means supporters of the Likud....

1. Shahal (Alignment): This was the first time you went abroad as Prime Minister. Golda Meir appeared before 80,000 Jews and was extremely impressive.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: Did I say that appearing before 80,000 Jews was nothing?

1. Amorai (Alignment): She did not boast as you have. She realized that it was not for her but because of her position as the Prime Minister of Israel. She did not take the personal credit for it.

1. Shuval (Likud): We also saw the disaster she brought on Israel.

The Prime Minister, M. Begin: I said I wished you could have seen the enthusiasm, the trust and the unity. Why is that bad? What's annoying you? In what way have I detracted from previous appearances? But I compared the morale of our people in Israel and the diaspora with what it was during the last months of the Alignment's rule. What a difference....

I worked night and day in the U.S. I want to thank the colleagues who accompanied me, those who worked with former Prime Minister Rabin and who work with me in a spirit of loyalty and cooperation, of service to the nation, because they are faithful civil servants, 'and my new colleagues in the Prime Minister's Office, Dr. Ben-Elissar, Yehiel Kadishai and Shmuel Katz....We were indeed a team and worked together, all our hearts beating as one with love for the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. I would also like to thank the Knesset Members who encouraged me to undertake this mission...and all the Jews who prayed for its success....I hope I can say that their prayers were heard. We did not fail the Jewish people....This was no fateful mission, because the fate of the Jewish people is not bound up with any political meeting, however important....

The mission was important, that is true. I departed. Now I have returned. I have given you a report. I hope that we will continue to stand united on common issues. I have read that the Alignment has proclaimed that there is no consensus. Indeed? When we were in opposition did you not seek consensus with us? And did we not give it to you gladly? And so today there is no consensus....Do we not all oppose a Palestinian state? Why should we not say so on behalf of the entire House, with the exception of one or two party groups? Do we not all oppose the participation of the PLO in the Geneva Conference? Why should we not say so on behalf of the entire population of Israel, with the exception of a small party group? Do we not oppose returning to the borders of 4 June 1967? Why should we not say so on behalf of the entire country? If you proclaim that there is no consensus will that strengthen Israel in its struggle...? I believe in your patriotism. You are patriots like me. So at least give a hand when it comes to consensus. Then, with God's help, we will advance and attain peace....

I will conclude my address to the Knesset with the same things I said at the meeting of Israel's emissaries in the U.S., who represented every political view: the time has come for all Israel's fighters, those who endangered their lives and shed their blood, from the Hagana, the Palmach, IZL, Lehi, Mahal and our splendid army, to unite in the aspiration of bringing peace to Israel and the Middle East.

…

1977. Corfu (Likud): Mr. Speaker, distinguished Knesset, on behalf of the Likud, NRP and Aguda party groups, I have the honor of bringing the following concluding resolution before the Knesset: The Knesset notes the statement of the Prime Minister, Mr. Menahem Begin, and his reply regarding his visit to the U.S., as conveyed to the House on 27 July 1977.

...

The Vote

Those in favor           59

Those against           36

Abstentions               13

(MK Corfu's concluding resolution is adopted.