Surrender Will Not Bring Peace

Newspaper: Jewish Herald
posted on:
8 In jone 1976
Individuals - Anwar Sadat, Levi Eshkol, Yigal Alon, Yitzchak Rabin. States - Egypt, Jordan. Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - Fatah, Palestinians, Refugee Issue. Security - Fundamentals of Israeli Security, Six-Day War. Greater Land of Israel - Golan Heights, Greater Israel, Jerusalem, Settlements, Sinai Peninsula, Transjordan. Jewish Heritage - Holocaust. Political Parties - Mapam. Peace , Peace Agreements
Begin explains why there is a struggle for peace between Israel and its Arab neighboring countries. There is an argument that Israel is preventing peace because Israel insists to retain land gained from the Six-Day War. He then shares Mapam's plan for peace, which includes the Gaza Strip. Regarding the Golan Heights, they will negotiate some land, but will not give it all up. Additionally, Israel must link Sharm-el-Sheikh to Eilat. Lastly, Jerusalem will be the capital for one country, Israel. Begin then explains how Egypt, Syria, and Jordan all refuse Mapam's plan. Begin shifts to Yigal Allon's plan for peace, specifically focusing on Judea and Samaria. He believes in annexing some of the land and linking Jordan with parts of the West Bank. Begin says though, that Hussein does not find this plan acceptable. Begin then shifts to the crux of his argument: Arabs will not accept a peace treaty that will ensure Israel's security.
selected quotes from article new search

"Surrender Will Not Bring Peace"

THE FANATICAL SUPPORTERS of a repartitioning of Etetz [Eretz- JC] Israel insist that the Arabs will never agree that Judea and Samaria should form an integral part of sovereign Israel; and that whoever proposes such a thing to our enemies is hindering the attainment of an agreement and of peace between them and us.

In brief: Jew who demand the maintenance of our rights over the territory of Judea and Samaria are blocking the way to peace.

Those Israelis who are convinced that right, security and the possibility of peace make it essential that Judea and Samaria should not be handed over to foreign rule belong to almost every party and group in Israel—to Labour, the Likud, the National Religious Party, the  Gush Emunim, the Torah Front, the Inedependent [Independent- JC] Liberals…

And these according to fellow Jews, are the people preventing the achievement of peace.

Yet, consider:


The peace plan of Mapam, who cry out loudest against all those others, includes the Gaza Strip within the borders of Israel.

"The Gaza Strip is an inseparable part of the State of Israel," according to the resolution supported by Mapam's representatives.  That means that Mapam is agreeable to Israel ruling hundreds of thousands of additional Arabs.

Mapam, moreover, is ready to alter the borders on the Golan Heights—but under no circumstances is it prepared to quit the Golan altogether and descend into the valley.

It is not clear whether Mapam supports the idea that the Jordan is Israel's eastern security frontier, but when the late Levi Eshkol first enunciated that principle, Mapam uttered no objections.    

It still insists, however, that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel and not the "joint" capital of Israel and Falastin; and that there should be a special arrangement which would include some form of Israel ruling over Sharm-el-Sheikh with a land link to Eilat.


WOULD EGYPT BE PREPARED to sign a peace treaty or even a declaration ending the state of belligerency, if the Gaza Strip were to be an inseparable part of Israel?

Sadat has made it clear that the answer is: No.

He tells all visitors that he would be prepared to accept a state of non-belligerency—he is going to leave peace till the next generation—only if Israel retreats to the 1967 borders and allows a Palestinian State to be established in Judea, Samaria and Gaza—with a corridor linking them.

So Mapam's policy would not lead to peace, or even non-belligerency, with Egypt.

And what of Syria?  Assad has made it clear that he will not surrender a "single inch."

So Mapam's policy jeopardizes peace in the north, too.


It does the same with regard to Hussein, to whom Mapam wishes to "return" Judea and Samaria.  But he demands every single inch of "his" territory, including Jerusalem.

And what of the "Palestinians" with whom Mapam has such a rapport?  It longs to make an agreement with them.  But what they want is clearly set out in the "Palestine Covenant."  How can Mapam make an agreement with their "recognised representatives"—the Fatah—if it insists that Gaza is going to be an inseparable part of the State of Israel, of which Jerusalem will remain the capital?

So there is no Arab factor which will enter into negotiations with Mapam.


AS FOR YIGAL ALLON, he has explained to all the sundry that the regions of Judea and Samaria which he wants to invite Hussein to accept will be surrounded on all sides by Israeli soldiers.

His plan is that Israel should (in his language) "annex" an area between 10 and 12 miles wide west of the Jordan.  Hussein would have a corridor linking up his kingdom with the regions west of the river.

That is why Mr. Allon is so embittered against the settlers of Kaddum.  They are distrupting [disrupting- JC] his plan.  Although that plan has not been officially accepted by any Israel Government, Mr. Allon behaves as if it is the plan of the age and anybody who stands in his way is an enemy of peace and democracy.

The settlers of Kaddum must be driven out by force, he says, because they would disrupt the Allon Plan.

But what does Hussein say of that plan?  He has declared on several occasions: "It is totally unacceptable."

Which means that on the basis of the Allon Plan there can never be any agreement with Hussein.  U.S. State Department officials have confirmed that fact—and the New York Times has caustically criticised the plan as offering "meagre concessions."

1967 LINES

Which means that there will be demands for further concessions until the Allon Plan coincides with the lines of June 1967.

And now we have the Prime Minister going to the Jordan Valley and reiterating that the Jordan is our eastern security frontier.  In other words, we shall never move away from that river.  Other Jewish settlements will be established in the Jordan Valley.  The settlements already there will never be removed, he said.

Mr. Rabin has not yet identified himself with the Allon Plan.  The impression is that he inclines towards it generally.  He has drawn a line along the Jordan.  He says we will never descend from the Golan Heights, even for a peace treaty.  The Rafiah region is ours.  We must remain in Sharm-el-Sheikh and link it by land to Eilat.  Jerusalem cannot be divided again and will always be our capital.  The rest of Judea, Samaria etc. will be handed over to the Arab States.  We will withdraw from 95 per cent of the territory which passed under our control in 1967.

What do the Arabs say to that? Simply this: Under sucn[such- JC] conditions there will be no peace.  The state of war will continue until the last grain of Arab soil has been redeemed.

Which means that Mr. Rabin's plan is also an obstacle to peace.  So whoever says that "Jews are preventing peace with the Arabs"—and mean by that those who believe in the destiny, security and right of Eretz Israel are misleading themselves.

The truth is that there is not a single Israel plan, no matter who its backers are, with which the Arabs wish to come to terms.  And there is no Jewish factor preventing the achievement of peace with the Arabs.  The fact is that over and above "regaining" territory, our enemies want to turn the clock of history back.

They don't want to see a Jewish State existing.  That is why they propose total withdrawal and the establishment of a Palestinian State in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, with a corridor linking them and cutting up Israel.

Naturally, they would like to achieve their end without war—just as Hitler preferred in the matter of the Sudetenland.  But it should be clear that what they have in mind is considered attempt to place the Jewish State in a situation where its very existence will be in doubt and they will find it a simple matter to try to destroy it.

When that happens the very possibility of peace will be lost.

Our enemies will only give serious thought to peace when they reach the conclusion that they cannot destroy us.

If, in spite of this transparent reality, there are Jews who accuse fellow-Jews of preventing a peace agreement, we are faced with a strange phenomenon recalling the darkest days of Exile and subjugation.

For their own stakes, those voicing that accusation should desist.

(Translated from the Hebrew by Joe Kuttner).