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.
Begin mainly talks about foreign perspectives on Jewry and Israel. He provides examples of comments made by Helmut Sonnenfled, Jimmy Carter, and Bruno Kreisky. Begin then shares that there are Jews who believe that Sadat wants peace and is moderate. Begin goes into detail explaining that Sadat encourages a plan that would destroy Israel. Sadat believes Israel should retreat to the 1967 borders and that Palestinians still deserve their rights. This would lead to the destruction of Israel and with Arafat ruling over the land. Then Begin talks about how the word “dissident” has been used to describe both Zion haters and lovers. Lastly, he mentions Yitzchak Rabin’s statement that there are a group of Israelis wanting to harm the Israel- U.S. relationship, to which Begin argues subsequently harms Israel.
Begin discusses the importance of Israel staying in control of Judea and Samaria. He expresses frustration that people from the Labor Party are only debating which Arab regime the land should go to. Begin believes that giving the land to either Hussein or Palestinian rule would bring Israel constant threats. He provides an example of an interview with Hussein who said that the land should be given to the PLO. Additionally, when asked about borders he responded “The agreed Arab view now is 1967.” Begin emphasizes that saying “now” should not make Israel feel safe. He shifts to talk about why recognizing a Palestinian entity is reactionary, not progressive. With Arafat ruling that land, it would be the most pro-Communist and pro-Soviet State. In his conclusion, Begin writes that having a Palestinian State, ultimately an Arafat State, would threaten Israel and the free world.
Begin focuses on which views are considered progressive and reactionary when talking about Arabs of Israel/Palestinians. He discusses how there are people who think that they are progressive for recognizing the Palestinian entity. This includes Jews and American professors. Begin believes, though, that their thoughts are hypocritical. He goes into detail about what this Palestinian entity does and what it means for the Israel. This entity, he argues, believes in using the right to fight by all means, including targeting women and children. Ultimately, it jeopardizes Israel’s future. Begin shifts to respond to the argument that not supporting the Palestinian entity means that he supports Israel ruling over Arabs. The argument continues saying that ruling over Arabs is a cancer for Israel. Begin remarks that he does not believe in ruling over Arabs, but rather living with them “in mutual tolerance.”
An interview Begin gave to Israeli reporter Gideon Lev-Ari during the American “reassessment” of 1975. Begin notes the change in the Arab world’s stated demands from the total destruction of Israel to a withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, but says that the Arab goal of destroying Israel has not changed, only the rhetoric. Begin says there must be a full end to hostilities, followed by direct peace negotiations. Then Israel must give the ‘Arabs of Eretz Israel’ (Begin’s term for the Arabs known as Palestinians living in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria) full cultural autonomy and the option of Israeli citizenship but not national autonomy. The Israel-US relationship will continue to survive disagreements between the two countries. Israel must learn from the Munich agreement not to give in when it is threatened by its enemies and pressured to give in by its friends. In the end, peace will come