Begin argues against the claim that Zionism equals not only racism, but also extremism. He explains that Zionism is suddenly seems to be extreme because Zionists do not want to have Arafat in control of “the heart of Western Eretz Israel.” Then he shifts to talk about the error the Government has made with the new slogan of “if they recognize us, we’ll recognize them.” Additionally, when Israel argued that they would not participate in the UN Security Council sessions if the PLO participates, there was the claim that Israel’s reaction was emotional and extremist. However, Begin points out how the UN resolutions 212 and 194 are the formula for destroying Israel. Therefore, it should not be seen as extremism when wanting to protect Israel from destruction. Towards the end he mentions that it is self-destructive for Jews accepting the term Palestinian and believing that Arabs in Nazarath waving a Palestinian flag is merely self-expression.
Subjects: Liberal Party
Begin focuses on Yitzchak Rabin’s undemocratic stand that the chairman of the Jewish Agency (the Zionist Organization) must be part of the Labor Party. Party membership is the important factor, not valuable qualifications and experience. Begin gives examples showing that this has not happened in other democratic countries. Begin talks about Labor Party spokesmen’s reactions when a candidate for the Chairman of the Jewish Agency chose to not enter his candidacy in the name of a political party. They identified him as being part of Likud and said they would do their best to prevent his election. Begin argues that by having party membership be the important factor for the position as chairman is “a blow against democracy in Israel.”
Despite Israel’s serious political and economic position, Begin assures the public that there is no cause for pessimism or despair. He blames the leadership of the Labor Alignment for the current crisis. Likud’s philosophy, Begin explains, aims to achieve peace by making it clear to Israel’s neighbors that “they have no possibility of destroying the State of Israel.” Begin gives an example of honest leadership from the Tanach, about the spies that Moses sent, one from each of the twelve tribes, to the land of Canaan. Upon returning, they reported a land flowing with milk and honey, but the inhabitants were strong, and the cities large and fortified. One of the spies, Caleb, said “Let us go up at once and occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it.” Begin uses this example of bravery and leadership in facing the challenges that lie ahead for Israel, but reminding the public that Israel is a strong nation that is capable of overcoming any obstacle in its way.
With elections approaching, Begin speaks about Gahal being the true opposition of the Government. He argues that despite what the Independent Liberals claim, they are not the leading opposition party. He also speaks of positive prospects for the election results, with Gahal gaining more representation in the next Knesset. The then shares different reasons as to why citizens will vote in support of Gahal. He emphasizes that Gahal believes in Greater Israel, with no partition of the Homeland. He also speaks about today’s privilege of no longer living in sacfrifice and suffering. He concludes that Gahal is the party that will do the best in handling future difficulties the country may face.
Begin defends himself and Herut against the negative claims that he rules Herut and that Herut would rather stay in the Opposition, and not attain the Government. He speaks of his own moral influence and his belief that “ruling” means being of service to citizens. He explains that Herut and the Liberal Party formed the coalition Gahal, and if they are given the authority, Gahal will propose an inclusive Government. Begin shares that at each Herut Movement convention, there are new faces and new members, some being former members of the Labor Party. Then he speaks about the difficulty Herut experienced while compromising with the Liberal Party for the sake of the creation of Gahal. Begin shifts to discuss Herut’s consistent stand against partition of the Homeland, unlike other parties. He also speaks about the importance of narrowing the socio-economic gap. He concludes emphasizing that Herut has not changed its views, because the views have always been morally correct.