Begin States Israel’s 4-Point ‘No Surrender’ Stand
Begin affirms Israel’s right to self-defense in the face of Syrian aggression, despite the threat from Egypt to attack Israel in the case that Israel Syria.
Subjects: Restraint
We’ll Not Submit to Threats
Begin warns that Israel cannot heed Egypt’s threat to attack Israel, in the case that Israel attacks Syria, since Israel cannot remain passive in the face of Syrian aggression
“Havlaga” (Passive Restraint) Has Not Stopped Syrian Aggression
In the aftermath of a Syrian attack on civilians in the north, Begin sharply criticizes both the UN’s decision not to censure Syria and the Israeli government’s continuing policy of havlaga (passive restraint). He cites examples from then-recent American history and international law to justify a stronger response on Israel’s part.
Adventurers Who Jeopardise The State of Israel
Begin focuses on the Government’s response to the Scorpions’ Pass massacre. He first shares that it is wrong for Jews to be accustomed to the death of twelve Jews within the Jewish Homeland. Jews sacrificed and fought in hopes to liberate the entire Homeland. Begin blames ‘adventurers’ for the reason why the land is not liberated in its entirety. One of the consequences for this decision is more bloodshed. Begin then shares that unlike these ‘adventurers’, Herut has foreseen consequences. One example is when Moshe Sharett stated that “‘General Naguib’s accession to power in Egypt has created the possibility of peace.'” Another example is when David Ben Gurion said, “‘Our orientation is not to the West and not to the East but to the United Nations Organisation.'” A third example is when Moshe Dayan made political declarations. The final example Begin shares is Sharett’s statements over Kibiya, which Begin argues invited the Scorpions’ Pass massacre.
A Threat That Became Kal ve-Homer [a minor to major inference]
A rebuttal to the argument that violent resistance is futile. It is claimed that because the Yishuv is surrounded by enemies who outnumber it resistance is impossible. Those who oppose resistance seek alternative methods, such as binationalism. But these ideas are themselves doomed to fail, because the hatreds and prejudices the British are fostering among the Arabs make them predisposed not to trust them, and they rightly sense in such proposals weakness. The Etzel is honest about its aims and the limits of what it wants. Only the showing of force can prevent attacks from the Arabs. The Etzel does not consider the Arabs to be its enemies. The Arabs are jealous of the Jews’ standard of living, and that may lead to attacks if the Jewish state is small and weak. But if the Jews are strong and well defended there will be peace with the Arabs.
