At the end of July 1974, the Likud tabled urgent motions to be discussed by the Knesset on the question of negotiations between Israel and one or more of its Arab neighbours, and the government's positions in preparation for such negotiations if and when they take place. The Prime Minister agreed to recognize the urgency of the motions and following is his reply in clarification of his policy on these matters.
Mr. Speaker, Members of the Knesset,
On Monday I instructed the Secretary to the government, who attended the meeting of the Knesset presidium, not to object to the recognition of the motions for the agenda as urgent. But in fact I see no reason to justify urgency, and certainly not any kind of haste, in discussing in the Knesset plenary the subject before us. The Knesset could have been perfectly confident that the government itself would have asked for a debate in the plenary at the proper time. The motions for the agenda are concerned with two matters: The question of negotiations between Israel and one or more of her neighbours, and the question of the government of Israel's positions in preparation for negotiations if and when they take place. I should like to clarify in general our policy on these matters.
Israel's policy is not detached from the actual circumstances in every different period. We study the circumstances, follow the changes, and also try to look ahead and decide on our measures in accordance with all these considerations. But there is one constant theme in our policy: The effort to achieve peace agreements with each of the neighbouring countries, including the Kingdom of, Jordan.
At the beginning of the week, at a meeting of the cabinet, I clarified the main points of our political approach at this time as follows:
"Israel is not interested in the continuation of the situation of no-peace. Israeli policy is interested in speeding up negotiations for peace, without prior conditions, with each of the Arab countries.
"In the Arab states, first and foremost in Syria, there are growing and systematic preparations for the renewal of the war. Israel has no right to ignore this dangerous fact. Israel is confident of her strength, but it is her duty to organize at an accelerated pace to meet the danger which is forced upon her. At the same time as she continues to organize against the danger of aggression, she will persevere in her political activity aimed at achieving progress from cease-fire and disengagement of forces to peace. Israel will continue to meticulously observe the cease-fire arrangements and the Disengagement of Forces Agreements on a basis of mutuality. The observance of these arrangements in letter and spirit is vital in order to prevent a renewal of the fighting. The Disengagement of Forces Agreements were not designed to constitute a permanent situation, but were defined by consent as a first step towards peace. These agreements may be a step towards peace if all parties concerned act consistently for this purpose. Israel is wholeheartedly prepared for this."
As we have said, our policy is to strive for peace as a result of negotiations. When I speak of negotiations I mean direct dialogue with each of the neighbouring countries, without prior conditions, openly and honourably, as equals to equals, not as victors and vanquished. We on our part will neglect no opportunity to discuss peace, or even interim arrangements, with our neighbours. We shall present no prior conditions, just as we shall not agree to give any undertakings in advance on subjects which have to be discussed in negotiations.
Readiness for negotiations is a fundamental basis of our policy - mutual negotiations, not a dictate, not an order that must be obeyed, but an effort for agreement, without coercion. Therefore, we said of our own free will, true to our own convictions, that it is our purpose to advance towards peace with readiness for territorial compromise. I repeat, and I say it expressly: The effort to achieve defensible borders and, at the same time, readiness for territorial compromise are among the principal characteristics of our policy. There is no need to obscure this fact or to be ashamed of it. We have made it clear that the Arab demand that we return to the lines of 4 June 1967 is unacceptable. We have rejected this ultimative demand of the Arab rulers. The government of Israel has submitted no map to' the Arab states, but has invited them to conduct negotiations without prior conditions.
It is the duty of this government to defend the lines which we now hold, and it will strive to achieve defensible borders in the framework of peace agreements. In working for this aim, we are acting with the authority of the people, with the authority of the Knesset, fully aware of our duty and the commands of conscience. We are acting with full authority and we do not exceed this authority. We are well aware of our duty and our authority, and we may be confident that the Knesset will be on the alert to see to it that we do not, heaven forbid, exceed our authority. We want peace with Jordan, and in so far as it may appear justified to recommend an agreement which involves giving up areas of Judea and Samaria, we shall go and ask the people in elections, as we have promised the Knesset and in the accordance with the oath of allegiance sworn by the members of the government when they received its confidence.
Members of the Knesset,
Ahead of us are discussions following the Separation of Forces Agreements, in the context of the Geneva Conference. We hope that in this context there will also be negotiations with Jordan, and we have made it clear that we have no reason to postpone such negotiations with Jordan. Recently, after the discussion in the cabinet on the Palestinian issue, we restated the need for negotiations with Jordan, while rejecting negotiations with terrorist organizations whose policy is the destruction of Israel.
Once again, meanwhile, we are not sitting back to await developments, but are doing everything possible -concurrently with reinforcing our strength - to remove obstacles from the path and to avail ourselves of the assistance of anyone prepared to help us to achieve contacts and dialogue for the purpose of peace.
The preparations in the Arab countries - primarily Syria - for a new round of fighting call for an appropriate deployment on our part, but at the same time we shall not let up in our efforts to achieve negotiations, since negotiations for peace or for political arrangements may be of value for the prevention of war.
Members of the Knesset,
Mrs. Golda Meir, the former Prime Minister, authorized the Spokesman of the Prime Minister's Office to deny the report of her meeting with the king of Jordan, recently broadcast over the N.B.C. network. I have nothing to add to Mrs. Meir's statement. I will not waste the Knesset's time on the discussion of details of a report which has been denied.
I hope a day will come when negotiations for peace will develop between Israel and each of her neighbours, without prior conditions. This is still in the nature of a goal which we are striving to attain by our political efforts. Prior to such negotiations, we shall strive to get the maximum possible benefit from settings such as the Geneva Conference, or from the good services of Dr. Kissinger, and shall aspire to hasten the day when there will be no reason to recoil or refrain from open, continual and continuous diplomatic dialogue, as is customary between neighbouring countries -not merely diplomatic dialogue, but variegated mutual relations, as befits neighbouring nations with open borders.
In any case - and let the House have no doubt of this - Israel has not neglected, nor will she neglect, any opportunity to achieve contacts, as open as possible, as direct as possible, with every neighbouring country, in so far as this is attainable. Nor shall we reject even opportunities to conduct dialogue without publicity, should the opposite side so desire for reasons of its own, in order to prepare the conditions for open negotiations. Always, whether in open or covert contacts, we shall remain faithful to our authority and the limits of our authority, as befits the government of a democratic country, which must be scrupulously faithful to its duty, its responsibility and the limits of its authority.
Political contacts for the achievement of peace with Egypt, Jordan and Syria will not be like a motor race on an autostrada without bends and twists in the road.
Sometimes these will be open contacts and sometimes they will be covert, at the request of our interlocutors, or through emissaries or volunteers who offer their good services.
In the course of the contacts, sometimes ideas are raised for discussion and examination. In many cases, the press and the communications media publish "details" which are not in keeping with the truth or have been taken out of context. In general, we are not in the habit of issuing denials every other day and we have no intention of deviating from this custom.
It is in the nature of things that in connection with the Israel-Jordan issue, ideas and thoughts are raised in various contexts according to the aims, immigration, vision or realistic insight with which the person in question has been endowed by providence. Few political issues involve such numerous and variegated aspects as that of Judea and Samaria in the Israel-Jordan context: The historical aspect, Jerusalem, settlement, defensive and strategic aspects, the Palestinian problem, "territorial" separation or "functional" separation, as well as different varieties of various proposals.
From Jordanian sources there have been recent reports that Jordan proposed an agreement on the separation of forces which is mainly based on the withdrawal of the Israel Defence Forces west of the Jordan all along the Jordan valley. We have also heard of this proposal from the United States. I have already said publicly that we do not regard this proposal as appropriate and if there are other proposals we shall examine them. So far the government of Israel has not received other proposals and has not decided on any detailed model for a peace agreement or any other arrangement between ourselves and Jordan.
Hence I see no advantage in debating hypothetical detailed proposals in the Knesset plenary, premature public debate may be pointless or even harmful.
The Knesset may be perfectly confident that any negotiations which have been conducted or will be conducted by the government have been carried out and will be carried out in accordance with the basic principles of the government's policy and its statements approved by the Knesset, and without exceeding its authority.
I propose that the Knesset should remove from the agenda the motions submitted today by members of the Knesset.