In early October, the Likud again challenged the government in the Knesset by tabling a motion to debate recent developments and in particular statements made on the negotiations with the Arab states. The opposition reiterated its long-standing views against any territorial concessions in the West Bank. Text of Mr. Rabin's reply follows:
Mr. Speaker, Members of the Knesset,
The government is faithful to its policy as presented in the Knesset and in keeping with decisions it adopts from time to time. The government's foreign and defence policy is founded on two main parallel and complementary endeavours:
The first is the effort to increase Israel's military strength, to maintain a high state of preparedness, and to foster the readiness for war if the military and political circumstances make it necessary. The government of Israel is taking steps, every day and every hour, to increase our strength, for our strength constitutes the major, in fact the only basis for our security.
At the same time we are engaged in a second effort: The drive towards peace with our neighbours. This policy follows from the profound conviction that Israel wants peace. Israel seeks every possible way to advance towards peace even while the other side utters threats of war. The government's policy seeks every possible way, every opportunity, to bring peace nearer, to bring about relaxation, to put off war.
As I have said, these two efforts are not only not incompatible, they are complementary. The backbone of our military strength is the knowledge of every individual in the country, the knowledge of every soldier in the Israel Defence Forces, that the government is striving to achieve peace, a peace based on a profound conviction of the justice of our cause, our right to a sovereign Jewish state in the Land of Israel, the conviction that every possible way is being tried and followed to test to what extent it is possible to advance towards peace. The feeling of "no alternative" whenever we went to war has been, is and will continue to be, the cement that unifies the nation in war, just as military strength is the condition for the holding of negotiations, for the existence of any prospect of a dialogue, for the existence of a possibility that we might achieve peace.
Among the questions asked by the opposition is: Is Israel prepared, in return for peace, to agree to a territorial compromise? The answer is: Yes, with one reservation: no return to the lines of the 4th of June 1967. The government has drawn no maps, it has not defined the extent of the territorial compromise in the various sectors, but it has laid it down that in return for peace we are prepared for territorial compromise.
The second question is whether there is only one way to advance towards peace, whether in the absence of the possibility, the readiness, to advance at one step from war to peace, Israel will try to arrive at peace by stages. To this, too, the government has given a clear reply: We are prepared to advance towards peace even by stages, but this must be examined in every sector according to the data, the plans and the possibilities.
On 3 June of this year, when this government was presented to the Knesset, this was stated in clear and unmistakable terms, as follows: The government will investigate the possibility of advancing towards peace by stages. On the various sectors the forms may be different, the arrangements may be different, but in principle the answer is in the affirmative. We have concealed nothing, we have deceived no one, we have stated everything clearly. And when proposals are raised the possibilities will be examined. This is the policy of the government.
The government will adopt decisions whenever such possibilities arise. The government will also take decisions if and when we decide to take the initiative in this direction.
The third question concerns the government's policy in regard to Judea and Samaria. When the government was presented to the Knesset on 3 June, a clear statement was made - there seems to be some tendency here to forget it. I will recall this statement:
"During the discussions on the establishment of the outgoing government the question arose how
the government should act if, after negotiations with Jordan, the hour of decision should arrive. The answer to this question was clear: The government would conduct negotiations with Jordan and take decisions at each stage of the negotiations, but no peace treaty would be concluded with Jordan if it involved territorial concessions involving parts of Judea and Samaria before the people was consulted in new elections. This undertaking is also given by the new government."
The government regards itself, within the framework of negotiations for peace, as entitled to conduct negotiations and take decisions, but it will not sign a peace treaty before submitting the issue to the people in elections if it involves territorial concessions.
Now for my statement. I was asked a question and I replied.
"Q: One of the possibilities in regard to negotiations with Jordan is the return of the city of Jericho, which was part of Jordan before the war of 1967, in return for an agreement on non-belligerency. Is this possible?
A: If here is a serious proposal according to which, in return for nonbelligerency, we shall have to give something on the West Bank, I shall give it favourable consideration."
I repeat: The government's policy which is a combination of the two efforts: The preparation of the country for the possibility of war, readiness and preparedness, and a drive towards peace, whether by way of a sharp transition from a state of war to peace, or by way of the quest for progress by stages - is founded on the belief that we must do everything, irrespective of anything we may hear from the other side, to test to what extent the possibilities exist. We are under no obligation immediately to reject every proposal, we are under no obligation to present ourselves to our own people and to the world at large as if we rejected every idea (interruptions)...
I regard it as a primary responsibility of the government to seek every reasonable way, because I believe that even if we do not achieve peace this people must be convinced that its leadership has sought every possible way to advance towards peace, has sought every possible way to prevent war. I want to be able to look straight in the eyes of fathers and mothers whose sons may fall in war, if it comes, with a clear conscience (interruptions).
In order to shorten the dialogue. I announce in the name of the government that there is no reason not to hold a debate on the subject as proposed by the representative of the opposition. For one simple reason: Our policy is clear. We are convinced that it is right. In this debate, when it takes place, each side will be able to present and explain its positions.