63 Reply in the Knesset by Prime Minister Rabin to a motion for the agenda- 12 February 1975

Mr. Speaker, Members of the Knesset,

At the beginning of his statement, Knesset Member Begin referred critically to a statement made by an American statesman - a statesman purporting to express the U.S. Government's stand regarding the gravity of the process of negotiation presently being conducted through the good offices of the United States.

Since we are currently deep in the process of dialogue, I take the liberty of not relating to this part of Knesset Member Begin's statement. I merely wish to point out that there is a vast difference between what he has stated - and I presume he quoted correctly what he had heard from the American - and what we are told.

The second sphere touched upon in Knesset Member Begin's statement was: advice to the team conducting the negotiations. I take it that the members of the team heard his words. His views have often been heard by the members of the team, in the course of contacts and meetings with him and his colleagues in the Likud in the framework of the House Defence and Foreign Affairs Committeee.

The third sphere in his statement was: personal references of one type or another, the awarding of adjectives and so forth - which I shall permit myself not to deal with from this rostrum.

I shall therefore pass on to the actual motion tabled by Knesset Member Begin. This Government has never denied - on the contrary, it has repeatedly stressed - that its course was seek a prospect for progress towards peace by stages in those sectors and under the conditions wherein this would appear to be feasible, as providing for the promotion of peace on the one hand and for maintaining Israel's security on the other.

This is not the first instance of the Likud placing on the agenda this or that remark made by me on television. There was a statement made on 9 October 1974 - at the time, not over the ABC television network, but over the NBC network. And if I were to quote the wrathful and extreme - and so irrelevant - expressions voiced during that debate on an issue which nowadays is totally lacking in significance - who remembers it at all? that might clarify and recall the words uttered - with all due respect, Knesset Member Begin - with reference to my statement over the ABC television network.

However, it is Knesset Member Begin's privilege to table the motion, and I consider it my duty to reply. I wish to say: It will be a happy day for me, not only as Prime Minister, but (also) as the person who served as Chief of the General Staff in the Six-Day War, when I can step forth and say that what I stated over the ABC television network had indeed been accomplished, and Egypt had renounced war.

(Interruption): Castles in Spain?

I repeat - despite the interruption - it will be the happiest day in my life if I can step forth and state: An agreement has been signed between the Government of Egypt and Israel signifying that there is no longer war; that the means to progress towards peace will be only by negotiation through diplomatic channels between the parties; that Egypt does not deem itself bound to whatever may have occurred between Israel and any other Arab State; that the territory Israel would vacate would be demilitarized, and demilitarized with certainty.

I confess that if we could achieve such a thing in return for the Passes, in return for the Abu Rodeis oil field - I am convinced that the nation would have considered this to be an opening to great hope.

(Interruptions): But...

Menahern Begin: But you are accomplishing the opposite by your declarations on television.

Knesset Member Begin, permit me to state: This Government has not retreated as much as a single inch from the territory entrusted to it since conclusion of implementation of the separation-of-forces agreements.

(Interruptions from Likud benches): For how long?

Worry about it yourselves. (Interruptions): Say "meanwhile," which will find us in agreement.

No meanwhile.

I have a question to address to Knesset Member Begin: It is always necessary to state "he is not speaking the truth, he is misleading," or is it possible also to state "here, this is what we agree to"? "By all means, let him accept" - I have heard no objection from you to this - "and if he rejects, who will lose thereby?"

Over the past six months, according to polls particularly in the United States, Israel's position among American public opinion has undergone an improvement. I do not know to what extent the polls reflect the truth.

(Interruption): Again Yankelevitch? One cannot determine policy according to this.

Knesset Member Modai, I regret; I regret even more so that the name Yankelevitch causes you to guffaw. In America - his name and his Jewishness notwithstanding - his is considered to be a polling institute of the first rate, and if the name Yankelevitch gives rise to guffaws here, this merely testifies to something requiring mending.

However, I do not refer to only one institute. I am persuaded that had public opinion polls conducted by the polling institutions in the United States indicated a decline, the Likud would have tabled a motion for the agenda on the subject. I am convinced that the improvement in public awareness in the United States in favour of Israel is related, among other things, also to appreciation of the manner in which Israel, the Government of Israel, manages its policy.

I would go even further. In fact, to a person of understanding, to whoever has no wish to deceive the public, when someone says that in return for cessation of hostilities, in return for Egypt's renunciation of war, in return of demilitarization, we are prepared for "A" and "B" - this also has a further significance, namely: Failing renunciation by Egypt of its warlike intentions, we shall give up neither the Passes as an effective line of defence, nor the oil fields at Abu Rodeis as a prime economic means -as long as there is no Egyptian renunciation of war.

Members of the Knesset,

Insofar as the content is concerned, the same statements may be styled differently, for different purposes. I am convinced that the gist of the matter has found expression in the Israel Government's position. Failing abrogation of the state of war - the Passes and the oil fields will remain in the hands of the State of Israel, in the hands of the Israel Defence Forces.

I therefore find it strange that this subject has been raised as a motion for the agenda. (Interruption): It was worth it, Mister Prime Minister, in order to hear from you clear statements - clearer at least than on television and in all manner of other places.

Excuse me, these are the same things, stated with the same clarity. I have the feeling if it is permitted to say in good spirit from this rostrum - despite your statements and their style, Knesset Member Begin, (that) we are presently enduring a difficult period; many difficulties confront the State of Israel; a responsible leader - regardless of whether he is a member of the Coalition or of the Opposition - would be well advised not to sow unnecessary confusion and not plant uncalled for question marks.

(Interruption): And how they are called for!

Menahern Begin: With all due respect, Mister Prime Minister, it is you who is sowing the confusion, and it is my duty to remark upon it in Parliament.

Knesset Member Begin, a bit of calm.

When I speak in a more open fashion, you call it "exposure"; when I speak in a more veiled fashion, you call it "mental confusion."

Menahern Begin: I did not say "mental," I merely said "confusion."

I recommend that the matter be treated with the measure of responsibility, with the measure that the reality confronting the State calls for, despite the differences of opinion, from this rostrum - and I stress, from this rostrum - (that it be treated) from an overall (sense) of national responsibility.

I move that the motion be struck from the agenda.