A motion for the agenda dealing with navigation in the Suez Canal was debated in the Knesset a day before the Canal was due to be re-opened. Mr. Allon replied for the government and enumerated the benefits that could accrue to Israel from the opening of the Canal. He also assessed the unilateral Israeli troop reduction in Sinai. Text:
Mr. Speaker, Members of the Knesset,
It is true that the reopening of the Suez Canal - for all that it has important implications regarding traffic and trade in international waterways - is, in the final count, a matter wholly within the sphere of Egypt's sovereignty, and given to its sovereign decision.
It is true that renewal of international navigation in the canal is in harmony with the Disengagement-of-Forces Agreement between us and Egypt of January 1974, and it does not partake of the nature of a special gift to Israel, just as keeping the canal closed for eight years was not in the nature of any special loss for us. The opening of the canal is, without doubt, of great benefit to the maritime nations. But above anything else, renewal of navigation in this waterway will assist Egypt itself. It is expected to provide Egypt with an income of hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and to provide employment, direct and indirect, to many thousands of its wage-earners.
It is also true, however, that re-activation of the Suez Canal and rehabilitation of civilian life along its banks, are likely to contribute in no small measure to normalization of life in this sensitive area. Admittedly, this provides no guarantee against hostile acts or even war on the part of Egypt. When all is said and done, however, a desert line with only armed forces deployed along both sides of it can in no way be adjudged in the same light as a line to the vicinity of which civilian life returns. There is a difference between a line on both sides of which only soldiers and tanks are to be seen, and a line close to which large enterprises are set up and where hundreds of thousands of workers and pupils set out every morning on their daily labours.
And in this - in normalization of life in the canal zone, which is the area of the land line between us and Egypt - Israel has a great interest, a close and far from negligible interest.
We therefore view the opening of the Suez Canal and rehabilitation of civilian life along its banks as an important and constructive act, not only from the point of view of promoting the Egyptian economy and society - which, obviously, are definitely internal Egyptian affairs - but also as regards the possibilities of easing the tension in the region and calming its atmosphere.
We thus welcome the opening of the canal, and extend heartfelt and most sincere wishes to Egypt, that renewal of international navigation through the canal will indeed bear the hoped-for economic fruit.
At the same time, I must emphasize that we are fully entitled to expect that upon resumption of international navigation in the Suez Canal, full freedom for the passage of our cargoes through the canal will be wholly realized, in line with the commitment undertaken by the government of Egypt at the time the Disengagement-of-Forces Agreement was signed between us and them.
Mr. Speaker,
Against the background of our class interest in what is happening in the canal area, and out of a desire to contribute our share to calming the atmosphere in this sensitive region, the government decided two days ago to reduce the IDF forces stationed in the forward area in the canal sector, accompanied by a renewed assurance - self-evident, but, I believe, no less important as far as Egypt is concerned - that the IDF's land, sea and air forces will strictly observe the freedom of international navigation in the Gulf of Suez.
And I want to make it clear: This was a unilateral move, a good-will move which came entirely of Israeli initiative, and out of Israeli considerations, in order to actualize for Egypt and for the entire world our sincere desire to do everything in our power to reduce the tension in the region, to strengthen the elements of mutual trust, and to advance on the path of peace. We regarded it as a political-informational step, appropriate to the hour, which was not intended - to receive immediate recompense in the practical sphere - but to demonstrate Israel's readiness to willingly meet any Egyptian act in the right direction.
Truth obliges us to state that this move is not devoid of any price on our part. This is not an empty gesture. This move, too, like any act, has two sides. I would not say that it entails a risk for us, leastwise not a weighty risk, but a certain onerousness is liable to attach to it, especially if the clouds of tension should again darken the horizon. From this point of view we have admittedly taken upon ourselves a certain degree of risk - but it is a calculated risk, which it is right and proper to assume. For the political benefit Iatent in the move we have made far outweighs the possible onerousness liable to stem from it.
And in our present political circumstances, and in anticipation of the difficult political campaign still awaiting us - this benefit is of particularly important value.
Members of the Knesset,
At this time, two days after the government's decision was made public, we can already speak in terms of results, at least initial results, and not only in terms of evaluations and forecasts. And in these terms we are entitled to note with satisfaction, that the government's expectations of the move it made have been fulfilled in their entirety, the decision of the government of Israel has won many and positive responses - among them also extremely positive responses - not only in the international press and in world opinion, but also on virtually the entire political and diplomatic plane.
There is no need, I believe, to iterate that the move we have made - even though it is unilateral - does not release Egypt by one iota from the obligations it undertook in the Disengagement Agreement - which, until the next agreement, is the valid agreement for regularizing relations between it and Israel. And I very much hope that the government of Egypt will properly assess our recent move, and not be tempted to take measures that would compel us, against our intentions, to retract it.
To conclude: The move upon which the government of Israel decided two days ago towards the opening of the Suez Canal is not, and was not intended to be, an act purporting to decide the fate of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is not a concession designed to replace the Disengagement-of-Forces Agreement, and certainly not one meant to shunt aside continuation of the political efforts to reach a further, more progressive, agreement with Egypt. It is not directed at weakening these efforts, but precisely at strengthening them, by means of lowering the military tension and reducing the mutual suspicion in a sensitive area, in which the entire world is interested in seeing quiet prevail.
In other words, to assist in creating - to the best of our ability - that relatively tranquil atmosphere likely to foster and encourage the political process, if not the political struggle that we face. Precisely against the backdrop of the Salzburg conference and prior to the Prime Minister's visit to Washington - on the eve of the celebrations of the opening of the Suez Canal.
Mr. Speaker,
I move that the subject be referred to the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee.