115 Statement to the Knesset by Prime Minister Begin- and his reply- 23 January 1978

On 9 November 1977, President Sadat told the people's Assembly of Egypt that he might be prepared to come to Jerusalem and address our parliament. He stressed that his demands would be total Israeli withdrawal to the lines which preceded the Six-day War of 1967, and the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District.

On the following day, 10 November 1977, I published a statement which said, inter alia:

Ten days later, President Sadat came to our country and delivered his speech from the rostrum of our Knesset. In doing so, he knew in advance that his two demands were, are, and will be, completely unacceptable to Israel. It was with this knowledge that he carried out his visit.

In Jerusalem, President Sadat gave me a pledge that the Egyptian army would not cross the line of the Giddi and the Mitla Passes. Hence, the remainder of the Sinai Desert would be completely demilitarized from the line of the passes to the international boundary, to which we would ultimately withdraw our forces after a transitional period of between three and five years. However, General Gamasy proposed to Defence Minister Ezer Weizman a different line from which the demilitarization would begin. The distance between the line of the Giddi and Mitla Passes and the international boundary is 180 to 200 kilometres, whereas the distance between General Gamasy's proposed line and the international boundary is 40 kilometres. The disparity, therefore, between the demilitarization line as indicated to me by President Sadat and that stated by General Gamasy represents a difference of between 140 and 160 kilometres.

To us, this is one of the most vital issues of our national security. No amount of rhetoric can change the indisputable fact that the Sinai Desert served as a staging ground to attack Israel, and to threaten it with destruction, five times in 30 years. This can never ever be again. And, therefore, during negotiations for a peace treaty, we shall stand steadfastly by the positive, crucial principle of the complete demilitarization of the Sinai Peninsula stretching from the Giddi and Mitla Passes to the international boundary. And, as this was the clear pledge given to me by President Sadat, I call upon him, for the sake of credibility, to instruct his military staff to abide by his undertaking.

At the Ismailiya Conference on 25 and 26 December 1977, I presented to President Sadat and his delegation our peace proposal in both its parts. The part relating to the bilateral relations between Israel and Egypt based itself, inter alia, upon the principles of demilitarization, a transition period, a UN force and flag in the area between Sharm elSheikh and Eilat and in the area between Rafah and EI-Arish, and ultimate Israeli withdrawal to the international boundary. That proposal included the principle of self-defence for our settlements in their existing locations.

The relevant passage in the transcript of the Ismailiya conference reads, I quote: "We cannot - even as we respect your dignity and your honour - we cannot leave our settlements and our civilians without self-defence. This is the resolve of our generation, with all our experience behind us. We respect your principles and we ask you to respect our principle."

President Sadat's reaction to the Egyptian-Israeli part of our peace proposal, including the passage I have just quoted, was, and I repeat his words: "Let me say that, with this, you have made your proposal. We have to discuss it and form our proposal also, through negotiation, and reach results, because, as you stated clearly, you have difficulties and we have difficulties. There are points we differ on. The proper way is to exchange proposals and discuss them. For me it is a success, our meeting here, whatever the differences are."

Minister of Defence Ezer Weizman reported, of course, to me and to the cabinet about his previous talk with President Sadat at Aswan, in which the President objected to our settlements. The President repeated his objection during our meeting in Ismailiya. But it was all done in a friendly atmosphere, both sides understanding and saying that it is a matter for discussion and negotiation.

When, in Ismailiya, I presented to President Sadat our draft for a common Egyptian-Israeli declaration of principles, his reaction was - "For the Egyptian people, it is enough." He added that he had other problems as well, and I understood.

I suggested that the Egyptian delegation work out a counter-proposal, and they did. We discussed both drafts at the Ismailiya talks. We, on our part, told the Egyptians that we cannot, and will not, accept two paragraphs of their draft which referred to withdrawal of Israel from Sinai, the Golan, the West Bank and Gaza, and the achievement of a just settlement of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects on the basis of the right to selfdetermination.

Ultimately, the following declaration of principles was actually by both delegations. I quote:

With regard to the question of the Palestinian Arabs, no agreement was reached. Both delegations accepted the practice of stating their respective position and, indeed, President Sadat, at our subsequent joint press conference, read out the relevant statement:: "The position of Egypt is that, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian state should be established. The position of Israel is that Palestinian Arabs residing in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip should enjoy self-rule."

It was because of the differing positions on this issue that the representatives of the Egyptian Foreign Office stated that the agreed written declaration of principles cannot be published. However, I must emphasize that, but for this, the contents of a common declaration of principles was, in fact, agreed upon by both sides.

Since the Ismailiya conference, and before the political committee assembled in Jerusalem, a most virulent campaign of vilification against Israel and its government was launched in Egypt. Thus, on 31 December 1977, the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar al-Yom saw fit to publish an article by Mustapha Amin under the heading: "Begin should thank God that he was not beaten up by members of the Egyptian delegation in Ismailiya." The article states, and I quote: "This meeting was not with representatives of the State of Israel, but with Shylock, the arms merchant (sic) in the well-known story by Shakespeare concerning the usurer who wanted a piece of flesh from his debtor."

Elsewhere, in that same piece, the writer states: "The Egyptians were shocked when they heard the declaration of President Carter about his opposition to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. It appears that Carter insists upon continuing his international jig in which he takes two steps forward and one step back."

Again, in the Egyptian semi-official daily Al-Ahram of 3 January 1978, we find the heading: "The Jew will bargain even with the angel of death - changing the character of the Jew is a drawn-out affair." The author, Annis Mansour, writes, inter alia, "Drinking coffee together proves nothing. One can also have coffee in a zoo and a prisoner condemned to death is also given coffee."

Another quote: "We know from the outset that sitting with Jews is to sit with the world's speculators of every generation."

Another quote: "But the Jews, as is their habit, cast doubt on everything. Even if the devil, the angel of death, would come to them, they would bargain with him over every detail."

Another quote: "But never let us forget that the Israelis are Israelis, that bargaining trickery and calculations of profit and loss are part of their character, and that they are incapable of changing themselves."

Another quote: "The dream of Zionism, its ambition and philosophy, is the philosophy of Nazi Hitlerism. The reference is to its feeling of superiority and its right to rule over everyone round about and over the whole world, as stated in their holy book."

I could go on.

As you can see, these are not only notorious, anti-semitic expressions, but a repetition of what we used to read in "Der Sturmer." In such an atmosphere of hatred, and incitement to hatred against the Jewish people and the Jewish state, it would be useless and humiliating for our delegation to go to Cairo to participate in the talks of the Military Committee. We hope that, in the coming days, the Egyptian government will prevent the repetition of such outrageous statements, for which the Egyptian government is responsible under the prevailing conditions of that country.

I have to add a warning that, if they are repeated, and if this kind of vile language is continued, we shall not be in a position to send the representatives and spokesmen of the State of Israel to a place in which their people, their country and their government are so vilified. We want an atmosphere in which calm negotiations can be pursued. Israel continues to be interested in such negotiations. We hope that, in the coming days, such an atmosphere will be created in the Egyptian capital.

In his speech to the Council of the Egyptian People on 21 January, President Sadat stated again that Israel must commit itself to total withdrawal, and agree to a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District. It is my duty to say to President Sadat respectfully that, first: Resolution 242, with its careful wording "withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict" (and not "all the territories" or "the territories"), does not in any way commit Israel to a total withdrawal; and, second: since the Six-Day War was, in the most classical sense, a war of legitimate national self-defence, threatened as we were not only with aggression but also with extinction during the days of May-June 1967, Israel enjoys two undeniable rights under international law and practice: one: in the absence of peace treaties, we stand where we are; and, two: territorial changes are completely legitimate and should be included in the peace treaties.

However, if against these rules of international law President Sadat insists on his totally unacceptable ultimata, it will inescapably be our understanding that he does not want Israel with peace, but peace without Israel.

It is my duty to inform him that the State of Israel will live forever, and it is with this Jewish state that our neighbours will have to conduct - honourably, decently and freely - negotiations, without any prior conditions from either side, for the conclusion of peace treaties.

As far as our peace proposals in both their parts are concerned - namely the Sinai peace plan, including the proposed arrangements for our settlements with an Israeli contingent to defend them, and the plan for administrative autonomy for the Palestinian Arabs residing in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District - I presented them to the President of the United States, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the President's Advisor on National Security, ranking Senators, the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, former President Ford, former Secretary of State Kissinger, and also the Prime Minister of Great Britain. All of them made public statements to the effect that the proposals are a fair basis for negotiation, and constitute a constructive approach. They also made positive statements to me in private, which I shall not divulge. However, the public statements do merit quotation, such as that of the President of the United States, who said: "There is a great deal of flexibility (in the Israeli peace proposals). It is a long step forward;" and that of Secretary of State Vance, who said: "A constructive approach, a notable contribution."

So it is and so it remains.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the leader of the opposition and other Knesset members who, whether fully or partially, supported the government decision and the statement made to explain it. The debate was thorough, fitting -I think it will help elucidate Israel's national stand. I say "National stand" because the matter must be presented in all its sharpness, all its logic, all its clarity.

Members of the Knesset, President Sadat is demanding that Israel undertake to him to leave the Golan Heights, quit Sinai and the Gaza Strip, abandon Judea and Samaria. On that condition he is ready to make with us what he calls peace. Let every Knesset member reply according to his conscience whether he be ready to sign such an undertaking. True, there is here one faction which is definitely ready to accept these conditions, and I had the opportunity to say to President Sadat and his colleagues: Maybe you want an agreement with five Knesset members out of 120 - be it known to you, there is such a faction.

Truly, that is what I said to President Sadat: Maybe you want an agreement with five Knesset members out of 120. Under those conditions you can get it, but only with five Knesset members. All the other 115 Knesset members, each according to his awareness and his conscience - whatever faction he belongs to - must answer the question: Are you ready to accept these conditions as Sadat - excuse me, President Sadat - is presenting them. Explicitly, without embellishment, without qualification, without further ado. Reply. If you are not ready to do so, please do not hurl accusations.

What was a bit painful, - not very, it can be lived with - is the tendency to self-accusation. This is not the sort of phenomenon that was to be found in the land of Israel. I know where it originated. Our people experienced difficult times, and there was always some Jew who said: 'Yes, true. They attacked, they carried out a pogrom etc... but the Jews were not altogether in order either.' Interestingly, the usual expression was 'Jewish provocation' - without that they would not have undergone what they did. All this we have left behind us, to bring that habit to the land of Israel to our country - strange.

Last night I heard how a Knesset member - not necessarily from the opposition blamed the government of Israel for the breaking off of the Political Committee deliberations. Let me state the truth from my heart: I felt shame and disgrace, as a Jew. What did we do? We conducted negotiations. We proposed two committees, we expressed our stand, we put forth proposals, we drafted a peace plan. The discussion proceeded as it was supposed to: Proposals, counter-proposals. No, we are to blame. We are also to blame, it's not fitting.

And there were Knesset members who in the past few days set themselves up as though they were some kind of supreme arbiters: Before them are two sides. The government of Egypt and the government of Israel. Both are off the mark. Both are wrong. Both are mistaken. While these Knesset members stand above and expatiate and admonish and finally counsel: You are both out of line, henceforth you will both behave properly, and then you will get peace. This, too, is not becoming.

Members of the Knesset. There are not two sides here. You heard the remarks. Perhaps for the first time, an enemy castigating and vilifying the ranks of Israel - two sides: Remarks whose like we did not read in "Der Sturmer" since it appeared - two sides: An abrupt decision, right out of the blue, to break off negotiations in their midst - two sides: An order to pack bags, to return. Never was there such a thing in any negotiation. The U.S. Secretary of State, a partner to the negotiations, knew nothing, stands open-mouthed - two sides: What two sides do you have here?

And those Knesset members who spoke thus, are not part of this people but exclude themselves. Ascend the mount and sermonize? This they do to the same degree vis-a-vis the government of Israel and the government of Egypt? This, too, was not a custom which existed in the past. Here we are used to "Talk turkey." as the Sabras say. What self-accusation do you cast on the citizens of Israel or on the government which is running the affairs of your country? You are under no obligation to call it "Our government" though we used to call you "Our government" when we were in the opposition. But to all intents this is the government of our country, what are you accusing it of? Surely you must base yourself on facts.

My dear friend Knesset member Lova Eliav, says to me: That speech, that speech. I have learned from all my mentors, but I want to say to you, Lova: Let us imagine that I deliver precisely that speech and the Egyptian Foreign Minister reads his written speech and makes no comment and does not create the impression that he is insulted. Would it then occur to you to utter one word of criticism of my remarks? On the contrary, I want to inform you that, even though I do not need it, I received congratulations on my remarks from all directions, from all sides. Not just from Israelis, not just from Jews - from very important persons who are not Israelis and are not Jews, and I do not want to repeat their titles.

But what happened? The Egyptian Foreign Minister became confused - he does not deny it - and reacted as he did. He gave up the idea of reading his prepared speech, said a few sentences, sat down. Did not join in the toast as we did. The American Secretary of State and myself, to our country and its President. He sat. And then it was clear that he had a 'Sour Face', and it was against that background that all your critical remarks came up. Had he read his speech quietly, as he prepared it, and not evinced dissatisfaction over my remarks - and I shall yet explain why he showed dissatisfaction - no one would have even thought of asking: 'Why did Begin have to make that speech?'

I do not want to repeat my remarks, but I must say they contained no offence, no insult. What's wrong - are not such political statements made at a political dinner? And the remarks were made with courtesy, with fondness, and this was not a private dinner but a state dinner. I was told: But the Arabs have a different grasp of hospitality. Fine. Here, then, President Sadat, on Saturday evening, in a speech before his People's Assembly, when he invited the entire diplomatic corps, including the Russian Ambassador - and certainly they were all his guests, invited by him - said such things about the Soviet Union. Do you see? He said such grave things that even I could not say. He spoke of scoundrels, of frauds, so that the Soviet Ambassador, the guest of the President of Egypt, got up and left the hall.

Perhaps some Egyptians should have stood up and asked President Sadat: 'Mr. President, you invite the diplomatic corps, one of whom is the Soviet Ambassador, and this is how you vilify him and his country, in his presence? Is this hospitality? Is this how a guest is treated? But no one asked such a question. And here, because the stranger, the Egyptian, showed dissatisfaction. Several Jews stepped forward with a complaint, the stranger was not satisfied, and he said to himself: 'If so, my speech is already worthless, and I have to make a few remarks.' And he in fact said things which were hard to understand and then he sat down and did not join in the toast and the Jews are angry, at whom? At their comrade, at the Jew.

I wish to note the remarks of Mrs. Golda Meir. She was not swayed by some sour grimace of a guest, she said what was in her mind, in her awareness: No injustice was done by the Prime Minister, he insulted no one. On the contrary, the other party did not behave properly. Why did he not drink a toast to the President of Israel? It was his duty to do so, regardless of a political speech. That was discourtesy on his part.

We made no contentions about this. Why should you contend against your comrade, the Prime Minister? Members of the Knesset, this is not how one behaves in the land of Israel, that belongs to another era entirely.

Now Knesset member Haika Grossman comes to me with contentions - after she has already dealt with the chain of mistakes of the Israel government and reacted sharply to the speech etc. - and asserts that I did not act properly with regard to Judea and Samaria, that I yielded to pressures, etc, etc.

Well, then, I ask Knesset member Haika Grossman: What is to be done if there are fundamental differences between us concerning Judea and Samaria? We wrote openly in the plan - for all to see - and I so stated to the President of the United States and the President of Egypt: We lay claim to our right to Israeli sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Thus did I state at the White House. True, this was the first time an Israeli Prime Minister made such a statement to an American President. And thus did I also state in Ismailiya. We also transmitted such a document to the knowledge of the President of Egypt: We claim right and we have a claim to our sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Gaza, for it is our land.

This we wrote. This we believe. True, for the sake of a peace agreement - as we once again stated openly - we propose leaving open the question of the application of sovereignty. But our right stands. Our claim stands. We do not forgo it. We propose, for the time being, dealing with peoples - thus I always say: The Jewish people and the Arab people, I have no need to resort to my memories from Hashomer Hatzair in order to say this. There are two peoples in the land of Israel. We recognize them both by law. There is written: Nationality, Arab nationality, Jewish nationality. That is an expression of freedom, an expression of democracy, an expression of recognition of nationality. True, this is not how it is in every country. But this is how it is here. We want to deal with two people, I have no need to resort to my memories from Hashomer Hatzair in order to say proposal. You perhaps agree neither with the claim nor the right. You have the right to object. But this is our plan and this is our path. Everything is clear and open. Nothing hidden, nothing mysterious - everything is clear.

Knesset member Moshe Shamir - to whose remarks I always listen carefully but am unable in this latest phase to agree with everything he says - proposed that we employ the great rule of international law and state that our peace plan is null and void. We cannot accept such advice. True, there is a famous rule in the international law-book: "A contract, in as much as it is a contract, requires mutual agreement of the parties. The proposals put forward by one party which are not accepted by the other party are not binding upon the proposer." That is the rule. We shall not make use of it in order to announce that our peace plan no longer exists even if it has been rejected by the other party.

Our peace plan is good, thorough, thought-out, and afforded us - yes indeed - support of very important international factors, and we adhere to it. On the other hand, there is a question of particular concrete proposals, and certainly if we decide, I must express this reservation, we must give the matter thought, consider it, determine the proper timing for it. But we definitely have a legal right as regards the concrete proposals - once we have put forward a certain proposal and it has not been accepted or has been utterly rejected - to state: It is not binding upon the proposer and we shall submit another proposal. This requires no special explanation. It is familiar to anyone who knows the ABC's of international law. I want to say that this matter has definitely been discussed and will be part of the government's considerations. The cabinet has not yet decided on this question, but it will definitely be in the framework of its future deliberations.

I hope that nothing will be written in Egypt this week that may again offend the dignity of our nation and adversely affect the suitable atmosphere for conducting calm negotiations on the basis of proposals and counter-proposals, as is the custom in negotiations between countries. I hope that nothing will be said in Cairo which is liable to adversely affect this desirable atmosphere. It is my duty to explain that we shall not be able to decide to despatch our delegation if the remarks, as I read them, recur, for we shall not agree to any offence to the dignity of the Jewish people or the Jewish state in the course of negotiations. We want negotiations. We are interested in them. I hope they can be resumed and continue, but let it be perfectly clear to everyone: without disparagements and without offence to our people. I hope that this atmosphere will in fact prevail this week, and then I hope that at the beginning of next week we will be able to decide on the despatch of our delegation for resumption of the negotiations. But all this is in the nature of the expression of a hope. We shall observe.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: President Sadat came to us. We received him with all befitting hospitality, we received him in recognition of his courageous deed and we never rescinded that recognition. But President Sadat, the President of Egypt, stated that we are called upon - as I have already noted - to withdraw to the lines of 4 June 1967, to leave the Golan Heights, to abandon Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Would he please take note that if he presents us with these demands, along with a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, then there is only one way we can interpret these unacceptable demands: He does not want Israel with peace. But peace without Israel, such a peace will be given to no one.

We insist that dignified, free negotiations, between equals, be conducted. There are no victors and no vanquished. No party speaks to his opposite as a victor and no party need speak to his opposite as vanquished. It is on the basis of total equality and mutual respect that we shall negotiate on the establishment of peace.

We want dignified negotiations, that is: Between the state of Israel and its neighbours to the South, the North and the East, for the establishment of peace in the Middle East and for the signing of a peace treaty between ourselves and our neighbours.