Following the meeting between President Sadat and Mr. Peres, the Labour Party opposition demanded a Knesset debate on the political situation. The Knesset was the scene of angry and stormy exchanges between the Prime Minister and the opposition. In his reply to Labour's motion for the agenda, Mr. Begin took to task the Labour Party, its leaders and their ideas of a territorial compromise with Jordan. Text:
Madame Speaker, Members of the Knesset.
The motion for the agenda which the leader of the opposition M.K. Shimon Peres discussed for. exactly half an hour, deals with the question: Political developments in preparation for the Foreign Ministers' talks and the fact that no political debate was held.
First of all, let us note some facts and figures. During the first year of M.K. Rabin's administration, the Knesset held three political debates. In the last year of his administration, one debate was held. In the past year, since it has been my honour, after the nation's vote of confidence and the vote in the Knesset, to form the Government, there have been seven political debates in this House as that Government which now claims to have so respected the Knesset. It is true that M.K. Peres took advantage of the opportunity of proposing a motion for the agenda to tell us of wondrous and secret things at Salzburg. I would sincerely like to ask him: Did he ask - and I ask him this on the podium of the Knesset his interlocutor of three-and-a-half hours, President Sadat of Egypt, whether he, Mr. Sadat, is prepared to make a territorial compromise.
What does a territorial compromise mean? - A portion for me, and a portion for you. Here, this is a territorial compromise, excuse me, (tears a piece of paper in two).
The discussion between the President of Egypt and the Leader of the Parliamentary opposition in Israel we were told, went on for three- and- a-half hours.
Didn't he ask him the critical question? And now I will ask myself, what is the critical question? Because since the beginning of the political debate in this house, and especially in the last year, the opposition has not let up for a moment in its stand before the public in Israel and abroad, that there is only one way to achieve peace - by territorial compromise. "The Likud's policy is not a good one. The Likud's policy will not lead to peace. Administrative autonomy is an irresponsible adventure. You ceded all of Sinai to Egypt from the very beginning. You should have demanded sovereignty over Northern Sinai so we were told. We, the great relinquishers. Where is the territorial link between Sharm elSheikh and Eilat? What have you given up? Etc. etc."
"Territorial compromise, that is the way, the only way, which will lead to a settlement and to peace. The opportunity comes in Vienna".
For three and a half hours the President of the largest Arab country sits with the representative of the school of territorial compromise, the remedy for all of Israel's maladies. The highway to peace - in fact, the King's high way to peace. The only way, nothing else can be compared to it, and he doesn't take advantage of the opportunity to ask. Mr. President with all due respect, I would like to ask you: If we offer you a territorial compromise on all three fronts: Judea and Samaria, a portion for us and a portion for King Hussein, if you would also like a share then speak to Hussein. But, at any rate, a portion for us and a portion for Jordan - would you agree? Sinai - a territorial compromise.
Unlike the Likud, oho, no, no we do not give in as easily as the Likud. A territorial compromise, a portion for you and a portion for us.
You get the larger part but we get a share as well. The Golan Heights - well, we have not yet spoken about this. But it is one of the three fronts. Therefore a territorial compromise - a portion for us, a portion for Assad: Do you agree to this kind of trilateral compromise?
Not to have taken advantage of this historical opportunity in Vienna during a hundred minutes of face-to-face discussion? and afterwards, moreover, in the presence of that proud Jew, Bruno Kreisky? Wonder of wonders. I am astonished.
Apparently Mr. Peres did not at all ask this question.
My friend, one does not, as a rule, discuss private talks in Parliament, but since you have transgressed this rule, you have, by the same token, freed me of it, and so I will also tell, he did not speak of territorial compromise in Judea and Samaria, as you described it to me.
His is the very truth. He speaks only of what is known as minor border revisions in Judea and Samaria, and that is the truth.
In short, you did not ask him the three-sided question regarding territorial compromise.
Now I will tell you why you did not do so. You do not number among those who can be considered unintelligent. In fact, you are an intelligent man and knew what kind of answer you would receive, therefore you did not ask for it is all recorded (Interjection by Shimon Peres, Alignment: I beg your pardon, I repeat that I did pose the question and I will report his answer to you, but not in public. You have not yet heard my report.)
I repeat: Mr. Peres did not pose the critical question to Mr. Sadat and did not get a reply.
(Interjection by Shimon Peres, Alignment: This is not so, I did pose the question.)
Had he asked it, he would have received an answer. I will tell you what the answer was, I'll read it from the original text.
"The total withdrawal from Arab land conquered after 1967 is axiomatic. We shall accept no other opinion on this matter, nor go on bended knees before anyone for our cause. For there is no meaning to any discussion about a stable and just peace, and there is no meaning to any step taken to ensure a secure and harmonious life together in this part of the world while you have conquered Arab territories by force of arms. There is no such thing as a stable peace founded on the conquest of one's neighbours' territories. Yes, this goes without saying".
"This goes without saying. This is not up for debate or deliberation." These things were spoken by Mr. Sadat from the podium where I am now standing, on the nineteenth of November.
Now, in preparation for- the London conference, Mr. Sadat's Government has prepared a paper called "Proposals relative to the withdrawal from - quote - the West Bank unquote - and Gaza and security arrangements". And in the fourth paragraph of this document, it states, "Israel shall withdraw from the West Bank, including (East) Jerusalem, and the Gaza strip, occupied since June 1967.
The Israeli withdrawal applies to the settlements established in the occupied territories."
This paper has been presented to all the nations of the world and is one of the documents being discussed at Leeds castle.
Now, Members of the Knesset ought to ask me without shouts, but intelligently: You heard Sadat in the Knesset: You read this paper: Why do you and you colleagues continue with the negotiations?
They should go on and ask: The fact is you will never agree to withdraw from Jerusalem: You will never withdraw from Judea, Samaria and Gaza. You are adamant about you plan: You will not dismantle the settlements. Why do you continue to negotiate? Why is the Foreign Minister present at Leeds? Why? For he spoke in the Knesset spoke these words by rote, and, after nine months, repeated them in writing.
I will explain why. This is perhaps the most important thing, Madame Chairman, that we must all consider.
I claim: We exploit every thread, every contact every discussions, every meeting. We must not lose hope, ever. Hearten "Noes" and hope that the eleventh will be a "Yes": Hear ninety-nine "Noes" and hope that the hundredth will be a "Yes". When it comes to the search for peace, the dream of peace, the yearning for peace - the doubtful is preferable to the certain.
Therefore, if President Sadat should announce that he, after all his considerations and all his statements, to which I have not responded nor will I respond to them to-day because the Leeds conference is still proceeding and I do not wish to provide that man with any pretexts: If, one of these days, he should announce that he wishes to meet with me, I wish to declare here: Despite all the insults, despite all of the blows which the head of no other state has ever sustained, perhaps there was one other instance, but I have my reasons for not mentioning it here, and it best be left unsaid: The Prime Minister of a democratic state is chosen by the people: Why, in your election propaganda you claimed that should the Likud win the elections, I would form the Government: You claimed this and the Likud said it: The entire electorate was aware, both from you and from us. That should the Likud come in first - I would form the Government. Looking at it from this point of view. I was elected directly, as it were, and without doubt by the Knesset, for the Government has the confidence of two thirds of the Knesset.
I represent our state. I represent the Government of your state, not the state in theory.
Never has there been such a state of affairs among nations. I am not speaking, Madame Chairman, only of a restricted press, for it is known that this is the way things are in Egypt. The fact that that "Proud Jew", Bruno Kreisky proclaimed Sadat a Social Democrat, did not cancel out the events that have taken place in Egypt in recent months regarding the appointed opposition. Nevertheless, he has proclaimed, Bruno Kreisky was asked: Why did you not invite Begin. And he answered: Begin is not a socialist, that is true, I am not, but the ruler of Egypt is a Social Democrat and therefore he was invited to sit as an honorary participant in the Socialist International. Hail this kind of socialism and this kind of democracy.
Nevertheless, I repeat: If he invites me to a meeting anywhere - I will come, despite everything, I will come.
(Interjection by Moshe Shamir, Likud, Why don't you invite him?)
Perhaps I will invite him: I, don't discount that. However I do ]Got want to invite a refusal because I represent the country and not just myself, and I do not wish to subject my country to humiliation. If I know beforehand that he will accept my invitation, I shall invite him, I invited him to come to Jerusalem.
He did not invite himself. I wrote him the letter of invitation and the American Ambassador informed me that he Sadat, was deeply impressed both by the content and the tone of the letter. I wrote him that he would be received here with warmth and honour, and so, in fact, he was. I did not hesitate to invite the man who did what he did on the Day of Atonement, who, three months before, said that he preferred that three million Egyptians should die so that one million Jews would perish, and I told him then: We do not threaten the Egyptian people with the death of millions, for us every human being is important. We wish only good for the Egyptian people. We do not threaten them with any bombs.
I invited him to come here. Do you know why? - On account of that very ride of which I spoke earlier, when I turned to our sages: In the search for peace the doubtful is preferable to the certain. In any event, let us talk to one another, let us listen to one another.
For example, President Sadat told me in Jerusalem: "You are my friend." - This is very important. If this declaration is cancelled after three months - it must have to do with Egyptian policy.
I invited him, Moshe, he would not have come without my invitation. I received notification from the American Ambassador that Mr. Sadat requests a formal invitation in writing from me, and on that very day I sat and wrote him this invitation and sent it the following day via the American Ambassador. Should I be ashamed to invite him in order to deal with the "Doubtful" if it is in the cause of peace. However, in the meantime he says that he does not want to meet with me at all. I will tell you what will happen if he adheres to this position. If he does not wish to meet with me, I shall not meet with him. This will be the only result. But I do wish to meet with him. I also wish to meet with Gamasy, with Mobaraq with Hussein and Assad, with everyone. Doubtful, perhaps. We speak once. What is the historical experience of other nations? Wars were fought for entire generations, but peace was inevitable. A hundred-years-war was fought between two nations and later they maintained an entente cordiale. I wish to learn from this experience. This conflict has gone on for sixty years. Has not the time come to put an end to it in the sixty-first year? We shall not stop trying. My friend Moshe, I tell you this, under no circumstances, even if you attack me, will I break off my attempts, will I cut any thread, however doubtful, we will make every effort.
I believe with all my heart, with all my soul that I can bring peace. But, please, be patient and don't hold a stopper in your hand. Nine months have already passed since November. Why have you not yet signed? This did not occur in any other place in history - not in Vietnam, not in Korea, not between France and England, not between Germany and Poland, not between Russia and Germany, and not between Russia and Japan. In no other circumstances did peace come in six months after generations of conflict. Peace will come. Patience, please. We shall try again and again.
Leeds: What shall I say of Leeds at this time, Shimon, and here you are demanding a political debate. It is true that last night I spoke with the Foreign Minister, but you know very well that it is an open telephone and the Russians also listen in, not them but the satellites circling above, and every word on the international telephone is recorded. It is recorded in the heavens not by the heavens. Why do the Russians have to know what went on in Leeds? In any event, I could not get details on the international telephone from Moshe Dayan. He will come home tomorrow, God willing, and I will hear. What shall I say today? Today I can only tell you how he described the surroundings: A beautiful medieval castle, Elizabeth the First lived there. By the way, such beauty, such nature can hardly be matched in the world. That is how he described it to me. Interesting. The castle is from the Middle Ages. The telephone - as though I had spoken with Tel Aviv - from the twentieth century. My thanks to the British, for in no other place could it have been so. It was difficult to speak on the phone. So what can I tell you? What the castle at Leeds looks like?
It is true that the Minister of Defence was at Salzburg - and met for discussions with President Sadat. Also for over three hours. A nice and pleasant discussion. And President Sadat passed on to me via the Minister of Defence, special proposals. I am certain that it is not in the public interest to convey at this time the proposals that were brought to me by the Minister of Defence. I am convinced of this and my friends, as well as rivals must trust his judgment. Therefore we put nothing out for publication as well and there were leaks. As far as leaks are concerned, there are two possibilities: Either they are correct or they are incorrect. Usually the second alternative is the right one. Let us assume that they are correct. Do you wish to give an answer here? Let us assume that they are fraudulent, do you want me to contest reports that are false. What can I say of these proposals today? On Sunday, after his return, the Foreign Minister will deliver a summary of the Leeds conference. There will be a full debate on the proposals that the Egyptian President conveyed via the Minister of Defence, and the Government will make a decision.
I wish to declare today, Madame Chairman, that the Government wishes to hold a political debate in the Knesset either next Monday or next Tuesday. I will open the debate with an announcement, or perhaps the Foreign Minister will open with a statement regarding the Leeds conference, and then I will conclude the debate. Thus, there will be a political debate in the Knesset next week on Monday or Tuesday, on all the problems. Therefore there is no reason today to consider the proposal of the past Minister of Defence, M.K. Shimon Peres, and I suggest, Madame Chairman to remove this motion from the agenda and to leave nothing but its sad memory.