A detailed report by the Prime Minister to the Knesset opened an eight hour political debate. Mr. Begin outlined the main issues discussed in Washington and stated again his opposition to interim agreements. His government would strive to reach full fledged peace treaties, through the mechanism of the Geneva Peace Conference. The Prime Minister stated that while Israel is totally opposed to any PLO participation in Geneva, it would not oppose the participation of Palestinian Arabs in the framework of the Jordanian delegation. Mr. Begin also revealed that the cabinet, on 27 July 1977, empowered the Ministerial Committee on Settlements to decide upon the establishment of new settlements.
Mr. Speaker, Members of the Knesset,
The following are the issues which were raised in the talks in Washington: The situation in southern Lebanon, the Geneva Conference and its composition, the goal of the negotiations between Israel and its neighbours, the question of the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael, Jewish settlement, Syrian Jewry, Soviet Jewry.
Concerning the situation in southern Lebanon we informed the President that: (A) we do not want any territory of Lebanon, (B) we do not want any war to break out in the wake of events in Lebanon, (C) we shall not leave the Christian minority in Lebanon in the lurch.
We explained that we had been a minority for many generations, and we had always been on the brink of the threat of annihilation. We explained further that, while we are a large majority in our own country, we are a small minority in the Middle East, and we therefore cannot acquiesce in an attempt to annihilate, wipe out and destroy a minority. This time it is a Christian minority which is involved: It has no less a right to exist than the Moslem majority. With the aid of a map we showed that the Christian villages in southern Lebanon are like a small island surrounded by dozens of Moslem villages, that there are today 5,000 terrorists in southern Lebanon, and they shell the Christian villages night after night. The State of Israel continues to extend help to the Christian villages. I can say that, without our help, the Christian minority in Lebanon - and particularly in southern Lebanon - would be annihilated. We shall continue to defend the Christian minority in Lebanon and we shall not allow its enemies to bring about its destruction.
As to the Geneva Conference and its composition: we proposed that a new session of the Geneva Conference be convened commencing on 10 October this year, that is, after the Jewish Holy Days.
According to the precedent set four years ago, this session should be convened by the two chairmen, that is, by the United States and the Soviet Union, in accordance with Paragraph 3 of Resolution 338 of the Security Council -which states: "the Security Council decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned tinder the appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East."
We have noted that Resolution 338 includes and mentions Resolution 242 of the Security Council, of 22 November 1967. We also proposed that accredited delegations of sovereign states participate in the new session of the Geneva Conference. We specified: Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan.
The countries participating in the Geneva Conference will present no prior conditions in connection with their participation in the conference. At the public session of the reconvened Geneva Conference, the representatives of the participating countries will make opening declarations. Following the public session, mixed commissions will be established, that is: Egyptian-Israeli, Syrian-Israeli, Jordanian-Israeli.
Within the framework of these mixed commissions, negotiations will be conducted on the signature of peace treaties between Israel and its neighbours. The chairmanship of the commissions will rotate between the Israel representative and the representative of the neighbouring country. After the contents of the peace treaties are agreed upon - that is: termination of the state of war, demarcation of borders, diplomatic relations, economic relations, etc., the Geneva Conference will be convened for an additional public session, at which the peace treaties will be signed.
These were our proposals concerning the composition of the Geneva Conference, which we put to the President and his advisers.
We were asked: Would we agree to have Lebanon participate in the Geneva Conference? We replied: Yes.
Concerning the composition of the Geneva Conference, we were asked - though we had been explicit about the matter in our proposals - what our stand would be as to the participation of the organization called P.L.O. We stated that its participation was totally unacceptable.
We were also asked: Would we agree to have Arabs of Eretz Yisrael participate in the Jordanian delegation? We replied: Yes, provided they are not representatives of the organization I have mentioned.
I should like to clarify this attitude, so that it should be clear to the house, to the nation at home, to the Jewish people and to public opinion everywhere. The organization called the P.L.O. is an organization of murderers, which aspires to destroy the State of Israel. Since the days of the Nazis, the Jewish people has not had a more brutal and bloodthirsty enemy. We have nothing to negotiate about with it. We shall not conduct any talks about our destruction. Even the modus operandi of that organization is Nazi. It plans in advance the murder of men, women and children, and when they carry out their designs, they exult over their success in killing Jewish men, women and children. Their desire is to destroy the State of Israel according to article 19 of the document called the "Palestinian Covenant", which says that the establishment of the State of Israel is null and void.
Another article of the Covenant states that the Jews living in this country shall be recognized as "Palestinians", but only those who were in the country or were born there before the beginning of the "Zionist Invasion". The clear meaning of this article is that only 50-60,000 Jews who lived in the country before the promulgation of the Balfour Declaration shall be recognized as "Palestinians", and the rest have nothing more to do in this country. In other words, 2,950,000 Jews, according to their designs, will have to leave Eretz Yisrael.
It is self-evident that all these aspirations have no basis in reality. That murderers' organization will not destroy the State of Israel, will not bring about the expulsion of the Jews from this country, and all its efforts will be in vain. But what counts for us is the aspiration and the policy, and these are Nazi in every sense of the term. For these reasons we are not prepared to conduct any negotiations whatsoever with representatives of the organization known as the P.L.O. We have made this attitude clear, without leaving any shadow of doubt, to the President and his advisers. This is the attitude of the Government of Israel.
It should also be noticed that in the agreement between the United States and the State of Israel in connection with the Geneva Conference, it was stipulated that any chance in its composition shall require the consent of all the participants. This is the right that was accorded us: To object to any change - in other words, a change can take place only with our consent. We agreed that Lebanon shall participate in the Geneva Conference, and we do not give our consent that the organization called the P.L.O. shall take part in it. This right was given to be used. We are on firm ground, both of precedent - namely, the Geneva Conference as it was composed when it was convened four years ago - and also according to an express commitment by the United States in a joint American-Israeli document, under which each party - that is, including Israel - is entitled to oppose any change whatsoever in the composition of the Conference. We shall not, therefore, under any circumstances agree to the participation of the organization called the P.L.O. in the Geneva Conference.
What is the goal of the negotiations between Israel and its neighbours? I can inform the Knesset that, for the first time since the Six-Day War it has been agreed by both governments, the Government of the United States and the Government of Israel, that the goal of the negotiations at Geneva, or of any negotiations between ourselves and our neighbours, is peace treaties.
If we say "peace treaties", Mr. Speaker, there is actually no need to go into detail. Peace treaties were signed after World War I at Trianon, Sevres, Lausanne and St. Germaine. Peace treaties were signed after World War II in Paris, in 1946, between the Allies and Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Italy. A peace treaty was signed after World War II between the U.S. and Japan.
Anyone who reads these peace treaties is aware that, in keeping with international law, the first article in them states: "The state of war is concluded." The second chapter is territorial.
In the peace treaties, the boundaries are laid down, the permanent boundaries between the states that were previously at war. There is a chapter about diplomatic relations and the exchange of ambassadors. There is a chapter in the peace treaties about economic relations, and so forth. In a word, when you have said "peace treaty" you have said everything about the nature of the peace and there is no more need to argue about this question, because everything is said in the term "peace treaties".
I am happy to note that the U.S. Government has agreed that the goal of the negotiations shall be the signature of peace treaties. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that there should be no doubt as to the question of how we interpret peace, permanent peace, true peace between ourselves and our neighbours, we have not only proposed peace treaties but also specified their contents.
One member of the Knesset has expressed concern that, when this was published, we did not include diplomatic relations among the details. There was no reason for this concern. It was true that there was an error in dictation, and perhaps it was my error, but in the morning, before the meeting with the President and his advisers, I re-read the document and found that the words "diplomatic relations" did not appear. We recopied the second page of the document and, of course, introduced the term "diplomatic relations". In this form the document was submitted to the representatives of the American administration.
There is a question that exists in reality: Whether the Arab states will insist on the participation of the organization called the P.L.O. in the Geneva Conference. We have clarified our position without leaving any room for doubt. We were informed that Egypt and Syria insist that this organization of murderers shall participate in the new session of the Geneva Conference. We therefore had to consider what the alternative will be in case these Arab states insist on the participation of the P.L.O. in the Geneva Conference. If they display intransigence on this matter, if they insist on the demand for the participation of the P.L.O. in the Geneva Conference, they will make the convening of the new session of the Conference impossible.
What, then, is the alternative? We have proposed to the U.S. Government two alternative possibilities. The one is: We agree that the U.S. Government should use its good offices in all the capitals concerned - namely, Jerusalem, Cairo, Amman and Damascus (if we also add Lebanon, in Beirut) - in order to set up the mixed commissions, three or four as I have mentioned, and these commissions shall conduct the negotiations on peace treaties.
The second possibility is the holding of proximity talks as proposed to us by the U.S. Government in 1972. We agree that the U.S. should provide its good offices in order to hold these talks. And again, in the framework of these talks, negotiations shall be conducted on peace treaties, in the framework of mixed commissions. We think this is a practical method both for the convening of a special session of the Geneva Conference and also for the acceptance of an alternative method.
Mixed commissions are no novelty. They existed at Rhodes in 1949 and they brought about the signature of agreement of great international significance, the Armistice Agreements. In these agreements, it was laid down, inter alia, that they were direct steps towards the establishment of permanent peace in Palestine. That was expressly stated.
In another article of the Armistice Agreements it was stated that the demarcation lines were not on any account to be interpreted as territorial or political borders, and that agreement on them was not to be regarded as establishing a position in regard to the rights and demands of each party in connection with the final solution of the Palestine question.
On the basis of that precedent - unfortunately, 29 years late - we are proposing to establish permanent peace as the parties undertook in 1949. Since then there has been incessant bloodshed. We regret this. The Arab states did not fulfil the other conditions in the Armistice Agreements. One paragraph forbids attacks on the civilian population, not only by an army but also by irregular forces throughout the years. In the course of 19 years up to the six-day war -1,500 Israeli citizens were murdered, and thousands more were wounded and maimed. And there were four wars, every one of them the result of Arab aggression and the unwillingness of the Arab states to conclude that peace which was promised in the Armistice Agreements.
But these facts belong to the past: there has been a long delay, a delay tragic to all the nations of the Middle East. But there comes a moment when we must begin establishing permanent peace in the Middle East. And therefore this method of setting up bilateral mixed commissions, between Israel on the one hand and each of its neighbours on the other, is the practical way to bring about the signature of peace treaties.
The questions of the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael - The "Palestine question" - was put to us. From the first we objected to that term. "Palestine" is the name of a land, the Land of Israel. When the British Mandate was approved at San Remo, it stated: "Recognition having been given to the connection between the Jewish people and Palestine..."
When Woodrow Wilson - who gave the world the term "national self-determination" appointed, after World War I, a -commission for Middle East affairs, it submitted a recommendation which stated: "It is just that Palestine shall become a Jewish state".
When the late Dr. Haim Weizmann made an agreement with King Feisal, the agreement asserted basically that there should be relations of friendship and understanding between "the Arab state" and "Palestine". "Arab state" means the Arab people, and "Palestine" means the Land of Israel for the Jewish people.
When Herbert Samuel was the first British High Commissioner in Eretz Yisrael he came up with an interesting usage: In English "Palestine", in Arabic "Falastin", and in Hebrew "Palestina" - and everyone knows they meant Eretz Yisrael.
On the basis of these and other documents, it is clear that "Palestine" means Eretz Yisrael, the land promised to the Jewish people.
And therefore anyone stating "Palestine question" and referring to the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael is both distorting the historical facts and being unfaithful to historical truth. From the beginning we objected to the very term "Palestine question". The talks focused on this question but the terms were different, including the "Palestinian entity". We explained that any such proposal would inevitably bring about the establishment of a "Palestinian" state, inevitably -whatever the practical proposals accompanying this idea. A "Palestinian" state, such as, let us say, Egyptian President Sadat proposes - in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, linked by an extraterritorial corridor (that is, one under Arab sovereignty) between Judea and Samaria, and the Gaza Strip in the south - such a state would be a threat to the very existence of the Jewish state.
We have no need for quotations to know what is the desire of that organization empowered by the Rabat Conference to represent, as was stated, all the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael. There will be perpetual bloodshed. This is no theory. A different but similar situation existed for 19 years, and there was perpetual bloodshed. We were attacked in Jerusalem, at Shafrir near Tel Aviv, in Ashkelon, Ashdod, in the north, the east, the south, week after week, if not day after day.
It is typical that the President of Egypt, in presenting his demand, does not promise a peace treaty or peace, but what is termed "non-belligerency", a concept without any standing in international law. In other words: Not peace. And we must assert that should such a situation be created, the Middle East will lose the prospect - every possibility - of peace. For then, as we demonstrated to the President and his advisers, the Arabs would glance at the map and ask themselves: Why should we make peace with the State of Israel? Their guns would be nine miles from the coast in the vicinity of Netanya, ten miles from Kalkilya, 20 miles in the vicinity of Tel Aviv, ten miles from Beersheba, etc.
Soviet artillery in our day has a range of 43.8 kilometres. There is no doubt that, should such a Palestinian state be established, it would not be long before it began receiving all the modern and sophisticated arms from the Soviet Union. Flight time from Odessa to Bethlehem is less than two hours. Following its invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Soviet Union discovered deficiencies in its logistic dispositions: It has since corrected them, and was capable of airlifting to Angola and Mozambique - thousands of kilometres south of the U.S.S.R. - tanks, artillery, missiles and all the aggressive military hardware of our time. This certainly holds true for Eretz Yisrael. Then a Soviet base would be established within the Palestinian state. It is no coincidence that, in a conference convened some weeks ago in Moscow under the chairmanship of Leonid Brezhnev, both Castro and Arafat participated: simultaneously.
That would be the reality: A threat of incomparable gravity to every citizen of Israel, to every man and woman in the State of Israel. And also a threat, of course, to the free world. We are aware of what is happening in the Middle East, from Ethiopia to Libya. Do we also need a Soviet base in the heart of the Middle East, from which they can expand southward, eastward and northward? The answer is self-evident.
We have made clear our stand on this matter again, so as not to leave a shadow of doubt. We utterly reject the establishment of a "Palestinian" state in any form whatsoever. And any proposal commencing with what is called a "Palestinian entity" will certainly end in the establishment of such a state. We say "no" - an absolute no, a clear no -to that notion in all its forms.
There are those who say that if we say "no" to a Palestinian state, we are in fact taking a negative stand. That is not true. There are rules of grammar by which "no" is stated, but an absolute positive is meant. "Thou shalt not kill" -"not": an absolute positive. "Thou shalt not steal" - "not" is written: A grammatical negative, but a statement of positive rules. And the same applies to our stand vis-a-vis what is termed "the Palestinian state". Grammatically, it is true, we say "no", but, from the point of view of content this is the positive: In the first place as regards the prospect for peace and the prevention of bloodshed, the peril in store in such a case for every man, woman and child in Israel.
The problem of settlement, Jewish settlement, has been raised. True, we were requested not to establish settlements. But we explained our position with absolute clarity, namely: There are in the United States of America places called "Hebron", "Shilo", "Bethel", "Bethlehem" and the like. These names manifest the profound connection of the American people with the Bible. Let us imagine that the governors of the states in which these places are situated were to decide and proclaim that all citizens of America could come to these places with the exception of one category of American citizens - the Jewish citizens. There would be an outcry all over the United States - and justly - over this discrimination against Jews. It would be a definitely racist discrimination.
Therefore we ask: Is it conceivable that a Jewish government shall prevent a Jew in this country, in Eretz Yisrael, acquiring land or building his home in the original Bethlehem, in Hebron of Shilo? In other words, we insisted on the inalienable right of Jews to live in Eretz Yisrael. There is no reason why Jews and Arabs should live in Jaffa and Haifa, in Ramla and Lod, in Acre and Nazareth and other places, and should not live together, in peace and mutual respect, in Judea and Samaria, in Gaza and Rafah. There is no justification for it, and this is the position of the Government.
Against the background of the decision adopted yesterday by the Cabinet Settlement Committee, recognizing the settlements of Elon Moreh, Ophra and Maaleh Adurnim, I wish to state the position of the Government in connection with the statement of the Secretary of State. He said yesterday that the establishment of the settlements is contrary to international law. With all due respect, I would say to the Secretary of State that there is no basis for this charge. The State of Israel upholds international law, but if anyone relies upon the Geneva Convention of 1949, which is designed to protect the civilian population in occupied areas, I must say, first of all, that Jewish settlement does not in any way of under any circumstances do harm to the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael. We have not dispossessed, and will not dispossess, any Arab from his land.
The decision adopted yesterday applies to three existing settlements. No Arab land has been expropriated in the establishment of these settlements. They are existing settlements. It is true that the previous government had doubt about one settlement, Elon Moreh, and from time to time there were statements that it might not be able to remain on the land. But the attitude of this government on this matter is different from that of the previous government. We think that Jews have an absolute right to be in Elon Moreh. We never had any doubt, therefore, that on the establishment of the new government we would recognize these three settlements as settlements in all respects, and no injustice will be done thereby to any Arab family. We shall behave in the same way in the future. Jewish settlements will not involve any injustice, or the dispossession of any Arab residents, in any place in Eretz Yisrael.
As for international law. Israeli rule in Eretz Yisrael is not an occupation regime. The Knesset decided this in 1967. In that year the Knesset adopted a law which said: "The government is authorized by order to apply the jurisdiction, law and administration of the State to any area of Eretz Yisrael as shall be specified by order." This is the law. This is our law. This is the law adopted by the House of Representatives of the sovereign State of Israel. The Knesset legally authorized the government by law, according to its authority even without the need for any further application to the Knesset, but by administrative order - to extend the jurisdiction, law and administration of the State to any area of Eretz Yisrael. In other words, we, by that law, proclaimed to all the nations that no part of Eretz Yisrael constitutes occupied territory, if the Knesset, legally, authorized the government to extend to any part of the area of Eretz Yisrael the jurisdiction, law and administration of the State.
The Minister of Defence, accordingly, under the authority vested in him, extended Israeli law to certain areas in Eretz Yisrael where it was not clear whether our law applied to them. He did so by administrative order - not even that of the government as a whole, but of the Defence Minister alone. There is no novelty in this land and no contradiction. In a period of transition, existing laws may remain in force, but the law of the Knesset determines that there is no area in Eretz Yisrael which is an area of occupation, because the government is entitled to extend to any area of Eretz Yisrael the jurisdiction, law and administration of the State.
I now wish to reply to the argument about international law. When is a state which has occupied the territory of another state regarded as an occupying power? When it is clear that the state from whose territory a certain area was severed as a result of war exercised sovereignty over that area. The question is whether the Hashemite Government of Jordan was sovereign, or its sovereignty was recognized, over Judea and Samaria. To that question the answer is in the negative, beyond all doubt. Firstly, Jordan invaded Western Palestine in violation of international law. This was aggression. It invaded Western Palestine, shed blood, destroyed synagogues, and tried, together with the Egyptians and the Syrians, to destroy the independence of Israel, which had been proclaimed the day before the invasion, in violation of the international law. An act of undoubted aggression, an act of invasion, was committed. Does such act beget a right? There is a great rule of international law: "Ex injuria jus non orituri", an act of injustice does not produce any right.
Furthermore, no country, with two exceptions, recognized the illegal act of annexation committed by King Abdullah in the early '50s. The only countries that recognized this annexation were Britain - in those days Glubb Pasha was still in Amman - and secondly, that symbol of democracy, Pakistan. The United States of America never recognized the annexation, and neither did any other country, including the Arab states.
And now we can sum up that Jordan, which invaded, attacked and occupied, had no sovereignty, no recognized sovereignty, and therefore it is incorrect to say that Israeli rule in Judea and Samaria has the nature of an occupying power.
(In reply to an interjection by Zaidan Attashi - D.M.C.: Eretz Yisrael, by right, belongs to the Jewish people. The Arabs have an absolute right to live with us in Eretz Yisrael. I refer to Arab residents of Eretz Yisrael who have not acquired citizenship, but as residents are entitled to absolute equality of rights with Jewish residents in Eretz Yisrael. Today there are almost 100,000 Jewish residents who are not citizens and who do not vote for the Knesset but only for local authorities. We want exactly the same provision to apply to Arab residents, so long as they have not acquired citizenship. They have all the rights, as a nationality, to teach their children their language, religion and tradition, and they have all the individual rights of human beings and as residents, exactly like the Jewish residents. I am prepared, when the time comes, to propose that Arab residents shall have free choice of citizenship. We shall not impose our citizenship on them. If any of them applies for Israeli citizenship, I shall propose, when the time comes, to grant them such citizenship.)
I should like, on behalf of the Government of Israel, to express deep regret and profound disappointment over the statement of the Secretary of State. It was not justified. In our talks we left no doubt as to our position in principle in regard to settlement in Eretz Yisrael. Nor do we wish to leave any doubt today. That is why I said what I did.
True, in regard to settlement there are differences of opinion between the Government of the United States and the Government of Israel. They did not arise yesterday. These differences of opinion have existed ever since the Six-Day War. From time to time, the United States Government has expressed reservations - sometimes in public - over some settlement at some place in Eretz Yisrael. These differences of opinion exist, but the United States and Israel have friendly relations. On this matter we have differences. We also have differences on other matters. We shall note this with total frankness, and we noted it in Washington too. Ibis the President did from the moment I stepped on to the White House lawn, and this I did as well on that same White House lawn.
When we summed up, too, we said to one another that we have differences of opinion, but, be they what they may, they will not overshadow the deep friendship between the United States and Israel. Nor will they cast a shadow over the commitment of the United States towards Israel. How did the joint communique put it? - "Its security and wellbeing." I draw the attention of the House to this dual expression. For many years Washington stated that America had a commitment to "the security and the survival" of Israel. We asked them not to employ the term "survival". First of all because we believe it to be fundamentally negative. It has a certain ring, particularly in this generation, for one who has remained alive. Secondly, we are ready to declare that the Jewish people and its elected representatives are responsible for the continued existence of the State of Israel: No one else. We are responsible. Therefore we requested that the word "survival" be replaced by the term "wellbeing".
Differences of opinion need not overshadow those words. I trust that they will not.
The Cabinet today discussed the question of settlement, and I should like to inform the Knesset of the resolution adopted this morning by Government of Israel:
"The Cabinet again empowers the Ministerial Settlement Committee to decide upon the establishment of new settlements. The Ministerial Committee's decision shall be on behalf of the Cabinet, and its decision shall have the force of a decision of the Cabinet in session."
We raised the question of our brethren in Syria, and requested action to save them and remove them from that ghetto in which they Eve today in Syria. In all, four thousand persons, about eight hundred families, remain in Syria. They dwell in a ghetto, in fear, and we shall not rest until all our brethren in Syria reach a safe haven and enjoy a life of freedom.
We raised in all its scope the question of Soviet Jewry. A mighty vision has arisen there. A mighty spectacle has appeared there. For nearly two generations the Jews in the Soviet Union were cut off from their people and their country. The Jew of the Soviet Union did not know the meaning of the Bible, did not know Hebrew, did not know Eretz Yisrael, or what their link was to the Jewish people. And there was a mighty awakening. And Jewish youth in the Soviet Union returned unto us, returned in faith and love, and are ready for martyrdom, to be sent to concentration camps and prison. They are ready for hunger and persecution: For the right to come unto - as they themselves say - the historic homeland of the Jewish people. The Jewish people will not rest, it will conduct a relentless public struggle, until the day comes - and we believe it will come - that every Jew who wants to return home, to Eretz Yisrael, will be afforded the opportunity, without persecution, of doing so.
In addition to the talks in Washington with the President and his advisers, in the meeting-room of the American Administration, we also held meetings with the Secretary of State and with Senators and Congressmen. I met with the U.S. Secretary of Defence, Mr. Brown. With the agreement of the President, Mr. Carter, I informed Mr. Brown of the urgent problems of Israel's national defence. The following day the Secretary of State informed our Ambassador Mr. Simcha Dinitz - an ambassador of many deeds and great achievements - of the Presidents's decision to supply us with arms: Hydrofoil boats, the amount required for the development of the "Merkava" tank, and a quantity of helicopters for anti-tank defence. The value of these supplies is about 250 million dollars. Afterwards, the United States Government Spokesman issued a statement to this effect in public confirmation. I trust that the discussions on additional supplies will continue between our Defence Minister and his American colleague when our Defence Minister visits the United States shortly. I trust that these discussions will have a successful outcome.
I met with the American Secretary of the Treasury. I informed him of our country's economic problems. I told him explicitly that our people want to live by their own labour, and are striving for the day when we shall not be dependent upon outside financial aid. But admittedly, we shall require such aid in the forthcoming period, because we are devoting immense sums - unexampled either in America or in Europe - to the needs of our national defence. He agreed. We decided that our Finance Minister, on his visit to the United States in September, would hold discussions with him on financial aid to the State of Israel. And, again, I trust that these discussions will have a successful outcome. I met with seventy senators. Of all these seventy senators, one is of Arab origin, One of them asked me: Shouldn't the organization called P.L.O. in fact be compared with the "Irgun Zva'i Leumi"? I need not expatiate on the answer I gave him in the presence of his colleagues. And I have reason to believe that, of the 40 senators present, 39 were satisfied by my answer. Of course, that Senator is an American Senator, and we respect him as a member of that famous institution of the United States. But the question had a hostile ring. I think that this matter should also be made clear to American public opinion, and I clarified it publicly: On radio, on television and in the press. That is to say: Any comparison between the organization called "P.L.O." and a Jewish fighting organization is tantamount to sacrilege.
I met with over 200 Congressmen, and the discussions were good - I can say that they were all based on an awareness of the intensification of the friendship between ourselves and the United States.
I also held important meetings with the former Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger, with Mr. David Rockefeller, Mr. Nelson Rockefeller, and other distinguished persons, and I also paid a call on the U.N. Secretary-General, Mr. Waldheim. In my talk with Mr. Waldheim I requested him to work in the U.N. to guarantee the wellbeing of the members of the Christian minority in southern Lebanon. It is out of the question, I told him, that the Christian world should abandon, leave in the lurch, the embattled Christian minority threatened with extinction.
I also proposed to him that he suggest to the Arab delegations that all of them adhere to what they have called a political armistice until the Geneva Conference convenes. I also requested him to intervene in Damascus on behalf of the Jews there and the need to get them out of Syria. I also told him, in connection with the resolution of the nine European countries, that precisely the Europeans should be very aware of presenting proposals which may lead to the shedding of Jewish blood. I told him that the European continent is drenched in Jewish blood, the Rhine, the Danube, the Vistula and the Dnieper are full of Jewish blood. And precisely the Europeans must be extremely careful of any proposal liable to bring about more shedding of Jewish blood. He should know, and all the Europeans should know, that the proposal to establish a Palestinian state in Eretz Yisrael means one thing only: The shedding of Jewish blood. In the name of humanity, let all the Europeans, without exception, beware of presenting such proposals.
I had meetings with the U.S. Jewry. I should like to tell the Knesset that these meetings stirred me to the depths of my heart. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations in the United States - the organization representing mighty, proud, influential American Jewry - stated on the day after the elections that it would support Israel following the change brought about democratically by the voter's ballot, by a supreme expression of democracy in Israel, by the proof that Israel is indeed the only democracy in the Middle East: Both in its free exercise of the vote and in the transference of power, as in the most well-ordered of countries. Rabbi Schindler, who heads the Conference of Presidents, worked hard and did much to unite the whole of American Jewry around Israel after the elections. And from the Knesset rostrum I wish to thank Rabbi Schindler and all the members of the Presidents' Conference for the prodigious work they have done since 17 May to unite Jewish public opinion - and not just Jewish opinion - in the United States around the State of Israel.
I had two meetings with the Presidents' Conference, prior to going to Washington and after returning to New York. And in both of them heart went out to heart. We stood as one people in the full sense of the term, just as Herzl wrote in those days: We are one people. And we promised one another that we would continue to stand together. Even should there be differences of opinion, there is no reason why they should not stand together with us with one heart.
I held meetings with great Torah sages: with Rabbi Schneerson, with Rabbi Feinstein, with Rabbi Soloveitchik, and with other wise men of the time, learned and wise in the Torah. I was profoundly moved by them. They are Jews who believe in the eternity of the Jewish people. I learned much from them, received their blessing for my mission, for the path in which I was about to embark. And I wish to thank them from the bottom of my heart for the encouragement I received from them and for their blessing which attended me.
I also held a meeting with representatives of Conservative and of Reform Jewry. They were within the perimeter of Jewish national unity. I did not have to speak with them on the matters which were at the centre of my talks with the President and his advisers, but I gave them a concise report. But this Jewry had a problem concerning conversion. They spoke with me frankly and I of course reciprocated. They said that a change in the law was liable to lead to a situation in which they - Conservative and Reform Jewry - would not be able to acquiesce. As it would adversely affect them. And therefore they asked that this change not be made. I informed them of my commitment.
I made this commitment not out of surrender to the N.R.P. or to Agudat Yisrael or to Po'alei Agudat Yisrael, but out of personal conviction, because that is how I was raised and that is how I was educated, and in a free country every person has the right to follow his opinion and adhere to his faith: That is to say, that the Jewish people has only one religion and one nationality, its nationality is Jewish and its religion is Jewish, and for a Jew there is no distinction between nationality and religion.
I explained to them that, fundamentally, in its content, conversion is a Halachic concept, and we shall do no injustice in declaring that a Halachic concept must be according to the Halacha. I informed them that it is my commitment as Prime Minister to work for the crystallization of a parliamentary majority to amend the law to say: "Conversion according to Halacha." I told them that this commitment was seriously made and I intend to carry it out, that is, to hold talks to persuade Knesset members of all factions to support a private member's bill when it is tabled. We did not reach agreement on this matter. On the other hand, we did agree that a delegation of their representatives would come to Israel to talk to me, the Minister of Interior and all circles in the country, in the Knesset and in the Cabinet - and we shall try to reach an understanding.
I had meetings with masses of Jews - with thousands - in the United States: Very heartwarming and moving. And in these meeting I felt that there is a high morale among the Jews of the diaspora, and faith, faith in our right and in our future, and readiness to stand together.
I had the opportunity to address the American people. I think that, thanks to the modern communications media, I spoke, perhaps, to every home in America. The questions were pointed. I replied as best as I could, as far as my understanding and faith would permit. But I can say that the feedback was in the main positive, and this feedback I also heard from members of the Administration, of the Senate and of the Congress.
In coming to the conclusion of my remarks, I should like to say, that it was one of the most remarkable experiences of my life for me to meet the President of the United States, Mr. Carter. With your kind permission, Madam Chairman, I should like to reiterate what I have already stated: I spent eight full years in the company of a man without whom I think the State of Israel would not have arisen, my master and teacher, whose very presence was an inspiration: Ze'ev Jabotinsky - and I have never been easily impressed by any personality. I have seen presidents, prime ministers, cabinet ministers, distinguished writers. I am not easily impressed, but I emerged from my talks in Washington deeply impressed. The President of the United States is an outstanding personality. He has a quick grasp of the heart of the issue, he has the capacity to take decisions in a short time, he is imbued with love of human liberty: therefore he insists on human rights, and I am certain that in that sphere the State of Israel will give him unreserved support. Human rights must be maintained in the countries of the east just as in the countries of the west: Against all tyranny, be it what it may; against all dictatorship, be it what it may, human rights must be maintained, and he insists on this. I am certain he will do great and wonderful things for the rights of men as men.
Our talks were frank. We had five hours of talks, among them nearly two hours - at all events, more than an hour and a half - of totally private talks: He and I were the only ones in the room where we spoke. I am certain the Knesset will not ask me to give the contents of such personal talks. They were conducted with full trust, and this is the conclusion we reached: we have differences of opinion at present - it is known that there may be differences of opinion between two countries - and there is also a great deal of agreement on important matters. The differences of opinion need not cause a rift between the United States and the State of Israel, and I trust that that is how things will work out.
As free men, as friends, and, in my conviction, as allies - because we are contributing much to the national security of the United States, and shall go on doing so - we shall discuss every question within the bounds of the differences of opinion. We shall make every effort to reach agreement, or, if need be, to agree that we have not agreed - but the friendship will be preserved and intensified between the mighty democracy, the hope of all mankind and standard-bearer of freedom and democracy under the leadership of its President, who is both its leader and the leader of the free world - and the resurgent Jewish state, a small country realizing the great historic vision of the Jewish people, which was savagely persecuted throughout the generations and in this generation has suffered massacre, and which, with its own efforts and the last vestiges of its national strength, with the heroism of its fighting sons and the effort of its blessed pioneers, established the state for us. And we shall all see that it shall exist as the Jewish state in our land for all the generations to come.