In addition to the joint statement issued prior to Mr. Begin's departure from Bucharest, the Prime Minister elaborated on some of the topics under discussion during his meetings with the leaders of Rumania, whom he praised. He also touched upon the situation of the Rumanian Jewish community, members of which he met during his visit to the synagogue in the Rumanian capital. The main pointers from the press conference at Ben-Gurion airport follow:
The visit was an important and an exciting one. I had talks with the President of Romania, Mr. Nicolae Ceaucescu, and with the Foreign Minister, Mr. Macovescu.
My two talks with the President extended over more than eight hours.
Talks with the Prime Minister lasted for over four hours. While the Premier raised mostly economic subjects, my talks with the President were mostly on political matters.
Prime Minister Manescu described to the Israeli Delegation Romania's progress since the Second World War. Indeed a most impressive array of facts and figures. Romania, which we remember as a poor agricultural country, underwent a spectacular process of industrialization, and continues to advance socially and economically.
With the Prime Minister we talked of bilateral affairs and agreed that Israel and Romania would continue and intensify their economic cooperation. Both countries will make special efforts to increase the mutual exchange of goods.
In November, my colleague the Minister of Trade, Industry and Tourism will visit Romania. Prior to this visit, both sides will prepare official plans for the expansion of exports, and I hope that the Minister of Industry will be able to sign official agreements in the course of his visit to Bucharest.
The talks with President Ceaucescu were most meaningful. Raising as they did all the political problems engaging our region. In the course of these talks I came to appreciate the President, Mr. Ceaucescu, as a personality worthy of general esteem. He is a man who suffered and struggled, emerging from his suffering and struggles to his august position. There was full mutual attention to the positions as they were formulated.
This morning, a joint statement was published despite some whispering that there would be no statement. The statement contains, in addition to a description of the visit, three main points:
1. Efforts must be made to bring about peace in the Middle East.
2. There exist differences of opinion between the Romanian and the Israeli Government. Not only did we not intend to deny the existence of these differences - we emphasised (the fact) that there exist differences of opinion regarding the roads towards the peacemaking process. But the joint statement notes that these differences of opinion will not affect the amicable relations between the two countries, Romania and Israel.
3. The promised reciprocal visit of the Prime Minister of Romania in Israel. It was agreed that the Prime Minister and Mrs. Manescu will be our guests for a return visit to Israel. The date for their visit will be fixed through diplomatic channels.
On my return home, I wish to thank the President of Romania, its Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and all members of the cabinet, as well as the Romanian people, for the marvelous hospitality my wife, my colleagues and I enjoyed throughout the five days we spent in Romania.
The visit was a moving one, as I have noted. I refer to the meeting with the remnants of the Romanian Jewish Community in fact with the remnants of East European Jewry in general. We came to the synagogue on Friday evening, and there we saw the remnants of the glorious Jewish Community.
Before World War II there were a million Jews in Romania, but only 450,000 survived. Even in 1944 the arch-murderer Eichmann managed to deport from Transylvania, which is now part of Romania hundreds of thousands of Jews and ship them to Auschwitz. This entire tragedy stood before my eyes when I saw the worshippers in the synagogue. The old people, the women and the youngsters. The youngsters sang for us songs of Zion and we experienced profound emotion.
We must not forget that 38 years have passed since the outbreak of the war and the onset of the Holocaust, and this was the first time - after a span of a generation or more that I had seen the remnants of East European Jewry.
The next day we went to the synagogue again - all the members of the entourage and myself, and again we met with the wonderful Jews who had survived. But in my mind's eye I saw also the thousands of Jews with whom I came too what was the Romanian border and who, on account of the intervention of the British Ambassador in Bucharest, were prevented from transiting to Constanza and from there to Israel. I am certain that the citizens of Israel will understand why we were all so moved and as Mr. Evron, the Director-General of the Foreign Ministry and one of those who accompanied me on this visit said on behalf of us all as we were sitting in the synagogue: "We were like dreamers." Both because of the pain over those who are no longer alive and because of our encounter with those who still are - and they are loyal dedicated Jews who love Eretz Yisrael and are aware of what is happening in it. Therefore, to sum up my opening remarks: The visit was important. It was interesting and it was very moving.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, I would like to ask you two questions: One concerns the banquet with the Romanian Prime Minister - and this is perhaps one of the most interesting items of the visit: He took advantage of the opportunity to stress his government's differences with Israel, and this compelled you to alter your own speech.
What was the explanation for this, and in your talks were you able to receive any explanation for it or even to raise the subject?
A. I think that actually it was merely an accident. I was not informed of the speech before the festive State banquet in the government building, but the English translation of the speech was on the table in front of me.
I began to read it before the Prime Minister began to speak - in the very last moments before Mr. Manescu rose to deliver his address.
When I read the speech I informed him at once that to my speech, which I had dictated on the plane en route to Bucharest and had submitted to the Romanian government at its request - that to this speech I would add a few things orally, because I had found in the Romanian Prime Minister's speech three items to which it was necessary to reply, and without delay. Namely: 1) Israel was to withdraw to the lines of June 4. 2) A so-called Palestinian State was to be set up and 3) Negotiations were to be conducted with the Arab states, including the organisation known as the PLO.
As for the second part, it was improvised: With reference to withdrawal 1 said that the Six Day War was a defensive war in the most exalted sense of the term, and according to international law and international practice - if a war was one in which a nation exercises its natural right of self defence, territorial changes are included in the peace treaty. What is the Soviet Union doing in Koenigsburg, which it now calls Kaliningrad and has annexed to itself?
I must emphasise that we have no quarrel with the fact that the Soviet Union is in Eastern Prussia. The war between Germany and the USSR was a defensive war from the standpoint of Soviet Russia and a war of aggression from that of Germany and in the wake of Germany's war of aggression territorial changes came about in Europe. The Soviet Union dominates Eastern Prussia and Poland has reached the two rivers - the Oder and the Neisse. I think this is just, because from the standpoint of the nations that were attached they defended themselves: and in the wake of this defensive war basic territorial changes came about. I could also have told them that the same rule should apply to us as well. Because the Six Day War was a defensive war from Israel's standpoint and a war of aggression from the standpoint of the Arabs.
As for the participation of the PLO - I explained what it is this organisation wants. And I said it before the decision of the PLO Council in Damascus. But we were able to assume that this would indeed be the case and one does not have to be a prophet to know that the organization would not alter its approach to Resolution 242 nor to the Palestinian covenant and that it would continue to speak of the State of Israel as if it doesn't exist. Therefore I was able to tell the Prime Minister with all due respect, that as far as Israel was concerned it was inconceivable that that organisation, the PLO, would take part with Israel in any sort of negotiations.
Thus there were differences of opinion between the Romanian Prime Minister and myself against this background. But the atmosphere between us remained friendly. We made our positions clear, as we did in our talks with the President, and we stated frankly that there were differences between us and they still remained. However we shall maintain friendly relations and cooperation between the two countries, even though these differences exist.
I heard that someone has written that I received rather a cold reception in Romania. If this were the case I would not conceal it from you. The fact is, though, there was nothing to conceal. After all, this was my first visit to Romania in 39 years. But the truth is that we were received very warmly, as the correspondents who were with us will attest. If anybody says that in Moscow we would not have been received more coldly. I can only hope that we will be received in Moscow with the same warmth as we were in Romania.