Following the establishment of direct contact between Israel and Egypt, and after the agreement between Israel and the United States on the working paper for resuming the Geneva Conference, Foreign Minister Dayan used the opportunity of the annual address before the General Assembly to reiterate Israel's position on Resolution 242, the Geneva Conference, refugees and the issue of settlements. He stressed the Israeli belief that the heart of the problem was the refusal of the Arabs to recognize the right of Israel to national sovereignty and suggested that the only road to peace was that of direct negotiations with no prior conditions. Excerpts from the speech follow:
Human Rights
... despite intense strains and provocations, Israel has succeeded in maintaining a free, open and multiracial society in which the dignity of man and the rule of law are held supreme.
... little progress has been made in implementing the humanitarian principles of the Helsinki Declaration. Regrettably, there has been no improvement in the situation of the Jews in the Soviet Union during the past year...
The Government of Israel once again calls on the Soviet Union to permit those Jews who wish to do so, to leave in order to go to Israel to join their people and their families.
May I again raise the sorry plight of the Jewish community in Syria. This community does not enjoy such basic human rights as freedom of movement and the right to be reunited with their families abroad. There can be no valid reason for the Government of Syria to hold these five thousand innocent people as hostages.
Disarmament
In the past three years, an estimated $7.5 billion in arms supplies have been delivered, by East and West, to Arab countries in the vicinity of Israel. In addition, about $22 billion worth of arms was contracted for by Arab States for delivery from the end of 1976 onwards. Israel is ready to enter into an agreement on arms limitation with all the States in the Middle East.
In another crucial aspect of disarmament, Israel has frequently called on its Arab neighbours to join it in direct negotiations with a view to establishing a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East. Indeed, on this issue, as on others, Foreign Minister Fahmi has deliberately misled this Assembly. Israel firmly believes that such negotiations should lead to the conclusion of a formal, contractual, multilateral convention between all the, States of the region.... Unfortunately, the Arab States have totally rejected this call by Israel which, after all, is in the interest of all the people of the Middle East.
Terror
It is regrettable that Arab States have played and continue to play a central role in encouraging international terror. It is to Arab airports that hijacked planes are directed by terrorists to find safe destinations. The recent Japan Airlines case is a classic example. The kidnappers and murderers of public figures in Germany are graduates of PLO courses. No cause can justify or condone terrorism. It is a criminal activity, totally indiscriminate in its effects, which by design strikes at the innocent and the defenceless. The issue is therefore a fundamental one for the international community. The attitude this organization takes on the question of terrorism is a clear reflection of its moral strength and international responsibility. So far, the record of the United Nations in combatting terrorism has been dismal. Not once has the Security Council convened to condemn terrorists and hijackers.
The Middle East
I noted with interest that after my Egyptian colleague talked with the President and the Secretary of State in Washington on 22 September, he announced to the press that for the first time Egypt was prepared to accept Israel as a Middle Eastern country and to live in peace in this area. It saddened me, therefore, that before this Assembly on 28 September, Mr. Fahmi chose to make a personal attack on my Prime Minister, to vilify Zionism and to launch a move to isolate Israel in this forum. He also made peace conditional on an end to immigration to Israel, and openly threatened war... Mr. Fahmi's doubletalk does not enhance Egypt's credibility, and is prejudicial to the prospects of peace in the Middle East.
Israel will never limit immigration. Zionism is the lifeblood of Israel. We will do our utmost to achieve peace and to prevent war...
We have been reminded that Resolution 181 on the partition of Palestine was not fulfilled. True: but the Arab States themselves voted against the Resolution, obstructed its implementation and destroyed it by force of arms. For the past 30 years they have been guilty of aggression against Israel. After every war, we proposed peace, but in vain...
Many delegates have referred nostalgically to the 1967 Armistice lines, and seem to see an Israeli withdrawal to them as a complete solution to all the problems of the Middle East. But, if the 1967 lines are the answer to the problem, the fact is that peace was not achieved in the years between 1949 and 1967, when Israel's frontiers were at the 1967 lines. During that period the Arab States refused to negotiate peace, as they were pledged to do under the Armistice Agreements which they signed in 1949. The PLO, an instrument of war for the destruction of Israel, was created in 1964, when Israel was still behind the 1967 lines.
There has been much talk about the territories held by Israel since the Six-Day War. But nothing has been said about the reasons for that war: nothing of President Nasser's blockade of the Straits of Tiran and, his public undertakings to annihilate Israel; nothing of Egypt's movement of forces leading up to the war; nothing of how King Hussein ignored our advice, passed on to him by General Odd Bull of the Udited Nations, when he joined in the attack on Israel with the forces of Egypt and Syria. We did not plan to go to war. We fought to defend ourselves from the grim fate promised us.
In 1973, Syria and Egypt again launched a war against Israel. After their defeat, the Geneva Peace Conference was set up, in the framework of which two Disengagement Agreements were reached with Egypt and Syria in 1974, and an Interim Agreement was made with Egypt in 1975.
Since then, Israel has not ceased to indicate its readiness to resume the peace negotiations at Geneva on the basis of Resolutions 242 and 338.
Resolution 242
In view of the many inaccurate constructions which have been put on Resolution 242, let us be quite clear what that resolution does and does not say.
It does not require Israel to withdraw unilaterally from territories it occupied in 1967. It does not call upon Israel to leave all of those territories. It does not make peace negotiations contingent upon such withdrawal. It does not fix boundaries.
What it does require is negotiations between the parties to arrive at an agreed peace treaty. The wording of the Resolution makes it perfectly clear that new boundaries are to be determined between the States of the region. The statement that "secure and recognized boundaries" must be negotiated implies that the previous boundaries were not secure and not recognized. The fact that new boundaries are to be reached can also be inferred from the fact that Arab and Soviet pressure for the inclusion of a reference to "withdrawal from all the territories" was unsuccessful. To quote Mr. Joseph Sisco, who was the US Assistant Secretary of State at the time Resolution 242 was adopted:
"That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."
This is still our position. We must establish new boundaries, not return to the old ones. We must negotiate permanent boundaries which will afford Israel security. According to Resolution 242, the peace settlement must include the "termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area." The settlement is therefore to be reached between States and not to involve the participation of any organization whatsoever.
Resolution 242 makes no mention whatsoever of the PLO. The PLO is a terrorist organization whose record is one of deliberate and indiscriminate atrocities against innocent civilians, including women and children.
The PLO is governed by the "Palestinian National Covenant" of 1964, as amended in 1968, and reconfirmed, as recently as in March of this year, by the "Palestinian National Council" in Cairo.
Article 6 of this Covenant calls for the expulsion of the vast majority of the Jewish population from our country. In Article 15, it calls for the elimination of Zionism. In Article 19, it calls, in effect, for the destruction of the State of Israel. In Article 20, it makes the preposterous assertion that "claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history." In Article 21, it declares that "all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine" are rejected - that is, any plan which falls short of the destruction of Israel. There is not a sovereign State in this organization that would negotiate with a body calling for its destruction.
Many delegations have proposed the establishment of a Palestinian State governed by the PLO in the West Bank and Gaza. Again, this is but a futile exercise in wishful thinking, totally unacceptable to us, ignoring as it does the language of 242 and the basic facts on the ground. A PLO mini-State in the West Bank, which could not be viable in itself, would be a base for attempts to destroy Israel. One has only to consult a map and the political programme of the PLO to realize this.
The provisions of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 were accepted by Israel as the basis of negotiations towards peace. We accepted Security Council Resolution 242. We did not accept an amended Security Council Resolution 242. Even if such an amendment were feasible, which it is not, Security Council Resolution 242 derives its strength and authority from the fact that it has been accepted by the States party to the conflict.
Moreover, the United States regards Resolutions 242 and 338 as the exclusive basis for a settlement of the conflict. The Memorandum of Agreement between Israel and the USA on the Geneva Peace Conference, signed on I September 1975, declares in Article 4 that the US "will oppose and, if necessary, vote against any initiatives in the Security Council to alter adversely the terms of reference of the Geneva Peace Conference, or to change Resolutions 242 and 338 in ways which are incompatible with their original purpose." This position was reaffirmed by the United States only a few days ago in a joint statement with Israel.
The Geneva Conference
Israel is ready to resume negotiations at Geneva for the achievement of true, contractual and effective peace treaties, including the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the Arab States.
There can be no participation of any additional State, group or organization at the Geneva Peace Conference without the agreement of all the initial participants. All the negotiations should be conducted on a bilateral basis.
Through the good offices of the United States, we have conveyed suggestions of the substantive and not merely the procedural issues. First, we have provided a draft text for a full peace treaty in all its aspects. Second, we have supplied details of our approach in respect of discussion and negotiations on the various issues.
In its turn, this part is made up of two elements: first, a presentation of some of the main questions involved in a peace agreement between ourselves and each of our neighbours, such as Israel's security, guaranteeing freedom of navigation in all international waterways, security of the Jordan River sources in the north, a basis for coexistence with the Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria, and other relevant topics - in other words, the questions which we believe we must contend with, if we are to sign a final peace agreement between ourselves and each of the neighbouring Arab States.
The second element comprises our ideas for resolving these questions. In our view, there should be complete normalization of relations, including diplomatic relations, trade and cultural ties. We have suggested modalities, including demilitarized zones and other arrangements.
In addition, there remains the cardinal principle that the negotiations be conducted without prior conditions or commitments. This principle means not only that neither side obligates the other to agree in advance to any condition whatsoever, but also that all issues and areas are open to negotiation. We, for our part, will be completely open and sincere in listening to, discussing and examining the proposals of the other parties.
To illustrate this, we believe that the settlement concerning Judaea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip should be based on our living together with the Palestinian Arabs in those areas, and not on partition of the territory.
For ten years, between 1967 and 1977, the Government of Israel was committed to territorial concessions in return for genuine peace, and this implied the re-division of the area - but to no avail. Now our view is that re-division is not the answer. Nowhere is it possible to draw a dividing line which will satisfy not only the security, but also the historical, economic and social needs of all sides. Bethlehem, a satellite town of Jerusalem, dependent on Jerusalem for its tourist trade, and indeed its very existence, cannot be cut off from the Holy City. Mount Scopus, the site of the Hebrew University and the Hadassah Hospital, cannot be separated from Israel. Are the Arabs in Gaza once again to be bottled up in an intolerably narrow strip of land, unable to get out without passing an international frontier?
No. The model for the future must be united Jerusalem, where, since 1967, Jews and Arabs have proved that they can live together harmoniously to their mutual benefit, where all residents enjoy freedom of movement in all parts of the Holy City and where freedom of access to the Holy Places is assured for all.. There is no room, and no need, for barbed wire any more...
... I should like to point out that we have re-examined the positions of Jordan, and of the Palestinian Arabs, and we have found no inclination on the part of any of them for a solution based on the re-division of Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip.
Settlements
The criticism which has been directed against Israel in respect of the establishment of settlements in Judaea and
Samaria is unfounded. The settlements are legal.
Under International Law, neither Jordan nor any other Arab State has any sovereign territorial rights in the West Bank or in any other part of what was Mandatory Palestine in 1948, when the United kingdom surrendered the Mandate. No state today has any claims of sovereignty, to what was Mandatory Palestine, that are better than or even equal to Israel's claims. The Arabs States rejected the UN partition resolution and, in violation of the UN Charter, used force in an attempt to prevent its implementation. The Arab use of force in 1948 was an act of aggression and not of self-defence:
"..An armed struggle is taking place in Palestine as a result of the unlawful invasion by a number of states of the territory of Palestine which does not form part of the territory of any of the states whose armed forces have invaded it."
(Mr. Tarasenko, Ukranian Socialist Soviet Republic, Security Council, 27 May 1948)
No rights accrued to them from that act, and they were, in fact, subject to the restrictions that International Law imposes on a conquering and occupying army.
Jordan's annexation of Judaea and Samaria, early in 1950, was never recognized by any state besides Pakistan and the United Kingdom. The US State Department, at a press conference on 29 July 1977, confirmed that there are legal problems over the sovereign rights of Jordan in the West Bank. In view of this illegal annexation of the West Bank, the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable.
But, even if the laws of belligerent occupation were applicable, these rules contain no restrictions on the freedom of persons to take up residence in the area involved. The Fourth Geneva Convention bans forcible transfers, not voluntary acts of individuals taking up residence in the areas of the West Bank. No Arab inhabitants have been displaced by the establishment of these Jewish settlements. Not a single Arab resident of Judea and Samaria has been made homeless as a result of these peaceful villages. Above all, it is unacceptable to us that Jews should be prohibited from living in any part of their ancestral Land.
Let me make one point clear: The settlements will not decide the final borders between Israel and its neighbours. The borders will be decided upon in negotiations between Israel and its neighbours. The settlements are by no means an obstacle to peace - because, if they were, we should have had peace years ago.
Refugees
One of the central problems that must be solved in a peace settlement is the problem of the refugees.
Security Council Resolution 242 refers to "refugees," not "Arab refugees." It covers both Jewish and Arab refugees. When the resolution was being drafted, a Soviet attempt to restrict it to "Arab refugees" failed.
The origin of the Palestinian Arab refugee problem was the Arab rejection of the UN partition resolution and the war which they declared against the State of Israel one day after its establishment. The responsibility is therefore theirs. Had the Arabs accepted the resolution, there would not have been any refugee problems.
Furthermore, because of the wars conducted by the Arab States against Israel, Jews who lived for thousands of years in Arab lands were forced to leave, abandoning all their property and possessions. For about 590,000 Arab refugees, there were 600,000 Jewish refugees from Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Libya and the rest of North Africa.
Refugees in other parts of the world have been successfully integrated in the national community to which they belong. The only exception to the general rule is the situation of the Arab refugees. The Arab States have refused to absorb or integrate their brethren into their respective societies. The Arab States have made the "restoration" of the "legitimate rights" of the refugees - namely, their return to Israel - their central demand.
This demand constitutes a serious distortion of the realities of the refugee problem. We do not intend to send Jews back to Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Yemen and other Arab countries, in order that they may be hanged in the public squares of Baghdad, and be deprived of their human rights and become third-class citizens, imprisoned in ghettoes as in Syria today. We will not send them back in order to take Arab refugees in their place. The fact is that an exchange of population has taken place between Israel and the Arab countries.
The differences between Israel and the Arab States is that while we in Israel from the outset integrated all the Jewish refugees into our society, the Arab States deliberately perpetuated the "refugee status" of their own brethren, in order to use them as a political weapon against Israel. The Arab demand for the return of the refugees to Israel, coupled with proposals for the establishment of a Palestinian State, is calculated to bring about the destruction of Israel. The refugees should be resettled and integrated into the Arab societies in which they now live. In any peace settlement, specific provisions should be made to enable all refugees to find accommodation, employment and adequate compensation.
In any discussion of reparations for the refugees, Israel will raise the question of reparations for Jewish refugees from Arab lands, and insist that all their claims be settled within the framework of the final peace agreement.
The Heart of the Problem
There is only one road along which it is possible to move toward peace, and that is the road of direct negotiations with no pre-conditions. No conflict in the world has ever been resolved without the parties to the conflict negotiating face to face. Our conflict is not different.
The heart of the problem is the Arab refusal to recognize the right of Israel to national sovereignty in the ancient historic Land of the Jewish People. This is the heart of the problem, and until it is overcome, the obstacles to a just and durable peace will remain.
The developments of recent days and the possibility of a resumption of the Geneva Peace Conference nonetheless give room for guarded optimism, which could turn into grounds for great hope. For our part, we are prepared to embark on a common effort, long and challenging as it may be, to negotiate a final agreement to live in peace and security