In his first major public address after becoming Prime Minister, Mr. Begin outlined his beliefs and explained the foundations of his policy. He came out strongly against withdrawal to the 1967 borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state, both eventualities would endanger the very existence of Israel. He also said there was no contradiction between Israel's insistence on the right to the Land of Israel and various international documents, including resolution 242. Israel would leave every issue open for negotiation and would not make any prior conditions. She expects the same from the Arab states. Following are excerpts from the foreign policy parts of the address:
I should now like to explain to the Zionist General Council something about which we are all agreed, all the parties that are loyal to the State, that is to say 11, all except the one which is totally enslaved to a foreign capital. This national consensus is of overriding importance, in the coming discussions, both for us and for the capitals of the world, particularly perhaps the one I shall be visiting in a few weeks time by invitation of the President of the U.S.A. You should know that his message was cordial and encouraging. And meanwhile we can be happy with the change that has taken place in recent weeks in public opinion, that is to say in the press that influences public opinion. We are pleased about this change.
Furthermore, the Zionist General Council should know that not only greetings from Jewish organisations but messages of support and identification for the Government of Israel have arrived from all over the world. United States Jewry, I heard today from the Chairman of the Presidents' Conference, stands totally united, ready to fight for our rights, our due. I received the most cordial telegram from the well-known institution of British Jewry, the Board of Deputies, and from the Zionist Federation of Great Britain.
All these messages give encouragement and add resolve to work for the betterment of the Jewish People. We are indeed blessed that we have so merited. Our people is closing ranks and uniting.
This is a need to do much and I hope that we will work together with a unity of purpose. That is why I want to explain here - after I heard yesterday that there had been some differences of opinion here at the Zionist General Council - and this is entirely natural, there are also differences of opinion in the Knesset - about what there is general agreement amongst all the parties excepting that one.
First, Israel can not under any circumstances withdraw to the lines of June 4, 1967, and will not do so. Second, we will not agree under any circumstances that in Judea and Samaria and Gaza a state should come into being called Palestinian. These two proposals that are being voiced round the world entail danger for the very existence of the State of the Jews. Every man and woman in Israel must realise this. That is to say: to remove these proposals from the international agenda, we shall, in the truest sense of the term, fight for our lives. And when the People of Israel, during its history, has been called upon to defend its very existence it fights with courage and overcomes. We have -and I say this in earnest belief - we have, with the help of the Almighty, a chance for success in this struggle. It is a good realistic chance, and we have to succeed with it for the danger is very great.
What would happen to us if - heaven forbid - what our enemies demand and what is mentioned from time to time in various countries were to take place? If the State of Israel, in the conditions of modern military technology, to which there was nothing similar in 1948, nor in 1956 nor even in 1967, were to be on the road to Qalqiliya, 14 kilometres, 8 miles - it is superfluous to add only - only 8 miles from the coast. And on the road to Tel Aviv, 15 kilometres from the coast, 8.5 miles. And on the road to Ashkelon, 25 kilometres from the coast. We should lose the opportunity for peace, certainly in this generation, and perhaps also for future generations. We must also take note of the fact that even in return for such a withdrawal our enemies are not promising peace, but what is called an end to the state of belligerency. They stress that they will not recognise Israel, nor will they sign a peace treaty with her. Only what they refer to as an end to the state of belligerency, an expression that has no standing in international law.
It happened once that a dictatorial ruler decided that his country was non-belligerent. Mussolini did this at the outbreak of the Second World War. And it didn't disturb him one iota, after France had been over-run by the German tanks, that he immediately joined in the war and trampled the fallen underfoot.
This then is the value of a non-belligerency declaration. It is not peace. It is certainly not a peace treaty. It is not a recognition of sovereignty. It is just a declaration that under certain circumstances is worth no more than the paper on which it is written. This is something that we must all understand. And if this is what our enemies are saying as a starter, then we lose the very chance for peace. Let us take a look at the map. As I have said: 14, 15, 25 kilometres from their guns, which today have a range of 43 kilometres and 800 metres, for this is the modern Soviet artillery which did not exist in the years that I have mentioned, in 1948, in 1967.
In other words, with these guns they can reach every large city in Israel (Hebrew idiom, literally - "city and mother in Israel") - with the intended double implication - every home in the country. Previously Haifa had been outside their range, but there has recently been a serious development with the entry of the Syrian army into Lebanon. And from Lebanon, with these guns, Haifa Bay can be shelled directly, including the oil refineries, a strategic target of the utmost importance, and parts of Haifa town.
The danger is indeed very real - we can see it in the palm of our hand. We recall the surprise of the Yom Kippur War. Sadat does not deny that he surprised us primarily to inflict loss of life. They know, and we not only do not deny it, but readily confirm that there is no people on earth that is so sensitive to loss of life. This is no wonder. Our people lost a third of its sons in a single generation, amongst whom were a million small children who were torn from their mothers' arms. In this land, we have sacrificed fifteen thousand of the best of our sons in wars that were forced upon us. How much blood can a people such as this give?
So we say explicitly that here we all know each other; the fallen are in front of our eyes. There is a difference if someone living in New York reads in the newspaper about a loss of life suffered in Los Angeles, it pains him, without doubt. But he doesn't know them; he reads about them. Here we know nearly all our children; we are a small nation; one person knows another. And those who fell are always in our mind's eye. This is the incomparable difference.
And the enemy knows it. Knows, and desires in the first instance to inflict loss of life on us. Give a moment's consideration to the situation: With one massive barrage, on all the towns in the country, from Tel Aviv and Jaffa, Netanya and Bnei Braq, Rehovot and Rishon Lezion, Afula and Beersheba, in the first hours he could inflict on us casualties in the thousands.
Yes, even then we would win through, and our army would take the initiative and repel the enemy, capturing or destroying the guns. We need to remember how many sacrifices would have to be made for this victory, amongst the civilian population and amongst our soldiers. And what for? To create a situation such as we have at present, whereby these guns can not reach every home in Tel Aviv or Rishon Lezion. It would be as though and I say this in all earnestness, for it is something that, heaven forbid, could happen - it would be as though we were spilling blood for nothing. It will not be an excursion. Any war of this sort costs in human terms. This, therefore, is the sort of danger ahead.
And with regard to the Palestinian State, we have to realise that we are faced with the most cruel enemy of the Jewish people since the days of the Nazis. They have made up their minds to try, and can now but try to destroy us, man, woman and child. We don't really need the Palestinian Charter to know this. It is written there, in Paragraph 19, that the establishment of the State of Israel is null and void as though it had never been. They met together in Cairo, and there was hope in certain countries for a toning down of their position and hope was expressed that this paragraph would be retracted. But they didn't even consider it. It didn't cross their minds. They confirmed it explicitly -for this is the line of their thought.
Consider, Ladies and Gentlemen, the difference between fighters and murderers. We know the meaning of a war of liberation. I am in possession of the facts, and I can say, in the name of all three organisations, the Haganah, Etsel and Lehi, that in our fight from the underground against a very strong government, we made every effort humanely possible to prevent loss of life amongst the civilian population, without distinction between Jewish, Arab or British. And there were times when we even endangered the lives of our own men in order to prevent such casualties.
True, every war is harsh. Sometimes even in war things happen that are far from what was intended, but what does the fighter do in such circumstances? He expresses his deep regret for what happened, also for the educational point, that the soldiers should do the fighting. This was not what we intended. A tragic incident has happened, and we express our sorrow over what happened before the whole world. And this is what Israel's fighters have always done. But they - and what a difference there is - plan in the first instance the murder of children, and when they meet with "success" with their scheme they are overcome with joy, promising to do the same thing again. This is the difference.
We fought to save a people. They are shooting to destroy a people. We made every possible effort to prevent casualties amongst the civilian population. For them the civilian population is the target, and when they inflict damage there is joy and happiness but not one word of regret. They tell their men: It is permissible, necessary to kill Jewish children.
And it is they who, inevitably, would be in control of this state. No agreement will be made, unless it is with some other body, that would transfer Judea and Samaria and Gaza to these murderers. This is the reality, and we have to consider only the reality, and so there has been an incessant spilling of blood. We have proof of this from the past. But then they did not have at their disposal all the means of destruction that they have today, including a missile by means of which it is possible from a certain distance to hit any aeroplane. And if this were the situation we should not be able to take off, certainly not from Lod, nor, in fact, from any airfield. And that they are capable of such deeds we have seen, for they do not consider man, woman or child. We know; we have faced such a situation. A permanent blood bath.
And the additional proof is of course from the past, for this was in fact the situation prior to 1967. One tends to forget, particularly the unpleasant things. We have almost forgotten. Before 1967 there was a continuous spilling of blood. 1500 Jews from the civilian population were killed and murdered; thousands of others were wounded and left disabled for the rest of their lives. And they penetrated to Shaffir near Tel Aviv, to Romema in Jerusalem, to Ashkelon and Ashdod and Beersheba and between Beersheba and Ashkelon. Ali, yes, we don't remember those times.
That was the situation when we were still in the old borders. We have to realise and take note. Our very existence is endangered, the lives of our children. I am sure that I would be expressing the opinion of the whole Zionist General Council were I to say: Our younger generation has sworn an oath of allegiance to protect every Jewish woman and every Jewish child that they should never again be hurt by a savage murderer.
There is another point that I have to explain to you - you are free people, who have come from the free, countries, -that this would be a direct risk for us, and also for the whole of the free world. Yes, indeed; let us take a look at the map of the Middle East. In South Yemen, the former Aden, there is a pro-Soviet government. In Somalia, along the Red Sea, on the way to the Indian Ocean, there is a pro-communist government. Libya although ruled by a fanatical Muslim - is a Soviet base. Modern weaponry - to the tune of billions of dollars - which the Libyan ruler does not even have the manpower to operate - this is a base for the whole of the Middle East. For all the ports that are available to the Soviet fleet that goes backwards and forwards between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Iraq and Syria are bases for a determining Soviet influence. Egypt - true there was an argument, but as you have heard Fahmi has already visited Moscow and a visit by Gromyko in Cairo is ensured, as well as of Brezhnev, and the two parties are making an effort to renew the friendship between them.
And with regard to the organisation that calls itself the P.L.O. - it is virtually a Soviet agent. Is it co-incidental that a strategic committee met in Moscow with the participation on the one hand of Cairo and on the other of Arafat at the same time? Because the Soviet Union is attempting to take the free world with a pincer movement with the help of the Cubans in Africa and those who are called Palestinians in the Middle East. This today is the map of the Middle East. It is necessary to add to all these a main Soviet base in the heart of the Middle East - that is in the Land of Israel.
The Soviets, after their invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968, discovered deficiencies in their logistic system, which they have since then corrected and improved such that they are today capable of supplying in an air lift heavy arms to Angola and later to Mozambique, a distance of thousands of miles from the southern U.S.S.R. From Odessa to Bethlehem. A distance of a few hours flight in a modern aeroplane.
Should a Palestinian State be established there, day after day - and we should be unable to prevent it - planes would arrive with these same modem armaments. Nobody could prevent it. No agreement, signed by whoever, would be worth anything, as I have said, the paper on which it was written. Who would be able to prevent it? Who would even be able to keep tabs on it? By night, furtively, descending from the clouds. Airfields would not be necessary. What are called runways would suffice. Plane after plane. They would deliver the weaponry. In Bethlehem of Judea. Right on the doorstep of homes where Jews live.
And so a central Soviet base would come into being right in the heart of the Middle East, in addition to those that I enumerated previously. Would this be good for the free world? Would this be good for the free world and for America? And we may also ask: Would this be good for France? Would this be good for free Europe? This question has to be posed, and this truth has to be stated. And in this way, the recognition has to be inculcated of the true partnership of interests between us and the free world.
Let me state again, therefore, that on these two points we have a national concensus. After the last debate in the Knesset, I received approval of all the parties to my saying this in the name of the decisive majority, over 110 members of the Knesset, to any party with whom we might hold talks, negotiations and meetings in which our future would be discussed.
And while talking about our future, I should like today to explain that in insisting on our right to the Land of Israel, we find no contradiction between this position and international documents, including Resolution 242, as I shall show in a moment. But first, let me say something about our right to the Land of Israel. I am speaking with Zionists. In the Knesset, I quoted words written by Zeev Jabotinsky 72 years ago, at a time when he was only 25 years old, and even then he determined that everything creative in our midst derived from the Land of Israel. For the Land of Israel and the People of Israel are one.
And on those feuilletons a whole generation was educated in Russia, and even nowadays the Prisoners of Zion are again reading them. I shall not repeat what I quoted in the Knesset, but I would ask that one day or evening, you again read the book, which certainly every one of us has read many times, and as one looks through it, what a warmth is felt in the heart. I am referring to Herzl's diaries. That indecision of his between the Land of Israel and any other place before he reached the decision: The Land of Israel, Zion - this is our great love, this is our dream, there it will be possible to elevate the flag, and we all recall what he wrote about the flag.
We are all Zionists. The Land of Israel is in our hearts. Even when we were in the Dispersion, we dreamt about it, longed for it and prayed for it. This is Zion. This is the Return to Zion.
It is necessary for the younger generation to love the Land of Israel with all its heart and all its soul, for this is the inheritance of our forebearers. It was given to us - for ever. We have made so many sacrifices for it, because there was no Jewish State, and our fathers died all sorts of deaths and we arrived at a situation where the men were no longer able to protect their women and their children. This is the meaning of the Land of Israel. Rightly it is called "Our land of life". It is clear that without it we can not exist at all, and with it we have no peace even if we live here. This is the connection between us and the Land of Israel.
And now I shall prove the thesis. We have to remember what it says in Resolution 242. It was not fortuitous, when the Resolution was under discussion but an explicit thought, which was expressed in the draft "withdrawal of forces from the territories", with the word "the". And it was consciously decided to remove the word "the". The fact that it was proposed to include it and that it was taken out is of the greatest significance. Those who accepted it knew the opinions and the argument; the "the" was taken out, and it is therefore written not "from the territories" but '"from territories".
With regard to the border, the territory that was conquered in 1948 - contrary to international law, by Abdullah's Arab Legion, never was nor is recognised as a state frontier. This is explicitly stated, and I shall read to you today the famous but forgotten paragraph 2 of the Armistice Agreement, first in its original version, and then in translation.
Both sides signed it. And now the translation: Under no circumstances should the Armistice Line be interpreted as a state or territorial border, and in drawing it there is no prejudice to the rights, claims and positions of either of the parties to the Armistice Agreement concerning the final settlement of the question of the Land of Israel.
Intentionally and consciously it was determined that it is no more than a writ of demarcation, while Resolution 242 determines that the peoples must live in peace, within recognised and safe borders, and here is the main word, the key word, which is "recognised". You will find these terms in every peace treaty. Every peace treaty starts with the announcement that the state of war has been terminated and subsequently the first paragraph is about the area and the border fixed in the peace treaty. In other words, if Resolution 242 determined that the borders have to be recognised by everyone - initially by the two parties and subsequently by the international community - this means that negotiations have to be conducted over it, obviously negotiations between the two parties. And if the demarcation line is not a border, and the whole question of the Land of Israel was left open, we have every right, not, heaven forbid, as a prior condition: First recognise our claim and then we shall come to the discussion table; there are no prior conditions for either side, each may bring any subject and place it on the table for discussion. But we have every legal - not only historical - right - not only given but acquired by these international documents - to claim Judea and Samaria. About this there is no doubt. It is a matter for negotiations, but I have demonstrated that neither this international document nor Resolution 242 form an obstacle to the Jewish People's basic claim that the Land of Israel belongs by right to the Jewish People. Let us remember this.
As I said before, this does not close the path to any negotiations. We are not putting forward any ultimatum. I want to state, specifically in English, that the words "not negotiable" do not appear in any of our dictionaries. Everything is open for negotiation. But the negotiation has to be free, as is written in the platform of the Democratic Party of the United States of America: "Without any externally devised formula for settlement". The parties, freely, without prior conditions and without an externally devised solution must be free to present any proposal, and negotiate it between them.
This is international law, Ladies and Gentlemen. This is international practice. In our case, we should not be the first to know that when negotiations start over a peace treaty there are differences of opinion between the parties. Were there not differences of opinion between the parties after the First World War? Were not two peace treaties signed with Turkey after the First World War? Were there not differences of opinion between the parties after the Second World War? But the world attained peace - both peace treaties and actual peace.
For this indeed is the way to instill true peace between us and the Arabs - a peace for which we all hope and pray and believe will come. With the help of God, peace will come.
And now, I am honoured to remind you, Ladies and Gentlemen, members of the Zionist General Council, of what Max Nordau said. He once asked: Who is a Zionist? And responded: A fighter! I call upon you to put this saying of Max Nordau into effect in our life time, in these days. Every Zionist is a fighter! Without wavering, without any faltering, but in the firm belief of the rightness of our cause. All of us have to mobilise for a propaganda counter attack. Did anyone ever dream that the word "Palestine" would be used as a weapon against us? I have read you an international document. On one side, Palestine, in English, and its Hebrew translation: Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel.
When the Mandate was confirmed in San Remo, it was stated: "Recognition having been given to the historical connection between the Jewish People and Palestine" - "The Jewish People and Palestine", because every intelligent person knew that this was the foreign name for the Land of Israel, that entered international use at the time of Hadrian, after the Bar Kokhba rebellion had been put down. And what is a foreign name but a translation? And this now is being turned against us? The historical connection between us and this country, Palestine, has been recognised by the international community. It is necessary to withstand the falsehood that has found its way into certain circles on the background of this concept. We want to live with the Arab minority in our country in mutual respect, full equality of rights and with cultural autonomy. What we once demanded for ourselves, we give, must give, in all justice and fairness, to our neighbours, human progress. What injustice are we perpetrating? For this is the rule for every free person, majority or minority, members of different peoples can live in one country in peace, with understanding and progress. What is the innovation here? For this is what Zionism believed in. At one time we were no more than 6%, 7% of this population. If people had been frightened by the overriding majority then the realisation of Zionism would have stopped. But no-one stopped it. On the contrary, if it hadn't been for the destruction, our circumstances would have been entirely different. Who of us does not know - those who were destroyed were in their hearts citizens of the Land of Israel, with all their heart. But they are no more.