33 Statements in the Knesset by Prime Minister Begin and Labour Party Chairman Peres on the visit of Yasser Arafat to Austria- 5 July 1979

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER BEGIN

For whom did the Chancellor of Austria arrange a state welcome?- With whom did he sign a joint statement? Whom did he embrace? The organization that is headed by the Austrian Chancellor's guest has a fixed aim but before I explain it, I wish to relate to the unforgettable past.

During the thirties, there were European leaders of great stature who praised the person whom Churchill later called the expression of everything evil in mankind. The first of these was the British Socialist leader, Ramsey MacDonald, and the second, surprisingly enough, was the Liberal leader and Britain's Prime Minister during World War One, Lloyd George.

But in the forties, after devastation has come to all of Europe and to all of mankind, following the destruction of the Jewish people by the enemy, many leaders had regrets and asked themselves and the public: "Why did we not read Mein Kampf?" or "Why did we read Mein Kampf and not take it seriously? Why did we read it and think that this was not the true intention, merely writing and propaganda?"

For the second time in the twentieth century. But I want to say in advance that we the Jews and we the Zionists, having learnt from experience, will not follow in the footsteps of the European and other world leaders of the thirties. We have read and we have understood.

We plan to take the second Mein Kampf seriously. But we will do everything possible - and, with God's help, we will be able to do this - to prevent the implementation of the horror that has been described to us. For example: Paragraph one of what is called the Palestinian Charter: "Palestine," that means our country, Eretz Israel "is the homeland of the Palestinian Arab nation and an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland. The Palestinian nation is part of the Arab nation." (interjection) If instead of this word you say Sudeten, or Danzig, or Alsace-Lorraine, you have said what was said during the thirties. I must add that this Arab nation today has twenty two sovereign states. This paragraph has only one meaning - the annihilation of the Jewish state.

Paragraph six: "A Jew who lived permanently in Palestine before the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered a Palestinian." What do the words "the beginning of the Zionist invasion" mean? They mean November 2, 1917, the Balfour Declaration, as we all know. All the other Jews will no longer be considered citizens of this country, including close to a million people born in Eretz Israel - who are Jews.

Paragraph fifteen: "The liberation of Palestine from an Arab point of view is a national obligation, to push back the Zionist, imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to do away with the Zionist presence in Palestine." To do away with the Zionist presence, no interpretation is necessary.

Paragraph 20: "The argument for a historical, spiritual connection between the Jews and Palestine is -not in accordance with historical reality, nor with the foundations of statehood in their true meaning. Jewry's nature as a religion of revelation is not in accordance with its existence as an independent nation. The Jews are not a single nation with an independent nature, they are citizens of the countries to which they belong."

Mr. Speaker, this is what was written. There is no historical spiritual connection between the Jews and this country. There is no Isaiah or Jeremiah. There are no earlier and later prophets, there is no historical connection, not even a spiritual connection between the Jews and Eretz Israel. But this is perhaps the paragraph that brought the Austrian Chancellor close to that murderers organization. In essence, this is his view, namely: Jewry is a religion, not a nation, and the Jews are not a single nation. But it is surprising that he described himself as 'agnostic.' What connection does he have to the Jewish religion?

Paragraph 22: "Zionism is a political movement that is organically connected to world imperialism and the enemy of all liberation and progressive movements of the world." This is a racist movement.

Oh, that you were alive today, Hess, Pinsker, Herzl, Nordau, Ahad Ha'am, Jabotinsky, Ussishkin, Borochov, Weizmann, Katznelson, Ben Gurion, to hear that Zionism is a racist movement. We the Jewish people, the main victim of bloodthirsty racism. Zionism, as we learned it and taught it, is the Jewish liberation movement of the Jewish people, pure, sanctifying, loyal and true and sacrificial. And these heinous ones call our liberation movement the impure name of racism. We are witnessing again what that Satan's son called 'the big lie.' This is what the organization is striving for. Its head was accorded a state reception by the Austrian Chancellor in the capital city of Vienna.

What is this murderers' organization's method? I will bring but a few of the hundreds of premeditated attacks aimed at murdering men, women and children.

In September 1972, the Olympics were held in Munich. From the very first Olympics held close to 2,500 years ago in ancient Greece, the tradition has passed to all nations that during the Olympics, all hostilities and acts of war cease. It is forbidden to attack its participants. For the first time in human history, this tradition was violated and that same murderers' organization massacred 11 Israeli sportsmen.

In April of 1974 there was the murderous attack on Kiryat Shmona; eighteen citizens were killed, men, women and children. Fifteen were wounded. In May 1974 in Ma'alot, 25 people were killed, 65 were wounded. Among the 25 killed, 22 were children. In May 1970, there was a murderous onslaught on a children's bus at Avivim. A teacher and nine children were killed, twenty nine were wounded. In March 1970 there was an attack on the coastal road. 35 citizens, men, women and children were murdered, 79 were wounded. In April 1979, there was the Nahariya atrocity. Four people were murdered - a father and his two daughters. What the atrocity was, I will not describe, so as not to add to the pain of the bereaved family. Among the three - a woman aged 24 and her infants. In May 1972 there was an attack at Lod, 28 were killed, including 16 Puerto Rican pilgrims, 73 were wounded. In February 1970, that same murderers' organization exploded a device on Swissair. Forty-seven people, Jews and non-Jews, were murdered.

This then, Mr. Speaker, is the aim of the murderers' organization, and this is its method. And for the head of this organization, the Chancellor of Austria, Mr. Bruno Kreisky, held a state reception in Vienna, and the Chancellor, after the event, dared to liken this murderers' organization to famous liberation movements, including movements in Zionism, only because he is an agnostic, as he calls himself. I will not belabor this calumny of his.

And what was said during this state reception by the head of this murderers' organization? He said: "The peace treaty between Egypt and Israel is a war treaty." A war treaty. Two nations signed a peace accord, put an end to the state of war between them, and here the guest of the Austrian Chancellor indulges himself and says that the very same peace treaty is a war treaty, and for this his emissaries wish to assassinate President Sadat, only because he and the Government of Israel signed a peace treaty.

Mr. Kreisky also recounted the wonderful things which his guest spewed forth and he said this: "The head of that murderers' organization doesn't hate Jews, some of his friends are Jewish. Yes, 'some of my best friends...' he doesn't hate Jews, he only - murders them.

The second host, Mr. Speaker, for the head of the murderers' organization was Mr. Willy Brandt. I will not recount his behavior, because he is a private citizen today. He undertook a gesture once, and I will not deny that it was a moving and honorable gesture. He went to the Warsaw ghetto, knelt down and asked forgiveness, forgiveness and absolution from the Jewish people and its progeny slaughtered by his nation during the reign of the National Socialists.

I think that at this time I would say to his successor to kneel and ask indulgence from the creator for his soul and from the Jewish people, in that his nation bears responsibility for the destruction of a third of our people. But Mr. Willy Brandt must know, that should the base murderers' organization triumph, an organization whose like has no precedent since the days of the Nazis, that he, Mr. Willy Brandt, would again kneel and ask forgiveness and indulgence for himself and his people.

But he won't have to do it. We'll make sure of it. Not a trace will remain of the Kreisky-Brandt-Arafat communique, apart from its infamy, and even today Mr. Willy Brandt would ask forgiveness for this shame, the indulgence and absolution of the Jewish people.

Mr. Speaker, 82 years ago Ze'ev Binyamin Herzl wrote an article that will live on down the ages of Jewish history. Its shocking, brief but practical title was - "Moushcel". Herzl's soul was dispirited by what was done to our people and its liberation movement by assimilationists who denied their people and spread calumnies and hatred of Israel. This is why Herzl's language is so cutting. I will not repeat all his thoughts from that article before our Knesset today. I chose selected parts and will read them to you.

And this is what Herzl wrote in October 1897: "But we're speaking of Moushcel before introducing him properly. And who is this Moushcel? He is an ever-recurring figure in time, the terrible aide-de-camp of the Jews... wherever a Jew feels pain or exaltation, Moushcel's face turns terrified or satanic. In hard times, the Jew stoops over: Moushcel stoops even lower and becomes vulgar and insulting. Moushcel is the anti-Zionist, and most vociferously and demonstratively. Moushcel scorns and incites. This is the red-tainted politician..." Yes. This is what Herzl wrote in 1897, "This is the red-tainted politician who is now taking up Socialism and exuding its odor..."

And further on: "And what have you done, Mouschel, for your brothers?" The plural can also be the singular and I won't add. Herzl replies: "You rained destruction down upon them and brought them misery." This is what Herzl wrote 82 years ago. And today he would say: Each generation has its rulers, each generation has its Mouschels.

The Austrian Chancellor called me an Eastern Jew, with the scorn and ridicule endemic to past times. The Eastern Jews, from among whose ranks emerged the greatest of our poets, authors, orators, scholars. They came from there. They are no more. Only ash remains of them, and a person who was born of a Jewish mother and Jewish father and who has a brother in Israel, even today dares to desecrate their sacred memory and says 'Ost Jude' with that well-known former connotation. I will also reply to this slander and vulgarity with borrowed words.

Has Mr. Kreisky ever heard of a person called Ahad Ha'am? I am not sure. I suggest to him today to read Ahad Ha'am's classic essay, "Slavery Within Freedom," the epilogue of which I shall also read to the members of the Knesset.

In 1891, Ahad Ha'am wrote: "I can say aloud that I love my brothers, the sons of my nation, wherever they are without having to find excuses... I can mention Jerusalem not only when praying, without being asked by anyone what connection I have with Zion and what I mean to it. I have no need to raise my people to the heavens, to make them better than the other nations, in order to obtain 'permission' for their reality. I know why I shall always remain a Jew, or rather, I can not understand why this is a question at all, in the same way as I would not be able to understand if I was asked why I will remain my father's son... I have my opinions and feelings and I have no reason whatsoever to hide or deny them, to cheat others or myself... and this spiritual freedom of mine -mock me whosoever wishes - will not exchange nor change for all the privileges in the world."

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on this sad day, sad for the entire Jewish people and for free men of good will throughout the world, I will make the following simple statement. In the name of the vast majority of Knesset members, I believe: We the Jews, the Zionists, the people of Eretz Israel, the builders of Eretz Israel, free of all complexes, who are returning the people to their land and the homeland to its people and owners, will continue to follow our path and to overcome all the Nazi Arafats and their lackeys, be their origin as it may.

EXCERPTS FROM STATEMENT BY OPPOSITION LEADER PERES

This is a very grave hour for the State of Israel and for this house, and I am pleased to speak today not only on behalf of the Alignment, but - though not word for word - in general content, also with the concurrence of three other parties: Shinui Ve'Yozma (Change and Initiative), Ratz and Yaad. I am also pleased that ultimately, we can unite round a joint statement which represents most of this house.

The Vienna meeting came as a surprise to us. It shocked us, and grieved us. It poses a threat to the process of peace, and serves to encourage international terrorism, and we shall yet voice our unequivocal criticism and adamant protest at the Socialist International as well.

But even after the announcement in Vienna has been made, and after the confused and complicated statement has been issued, we must still ask the organizers of this meeting, Bruno Kreisky and Willy Brandt, several questions appertaining to their assumptions, not ours. What happened after the meeting? Did the head of the PLO agree as Kreisky and Brandt had hoped, to change the charter - the very charter that calls for the obliteration of Israel? Brandt and Kreisky say they were in fact thus impressed, but theirs is the impression, while the charter is the PLO's, and it is the charter which is of consequence, not the impression. Did the head of the PLO agree to turn back from his murderous acts of terror, from his organization's murderous acts, which are aimed at Jews as such, and at Palestinians who do not share this views?

While they were conferring in Vienna, another unit of his organization attempted to penetrate Israel's borders, to hit innocent people, kidnap hostages, indiscriminately, without regard to place, age or who they may be. Did Arafat acceed, as they assumed he would, even to the minimum, to negotiate on the basis of Resolutions 242 and 338? Does any one of his hosts propose negotiations with an organization whose declared purpose is the obliteration of a state, a state which exists, and has been legitimately recognized? Do the hosts propose to reconcile to murder as a political means? Can their one-sided hope for a change be described as an actual change in the other side, Arafat?

Mr. Speaker, round the table with Arafat were seated people who are well versed in European history, and when Arafat had the temerity to compare Israel with the Nazi conqueror, do they know at least the very minimum of facts -that it was not Israel which attacked Jordan in 1967, but Jordan which attacked Israel? This compares to accusing the allies of occupying Berlin, instead of blaming Hitler, who had conquered Paris, Leningrad and Warsaw.

To my deep regret, that is what happened in Vienna: The PLO gained in status there, not because it changed, but because Kreisky and Brandt are hopeful that it will change. Were we to join in their hopes, we would be condoning their actions despite the fact that we know this hope to be unfounded. It is a hope that hangs on an assumption which does not tally with ongoing reality.

Now, this morning I telephoned Mr. Mendes-France, to verify with him the events which preceded this meeting, and to receive his approval for informing the Knesset of them: Several months ago, Mendes-France told me that there were intentions to convene a conference in Vienna with Arafat's participation. The intended participants included Bruno Kreisky, Willy Brandt, Senator Ribicoff, and Mendes-France himself.

Mr. Mendes-France said the intention was to pose several questions to Arafat, inter alia: Is he ready to recognize the State of Israel? Is he ready to recognize Israel's right to exist in peace? Is he ready to negotiate on the basis of 242? Mendes-France, who is known as an honest man and a proud Jew, said he would agree to participate in the conference providing he is informed in advance, not only what the questions are to be asked, but also what Arafat's answers will be, and that he know in advance what would be the decisions the statements and the conclusions. When it became apparent that there would be only questions, and no answers, and when it emerged that Arafat would not be ready to make any commitment whatever, he cancelled his participation.

By the way, Mendes-France told me repeatedly during our conversation that on the question itself, he shares our views: He draws a distinction between the Palestinians and the PLO, he says Israel should negotiate with the Palestinians - not necessarily the PLO, because the PLO is what it is. And indeed, Mendes-France was right. Arafat made no commitments prior to the meeting, during the meeting, or after the meeting, and we make very clear distinctions between the PLO - which perhaps, represents Palestinian national aspirations, but does so in such a way, that the Palestinians do not stand a chance to attain them, and Israel could never reconcile to them - and the Palestinian issue, and the Palestinians regarding to whom we have a different position.

We recognize that there is a Palestinian problem... (interjection)

MK Geulah Cohen: If the Palestinians crown Sadat as their king - what would your attitude be? Can you control that? What is this distinction between the Palestinians and the PLO? And if the Jordan that you favor in the "Allon Plan" gives the premiership to Arafat, what will you do then? I want an answer.

S. Peres: MK Geulah Cohen, in case you don't know - let me tell you a secret: I am in favor of negotiations with Jordan for the purpose of establishing a Jordanian-Palestinian framework, but not the other way round. We do not propose to crown the PLO. I know that around the cabinet table there sit several colleagues who are ready to go towards this sort of solution too, but it is not acceptable to us. And when it comes to Nazism, who in fact is more similar to them: Those who indiscriminately number women and children, or a country in which there is not a single scaffold to be found? The European Socialists, who had fought against Nazism and struggled against the Nazi he, should not be misled, and should not mislead others, in the wake of words meant to distort the truth,

When Arafat says he aspires to a secular democratic state, we know which model secular democracy is closest to his heart: Khomeini's. Khomeini who established a state in which any view or religion that is not Moslem is not secular: Khomeini who established a democracy that begins and ends with a firing squad whose orders come from revolutionary courts appointed by him and which make a mockery of justice.

Mr. Speaker, members of the Knesset, we do not expect these questions to be answered, for the answer consists in the very nature of the PLO, not only its policy. The legitimacy of the PLO derives from terror, not elections. It is united around a program which advocates the destruction of a people, not political negotiations with it.

It is composed of a number of groups whose resources, in arms and finances, are provided by a number of Arab countries, and it follows, these groups are under orders to them. For if a PLO faction receives orders from Iraq, it does not mean that the PLO can give orders to Iraq: If the Syrian tank commanders in Lebanon issue orders to PLO units in Lebanon, it does not follow that the PLO commanders there can give orders to the Syrian tanks: If Qadafi provides Arafat with money, arms and shelter, it does not mean that Qadafi is under Arafat's influence, and when Arafat and Khomeini embrace, it is a love whose methods and hatreds are contageous.

Arafat may pretend to be, but he is not, empowered to change the PLO's ideology, the Palestinian charter, or the strategy of loathesome terrorism. If he attempts to change them, he will lose his position as head of the PLO, and the stalwarts of annihilation and terror will replace him, or establish a different organization.

We are asked by many, in Israel and abroad, what will happen in the event that the PLO changes its policy. In my opinion, the answer is simple: The PLO cannot change its policy without renouncing its very nature, and if it renounces- its essential nature, there will be no PLO, and no need for questions and answers. But these questions, and the answers to them are quite dangerous: Let us assume for the moment that Israel gives a positive answer, and says that if the PLO will change its policy, we will be ready to negotiate with it. We would assuredly be told then that negotiations must be held with the PLO in order to influence it to change its policy, the result would be that the PLO is recognized, on the pretext of wanting to affect a change in its policy and this would in effect constitute the recognition of a PLO which has changed not at all.

The PLO will learn soon enough, as it already has, that actually, it does not have to change a thing because it has been recognized, and that in order to achieve recognition, it will suffice to have hopes attached to it, hopes which it does not have to realize. It will go on firing katyushas, because that is its way, and others will present bouquets to it, because that is what they believe.

We recognize the existence of a Palestinian problem, and we aspire to find a solution for it, not through scaffolds and abuse, not with hostility, not through dispossessions and expropriation of land, but through dialogue, and dialogue with a state most of whose citizens are Palestinians, and of which a majority of West Bank residents are citizens Jordan. We want to talk with our Palestinian neighbors, not under the shadow of threats, and when they, the Palestinians, are also explicitly free of the PLO murder threats.

We seek a solution to this problem not only for the sake of peace, and certainly not because of unequivocal demands, but because we have no interest in ruling another people. Neither is it in our interest to be a people who depends on the labor of another. It is not terrorism that will dictate our way, but our own will to find a fair solution, and a fair solution must rest also on defencible borders in Judea and Samaria. We are not to expose Israel's slender hips to the thousands of tanks and cannons held by Assad - on whose opinion not even all of his people are ready to rely - or to the good will of the rulers of Iraq, in whose capital tyrannical intolerance reigns.

We are ready to engage in dialogue with Jordan and with Palestinian residents, not because the areas are not dear to us, but because Israel's character, which stems from having a solid Jewish majority, the character of Israel, which is built upon the eternal values of Israel - peace, and respect for man's humanity - are the very values by which our policy is dictated.

Members of the Knesset, Israel's isolation in the world may have increased. Loneliness is not an aspiration, to the contrary - we wish to extricate ourselves from it. But we have no interest in extricating ourselves from our isolation straight into the arms of a policy that aims to destroy us.

This morning, the head of the Labor Party's foreign relations department, MK Micha Harish, contacted Kreisky by telephone. He conveyed to him our sharp protest, our unequivocal protest, over the unfortunate, strange, unacceptable reception accorded in Vienna to the head of the murderers organization: Over the negotiations with the head of this organization that negates peace, negotiations that augmented its status, but detracted from the Middle-East peace campaign, over these negotiations which are as far removed from democratic process as the PLO is removed from democracy.

We shall struggle with all our might, within every body we can, in the face of the erosion which has swept even our friends, those who had battled the Nazis and now voted on the statute of limitations of Nazi crimes.

It is clear to us that caresses will not change wolves, and that stroking serves only to reinforce their self-assurance and their appetite for the prey.

Mr. Speaker, members of the Knesset, be the differences of opinion within this house as they may, when danger emerges - we shall unite in face of it, we shall all call murder murder, and when a murderous organization appears, we shall welcome it as one welcomes a murderous organization. In face of a threat to Israel, we shall not engage in pretense or disseminate illusions.

Dialogue with Jordanians and Palestinians in order to achieve a settlement peaceably - yes. Accession to terrorism and threats of destruction - No. There shall be no accedence to danger, no accedence to temptations intended to camouflage the threat, or agreement with those who try to tempt us in an effort to obtain such accedence.

The existence of a peace-loving Israel is our paramount aspiration. But for Israel to exist, it must first and foremost ensure its existence. In our people's war for survival there are no compromises, no rifts, and no factions. Therefore, we honor the ability of this house to unite - with a decisive majority - at this crucial hour.