61 Statement in the Knesset by Prime Minister Begin on his talks with President Sadat- 16 January 1980

I know that I speak for the great majority of Knesset members when I say that our nation feels with the American people, understands its president's frame of mind, comprehends the grief of every citizen of the United States - over what befell the representatives of that great country in Teheran. With all our heart we hope that the day will not be far off when the persons who are suffering in Teheran - the American hostages - will be released and will return safe and sound to their families.

But there is a special matter to which we must pay heed not only but of human considerations, and nothing human is alien to us, as Herzl said - but from our own point of view. The spokesman of the murderers organization, the so-called PLO, stated and I quote: "The Islamic revolution is the sister of the Palestinian revolution. There is an inseverable alliance between us". We have known the truth about the enemy all along. We understood, and this we also explained to others, that he has one ambition: To destroy our state and annihilate our people. But now we must express the hope that many others too, throughout the world, after they hear this explicit statement, concerning an alliance between two phenomena of blind, deep hate will grasp and appreciate what it is we face, what kind of enemy we confront.

The second shock currently rippling through the world has to do with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. This is undoubtedly one of the gravest events of our time. We are faced with the fact of an ancient people, which has always fought for its independence and maintained it, whose land has been invaded by tens of thousands of foreign troops, with thousands of tanks, cannons, missiles and more. This is direct aggression which cannot be justified by anything in the world. And even after the U.N. debate, Moscow is playing the innocent, claiming it responded to the call of an ally. Woe to this call and to the response if immediately after the invasion took place the ally, whose name was Amin, together with his family, were executed by the invaders, and a new ruler was brought in from Eastern Europe.

There are those who draw a comparison between the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion, over 12 years ago, of Czechoslovakia. We still remember what transpired in August 1968 in the heart of Europe, and the unique tragedy which befell the Czech and the Slovak people. It had begun to sense the Spring of Liberty, it believed that its path to a new life was paved. But a mighty Soviet army, with the help of forces of the Warsaw Pact, invaded Czechoslovakia, trampled freedom, crushed the hope and liquidated it. That tragedy has not been forgotten by any free person.

But I must note that there is a difference: At that time the well-known Brezhnev doctrine was laid down. By which, should any danger be posed to what is termed a socialist regime within the sphere of Soviet control, the Soviet Union has the right to employ military measure. No one outside the USSR accepted this doctrine, and even two states with a communist regime rejected it totally, viewing it as a threat to their independence also.

But the event of which I am now speaking is different. Afghanistan was an independent country and had absolutely no connection either to communism or to the USSR. It was not within the Soviet sphere. But an invasion employing all the forces took place, from the air and by land. This people is still fighting for its independence. Its strength is certainly relatively meagre. Perhaps it will continue, in line with its tradition, to resist the foreign invader - but this is an extremely dangerous precedent, and no people can evince neutrality in the face of such a grave event.

And again I shall say something not only from the general-human point of view, but which touches us especially. The official spokesman of that organization which I have already mentioned, Kaddoumi, praised the invasion of Afghanistan, terming it "assistance to a friend". And again I say: Woe to this aid. Now we must take note of these remarks with special heed and make-other nations fully aware of their significance. If a Soviet invasion is assistance to a friend, what, God forbid, would be liable to happen were a so-called Palestinian state to be established in Eretz-Israel, or a similar creation under the rule of the Kaddournis and the Arafats. Within a very short time it would become a Soviet basis - at the invitation of a friend. The flight time from Odessa to Eretz-Israel is just a few hours, and certainly what has taken place proximate to our region is liable to take place here in our region, in the heart of the Middle East. For us this would pose a threat to our very existence, and all the free nations would be faced with a Soviet base which would imperil them, particularly at this time, to a far greater degree. So let all nations beware where this region is concerned also - and understand why we unreservedly reject not only the establishment of a Palestinian state but also the formation of a corridor liable to lead to it. For this is the common danger faced by all the free peoples.

It was against this background, and in the light of facts in the region, such as the flow of additional advanced Soviet arms into Syria in the north, Jordan's equipping itself with advanced weaponry, the presence of Russians and Cubans in South Yemen, the strange and shocking incident in Mecca, involving the desecration of Islam's holiest place, which, according to the practitioners of the big lie in our time, was perpetrated by Americans and Israelis, the sale of sophisticated American arms to Saudi Arabia, Libya's becoming a huge Soviet arsenal, and more - it was against this background that the meeting between President Sadat and myself took place, at Aswan.

I should like from this rostrum to express my thanks to President Sadat, to his wife and to his advisers for the hospitality with which they received the Israeli delegation. The atmosphere during the four days of our stay, both in Aswan and in Luxor, was warm and friendly. I trust that before very long we will be able to reciprocate with hospitality to President Sadat, whom I invited to visit here again and who accepted the invitation. But we must express gratitude for the atmosphere of friendliness and warmth that our hosts generated during this visit.

In the course of three lengthy talks we covered international and regional questions, as well as those issues outstanding between Egypt and Israel. With respect to the international and regional situation, we found a common language. There was no distance between our evaluations. I think that this is a positive fact which is worthy of being noted in the Knesset plenum.

With respect to the relations between Egypt and Israel, we began with a clarification of the normalization issue. True, normalization is imprinted in the peace treaty itself, and its institution is a natural development in the implementation of the peace treaty, which is of course a primary obligation. Nonetheless, I will not deny that both in recent months and in recent weeks we have encountered difficulties regarding implementation.

The critical date, Sunday, 27 January, on which the normalization is due to become effective, was drawing closer, and at the administrative levels we were unable to arrive at concrete arrangements. Visits by the delegations were from time to time. postponed by Egypt, while we wanted a practical arrangement, as is set out in Annex III to the peace treaty. That arrangement was attained in the talks with President Sadat and at his instructions.

(a) On that day diplomatic and consular relations will be established between the two countries. Egypt and Israel have appointed their ambassadors. Egypt Mr. Saad Murtada, Israel Dr. Ben-Elissar. This is certainly an event, if we recall that for 31 years there was a state of war between the two countries and now the two of them have signed a peace treaty and have appointed their ambassadors. We for our part will do everything to help Mr. Murtada carry out his mission here. I am certain that Egypt win do likewise to enable Dr. Ben-Elissar to carry out his mission.

And there are also prosaic matters. We must find buildings for the embassies, and the like. Today there is an Israeli delegation in Cairo which is dealing with this matter. We will of course be pleased to receive an Egyptian delegation. We will present it with the alternative proposals we have prepared, and thus, as we set out in the peace treaty, the appropriate diplomatic and consular relations between the two countries will be established.

(b) Land passage - when I met with President Sadat in El Arish, it was his initiative that we should declare open borders between the two countries for the passage of civilians even before normalization became effective. Land passage was not yet included in that declaration. It was to go into effect together with normalization, that is: some months later. Since the El Arish declaration there had been traffic between Egypt and Israel, by air and by sea, directly and indirectly, but it must be noted that it was limited. Now the two countries have also opened the borders between them for land passage. President Sadat suggested that the point of passage be determined by the joint military committee, and it will do so - perhaps already this week. Thus normalization, where civilian traffic is concerned, will come into effect by land also.

As to the air link: at El Arish President Sadat told me that until normalization foreign firms could fly Egyptian citizens to Israel and Israeli citizens to Egypt. Upon normalization the national carriers would be able to fly to each other's country. But in this area too difficulties arose on the road to implementation. This matter was settled at the Aswan meeting. It was agreed that the national airline of Israel would be able to fly to Egypt and the national airline of Egypt would be able to fly to Israel.

Postal, telephone and other links will also be established, and with respect to these two subjects - the air link and the other link - an Israeli delegation of experts has been invited to Egypt next week by the Egyptian government. That delegation will no doubt see to the details relating to the implementation of this matter - which, where flights are concerned, is not stated in the peace treaty. But it was agreed on by President Sadat and myself and will, in accordance with what he told me, be implemented.

When two nations sign a peace treaty normalization is natural. Therefore in the near future we shall no doubt grow accustomed to seeing the Egyptian ambassador here and the Egyptians will see our ambassador there, and there will be traffic - today too there is traffic, in Luxor we came across tourists from Israel; but that traffic will certainly grow all this by the nature of things. Nonetheless, I would like to underscore the importance of this development because by means of normalization we transform the peace between ourselves and Egypt into a living reality. We lift these arrangements from the written text of the peace treaty and its annexes and we instill life into them. This is of importance on the path of the deepening of the peaceful relations between the two peoples, the two countries, and so I have gone into detail concerning these matters.

We began to deal with the problems relating to the autonomy negotiations. As you know, the negotiations are being conducted by committees. The Israeli committee is headed by the Interior Minister Dr. Burg, the Egyptian team is headed by the Premier Dr. Khalil, and Mr. Linowitz heads the American representation. These representations are conducting the negotiations. As I said to President Sadat in all sincerity, there was progress in these talks on the easier subjects. With respect to the subjects which are of weightier significance, no progress has yet occurred and the negotiations are continuing.

We want an agreement with Egypt on this subject, just as we want an agreement with all our neighbors, and, with respect to the autonomy, with the Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district. We did not intend to sign a separate peace agreement with Egypt. We called it a first peace treaty, though it is self-evident that the making of peace cannot be imposed - it must stem from the free will of each side - but so far the elements I have enumerated have refused to join the peacemaking process. We will not despair. We are convinced that the day will come when the cycle of the peacemaking process will broaden. But in the meantime we are conducting negotiations with Egypt only, and we want to reach agreement with it.

That agreement is definitely possible if all sides adhere to the Camp David agreement. We do not suggest interpreting the Camp David agreement - but implementing it. Therefore when President Sadat asked me for my assessment concerning the realization of the autonomy plan, I replied: "Let us implement the Camp David accord and the autonomy regime will be established." No interpretations whatsoever are needed here. So it is self-evident that if we are presented with, or will be presented with a proposal that contradicts the Camp David agreement, we shall reject it. Our stand will in that case not be negative. It will be positive - because it will mean that we hold with the Camp David agreement.

President Sadat put forward a suggestion which was somewhat innovative, and I would like to explain it. He suggested that the autonomy plan be applied first to the residents of the Gaza district. But I would ask the members of the House to understand: This suggestion does not say that the negotiations on autonomy or the residents of Judea and Samaria should be stopped and to conduct negotiations with respect to the Gaza district residents. Rather, according to President Sadat's suggestion, the autonomy negotiations should be completed also with respect to the residents of Judea and Samaria and Gaza: To complete those negotiations, to reach an agreement, but to apply it first to the Gaza district.

I could not respond to this suggestion because I was not authorized by the cabinet to discuss it, so it was my duty to inform President Sadat that I will bring the proposal before the cabinet for discussion in the coming weeks - not immediately upon my return home but, as I said, in the near future. This we shall do and the cabinet will decide.

As regards Jerusalem, I did not hold back my reply for even an instant. No practical proposal was put forward, but Jerusalem was mentioned in the talks, and I immediately told President Sadat that our stand is known to him - and he noted that he knows it and I also read to him my letter to the President of the U.S. The capital of Israel is indivisible, free access to members of all religions to their holy places, as anchored in the law - thus it will be forever. That is our stand and thus it will remain.

When we came to the press conference we explained, openly and frankly, President Sadat and myself, that we had reached agreement on certain matters, while on other matters there are differences between us. We did not hide the latter fact. I want to point out that despite the differences our friendship was maintained, as well as the spirit of cooperation and understanding, out of the hope that we will be able to bridge these differences in the future.

I wish therefore to assert that in my ninth meeting with President Sadat we reached understanding with respect to the international and regional issues. We arrived at a practical settlement for the entire normalization process. Between us there remain differences which we announced explicitly, and which I once again state from the Knesset rostrum. But these differences did not interfere - and I trust they will not interfere in the future - with the two nations' continuing to make progress on the path of cooperation and understanding and friendship.