The Prime Minister denounced in strong terms the Council's resolution, announced that Israel will not cooperate with the Palestine Committee, will continue to settle in all parts of Eretz Israel, will not rescind any action and measure in the territories and definitely not in Jerusalem, and finally, Mr. Begin reiterated Israel's determined opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state. A day after the speech, the Ambassador of Germany in Israel and the British Charge dAffaires were called into the Foreign Ministry where Special Ambassador Sassoon conveyed to them Israel's protest on their countries resort, in the Security Council, to the term "self-determination for the Palestinians" which Israel viewed as the right to a separate Palestinian state. Text of the Prime Minister's statement follows:
According to the Security Council resolution of 1 March, we are called upon to co-operate with the committee called the "Committee on Settlements". We will not respond to this call. The committee is comprised of representatives of states which do not maintain diplomatic relations with the State of Israel and do not recognize it. Its membership is hostile, its view is biased and preset; it has already presented two reports hostile to the Jewish state. Therefore, we shall continue to refuse to co-operate with this committee which was supposed to be temporary and transitory and should even now cease to exist.
We have been called upon to destroy houses, streets, neighbourhoods, and public buildings in Jerusalem. For the enlightenment of the esteemed members of the Security Council I intend, today, to point out what we found in 1967 when we entered Jerusalem which had been occupied by the Jordanian Legion for 19 years.
We found destruction and decay on Mount Scopus, broken and shattered gravestones on the Mount of Olives, the worst possible violation of sanctity, synagogues razed to their foundations, the. Jewish Quarter totally destroyed.
Over the past twelve years we restored, rebuilt and now the demand comes again to destroy. Such a demand is pure fancy, I would not even hesitate to say, barbaric.
Let all the members of the Security Council record that Jerusalem is one city, all of it under Israeli sovereignty, our eternal capital. There will be no partition, directly or indirectly. It goes without saying that free access to the holy places of all the religions is guaranteed. This free access is founded upon the law. This will be the unified Jerusalem and this will be the free access to the holy places forever.
It is true that in the negotiations on autonomy it was proposed to us that the Arab residents of Jerusalem would take part in the election of the administrative council related to autonomy for the Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. This proposal absolutely contradicts the Camp David agreements. Not only does such a demand not appear in the agreement, but it was never even raised as a suggestion. It was never discussed; therefore we shall continue to reject it. And we hope that just as we wish to remain faithful to the Camp David agreement, so must everyone be faithful to it and to refrain from making proposals or demands which contain a contradiction, or which contradict this agreement.
The right of Jewish settlement in Eretz-Israel is inalienable. It goes without saying that it contains within it the nation's security.
I may publicly ask from this podium all the participants of the Camp David discussions: Were, during the thirteen days of deliberation, the two portions of the agreement the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and the granting of autonomy to the Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza - made conditional on not carrying out settlement? I state that such a condition was never even mentioned. True, at one point we were asked to put a freeze on new settlements during the period of the negotiations. We did not accept this demand. I wrote to President Carter explicitly that during the period of the negotiations on the peace treaty with Egypt and added explicitly and deliberately for three months, as stipulated in the Camp David agreement, that we would refrain from establishing new settlements. This commitment was given on 17 September and ended on 17 December, 1972.
Afterwards, there were differences of opinion and misunderstandings, but it was not long before the secretary of state, before one of the Congressional committees reaffirmed that this, and nothing else, had been our commitment.
Therefore, on the basis of what is contained in the Camp David agreement, we have full rights to continue to settle in Eretz-Israel. In the process of settlement we are not depriving any Arab... (interruption) Therefore, settlement is not just a right, as I said earlier, but also an imperative of security and life. And we shall carry out this imperative because it is a question of life or death for us.
Following the U.S. vote in the Security Council, the statement of the president of the United States was published. The president even sent me a personal letter, the contents of which I brought before the cabinet. It goes without saying that we accept what the president of the United States says word for word and with all due respect. But I must ask frankly: Was that mistake in reference to one line and one paragraph in the resolution which is hostile to Israel and contradicts the Camp David agreements, the only expression of total hostility to the State of Israel and its essential interests? What about the other paragraphs which mention Jerusalem, which also contradict the Camp David agreements?
Had that paragraph, that one line, not been included, would there have been justification for a vote in support of that resolution which is an absolutely repugnant one? Therefore I say, with all due respect, that it is no surprise that the support of the American representative for this terrible resolution aroused deep resentment within our nation and among our friends.
As the cabinet has already resolved, we unconditionally reject this decision of the security council. Under no conditions shall we accept it, or any part, sentence or paragraph in it. It is not binding upon us and we will act in accordance with our rights and essential interests in order to guarantee the future and the peace of our people in its homeland, Eretz-Israel.
(The prime minister departed from his statement to answer a question from the floor).
In Kuweit and Bahrein, of all places, a statement on self-determination for Palestinian Arabs, as it was termed in the statement, was made. What does that term mean? Our generation is experienced in that subject. We know what use was made of nice concepts that were formed as far back as the days of Woodrow Wilson. But we also have experience in-how these expressions are exploited for evil purpose, and this from the 1930's. That satan, as I and the members of my generation still remember, spoke of the right of self-determination for the Germans in the Sudetenland. There were many in the west who claimed: Come to think of it, why not? Which led to that notorious agreement, in Munich. A small nation was hit badly, and thus its independence was completely destroyed. But it was not long before that very act was turned against those who had acquiesced to the corruption of the concept of self-determination, and so a grave injustice was carried out at the expense of a small state when the attempt was made to buy off the great extortioner.
I think we have a perfect analogy here. Certain countries in Europe are trying to court favour with a strong foe and extortionist aggressor at the expense of a small nation. Therefore, they use the term "self-determination" while totally corrupting its meaning. Does the great Arab nation not have self determination? This is expressed by the existence of 21 independent states. Have we ever denied them the right to self-determination?
If one were to weigh on the scales of justice whether a twenty-second Arab state should be established, which, on the basis of the pronouncements of the leaders of the organization of murders, would be a threat to the very existence of the only Jewish state, or whether the Camp David agreements should be carried out, meaning autonomy for the Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza...
And so, choose between these two alternatives, to live together without clashes, attacks, bloodletting - this is the question I wish to put forward to all liberty- and justice-loving nations.
The nations of Europe have also shared a different experience. They regarded our nation and observed its fate and suffering, all because of the policy of appeasement. But at that time we could not defend ourselves, we did not have a country nor the power to protect our people. Therefore, they were witness - on the European continent - to the worst holocaust in human history. Today the situation is different. We have an independent state and command our own fate. Therefore we shall reject the corruption of the concept of "self-determination" whose only meaning is: a Palestinian state. Were it to arise, a bloodletting more terrible than that of Lebanon would transpire.
I hereby announce, in the name of the government and I hope in that of the majority of the members of the Knesset, that we will under no circumstances agree to a Palestinian state, we shall not permit its establishment. We will carry out our obligations - nothing else. I am certain that as those tempered by experience we will know to stand up -hopefully united - to pressure in this fateful question, and we shall prevail.