Mr. Shamir focussed his remarks on the state of U.S. -Arab relations, following the U.S. Senate vote to approve the sale of modern American weapons to Saudi Arabia. He did not criticize the American desire to maintain good relations with the Arab world, but the U.S. had to take into consideration the ingrained hostility of most of the Arab world to Israel and to insure that Israel's security was not impaired. He challenged the use of the term "moderate" Arab state when applied to Saudi Arabia and rejected the Fahd Plan as a scheme designed to eliminate Israel. Text:
You have come to Israel at a crucial time in our nation's history. Our decisions and actions in the months ahead are likely to have a lasting influence on the future and destiny of the Jewish people and the Jewish State. As you are aware, I am sure, Israel today faces important challenges on a number of fronts.
We have just witnessed the approval of another big arms deal with Saudi Arabia. I know many friends of Israel, and probably many of you here, worked hard to prevent this transaction from taking place. I want to thank you, and through you, to thank all those who were involved in this effort.
Israel remains entirely convinced that the supply of offensive military equipment and sophisticated intelligence-gathering apparatus to Saudi Arabia is a grave mistake. It cannot encourage moderation on the Arab side, the opposite is true. There is ample evidence of this from the Saudi leaders themselves. Immediately after the Senate vote, and to this day, Saudi leaders are repeating publicly that the equipment was needed for Arab and Muslim causes; that the real enemy was Israel and not the Soviet Union, and that the approval of the sale was a victory of Arab power against Israel.
In the course of the heated debates on the merits of the sale of sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia, there was one very important argument that was repeatedly used to justify the deal. It was said that it would strengthen the Saudi determination to align itself with the West in a sensitive region that is vulnerable to Soviet penetration.
What do we hear today on this subject? The Saudi leaders declare emphatically that their main enemy is Israel and not the Soviet Union. Even worse, when the Saudis present the eight-point plan they say openly that the USSR should be a full partner to the implementation, or rather, the imposition of this solution on the Middle East. Furthermore, the "moderate" terrorist Yasser Arafat is shuttling between Moscow and Riyadh, in the role of go-between, connecting the Communist Super-Power and the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I want to remind you that one of the main reasons that prompted the late Anwar Sadat to journey to Jerusalem was the need to prevent Soviet intervention in the political process in the Middle East. Hence, there is an immense gap between the entire basis to the Camp David approach and the orientation that is based on Saudi Arabia. The inevitable conclusion is that a major blunder was made in considering Saudi Arabia a main bulwark of the strategic deployment of the West in the Mid-east. The Saudi regime is a broken reed which cannot be depended upon.
It is no surprise that the Saudis came up with the ideas for a final solution of the Arab-Israel conflict - that are called "The Eight Point Plan". From its very beginning the Saudi ruling family held violently anti-Jewish views. They encouraged and financed the publication and distribution of the most vile anti-Semitic literature, such as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". When Henry Kissinger visited King Feisal of Saudi Arabia, he received from King Feisal a copy of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Later, when the Saudis were introduced to the civilized world, they took pains to camouflage their racist beliefs and this last proposal by Crown Prince Fahd is an example of the same subterfuge. In simple terms, the plan is designed to reduce Israel to a state in which it can no longer maintain its existence.
It is, therefore, astonishing and painful that such a plan for the elimination of Israel was given any kind of support and encouragement by some leaders in the West both in Europe and America. We regret this very much but it will not change or weaken our total and unreserved rejection of it. Everyone knows what is the meaning of a Palestinian Arab state with Jerusalem as its capital. Not less known is the real intention behind the Saudi call for the "right of return" of Arab refugees to Israel. The call for the return of the refugees of 1948 would have us submit to the flooding of Israel with hundreds of thousands - to be arranged by PLO, financed by Saudi Arabia and designed to undermine Israel's very existence from within. It will not happen, because we will never permit it to happen. But this is what these friends of-the West are openly proposing.
In Israel, such proposals and similar ones were launched by the PLO, can be met with universal rage. Small wonder, therefore, that our opposition to them cuts across political and ideological lines. This was demonstrated during last week's Knesset debate following Prime Minister Begin's report on the political situation. The Knesset decided to send a bipartisan delegation to the U.S. to explain Israel's policy. Another expression of Israel's united position was the joint press conference that was held in Washington last week. It is difficult to recall such a picture of unity as that of Abba Eban from the Labour Party together with a member of the Likud, Professor Y. Rom, appearing at a press conference in which they denounced the Saudi plan and criticized those expressions of support for it that were voiced in America.
I hope and trust that Israel's consensus and unity in this matter will encourage our friends and supporters to join hands in a renewed campaign to reject totally this political piece of fake merchandise that is being sold by Saudia Arabia to the West.
A final point on this subject: Israel has often said in the past that, contrary to the Arab attitude vis-a-vis Israel, we are not opposed to a close relationship between the US and Arab states. There is an inevitable, built-in condition, however. Such a relationship cannot be a one-sided one, that is used by the Arab party as a weapon against Israel.
Our involvement with the countries in this region over the last thirty years has enabled us to gain a better understanding of their policies and motivations. We are convinced, as a result of this experience, that there is a basic lack of understanding of this region on the part of Governments in the West. Let me enumerate some characteristics:
- Civil strife and instability are a chronic phenomenon throughout the Arab world.
- The number of coups d'etat and attempted coups is unparalleled.
- Factional, religious and territorial disputes are widespread.
-Violence and terrorism have always been a part of the reality of life in the Middle East.
More recently, two other sources of threat and danger have materialized:
- A massive flow of arms into this unstable region, both from East and West.
- The rise of aggressive and extremist Islamic fundamentalism, which is spreading throughout the Arab world, whose main base and inspiration is Saudi Arabia and which is characterized by an attitude of scorn toward the West and its values, disdain of Democracy, approval of violence and war, and a fanatic dedication to world domination.
It may seem paradoxical, but these fanatics prefer affinity to Communist Russia
rather than to the West because of the common rejection of Democracy and a common belief in violence as an instrument in international relations.
No Arab state is free of one or more of these sources of trouble. Democracy is totally non-existent. As a result, the primary concern and preoccupation of all Governments, without exception, is the security and survival of the regime. It is often the major item in the national budget. Hence, no political relationship or alliance, whether inter-Arab, or between an Arab Government and a foreign power has become a lasting one.
Violence in the Middle East has become more sophisticated and dangerous because of the massive financial incentive from oil-producing Governments. The PLO could not have reached its present dimensions without this support. It is a common mistake to regard the PLO as a purely Palestinian organization. In fact, it is partly directed, partly manned and operated, and mostly financed, by Arab Governments. This is so because the PLO provides them with a convenient cover for their own designs against individuals, parties and other governments. The PLO is thus a truly pan-Arab organization at the same time as it is the standard-bearer of the Arab rejection of Israel's existence. As long as Arab governments continue to support the PLO and do not publicly dissociate themselves from its covenant, it is a sure sign that they continue to reject Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East.
On this background, Camp David was an attempt to start a new process designed to bring about a new reality. It was meant to deprive Arab leaders of a pretext behind which they indulged in fantasies and which provided them with a convenient scapegoat for their failures. It could have given them a chance to move toward confronting their real problems in the social and economic spheres. This is where the late President Sadat stood apart from the other leaders.
We had hoped for solid Western support of Camp David because it also provided the West with an opportunity of a different kind. Western Governments cannot compete with the Soviet bloc when it comes to war and arming for belligerent purposes. The Communist world will always be ready to supply more dangerous military equipment to the Arabs and in greater quantities. But in the economic and social fields and in development, the West can do much more and much better than the Soviets. But in order for such a competition to take place, it needs a background of relative stability and peace. Unfortunately, Europe's opposition to Camp David and the American decision to supply massive arms to Saudi Arabia have fueled the arms race and delivered a heavy blow to the prospects of defusing the Arab-Israel conflict in a substantial way.
On its part, Israel has done its duty and contributed more than its share towards a change for the better in the Middle East. In agreeing to withdraw from all of Sinai and giving up an important component of security that it provided us, we undertook grave risks. The uprooting of people in the villages and townships of Eastern Sinai is a very heavy price to pay, even a tragedy. We have reached, even passed, the limits of our concessions, both in the South and in our proposal for full autonomy to the Arab inhabitants of Judea and Samaria. The reaction of the West and their present attitude to the Arab oil-producing States may cause us to reassess our attitude. We cannot afford to continue taking risks that are met only with demands for more risks. I have no doubt that if any government in Israel were to accept such proposals as withdrawal to the June 1967 lines or the re-division of Jerusalem, God forbid, the reaction will be a demand for more concessions. Then even the greatest "dove" among us will reject them. But it may be too late.
One of the foundations of our outlook and policy is Jewish survival, continuity and commitment.
As the central outpost of Jewish action, we strongly believe that Jewish identity must be stressed and deepened. Apathy is our mortal enemy. Unity and common action are the best possible guarantees of Jewish survival. The statistics that were recently published on the decline in Aliyah make it imperative that we seek ways to increase Israel's numerical strength. A strong Israel means, first and foremost, more Jews. I submit to you that this is not only the task of those who live here, but it is also the responsibility of all conscious members of the Jewish people everywhere.
A final word: I mentioned difficulties and dangers and there are plenty of these. But this is just one side of the coin, and not the most important. In spite of my own, subjective interest in this matter, I believe that although foreign policy and even defense policy are important in the life of a nation, they are not the main issue. The essence is the life, the progress, and the development of our people. Indeed, our nation is alive and progressing. It is even growing, though not fast enough. It is building a State, forging a nation out of different tribes, gathering strength year after year, raising the standards of living of the weaker elements, improving the landscape of our beautiful country and of this splendid city. We shall continue on this path, and no AWACS or eight-point plan will succeed in delaying the forward march of Jewish history. But this can be achieved only on one condition: that we march together, that together we remove any obstacles in the way, that together we sense and feel the needs and respond to them, and finally, that together we work and maintain the common faith in 'Am Yisrael' in Eretz Yisrael.