76 Statement in the Knesset by Prime Minister Begin on the Reagan Plan- 8 September 1982

The Speaker will permit me to inform the House of a report I received a few minutes ago. An attack on surface-to-air missiles in Lebanon has ended. Our planes destroyed a battery of Syrian surface-to-air missiles in Lebanon. I am taking this opportunity to again warn the Government of Syria: We will not tolerate the placement of surface-to-air missiles in Lebanese territory. Any such battery which is brought in will be destroyed. I hope that this warning will be taken with all seriousness in Damascus. We don't want any fighting with the Syrian army. There is a specific situation. The Syrian army is to leave Lebanon anyway. We too will leave Lebanon. Lebanon will be a free, independent nation on the basis of territorial integrity. But until this occurs, we will by no means tolerate surface-to-air missiles in Lebanese territory.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in concluding this interesting debate, I would like to ask what is the reason, since I September, since partial reports were leaked on the new positions of the United States government, that joy has come to the Alignment camp, jubilation to the opposition? What is the reason that cheers are heard among our colleagues, friends of the Labor Party and Mapam? On the face of it, they should have been concerned; not broken, heaven forbid, not destroyed, but national concern, natural, human and simple. Why? Because they want to inform me, the Prime Minister of Israel, in the President's name - I emphasize: the President himself did not give me this report, but it was given to me in his name - and according to which I quote: "There will be participation of the Palestinian inhabitants of East Jerusalem in the elections to the authority of Judea, Samaria and Gaza." (translated from Hebrew rendering - ed.). I would like to know if the members of the Alignment, in its two sections, agree to such an arrangement. Any beginner understands that this means the redivision of Jerusalem. There will be - as we still would like to hope - a self-governing authority, administrative council, of the autonomy for the Arab inhabitants of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district. And here, I am informed in the President's name, that the Arab inhabitants of Jerusalem and its eastern part - thus it is written: "East Jerusalem" - they have to be permitted to vote for that autonomous institution. The result is that part of the city and the inhabitants of that part will be under the authority of the administrative council, and the other part under the authority of the State of Israel. And Jerusalem is the capital of the state. This is the division of Jerusalem. Is this good news? Should it cause happiness or even rejoicing at someone's misfortune? I think that this declaration has to be received without any fear, without any trepidation, without any wailing, but with concern until this assertion disappears of its own, and the danger will pass. I assume that all members of the Alignment, as they are patriots, lovers of Zion and Jerusalem like us, no more and no less, think that this is a bad proposal, negative; it must be fought, it must be opposed and it must be removed from the agenda. So, why is there happiness in spite of this?

I continue to read: Security - progressive Palestinian responsibility for internal security based on capability and performance (from Hebrew rendering - ed.). What was said at Camp David on security? I read the citation as it was written: "There will be a withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces, and the remaining Israeli forces will be redeployed in specified security locations. The agreement will also include arrangements for guaranteeing internal and external security and public order." (from Hebrew rendering).

As you all see, gentlemen, there is no distinction in the Camp David Agreement, not to say differentiation, between internal and external security. They are one and the same. Now comes the proposal according to the position of the American administration, as it was transmitted to me, and says that there will be Palestinian responsibility for internal security. This is bad news, in anyone's opinion.

We indeed struck a great, huge blow at the murderous and terrorist organization called the P.L.O.: 25,000 without fighting capacity - we disarmed them of weapons worth billions of dollars - they were scattered over the seven seas. Of course, they shoot in the air, rejoice, exchange kisses with kings, with princes. But all this is a comedy, everyone knows this. This is a blow unprecedented since the establishment of any terror organization in the form of a semi-regular army. Indeed, we struck them in such a fashion. But did we ever deny that there is P.L.O. in Judea and Samaria, or, say, in other places throughout the Land of Israel? There is. Do you know why? First of all, there are Arabs, and they can be convinced that they must join the P.L.O. I don't deny such a possibility at all. Moreover, I once had a talk with Secretary of State Haig and I received a report from our sources that Saudi Arabia gave the P.L.O. $400 million, and I told this to him, to Mr. Haig. He interrupted me and said: "Billions, Mr. Prime Minister, billions," they are receiving billions from Saudi Arabia. So, if there is a terrorist organization which receives hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, it certainly can support, if not run, some such terrorist, give him a Kalachnikov, transfer a few kilograms of explosives to him and so on. I know of this, pardon the expression, gentlemen of the opposition, from a recorded sources, from everyday work. I know what the security services do so that those explosives and Kalachnikovs and guns will not operate against Jews. This is an everyday phenomenon.

For four whole years - on 17 September it will be the fourth anniversary of the signing of the Camp David Agreement -we have maintained in every discussion and meeting with the Americans and Egyptians: When it comes to security -we are it. The Government of Israel will be responsible for security in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district, both internal and external. There is no differentiation between them. And it is over this that there is dispute.

Now comes whoever formulated these proposals in the name of the President of the United States and says: Not so, internal security will be separated from the external, and it will be the responsibility of the Palestinians. I assume that the intention is the administrative council or a branch of it. This is a basic change in our situation. If this would occur, our lives would not be worth anything. Every beginner knows this. Every day or night there would be an assassination of a Jew or Arab. Only a week ago this murderous organization murdered an Arab belonging to the village leagues. What was his sin? What was his crime? There are those here too who call such people "Quislings." It is a shameful disgrace to hear this. What, is there Nazi rule in the Land of Israel which has set up Quislings for itself? These people are devoted Arabs, patriotic Arabs, and I respect them. Instead of killing Jews they are ready to work with them. What is their sin? What crime have they committed? He was murdered this man, only a few days ago. (interruptions)

MK Toubi, you know, you heard this from me many times: In this House there is no one who respects the Arab nation more than me. Like me - yes, more than me - no. I respect the Arab nation for its contribution to human culture, it is very great. But this does not mean that it is impossible to respect the Arab nation and agree that the Land of Israel shall belong to the Jewish people. A very simple historical division: The Arab people has 22 states, the Jewish people one state and its name - The Land of Israel. (interruption) Once you called: "Hurray Stalin!" today you cry: "Hurray Reagan?" You should stay healthy.

I repeat: this is a life and death question for us. If security will not be in our hands, as we maintained at Camp David, and as we continue to maintain in every trilateral or bilateral meeting, then our lives will be in jeopardy, with bloodshed, murder every day. So there should have been concern, a real look to the future, not with fear, not with trepidation, not with heartbreak, but with certain human concern. Where then does this happiness and rejoicing come from?

Thirdly, in the name of the president, I was asked to completely freeze settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In English: "Real freeze of settlement." These are the original English words. This is cause for rejoicing? I know that we have disagreements on where there should be settlement. I never heard the Alignment take a stand against settlement per se - quite the contrary. I remember the consultations with Yisrael Galili, I remember the discussions in the settlement committee. I'm not only talking about Kfar Vitkin, I'm talking about the Jordan Valley. This is agreed between us. You are for settlement in certain places. You have a theory, which is extremely strange in my view, sort of Zionistic, that Jews are not permitted to settle in areas of the Land of Israel heavily populated by Arabs. I never heard - I'm already old, soon I'll be 70, I've been a Zionist since the age of 10; in my 60 years of Zionism I never heard that the Zionist movement did not settle in areas heavily populated by Arabs. I remember the settlement of the Valley in the midst of a heavily populated area. (interruptions). So I don't remember when Zionism ever decided not to settle in areas heavily populated by Arabs. I think that the Land of Israel was built this way, otherwise it wouldn't have been built.

(interruptions)

In short, I repeat, in this and no other fashion was the Land of Israel built. 100 years ? - 100 years. We went everywhere. There were Jews in Gaza, there were Jews in Nablus, where weren't there Jews in the Land of Israel?

But I have been asked to put a real freeze on settlement; no settlement. That's certainly worrisome. What is this, Judea and Samaria, are we strangers there? We just came to some place and started settling there? God in heaven, our nation was born in Judea and Samaria. There are ignoramuses and cynics who mock history. But I would like to read you something, and then I will tell you who wrote it, what the value is of history in a nation's history.

For example, "What are the forces which nourished our movement? What is our love for our land? Did we adhere to real values which we possessed? Did we have tracts of land which we knew and surroundings in which we lived? Our patriotism sprang out of the book, it adhered to verses, to historical names, abstract patriotism; and we planted this love within us for generations, and carried it from place to place. This abstract patriotism was a huge dynamic force." I would ask who wrote these words - Berl Katznelson. So you see what history is, what are the abstract things? You see how Berl Katznelson valued history?

So I say, there are cynics who mock historical values, memories. We are not so cynical, we are serious people, who built and fought and sacrificed and progressed. That is how we reached this pass, all of us together with our various viewpoints, every one by his own merit, every one in his own way. And now we are told: Judea and Samaria and the Gaza district - no Jew shall set foot there any longer. It is forbidden.

So this is the position, that there be an absolute real freeze of settlement, that no more Jews shall come to Elkanah, that no more settlements shall be established in addition to the 102 settlements which were established, thank God, in the last five years in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District. A total freeze. Is it good news for you, Alignment? You want to settle, sometimes in the Golan Heights, sometimes in the Jordan Valley, sometimes even - maybe you'll tell the truth between us, confidentially - somewhere near the mountain region. Not entirely on the mountain, but near the mountain, to establish some kind of settlement.

(interruptions)

I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, what is this here? Have you decided to stop me because I am the last speaker. (interruptions) They are taking advantage of the fact that I am summarizing the debate and they think they can disturb me. MK Shahal when he sat there as speaker also did not permit anyone to disturb. And I will not allow disruption. One interruption is acceptable, but not more. They are taking advantage that I am summarizing the debate and they think they can disturb me. What kind of parliamentarism is this? Everyone spoke freely. Only the Prime Minister cannot have the right to speak, right? This is your democracy? I assume that is the way you want it. It will not be like this.

And so, there was a need to worry a bit about what to do, to stand together. To repel the attack so that it will be clear that we will continue to settle. You say in the Jordan Valley, and we will say on the mountain ridge. Perhaps well help you in the Jordan Valley, you will go along with us to the mountain ridge. It will be O.K. What is this happiness all about? The rejoicing?

Fourth, "the definition of full autonomy grants the Palestinian inhabitants real authority with regard to themselves, the land and its resources, subject to fair guarantees regarding water." (translated from the Hebrew rendering - ed.) I must explain to the Knesset that the last sentence is allegedly for us. We have to receive fair guarantees from someone regarding water, so we too will have some water in Samaria, so that it will not be taken away from us completely. That is the meaning of the pro-Israeli passage. But regarding autonomy - it applies to the Arabs, the inhabitants, the land and its resources.

I hold here a booklet entitled "The Camp David Agreement." I am prepared to stay a whole hour in the House and open this booklet before every one of the members of the Knesset, regardless of faction. To let him read and see if there are such words in the agreement. There are none. They put them in now. And the difference is great. Thirteen days and thirteen nights we sat at Camp David, and the Israeli delegation asserted, demanded, made clear: The Autonomy is for the inhabitants and not the territory. The autonomy -- our idea; the word "full" - ours. The autonomy is for the inhabitants and not the territory. We made this distinction in the clearest fashion. Since the difference is so clear: If the autonomy was for the territory, we would have agreed to the rending of Judea and Samaria from the Hebrew Land of Israel, from the Land of Israel and the State of Israel. So we insisted to the last day, to the last minute, that the Autonomy is as written, "to the inhabitants." "to the land" is not written, but "to the inhabitants". There is no trace of the words "the land and its resources" in the Camp David Agreement. This was added. This changes the whole situation, the whole content and essence of the autonomy as we promised it, at our initiative.

So there was another reason to be concerned. Again, not to break, not to surrender, not to draw back. But from where is the joy? Why suddenly this great happiness?

I could list more paragraphs. As an example these are enough. All these things were said in the name of the President of the great friendly power. And I would like to say parenthetically, Mr. Speaker: The issue today is not Israel-United States friendship. This friendship between our two nations, between our two countries, stands and exists. We have an argument today with the United States government; I'm sure we'll win this argument, I'm sure that all this evil will move aside. There have already been documents, American ones too, of which there is no trace. This plan in my opinion died at its birth. Today it no longer exists, and certainly in the future there will be no trace of it. And the friendship between Israel and the United States of America will continue to exist and will be warm. With a friendly president we will be friends, and with a friendly government we will be friends.

Today there is a great debate between Europe and America regarding the Siberian gas pipeline, and serious things are happening, with sanctions. So what? Have France and Britain ceased to be America's friends? Has America stopped its friendship with these two western states? With Holland and Belgium? Not at all. There is an argument -and if need be, a serious argument - and we will have it. But it is not the friendship itself between us and the United States of America which is on the agenda.

Now I would like to pose the question again, and to respond to it immediately. Here there are five paragraphs; they have no place in the Camp David Agreement, were not written at all. They appear in the "positions". This should cause concern, it should be confronted. One of the American diplomats told me during the argument these days on the document I received which is called "American positions". He asked me: "True, we signed the Camp David Agreement;" I said: "you signed as a witness;" "True we signed as a witness, we can't add?" I said to him: "Sir, you certainly cannot add; by addition you can sometimes distort the whole agreement." It is as if I were to receive an I.O.U. from someone who promises to pay 5,000 shekels one day - I have no more - so what will I do? III add a small zero. What have I changed? I've changed nothing. The agreement remains. To add? You heard: Things were added which have no trace in Camp David, its whole content has been changed, its whole essence distorted, and then it is said: You shall accept the new agreement, so we refuse.

Again, I am still going a bit far in endangering my colleagues: Why the rejoicing? I know the answer: A week ago, dear friends and respected opponents, I read an article in the "Davar" newspaper, an eye-opening, banner headline, which read: "The partition of the Land of Israel is the realization of Zionism". When I read this headline I was astounded - in the newspaper of the workers of the Land of

Israel, "Davar". But then I understood what the happiness was about. There is no other reason, but what? - The President of the United States appeared and asked to inform me that Western Eretz Israel must be re-partitioned. It was united in the Six-Day War, now it must be partitioned, and Jerusalem must be partitioned; and Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District, not in their entirety, but almost entirely - to the Kingdom of Jordan. The rest, with certain border adjustments -to you. This is the essence of the American positions from A to Z, and the rest is commentary. This is the content, this is the essence. This is the ABC: To re-partition the Land of Israel. And then it is said: This is our plan, we are in favor. This is how Zionism will be realized. Therefore, President Reagan's plan, as it is called, is similar to the Alignment plan. Not like twins, but there is similarity between them, hence the rejoicing: You see what happened? - The Likud will now stand in opposition to a certain American position. We, the Alignment people, will be near the halls of power in Washington. We will go with the great power, we will appear at home and abroad and say precisely this: The Land of Israel must be partitioned and most of the areas of Judea and Samaria should be turned over to the King of Jordan.

Here I wonder: From where did you gentlemen, members of the Labor Party in 1982, take this theory, that the Land of Israel should be partitioned in order to realize Zionism; or as you say, that there be a Jewish, not a bi-national state. here (interruptions)?

So I read, and this is also a document, Mr. Yaacobi: "The partition collided with our life, with its internal logic, brought about the Six-Day War. This war was not only the result of Nasser's madness, it stemmed from the partition of the country. The Arabs who were beaten in 1948 were nourished and made stronger as the result of our existence in a partitioned country for 19 years. The partition brought no reconciliation with any part of the Arabs. On the contrary, it was the artificial borders and refugee problem which deepened the hostility and fostered the hope of our destruction. The government must declare before the world a policy of settlement of all the liberated areas." Who is the author? - Yitzhak Tabenkin. Yitzhak Tabenkin's students are here.

Now I would like to tell you what the late Moshe Sharett wrote following a meeting which he and the late Chaim Weizmann had with the British High Commissioner Wauchope after the presentation of the first plan for the partition of Palestine. Regarding this, Weizmann indicated (interruptions) that even if the partition plan were to be approved, we would eventually expand over the whole country, and that he believed that this was nothing but an arrangement for the coming 25 or 30 years. Really, he almost prophesied: after 30 years there already was no more partition. He spoke in 1937; in 1967 there was already the Six Day War and the partition was nullified.

From whom did you learn the lesson that partition of the Land of Israel is Zionism? You are denying your ancestors, your parents, your teachers - explicitly.

Now I will tell a story by heart, from real life. I would like to say, since someone may well try to interrupt me, that I am willing to swear that every word which I report now to the Knesset is true.

During the Sinai Campaign I held a personal and totally confidential meeting with the late David Ben-Gurion, and he told me this: "I held a conversation with Guy Mollet, the Prime Minister of France at the time, and I told him: 'As a result of the Sinai Campaign, the map of the Middle East must be changed. The Land of Israel to the Jordan must belong to the Jewish people, and this will be the fundamental change, and then there will be peace.' Guy Mollet answered me, "Thus David Ben Gurion told me, 'this is an idea which merits consideration"'.

Nothing came of it. It is known what happened after the Sinai Campaign. But David Ben-Gurion - I am revealing this for the first time, do you hear, Yigal? David Ben-Gurion, who in 1948 signed the partition plan, though in 1941-42 he announced the Biltmore plan regarding all of Western Eretz-Israel. In 1957, at the beginning of that year he informed me that he raised the plan for reunification of western Eretz Israel before the French Prime Minister.

I want to say, friends, that I honored Ben-Gurion today by telling the Knesset. He was an opponent of mine, and a friend of mine in the last years of his life, and all the members of the Knesset know this. But by reporting this to the Knesset, I honored him. He was a Zionist, one of the founders of Zionism and he deserves all honor. In my opinion he erred. Everyone makes mistakes. He did great things. But in 1957 he wanted to reunify western Eretz Israel. He made a diplomatic effort for this. All your shouts will not avail. (interruptions).

After deep discussion, the Cabinet unanimously decided to reject outright the positions as conveyed to me on 31 August by Ambassador Lewis in the name of the President.

There are those who wish to bargain - will do so, not in the name of the Government. You will have to learn, Gentlemen, that in the name of the State of Israel, only one body speaks - and its name is the Government, not you. You do not represent the State of Israel today. You represent a part of the public. A part of the public which is getting smaller all the time.

(interruptions)

You are trying to conduct, affairs of state in all parts of the world, in Europe and in America. As though you were its representatives. You're not its representatives at all. We are the representatives, we were elected.

(interruptions)

And since Mr. Shem-Tov said in such a dramatic manner: The opposition in the Knesset represents the majority, the government represents the minority, I have a proposal for you: Persuade your colleagues, let us agree today (interruptions) - new elections in May-June 1983 - come, let us agree on this. Do you agree?

Let us all vote together, and then we will show you what will be left of the Alignment.

(interruptions)

And now, I want to direct a call over the ocean concerning the conducting of the affairs of the State of Israel. Over the ocean, because since the publishing of the program called "positions, interference is developing in most internal affairs of the State of Israel.

Officials are leaking information and the press is writing: This is the beginning of the end of the Begin government.

And I wish to say to the editorial board of the "Washington Post", of the "New York Times" to Mr. Anthony Lewis and to Rabbi Hertzberg: You will get the opposite of what you seek by these words. This is a democratic nation. You will not impose on it any government and any prime minister. This nation will choose the prime minister and its government.

(interruptions)

And the matters of the government we will conduct as long as we have the confidence of the people and the Knesset. Let there be early elections and we will prove to you what your strength is, especially Mapam. Shem-Tov, watch out for elections. Well, enough of the outcries, we can now speak in a pleasant manner.

And so there are those who say that the government has absorbed a blow and it is sad and embarrassed. Such a thing never was and never will be. I want to say to you, my friends, that you still do not understand us. But you will. I say to you: Everyday, every night when I am reminded of this battle with the powers of the world - about what? About one Jerusalem, the only one, whole, the capital of Israel. About what?

About Judea and Samaria, the cradle of our culture, about Eretz Israel. Every day I say: Happy am I that I am responsible for observing a commandment. We are conducting this campaign in high spirits, with Jewish pride. With deep faith. Our knees are not trembling. No one will set for us the borders of Eretz-Israel. No one will determine for us what our homeland is.

I received the letter of President Reagan which stated: Even if your reply will not be in the affirmative "I will stand by these positions with total dedication." I take these words seriously. I turn to President Reagan from the podium of the Knesset of Israel and say to him in simple words: The Government of Israel has taken its stand concerning the positions which were communicated to me in your name - no, we have rejected them. And we will uphold this stand "with total dedication." But there is a difference. For you, Mr. President, it is a political matter. Perhaps you still need to come closer to Saudi Arabia; perhaps you wish to shake hands with King Hussein once more, after he was angry at your predecessor President Carter for four whole years, and even refused to come to Washington; perhaps you have additional intentions as to the Arab world. That is politics. I respect it, it is a serious thing. For me, Mr. President, for us, Mr. President, it is our lives, our homeland, our country, the Land of our fathers and our sons. That is the difference. And the entire world will see what dedication it will merit.

No trembling at the knees. We are the friends of America and will continue to be the friends of America. In the matter of Lebanon we are cooperating and we will continue to cooperate. If anyone will seek to take from us Judea and Samaria, we will say to him: Judea and Samaria belong to the Jewish people for all the generations. Yes, for the sake of Zion I will not be silent and for the sake of Jerusalem I will not rest. This is the announcement of the Jewish nation, in its overwhelming majority, in the homeland and in the Diaspora. I only speak for it. The scorners may scorn and the mockers may mock. Bialik had something to say of these mockers. Nothing will change this situation and we will be successful in the battle, with the help of God. With the help of God we will win this battle and we will bring our nation out of its straits.

Mr. Speaker, as Prime Minister, I hereby have the honor to ask the Knesset to approve the Cabinet resolution of 2 September 1982.