In his address, the prime minister reiterated the key points he made in his General Assembly statement. He related in detail the gist of his talks with 17 heads of government, and explained the effort made on behalf of Soviet Jewry. He used the opportunity of the presence of so many international leaders, who came to New York to mark the 40th anniversary of the United Nations, to discuss bilateral issues and the peace process. He stated that he stood behind every word he said in the United Nations and asked the Knesset to approve his statement. Text:
The region in which we live has known a great many wars, not a few abortive attempts at peace, and very little peace. It is very difficult to predict whether the events now taking place will lead to the goal which all of us long for.
We may be at the beginning of a new era. Alliances and coalitions are ephemeral, situations which appeared to be stable and prolonged change with each newscast. Circumstances may be emerging which will enable the opening of a new page in relations between us and our neighbors.
My recent trip abroad was marked by that possible turning point.
On the eve of the summit meeting between the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union, the issue of the fate of Soviet Jewry was one of the central subjects in my talks in Europe and the U.S. I held a tete-a-tete talk on this subject with the President of the United States. I requested that he raise the subject in his talk with Gorbachev. The President, who seemed to me to be very moved regarding a subject of such a humane character and one which touches on the very roots of human existence and man's freedom, assured me faithfully that he would deal with the subject as it deserves. I thanked the president for the humane assistance the United States extended to our nation in the rescue of the Jews of Ethiopia who had suddenly become refugees in the wilderness. I also held detailed talks on this matter with Secretary of State George Shultz, a friend of Israel's, and we agreed on a plan of action aimed at opening the gates that are locked before our people on their road to themselves, on their path to their destined land.
Even before the Gorbachev-Mitterand meeting I dispatched an emmisary to President Mitterand, requesting that he also raise this subject in his talks with the Soviet leader. Aware of the dropout problem, President Mitterand proposed that if the Soviet Union were in fact to agree to reopen its gates to the Jews wishing to immigrate to Israel, France would supply the means of transportation required in order to bring them directly from the Soviet Union to Israel. We returned to this topic in my talks at the Elysee, and the President of France reiterated his proposal, and also suggested that I make it public.
Previously, I had sent a message to the secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in which I wrote, inter alia, that "we in Israel see a need, and will welcome an opportunity to hold a constructive dialogue with you."
At the U.N. General Assembly I had an informal opportunity to exchange remarks with the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Shevardnadze, in the presence of the Soviet Ambassador to the U.S., Mr. Dobrynin. I found his approach to be a substantive one, and from him we understood that practical discussion would be possible only after the Geneva summit. I spoke in praise of the Georgian immigrants, some of whom know the Soviet Foreign Minister from the time of his service in the Republic of Georgia, and Mr. Shevardnadze heaped more praise on the presidents of Georgia who are so close to his heart. In this talk, too, I formed the impression that the dropout issue is a negative factor vis-a-vis the prospects of immigration. And I have no doubt that we - the entire Jewish people - must do all we can to overcome the dropout affliction.
I returned to the subject again in my remarks at the U.N., calling upon the Soviet leaders to allow our people to reach their haven of hope. At the same time I did what could be done to work for the continued immigration of the Jews of Ethiopia and Syria, and from other places as well. I will not go into details. But I regard the immigration issue as a central subject in terms of our responsibility as the Jewish State, as the country responsible for the fate of the Jews, as a country striving above all else to ingather the oppressed of the Jewish people.
The "Telem" organization convened a gathering of thousands of young Jews from the United States, and I called on them to settle in Israel. I believe in the immigration potential among American youngsters too.
A second subject I dealt with was the economic sphere. A year ago, when I was in the U.S., I requested the President and the Secretary of State to help us overcome the serious economic crisis that had struck our country. I agreed with them that amelioration had to begin at home, and on their part they agreed to place at our disposal a security not to obviate a collapse of Israel's foreign currency reserves. This time we met after the U.S. had generously fulfilled its promise, and we could point to our having carried out what we said we would, to rehabilitate the Israeli economy.
This time I requested that they help us move from the containment stage to the stage of economic growth. The President and the Secretary of State willingly acceded. They lauded the course we embarked upon in order to ameliorate the economy, and had some very complimentary things to say about the joint task force of Israeli and American industrialists who have pitched in for what we call "Operation Independence," and have promised to extend a helping hand so that we can move at the proper pace to a policy of economic growth.
Secretary of State Shultz appointed his deputy, Mr. John Whitehead, to coordinate proposals in various spheres -even before the meeting of the Joint U.S.-Israel Economic Committee - in order to see what can be done on the American side to bring about renewed growth in Israel. The Israeli economy in particular, like the world economy as a whole, must base itself increasingly on research and development, on high-tech industries and science-based industries. There is no reason why our development towns should not become bases of advanced research and development for the-economic and scientific progress of Israel.
In order to recruit the maximum number of possibilities to attain this goal, I examined possibilities of cooperation with a number of heads of government.
In my talk with the German Chancellor, Mr. Kohl, at the "Waldorf Astoria," in the very same room in which the historic talk between David Ben-Gurion and Konrad Adenauer took place, I proposed to him that we continue with what our predecessors had begun. And in fact the German Chancellor agreed in principle that we establish a joint fund of tens of millions of dollars in order to carry out studies of common interest to our two countries.
I made a similar proposal to my friend Brian Mulroney, the prime minister of Canada, and he also acceded. I hope that these funds, which parallel the joint fund between Israel and the U.S., will enable the encouragement of research and development in Israel.
President Mitterand and I also agreed to deepen the industrial and scientific cooperation between France and Israel.
A third subject I dealt with was the war against terrorism. The subjects came up already at my first stop, at the meeting of the Bureau of the Socialist International in Vienna, an institution in which are represented almost all the Socialist Parties in Europe, some of which are in power and others in opposition. I spoke unequivocally against the obsequious attitude toward the PLO, an organization which has adopted violence as a policy, without having adopted a policy leading to peace. I reminded the participants that since 1947 the PLO heads and their predecessors had ruined every prospect of solving the Palestinian problem - including the possibility they had then of establishing a Palestinian state - and instead had sown destruction and reaped tragedy. They threatened the well-being of Jordan, and brought about the bloodshed of "Black September". They destroyed Lebanon, and now they are trying to destroy the chance of dialogue with Jordan. They murdered women and children and civilians whose only guilt was their Israeli citizenship of their Jewish identity. I pointed to the great mistake that was made time after time by European leaders in their attitude toward assurances of a change in the PLO's stand - as though it were a change and not just an empty promise. I explained to them that they had established in Tunisian soil an extraterritorial center that engaged in murder and destruction in contravention of international law. On this subject I also had a trenchant argument with two Tunisian representatives who took part in the meeting.
I called on the leaders of Europe to cease closing their eyes to the sight of the great danger posed by international terrorism, and to refrain from an attitude of forgiveness to an organization that has engaged in systematic terrorism for tens of years, the PLO.
I held further talks on this subject with 17 heads of state and heads of government, and I explained in detail the need-for international cooperation against a danger that is international.
The President of the United States commended the existing cooperation between our two countries in withstanding international violence, and indeed the American action against the murderers who hijacked the "Achille Lauro" was a clarion signal of the United State's resolve in the war against international terrorism.
But of course, I devoted the main part of my mission to a presentation of the State of Israel's peace policy and to the renewal of the peace process itself.
In New York the U.N. General Assembly convened to mark the 40th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations Organization. Some 60 heads of state and heads of government attended the meeting. This provided a suitable opportunity to explain the mixed feelings of the Jewish people toward this organization, and the Israel government's stand on the subject of peace. I asserted that Zionism is a victory over racism, and I explained that the aspiration of the Jewish movement of revival is not a confrontation with the Arab movement of revival, but peaceful coexistence.
I presented before the U.N. General Assembly Israel's diplomatic principles in the following words: "Let all parties to the dispute facilitate a new phase in Arab-Israeli peace by renouncing - and putting an end to - the use of violence."
I proposed the following principles:
1. The objective of negotiations is to reach peace treaties between Israel and the Arab states, as well as to resolve the Palestinian issue.
2. Neither party may impose pre-conditions.
3. Negotiations are to be based on United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and on willingness to entertain suggestions proposed by other participants.
4. Negotiations are to be conducted directly, between states.
5. If deemed necessary, these negotiations may be initiated with the support of an international forum, as agreed upon by the negotiating states.
6. This gathering can take place before the end of this year, in Jordan, Israel or any location, as mutually agreed upon. We will be pleased to attend an opening meeting in Amman.
7. Negotiations between Israel and Jordan are to be conducted between an Israeli delegation on the one hand and a Jordanian - or a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation on the other, both comprising delegates that represent peace, not terror.
Aware of the nature of this undertaking, I propose the following as a possible blueprint for implementation:
- Negotiations may produce intermediate as well as permanent arrangements. They may deal with the demarcation of boundaries as well as the resolution of the Palestinian problem. The Camp David Accords provide a possible basis for the attainment of these objectives.
The permanent members of the Security Council may be invited to support the initiation of these negotiations. It is our position that those who confine their diplomatic relations to one side of the conflict, exclude themselves from such a role.
This forum, while not being a substitute for direct negotiations, can offer support for them. Indeed, nothing should undermine the direct nature of the negotiations.
In order to expedite this process, the agenda, procedure and international support for negotiations can be discussed and agreed upon at a meeting of small working teams to be convened within thirty days.
Prior to this, in a series of discussions with the president of the United States, the secretary of state and their aides, we agreed on a number of principles which reflect the common positions of the United States and Israel. Our two governments agree that without direct negotiations, there is no possibility of advancing the peace process. No international forum can replace direct negotiations, and any direct negotiations must be based on a foundation of mutual agreement, and not on coercion of any kind. Only representatives who support peace and negotiations for peace, without pre-conditions, can participate in peace negotiations. This automatically excludes - as noted only yesterday by the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations - the PLO from those participating in the negotiations. Sponsors of the international forum who will be acceptable to all sides, can only be from nations maintaining diplomatic relations with the sides involved. The forum itself will not be able to impose solutions or cancel agreements reached between the sides.
Israel's position regarding peace is clear. Terrorism must not serve as an ostensible milestone on the road to peace. And weapons should not be given to nations maintaining a state of war against another nation. From this standpoint, it was good that Arafat was prevented from reenacting the performance intended to pull the wool over the U.N.'s eyes, and it was good that peace was given priority over the sale of weapons to Jordan. We explained to our friends in Washington that peace precedes weapons; but weapons that precede peace, can only delay the peace process.
With this, we sincerely want to come to quick, direct and honorable discussions with our neighbors to the east, with the Kingdom of Jordan, to guarantee a fair peace between our peoples.
I was pleased with the response of the Jordanian King to my remarks in the U.N. General Assembly, and I saw in them a tone indicating a readiness which prefers negotiations over the traditional polemics which only heated things up, but solved nothing.
If negotiations do indeed begin between us and Jordan, we will listen attentively to every Jordanian proposal. We will be ready to seek ways of solving the Palestinian problem, and as we stated we will open negotiations without preconditions. On our part, we will propose the autonomy idea which forms the basis for the Camp David Accords.
The international forum mentioned can be limited; for example a Jordanian-Israel meeting, or a Jordanian-Palestinian-Israeli meeting (without the PLO) with the participation of the United States.
Such a forum has already taken place in the past, in the form of a conference, that is to say a solemn international opening in the wake of which negotiations between the sides commence.
We should recall that the reference to an international forum exists in a number of documents. For example, as it was worded in Cabinet Resolution no. 47 of 11 October 1977: "Resumption of the Geneva Conference: The Cabinet approves the working paper regarding proposals to renew the Geneva Peace Conference, as agreed upon by the President of the United States and the Secretary of State, and the Foreign Minister of Israel, on 5 October 1977."
Such a forum is referred to in Security Council Resolution 338, a resolution which was affirmed by the Knesset, and which states in paragraph 3: "That immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East."
Members of the Knesset, I believe that as a result of the position taken by Israel Israel's international standing has been greatly strengthened. King Hussein publicly declared that he is ready to reassess his policy. The Elysee announced that it will reconsider its relationship to the PLO. A U.S. representative stated that the PLO has removed itself from the negotiations. The Socialist International rejected a condemnation of Israel. Arafat was prevented from appearing at the U.N. The arms deal with Jordan was delayed to permit the opening of negotiations. Israel's position gained public praise from many and surprising sides.
But the main thing is that a door which appeared to be absolutely locked was reopened. I stand behind every word I said at the United Nations, and I ask that the Knesset approve my remarks. And I am sure that none of us, without giving up Israel's true interests, will put any obstacles before our great attempt to talk peace with our neighbors, to renew the momentum of peace, to speak honorably and directly with Jordan, or with a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation which is not PLO and to create a situation along the lines of what I described in my remarks at the U.N.:
"Let us look our younger generation in the eye and vow to do all that is humanly possible so that never again will a young boy die in a war we failed to prevent."
There is no doubt that a dynamic situation has now been created in the Middle East. This is a dynamic which can open good, new horizons for the entire region, and a dynamic whose opening is threatened by the danger of a loss of momentum, and disappointment.
Is it not the duty of us all to act so that the moment which has been opened accord a meaning of peace to those who fell in wars we have known in the past, and give hope of existence without violence to our young generations?
I regard it as a supreme duty of our national endeavor to enlist the forces in the nation and in the state, so that the door that has been opened become a new opening of policy that will answer the greatest need in the Middle East: The building of peace instead of the preparation for war. Investment in development means instead of in weapons.
Even in the absence as yet of full agreement between us and Jordan - I call on King Hussein that we continued working together in order not to miss the opportunity that has been created. I call on the Palestinians not to be led astray by the glitter of terrorism, and to seize the chance for a fair and realistic solution. I thank the United States for the cooperation, and express the hope that it will continue in the same good spirit of dialogue. And I want to express my hope that the Soviet Union will also be delivered of its one-sided stand regarding Israel, and will answer the hope of a people, beyond transient considerations.
I do not propose a naive of pacifistic approach for its own sake. It is precisely realistic people who today understand that peace is possible because it is necessary, and that it has no alternative: and that peace can be a decisive contribution to future security.